Sometimes it takes a film-making master like Kubrick to bring that extra little something, that unique, untractable and elusive ingredient that transforms a great movie or a great script into a masterpiece, one for the ages.

It's not just that Stephen King's story has enough meat and potatoes making it difficult for even the most workmanlike of directors to miss. Heck, even King himself didn't fare so bad. It's how Kubrick perceives King's universe, how he transforms the page into screen time, that renders THE SHINING both a visual feast and a compacted masterclass in directing.

Kubrick's miss-en-scene is, as usually, terrific. The movie progresses with a brisk, sharp, lively pace, even though it's neither fast nor heavily edited and it clocks at no less than 160 minutes. The camera prowls through the lavish corridors of the Overlook Hotel like it is some kind of mystic labyrinth rife for exploration, linear tracking shots exposing the impeccably decorated interiors in all their grandeur. There's a symmetry and geometrical approach in how Kubrick perceives space that reminds me very much of how Japanese directors worked in the sixties. As if what is depicted is inconsequential to how all the different elements are balanced inside the frame.

Certain images definitely stand out. The first shot of Jack's typewriter, accompanied off screen from the thumps of a ball, like drums of doom coming from some other floor or produced by the typewriter itself as though it is an instrument of doom all by itself, later on proving to be nothing short of just that. A red river flowing through the hotel's elevators in slow motion. Jack hitting the door with the axe, the camera moving along with him, tracking the action as it happens instead of remaining static, as though it's the camera piercing through the door and not the axe. The ultra fast zoom in the kid's face thrusting us inside his head before we see the two dead girls from his POV. And of course, the bathroom scene.

Much has been said of Jack Nicholson's obtrusive overacting. His mad is not entirely successful, because, well, he's Jack Nicholson. The guy looks half-mad anyway. Playing mad turns him into an exaggerated caricature of himself. Shelley Duvall on the other hand is one of the most inspired casting choices Kubrick ever had. Coming from a streak of fantastic performances for Robert Altman in the seventies (3 WOMEN, THIEVES LIKE US, NASHVILLE), she brings to her character the right amounts of fragility and emotional distress. A terrific and very underrated actress.


*!!- SPOILERS - !!*

Before I begin this, let me say that I have had both the advantages of seeing this movie on the big screen and of having seen the "Authorized Version" of this movie, remade by Stephen King, himself, in 1997.

Both advantages made me appreciate this version of "The Shining," all the more.

Also, let me say that I've read Mr. King's book, "The Shining" on many occasions over the years, and while I love the book and am a huge fan of his work, Stanley Kubrick's retelling of this story is far more compelling ... and SCARY.

Kubrick really knows how to convey the terror of the psyche straight to film. In the direction of the movie AND the writing of the screenplay, itself, he acquired the title "Magus" beyond question. Kubrick's genius is like magic. The movie world lost a great director when he died in 1999. Among his other outstanding credits are: Eyes Wide Shut, 1999; Full Metal Jacket, 1987; Barry Lyndon, 1975; A Clockwork Orange, 1971; 2001: A Space Odyssey, 1968; Spartacus, 1960 and many more.

The Torrences (Jack, Wendy his wife and Danny, their son) are living in the Overlook Hotel for the winter; Jack has been hired as the caretaker. It is his job to oversee the upkeep of the hotel during the several months of hard snow, until spring when the Overlook reopens its doors. It seems there are many wealthy and jaded tourists who will flock to the Colorado Mountains for a snow-filled summer getaway.

The Hotel was an impressive piece of architecture and staging. It lent to the atmosphere, by having a dark, yet at the same time "welcoming" atmosphere, itself. The furnishings and furniture was all period (late 70's - early 80's), and the filmography of the landscape approaching the hotel in the opening scene is brilliant. It not only lets you enjoy the approach to the Overlook, it also fixes in your mind how deserted and isolated the Hotel is from the rest of the world.

The introduction of Wendy and Danny's characters was a stroke of genius. You get the whole story of their past, Danny's "imaginary friend," Tony, and the story of Jack's alcoholism all rolled into this nice, neat introductory scene. There was no need in stretching the past history out over two hours of the movie; obviously, Kubrick saw that from the beginning.

Closing Day. Again, the scenic drive up the mountains to the Hotel (this time, with family in tow), the interaction between Jack and Danny was hilarious while also portraying a very disturbing exchange.

The initial tour through the Overlook is quite breathtaking, even as the "staff" is moving things out, you get a chance to see the majestic fire places, the high cathedral ceilings and expensive furnishings, dormants and crown moldings in the architecture. "They did a good job! Pink and gold are my favorite colors." (Wendy Torrence) Even the "staff wing" is well designed and beautifully built.

The maze was a magnificent touch, reminiscent of the Labyrinth in which the Minotaur of Crete was Guardian. When Jack Nicholson stands at the scaled model of the maze and stares into the center, seeing Wendy and Danny entering, it's a magickal moment; one that tells you right away, there are heavy energies in that house; there's something seriously wrong, already starting. "I wouldn't want to go in there unless I had at least an hour to find my way out." (The Hotel Manager)

Scatman Cruthers, as Dick Halloran, was genuine and open in his performance. His smiles were natural and his performance was wonderful. You could actually believe you were there in the hotel, taking the tour of the kitchen with Wendy and "Doc." His explanation of "the shining" to Danny was very well delivered, as was his conversation with the child about Tony and the Hotel. It was believable and sincere.

The cut out and pan scan of the hotel itself, with the mountains looming behind, the cold air swirling about, mist coming up from the warm roof of the snowbound hotel, adds so MUCH to the atmosphere of the movie. It also marks the "half-way-to-hell" point, so to speak; the turning point in the movie.

