In 1993, with the success of the first season of Batman: The Animated Series, Warner Brothers commissioned the team responsible for the hit-show with producing a feature-length movie, originally slated for Direct-To-Video, but bumped up to theatrical status. It would become known as Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. Ten years after Phantasm, we have had an additional three feature-films released from the boys at the WB, Sub-Zero, Return of the Joker, and now, Mystery of the Batwoman joins the family.

The plot is basic and in many ways similar to Mask of the Phantasm: A new female vigilante modeling herself after Batman has begun targeting operations run by Gotham mob boss Rupert Thorne and Oswald Cobblepot AKA The Penguin. Now, Batman must attempt to unravel the mystery of the Batwoman before she crosses the line.

The animation is the sleeker, futuristic style that was utilized for Batman: The Animated Series' fifth and sixth seasons (AKA The New Batman Adventures). , it's quite nicely done, and just as sleek as Return of the Joker's animation. There is also some use of CGI, but it's minor compared to the overabundance of it in Sub-Zero. The music was alright. Different and exotic and similar to the Justice League score, although the points in the score when the old animated Batman theme comes up will be sure to send waves of nostalgia through the older fans' rodent-shaped hearts.

Kevin Conroy, as always, does a wonderful job as Bruce Wayne and Batman. It's also great to have the old Batman: The Animated Series alumni back; that includes Bob Hastings (Commissioner Gordon), Robert Costanzo (Detective Bullock), Tara Strong (Barbara Gordon/Batgirl; her cameo hints at the romantic-relationship between her and Bruce that was mentioned in Batman Beyond), and Efrem Zimbalist Jr.(Alfred).

Villains were also great - especially given that Rupert Thorne, the old mob boss from the original series, appears for the first time since the fourth season.

Overall, while not quite reaching the standard set by Mask of the Phantasm ten years ago, MOTB carries on the torch quite nicely for the animated Batman films. And if you have the DVD and are a hardcore fan, you will love the five-minute short Chase Me.


I always said that the animated Batman movies were much better than the live action films.

I've seen all of the animated films, but out of the bunch, this is the poorest, and it's rather disappointing.

"Mask of the Phantasm" would rank as the best, then "World's Finest", then "Sub Zero", then "Return of the Joker", and finally this ranks last.

In this newest animated movie, there's a mysterious new batgirl in Gotham and Batman is intent on discovering whether she's friend or foe as she sets out on a quest for vengeance.

But as Bruce gets involved with three young women, he begins investigating them and discovers who is the new batgirl.

The tone in this film is unusually light considering most of the films are grim and bleak, which was rather disappointing. Bruce acts strangely out of character most of the time, the villains are re-used from the last films, and while the action scenes are exciting, they're really nothing new. It also lacks the dramatic impact the other films have, especially that of "Sub-Zero" which was heavy in drama and character development.

Everything in the film feels pretty recycled and the supporting characters are charming but no one is actually worth rooting for.

All the while, I really enjoyed this, I had a blast, and the identity of the new batgirl is surprising, but this wasn't as exciting as I'd hoped.

(**half out of ****)


I thought the film could be a bit more complex,in a psychological sense perhaps, but the action and voice acting were top notch. The animation was heavy CG in many scenes, but very good ones at that. This is one of the Batman Returns/Forever type films, which include romances and the conflicts of Wayne and motives for dating. 007 fans would love this, and so would the females, great theme song! Wayne was portrayed very well in this film, and the Penquin was back to his true form, no mutant genes in him this time! I liked the fact Robin wasn't used too much, Tim Drake was just a good computer nerd, somewhat of an Indigo child or mind of the future.

The supporting cast was made up of some soap opera stars, decent talents and the characters were drawn to look like the voice actors too. Kelly Ripa was hilarious in this film.

I rate this below Phantasm, Return of the Joker, and Batman vs. Dracula, but liked the smarter script better than I enjoyed Subzero. 7/10


I give this movie 7 out of 10 because the villains were interesting in their roles and the unknown batwoman creates an interesting "guess who" game. The movie, however, needs more Robin in it. He appeared in the movie in the beginning and sporadically throughout the rest. I always thought the new animated series did little justice to the neat new Robin character, let alone Knightwing. This movie just continues that bad tradition. The movie spends too much time on Bruce Wayne and his romance which wouldn't be so bad in one movie if the romance wasn't so unbelievable. It is still a good movie if you are a Batman fan and I would recommend watching it.


Once a year "comes" a movie like that and makes things easy for you. You don't have make an effort to think it is good, it's just is. You enjoy it while you watch it, and you take it home with you. I can't say it is totally flawless, but it's near. Acting - great, story -interesting and with elements of suspense. It's a small family story, pretty much predictable, but it's not the secret itself that matters. it is the way the it takes the blind girl to reach it. I was impressed by the way the director portrayed their deep relationship (the blind girl and her cousin). The only thing I didn't like that much is the actress that played the mother, she was too tough and without necessity. Keren


I won't give anything away by describing the plot of this film other than to say that it begins with the return to Israel of a young blind woman whose closest friend and companion has just committed suicide. It unfolds like a detective story as the blind woman tries to figure out why her friend ended her life. As she pursues her investigation and the information accumulates, it leads inexorably to a devastating conclusion. The film is expertly paced and the acting, especially by Talia Sharon as Ya'ara, the blind woman, is excellent. Israeli film has definitely come of age and is now fully competitive with other foreign films, though few have found a large audience in the U.S.


Although there is melodrama at the center or rather at the bottom of this film, the story is told beautifully and subtly and the acting is superb.

Yaara, studying at Princeton, returns to her native Israel for the funeral of her oldest and dearest friend, Talia. Because Yaara practically lived with her friend's parents after the death of her own mother, she has lost her adoptive sister. And because Yaara, blind from birth, has been guided and guarded by Talia, her friend's suicide is as unbearable as it is inexplicable.

Inevitably, the blind girl is the one who determines to solve the mystery of this death. Though without sight, she has insight. Though she cannot see, she is able to find what is out of sight than the "normal" people around her. The film thus becomes an absorbing mystery as Yaara scours for clues in memories of her relationship with Talia, in her adoptive family's house, in tapes, diaries, and people in Talia's past and present.

Told from Yara's point of view, the film is also seen from her point of view, as she visualizes what she hears, believes, and imagines. The solution to the mystery is rather conventional, but the search is conducted with such subtle care and the answer rendered so beautifully and without fanfare, that the pat moment is easily forgiven. The truths emerge gradually yet inexorably, clarifying not only Talia's life, but also her relationship with Yaara. Tali Sharon, as Yaara, uses her mobile face and voice effectively, and is utterly believable as both the adult and teenage girl. We accept fully her ability by the film's end to find her place in the world more confidently.

Noteworthy is the precision by which places and actions are repeated with small but significant variations that never become tedious, the dead-on acting by the minor characters, and the interesting decision to represent Talia only as a teenager. I will quibble with Yaara's final declaration as stands with Gadi, Talia's last boyfriend, at a cliff's edge, but that trip to the edge is so fascinating that the image will remain in sight longer than her words will be recalled.


The story is being told fluidly. There are no interruptions. The flash backs are woven into the present seamlessly. Casting was superb. Young Ya'ara looked very much like Ya'ara would have looked at that age. Her portrayal of a blind person was done convincingly. Director Daniel Syrkin have done a superb job in getting the various actors to work together in this story. The Cinematography is very good. You feel like you are with Ya'ara and Talia walking toward the ocean to the edge of the cliff. The English subtitles follow the Hebrew script very closely. It is interesting to note that even though "Out of sight" is not a direct translation of "Lemarit Ayin" Both names are very appropriate to the story.


I was at the same screenwriters conference and saw the movie. I thought the writer - Sue Smith - very clearly summarised what the film was about. However, the movie really didn't need explanation. I thought the themes were abundantly clear, and inspiring. A movie which deals with the the ability to dare, to face fear - especially fear passed down from parental figures - and overcome it and, in doing so, embrace life's possibilities, is a film to be treasured and savoured. I enjoyed it much more than the much-hyped 'Somersault.' I also think Mandy62 was a bit unkind to Hugo Weaving. As a bloke about his vintage, I should look so good! I agree that many Australian films have been lacklustre recently, but 'Peaches' delivers the goods. I'm glad I saw it.


This story is beautifully acted. It is both sad and heartwarming about a young girl's journey to discover where she has come from and where she is going. Stephanie was adopted by her mother's best friend after her mother and father were killed in a car crash, and ever since she has been labeled the 'miracle baby', she is dyslexic and is finding life a bit tough. Her findings along the way affect those closest around her. Her relationship with her guardian and her guardian's ex boyfriend are handled very delicately and sensitively, and the whole of the supporting cast are genuine, 3 dimensional and believable. Set around a peach canning factory in small town Australia, this is a warm gentle, erotic film, and leaves you with a pleasant feeling when the credits close. After reading some of the other rather shallow comments about Hugo Weaving, I would like to add that I think he was brilliantly cast, and was extremely sexy. No, he is not Brad Pitt, but that doesn't mean that he isn't attractive.


I really enjoyed the performances of the main cast. Emma Lung is courageous and interesting. The director has developed performances where the characters are not one dimensional. A complex story with the changing between eras. Also appreciated the underlying story of the unions losing power and the effect of a large employer closing on a small town. I do not agree with the comment that the older man has to be attractive. There have be many relationships with older men and younger women - without the male being good looking. Depth of character can be appealing to the not so shallow. The film has a good look and the cinematography is also good.


Let me be the first non Australian to comment on this :) I got the movie for Hugo Weaving and I watched it to the end. It's one of those "drama of life" films, as my mother used to call a movie that depicts a real life story with no extraordinary events and that is mostly descriptive.

I liked the light and the girls. The rest was without too much fault, but without too much merit either. I yearned for something like The Interview, or at least some matrix villain element here and there, but nothing out of the ordinary. The story does teach one about facing one's own destiny and break free from the environment others build for you, but this happens when the life giving peach factory in the area is about to close, so not much of an effort to change things is required.

The "smart" American Beauty sound-alike song in the background could have been part of a larger soundtrack, but just that one playing over and over again became annoying after 100 minutes of film.

