How The Grinch Stole Christmas instantly stole my heart and became my favorite movie almost from my very first viewing. Now, eight viewings later, it still has the same impact on me as it did the first time I saw it.

Screenwriters Jeffery Price & Peter S. Seaman of Who Framed Roger Rabbit fame do a fantastic job of adapting the story of The Grinch to the screen. Ron Howard's direction brought the story to full life, and Jim Carrey's typically energetic performance as The Grinch steals the show.

Some detractors of the film have claimed that it is not true to the spirit or principles of the original story. Having read the original story, I must say I cannot agree. The movie makes the very same point about Christmas and its true meaning as the original story. Indeed, it enhances the impact of the story by making it more personal by showing us how and why The Grinch became what he was.

*MILD SPOILERS* (They probably wouldn't ruin the movie for you... but if you haven't seen it yet and you're one of those who wants to know NOTHING about a story until you've seen it, you should skip the next two paragraphs.)

I think just about everyone can relate to The Grinch's terrible experiences in school. I think all of us, at one time or another, were the unpopular one in school who was always picked on. I know I was... and that's why I personally had so much sympathy for The Grinch and what he went through.

And Cindy Lou Who's naive idealism, believing that nobody can be all bad, was heart rending. When everyone else had turned their backs on The Grinch out of fear and ignorance, Cindy Lou was determined to be his friend. If only everyone could have such an attitude.

In fact, I think the only thing that might've made the film a little better would have been to further tone down the adult humor and content. It was already pretty restrained, but any of this adult humor (like when The Grinch slammed nose first into Martha May Whovier's cleavage) just doesn't fit in a story like this.

This one's well on its way to being a Christmas classic, taking a richly deserved place alongside the book and the Chuck Jones cartoon as a must-see of every Christmas season.


I grew up watching, and loving this cartoon every year. I didn't think they would be able to take a half hour (20 min!) cartoon and make it a movie. They did it. With FLYING COLOURS! Fabulous, funny, heart warming, effective movie!


The costumes and make-up were grand, there were some exceptionally funny lines, and the role was made for Jim Carrey. Carrey did as good a job as could be done given the rather disappointing script writing. Sure this was mostly a movie for kids, but if you are going to spend this much money making a movie you really ought to at least give the story enough body to go beyond that of Dr Seuss. I expected more from Ron Howard. It's worth a see, but it lacks the necessary qualities to become a major classic, by any measure.


I'm overwhelmed by the work of Jim Carrey. I keep on getting this movie stuck in my head. The Grinch liking Martha May, Cindy Lou(who's very annoying; her sweet innocence) who tries to get the Grinch in the Christmas spirit, the childhood of the Grinch (very funny!), and moreover the weak obvious ending with- Christmas isn't all about presents. I have to say, I felt stupid walking out of the theater with a bunch of babies and toddlers laughing and so forth, but this movie was a good full-lengthed adaption of Dr.Seuss's short film and IS for all ages.


Let me set the scene. It is the school holidays and there is absolutely nothing at the movies. I am with my friend deciding what to see. We look for a movie that is starting soon and "The Grinch" comes up. We buy tickets not knowing what to expect. What we got was a roller coaster of fun.

Jim Carrey (who may I add is my No.1 actor in the whole world) was absolutely magnificent as the Grinch in this Ron Howard's best movie (next to Apollo 13). The way that this movie was made, the scenery, the actors, the props and the music was just amazing. It really brought this childhood movie to life.

The story is based upon the story of the grinch. As we all know the Grinch is a horrible person who just can't stand christmas. He lives high above whoville and has never mingled well with the townfolk. But one little girl is going to change The Grinch's look on life and on others in a drastic way.

Cindy Lou Who (played by adorable new actress Taylor Momsem) meets the Grinch as finds the kind part of him straight away. She attempts to break the barrier and to help the Grinch move in and mingle with the towns people.

All up this movie is a barrel of laughs for the whole family both kids and parents. A SOLID 10/10. Well done Jim.


In a word - excellent. This is THE MOVIE. Go and see it. The director Ron Howard... I mean, The Director Ron Howard did a fantastic job, as he usually does. An incredible attention to detail, vivid colors and decorations, breathtaking Whoville atmosphere, astonishing variety of costumes. Wait, there's more to it than that - the story is very good, too. There's clearly a message to be extracted from it by the thoughtful viewers. Jim Carrey is top-notch. He is probably the best Grinch possible. The girl, Taylor Momsen, is real good. I'm sure she has some great future. The dog is cool. All in all, it's a very high quality Christmas fairy-tale. If you like fairy-tales, it's for you. If you like Christmas, it's for you.

Reading some other reviews here... Get a life. It hurts me every time to see people out there who... well... got their hearts two sizes too small.


Although I really enjoyed Jim Carrey's latest "serious" performances ("The Truman Show", "Man on the Moon"), I've always thought his real genious lies in physical comedy. This is not to say he is a fantastic, talented actor: those bozos at the Academy Awards seem to dislike him so much, he has never had a (truly deserved) nomination or award. Well, any "institution" that nominates for 11 Oscars a bore such as "Titanic" shouldn't be taken seriously.

On with the review. "The Grinch" is the sweetest, best looking, best acted, more enjoyable seasons film since "The Nightmare before Christmas". Both movies seem very similar, too, with their highly stylized sets and the premise of someone stealing Christmas. Both make their principal actors seem like the villains (one in a higher degree than the other), both pack a strong moral lesson, and both are truly enjoyable.

That is, until you realize that Jack Skellington is a doll, and The Grinch is a human being. But a human being that is so incredibly expressive, so fluid in his movements, so cartoon-like, so unreal, that never gets in the way of the movie. He can be hilarious, he can be a sad soul, he can be angry. He lives in a 3-dimensional world, where 3-dimensional people live. He jokes, he laughs, he cries, and ultimately he saves the Christmas. I loved this film to bits, and cannot wait for it to come out on DVD. This is one of those films you will really enjoy 10, 20 years from now. As timeless as they come.


First an explanation on what makes a great movie for me. Excitement about not knowing what is coming next will make me enjoy a movie the first time I watch it (case en point: Twister). There are also other things that go into a great first viewing such as good humor (John Candy in Uncle Buck and The Great Outdoors), good plot with good resolution (Madeline and Matilda), imaginative storytelling (all Star Wars episodes-George Lucas is THE MAN), and good music (again all Star Wars episodes, Wizard of Oz, Sound of Music). What makes me watch a movie at least six times in the theatre and buy a DVD or VHS tape? Characters. With that said, I present Cindy Lou Who and The Grinch. Excellent performance Taylor Momsen and Jim Carrey. The rest of the cast was very good, particularly Jeffery Tambor, Bill Irwin, Molly Shannon, Christine Baranski, and Josh Ryan Evans. But, every single scene with Cindy and The Grinch-together is excellent and very funny and/or heartwarming. Cindy Lou is my favorite character in this movie and the most compelling reason why the movie is better than the cartoon. The Grinch has a strong plot, good conflicts, and a very good theme (I can't get started because I don't want to spoil it). Jim Carrey was very funny as The Grinch-particularly when he interacted with Cindy. And the music! Wow! Excellent music by James Horner. I loved his selection of instruments and the compositions. Very good job Jim Carrey-I didn't know you could sing. Taylor Momsen! Whoa! Your voice is reason enough to see the movie at least once. On your solo - Where Are You Christmas - is your voice really as high as it sounds? Sounds like an F#? That is an obscene range for a 7-year old (obscene meant in the best possible way). Great job. This is the best performance by a child I have ever heard in a movie(Taylor beat out the Von Trapp Children-no small feat!). And now to the actors. Jim Carrey was great, funny, and, surprisingly very sensitive (this really showed through in his scenes with Taylor Momsen). Taylor Momsen's unspoken expressions(one of the secrets to a good acting performance) are very strong-she really becomes Cindy Lou Who. And when she does dialogue she is even stronger.

******************************danger:spoiler alert********************* ***********************************************************************

Examples: expression when she first sees The Grinch. This is a classic quote ("You're the the the" and then filled in with the Grinch line "da da da THE GRINCH-after which she topples into the sorter and then is rescued by The Grinch). The "Thanks for saving me" quote and subsequent response by The Grinch was also very good.

My favorite part of the movie is when Cindy invites The Grinch to be Holiday Cheermeister. This scene is two excellent actors at their best interacting and expressing with each other. Little Taylor Momsen completely holds her own with Jim Carrey in this spot. I sincerely hope we see Taylor Momsen in many more films to come. All in all everything was great about this movie (except maybe the feet and noses).


The part of The Grinch was made for Jim Carrey and I was extremely impressed with his performance. Not being a great fan of his I was apprehensive but pleasantly surprised with the outcome. Taylor Momsen as Cindy Lou Who was the cutest little girl I have seen on the screen for a long time and she showed a maturity beyond her years in her acting skills. I was even drawn to tears at one point! I've never read the Dr Seuss book of the tale so I didnt know what to expect, the humour was quite dark. Overall,I enjoyed the film (apart from the songs!) and would recommend it, for family viewing especially.


I really liked this movie I saw the original classic a few times but could hardly remember any details. I think this movie is much better than the cartoon its not so black and white as it. I specially liked how they made the grinch such a complete character and gave a cause of why he was the way he was, the villain in this movie was not the actual Grinch but the Major, much different than the original cartoon. Jim Carrey was perfect for the part all in all a great movie made for both kids and adults alike.


I've had a morbid fascination with tornadoes for more than 40 years, since my 5th grade teacher, a native Texan, told stories of ones he saw in his youth. Fortunately, I've lived my whole life in the middle Atlantic states, where tornadoes are rare and usually not as violent as the ones in the Midwest, but I have had two close encounters, one in PA and the other in NJ, in the past decade.

I enjoyed the family scenes, particularly the conflicts between Jack and Dan Hatch. When the tornado was close, Dan knew most of what he had to do, and he probably learned this in school, since I know that tornado safety is an important subject in parts of the U.S. where these storms are more frequent. However, characters in the movie did two things that some people think are supposed to be done or are safe to do in tornadoes but are actually not supposed to be done or are unsafe.