Shelley Duvall's portrayal of Wendy Torrence was masterful. (So WHAT if she also played Olive Oyl?! It just shows her marvelous diversity!) Honestly, before I saw the movie on the big screen in 1980, I said," What? Olive Oyl? *lol* (Popeye was also released in 1980.) But I took that back as soon as the movie started. She's brilliant. In this Fiend's opinion, this is her best performance, to date! (Although I did love her in Steve Martin's "Roxanne," 1987.)

Once Kubrick has established the pearly bits of information of which you, the viewer, need to be in possession: the Torrence's past; Danny's broken arm; Tony; the history of the Hotel itself; the fact that Danny is not "mental," but rather clairvoyant instead, and the general layout of the Hotel; all of which you get in the opening 3 sequences; the movie never stops scaring you.

The two butchered daughters of the previous caretaker, Delbert Grady (the girls having appeared several times to Danny, first by way of Tony in the apartment before the family ever left for the hotel) were icons with which Danny could identify, and of which he was afraid, at the same time. They were haunting (and haunted), themselves and showed Danny how and where they were killed, in a rather graphic and material way.

Kubrick's Tony was written as an attendant spirit, like a spirit guide which he acquired as a result of his arm nearly being wrenched off his body by his own father. He was..."the little boy who lives in my mouth." He would manifest in the end of Danny's finger and physically spoke through Danny in order to speak TO Danny. NOT like in the book, I realize, where Tony was intended by Stephen King to be the projection of Danny as an older boy, trying to save his father. Kubrick left out that little twist and it somehow made it more frightening when Tony "took ... Danny ... over." The idea of Danny's older self projecting back to his younger self isn't...scary.

The "Woman in the Shower" scene, done by Lia Beldan (about whom I can find no other credits for having done anything before, or since) as the younger woman and Billie Gibson (who ALSO appears to suffer from a lack of credits for works before or since), was seductively obnoxious and thoroughly disgusting. It was dramatic, and frightening. Abhorrent and scary. When Nicholson looks into the mirror and sees her decomposing flesh beneath his hands; the look of sheer terror on his face was so complete and REAL.

Jack quickly embarks on his trek from the "jonesing" alcoholic to a certifiable insane person. The degradation of his character's mental state is carefully and thoroughly documented by Kubrick. Jack's instant friendship with Lloyd the Bartender (as only alcoholics, would-be mental patients and drug addicts do) portrays his pressing NEED of the atmosphere to which Lloyd avails him; namely, alcohol ..."hair of the dog that bit me." (Jack Torrence) In Jack's case, it's bourbon on the rocks, at no charge to Jack. "Orders from the house." (Lloyd the Bartender) Nice play on words.

When Wendy find's Jack's "screenplay" is nothing more than page after page of the same line typed over and over, albeit in 8 or 9 different creative styles...when he asks from the shadows, "How do you like it?" and Wendy whirls and screams with the baseball bat in her hand...is so poignant. It's the point where she realizes how messed up the whole situation is...how messed up Jack is. It's very scary, dramatic and delivers a strong presence. That coupled with Danny's visions of the hotel lobby filling with blood, imposed over the scene between Jack and Wendy, and with the confrontational ending to this scene, make this possibly THE strongest scene of the movie.

The "REDRUM" scene. Wow. What do I say? What mother would not be totally freaked by awakening to find their young, troubled son standing over them with a huge knife, talking in that freaky little voice, exclaiming "REDRUM" over and over? Even if it HAD no meaning, it would still be as scary as the 7th level of HELL. It was something everyone could (and has) remember(ed). Speaking of memorable scenes...

Nicholson's final assault on his family with an axe was perhaps one of the scariest scenes of movie history. His ad-libbed line, "Heeeeere's Johnny!" was a stroke of brilliance and is one of the most memorable scenes in the history of horror. It also goes down in horror movie history.

The ending..? Kubrick's ending was perfection. I felt it ended beautifully. No smarm, no platitudinous whining, no tearfully idiotic ending for THIS movie. Just epitomized perfection. That's all I'll say on the subject of the ending.

Who cares what was taken out?! Look what Kubrick put IN. Rent it, watch it, BUY IT. It's a classic in the horror genre, and for good reason. IT RAWKS!!

*Me being Me* ... Take this movie, and sitck it in your Stephen King collection, and take the 1997 "Authorized" version done by King and stick it down in the kiddie section. That's where it belongs. .: This movie rates a 9.98 from the Fiend :.


... This isn't the first time Stanley blurred the distinction between genres to such great effect, either. In Dr. Strangelove you had a comedy about a horrific situation, and here the basis is a terrifying scenario which actually yields some very funny moments. Slow-burning madness and attempting to kill one's family isn't hilarious of course, but the dialogue is very knowing ("five months of peace is just what I want... ") and there is a terrific drinking scene which would be riotous if you included just one type of spirit, but is spine-chilling when you factor in the other.

I disagree with those who say that the hotel has a negligible effect on Jack Torrance in the filmed version. The cues Nicholson provides the audience as an actor merely hint at the potential for madness, which is only reinforced when we learn that the head of the family has struggled with alcoholism and is emotionally distant from his wife and son. The environment that he is in, however, then absorbs those personality defects and unleashes them upon his consciousness. In much the same way as buildings are sometimes thought to soak up events that happen there, the hotel feeds on the frailties of a troubled but sane man, and uses his weaknesses against him to eventually take him beyond the point of no return. He may have dormant flaws in his personality before he arrives, but to me the Overlook itself is the trigger that sets them off.

Kubrick's cold and detached approach to directing works splendidly for a chilly horror film, and the unpredictable force of nature that is Jack Nicholson teeters all the time between making you giggle and scaring the wits out of you. When he explodes, you won't be sure how far he can go. Together they made a great team and with a blend of their talents gave us a classic. If you want a great viewing experience, then this is an example that well and truly shines...