In the end, I guess it did his job of presenting a part of Australian life, but to me it didn't seem specifically Australian (it could have been placed anywhere) and it didn't seem attractive as a story.

I guess one must be in a certain mood to like the movie.


Sensitive film does lack brilliance and, to some degree, narrative structure, but is nevertheless superbly shot and performed. However, the narrative structure point is debatable. While it gives the impression of tying off loose ends nicely in the final scenes, and connects its thoughts with what might be described by the modern viewer as a "story", I'm sceptical as to whether this feel *needs* a "narrative structure" that is definite and detectable. Inevitably, it will be compared with SOMERSAULT in that its central protagonist (I'm not sure that's the correct word!) is a young, and very young-looking, woman, whose newly discovered sexuality both confuses and empowers her - although of course Cate Shortland's film tackles this aspect better. But while the possibility exists for reckless viewers to dismiss this film as a cliché, PEACHES is, in some ways, much more ambitious than SOMERSAULT. Perhaps that's where it doesn't quite make it. It's certainly very different to Monahan's first feature - THE INTERVIEW! I'm not quite sure how the sex scenes between Weaving and Lung added to the story. Who knows - maybe they did. They certainly rammed home the compromised and flawed nature of Weaving's character - although I personally think this was achieved without the need for these scenes.

*****JUST SAW THE FILM AGAIN*********

On a second viewing, I can see how some would dismiss it as a telemovie dressed up as a feature. But I'm not sure how distinct these 'categories' are anymore, or even if we should be making that distinction. In any case, I do think there are enough layers in the film to distinguish it from Hallmark efforts. On the other hand, the film's structure is very formal, and its content is hardly challenging,at least in the way SOMERSAULT, TOM WHITE, THREE DOLLARS, THE ILLUSTRATED FAMILY DOCTOR, LOOK BOTH WAYS and THE HUMAN TOUCH are. The performances are all good, but I did come to the realisation that the main reason I was enjoying the film was because it fit the "Australian" genre, without necessarily adding anything...and I can understand that this can be a fairly good reason for another person *NOT* to like it! Indeed, it wasn't until Lung enters the room in her Vietnamese dress that the film really begins to pack a punch. But that leads us into another debate - *should* we expect that a film must challenge us all the time? Certainly I enjoy being challenged by a film (or a book, or other people), but is there no room anymore for what is simply a nice story?

I haven't deleted my initial post on this film, because I'm all too aware of the Orwellian overtones of such an act. But I would downgrade my initial rating from an 8 to perhaps a 6.5.

As for nominations for AFI Best Film, my votes go to THE HUMAN TOUCH, THREE DOLLARS and LOOK BOTH WAYS - and I think LOOK BOTH WAYS should win.


How you could say that Peaches, with its complex narrative dealing with a multitude of issues, is "a small TV idea" is beyond me. Besides I can think of many films that have "a small TV idea" in their plots. Your obvious dislike of the TV industry (" Sue Smith has failed to rise above her television background") is confusing. particularly as you are having such "a great time" working in TV. If only we could all be so talented as Ms Smith (no, I am not a friend or relative) - AFI award winning Brides of Christ, Road from Coorain,etc. All made for TV. Come to think of it, what about those other "small TV ideas" like "Against the Wind", "Bodyline", "The Dismissal", "Scales of Justice", "Blue Murder", "Water under the Bridge" ,etc. I think Peaches is a good entertaining film which had me interested, and most of my friends as well, from start to finish. It is far from flawless yet I think it is among the best Australian films I have seen over the last couple of years. Who knows, with a few more viewings (there's so much to think about), it might just be up there with classics like "The Year My Voice Broke", "The Devil's Playground". I really did enjoy this film much more than "Somersault" and "Three Dollars". These films, I think, had their moments-surreal, atmospheric, realistic and dealing with important contemporary issues, but as for sheer entertainment for mr.and mrs average movie goer and me, it was very ordinary if not boring. When I go to a movie, I am always conscious of the audience's reaction to a film (through in- cinemas reactions and overheard conversations in the foyer and loo). Some came out of Peaches shaking their heads, some with negative criticisms, but many seemed to have enjoyed the experience.


Peaches is truly a marvelous film. I write this to refute a review from someone called 'Auscrit', that has appeared on this site. First of all the idea that either Monahans first film 'The Interview' is somehow TV is an extraordinary statement. Here is a film that has been significantly praised around the world as is simply one of the best Australian Films ever made. It fully deserved to win best picture. Peaches is a brave, bold and courageous departure. For me it works on every level and I have now seen it twice. Monahan is a filmmaker who is demonstrating great skill and incredible sensitivity. For 'Auscrit' to make the comment that it is another TV movie etc and that Hugo Weaving is no good simply does not 'get' the film. Or more particularly does not want to get it. Frankly it is the sort of comment that one expects from either another filmmaker who is jealous or bitter or both. Or someone from inside the industry either distribution, exhibition or bureaucracy. Your average punter, I have found just does not write comments like that. I have noticed other comments on the site and reference to the film Sommersault. One has to wonder what people think they are looking at. Unfortunately in Australia at the time SS was released the push was, if you did not like it then there was something wrong with you not the film. This manipulation of the media is pretty common down under. The reality is the only similarity between the two films are that they are rights of passage films. Unfortunately for me SS is a film about nothing, that could have been told in 15 minutes. I see it as a one dimensional film about anxiety. Peaches in comparison is a master piece. Personally I cannot wait to what Monahan does next as he is clearly way ahead of any of his contemporaries when it comes to cinema. In conclusion if the film does not win all at this years AFI's and IF awards, then it is a rigged game. As for Auscrit, please find something more constructive do with your time


I had initially heard of TEARS OF KALI a while back and it sounded like something I'd be into, but with all the films I have coming in on a regular basis, it kinda fell off my radar. While roaming around the local WonderBook...I spotted the box for this one and grabbed it up. I have to say I'm pretty glad I did. TEARS OF KALI is a strange, gory, sometimes downright creepy film which is somewhat constrained by it's obviously low budget - but is still an entertaining and worthwhile watch.

TEARS OF KALI centers around the fictional India-based Taylor-Erikkson cult group, that practices meditation and other rituals in the pursuit of facing and banishing the individual's "inner demons" - but apparently these techniques work either all too well or not well enough (depending on your viewpoint...) as dark forces are not only exorcised, but also unleashed upon hapless victims.

The film is told "anthology-style", with a short but memorable and "eye-opening" intro sequence, and then proceeding into the three stories that make up the bulk of the film.

The first (SHAKTI) is about a journalist who visits one of the cult-members who is being held at a mental hospital. The journalist goes in under cover of wanting to research the Taylor-Erikkson cult, but we find that her true motives may hit a little closer to home. When the interview takes a violent turn, the journalist finds that she may have gotten in over her head...

The second part (Devi) concerns a violent young man who is sentenced to psychological rehab in lieu of a prison sentence for beating a young man into a coma. We find that the treating doctor in question is actually a Taylor-Erikkson "alumni", and his rehabilitation methods are far from the norm...

The closing story (KALI) revolves around a quack "faith-healer" and his assistant who perform "miracles" for a fee. When the healer unwittingly helps one of his clients and actually expels a force which had been possessing her, the demon is now free to roam and looking for a new host...

I gotta say I really enjoyed TEARS OF KALI. There are some faults with the film that keep it from being truly excellent - but it is an original and ambitious film for what it is. My biggest gripe with the production is the poor and uninspired over-dubbed dialogue. The dubbing is sub-par and I would have much preferred to have a subtitled option with the original language track. Some reviewers have said the acting is poor, which I don't necessarily agree with. I think that the dubbing is so lack-luster that it makes the performances seem stunted, which isn't really the case. In fact, a few of the performances are pretty damn chilling (the "doctor" in the second segment, and the "client" in the third readily come to mind...) and notable. The gore FX are very well done for a low-budget film, with some graphic scenes of eyelid-removal-via-cuticle-scissors, a pencil-in-the-throat-suicide, some decent (but irritatingly "shaky") self-flaying, and a few other goodies thrown in for good measure. Not as rough as some of the more "extreme" gore films out there, but definitely stronger than your average horror fare. I also found the story concerning the cult-group to be intriguing and a welcome change to the typical horror-story nonsense. There are plenty of scenes of genuine atmosphere and tension, the likes of which I haven't come across in a while. Although flawed in some fundamental ways, I still think TEARS OF KALI will appeal to most "underground" horror viewers - some scenes may prove too much for the more mainstream viewer. Definitely Recommended - 8.5/10


I saw this movie on the BIFFF Festival in Brussel, spring 2004. What a surprise! This German production, a stylish and imaginative shocker, is one of the scariest flic i have seen. Be warned: this is not a joke! This terrorizer has a big cast of good actors (as an example:Peter Martell as a European guru has a strong presence), excellent direction, nice production design, a very good soundtrack and a lot of heavy gore sfx like Italian horror movies in the eighties. Flesh ripped clean to the bone...and the blood runs red ...this savage Heart Stopper will grip you...and give you some dark dreams ... A must-see!!


Three horror stories based on members of a transgressive Hindu cult that return home but changed in some way. In the first story our former cult member is now in an insane asylum and is visited by a reported who wants to find out about what went on at the cult. Somewhat slow going as story is told in flashbacks while the two sit on chairs and face each other. Reporter is particularly interested in what lead to the death of the participants. What seemed rather boring suddenly turns very exciting with a surprising twist in the story. Things get quite bloody.

Second story has a violent young criminal visiting a psychiatrist for mandatory therapy. The patient seems to have some type of agenda but the psychiatrist is up to the task. Again, things slow down a bit and get weird. Then there's a strange twist in the story that is very well written and surprising.

Final story deals with spiritual healer who claims to be able to remove the persons illness from them with his hands. One of the patients is a former cult member, so the successful healing gets more complicated. Again, we are surprised by a twist. Has a pretty gory scene in there.

There some nice female full frontal nudity as well as male full frontal nudity for some reason. I found the stories to be very well written and the director succeeds entirely in setting up each story with its surprising twist and the gory aftermath.