When the siren first sounded, Dan and Arthur went through the house and opened the windows. For years, this is what people were told to do, but tornado safety web sites now advise against doing this. Also, people were shown hiding in a highway underpass. This method was made popular by an early 1990s video made by a T.V. crew during a relatively weak twister in Kansas. However, in the most serious tornadoes, people can be sucked out from these underpasses. This happened during a May 1999 outbreak in Oklahoma.

The tornadoes in this movie hit in the fall, which is not a common time for them to happen. (Then again, one of my close encounters took place in late September.) Also, they traveled from northwest to southeast, while most such storms in the northern hemisphere go from southwest to northeast. However, this is not all that unusual. A famous tornado that struck Joliet, IL, in the early 1990s traveled in that direction (as did the one involved in my other close encounter).

I think that the movie should have been set in the spring. This movie was based on a book that in turn was based on an actual event that happened on June 3, 1980. But it was still a compelling story.


OK, so the FX are not high budget. But this story is based on actual events. Not something thrown together to make a couple of rich actors, even richer!! As most movies that are based on books, there are somethings that just don't fit. Only a couple of people have stated that this movie was based on real events, not a knock-off as most people believe it is!! This movie is in no way related too TWISTER! Other than both movies are about tornadoes.

For those of you who have problems with the science of the tornadoes and storms in the movie, there are a couple of things you need to remember... The actual "night of the twisters" was June 3, 1980. So this movie was released 16 years after the actual events. Try think how far storm research has advanced in that time. It happened in a larger town; Grand Island, Nebraska is the third largest city in the state. Even though the movie calls the town something else, and says it's a small town. For the real story check out: http://www.gitwisters.com/


Well , I come from Bulgaria where it 's almost impossible to have a tornado but my imagination tells me to be "very , very afraid"!!!This guy (Devon Sawa) has done a great job with this movie!I don't know exactly how old he was but he didn't act like a child (WELL DONE)!Now about the tornado-it wasn't very realistic but frightens you!If you want to have a nice time in front of the telly - this is the movie!


This movie has some things that are pretty amazing. First, it is supposed to be based on a true story. That, in itself, is amazing that multiple tornadoes would hit the same town at night in the fall-in Nebraska. I wonder if the real town's name was close to "Blainsworth" (which is the town's name in the movie). There is an Ainsworth, Nebraska, but there is also a town that starts with Blains-something.

It does show the slowest moving tornadoes on record in the the seen where the boys are in the house. On the other hand, the scene where the TV goes fuzzy is based in fact. Before Doppler radar and weather radio, we were taught that if you turned your TV to a particular channel (not on cable) and tuned the brightness just right, you could tell if there was a tornado coming. The problem was that by then you would be able to hear it.

Since I know something about midwest tornadoes, it made this movie fun for me. I enjoy it more than Twister. I mean, give me a break-there is no way you could make it through and F5 by chaining yourself to a pipe in a well house.


I just got this video used and I was watching it last night. The acting started out extremely bad (hey------hey------twister) but got very good soon after wards. The tornadoes looked extremely fake, and many of the CGI effects were very dodgy, but the scene with the house cracking apart and the contents inside being blown around and sucked out were extremely well done, and just about on par with movies like Twister. The scenes of devastation were also extremely well done too. The story was very well written, and it's refreshing to see a movie like this stray away from the same old "disaster formulas" movies of this genre seems to have been stuck in for 30 years.

While this movie had a very weird mix of FX and acting quality, this merits an A in my book.


This movie is good for TV. I like it because I'm a HUGE fan of disaster films even though this is a family film. Accuracy on the film from the book is half-and-half They got the characters names right but in the book there was no storm chaser, the the car scene involving the Hatch family running away from the tornado wasn't in the book instead it involved Dan hatch and his friend riding with a police officer on their way to the police station for safety. and in the book Dan and his friend are both 12-years old. Thats all i can think of. Overall this was a good movie even though it could of have been a little more accurate to the book. Did you know the book was based on a true story of a series of tornadoes devastating a small Nebraska town in 1980?


Night of the Twisters is a very good film that has a good cast which includes Devon Sawa, Amos Crawley, John Schneider, Lori Hallier, Laura Bertram, David Ferry, Helen Hughes, Jhene Erwin, Alex Lastewka, Thomas Lastewka, Megan Kitchen, and Graham McPherson. The acting by all of these actors is very good. The special effects and thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like Devon Sawa, Amos Crawley, John Schneider, Lori Hallier, Laura Bertram, David Ferry, Helen Hughes, Jhene Erwin, the rest of the cast in the film, Action, Mystery, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today!


This movie (and yes, it's a movie - it was shot as a two-parter, but the two parts together come down to slightly more than 2 hours) is one of the unsung masterpieces of world cinema. A very well-mannered, and yet at the same time absolutely savage denunciation of the Soviet regime and the type of person who flourished under it, the film is a faithful adaptation of the long-banned eponymous book by Mikhail Bulgakov. The sets are flawless, and the director made the brilliant decision to film in monochrome sepia, adding a feel of authenticity where a late-80s washed-out color incarnation would have all but ruined the film. I won't say much about the plot, which deserves to be discovered by the viewer himself, but the performances are true Oscar material; special mentions go out to E. Evstigneev, who plays the old professor with such presence, gravitas and kind wisdom that with barely a word or a gesture, he ends up stealing every scene he's in. The second, of course, is Creature/Sharikov, who, played to horrifying perfection by V. Tolokonnikov, is by far more frightening a character than Hannibal Lecter, because not only does he exist in real life - entire countries have been ran by men like him throughout history, with all that ensues.

While it's a socio political allegory, it is worth mentioning that the movie is also brimming with humor, albeit dark - there are many outright comedies which haven't made me laugh as much as this film. What's more, when laughing at this movie, the feeling is not only one of hilarity but of understanding and agreement, which is always a plus.

There is hardly a complaint I have with this movie - the only slight flaw is the tone of intellectual/bourgeois snobbery I caught at times from the "enlightened" characters. But that's a minor quibble.

Sadly, this film appears to have been bypassed by Western licensing companies. It's a crying shame that one of the all-round best movies out there is languishing unrestored and untranslated (which shouldn't be incredibly hard - though all the cultural references and the revolutionary terminology will necessarily fade in translation, the film's main themes should be accessible to all). While we're waiting with our fingers crossed for the Criterion edition, I'm considering creating English subtitles myself. Will see how that works out.


The cult movie for every true Russian intellectual. Everything is brilliant, especially acting: it's beyond any praise. The movie, as the book, is full of symbols: my favorite one is the brightest symbol of Razrukha (colloquial Russian word for "devastation", often signifies the period of lifestyle chaos after the 1918-20 Civil War) -- the wide-opened dirty door in the bricky wall squeaking in the snowy wind and the pitch-black hole of the doorway behind it.

Now the film is released on DVD with fully restored image and the 5.1 sound, there are well-translated English subtitles too, though some obscene words of Sharikov were replaced by the more mild versions in the translation. I don't know is that DVD available abroad but if you'll find it grab it immediately, it's really worthy of watching.

And, in conclusion, a fact: about the 50% of Russians today, mostly youth, can be identified as Sharikovs in a considerable degree. It's the post-Soviet effect: Soviet people appeared to be wholly unprepared for the informational attack of the Western civilization, TV-producers and movie makers have made the entertainment industry and the mass media amazingly aggressive, soulless and thoughtless so that it abetted the darkest instincts of every Russian. Even among the Internet users every third one uses the obscene language in forums and chats because it's amazingly common in colloquial speech.


It is so gratifying to see one great piece of art converted into another without distortion or contrivance. I had no guess as to how such an extraordinary piece of literature could be recreated as a film worth seeing. If you loved Bulgakov's book you would be, understandably, afraid of seeing some misguided interpretation done more for the sake of an art-film project than for actually bringing the story's deeper meaning to the screen. There are a couple examples of this with the Master and Margarita. As complex and far-fetched as the story is, the movie leaves out nothing. It is as if the filmmaker read Bulgakov's work the same way an orchestral conductor reads a score--with not a note missed. Why can't we find such talent here in the U.S. ? So now my favorite book and movie have the same title.


One of the most excellent movies ever produced in Russia and certainly the best one made during the decline of the USSR. Incredibly clever, hilarious and dramatic at the same time. Superb acting. Overall a masterpiece. Score it 10/10.


Having first watched the movie at 14, I remember being struck by hearing the word 'govno' (sh*t) for the first time ever on the then-still-Soviet TV (I bet it really was *the* first time in history  anyone wants to add this to trivia section?:)... What an open boldness and freedom, I thought! As years passed, I was more and more impressed with the movie and the incredible acting, but my feelings turned to a kind of mixture of enjoyment from a genuine piece of cinematographic art and a bitter realization of a concept diametrically opposite to my 14-y.o. impression: helplessness. There's an air of inevitable catastrophe looming throughout the movie, of primitive degenerate tide (embodied by Sharikov) sweeping the lives of the finest minds advancing humanity in their areas... It's a great metaphor of Russian revolution in general, inspired by intellectuals ashamed of their superiority and hoping to 'upgrade' the lower classes, only to unleash the power of mediocrity and get swallowed by it... An extremely fine and talented piece, wrapping a truly sad idea in a brilliantly satiric and elegant form. Symbolically enough, the movie itself marked the end of the Soviet movie traditions era before the Hollywood tsunami had knocked them over  for good, it seems, judging by most current Russian movies (most of them labeled 'blockbusters' in prerelease!!! trailers and posters:).

Funnily, that 'govno' episode is in no contradiction to Efenstor's comment above re rude language of current generation... From what I've already said it could seem that this might be the movie that showed the way for this, but it was not. A mild word by current standards, it was way too rude back then, and just rude enough to show the true nature of all Sharikovs... BTW, re Efenstor's lament, it is sooo naive to juxtapose being intellectual and using rude lexicon, especially for Russian speakers, where a single cussword could have meanings that take sentences in translation! But I join in regret that ALL the meaning in today's teenager's talk may be expressed by cusswords. I feel that this is the bigger problem than their choice of the medium that's most efficient for the task:) Well, this movie and the book are great food for thought that might change them, or anyone who might have a luxury of watching it.