When i first went to watch The Shining I was expecting a decent film from what I had heard about it and I liked a lot of Stanley Kubrick's other work but when I started to watch it it was so much better than I thought it would be.At times I seriously felt ridiculously uneasy and I couldn't take my eyes of the screen still there's something very disturbing about everything in the film. Now some people don't like Kubrick's version of The Shining since it doesn't entirely follow Stephen King's book but in my opinion both Kubrick's version,the mini-series and the book are all great.Jack Nicholson gives an awesome performance.If you are looking for a good original movie that will keep you thinking even after the movies over then watch The Shining.


The Shining starts with Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) driving to an isolated hotel named the 'Overlook' situated high in the Colorado mountains for an interview with it's manager Stuart Ullman (Barry Nelson) about becoming the Winter caretaker. Ullman tells Jack that he will be responsible for the basic upkeep of the hotel but will be almost totally isolated from the rest of the world for six months as the harsh Winter sets in. Together with his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) & young son Danny (Danny Lloyd) Jack moves into the hotel & at first everything seems fine, it's a beautiful hotel, absolutely huge & whatever they need is at their disposal. However the Overlook hotel has a murky past with a previous caretaker murdering his entire family before committing suicide & Danny has the ability to 'shine' which means he has psychic powers that let him see & hear things 'ordinary' people can't. As the days, weeks & months begin to pass Jack become more & more insane, Danny keeps 'seeing' things & people while Wendy becomes frantic as she doesn't have a clue what's happening to her family, as a heavy snowstorm leaves them trapped Jack finally loses it...

This English production was co-written, co-produced & directed by Stanley Kubrick & is a fine horror film. It appears that The Shining is another film that exists in two distinct different versions & the one I will be commenting on is the shorter European cut that runs just under 2 hours in length. The script by Kubrick & Diane Johnson, is based on the novel by Stephen King which I have not read so I can't compare them, goes for psychological horror rather than visual with only one murder during the entire film. There are very few character's in The Shining with Jack, Wendy & Danny the only ones that really matter, since the film concentrates on them almost exclusively you care for them, become involved with them & what they go through. The pace is somewhat slow but this is one film that didn't feel that long & keeps you interested throughout. On the negative side I don't think the reasoning behind Jack going crazy & wanting to kill his family was strong enough to convince me, the fact that Jack escapes from the freezer without any explanation bugs me & I don't know if I missed something but that ending didn't make any sense to me whatsoever, I'm still trying to work out what that picture is all about! There is very little in the way of violence or gore, a couple of rotten zombie ghosts & someone is killed with an axe but The Shining is a horror film that doesn't need to rely on blood & special effects as it has a gripping story. With a budget of about $19,000,000 The Shining is technically flawless as you would expect from an obsessive filmmaker such as Kubrick, the cinematography is brilliant with some fantastic free-flowing & smooth steadicam shots as the camera effortlessly follows the character's around the maze of corridors, the sets look absolutely real & instead of clichéd old haunted house themes like dark corners, basements & cobwebs Kubrick brings things right up-to-date with brightly lit corridors, massive open expansive spaces & a modern decor (well 80's modern, just check that red toilet out!). The acting is good from everyone involved although as usual in horror films the little kid is highly annoying & Nicholson seems crazy from the very start. The Shining is an absorbing film that I enjoyed watching although I'm not sure I'd watch it again anytime soon. For those looking for explosions & fancy special effects you will be disappointed, for those looking for a good haunted house type horror with a strong story I definitely think The Shining is for you, well worth a watch in my humble opinion.


Kubrick again puts on display his stunning ability to craft a perfect ambiance for a film. Mainly through cinematography, but also using an ingenious score, he creates a chilling and ominous tone that resides over the entire film and thoroughly gets my spine tingling from the start. It really is this flawless ambiance that makes The Shining the masterpiece that it is, in my eyes. Of course it doesn't hurt that Jack Nicholson gives one of the greatest performances I've ever seen. A frighteningly authentic portrayal of a mind gone mad. Duvall and Lloyd are artificial, to be nice, but it's easy to look past those two when the rest of the film is so brilliant. Plus it features the actor with the greatest name of all time (Scatman Crothers).


"Nothin'. There ain't nothing' in Room 237. But you ain't got no business going' in there anyway. So stay out. You understand? Stay out."

Never has there been such a feat of psychological horror as this film achieves. This is the highest rated horror film of all and rightly so. Jack nicholson is a superb actor and this is one of the greatest performances in cinema.

Its about a family moving to an isolated and deserted hotel for 5 months over the winter. Then the father (Jack) becomes almost possessed by the horrors in the hotel.

Kubricks direction is nothing short then perfect. The tense tracking shots, agonising music, mystical messages and perplexing plot makes this the best horror film ever made.

Throughout the film there is constant references to danger, death and horror. Red is used in EVERY scene. Is the red purposely put in by Kubrick? Of course!.

This is a definitive Kubrick classic and this is the third of his films I have given 10/10. He is a perfectionist in his direction and you can see it in all his films. He loves to perplex his watchers in everyone of his films.

I will be talking about this film for months to come. It has infinite depth.

In conclusion, this is the cornerstone of horror and tension. A masterpiece of terror 10/10


At times, this overtakes The Thing as my favourite horror film. While Carpenter's film is the more efficient and more entertaining flick, Kubrick's is more artistic, more thought-provoking, and probably scarier. It's one of the few films where I can look past its flaws and truly and wholly love it. I try not to compare it to the book  which I've only read once, a number of years ago, and which scared me to death  because the two don't have a lot in common, besides the story and characters obviously. It's almost as if Kubrick was banking on people's love of the novel in order to make his film more frightening. And it that way, it's certainly one of the most interesting book adaptations ever made, as well as one of the greatest horror films.