Note: review of the German DVD.


This is a trio of tales, "Shakti", "Devi", and "Kali", about an experimental commune (or some such thing) called the Taylor-Eriksson group, which took people on journeys inside themselves and into the realm of the unknown, and left a bit of damage here and there, I'd say. Many years later some of that damage is still lurking and waiting for the right moment to show itself. Shakti tells the tale of a woman whose husband died mysteriously, in fact, he was torn apart, and the suspect was a man that may not have existed. Seems this woman is able to project some inner demon, or so finds out the sister of the man who was killed when she attempts to talk to this woman while posing as a reporter. Devi tells the tale of a young man who wants to "jump out of his skin". He's a skinhead, a speed freak, and is sent to see a psychiatrist who just happens to be a former member of this commune, which results in the good doctor helping the young man to realize his desire. This is probably the best of the three segments. Kali tells the tale of a healer, who attempts to "heal" this woman who was a part of this commune and lets loose some kind of demon that has lived in this woman, but one wonders if he did it or if SHE loosed it because it could not survive in her any longer. All three of these tales are pretty creepy and suspenseful because you're never really sure what to expect, and the premise and the settings are so unlike those of conventional horror films that it adds to the strangeness. This has a sort of low-budget look and feel to it but it also manages to conjure up a pretty creepy atmosphere throughout, much to its credit. I watched this with my mouth hanging open a good portion of the time and when the real scares (and gore) came it hit pretty hard. I found this to be a very interesting and disturbing film and liked it a lot. A good little find, this one, I'd give it 8 out of 10.


one of the best low budget movies from Germany! is this is the dark side of new age? if you believe in esoteric, please don't watch this movie! it blows all your positive fantasies away. this movie shows that beyond the peaceful façade of spiritual soul searching lies a world of extreme transgressions and terror. i hope there will be a 35 mm copy soon! Andreas Marschall's first film is just the beginning of a new area, making movies with a few euros! i'm waiting for the second hit!


Its taken a few viewings for me to really wrap myself around this one, but for me Tears of Kali is one of the horror highlights of the 00's and as far as independent horror goes a veritable masterpiece. An anthology horror, it takes on the story of the fictional Taylor-Eriksson Group, a cult of sorts based in India whose members set out in search of ultimate self knowledge and healing of the psyche, with unpleasant results that echo down the years. With bookend segments set in India the film is made chiefly of three stories set in Germany, illustrating the aftermath of the work of the Taylor-Eriksson Group, with some pretty nasty gore at times. Its an interesting set up as these things go, but what sets this film apart is the way the imagery is so carefully set up to develop the films horror. Bad things have been unleashed and the general course of the film is a look at how the quest for self knowledge and ultimate therapy brings horror to patients, healers and others and the film is loaded with smart visual clues to the power of the dark forces with which it deals, dark forces unbound by time, place or even personality. Good examples of this are found in the first story especially, dealing with a journalist interviewing a lady in a mental hospital. Previous to this story we have seen Lars Eriksson and notably his wonky (lazy?) eye, we also see him healing or at least comforting a patient. The lady mental patient of the first story is seen in the same stance as Eriksson healing a fellow patient, also as she wraps up the canvases from the art class that she runs among her fellow patients one of their pictures is seen, a face with lazy eye like Erikssons. There are also references to folk in minuscule roles, extras and walk ons having extra sensory perceptions of what is going on in the film, showing the badness that has been unleashed spreading and able to almost infect others. There is more to the film philosophically than just evil within, it is a film about death, suffering and possible redemption too all bound in a structure derived from Hindu beliefs in a fashion that seems like it might just be exploitation but has more relation to actual beliefs than one might expect (at least from the research that I did on wikipedia). Writer/director Andreas Marschall definitely deserves some significant credit for his skill in constructing the film. As well as being thoughtful, the film is pretty chilling too, the soundtrack of Bharti India and Panama John has a great eerie piano jingle and there are a couple of notable performances, Michael Balaun as a sinister doctor and Cora Chilcot as a freaky patient especially good. The third story also has a fine turn from veteran Mathieu Carrière as a faith healer. The biggest problem of the film is that it is not that involving a lot of the time so potential for fear is lost but these and a couple of other performances achieve involvement pretty well. So, the film isn't quite as gripping as it might be, the acting occasionally off and the pacing too, but mostly I thought it was pretty great, if a shade short of its possible brilliance. Well worth a look for adventurous horror fans I think.


Tears of Kali is an original yet flawed horror film that delves into the doings of a cult group in India comprised of German psychologists who have learned how to control their wills and their bodies to the point that they can cause others to be "healed" through radical techniques (that can trigger nightmarish hallucinations and physical pain and torture) to release the pent-up demons inside them.

The film is shown as a series of vignettes about the Taylor-Eriksson group--the above-mentioned cult group. The first segment is somewhat slower than the rest but serves fine to set up the premise for the rest of the film. The rest of it plays out like a mindf@ck film with some of the key staples thrown in the mix (full-frontal nudity, some gore) to keep you happy.

I say check this out. May not be spectacular, but it's concept is pretty neato and it delivers in the right spots. 8/10.


This movie has its ups and downs, but to me the good stuff in this movie very much outweighs the bads...

What's not so good about the movie are indeed sometimes the dialogue, the sounds, the lighting(am I the only one who noticed the way the sets were lighted was amateur, and the acting....

What is very good are the highly original storyline, the very intense atmosphere, the gore factor which is very high, and the effects which are done supremely.

So, definitely worth watching, or maybe even a must-see for all you horror and gore fans....


The plot is real horrific, the atmosphere really depressive, unusual for a low-budget production like that, and at least, for a German production. A little bit of Indian spirituality, mystic thriller and slasher movie mixed together. The development of plot and characters are great, the sets very close to reality, without any studio-atmosphere. It could be perfect, but at unfortunately some things were a little bit disappointing, what don't inevitably have to be typically for low-budget movies:

1.) The cast sometimes is not more than average. Almost every actor look like a layman. Some of them do a good, or a very good job, but some are acting like the actors of crappy German court-shows! But I was very, very disappointed of the acting of Mathieu Carrière! His acting ( in a lots of of his older movies his acting was fine ) here was below-average! But that could be the reason, why he today takes part in crappy German soaps or TV-series on private channels.

2.) The dialogs are sometimes on soap-opera-level.

3.) The bad sound made it sometimes very hard to understand, what the characters are saying. I saw it on DVD and was glad to could rewind and to listen it again. It caused by the set ( big halls as in the hospital or with the esoterically group ) and sometimes the strange dialects of the actors!

But all in all, it is an interesting movie, worth to watch it, far beyond the commercially movies, which are often more terrible.


Theodore Rex is possibly the greatest cinematic experience of all time, and is certainly a milestone in human culture, civilization and artistic expression!! In this compelling intellectual masterpiece, Jonathan R. Betuel aligns himself with the great film makers of the 20th century, such as Francis Ford Copola, Martin Scorcese, Orson Welles and Roman Polanski. The special effects are nothing less than breathtaking, and make any work by Spielberg look trite and elementary. At the time of it's release, Theodore Rex was such a revolutionary gem that it raised the bar of film-making to levels never anticipated by film makers. The concept of making not just a motion picture featuring a dinosaur, but adapting an action packed, thrilling detective novel, co-staring a "talking" dinosaur with a post-modern name such as "Theodore", and an existential female police officer changed humanity as we know it. The world could never be the same after experiencing such magnificent beauty. Watching Theodore Rex is much akin to looking into the face of God and hearing Him say "you are my most beloved creation." This is one of the few films that is simply TO DIE FOR!!!


Compelling and Innovative! At the beginning of this criminally underrated Whoopi Goldberg flick the writers draw a parallel between Theodore Rex and the 1941 Orson Welles classic "Citizen Kane". The writers are justified in drawing such a seemingly disparate parallel, but the viewing public is too often hoodwinked into seeing overly hyped Hollywood schlock to appreciate the subtle similarities between these two movies. In "Citizen Kane" Charles Foster Kane is feared and admired by his colleagues and his underlings, much like Whoopi Goldberg in this movie. This movie is about finding love in everybody's differences. It is an epic examination of the fear of abandonment and the need for love and acceptance in a society that is dominated by greed and self-absorption. Whoever paired Whoopi Goldberg and Theodore Rex formulated a dyad for the ages, with the only justifiable comparisons being Bogey and Bacall, Hepburn and Tracy and Hall and Oates. If you would love to watch an uplifting, celluloid philosophical examination of some of humanity's deepest drives; Bergman-esqe but not as depressing, Theodore Rex should be viewed immediately!


This movie is excellent and I would recommend renting it for anyone whose local video store owns it. Or, even better, you could buy it because chances are you're going to watch this over and over. I can remember watching this movie as a kid and it was great back then. But after watching it again yesterday I've found it to be amazing.

A good blend of comedy (although not as great as "Mr Magoo"-another one of my favorites) and action. This deserves 10/10 and I'm hoping that they will make a sequel soon (fingers crossed). If you do babysitting or have to look after young children for anything then I'd recommend renting this movie as it will keep them entertained for hours :).


I enjoyed it. In general, I'm not a fan of comedies and comedians, but I do like Whoopi. I'm also partial to Sci/Fi Fantasy. And the dinosaur craze. I read for pleasure, but when I'm feeling over-stressed or really mind-dead, I watch TV & movies to escape. Theodore Rex enabled me to do so. That makes it a success in my eyes! I didn't even walk away to do something else while it was running. Whether or not it was rated as "good" or not doesn't really matter to me. And no, I'm not a juvenile. Nor am I a moron.


This is the best piece of film ever created Its a master piece that brought a tear to my eye. Ill never forget my experience watching it. I don't understand why people don't think as I do The dinosaur turns in a performance reminiscent of De Niro in Raging Bull, Pacino in Scarface, and Crowe in Gladiator combined. This should be released on DVD in Superbit format so I can fully enjoy it like it was meant to be enjoyed when they produced and filmed it. Whoppi Goldberg truly turns in the performance of a lifetime as a tough, gritty cop who is against her will teamed with a hot shot dinosaur as her partner then the hi-jinx ensues to say the least. By the way I'm saying the complete opposite of what is true this movie is utter garbage.