Not only is this film entertaining, with excellent comedic acting, but also interesting politically. It was made at the end of the Soviet Union, but makes fun of the soviet mentality through and through. The story is set during the early days of the soviet union, and it questions the rationale behind the revolution both in cultural and practical terms. Of course, by the late 80s and early 90s, the bizarre strictures of soviet society are already relaxed, but the ideology and mentality is still alive and well and ready for some well-deserved deconstruction. Happily, all this deep philosophical commentary is wrapped in a funny and entertaining package!

Jur


These guys are anything but the Usual Suspects! They are a total bunch of likeable oddballs who you want to see get away with it,but they are so hapless that there is very little chance of that.No one is better than William H Macy at portraying the man with a big heart but down on his luck.This is probably his best performance since Fargo.Sam Rockwell played the meathead boxer to perfection,and the rest of the gang were uniformly good also.Luis Guzman brought some great comic relief as Cosimo,and George Clooney stole every scene in his cameo role.The heist scene at the end was absolutely hilarious.

The direction was also spot on by the Russo brothers.There was certainly a Coen brothers feel to the film throughout and it will be interesting to see how they will develop their careers.They have a long way to go to match the Coen's but this is an excellent start and I look forward to their next celluloid outing. ......."Yo mutha's a whore"!


"Welcome to Collingwood" offers some of the most hilarious dialog in recent memory. Watching this comedy directed by the brothers Anthony and Joe Russo reminded us of maybe another film we had seen in the past, but since we missed the opening credits, we had to wait until the end to discover that what we were reminded of, was the 1958 Italian film "Big Deal on Madonna Street", directed by Mario Monicelli.

The Russo brothers put together a magnificent cast to portray all the characters in the film. Anything with William H. Macy, Luis Guzman, Sam Rockwell, Patricia Clarkson, the late Michael Jeter, in it, can't be bad. Since this is an ensemble piece all characters get an opportunity in which to shine.

The film presents us a group of inane would-be safe crackers from hell. No one could think these men could carry on a job like the one they undertake. Whatever could go wrong, and more, is what they succeed in doing. George Clooney makes a small appearance as the master safe cracker who is also seen impersonating a rabbi, only to be confused with a priest by the gang members coming out of Cossimo's funeral.

The best way to enjoy the movie is to sit back and relax, and let all these small time crooks do their thing. Let their funny lines make you laugh, as anyone can see this gang is doomed from beginning to end!


This movie was recommended to me by a friend. I never saw an ad or a trailer, so I didn't know Clooney was in it and was not bothered by the fact that his role was so small. I thought the whole cast was suitable, and found the film pretty enjoyable, all in all. The opening scene, with the small crew of bandits standing at the side of the road, looking whipped and haggard, caught my attention immediately. It had a way of telling you, "don't go away; this won't be boring", and it really wasn't. It turned out to be an interesting, light-hearted comedy with enough twists and turns to keep you in your seat to the very end, but when the ending did arrive, I felt a little bit cheated....just a little bit. The events kept building up so that you expect them to continue building, but at a point that I can't define, it sort of levels out, making the ending a slight disappointment. I reckon I expected a bigger bang of a climax, but it turned out sort of low-key. If you watch the movie with that in mind and you can live without high dosages of George Clooney, you should find this flick very entertaining and well worth watching. Now I'd like to see the original (Big Deal on Madonna Street), but it's probably a rare find in the United States.


Cosimo (Luis Guzman) ends up in prison for car burglary and there he's given the plan for the perfect heist from a lifer in prison; so he has to get out of jail, fast. He tells his girlfriend Rosalind (Patricia Clarkson) to find a man who will do his time in prison for some money. But no one wants to do the time for Cosimo's crime and yet everybody seems to know a guy who will do that. Soon bad boxer Pero Mahalovic (Sam Rockwell) founds out the details of this so called "perfect job".

First of all, I think this movie was very funny and from my point of view I would recommend it to everyone. This movie is remake of Italian comedy "I Soliti Ignoti". I didn't watch the Italian original so I cannot judge or compare those two movies. But "Welcome to Collinwood" is great comedy for itself, about four people trying to rob the money from the vault in one house. Everyone gave their part of brilliance from this movie cast. Really excellent movie for these actors: Sam Rockwell, William H. Macy (great), Isaiah Washington, Michael Jeter (great), Luis Guzmán, Patricia Clarkson, Jennifer Esposito and finally George Clooney gave their share in this project.

Maybe to say that this movie is only comedy, isn't fair. This is more then that. Because of one difference. All of thieves in this movie have very small wishes when they are asked: what will they do with their money? It is mostly securing their future in very humble way. This fact goes beyond comedy into the soul of that criminals. And not only them but also cop Babitch, who is presented like corrupted one; so here directors Russo presents us fact that criminals and cop are the same. Actually all in Collinwood are; and not only in Collinwood, cause all people chase money, on legal or illegal way. I don't like all movies were audience eventually likes and cheers for thieves. But, this one is exception. You have to love them all. Riley with his little baby and wife in jail. Toto with his pants. Cosimo with his line: "Your mother's a whore!" and all others. They are just like characters in my favorite comic, Alan Ford. They all trying to make some money, but simply they are out of luck. But they all did one good deed: they gave money to Riley, so he can get his wife out of prison. They are all heroes in my eyes, cause lots of "honest" people wouldn't do that.


The main reason I wanted to see this movie was because of the wonderful cast. A ton of my favorite actors in one movie equals amazing with out actually seeing it. But this movie caught me off guard. It wasn't what I was expecting at all. It's been a while since I've seen it but I do remember I could not stop laughing!!! And it wasn't just the cast that did it for me. The script was amazingly written. Every time you were expecting something to happen it didn't happen. There were so many twists and turns but it fit with the whole tone of the movie instead of coming off as pretentious. The cinematography, along with the set, was absolutely beautiful as well. I really can't say anything bad about this movie! Expcept, I would have Andrew Davoli a little more screen time!


Having the opportunity to watch some of the filming in the Slavic Village-Broadway area I couldn't wait to see it's final copy.

Viewing this film at the Cleveland Premier last Friday, I haven't laughed out loud at a comedy in a long time! It is great slapstick. The Russo Brothers did a fine job directing. The entire cast performs their best comedic acting... No slow or dry segments... George Clooney is one of my favorite actors and he's great as the crippled safe breaker in this flick. I was most imprest by William H. Macy as crook "Riley" and Michael Jeter's as "Toto" they keep you in "stitches". I believe they have the funniest roles in the entire movie.


I had tried to rent this on many occasions, but was always with the girlfriend, who, as a general rule, usually rejects heist flicks and ensemble comedies with the comment "Uhm... looks good, but i'm not in the mood for that movie." Thus entereth the "Almighty Solo Movie Night"!

Anyway, I found Welcome To Collinwood a rather enjoyable movie. While ultimately fairly forgettable, it does have moments of fun and a few laugh out loud moments. I was unfamiliar with the fact that it was a remake, and as a general rule watch movies trying to ignore that fact and watch them on their own merits anyway. George Clooney puts in a humorous and brief cameo as a wheeled safe cracker that, for the most part left me wondering two things... 1. wouldn't every comedy be better if Mr. Clooney put in a strange 5 minute cameo? and 2. How do they make fake tattoos that look old and faded, and how easily do they wash off? The cast, all fine actors in their own right, put in a great job, and you get the impression that they had a good time working together which is fairly important in a movie like this. Needless to say all does not go as planned in this movie, both plot-wise and humor-wise, but it made me check out the special features and consider watching the original, so I consider it a success! Rent this one for a good time, maybe grab a few friends and a pizza. you'll have a good time.

***7/10***

On a side note, the soundtrack is spectacular. It's great to hear the far under appreciated Paolo Conte used, and it left me humming snippets of the score long after the credits rolled.


Although it has been remade several times, this movie is a classic if you are seeing it for the first time. Creative dialog, unique genius in the final scene, it deserves more credit than critics have given it. Highly recommended, one of the best comedies of recent years


This is not a "loose", but a precise, faithful remake of 1958 Monicelli's classic "I Soliti Ignoti" with Toto', Mastroianni, Gassman, Cardinale etc. And that's the reason is good, it copies all the funny characters and the plot, even in details (like the scene where the photographer steals the camera from the local market).

I have watched the superb old version many times and I knew by heart all the gangs and the ending but I still enjoyed "Welcome to Collinwood", which has its own freshness and atmosphere. It is interesting to see how the life and ways of the little thieves in 1950's Italy are adapted to 2002's USA. Things haven't changed much. 8/10.


Welcome to Collinwood is a lot of things, but it is none of the following:

A George Clooney star vehicle Unfunny Un-Original

And yes i know, the basis for the movie is another movie. But as far as Hollywood goes, this may rank with their most authentic outputs this decade - and for me, it does.

The movie is from start to finish, an absolute gas. Here's why.

There isn't a bad performance in the film. The funny parts are funny. The edgy parts are edgy. The script contains, not a dull moment of dialogue The cinematography is fresh and yes beautiful. And it doesn't conform to the Hollywood norm (you'll see what i mean, when you see the film)

When i was a kid, i remember seeing advertisements for the film. This film went under the radar after not grossing much at the box office, and isn't even a cult classic. The reason why Transformers 2, is seen as acceptable by average movie goers, is because they are used to seeing Transformers 2. If film's as original and funny as this were pumped out as often as multi-million pieces of s**t, the cinematic experience would be a much fresher place -

When 'they' say they don't make em like they used to, 'they' didn't see Welcome to Collinwood.

A fun, mini-masterpiece of caper comedy, that refuses to compromise. One of my favourites.


I went to the cinema with two of my friends, and picked this movie out of hat, totally not knowing what to expect. And it turn out into a very enjoyable, die-laughing experience! It's an excellent movie with very unexpected story, very good dialogs and crazy humor. All characters are obviously made in "Alan Ford" (italian satiric comic) style, but that haven't bothered me for a second. In fact this kind of loser-bums line-up made a movie quite unique and interesting. Sam Rockwell gave very good and convincing role, Willian Macy too, Clooney is hardly recognizable and brilliant. But real star is actually Guzman. He made a role of his life in this movie! The scene when his character Cosimo dies in the movie, is so hilarious that it made me choke and almost die with him! Highly recommended for all "Alan Ford" fans!