What makes the film so terrifying is not the jump scares, not the blood and gore, not the various ghosts that pop up from time to time. It's the destruction of Jack Torrence. Some people have complained about the casting of Nicholson in this role, saying that it's too obvious that he's going to go crazy in the film, given his past roles and his appearance. I disagree. We know he's going to go crazy  since most of us have read the book  and Jack's appearance only furthers this notion. But it's the way he acts at the beginning that makes us truly scared. He's calm, quiet, patient. He engages in inane small talk with the hotel managers and even with his own family. And with a wife and son as irritating as his, it's a small wonder that he manages to do so. But once he gets to the Overlook, he changes. He becomes irritable, angry, on edge. The scene that always shocks me is when Wendy interrupts him typing, and he utterly loses it, telling her to "leave him the f*** alone". This is the first f-bomb dropped in the film, and it's a shock to the system. From then on, all bets are off.

Another thing I love is the multiple interpretations present in the film. We're never really sure if what we're seeing is actually happening. Many critics have noted that whenever Jack talks to a ghost, there's a mirror present, showing that he may as well be talking to himself. But what of the other characters? Wendy never sees anything until the film's climax, until she is given a tour of the hotel's many ghostly inhabitants, but she is well aware that something is wrong, while Danny connects with the place almost immediately. His psychic powers are not in question  how else would Hallorann know to come to the hotel?  but does he ever see any of the ghosts that his parents witness? It's easy to claim that Jack merely loses it, being trapped in a hotel with his family, and Wendy later does as well  seeing your husband attempt to kill you with an axe will do that  but what of Danny? It appears that his body is taken over by Tony, but how do we know for sure? None of these characters are reliable witnesses. Hallorann probably would be, and he warns of the dangers in 237, but he's killed as soon as he arrives at the Overlook (a scare Kubrick achieves by playing on the assumptions of fans of the novel). And that final shot. Has there ever been a more enigmatic ending in cinema? Has Jack really been there before? Or was his body merely 'absorbed' into the hotel? When talking about the acting in this film, any discussion begins and ends with Jack Nicholson. Shelley Duvall gives one of the most annoying performances in cinematic history  probably on purpose, to give Jack's character more of a reason to snap  and Danny Lloyd is no better, but Jack is a powerhouse. Part method, part improvisation, he's simultaneously terrifying and appealing. For better or for worse, he's the character with whom we identify with, not the annoying kid or nagging wife. We all want to have a hotel to ourselves for a season, be able to do whatever we want. Who cares if it's haunted? Of course, the technical aspects are terrific. Kubrick's long takes, strange angles, and bizarre imagery all contribute to the horror. The use of colour, mirrors, long hallways, and every other motif only heightens this. And don't even get me started on that score. I don't know if the film would be half as scary without that haunting, electronic tune. Its strangeness perfectly reflects the hotel, the mood, and the entire film itself.

I know King doesn't like this film, but King's input on cinema is nothing to brag about. As great of a novel writer he may be, his screenplays are terrible, and his attempt at directing is better left unnoticed. This is not a very faithful book adaptation, but it doesn't need to be, and it really shouldn't. Part of the horror of the film is that the viewer doesn't have the book to fall back on; there's no reassuring source material. Kubrick masterfully alters the narrative to terrify the audience even more. If only for that, this is one of the most innovative films in any genre. And it's got everything else on top of that.


The Shining is a weird example of adaptation: it has very little in common with the source novel, written by Stephen King, yet it is widely remembered as one of the best cinematic renditions of the horror master's work. This is due to two factors: Stanley Kubrick's masterful direction and Jack Nicholson's chilly acting.

Nicholson plays Jack Torrance, a writer who accepts to take care of the Overlook Hotel in Canada during the winter period, unaffected by the gruesome stories surrounding the place: he claims a nice, isolated location is just what he needs to finish his new book. Therefore the Overlook becomes the new home of the Torrance family: Jack, his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) and their five-year old son Danny (Danny Lloyd). The boy in particular senses right from the beginning that something's wrong: he has been told by the cook, Dick O' Hallorann (Scatman Crothers) that he is endowed with a mysterious psychic energy, the titular Shining, which allows people like him and Dick to see flashes from the past and the future, among other things. Because of this "gift", the forces that inhabit the hotel immediately take an interest in Danny, even though he is quite capable of resisting them. That is not Jack's case, however, as he gets increasingly paranoid regarding his wife's affections and seeks comfort in the company of what can best be defined as ghosts, triggering a chain of insanity and dread which is very hard to break.

The Shining works as a horror movie because Kubrick, though having never worked on this kind of film before, knew exactly what was effective and what wasn't, hence the larger focus on atmosphere and psychological shocks than gore and creative bloodbaths. King criticized the director for changing most of the story, omitting most of the Jack/Danny subplot (merely hinted at in the film) that led to the book's emotionally strong climax, and while his disappointment is valid, the omission was actually necessary: the novel dealt with redemption, albeit in an unconventional way, and redemption is a theme Kubrick, one of the most famous analysts of human decay, never had a soft spot for. What he is interested in is the mental, and subsequently physical, unbalance that threatens the characters, and he keeps the creepy tone even thanks to a very cold approach and expert use of the steadicam shot (Danny's encounter with two ghostly twins being the best example).

Another criticism King raised was about the actors, especially Nicholson: in the writer's opinion, his trademark grin at the start of the movie seemed to indicate Jack already was insane, thus undermining the rest of the story. Now, it is true that Nicholson looks a bit goofy from the very beginning, but it is equally true that Martin Sheen (King's ideal choice for the role) probably would not have been able to deliver a performance as terrifying as Nicholson's: from the moment he starts grinning in a more unsettling way than before to the immortal "Here's Johnny!" scene, it is impossible to picture another actor playing that part, and even though the TV version of The Shining from 1997 isn't bad the Torrance character is indelibly linked to the One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest star. As for Duvall and Lloyd, both add terrific support, the latter especially deserving a place alongside Harvey Stephens (The Omen's Damien) and Haley Joel Osment as cinema's great horror child icons. One might complain about Duvall being completely different from the book counterpart (blonde and beautiful) and not having much else to do but scream and run, but two things ought to be considered: a) back in 1980 the "scream queen" cliché wasn't one yet; b) rarely has any actress looked so genuinely terrified on camera, making the book-movie differences secondary compared to the real fear that emerges from Wendy's eyes.