Oh, boy, God bless the 1970's, we got some of the most horrific movies that came out of that decade: The Exorcist, Jaws, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween and now, Raggedy Ann & Andy: A Musical Adventure. This movie must be used to torture captured terrorists into telling us about their evil plans to destroy the world, I mean seriously, this movie scared the heck out of me. My sister had this movie in her VHS collection and I was kind of curious what kind of movie they would make out of a doll that came out of the great depression for kids with very little pocket money. What the heck? It's kinda funny how this movie is the 1970's version of Toy Story, pretty much down to a key, only this was a thousand times scarier, Disney had Alice in Wonderland to get into the drug trips for the children.

Whenever Marcella leaves the room, Raggedy Ann, along with her brother Raggedy Andy and a whole nursery full of colorful toys come to life. On Marcella's birthday, a new doll, Babette, arrives from Paris, France to the United States of America. Babette is a spoiled creature who is unaware she is a doll, but the friendly Raggedy Ann does everything she can to make Babette feel at home. However, the pirate Captain Contagious kidnaps her. Raggedy Ann and Andy set off to try to rescue her before Marcella discovers Babette is gone. Out in the world outside the nursery, the two meet the Camel with the Wrinkled Knees, a blue toy camel who has been cast off by past owners and is now heartbroken and lonely. After Raggedy Ann and Andy hitch a ride on the Camel, he begins to follow his hallucinations and without looking, runs over the edge of a cliff, into a deep pit. In this pit they encounter the Greedy, who is a giant gluttonous blob of taffy who eats constantly and is never full. The Raggedys and the Camel narrowly escape being consumed by the Greedy and continue their journey to find Babette and believe me, it just gets weirder from this point on.

While this movie was certainly disturbing and I just wanted to cry and cover my eyes during a lot of the movie, this was actually pretty creative. Back in the day when we had hand drawn animation that made films more personal and that the writers and animators put their heart into it, you can tell that they did that with Raggedy Ann & Andy: A Musical Adventure. This certainly wasn't the worst movie I have ever seen, I just don't know who to recommend it too. As scared as I was, I have to admit I'm glad I watched it, sometimes you need a "WTF?!" movie to spice up your selection, believe me when I say that Raggedy Ann had no problem in doing just that with me. It's official, that doll is just plain creepy, let's just put it this way, there's a giant caramel river that is eating everything, a king who's head keeps getting bigger as he laughs, a bizarre thing that humiliates Raggedy Ann and her brother, a strange almost incest between Ann and Andy and a couple of naked dolls that will forever haunt my dreams with their songs. Yikes.

7/10


Raggedy Ann and Raggedy Andy THE MOVIE is about dolls that come to life when the humans aren't around. In this adventure they must rescue a kidnapped french doll named Babette from the captain of pirates. On their way they journey though Deep Dark Woods, Taffy Pit, and even Looney Land. Will the aide of their new friend The Camel With Wrinkled Knees help them or just slow them down with his hallucinations of his friends leaving him? How will they escape the Kookoo king and his henchmen!? What will their owner Marcella say when she sees her 7th birthday present doll gone along with her other toys? Delightful surprises await the two adventurers.

All scores are out of a possible 10: Story: 8 - Very cute. Dolls that come to life when the master isn't around. Not just that because they go out into many many different places, but they are in an imaginary world so anything can happen. Meeting new characters, going to different places finding new friends, its great. The characters all work so well in this too and who doesn't love pirates?! Acting: 8 - Every character suits their voice so well. Specifically the Marlon Brando taffy pit enemy, The Greed. The french doll has a very uptight french accent, the evil Hitler-esquire king Kookoo (whos got hair that resembles Simpson's Sideshow Bob) plays his role very well, and the sorrow old black man voice for Camel works perfectly. Why is it that old dubbed animation was soo much better than new ones? Music: 10 - Nothing short of perfection here. The songs have been in my head for years, and re-watching it nearly 20 years later, i can still remember each and every one of them and will now be able to know exactly where these tunes come from. Joe Raposo of "Sesame Street" fame did an excellent job with the songs for this and everyone sings real well.

Editing: 6 - Heh, this is where it'll get confusing. I mean how far did the Raggedy's walk anyway? A lot of events just seem to occur one after another and there's no telling WHO the other dolls and toys were as you never see them in the real world of the movie, but it does follow some sort of path and you know they'll eventually get to where they need to go, its just pretty hard to follow at times.

Uniqueness: 8 - Between this and Unico i'd have to say there's parts in both movies i will never forget no matter how hard i try to. Mainly the scary parts. I've probably mentioned already how older movies were Much creepier than animation of today but this takes the cake in the scary factor. Outside of the South Park movie and some Disney films there's almost no animated musicals, or good ones of that coming out so its very unique.

Worth: 8- Its classic. Worth the hunt to get a good copy thats for sure, but the VHS copies are probably all stretched out by now. The DVD version is sold on Ebay all the time and it'll definitely be something you'll watch more than once. If anything get it for the nostalgia purposes.

Overall Score (Not an average): 8 - Its a wonderful timeless musical made in the late 70s and can still be enjoyed today. Its characters are all unique and the songs are great. So great you might find yourself humming them time and time again. Give your favorite stuffed animal a hug today! Reviewer's Insight (Including bias): This isn't like the Raggedy Ann TV series made a decade later. This was way more darker and real world. The effects in this seem like a lot of other acid-trip cartoons from the 70's, in particular, Yellow Submarine. Still, its given me memories I'll never forget, and might still influence things today. It wasn't easy to find but it'll remain a treasure to keep in my collection of DVDs and videos forever.


I saw this jolly little film at age 10/11 in 1979 when it was broadcast on CBS. I didn't know it had been in a theater at all. To rate it from a kids point of view I'd give it 4 out of 5 stars,because being a young boy at the time,it seemed a little "girlish".

The climactic scene where Gazooks tickles the daylights out of everyone was a bit disturbing at the time but you outgrow that sort of thing.

When I re-discovered it a Blockbuster Video in 1995,I had to revisit it! I still liked it despite the fact that it looked a bit "old". I don't know where the other reviewer on here got the idea that it wasn't on VHS.

It's out there. Might even be on DVD by now,at least I hope it is. I want to share it with my kids someday! 10 stars on here,it's still a great kids film. (end)

09/08/2009 : Finally found a VHS copy!! Woo-hoo!


I saw this movie at the theaters when I was about 6 or 7 years old. I loved it then, and have recently come to own a VHS version.

My 4 and 6 year old children love this movie and have been asking again and again to watch it.

I have enjoyed watching it again too. Though I have to admit it is not as good on a little TV.

I do not have older children so I do not know what they would think of it.

The songs are very cute. My daughter keeps singing them over and over.

Hope this helps.


Raggedy Ann & Andy is the first movie I ever saw in the theaters. My dad took my sister and I, and the funny thing is - when we got home, dad asked us "what do you want to do now?" and we said we want to watch Raggedy Ann & Andy again! lol, and my dad actually took us back to the theatre to watch it again -- at least that's how I remember it. I was five years old at the time.

This movie was pretty scary for a five year old. The scene with the giant ocean of sweets, and the hypnotic camel scene.. i don't remember a lot from this film, naturally, the beginning was magical, and a few scenes -- I wish I could find it again, and will likely seek it out now.

I remember I loved Raggedy Ann & Andy.


This is a very strange film by director/animator Richard Williams. All who know of William's work know it's a bit off-kilter (if not ingenious) but this one takes the cake.

It features two hapless ragdolls who have to save their owner's new French doll from a lustful pirate toy and find themselves at the mercy of several bizarre characters along the way. The strength in this movie lies primarily in its aesthetic quality; its strange character designs, its powerful animation, and its stark contrast of the sweet and scary. Williams' brilliant animation portrayed Raggedy Ann and Andy as real rag dolls, floppy and darned, rather than simple cartoon versions of the dolls, which made it more believable (at least in a visual sense). The animation shines on the bring us the Camel-with-the-Wrinkled-Knees, whose body walks with two different personalities controlling each end, the silent-movie chase with Sir Leonard Looney and, of course, the Greedy.

The Greedy animation, on its own, is possibly the most exquisite psychedelic animation I've ever seen. There's something about this animation that just makes your jaw drop--and every second it's something new. Living in what was deemed "the Taffy Pit," the Greedy is a massive blob man that lives in and mercilessly eats sweets. He sings a song that I can't help but feel hold some sexual undertones, then tries to kill Raggedy Ann for her candy heart.

The only complaint I have about this film is that there are too many songs. It continuously bogs down the movie's pace because there are SIXTEEN of them. There are about six good songs (which should have been the only ones) including "I Look, And What Do I See?", "No Girl's Toy", "Blue" (though they didn't need to make him sing it twice), "I Never Get Enough", "Because I Love You" and maybe "I'm Home." The others just seem unnecessary and frankly aren't too amazing to listen to.

This is a weird film with strange undertones, but if that's what you're looking for, you won't find better.


Now here's a film straight out of my childhood, my family used to taped; but it kind of got tapped over and losted over the years. Now I was fortunate to watch the whole film on youtube.com; I had love this wonderful film when I watched it as kid, and after watching again (online), I still do today. My favorite song from the movie is "Candy Hearts and Paper Flowers" (I will always remember that sweet song forever).

I was surprised when I looked at the opening credits (on who animated who),that some of the animators date back to 1930s (WOW! that's like 47 years).


I have very fond memories of this film, as I saw it with my two younger sisters when it first shown theatrically in 1977 and I was eight years old. Apparently it was deemed a failure - and is now practically forgotten (the pan-and scan videocassette - which never did justice to the picture or it's ambitious Panavision compositions is now out-of -print.) The film is very stylized (shades of YELLOW SUBMARINE) and admittedly uneven. Some of the characters and sequences are exquisite while others are somewhat juvenile and undistinguished. The sad discarded blue camel (shades of Eeyore) and his blue song are truly heartwarming. Joe Raposo's songs are for the most part simply beautiful. Definitely a worthwhile curiousity that will probably (sadly) fall into total obscurity.