Cosimo (Luis Guzmán) is told in prison about a perfect heist.Since he's behind bars and can't do it himself he has to leave it to his girl Rosalind (Patricia Clarkson).Soon there are five guys organizing the crime- five guys with very little brain capacity.Brothers Anthony and Joe Russo are the directors of Welcome to Collinwood (2002).It's a crime comedy that's often very funny.You can't help but laughing when everything goes wrong with these guys.There are some great actors playing these characters.William H.Macy plays Riley.Isaiah Washington is Leon.Sam Rockwell is Pero.Michael Jeter is Toto.Andy Davoli is Basil.Gabrielle Union plays his love interest Michelle.Jennifer Esposito plays Pero's love interest Carmela.George Clooney (also producer) plays Jerzy, the tattooed guy in a wheelchair.This is a highly entertaining flick.I certainly recommend it.


Before George Clooney directed Sam Rockwell in his directorial debut "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind", they starred together in this movie. George Clooney also was involved with this movie as a producer, along with Steven Soderbergh, which shows that they really believed in this project. In potential this also seems like a fine and entertaining project, that is in the same line with movie-remakes such as "Ocean's Eleven" and "The Italian Job" but somehow this movie is only halve successful, or at least it isn't as good as it could had been.

The movie its characters are all being played by some fine well known actors but a shame is that the characters are not really given enough room to develop. Even though in their potential they could had turned into fun and enjoyable characters, they are now only characters that mildly entertain because mostly of some of the more quirky sequences that are in the movie. The fact that they are being played doesn't change much to this, even though they prevent their characters from ever becoming a total bore or perhaps even annoying, or anything like that at all.

It's of course due to the writing that the characters aren't used to their full potential. I can only assume that the original Italian movie "I Soliti ignoti" works out much better than this movie does. The movie relies too much on its simple story and predictable way of storytelling.

Nevertheless the movie is simply still a very fun one to watch maybe because of that very same simplicity. It's an harmless little caper movie, in which you simply shouldn't to worry much about the story. In that regard "Welcome to Collinwood" is still a movie that works out and simply serves its purpose well.

It's a movie that you won't regret watching once you've finished it but it also is a movie you can really easily do without ever seeing.

7/10


This movie is very hilarious, and it has a great compilation of actors like William H. Macy which always have perform this kind of roles, maybe his most representative, Fargo; and George Clooney which is a very good actor showing his comedian work in brothers Cohen film "Oh brother, where art thou?" which results to be one of my favorite movies ever! But it's been hard to find "Welcome to Collinwood", here in Mexico. My city lacks of good places where to buy some good films. I tried to buy it at Blockbuster but they don't know it by the original name, so maybe it will be a little easier to find if I have the name they gave to it in Mexico, do someone knows it?, because I can't remember! Cheers. A.


Having the opportunity to watch some of the filming in the Slavic Village-Broadway area I couldn't wait to see it's final copy.

Viewing this film at the Cleveland Premier last Friday,I haven't laughed out loud at a comedy in a long time! It is great slapstick. The Russo Brothers did a fine job directing. The entire cast performs their best comedic acting... No slow or dry segments... George Clooney is one of my favorite actors and he's great as the crippled safe breaker in this flick. I was most imprest by William H. Macy as crook "Riley" and Michael Jeter's as "Toto" they keep you in "stitches". I believe they have the funniest roles in the entire movie.


I saw this gem of a film at Cannes where it was part of the directors fortnight.

Welcome to Collinwood is nothing short of superb. Great fun throughout, with all members of a strong cast acting their socks off. It's a sometimes laugh out loud comedy about a petty crook (Cosimo, played by Luis Guzman) who gets caught trying to steal a car and sent to prison. While in prison he meets a `lifer' who tells him of `the ultimate bellini'  which to you and me  is a sure-fire get rich quick scheme. It turns out that there is a way through from a deserted building into the towns jewellers shop  which could net millions. Sounds simple?  well throw in all kinds of wacky characters and incidents along the way and you have got the ingredients for a one wild ride!!  word passes from one low life loser to the next and soon a team of them are assembled to try and cash in on Cosimos `bellini' lead by failed boxer Pero (Superbly played by Sam Rockwell  surely a star in the making) and reluctant crook Riley (William H. Macy) who is forced to bring his baby along with him as his wife was locked up for fraud!!.

Based on the Italian film I Soliti ignoti (Big Deal on Madonna street) which also inspired a similar film to `Collinwood'  `Palookaville'. This knocks spots of the latter effort and although its written and directed by the Russo brothers it definitely has shades of the Coen Brothers about it. Produced by Steven Soderbergh and George Clooney, who has a small yet hilarious part as a crippled safe breaker.


Silly, hilarious, tragic, sad, inevitable.

A group of down-and-outs team up with a "seasoned" crook to elevate themselves out of their poverty. Great idea...if you ignore the screwup factor.

Nice to see George Clooney doing something genuinely funny for a change. The casting is perfect and the acting standards very high. Although it could be said that the motley crew subject isn't new, I think this movie handles it in an interesting and unique way. Sufficiently so that it stands out from what has gone before.

Very well done guys.


I had never heard of this flick despite the connection to George Clooney (whose company produced and he appears in a very funny supporting bit) and his Ocean's 11 director Steven Soderbergh. Worse, we picked this up in a discount bin for $4.99 (Canadian dollars at that!) What a grand and pleasant surprise. But then I'm of the opinion that if William H. Macy is in it you can't be disappointed. This was very reminiscent of those Ealing comedies from England in the 1950s. OK, with more profanity. This is an oddball and at times gut-splittingly funny film. The actual heist made me laugh so hard I was crying. Perhaps the funniest use of underpants in movie history. Maybe it was the low expectations I had going in but I watched with a group of people and we had a blast. Best $5 I've spent in ages.


Idiotic hack crooks, a babe, a safe, a plan and a baby. Add them all up and you get the best comedy you've never heard of.

Even with some a-list star power (at least a-minus...okay, b-plus?) this movie got very little publicity.

But that does not diminish its genius.

Terrific writing, solid delivery and a believable group of characters. Some truly classic lines, and a fun twist at the end.

This is not some watered-down "Nutty Professor" comedy. These are low-life bad guys. They speak low-life bad guy language and they do low-life bad guy things. But they do it for your amusement and entertainment, and they do that well.

One of the best comedies I've ever seen.


Welcome to Collinwood is one of the most delightful films I have ever seen. A superb ensemble cast, tight editing and wonderful direction. A caper movie that doesn't get bogged down in the standard tricks.

Not much can be said about this film without spoiling it. The tag line says it all - 5 guys. 1 Safe. No Brains.

William H Macy and Sam Rockwell lead an amazing cast. George Clooney should be congratulated for producing this gem.


This is without a doubt the funniest comedy of the year. Everybody is brilliant. The acting is superb. You can see that the actors enjoyed making this film. It´s a shame to spoil the film with give aways, so rent it and laugh your ass off.

9 - 10.


Having heard quite positive reviews and having seen the trailer I had to see this movie. With William H. Macy, Luis Guzman, Michael Jeter and Sam Rockwell present it had to be good. And it delivered. Overall, the movie is not crack-you-up funny, but there is one scene that really stands out and is, in a my eyes, a classic. SPOILER At the end, where they break through the wall to get to the safe and we see Rockwell and Washington stare at Jeter is just fantastic. This is just as good as the scene in The Big Lebowski where The Dude is using a chair to barricade his door, but forgets the door turns outward! END SPOILER Just go see this movie, you won't be disappointed.


Went to see this as Me and my Lady had little else to do on a sunday afternoon I like films that deal with sleazy,loser characters and this is full of em. After a slow start we get some good turns from the cast but it is the actual 'Bellini' that both makes and lets the film down. The 'Bellini' is one of the funniest scenes I have seen in a film for a long while but is too short and could have made this a masterpiece overall 71/2 out of 10


I participate in a Filmmaker's Symposium, and this film was shown after we had already seen a not so great film and participated in a 40 minute discussion. Even though it was incredibly late and we were weary, the entire audience really enjoyed it.

Personally I thought the film was hilarious in all the right spots, and I loved the quirky cast of characters. They really grow on you in the film.


I loved this film. I thought it would be easy to watch, and easy to forget. I ran out after watching this to buy the DVD, obv not easily forgotten!

The script is brilliant, and the casting couldn't be more perfect. Each character has their moment, and I laughed hard throughout this film, comedic timing was spot-on.


There are good ways to make a movie and bad ways and this very much the former. This short caper exacts nothing more than what it gives to the audience. It presents a simple story, told very plainly with enough wisecracks to keep you going, then just gets better and better. Clooney's cameo is funny and very welcome but the leads including Sam Rockwell and Luiz Guzman can easily make it on their own. Likeable and funny, hilariously so towards the end, Welcome to Collinwood is a welcome addition to the heist genre.


Great fun. I went with 8 friends to a sneak preview viewing of this film. We came to see different one but after 10 minutes wondering what the heck we got ourselves into this time the jokes became funny and they stayed funny throughout the movie. In the first part you just keep asking yourself about this 'malinski' and 'bellini' stuff (there are many more examples of this lingo) and because they keep repeating the same jokes (with different twists) they get funnier and funnier. In search for this malinski all the main characters are introduced the first one even wackier than the next. Until half of the film was over we didn't even know the name of this movie because there were no opening credits and we went to this sneak viewing, but we sure had a good time. The house was loaded (appr. 250 people) and I think about half of them didn't like it and the other half loved the film. If you like weird comical movies with great dialogue you will love it. Apart from Clooney This movie deserves a lot better than the 5.6 IMDB rating it has at the time I write this, but when more ppl have seen it I am sure it will go up. 7.0 is reasonable I guess, I would give it an 8 out of 10. (10 out of 10 after a few beers)


My friends and I were just discussing how frustrated we are with the way movies and especially romantic comedy's are being made. We feel offended by the schlock that Hollywood is serving up these days as they act like all is well.