Irvine Welsh, the author of Trainspotting, once said there is no such thing as a completely faithful adaptation of any literary work (and he should know, given the liberties Danny Boyle took when his junkie masterpiece was brought to the screen), yet that doesn't mean the movie is necessarily bad. The Shining proves said point to perfection: very little from the novel, approximately 5%, is included in the film, but in Kubrick and Nichlolson's hands this masterclass in loose cinematic translation becomes one of the finest, most original horror pictures of all time, which really is saying something given the genre's current poor form.


Everyone should totally see this movie! It's freaking scary, but doesn't resort to lame "jump-out-at-you-just-to-surprise-you-and-pass-it-off-as-scary" things. It really is great. See this freaking awesome movie!!! The director is Stanley Kubrick, easily the greatest director who ever lived. Every single one of his movies are masterpieces, including this one. The Shining is about this family that goes to a hotel in the Colorado Rockies as caretakers for the winters, and get snowed in. Well, the house is haunted. The kid is psychic. The husband is easily impacted by evil haunted hotels, and...well...HILARITY ENSUES!!!! Not really. It becomes this gripping thriller where stuff gets thrown at the viewer from all different directions, and it gets scary. Not just the classic, "Here's Johnny" scene. It's memorable, but can't speak for the whole movies. It's one of those things where words don't explain it adequately, and you just gotta see it. So go on Netflix, and get it! GEEEEEETTTTTTTT ITTTTTTTT!!!!!!!


Kubrick proved his brilliantness again, now in a suspense-horror film based on Stephen King's book titled the same way. Jack Torrance is a man in his forties, married, with one child, and with a past of trouble and alcoholism. The Overlook Hotel in Colorado suspends service during the winter because of its extreme weather, and there is a well-paid job for the person who takes care of the facilities during those five months; and Torrance, who was looking to become a writer, found it perfect. But, the manager advised Torrance about the loneliness in this place during the winter, potentially dangerous, and told him that some caretaker in the past went crazy and murdered his family. Even before they got there, his son Danny, who has some sort of imaginary friend who illuminates him the future (shinning), knew the place wasn't good and didn't want to go. Once they installed themselves in the hotel, things started right but within a month, Jack began acting strange, irritated, and depressed. At this point, we know something is going to happen, but don't know when and how. Scary things happen such as the appearance of two twin girls talking to Danny, and someone who attacked him violently. They are not alone in this place. Later on, Jack started to see other people and immediately felt good with them, like if they were his family; among them the famous psychotic caretaker, Delbert Grady. Grady tells Torrance that he must kill his family because they are "intruders" in the hotel. Obeying this order, Jack went for the objective and many of the most scary things I've ever seen happen here. The ending is spectacular and the viewers will stay interested and shocked until the last minute.


Why can't more directors these days create horror movies like "The Shining"? There's an easy answer to that: modern day directors are not Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick proved once-and-for-all with this movie that he is truly one of the greatest directors and auteurs of all time.

So, the plot is fairly simple. A man named Jack Torrance (played brilliantly by Jack Nicholson)and his family move into a large, secluded hotel to watch over it for the off-season. The kicker is that the previous caretaker of the hotel savagely murdered his wife and two girls. What follows can most readily be summed by the title of the movie, but you have to watch it to see what I mean.

This is the first movie in a very long time to strike me as "scary". It's some seriously messed up stuff, but in a good way. One of the things that adds to the scare factor is the amazing music. Music has been a major part of Kubrick's movies (2001: A Space Oddysey and A Clockwork Orange, just to name a couple) and he definitely doesn't disappoint with this one. The score completely sets the tone and this film would not be the same without it.

Finally, I must comment on Nicholson's legendary performance. Jack is terrifyingly convincing as a crazy killer. In fact, just his stare steals a few scenes of this movie. This is top-notch acting that must be seen to believe.

There will never be a horror movie that quite matches this one. R.I.P. Stanley.


That's right. The movie is better than the book. Don't get me wrong, I love the book. But the movie is just so much better. This film has Jack Nicholson and Shelly Duvall at their best. (I haven't seen Scatman Crothers and obviously Danny Lloyd in anything else.) Some of the ideas used in this movie are better than the ones used in the book. But I already talked about those in my comment on the mini series. But, I missed a few. The film is shot at a better location than where the mini series was shot. And the REDRUM scenes are creepier than those in the book. So if you're looking for a great movie, get Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. But count on having nightmares every night for 3 weeks


Besides the fact that my list of favorite movie makers is: 1)Stanley Kubrick 2)God Allmighty 3)the rest... this movie actually is better than the book (and the TV miniseries though this is an easy feat, considering the director). The flawless filming stile, the acting and (Kubrick's all time number one skill) the music - make it THE masterpiece of horror. I watched the TV miniseries a few years ago and liked the story and I had my hopes about this when I got a hold of it. IT BLEW ME AWAY!!! It is far better than I ever imagined it. It starts slow (Kubrick trademark) and has a lot of downtime that builds up the suspense. The intro scene is a classic by all means and I watched it about 20 times just for the shear atmosphere it induces to the whole film. Also the film doesn't offer a lot of gore (it has just enough and it is by no means tasteless) a trend that I hate in recent day horror films. Just watch it!


Walking with Cavemen, hosted by Alec Baldwin, is a look back at all the hominid (that's us!) species of the past 5 million years: who they were, what they were like, and how they died out. Along with being a very interesting scientific look at the information we have on these species, Walking with Cavemen also examines what it is that makes us human. I waited several weeks to watch this, and I was not disappointed.