I believe I received this film when I was a young buck. I remembered watching it as a child, but i could never find the film. I remembered good ol Rageddy Ann, Andy, Babette, the Greedy, King Koo Koo. I searched high and low for this movie and still no luck. But one day when I was moving out of my childhood home I had found it. We were reunited. I am 17 years old now. I still watch it. All the time actually. It's one of the funniest and touching movies I have ever seen and enjoyed at the same time. And personally I think they should make a sequel. Mmm, yes a sequel indeed. Now i am even considering getting the captains bird tattooed somewhere on my body!


Personally, this is one of my favorites of all time! no, i'm not 10.. i'm 30! i own an old, original VHS of this that i bought from a rental store. i've watched it countless times..

while it's an amusing movie for kids, it's an intriguing movie for adults. i once saw this movie whiile i was.. not sober. my eyes were opened to things i had never noticed before. i saw morals being strongly encouraged, both overtly and somewhat subliminally.. i wish i could remember all the things i noticed in particular, but it's been a very long time since then. rest assured, there are TONS of things that are alluded to throughout the movie. if you get the chance to view it.. not sober.. do so, you won't be disappointed.. as a matter of fact, you will probably feel rather happy and warm.

unique and wonderful!


Richard Willaims is an animation god. He was hampered in directing this film by the producer. The final product is a very uneven film with a very convoluted story, but some amazing moments of animation (like Emery Hawkins' "Greedy"). Joe Raposo's repetitive music doesn't help either. It was made in wide screen so the VHS doesn't show it in all it's glory, let's hope for a letterboxed DVD someday. Still it's worth watching for some eye popping animation.


Never when I was a child did I love any movie more then this one. I would love to own it. I watched it every Sunday they played it on the Family Film Festival. It is an enjoyable film suitable for the whole family and the songs are wonderful.


The last time I saw the movie I was around seven years, so my opinions might be jaded over time. At the time I enjoyed the filming that switched between cartoon and live action. At the time I felt sad for the blue camel and his sad life. Also I felt glee when after Captain Contagious kidnapped the heroine (a princess or toy shepherdess) the tables the were turned on him. Unfortunately the producers never decided to transfer this movie to VHS, so all I have are twenty year old memories. I am sure that if I saw the movie again I would consider it corny and sappy, but I really enjoyed it the movie at the time.


This Raggedy Ann and Andy Movie is so adorable. We love watching Ann and Andy sing and dance, along with the camel with the wrinkled knees. This movie is what made the Camel with the Wrinkled Knees so popular, singing his song, "I'm nobodies I Love You". If you love Raggedy Ann and Andy Watch the movie and you will see why it's a movie the kids love, and adults!


...in our household. Like everyone else who has commented on this movie, my brothers (7 & 4 years old at the time) and I (10) would watch this movie over and over again. We all loved Star Wars, but we always went back to this one because of the great songs and the adventure. We all loved the Camel and would sing at the top of our lungs with him during his song. There are some slow moments (the time spent with King Koo-Koo in his court) and we generally got bored after The Knight's song ("The reason that I {sound effect} is because I loooooove you"), but we loved the journey to rescue Babbette and the ending and were all a little freaked out by the picture of King Koo-Koo floating there dominating the entire horizon, laughing maniacally at the end. I still to this day sing "Hooray for me! Babbette of gay Paris!" around my friends (I'm 33 now) who just look at me as if I've lost my mind; however, when I'm singing it I'm 10 years old again remembering the wonderful year of Star Wars.


I vaugely recall seeing this when I was 3 years old, then my parents accidentally taped over all but a few seconds of it with some other cartoon. Then I was about 8 or 9 years old when I rediscovered it and since I was then able to comprehend things better, I thought it was a good movie then. Fast forward to Just a few weeks ago (June 2006) when I re-re discovered it thanks to some internet articles/video clips and it's just not the same movie. I'm sure it's still good with the kids, but to us 20-30 somethings it's definitely got "Cult Status" written all over it. It's a shame that the original production went through a painful process; if Fox gave it enough time it would probably be more recognized in the public eye today. Maybe if they were to remake it with a totally different story and an all star voice cast it could be, but that's for Fox to decide. I'm rambling here, I know. I Still think it's a great film, but it could be better than great.


ONCE UPON A TIME, there were different types of movies. These different movies coexisted even though each one had something different to offer....

This seems obvious at first, but I thought I'd point it out during this review because it seems a few people may have forgotten. This is just a fun movie for Pavarotti fans. That's all it is. It doesn't claim to be anything else or anything grander. People who deride it as something that fell short of a promise aren't seeing the whole picture- literally. After all, Hollywood makes movies all the time that are shameless vehicles for people (Bodyguard or The Preacher's Wife w/Whitney Houston are 2 examples that spring to mind.)

First I'd like to address the movie as a vehicle for Pavarotti. There are worse things in this world-- and worse movies. The singing is fabulous and the selection of arias is fun. The movie starts with Schubert's Ave Maria and then Leoncavallo's Matinatta. Pav sings arias from La Gioconda, Manon Lescaut, and Turandot but also sings popular music such as "I left my heart in San Francisco" and the song that was nominated for an Oscar & Golden Globe, "If we were in Love" w/music by John Williams & lyrics by Alan & Marilyn Bergman- all 3 previous Oscar winners.

The story isn't that bad. It was built for Pavarotti so of course it's not going to be something that's profound or universally applicable to the average movie viewer. It's a story of a famous opera singer who was traumatized by a bad night at the opera years ago. When asked to sing again at the same place, the "MET" in NYC, he loses his voice from fear. Doctor Pamela (or Pah-MAY-lah in Italian:)) played by Kathryn Harrold- gives him a shot to cure his psychosomatic reaction. He offers her the chance to have a fling with him and she reluctantly accepts.

They embark on an affair, she knowing he's married & promising not to fall in love with him and him thinking she will be just another woman. Despite all that, they fall in love (thus the song, "IF we were in love") and with her help, he overcomes his fear & goes back to the MET where he triumphs. I won't tell how it ends, but it's fairly predictable. Which isn't always a bad thing.

The performances in this aren't that bad. Pavarotti (who plays Giorgio Fini) isn't an actor, so if you're expecting a Spencer Tracy or Tom Hanks performance, YOU are deluded, not Pavarotti. He knows he's not a thespian. What he is is cute, charming & charismatic. He is having fun himself, and if you can just let yourself have fun too, it's not so bad. One funny line is when he tells Pamela (Harrold) that she's a "thirsty plant, Fini can water you!" and of course, she says, "I don't want to be watered on by Fini!" Kathryn Harrold is very sweet and does a nice job as a semi-uptight woman who learns from this extravagant man to live a little. One of my favorite lines in the movie is: "Life never has to be life size." And there's Eddie Albert who does his usual good job as Fini's manager. There are several "themselves" cameos by real conductors, singers, etc. and it is filmed on location at the Metropolitan Opera at Lincoln Center.

If you like opera, if you like Pavarotti, or if you can just let yourself go & enjoy a "little fling" just like he proposes in the movie- then you can enjoy this movie for what it is. I know I do- EVERY time. :)


Yes, Giorgio, is a feel good movie. A little romance, great music, beautiful scenery, comedy, (a great food fight), and a little taste of bittersweet are the ingredients of Yes, Giorgio. Any movie buff would enjoy this film. Those who require massive special effects, should look elsewhere. Most of us need a little escape now and then, and how better to do this, than with a feast for the eyes, ears, and heart? A must see!


I watched this movie with my mother when I was in high school many years ago. I definitely was not the least bit interested in opera at the time, but he changed my views. I enjoyed this movie very much and have truly enjoyed opera ever since. I even bought several of his CD's. Who cares what his acting abilities were, he basically just played himself, which was adorable. He was so charming, so charismatic; I honestly just wanted to hug him. I feel very sad that so many are criticizing him so harshly. It was so straight, did not accept people pushing him around or judging him for his actions. He deserves to be respected and admired for his talent. He will definitely be missed!!!


I saw this movie when it came out when I was 17 years old and into classic rock (still am)...

I never liked opera before because I hate soprano voices, but he changed all that. He was adorable in the movie and had such an amazing voice.

I heard on CNN that he died tonight at home of pancreatic cancer, he will be missed, and he definitely left his mark on this world.

I hope to buy this movie if I can find it, watch and enjoy. *smile* Maybe I should head over to Amazon.com and have a look before it's sold out.


I remember seeing this film when it first came out in 1982 & loved it then. About 4 years later I had the privilege of seeing Luciano Pavarotti sing at the Metropolitan Opera house in New York (in Tosca) so seeing the ending of this film reminds me very much of that great night. What's not to like about this film? The music is brilliant and Pavarotti (Fini) was at his best and still looked great. The story is actually very funny in parts & the 'food fight' scene is still one of the funniest I have ever seen. The hot air balloon flight over the Napa valley was beautiful & so was the song he sang "If we were in love" (one of the few times Pavarotti sang in English). And hearing the duet of Santa Lucia gorgeous. Get real folks, this was a film about an opera singer called Georgio Fini who just happened to be played by Pavarotti. Kathryn Harrold & Eddie Albert were excellent in their supporting roles.

I am VERY glad that I still have this almost worn out VHS tape of this movie but I would love this to be released on DVD especially now that Pavarotti is no longer with us because I think this includes the best performance of Nessun Dorma sung by him still on film today!


Okay, let's face it. this is a god-awful movie. The plot (such as it is) is horrible, the acting worse. But the movie was made for one reason and one reason only, like all of those awful Mario Lanza movies...just to hear the voice of the star, in this case Pavarotti in his prime. Okay, so maybe the Lanza movies were also an excuse for him to hit on women, but this movie is about hearing Luciano. That alone is worth watching the movie. A big opera star stuck on himself faces his fears, finds humility and love along the way, and belts out a lot of hit numbers, too.

I must admit I'm prejudiced on a number of levels. I'm Italian. I'm a big Pavarotti fan (is there anything about Pavarotti that isn't big, including his fan base?). And when I first saw this movie I was going out on my own, seeing the height and depth of Life's possibilities and in love for the first time. So as awful as this movie is, the beautiful voice and memories are enough to make me breathe deep of life and love again.