Well all is not well...with the exception of a few bright spots, like this movie. It doesn't have the big name actors, the big budget, I don't think it had a big release (I rented from Hollywood Video) it didn't really have anything that most big budget romantic comedy's have.

But it did have what most of those lack. It had great chemistry between the love interests, "Parker" (Jonathan Schaech) and "Sam" (Alison Eastwood). Their love story wasn't forced on us like so many. The director took his time to allow these characters to truly get to know each other. Their story reminded me of one of my favorites, "Tootsie".

The supporting cast added not only really funny comic moments, but depth to the story as well. James LeGros' character was absolutely priceless. Sam's gay friend was hysterical. Parker's interaction with his fellow employees in a Psychic Hotline was a lot of fun.

I laughed, I cried, I remembered how great it feels to fall in love.


Parker (Johnathan Schaech) is an aspiring writer who is still looking for his big break. In the meantime, he works as a telephone adviser for a Manhattan psychic hotline. One day, most unfortunately, his apartment building burns down. Parker and his cat make it out alive but are now stuck with the arduous task of finding affordable housing in the Big Apple. Word comes to Parker that a lady, Samantha (Alison Eastwood) is searching for a roommate but will only accept a gay male. Since Parker is straight but the price is right, he decides to pretend that he is gay. Samantha likes him from the start and welcomes him as her new cohabitant. But, poor Parker. Sam is lovely, intelligent and very desirable. How will he be able to keep his true nature under control? Besides, doesn't Sam have a successful businessman-boyfriend anyway? This is a sweet, likable, and humorous film with two very attractive stars in Eastwood and Schaech. Naturally, the plot is a string of "how can I keep up this ruse" scenes, with Sam asking Parker for shampoo while she is showering or pleading with him to hold her in bed when she receives bad news. Also, it is necessary for Parker to produce his own "fake" gay mate, Boris, when Sam insists upon fixing him up with a man she knows. Hopefully, the gay community will not find this too offensive, as this viewer thought most issues were treated with sensitivity and subtlety. For a small scale movie, the costumes, sets, and camera work were quite nice, also. Therefore, if you love those funny tales of love, get this one soon. You will like what you see, I know it.


I did enjoy this film, I thought it ended up being an old fashioned love story with a few twists. I expected him to get the girl, I won't tell you if he does or not you will need to watch the movie to find out. Overall if you are looking to watch a love story this one will suffice.


This episode of Twilight Zone combines a silent section (1890) with melodramatic acting and sight gags, an homage to the early Buster Keaton films. Lots of slapstick: Buster falling on a bulkhead door, falling in a puddle, running around pants-less. Silly scientist's invention of a Time Helmet, reminiscent of a Flash Gordon idea of what the future would be. Cheap prices, like $1.95 for ladies hats, or 17 cents a pound for beef seem outrageously high to Buster. Even the world of 1890 is too much for Buster/Mulligan. How shocking when he is mistakenly transported to the "modern" world of 1960! Buster was trying to go backwards! The "scientist" of that time wants to return to a calmer world, the 1890 that he has studied and admired. They go back together, and Buster/Mulligan is now happy and the "scientist" regrets not having electronic equipment, modern beds or an electric blanket. So Buster sends him back with the crazy helmet.

This Twilight Zone doesn't have a heavy message. Since Buster Keaton died in 1966, it is one of his last efforts. That's enough.

One other cute thing--longtime underutilized Maytag Man Jesse White is a repairman who fixes the Time Helmet--foreshadowing his washing machine career.


Buster absolutely shines in this episode, which is the only vehicle I've seen towards the end of the career that allowed him to do the physical (and silent!) comedy that made him famous. It's still a shock to hear his gravelly voice in the talkie sequences - his voice is about the only thing I don't care for, as far as Buster is concerned - but his ability to take a pratfall is still unparalleled. He even repeats some of the gags used in his early two-reelers with Roscoe Arbuckle.

My deepest gratitude to Rod Serling for presenting us with this episode, and for giving Buster's genius full scope. He didn't have much time (one episode) to do it in, but this is a touching tribute to Hollywood's greatest genius.


This is a clever episode of TWILIGHT ZONE that was comic rather than strange or tragic. Buster Keaton is Woodrow Mulligan, a janitor from 1890 America, works in a laboratory. He is constantly griping about the life problems around him: meat is too expensive (it's like $1.00 / lb. Unheard of!). He is always yelling after crazy speeders (on bicycles - autos haven't appeared yet). Griping to the end, he sees a helmet like device by a scientist, and puts it on and tries it. Suddenly he is in modern America. The beginning was a seven minute silent film. Now it is all noise, all talking, all beeping, all blowing. Keaton is here only a few minutes when he realizes that the world has changed and not for the better. He runs into Stanley Adams, a Professor Rollo, who realizes that Mulligan is from c. 1890 (he mentions President Cleveland). Rollo has always wanted to live in that charming, quiet age. He helps Mulligan get the helmet repaired, and they go back in time. Rollo gets bored after awhile, due to the lack of scientific equipment that he can use. Mulligan puts the helmet on him and sends him into the future. But now Woodrow is fully content with the quiet, simple age he lives in. He has found contentment.

In his last fifteen years Buster Keaton was frequently on television (many times for Allan Funt on CANDID CAMERA, where he could help set up sight gag tricks on the public). He did make a few films as well (most notably A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM and THE RAILRODDER). But he occasionally popped up in television plays and episodes. He is in his element here, presumably advising the director (old comedy film director Norman McLeod - he directed the Marx Brothers in HORSE FEATHERS) on the tricks he could do. Watch how Stanley Adams and he time Adams picking him up when he is snatching a pair of trousers he needs. In terms of timing it reminds one of gags he did in the 20s in films like SHERLOCK JR. The episode does show Keaton in fine fettle for a man in his sixties.

The appearances of Jesse White (here as a repairman, of all things) is always welcome. But look a bit at "Professor Rollo". Stanley Adams was a well known figure in movies and television from the 1950s onward to his tragic suicide in 1977. Plump, with unkempt appearance, and heavy, booming voice, his best known dramatic role was as the wrestling promoter in the film version of REQUIEM FOR A HEAVYWEIGHT (he wants Anthony Quinn to be a wrestler wearing a costume as an Indian). His best known television appearance was as the space trader who introduces the crew of the Starship Enterprise in STAR TREK to those furry, fertile little creatures "Tribbles" (as in "The Trouble With"). Adams was always worth watching (like Jesse White, and certainly like Keaton), enhancing most of the productions he appeared in. I have never understood his suicide, but it was a sad end to a first rate character performer.


Well now, this was certainly a surprise episode. In this anthology science fiction series, with all of this Alien Beings, Extraordinary Occurrences and many Brushes with the Hereafter, this episode would certainly rate as unusual. Its seemingly insignificant settings apparently not imparting any morale at story's end. Or does it? Kicking off with the Silent Movie Form, no recorded dialog, but having Musical accompaniment. In this case it's on the sound track, not utilizing the Playing of Organ or Piano by an on sight Musician. This part of the episode, along with the ending section, also made liberal use o Title Cards, just like "the Old Time Movies." While these Titles are a bit exaggerated and overdone, they are made so intentionally and with an affection for rather than any contempt for The Silent Film.

Veteran Comedy Film Director, Norman Z. McLeod, was the man in the Chair for this half-hour installment. He had been the Director of many of the greatest comedies of all time, featuring people like the Marx Brothers, W.C. Fields, Harold Lloyd and Danny Kaye. He was no stranger to to TV, as he had done a lot of work on Television Series.

It doesn't appear that he and Mr. Keaton had ever worked together before(as I cannot find any evidence of this)' but judging by the outcome of the film, they succeeded in doing so with flying colors! Anyone who directed Keaton was aware that Buster was also a fine comedy Director as well as a Comedy Player. He was just as comfortable behind the camera as he was in front of it. Their short partnership must have been a harmonious one, with 'give and take' about how to do things. It is apparent that many of the gags were Keaton's, resurrected from his own Silent Picture Days. For example, the gag of putting the pair of pants on with Rollo's(Stanley Adams assistance was done by Keaton and Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle in one of the Arbuckle 2 Reelers, THE GARAGE (1919). That was a clear example of his craft in a nutshell.

Buster knew that we film our world with a camera, rendering it a two dimensional image. This one fact is at the bottom of so many of gags. It is a Cardinal Rule for his film making.

The cast was small and once again just chock full-of veteran talent. Stanley Adams was Rollo and served as Mr. Keaton's straight man. Jesse White, the old 'Maytag Repair Man', ran the fix it shop that fixed the 'Time HJelmet'. Gil Lamb, serene veteran of RKO Short Comedy series, was the 1890's Cop. James Flavin, George E.Stone, Harry Fleer, Warren Parker, and Milton Parsons all rounded out this largely silent cast.

Without spilling the beans, let's just say that yes, there is probably a lesson to be learned here. If not the one already mentioned, "The Grass Always Looks Greener on the Other Side of the Fence!", then how about, "Be Careful in What You Ask For, Because You Just May Get It!"


Using Buster Keaton in the twilight of his career was an interesting choice. He may have been the most talented comedian of the silent age. This gives him a chance to display those talents in a little time travel story. He get hooked up with a guy living in modern times, and it becomes obvious that we are best left in our own times Keaton is able to do his sight gags very well. I've heard his voice before. I believe he did some of those Beach Party films, playing some vacuous characters just to earn a few bucks. Serling seemed to have respect for him and portrayed him that way. It's not a bad story. It shows how one reacts when we wish for something we don't have and get that wish.


This movie has taken a lot of stick. It was slated by critics when it came out and was blamed for wrecking Nicolas Cage's career. The thing I don't think people get is that it's not meant to be an epic, Oscar contender of a movie, it's just some brilliant "Bruck-buster" action at its best. Fast cars, quick editing and a great soundtrack - it does exactly what it says on the tin. Also, for anyone who likes cars its a pure treat. It has everything: Ferraris, Mercs, a Hummer and lets not forget Eleanor! I think you'd be hard pushed to find a better action movie, and personally, a better movie at all!! Then again maybe that's just me!