Really the tale of two cocky brothers and their respective falls from grace (via drug addiction) and later redemption. One brother, a self-proclaimed genius played by James Franco is your typical sensitive but intelligent man-child. The other brother is a hard-working future doctor who becomes less judgmental as he himself falls prey to addiction while dealing with the stress of living up to his family's expectations for both children. Not too heavy handed as drug fables are want to be, and all in all a pretty realistic sketch of the family dynamics that drug problems bring about. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in such character studies and commend James Franco for his efforts in what was obviously a labor of love.


This movie can be interpreted on many different levels. Don't listen to the other comments bashing the movie and saying that it is a played again story or w/e and that it is just about drugs. It has very overt superficial metaphors about drugs; however, the rest of the movie (and why I think it was personally made) is really not about that at all. It is really mocking psychology and the conditioning of society. It shows, for a split second, that the main character's brother is watching those sick videos online. Why? My interpretation is that it is to demonstrate that all of this gruesomeness that we are exposed to makes it easier for us to be mechanical in our professions instead of seeing people as people. As far as the scene about logic, it is also reaching out to the people who were in the federally mandated 1% smart classes who are confused and frustrated because life isn't as predictable and mathematical and logical as it seems on a macroscopic level. You have to apply Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (along with all the other laws and principles of uncertainty) not just to physics but to life and leave room to change your plans and adjust along the way. One of the best movies I have ever seen. It just might go way above your head; it isn't for you it is for those people who are are having trouble coping with life not working out like a math problem. When you are critically analyzing a movie or writing your critical review's try not reading the back cover first (written by marketers and parapsychologists)


I think the majority of the people seem not the get the right idea about the movie, at least that's my opinion. I am not sure it's a movie about drug abuse; rather it's a movie about the way of thinking of those genius brothers, drugs are side effects, something marginal. Again, it's not a commercial movie that you see every day and if the author wanted that, he definitely failed, as most people think it's one of the many drug related movies. I, however, think something else is the case. As in many movies portraying different cultures, audience usually fully understands movies portraying their own culture, i.e. something they've grown up with and are quite familiar with. This movie is to show what those "genius" people very often think and what problems they face. The reason why they act like this is because they are bored out of their minds :) They have to meet people who do mediocre things and accept those things as if they are launching space shuttles on daily basis. They start a fairly hard job and excel in no time. They feel like- I went to work, did nothing, still did twice as better as the guys around me when they were all over their projects, what should I do now with my free time. And what's even more boring? When you can start predicting behavior not because you're psychologist, but instead because you have seen this pattern in the past. So, for them, from one side it's a non challenging job, which is also fairly boring sometimes, and from another they start to figure out people's behavior. It's a recipe for big big boredom. And the dumbest things are usually done to get out of this state. They guy earlier who mentioned that their biggest problem is that they are trying to figure out life in terms of logic (math describes logic), while life is not really a logical thing, is actually absolutely right.


No movies have grabbed my attention like this one has. You see, I have wanted to watch this movie again for over twenty-five years. The one and only time I saw it was as a teen-ager which may have been the year it was released, 1977.

What I do remember of the movie is that it touched those deep-held emotions so profoundly that there is still an overwhelming desire to watch it again. The intrigue this movie provides by the human element of father/son seeking and searching is sure to touch every human soul who watches it. Why this movie has not been brought out of storage and shown as often as many other movies of lesser depth, I do not know.

Postscript: Received copy of movie and after watching it again was delighted to see that my memory held true. Rating reflects movie content. Would like to watch this movie on DVD as seeing this 1977 production on a used VHS tape took away from the overall quality.


I don't know what it is I find so endearing about this film, but the first time I saw it, I wanted to see how it ended. I'm not a big fan of Paul Winfield nor of war-dramas, but I was truly wondering just how and when Winfield would find his child. All he knows is that the boy has green eyes. Truth be told, I have not seen this movie in years nor has it been shown on TV in a while, but this movie is somewhat of one man's odyssey after the pains of war. Winfield shows a very sympathetic and heart warming portrayal of a man lost by his memories. There is an underlying message in this movie that he is looking for the last shred of human morality in the aftermath of this war and the reality that he does confront. Why this movie is not yet on DVD or video is a mystery to me.


I really can't say too much more about the plot of the movie that hasn't already been said. I haven't seen the movie in about 25 years and the memory of it has never left me. I have been searching for it every where. I have done net searches for it in the past but came up empty. Last night I was thinking about the movie again and was trying to remember who was in it but I was only about 10 or 12 when I last saw it and I wasn't even sure if I had the right movie name so I decided to do another search and I finally found this sight. I was right. If any one knows where I can get a copy of this wonderful movie to share with my family could you please let me now at tawnyteel@yahoo.com I would really appreciate it. And to anyone who has not seen this movie and has the chance to it is well worth it.


Truly this is a 'heart-warming' film. It won the George Peobody Award, winning over "Roots", so that may tell you something of the essence of this film. I am looking on the Internet how to order this movie since my former father-in-law, Eugene Logan, the co-writer of this film has been deceased for a few years now so I no longer have the opportunity to receive information from him. I would love to have his only grand-daughters, my daughters, see this film, as well as to pass this wonderful story on to his great-grandsons. My oldest daughter was seven years old at the time it was aired on television and I since have been looking forward to seeing it again. One of my friends said it was her favorite movie. I won't 'spoil' this movie for you.


Green Eyes is a great movie. In todays context of supporting our troops, it is interesting this movie showed the lack of respect soldiers received from doing their duty, during this period. From a historical view, the end of the Vietnam war left all of us with something to remember and learn from. Gene was very proud of this movie, and he deserved the credits he received from writing "Green Eyes". I agree, I do not understand why this movie is not shown more often, or at all. This movie is the kind of movie that should be shown on TV every year, much like the Wizard of Oz. The dedication of one man towards his lost son is entirely moving. I was a friend of Gene Logans and I was proud to know him. Rocky


Evidently, not many people have seen this movie, because no one is posting any more comments. This is not a movie to be missed. After all, it has won the George Peabody award as well as the Humanitas award. Paul Winfield should have won an award for his awesome performance in this movie. Eugene Logan who was a co-writer on this made for TV movie also was part of another movie on humanity, or loss of it, by being a technical adviser to Truman Capote's movie the Glass House. This movie is now available on DVD. If anyone is interested, I will post another letter telling how it was that Eugene Logan came to be the technical adviser to a movie of such an amazing person as Truman Capote. Thanks for reading this and I hope you will find a way to view these two movies.