Yes, it's corny and awful. But the voice is immortal and timeless, and the voice is what it's all about. So I give this movie a high rating in hopes that someone who has never heard Pavarotti before will listen and watch and enjoy a new level of music and love, especially since he is now gone. Like Italian food that you've never tried before, try it! You may be pleasantly surprised, as a Luciano lover or prospective Pavarotti peep.


As someone else commented, this is a feel-good movie. It's got glorious scenery and the wonder-filled voice of Luciano! I've seen this movie many times and just saw it again this afternoon. I'd forgotten how much I miss Pavarotti's singing of Nessun Dorma and I need to get out the CD! It's a great movie to just while away the afternoon engrossed in fun and reverie. Eddie Albert is grand as the agent and a bit over the top, but all agents are just that anyway. The Italian countryside is gorgeous but nothing tops the balloon ride for the perfect view. If you need acting of Olivier proportion, this movie isn't for you. If you just want a flight of fancy and some wonderful music, watch this film. Just enjoy!


"Yes, Georgio" is a light-hearted and enjoyable movie/comedy that contains beautiful settings and beautiful music. It's not my favorite movie but it is a movie I have enjoyed seeing more than once. Some reviewers suggested if one wished to enjoy Pavarotti, they would likely be better served by picking up an opera DVD. Although, a full opera might be a better representation of Pavarotti's operatic talents, oftentimes, an opera requires costumes and has story lines that completely hide the appearance and nature of the person. "Yes, Georgio" permits Pavarotti to use his speaking voice and to exhibit a personality and character in ways an opera would not.

Many reviewers seemed to find the story unbelievable; I don't agree. Enormously talented people can be both self-centered and charming - charming enough to captivate intelligent and beautiful people. Additionally, people who are very different from one other often gain insights about themselves and grow in positive ways from interacting with people who stretch them or take them in directions they might not have chosen on their own. Both Georgio and Pamela become more open to unexplored parts of themselves in relationship with the other.

Relax and let yourself go into a visually and aurally rewarding film with Pavarotti at the peak of his vocal abilities. The ending scenes from Puccini's Turandot alone are worth the time to get there.


We first watched this film as part of a festival of new Argentine films in 2000 at the Walter Reade. Although we liked it, we didn't think it was extraordinary. Watching it for a second time, we found a different meaning in this look at life in Buenos Aires.

The film takes place in one of the darkest days of Argentina, as the DeLaRua administration was ending. The country was in turmoil after the economy, which had flourished earlier in the 1990s, under the artificially climate President Menen created. It was a time when bank accounts in dollars were frozen and people got themselves living a nightmare.

The story begins just as Santamarina, a bank employee, is fired because the collapse of the economy. Instead of receiving sympathy from his wife, she locks him out of the apartment and he, for all practical purposes, becomes a homeless man. He takes to the streets trying to make ends meet.

The other story introduces us to Ariel, a young Jew, interviewing for a job in a Spanish company. It's almost a miracle he gets the job. His father, Simon, owns a small restaurant in the Jewish quarter of "El Once" in the center of the city. Things go from bad to worse, when Ariel's mother dies suddenly. Only Estela, the young woman who is in love with Ariel, comes to help father and son.

Santamarina, who is a clean man, has to resort to take showers wherever he can. He chooses a ladies' room in one of the subway stations. When the attendant, Elsa, finds him naked, she becomes furious, but she comes to her senses when she realizes the unhappy circumstances of this man who has seen better times. They become romantically involved, and Santamarina in one of his trips through the street garbage, finds an infant. Elsa, while surprised, wants to do the right thing. But Santamarina convinces her of the meaning of an innocent life in their lives will cement their love.

Ariel, who has met the gorgeous Laura at work, begins a turbulent and heavy sexual affair with his beautiful co-worker, who unknown to him, is involved in a lesbian affair. Ariel who free lances by photographing weddings and other occasions, feels a passion for Laura, but he realizes what Estela has sacrificed in order to help his father and still loves him.

Daniel Burman, whose "El Abrazo Partido" we thought was excellent, did wonders with this film. Things are put in its proper perspective after a second viewing recently and we must apologize for not having perceived it the first time around. If anything, this second time, the nuances of the screen play Mr. Burman and Emiliano Torres wrote, make more sense because they reflect the turmoil of what the country was living during those dark days.

Daniel Hendler, who plays Ariel, has collaborated with Mr. Burman before to surprising results. He is not 'movie star pretty', yet, he is handsome. This actor projects a tremendous sincerity in his work. Enrique Pineyro is another magnificent surprise. His Santamarina is disarming. In spite of all the bad things that have fallen on him, he keeps a rosy attitude toward everyone he meets. Stefania Sandrelli, the interesting Italian actress, makes a great contribution to the film with her Elsa. Hector Alterio, one of the best Argentine actors plays the small part of Simon. The gorgeous Chiara Coselli is seen as Laura and Melina Petrielli appears as the noble Estela.

"Esperando al mesias" proves Daniel Burman is a voice to be reckoned with in the Argentine cinema.


This outstanding Argentine independent film is one of the very best of the year 2000 from all South America, including Argentina, which is producing an astonishing number of quality films since 1999. In 2000 alone, Argentina released many quality films, which broke Argentine B.O. records. A half dozen were internationally acclaimed, like this one, at important world film festivals. After viewing this film, one can see how home grown Argentinian films were able last year to recapture 20% of its national movie market.

Directed by one of Argentina's best directors, Daniel Burman, this film examines effects of globalisation worldwide, but emphasizes its impact on Argentina, and particularly the Jewish community of Buenos Aires. Daniel Hendler is wonderful as the nice Jewish boy, trying to survive and even succeed in today's business climate. Hector Alterio, one of the great actors of Hispanic Cinema worldwide, is perfect as Simon, the Jewish father, as is the rest of the cast, which includes Spanish and Italian stars.

So many current themes in urban Western societies are explored, I don't have enough space to go into detail. Daniel Burman cleverly weaves them into the plot with different characters personifying diverse dilemmas. If this film plays at a festival near you, or on video, don't miss it!


I was pleasantly surprised to find that How to Lose Friends and Alienate People was nowhere near as 'gross-out' a comedy as the trailer had led me to expect. I rapidly became absorbed in the unfolding of the narrative and remained engrossed throughout. Pacing of the more visual humorous content was, I thought, spot on. (I mean I got the impression I was witnessing Pegg's attempts at restoring lost control very much 'in real time', so to speak.) At other moments there was time allowed to share the main protagonists' (i.e. Pegg's and Dunst's) reflection on how events were affecting them and what had led them to where they now found themselves. All the characters were well cast, to some extent interesting in and of themselves, and generally quite likable. (Any apparent ruthless ambition displayed tended to be tempered by a corresponding good natured resilience.) An entertaining, intelligently scripted, brilliantly directed and superbly acted film that I would thoroughly recommend.


I had been looking forward to How to Lose Friends & Alienate People for months, particularly due to the fact that Kirsten Dunst and Simon Pegg were starring. Simon Pegg is a comedic genius and Kirsten Dunst has always been a favorite actress of mine. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People hit the spot! Of course not perfect, but very enjoyable and funny. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People follows the life of Sidney Young, a smalltime, bumbling, British celebrity journalist, who is hired by an upscale magazine in New York City. In spectacular fashion Sidney enters high society and burns bridges with bosses, peers and superstars. After disrupting one black-tie event by allowing a wild pig to run rampant, Sidney catches the attention of Clayton Harding, editor of Sharp, and accepts a job with the magazine in New York City. Clayton warns Sidney that he'd better impress and charm everyone he can, if he wants to succeed. Instead, Sidney instantly insults and annoys fellow writer Alison Olsen (Kirsten Dunst). He dares to target the star clients of power publicist Eleanor Johnson (Gillian Anderson). He also upsets his direct boss Lawrence Maddox (Danny Huston). Sidney finds creative ways to annoy nearly everyone. His saving grace, a rising starlet Sophie Maes (Megan Fox) who develops an odd affection for him. In time, Allison's friendship might be the only thing saving Sydney from his downward spiraling career. The storyline is very interesting and the acting was top notch with what the actors were given. Simon Pegg is still hilarious as ever! He makes Sydney bumbling, obnoxious, and annoying as real as it gets, but later in time making Sydney not just likable, but also a real character who you root for in the end. Kirsten Dunst and Jeff Bridges were brilliant! Kirsten had some very wonderful acting and hilarious scenes, and Jeff Bridges is just Jeff f*cking Bridges! How can you not like him?! He makes Clayton a very humorous character with some wit and overall you just love the guy. Gillian Anderson, Megan Fox, and Danny Huston were great as the supporting cast. Each had their own personality that were overall pretty unlikable, but that's what just made the film work. One thing I didn't enjoy was how one dimensional some of the characters were. I understand that most were the supporting cast, but some of the cast was underused and could've given the film some more spice to it. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People will never be on anyone's top 10 films ever, or even top 10 comedies ever, but it has a very high entertainment level and some scenes may even charm you as well. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People is definitely one of the better romantic comedies of the year! 8/10


I had fun watching this movie, mainly due to Simon Pegg, who has quickly become a solid box office draw for comedy films.

He is hired from his dead end London publishing job by big shot NYC media mogul Jeff Bridges, as a writer, for one of his celebrity rags.

After paying his dues, he makes it into the higher echelons of celebrity writing hackdom (the "seventh room"), where he gets to be a minor celebrity himself. The storyline is very funny, and Gillian Anderson puts in an impressive supporting role as a cutthroat publicity agent.

Along the way to success, he finds the true meaning of love, etc.

The formulaic plot aside, the movie was very funny, mainly due to Simon Pegg, Jeff Bridges, and Gillian Anderson. Kirsten Dunst was good as the love interest. The rest of the supporting cast did its job well.

This was a good comedy & well worth checking out at the theaters.


Oh dear we don't like it when our super-hero love interest develops a brain do we?