GONE IN 60 SECONDS / (2000) *** (out of four)

	"Gone in 60 Seconds" is an energetic, slick, stylish action picture with high octane star power and lots of awesome looking automobiles. If you are a viewer interested in cars this production, by producer Jerry Bruckheimer ("Con Air," "The Rock"), is worth seeing just to feast your eyes on the glossy vehicles. Although the film secretes a stench of weakness in many areas, its precise sense of action and excitement make it a moderately successful summer thrill ride.

	The film stars Giovanni Ribisi ("The Mod Squad") as a young crook named Kip Raines, who, as the movie opens, fails to deliver a long list of expensive cars to the powerful criminal Raymond Calitri (Christopher Eccleston). When Kip's life is threatened because of such, his older brother, Randall "Memphis" Raines (Nicolas Cage), a retired but skillful car thief, is called upon to complete a task in exchange for his brother's survival: steel fifty cars-specified by model, color, year, and make-in only four days.

	Memphis disburses the first three days recruiting a team of bandits to help him pull off the heist. The crew includes Sara "Sway" Wayland (Angelina Jolie), a sexy yet gruff retired car swindler knowing Memphis through previous business, a fellow named Mirror Man (T.J. Cross), the aging and wise Otto Halliwell (Robert DuVall), as well as Tumbler (Scott Caan), Atley Jackson (Will Patton), Toby (William Lee Scott), and Donny Astricky (Chi McBrde).

	Contributing to the film's drive and tension is a subplot involving two police detectives, Roland Castlebeck (Delroy Lindo) and Drycoff (Timothy Olyphant), who suspect from previous experience that Memphis and his crew are up to no good and keep an extra close eye on them.

There is not much time for character development here; the audience gets to know these people though their rugged lifestyles and assume tough personalities through the films hard core, stylish atmosphere. To make matters even worse for the film, the dialogue fails to define the characters with a gritty cultural tone. I am not stating I think profanity and vulgarism is necessary for thrillers to flourish; I actually honor the director's decision to sustain from extreme foul language in a movie that could have very effortlessly earned an R-rating. However, I do believe in a movie such as "Gone in 60 Seconds," to strongly develop the character's enlightenment, dialogue needs to be believable and authentic.

 In spite of problems, the characters are effective due to the top notch, perfectly cast performers responsible. Nicolas Cage's melodramatic performance is intense and convincing. Angelina Jolie's sleazy appearance is completely appropriate here. Delroy Lindo is deliciously sturdy and believable. Giovanni Ribisi, Scott Caan, Robert Duvall, Will Patton, and Christopher Eccleston provide persuasive supporting roles.

	The film contains standard structure, with a satisfactory first act that elaborates on the story's style and the character's motives, sets up a fast-paced theme of action, but lacks depth and strong character introduction. In the second act we run into a few more problems: the story wastes time during much of this segment, never really building up for the third act. While the middle of the movie occupies much time, and a sex scene provides a solid mid-plot, not a whole lot happens. The third act is pretty much a sheer adrenaline rush containing furious wall-to-wall excitement and one of the most intense car chase sequences ever filmed.

	The soundtrack to "Gone in 60 Seconds" contributes a great deal to the inspirational action scenes. It is scenes like the car chases that makes this movie work in spite of several destructive faults. Dominic Sena, whose career has mostly consisted of directing commercials, has an appealing style and a decisive attitude in "Gone in 60 Seconds" which will grant audiences with two hours of commotion, thrills, and excitementbut not much more.


gone in 60 seconds is a very good action comedy film that made over $100 million but got blasted by most critics. I personally thought this was a great film. The story was believable and has probobly the greatest cast ever for this type of movie including 3 academy award winners nicolas cage, robert duvall and the very hot anjolina jolie. other than the lame stunt at the end this is a perfect blend of action comedy and drama. my score is **** (out of ****)


gone in 60 sec. where do i began, it keeps you in the movie with some good action and some cool cars. people say its not a good movie i disagree sure it has some cheesy parts but what action movie doesn't. i gave it an 8 out of 10 cause of the action and the comic relief if you like the Rock or Face Off than this movie is right up your alley cage dose a good job along with one of the most under rated actors in my mind Del-Roy Lindo. i think sometimes people look to far into movies some times you need to sit back enjoy the movie and after words ask yourself did they achieve what they where showing. meaning if they where going for action was it action pact. if they where trying to make a movie to change how movies are made and trying to win every award out their well did they? i think they made the action movie they set out to make, give it a chance and you wont be sorry.


What's in a name? If the name is Jerry Bruckheimer expect it to be filled with action.

In producer Bruckheimer's latest film, Gone in 60 Seconds, its all about the nomenclature. With character monikers like Kip, Sway and The Sphinx and cars idealized with names like Diane, Sue and the elusive Eleanor, it's only the non-stop action that keeps you from wanting to just play the name game.

Not a deep script by any means, but it is a great vehicle for action as Nicolas Cage as Memphis Raines, along with Angelina Jolie and Robert Duvall, comes out of car-thievery retirement to save his brother's life by stealing a list of 50 exotic cars in one night. A remake of the 1974 cult hit, this film may not be destined for the same cult status but it is entertaining.

Surprisingly, it's the action that keeps you watching not the acting. Although loaded with stars, none of them have standout performances, including a very weak performance by one of my favorite up and comers, Giovanni Ribisi. Even Jolie, coming off her recent Oscar win, is just a token love interest with hardly any screen time.

Can a series of beautiful cars and the car chases they become involved in make a great film? I think so. The film is a pleasure to look at and although one particular scene takes you into the realm of unbelieveablity, the action is non-stop and the suspense is compelling. Just be wary of other drivers fighting for a pole position as you leave the theatre.

3 1/2 out of 5


To make it short and not to spoil everything this film is about Kip (Giovanni Ribsi), a car thief, who messes up a big delivery of stolen cars (50 in total). He is then threatened to be killed by the man who gave him the order'. The objective now is to get 50 cars stolen in 3 days, with the help of Randall (Nicolas Cage), a retired' booster and also Kip's brother and a couple of old friends of Randall's. As you can see this is the same old, big bro' needs to get lil' bro' out of trouble routine and of course Randall is the best thief there ever was. Of course as in all other movies there are also a few setbacks and surprises you never would have thought of, but at times it is predictable too, so there is nothing fancy about the story.

You are by now probably wondering why this is about 51 times the HOT STUFF, since there are only 50 beautiful, fast, cool and expensive cars to be stolen. Well the other hot item in this film is Sway (Angelina Jolie (who will be a big STAR (trust me))). She is not only very convincing in the role as a car theft, but she is pretty hot too. OK not hot as in pretty, but hot as in damn cool and sexy. She was very believable in this role, probably because she is some kind of a wild woman in real life too (don't believe me, read her biography) and for the sexy part well just see for yourself man. I only know, that she plays the kind of girl I like in this film, because she is not too mainstream, a bit alternative look and she even comes with a tattoo.

OK the only downsides I felt while watching this movie was, that there is not very much action, there is one totally unrealistic scene, the story is only OK and that there are not much jokes. Hey but after seeing the whole film I must say: WHO CARES. Why must I say that, well because it was still entertaining; had a couple of cool car chases; good music; some Bruckheimer scenes (where the combination of music and the lines of actors make your eyes go wet); good actors who all did their jobs; pretty cars; one cool, wild, sexy lady (yes, I mean Mrs. Jolie) and last but not least very nice and cool tools to boost the cars with. So some downsides here but still a pretty good and entertaining movie. All in all the best way to describe this film is that it is an overall OK movie with a cool  feelgood ending.

As for Nicolas Cage, well He is actually one of my most favourite actors in the action genre nowadays after such good films as The Rock, Con Air, Face / Off, Snake Eyes and finally this one. Plus what actor has had so many good action / thriller's in the last years and such successful ones ? Well no one!!! Maybe Jackie Chan, but he is one of my favourites too. One thing that is true though about Mr. Cages Bruckheimer films is that they keep getting worse. The Rock, was a clear 9, Con air was a nice 8 and this well this clearly is a 7. Not that that mark is bad. Does it not show that his films under Bruckheimer keep getting worse and that maybe Cage has to think longer before he accepts a role in a movie and probably he should make a few less movies ? No it doesn't show us that, because almost all of Cage's films were successful in the last few years, except for 8mm and Bringing out the Dead. 8mm was not great, I admit that, but that was never Cage's fault and the story seemed good to me. About the latter film I can not say anything, cause I have not seen it yet. One thing though I know for sure, if Bruckheimer would have asked me for those three films, I would have said YES to all of them. I would have said yes to The Rock, because the story was great and because you would get to play with Sean Connery and Ed Harris. I would have said yes to Con Air, because there would be a lot of action in it, because the story was good and because you got to act with John Malkovich and Ving Rhames. In this one I would have starred because I would have gotten a big paycheque, I would have been able to ride some cool and fast cars and because I would have been able to kiss Angelina Jolie (can't wait to see her in that Lara Croft outfit). This one was a good choice of Mr. Cage and it certainly was worth a look at in the theatre.

7 out of 10


As much as I like big epic pictures - I'll spare you the namedropping - it's great to kick back with a few beers and a simple action flick sometimes. Films where the plot takes a backseat to the set-pieces. Films where the dialogue isn't so cleverly written that it ties itself in endless knots of purple prose. There are HUNDREDS of films that fit the bill... but in my opinion Gone In Sixty Seconds is one of the better ones.

It's an update of the movie that shares its name. It also shares that picture's ethos, but not quite it's execution. Whatever was great about the original has been streamlined. Whatever was streamlined was also amped up thanks to a bigger budget. Often these kinds of endeavours are recipes for complete disaster - see the pug-ugly remake of The Italian Job for one that blew it - but here, thanks to a cast of mostly excellent actors, Sixty succeeds.

The plot and much of the dialogue isn't much to write IMDb about. Often you'll have scenes where the same line of dialogue goes back and forth between the actors, each of whom will voice it with different inflections. A lot of people found this annoying; I find it raises a smile. Each actor gets a chance to show off his or her definition of style here, with Cage, Jolie and Duvall leading the pack of course (and it should be noted that it's also amusing to see Mrs Pitt not given first billing here). The chemistry between good ol' Saint Nick the stalwart (see date of review) and Angelina leads to a couple of nice moments.