Being a fan of the first Lion King, I was definitely looking forward to this movie, but I knew there was really no way it could be as good as the original. I know that many Disney fans are wary of the direct-to-video movies, as I have mixed feelings of them as well.

While watching The Lion King 1½, I tried to figure out what my own viewpoint was regarding this movie. Am I going to be so devout about The Lion King that I will nitpick at certain scenes, or am I just going to accept this movie as just another look at The Lion King story? Most of the time, I found myself embracing the latter.

The Lion King 1½ definitely has its cute and funny moments. Timon and Pumbaa stole the show in the first movie and definitely deserved a movie that centered around them. People just love these characters! My favorite parts of the movie include the montage of Timon & Pumbaa taking care of young Simba and the surprise ending featuring some great cameos.

I could have done without many of the bathroom jokes though, like the real reason everyone bowed to baby Simba at the beginning of Lion King 1. I guess those types of jokes are for the younger set (which after all is the target audience. I don't think many kids are really concerned about Disney's profit margin on direct-to-video movies.)

However, I will say that I was somewhat annoyed when they directly tied in scenes from the original movie to this movie. I'm just too familiar with the original that those scenes just stuck out like sore thumbs to me. Something would be different with the music or the voices that it would just distract me.

As for the music, it wasn't too bad, but don't expect any classics to come from this movie. At least LK2 had the nice ballad, "Love Will Find a Way." As for the voicework, it was well done in this movie. Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella did a great job as always, and even new cast members, the classic comedic actor Jerry Stiller and Julie Kavner (best known as Marge Simpson), did a great job also. You can even enjoy these great voice talents even more by checking out the Virtual Safari on Disc 2 of the DVD. That feature is definitely a lot of fun!!

So all in all, The Lion King 1½ isn't a perfect movie, but it's cute and entertaining. I think many Lion King fans will enjoy it and appreciate it for what it is - a fun, lighthearted look at the Lion King masterpiece from our funny friends' perspectives.

My IMDb Rating: 7/10. My Yahoo! Grade: B (Good)


One of the best movies for all ages. You will never be able to look at LION KING again without thinking of the extra history this movie adds. Nearly 40 years old, I watched this with my wife and two sons after work tonight & I have not laughed & enjoyed a movie so much in a long time.

Take time out and watch this with the kids. It will remind you of how Disney used to be when you were a young one.


This is a straight-to-video movie, so it should go without saying that it's not going to rival the first Lion King, but that said, this was downright good.

My kids loved this, but that's a given, they love anything that's a cartoon. The big shock was that *I* liked it too, it was laugh out loud funny at some parts (even the fart jokes*), had lots of rather creative tie-ins with the first movie, and even some jokes that you had to be older to understand (but without being risqué like in Shrek ["do you think he's compensating for something?"]).

A special note on the fart jokes, I was surprised to find that none of the jokes were just toilet noises (in fact there were almost no noises/imagery at all, the references were actually rather subtle), they actually had a setup/punchline/etc, and were almost in good taste. I'd like my kids to think that there's more to humor than going to the bathroom, and this movie is fine in those regards.

Hmm what else? The music was so-so, not nearly as creative as in the first or second movie, but plenty of fun for the kids. No painfully corny moments, which was a blessing for me. A little action but nothing too scary (the Secret of NIMH gave my kids nightmares, not sure a G rating was appropriate for that one...)

All in all I'd say this is a great movie for kids of any age, one that's 100% safe to let them watch (I try not to be overly sensitive but I've had to jump up and turn off the TV during a few movies that were less kid-appropriate than expected) - but you're safe to leave the room during this one. I'd say stick around anyway though, you might find that you enjoy it too :)


The Lion King series is easily the crowning achievement in Disney animation. The original Lion King is the greatest masterpiece in cel animation. Lion King II:Simba's Pride is the BY FAR the best direct-to-video sequel that Disney, or any other studio, has made for an animated feature. It deserved a theatrical release. The same can be said for this movie. It has the original cast, songs by Elton John, a hilarious story, exciting action, and touching character moments. Everything you've come to expect from this series. Not so much a new story, but filler and extended background on Timon and Pumbaa, and their place in this story. What impressed me the most, was the care taken in the animation. All to often, Disney shorts on the animation quality of their video and television efforts. But here, they seamlessly blend new animation with footage from the original film. The scenes never seem out of place. Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella are in full swing as Timon and Pumbaa. Matthew Broderick, Robert Guillame, and Moira Kelly reprise their roles as Simba, Rafiki, and Nala, respectively. We even get a return visit by Whoopi Goldberg and Cheech Marin as the hyenas.There are MANY big laughs in this movie. So if you love Lion King, you need this movie. The story is just not complete without it.


My Take: A funny take on THE LION KING, posing as a sequel. Surprisingly amusing.

Surprisingly, "Lion King 1 1/2" is actually another funny straight-to-video, that's worth a theatrical treatment. I don't see why Disney released this straight to video, and release crappy movies like "Chicken Little" and "Return to Neverland" theatrically. Those movies are better off seen in the video stores (in the "new releases" area), rather than seeing their theatrical posters outside the theaters.