Something has happened to people, they have lost the ability to enjoy, a simple feel-good, love story/comedy? Kirsten Dunst is a revelation - funny, sexy and real. I laughed out loud ooh at least five times and I'm not ashamed to say had a tear in my eye a couple of times too. The cast, acting and script is great, I watch a lot of films right across the board and I haven't seen one in this genre that has been as successful. Those who disagree please tell me where I can find some! I'm sure the book is good too but I think you have to judge it on its own merits.


Amazing performance from Simon Pegg who just gets better and better with every role. As usual he plays the part of a very cringy character who makes you want to hide behind your cushion in embarrassment for him sometimes, but thats what Pegg is all about.

The laughs were regular and eye watering and everyone of them aimed at Penn. The movie was very cleverly put together where every character plays a very sophisticated and serious part with Penn being the only humour involved which is a huge credit to the Director Robert Weide.

And I cant let this one go without a quick round of applause to Gilliam Anderson who shone throughout. Highly recommended to all.


Pegg has had a few hits in the past few years, starting with "Shaun Of The Dead" in 2004, movie on to "Hot Fuzz 2007", early 2008 he came out with "Run Fat Boy Run" and now comes this, "How To Lose Friends And Alienate People" which is in many ways one of my favourite comedy's of the year.

The film is about Sidney Yound, a man who writes a failing magazine who makes fun of celebrity's mostly because he is not one of them. Anyway, one of the most successful magazine owners (Played By Jeff Bridges) invites him (Out of nostalgia) to work at his magazine. Sidney is of course excited and moves to America, there he meets a girl currently writing a book, and hilarity ensues.

This film is great and I hope more come out like it in the near future. Pegg has once again given people everywhere another good film and I cant wait to the see the third part of the blood and ice cream trilogy "Paul". I Rate this film 81%.


Romantic comedy is not the correct way to describe "How to lose friends & alienate people". The underlying romance in the plot is, for the most part, displaced by a far more interesting "rags to riches" tale. Although the central line of the story is somewhat rushed passed, in several screen shots, it does have a sense of; getting the "nitty gritty" out of the way, focusing on those key relationships which make "office politics" and using those almost irrelevant scenes, used purely for comic effect. Yet it works so well, especially with Pegg in the front seat. The film is ultimately very clever, playing well on the trans-Atlantic relationship Pegg shares with his co-stars and merging the cross between the high and low -life society quite well and quite refreshingly in a storyline that despite predictability is somewhat of a unique journey. The different characters in the film are presented well and casting is definitely a plus point on the film. Both the "trading places" relationship between Pegg and Huston and the "love, hate" relationship between Pegg and Dunst do work so well in a story that is, for want of a better word, charming. Even Fox, whose main asset is of course sex appeal, shocks with what turns out to be quite a dark character and acts that "bimbo" role all to well. Its one of these films where every little detail does pay tribute to a great piece of work. From transsexual strippers to an amazing soundtrack it all meshes nicely into what can only be described as clever comedy.


Well here comes another,well,romantic comedy...but unlike all others movies of this genre,this is by far the best I have seen in a long while..

I'll admit,at first I wanted to watch this movie because of Megan Fox,and a little because of Simon Pegg...

First of all,if you have watched a decent amount of movies,you will know that Sidney and Alison would be together at the and of the movie,one way or another...but from the beginning to the end of the movie you won't know how...

Okay,now this movie is just made for Simon Pegg.I can't see any other actor in the role of Sidney,and I'm sure this would be a very weaker movie if not for Pegg's great performance.

There is a number of great gags and jokes in this movie that kept me laughing really hard,courtesy of Simon Pegg's character Sidney...but I think everyone in this movie is good.For example,Kirsten Dunst is really solid in this movie( I usually don't think of her as any more than an average actress,but she was really good in this one ),then there's Jeff Bridges,there's Gillian Anderson,and of course Megan Fox who plays spoiled bitchy star Sophie Maes...great role for her...

All in all,while I usually don't agree with ratings her on IMDb,this time I would completely agree with them...

Go and see this movie,it is really light-hearted and positive,and I recommend it deeply... My rating 7 out of 10...well 7.5 actually...


'How to Lose Friends and Alienate People' is an entertaining, if loose, adaptation of Toby Young's memoir of the same name. It's also a great title for helping to fill up the line requirement in IMDb reviews! The basic gist is the same as the book with certain incidents dramatised, but a romantic plot is added and the ending is certainly Hollywoodised. Simon Pegg, despite playing an essentially irritating person, is his usual likable and funny self and pretty much carries the film. Strange to think only a few years ago he was just a TV sitcom guy and now he's rubbing shoulders with Hollywood names. There's a good supporting cast and it's an amusing, easy watch - kind of a male 'Ugly Betty', but funnier.


How to lose friends and Alienate people came out in 2008. It bombed at U.S. Box offices. It's an absolutely hilarious film with a great cast. Simon Pegg is great playing Sidney Young, who wrote the book "How to lose friends and Alienate people. I know it's not a true story. The only way I know that is because Sidney wants to go out with an actress named Sophie Maes. Sophie Maes doesn't exist, but other than that, the film could be real. How to lose friends and Alienate people is probably the funniest film of 2008, and I think you definitely should see it. As I said earlier, the film has a fantastic cast including: Kirsten Dunst(Spider-Man, The Virgin Suicides) Danny Huston(The Number 23, 30 days of night) Gillian Anderson(The X-Files) Megan Fox(Transformers, Confessions of a teenage drama Queen) Jeff Bridges(The Big Lebowski, The Vanishing) Overall, How to lose friends and Alienate people is hilarious. I think Simon Pegg and Kirsten Dunst do work well together, and I think you should see it. Though there is some odd nudity including Trans-sexuals, it's a hilarious and awesome comedy. One of Simon Pegg's best.

The Plot:Sidney Young, a journalist from England, travels down to New York to work at Sharp magazines. While there, he meets an actress named Sophie Maes and tries to sleep with her before his boss does.


Sidney Young (Pegg) moves from England to New York to work for the popular magazine Sharpe's in a hope to live his dream lifestyle but struggles to make a lasting impression.

Based on Toby Young's book about survival in American business, this comedy drama received mixed views from critiques. Labelled as inconsistently funny but with charm by the actors, how to lose friends seemed as a run of the mill fish out of the pond make fun at another culture comedy, but it isn't.

This 2008 picture works on account of its actors and the simple yet sharp story. We start off in the past, then in the present and are working our way forwards to see how Young made his mark at one of America's top magazines.

Pegg (Hot Fuzz) is too likable for words. Whether it's hitting zombies with a cricket bat or showing his sidekick the nature of the law the English actor brings a charm and light heartedness to every scene. Here, when the scripting is good but far from his own standards, he brings a great deal of energy to the picture and he alone is worth watching for. His antics with "Babe 3" are unforgivable, simply breathtaking stuff as is his over exuberant dancing, but he pulls it off splendidly.

Bridges and Anderson do well at portraying the stereotypical magazine bosses where Dunst fits in nicely to the confused love interest. Megan Fox, who stole Transformers, reminds everyone she can act here with a funny hyperbole of a stereotype film star. The fact that her character Sophie Myles is starring in a picture about Mother Teresa is as laughable as her character's antics in the pool. To emphasize the point there is a dog, and Pegg rounds that off in true Brit style comedy, with a great little twist.

Though a British film there is an adaptation of American lifestyle for Young as he tries to fit in and we can see the different approaches to story telling. Young wants the down right dirty contrasted with the American professionalism. The inclusion of modern day tabloid stars will soon make this film dated but the concept of exploitation of film star's gives this edge.

Weide's first picture is not perfect. There are lapses in concentration as the plot becomes too soapy with an awkward obvious twist and there are too many characters to be necessary. The physical comedy can also be overdone. As a side note, the bloopers on the DVD are some of the finest you will ever see, which are almost half an hour long.

This comedy drama has Simon Pegg on shining form again and with the collective approach to story telling and sharp comedy, it is worth watching.


UK newspaper reviews seem to have concentrated on the fact that the reviewers tend to know Toby Young, the journalist on whose real-life experiences this movie is based. The key word here is "based". How To Lose Friends is a fictitious romcom.

Sidney Young joins a prestigious gossip magazine in New York, where he proceeds to make gaffe after gaffe before finally Getting It Right and Making It. This involves him selling out, and the movie has some serious points to make about journalistic integrity. However, they are not overdone: the main substance remains a comedy which centres around Sidney's misadventures. The script has its cake and eats it in that Sidney is a stupid, well-meaning buffoon at the same time as being a smart, moderately obnoxious skilled writer. This contradiction is never that much of an issue, because Simon Pegg (as Sidney) projects likability too well.

Jeff Bridges underplays Sidney's editor a little too effectively, and Kirsten Dunst is rather anonymous as the conflicted eventual object of Sidney's affections And, with regard to Megan Fox (who plays an airhead bimbo starlet), I can say only this: just say the word, Miss Fox, and I will leave my wife, sell all my belongings, and buy myself a plane ticket in order to take my place at your side as your consort. Of course, given that I'm a fat 56-year-old English accountant, you might not find my offer too enticing, but it's there on the table anyway. Given how short her career has been so far, one might think it is a little too soon for Megan Fox to take on a role which mercilessly lampoons the sort of actress she might be thought to become: however, she does it sweetly, with some skill, and extremely sexily. This girl will go far.

There is stalwart support from a variety of seasoned performers - Miriam Margolyes and Bill Paterson from the UK, Gillian Anderson and Danny Huston from the US.

There are several laugh-out-loud moments, and I smiled most of the way through. As ever, the F-word makes appearances when it really doesn't need to, although at least a couple of these are very funny.


Weak start, solid middle, fantastic finish. That's my impression of this film, anyway. I liked Simon Pegg in the two films I've seen him in--- Hot Fuzz, and Shaun of the Dead. His role here, though, took a completely different turn. Shows his range as an actor, but nonetheless I really disliked th character as he was portrayed at the beginning.

There's a kind of humour I call "frustration comedy." Its supposed "jokes" and wit are really nothing more than painful and awkward moments. Much like the Bean character Rowan Atkinmson plays. There are a number of other comedic actors who portray similar characters too. I don't mean to bash them here, so will not.