The villain is not even a little scary - I've seen Chris Eccleston play tough-guy roles before so I know he can handle them, but I think he was deliberately directed to make his role inconsequential as not to distract from the action. We know the heroes are going to succeed, somehow; we're just sitting in the car with them, enjoying the ride. I think a lot of these scenes were played with tongue so far in-cheek that it went over the heads of a lot of people giving this a poor rating. In fact, I wouldn't have minded some fourth-wall breaking winks at the camera: it's just that kind of movie.

All this style and not so much substance - something that often exhausts my patience if not executed *just* so - would be worthless if the action wasn't there. And for the most part, it is. Wonderfully so. I've noticed that it seems to be a common trend to be using fast-cut extreme close-up shots to direct action these days. I personally find this kind of thing exhausting. I prefer movies like this where the stunts are impressive enough to not need artificial tension ramping by raping tight shots all the time. I've been told that Cage actually did as many of the car stunts as he could get away with without losing his insurance (in real life I mean - his character clearly doesn't care) and it shows. The man can really move a vehicle and this is put to good use in the slow-burning climatic finale where he drives a Mustang into the ground in the most outlandish - and FUN - way possible.

So yes, this movie isn't an "epic, life-affirming post-9/11 picture with obligatory social commentary" effort. The pacing is uneven, some of the scenes could have been cut and not all the actors tow the line. But car movies rarely come better than this. So if you hate cars... why are you even reading these comments?!

I'd take it over the numerous iterations of "The Flaccid And The Tedious" (guess the franchise) any day. 7/10


Nick Cage is Randall Raines, a retired car thief who is forced out of retirement when he's forced to save his the life of his brother Kip (Giovanni Ribisi) when he screws up on a job, by completing his brothers job of stealing 50 cars in one night. He has to get together his old crew that he can trust to help him pull it off and get his bro out of dutch. But the cops are onto him, so can he pull it off? This was one of the great candidates of a film to re-make as the Original was far from a classic. And if you don't go into it expecting much, and turn the thinking portion of your brain off so you can ignore the plot hole ans just take the movie for what it is. You'll end up enjoying the ride. Watch it on a double-bill with "The Fast and the Furious" for a night of high-speed hijinks, just don't take the car out for a spin right afterwards.

My Grade: B-

DVD Extras: 7 minute Jerry Bruckheimer Interview; Bruckheimer Bio/Filmography; Action Overload: Highlight Reel; The Big Chase; "0 To 60" featurette; "Wild Rides" featurette; Stars On The Move; The Cult "Painted On The Heart" music video; Theatrical Trailer, and Trailers for "Shanghai Noon", "Mission to Mars" and "Coyote Ugly"


I have had the chance to watch several movies in BluRay and HD DVD. This movie stays to it's wonderful action and great story. Although if you are looking for a movie with an excellent picture this one is not it. Not having this movie on DVD helped make the purchase easier. I have always enjoyed the intense action and the excellent acting which don't always go together. Overall that is what makes this an excellent fun film to watch. Now on the Blu Ray scale. In many Blu Ray movies you either get two things. A picture that is almost crystal clear with no distortion or a movie with grainy hd picture. I was disappointed when I made this my first blu ray movie. I almost began to think that this was a blu ray standard. Although after watching other movies I know better. I don't believe they spent as much time as they should have transferring this movie over to hd. That is generally the problem with some movies. And for the price of Blu Ray players and the Blue Ray Discs you should only have the best picture. So I only consider this a worthwhile investment for people who have either never seen the movie or have not bought the DVD version.


If you like cars you will love this film!

There are some superb actors in the film, especially Vinnie Jones, with his typical no nonsense attitude and hardcase appearance.The others are not bad either....

There are only two slight flaws to this film. Firstly, the poor plot, however people don't watch this film for the plot. Secondly, the glorification of grand theft auto (car crime). However if people really believe they can steal a Ferrari and get away with it then good look to them, hope you have a good time in jail!

When i first read that Nicolas Cage was to act the main role, i first thought "...sweeet.", but then i thought "...naaaa you suck!" but then finally after watching the film i realised "...yep he suck's!".Only joking he plays the role very well.

I'll end this unusual review by saying "If the premature demise of a criminal has in some way enlightened the general cinema going audience as to the grim finish below the glossy veneer of criminal life, and inspired them to change their ways, then this death carries with it an inherent nobility. And a supreme glory. We should all be so fortunate. You can say "Poor Criminal." I say: "Poor us."

p.s. - Angelina Jolie Voight looks quite nice!


It is a great movie if you have ever named your cars or are really into old, fast, or exotic cars. It has a plot and a lot of action. The car scenes are great except for the totally fake car jump scene. All of the other scenes are great. I really enjoyed it and I hope everyone else does as well.


I saw this on a flight over to the U.S and was a little sceptical at first as a few people had said there were so many characters in it that you didnt get to know any of them. However I didnt find this at all. The film is fast, but this is due to the nature of the director and the star. The chase scenes are excellent and yes it may be predictable but isnt that true of most films. The main villain is a bit of a let down, Christopher Eccelston is not as convincing as he could have been, but that said its still a good film.


Good action and interesting plot. Having seen the original I must say it was an interesting improvement and showed more of the movie. Good cast .. meaningful acting.. although it would nice to see some more expansion in the action scenes rather than the background story. Fun movie to watch and keeps you alert all the time 7/10 is a right vote I think!


Weak, fast and multicolor,this is the Valvoline's movie in fact you can see always this brand of oil in a lot of scene. The real protagonist are the cars,weak performances of Cage and Duvall. A intresting Angelina Jolie is a unlikely mechanic. For the lovers of dream car(LAMBORGHINI and FERRARI over all).


The story is quite original, but the movie is kinda slow building up to the point where they steal the cars. Its kinda nice though to watch them prepare the stealing too, but the actual stealing should've been more in picture... However the stunt work on this movie was excellent and it is definetly a movie you HAVE to see (7/10)


i went to see this movie with a bunch of friends one night. I didn't really hear much about it. So I wasn't expecting anything. But after I saw it, I really liked it. Nicolas Cage and the rest of the cast were very good. But I do have to say Giovanni Ribisi's acting performace did need a little perking up. But such a small flaw, it could be overrided.

Gone In 60 Seconds is about a retired car thief who must boost 60 rare and exotic cars in one night to save his brother's life. The movie is in no way predictable. So the ending should be a suprise. Think it's just another, fast car driving movie? Well you are partially right. There is much more to it. Everyone should take a look at this movie.


I really loved this film, yes, I know it was fairly far fetched, there is no way that Shelby car could have managed to stay on the road as well as the 540i with all it's traction control and other gizmos but other than that the whole film was well put together. Cage was excellent as usual and the rest of the cast were also pretty good with the exception of the Brit Bad Guy, he was a little "too" much don't you think? Anyway, great film, great cars and great acting. I for one made sure my car was locked and alarmed in my remotely controlled garage that night. :)


I saw once No Man's Land (1987) - IMDB link http://us.imdb.com/Title?0093638 - and found it ok. The film is about a guy who steals only Porsches. Gone in Sixty Seconds comes 13 years after and adds nothing to it. In fact, it has a lot of scenes that are worthless. And the ending is very, very bad.

The Sphinx has a magnetic screen presence that should have been better used...


The documentary begins with setting the perspective to several light years. The voyager is traveling our milky-way with the sounds of our earthly lives, as a space monument for (possible?) extraterrestrials.

The documentary contains footage of Willy Dixen, Robert Johnson, Skip James and J.B. Lenoir. The footage of J.B. has never been published before. The narrative is from 'blind Willie' Dixon. However, it's done by an actor. The film shows the work of all these early blues men followed by covers and interpretations by musicians, such as Nick Cave and the bad Seeds among others.

The Death of J.B. Lenoir (John Mayall's song) is a striking event in the story. Lenoir got political engaged and is considered to be of the league of Martin Luther King and peers. His political interests can be found in the themes of his lyrics.

Blues is found to be 'THE' native music of America. Blues is the roots and the rest is the fruits.

The title 'Soul of a Man' is after a Willie Dixon song.


I always enjoyed watching this when it came on television during prime-time every year in the 60's. It's a typical Hollywood history epic, dramatized, stylized and full of inaccuracies but so what, it's an entertaining movie and a good looking film. Cecil B. DeMille at the end of his life is the executive producer of this remake of his 1938 film. His son-in-law actor Anthony Quinn who had the supporting role of Beluche in the '38 film is the director in his directorial debut and swan song as he had never directed a film before and never would again. DeMille assembled a crew who had recently worked on his 10 Commandments to help Quinn pull it off including longtime DeMille associate producer/actor Henry Wilcoxon overseeing the project. Also from the 10 Commandments are screenwriter Jesse Lasky, cinematographer Loyalk Griggs, assistant director Francisco Day, 2nd unit director Arthur Rosson, art directors Walter Tyler and Hal Pereira, set directors Sam Comer and Ray Moyer, costume designers Edith Head, John Jensen and Ralph Lester who as a costume design team received The Buccaneer's only Oscar nomination. A great cast here from team DeMille headed up by Yul Brynner as pirate Jean Lafitte and Charleton Heston as future President General Andrew Jackson. Also in the cast are Charles Boyer, E.G. Marshall, Lorne Greene, Claire Bloom and Inger Stevens. At just over two hours it drags in some spots but makes up for it with some excellent battle scenes. I would give it a 7.5 out of 10.


This interesting feature has a very fine story-line, rather colorful characters and a very steady pace. it also incorporates a plot device from "Reap the Wild Wind", and since Cecil B. Deille directed that and his son-in-law Anbthony Quinn directed this film from his preparations, that can hardly be a coincidence. it works in both cases, I must report. The unusual set-up tells the viewer that Barataria, an island ruled by Jean Lafitte is built upon piracy, but during the war of 1812, and before, he has always refrained from bothering United States' vessels. Now General Andrew Jackson has been charged with defending nearby New Orleans with only 12,000 men against 60,000 British Imperial redcoats and 60 ships. Lafitte's men want him to side with the stronger force; he wants freedom and pardons for his men before ceding such a strategic landing spot to the U.S. forces. There are other factors at work in the story-line; pirate Bonnie Brown and her father want to attack U.S. ships and do so in defiance of Lafitte's orders, leaving a boy alive without knowing they have missed an eyewitness. When his testimony finally comes out, Jackson cannot grant what Lafitte asks; but Lafitte supports him anyway and in the fog, the pirates and Jackson rout the British and he sails away to whatever destiny awaits a man who had genius and statesmanship but not fortune. The cast of this colorful and physically-lovely film are skilled indeed. Yul Brynner has one of his best roles as the pirate king, Inger Stevens is beautiful; as the girl he loves, Charles Boyer has many good lines as his adviser, powerful Lorne Greene is a rival, E.G. Marshall the Governor, and Claire Bloom is charismatic as Bonnie Brown. Others in the cast include Ted de Corsia, Douglass Dumbrille, George Mathews, Henry Hull as Jackson's adviser, Bruce Gordon, Onslow Stevens, Robert F. Simon, Henry Brandon, Fran Jeffries, and Leslie Bradley, among others. The music by Elmer Bernstein is very memorable, and the 1938 script remade here had only to be freshened a bit. The shiny cinematography was the work of veteran Loyal Griggs, the set decoration was supplied by Albert Nozaki, Hal Pereira and Walter Tyler, with set decoration by Sam Comer and Roy Moyer and costumes by Edith Head, John Jensen and Ralph Jester. Nellie Manley did the elaborate hairstyles and Wally Westmore the difficult makeup. The film contains quite a bit of good adventure-level dialogue and a very strong climactic battle scene. Charlton Heston, as as Andrew Jackson, prepared to play the part of an elder general and then discovered the man was young at the time of the battle; but he is often effective, grey-haired or not, especially in his exchanges with Henry Hull as Mr. Peavey. This is an exciting and well-mounted entertainment, which looks exactly as if C.B. DeMille had completed his production; it is a beautiful and nearly a very-fine motion picture.


If you're at all interested in pirates, pirate movies, New Orleans/early 19th century American history, or Yul Brynner, see this film for yourself and make up your own mind about it. Don't be put off by various lacklustre reviews. My reaction to it was that it is entertaining, well acted (for the most part), has some very witty dialogue, and that it does an excellent job of portraying the charm, appeal and legendary fascination of the privateer Jean Lafitte. While not all the events in the film are historically accurate (can you show me any historical film that succeeds in this?), I feel the film is accurate in its treatment of the role Lafitte played in New Orleans' history, and the love-hate relationship between the "respectable" citizens of New Orleans and this outlaw who was one of the city's favorite sons. Don't worry about what the film doesn't do, but watch it for what it does do, i.e., for its study of one of New Orleans', and America's, most intriguing historical figures.


Sure, the history in this movie was "Hollywoodized"--but it's far from being the only bit of history rewritten for the masses. Lafitte sided with the Americans because he considered himself a Frenchman and therefore hated the British, not because of any sense of patriotism for a nation that had taken over New Orleans only a short time ago; he broke his agreement and returned to smuggling, which caused his sailing to Galveston; he was more of a petty criminal and scoundrel than a hero *or* a swashbuckler. But who cares? This is one movie that's sheer entertainment--and face it, we all wanted Jean to go for the feisty wench rather than the prudish daughter of the governor. Brynner once again rises over mediocre writing to give a fascinating performance.


During the whole Pirates of The Caribbean Trilogy Craze Paramount Pictures really dropped the ball in restoring this Anthony Quinn directed Cecil B. DeMille supervised movie and getting it on DVD and Blu Ray with all the extras included. It is obvious to me that Paramount Pictures Execs are blind as bats and ignorant of the fact that they have a really good pirate movie in their vault about a real pirate who actually lived in New Orleans, Louisiana which would have helped make The Crescent City once again famous for it's Pirate Connections. When the Execs at Paramount finally get with the program and release this movie in digital format then I will be a happy camper. Paramount Pictures it is up to you to get off your duff and get this film restored now !


Taken in the context of the time it was made, I found this a worthwhile movie. While the details may be 'dramatized', the overall history was a nice primer. In addition, I found spotting actors I knew a real pleasure. Who would imagine Ben Cartwright as a dastardly cad? I'll leave the rest of the star spotting to you. As to the secondary casting, this movie (as one would expect from a movie made in the late thirties) has many an enjoyable character actor, but top kudos' to Andrew Jackson's right hand man Peavey. The perfect touch of comedy. Well shot, with beautiful ships, and competent acting throughout out, I recommend this for anyone with a taste for the slightly camp, or an eye for a double-period piece, set at the dawn of America, and made in a period when great names, and top notch character actors, were a real pleasure to enjoy.


The original DeMille movie was made in 1938 with Frederic March. A very good film indeed. Hollywood's love of remakes brings us a fairly interesting movie starring Yul Brynner. He of course was brilliant as he almost always seemed to be in all of his movies. Charlton Heston as Andrew Jackson was a stroke of genius. However, the movie did tend to get a little long in places. It does not move at the pace of the 1938 version. Still, it is a fun movie that should be seen at least once.


This movie has great stars in their earlier years: Ingor Stevens never looked prettier; Yul Brynner was a very convincing Jean LaFitte, conflicted about his piracy and desiring to keep neutrality with the United States. Charlton Heston did a pretty good job as Andrew Jackson, but some moments were a bit stilted. It's really a good flick for students to learn that part of our history, AND it shows that all happy endings do NOT include the lovers getting together with each other--sometimes the happier ending is that they sail away and find partners of similar background who will understand them better in the long run. I have viewed it every year at least twice for 16 years now; and though it is not the best movie I've ever seen, I love it every time!


of the films of the young republic few in number as they are The Buccaneer (1958)stands out as a finely crafted film. Charleton Heston excels in his portrayal of Old Hickory's defence of New Orleans with a thrown together force of militia, regulars and pirates promised a reprieve.

after Christmas 1814 peninsula veterans led by sir edward packenham, the duke of wellington's brother in law bore down on the city of new orleans. andy jackson had a day to draw together a scratch force to defend the city behind bales of hay.

Charlton Heston projects Jackson's terrifying presence and awe inspiring power of command. Yet there are a few colorful comic relief. With the might of the English lioness about to pounce, a young blond haired voluteer from New Orleans asks: I guess the ruckus is about to start.

the battle was about to rage but not for long. true to form the British marched straight into withering American fire. in less than a few minutes an attempt to reconquer lost north American territories had been foiled.

the battle scene in this movies lasts slightly longer than the actual battle itself.

there are colorful side stories in this film of the young volunteer at his first dance to celebrate the victory.


I am afraid it was a movie that you have to ACTUALLY WATCH to get anything out of it.I t is not a mindless movie like ....."LEATHAL WEAPON PART 58" you know the one where Riggs is really crazy? it is not a movie that is pretty much the same at the end as it is a the beginning. you can run everywhere talk on the phone do what ever and enjoy it in any way.I have noticed in the past that most people that do not like this type of movie are the type that will do most anything but watch a movie and then slam it because .....duh they don't get it or understand it or what happened.

DON'T LET YOUR DOGGY TAKE A SHOWER!!!


hello. i just watched this movie earlier today for the 14th time in 3 days. i am a history teacher that has wayyyyy too much time on my hands. i need a life. i found the movie containing a striking resemblance to broke back mountain. i also found that i look a lot like jean Lafitte if he were white. also, my favorite line in the entire movie was from Mr. Petey--"this baby can shoot a chipmunk's eye from 300 yards!!" oh, and my favorite scene in the movie was when the British were coming in, and the one drummer who was so devoted to his work, and he drummed till the death, as if that drum would end the war altogether....but it wouldn't. well, thats all i would like to say about this movie. OH, one more thing..bonnie brown is an insane physco bipolar mood swinging BEEYOTCH. that is all.


I almost didn't rent this because of all the bad comments but did anyways.I thought it was similar to darkness falls which i also liked. The only part i hated about the tooth ferry was the 2 red neck brothers at the gas station.They were funny and the dialog made me laugh but this was not a comedy. It ruined the movie a bit for me because it was unnecessary.The rest of the movie was the way a horror or suspense film should be. The make-up was good and I have seen way worse movies then this one. It was a simple story with believable acting.It's not the scariest or goriest movie, but I wasn't ticked off or wanting a refund after watching it. On the DVD there was previews of other movies that all look good and i'm gonna check them out.


I thought the children in the show did a very good job. I especially enjoyed the performance of the Emma character. Well done! The stunts were pretty good for a low budget show. I was able to follow the movie and enjoy it without having to look at my watch every 5 minutes.I enjoyed the scenes with the tooth fairy and the burning of her. The ghostly apparitions of the children's souls being released was also good. Another good point of the movie is that it kept moving along. There wasn't a lot of slow scenes. The adult leads were also believable and therefore helped to keep the show entertaining. All in all an enjoyable night of movie watching.


To Be Honost With you i think everything was so good in this movie there should be no reason why it didn't go into theaters,The Deaths in the movie are awesome the fx are awesome when used,There are a few dull moments when the story's following the little girl but all in all this was a very good movie that i hope someday get's the props it should.The very first part of the movie is prob why it came straight to video with them killing a little boy but after that the story is based on a little girl and her mother who came to visit the moms boyfriend who moved out to try to become a writer,The property he buy's turns out to be where the Witch(Tooth Fairy)lives and anyone who live in her house or goes on her property will be in great danger don't wanna give anything really away just a little info if you've wanted to see this movie then do so it's worth the price of the rental


My baby sitter was a fan so I saw many of the older episodes while growing up. I'm not a fan of Scooby Doo so I'm not sure why I left the TV on when this show premiered. To my surprise I found it enjoyable. To me Shaggy and Scooby were the only interesting characters *dodges tomatoes from fans of the others* so I like that they only focus on those two. However, this may cause fans of the original shows to hate it. I like the voice acting, especially Dr. Phinius Phibes. I liked listening to him even before I knew he was Jeff Bennett. And Jim Meskimen as Robi sounds to me like he's really enjoying his job as an actor. I also get a kick out of the techies with their slightly autistic personalities and their desires to play Dungeons and Dragons or act out scenes from Star Wars (not called by those names in the show, of course).