But do be warned that if you are like me, and you dislike smarmy and maddeningly bungling idiots, Pegg shows just such characteristics for the first third of this film. It DOES get better, however.

I read somewhere that this is based on a true story. Hmmm. Maybe. The film's story stopped being annoying, and became kind of a triumph of the "little guy" in the final third. I don't need all films to be sugar and light--- but coincidentally, as this film got better, it also started to be more and more of a happy ending.

It was also a pleasure to see an old favourite, Jeff Bridges, play a role so masterfully. I liked "Iron Man," but was saddened by the fact that Bridges' character was a villain. Purely personal taste, of course, as his acting in that was superb. Nonetheless, he was a marvel here as the Bigger Than Life man of vision, the publisher of Sharps. It was nice to see him in a role that I could actually enjoy.

Overall then, I liked it! I just wish I had come in 40 minutes late, and missed the beginning.


I am a huge fan of Simon Pegg and have watched plenty of his movies until now and none of them have ceased to make me laugh. Neither did How to lose friends and Alienate People.

This movie is essentially about a man good as pissing people off. However, he has an innate set of ethics that prevents him from doing things that might just make him famous. But in the end he ends up doing them, the culture of life.

The movie is well toned with humor, romance, good acting and also a bit of a lap dance. Its one of those movies where you could just be happy when it ends.


This movie is about basically human relations, and the interaction between them. The main character is an old lady who at the twilight of her life starts a journey to her past, doing an analysis of how she lived her life. This journey is precipitated because of the sons economic crisis and his intentions to put her in a nursing home. It is a very honest look to some issues that we all ask ourselves at some point in life, and there is plenty of secondary ideas to discuss in this movie such as family legacy, real love, marriage or destiny. although this type of movie melodramas are nothing new, this one can be useful to watch it with family members to discuss some ideas. There is a good performance by the actors and the characters are very believable, but because of the time some characters are maybe not fully developed. I really recommend this movie for a quiet Saturday afternoon.


I saw this movie last night after waiting ages and ages for it to be released here in Canada (still only in limited release). It was worth the wait and then some. I am a very avid reader of Margaret Laurence and was excited to see that this novel was being turned into a film. I actually ended up liking the movie better than the novel. I liked that the character of Bram Shipley was a bit less harsh, and that there seemed to be more of a love story between Hagar and Bram, which made the scenes at the end of Bram's life that much more moving. The loss seemed stronger. Hagar was not any more likable on film than in the book, but Ellen Burstyn was a genius in this role. She WAS Hagar through and through. Christine Horne was brilliant and has many more great things ahead I am sure. Her scenes with Cole Hauser were electrifying. I could go on and on, overall a 9 * out of 10. Fantastic and can't wait for it to come out on DVD, a must own for my collection!


In Canadian director Kari Skogland's film adaptation of the Margaret Laurence novel The Stone Angel Ellen Burstyn is Hagar Shipley, a proud and cantankerous woman approaching her nineties who wishes to remain independent until the very end, stubbornly refusing to be placed in a nursing home by her well-meaning son Marvin. Filmed in Manitoba, Canada and set in the fictional town of Manawaka, The Stone Angel is a straightforward and conventional interpretation of the book that has been required reading in Canadian high school English classes for almost half a century.

The title of the film comes from the stone statue erected on Hagar's mother's grave which serves as a metaphor for Hagar's inability to express emotion during her tumultuous lifetime. Burstyn brings vulnerability and humor to the role but is a bit too likable to fully realize the ego-driven, self-defeating character who managed to alienate her wealthy father, her well-meaning but alcoholic husband, and both of her sons. As she nears the end of her days, she reflects that "pride was my wilderness and the demon that led me there was fear. I was alone, never anything else, and never free, for I carried my chains within me, and they spread out from me and shackled all I touched".

Confronting having to spend her last days in a nursing home, Hagar looks back at her life and looks at her failed relationships, her recollections shown in flashbacks without voice-over narration. The story begins with a dance that she attended as a young girl. Chaperoned by her Aunt Dolly, she meets her future husband, the previously married Bram Shipley (Cole/Wings Hauser), a poor farmer whose reputation in the town is sullied because of his association with the Native American population. The young Hagar is played by Christine Horne who is exceptional in her first feature role. Despite Hagar's pleading, her relationship with Bram is rejected by her cold and rigid father whose refusal to attend the wedding starts the marriage off on the wrong foot. This is exacerbated by his leaving all of his money to the town of Manawaka, condemning the young couple to a life of poverty.

Going through the motions of her marriage to Bram, Hagar withdraws from social activities to prevent being rejected by the town's upper classes. When she produces two sons, Marvin (Dylan Baker) and John (Kevin Zegers), she is unable to give them the love that they need. "Every joy I might have held in my man or any child of mine or even the plain light of morning", she reflects, "all were forced to a standstill by some break of proper appearancesWhen did I ever speak the heart's truth?" Like the biblical Hagar who fled to the desert because she could not tolerate further affronts to her pride, Hagar leaves Manawaka to live in Ontario but eventually returns to the Shipley farm.

As the scene shifts back to the present, Hagar runs away to an abandoned house near the ocean that she remembers from her childhood to escape from being placed in a nursing home by Marvin and his wife Doris (Sheila McCarthy), Here she meets a young man named Leo (Luke Kirby) who takes an interest in her and compels her to look at and take responsibility for the mistakes she made in her life. The Stone Angel pulls out all the emotional stops but never fully develops its characters to the point where I felt any stake in the story's outcome, although the spirited performance by Ellen Page as John's devoted but naive girlfriend and the moving final scenes bring a new energy to the film's second half.


Any movie that shows federal PIGs (Persons In Government) to be the power-mad threats they are in real life has a lot to recommend it to me.

Alas, the script supervision and editing and even, at times, the directing are flawed so there will be people who will disparage the whole movie and ignore the good moments.

I saw the original way back when it was new and hated it, despised it, loathed it. Thought it was a terrible, irrational piece of junk.

Now, though, I don't remember why.

I believe the two should not be compared or even connected.

Consider them as two different movies.

Rate them as two different movies.

This "Vanishing Point" provides a rallying place, a banner for people who want to encourage individualism, who believe in human rights, who recognize the threat to freedom government can be and is, especially the federal government.

"The Voice" wears a cap bearing the state motto of New Hampshire: "Live Free or Die." At one time it would have been the motto of most Americans.

Despite its obvious flaws, "Vanishing Point" is a film to cheer.


To start off with, since this movie is a remake of a classic, the rating has to be lowered already. Since this version stars Viggo Mortensen in the lead role of Kowalski, it helps.

Isn't this just like the United States government though, to terrorize one of its own citizens. Sounds like Jason Priestley's character from the movie! But it is the truth, the government would do anything possible to destroy a man's life for trying to get home to his wife. A wife, who is in labor no less, and may not make it.

"There was a time in this country that the police would escort a man to his pregnant wife." The words of the Disc Jockey.

There were some great shots of scenery in this film, and great car chases and a lot of spirituality. After much consideration, I gave this film a 7.


I have to say, I loved Vanishing Point. I've seen the original, and this is a pretty good remake of it. Even though it didn't follow the original storyline (that's why I gave it 8 out of 10), it was still pretty good and this is probably a better storyline.

As for the car, well the DJ's comment at the end about the Challenger going 185 mph into the bulldozers is pretty improbable (And if you look, the speedometer needle was wobbling at 145-150), but even though I didn't see one on the engine in one of the beginning scenes where they show the engine, the original storyline had a supercharged Hemi, so it's possible. For those of you who say aerodynamics wouldn't allow it, the normally aspirated Chrysler 300C of today can go 168 mph, and if you look at that thing, going on a highway with it it's like pushing a brick wall through the wind at 70 mph. Plus, in a wind tunnel test if you put an air dam on the Challenger it would probably be more aerodynamic.


SPOILERS THROUGH:

I really am in the minority on this one but I liked this movie. It's not a classic but it's definitely involving and quite an adrenalin fueled ride. I definitely thought it was worth at least a 7 rating.

Perhaps the reason I liked it is because I haven't seen the original.Something tells me that with a movie like this it's strongest fans will be the people who have not seen the original version and thus, have little to compare it to. This was not a masterpiece but I did get into it quite a lot and it actually made me want to see the original.

There were a few things I liked about it. One was the casting of Kowalkski. Viggo Mortenson was superb and really brought a lot of charisma to the role. Since the bulk of the movie fell on his shoulders, he really needed to be excellent and he was. This was a great role for him.

Another interesting thing about Vansishing Point was the fact that it's made for television. I had no idea this was the case when watching it. It sure seemed like a major motion picture and I would never have guessed this was not a big screen release.

I also found the story to be very absorbing. I'm not one for action movies but I got sucked into this. Plus it was a lot more then an action movie in that there was drama, mysticism, a love story, quirky people every which way you turned. (I didn't even recognize Priestly.) And it was touching. This was not a great movie but it is watchable.

And then there's the ending. It packs a strong punch and if one's been involved in the story up to that point, it's very difficult not to be transfixed at the very end. I am not sure how I feel about the ending. The implication was that Kowalkski survived and though I'm highly skeptical of HOW that would be possible, it is a movie and realism isn't an ingredient that's always in the mix when making a movie.

So I'd have to say I found the end incredibly unrealistic but very touching in a manipulative kind of way, which I don't usually like but for some reason, is almost forgivable in this movie. Admittedly, a lot of things were just props for the plot(could the villains have been anymore stereotypical?) But the makers got a lot right even if they got many things wrong as well. However, having said that, I will admit I can understand why someone who's a major fan of the original would hate this version because, though I have not seen the original, I have seen many original movies I loved being remade with terrible results. (My big dislike is actually sequels.) But I can understand the low ratings if the original is of that high a quality.

People have compared this to Smoky and the Bandit. How about a road version of "Legends Of The Fall" meets "Thelma and Louese" as well? I sure felt touches of both films(both of which I'm a fan of.) I do not think however, that this was a great film. It was better then average to me but far from great. But it was an absorbing, adrenalin fueled, touching movie with excellent casting of the main character. My vote is 7 of 10.