This one is merely a spoof of the first film (although the events in "Simba's Pride" hasn't taken place yet), on Timon (voiced by Nathan Lane) and Pumbaa's (voiced by Ernie Sabella) point of view. We get to see them make fun of the events in the first film. Original voices from the first film, like Matthew Broderick, Woopie Goldberg, Cheeche Martin and Robert Guillaume, return to their voicing roles from the first film, while Julie Kavner and Jerry Stiller give some hilarious comedy relief as Timon's mom and grumpy uncle.

So doesn't this sound fun. Maybe not now, but go watch it for yourself. The fact that it's not that serious in its plot makes it the more enjoyable. It's kinda like MST3000 with Timon and Pumbaa.

Video movie rating: ***1/2 out of 5.


Lion King 1 1/2 is a very fun and addictive sequel. Don't expect the production values of a theatrical release, but do expect the highest quality of direct to video release.

It is set up as Timon & Pumba begin watching the original Lion King in a darkened theater and abruptly switch tracks and begin narrating their own story. This is done with frequent comedic interruptions. For example, during one particular tense moment a home shopping commercial pops on and a chagrined Pumba realizes he has sat on the remote. These little moments pepper the movie, and whether you find them entertaining or not will greatly depend on your sense of humor. If you are particularly bothered by movies that deliberately remind the viewer is watching a movie, than this may not be your cup of tea.

Animation is the best they've invested in the Disney DTV line, and is integrated almost seamlessly with the original material. The newer, independent material uses a lot of the artistic style of the original. The voice talents are all well performed, though I couldn't help thinking of Marge Simpson every time I heard Julie Kavner.

Many of the jokes in the movie will be well recognized by viewers as recycled over the generations, but are presented more with the familiarity of comfortable quirks of old friends than annoyingly repetitive.

The music has made me realize how much I enjoyed and miss a good musical integrated with a Disney feature. The toe-tapping opening feature of 'Dig A Tunnel' is well choreographed and hilarious. Timon and Pumba's take on the Lion King's opening sequence and their introduction to paradise are also amusing. The only problem was the reprise of the 'Dig A Tunnel' at the end of the movie, switching its lyrics and tune from defeatist to uplifting.

Story line is pretty well done, and the integration of new plot elements is done almost perfectly, though the final bit during the hyena chased stretched the storyline credibility a little. The new story doesn't seem to handle saccharine or emotionally charged moments to well, and does better when it is resorting to full comedy.

Overall, worth purchasing. If you like all the bonus features that come with a typical 2-disc set, then go for it. For the penny pincher who still is willing to invest on a good flick, wait until it drops four or more dollars and go rent it right away.

Damion Crowley.


I have to be honest, i was expecting a failure so bad, because it really did sound like they were trying to milk the original movie to get money. But that wasn't the case with this pretty funny (sometimes odd) movie. I loved how they told the story of Timon and Pumba, the story with Simba and him having trouble sleeping was funny. The jacuzzi bubble, and when Pumba leaves, the bubbles stop. It's all harmless fun, good for kids and some adults. I think this movie will last for a while because it is rather good for a straight to Video and DVD movie. While the movie does seem a little odd and kind of trails off toward the end, it works. 8 out of 10


7 if you're a kid- 6 if you claim to be an adult. This semi-sequel to the Lion King sees to spin off side characters Timone and Pumba, retelling the original story through their eyes, including the story of how they met. In the grand tradition of Disney, inferior sequels are made, and occasionally TV series featuring the adventures of minor characters from their biggest hits. You can be as sceptical as you want about this, but kids and fans of the series will likely not care; their are enough jokes and songs and interesting things to ensure that this is one of the few above average sequels. This works because of the charm of the much-loved central characters, the quick pace, the in-jokes involving the first film, and for older viewers there are some funny gags. The animation is as good as ever, if a little less flamboyant than the original, but the plot here is all about taking it easy, Hakuna Matata.

Timone and Pumba decide to watch the events of the first film, frequently stopping mid-film to joke about parts of it, like a real audience. We see how Timone is a near outcast, he feels he does not fit in and decides to go looking beyond what he sees to find his ideal home. On the way he meets Pumba, another outcast and they become friends. Soon they meet Simba, a Lion cub, natural predator of T and P, but they form a trio. However, when Simba realises he must follow his own destiny and leave the group, it is up to the others to decide whether to help or not, and how. Of course the usual Disney elements and themes are here, friendship, good versus evil etc. The plot is simple but works on many levels, making it smarter than your average animated movie. As the CG movies appear, Disney's traditional form must become smarter, but not forget the roots which made them popular. Toy Story and all that have come since have been clever, with jokes to suit all ages, and it seems this is the way the market is shifting. However, there will always be a place for films like this, and you cannot go wrong buying this for the youngsters.

7 out of 10


If The Lion King is a serious story about a young lion growing up to avenge his father's death, The Lion King 1 and a half is the total opposite, full of whimsy and cheer. The Lion King told the story from the side of Simba the young lion, 1 and a half is from the view of Timone and Pumbaa, a less than perfect duo made up of a meercat who left home because he could not dig tunnels without burying his friends and neighbors and a warthog who has an odor issue. The movie is a little short on substance, but Disney does a good job of filling time with various sketches starring Timone and Pumbaa as they "watch" the movie with us. My favorite is the sing-along that happens halfway through the movie, make sure you watch the bouncing bug! Disney has advertised 1 and a half as "the rest of the story," though it really isn't. It is just a different perspective of The Lion King, without all of the serious stuff that pervaded most of the second half of the original Disney classic. Credit Nathan Lane as Timone and Ernie Sabella as Pumbaa for their voice work, without their efforts, the movie may not have worked. The sing, they entertain, and they make us laugh. They also give us a reason to avoid a hot tub with a warthog.


"The Lion King" is without a doubt my favorite Disney movie of all time, so I figured maybe I should give the sequels a chance and I did. Lion King 1 1/2 was pretty good and had it's good laughs and fun with Timon and Pumba. Only problem, I feel sometimes no explanations are needed because they can create plot holes and just the feeling of wanting your own explanation. Well, I would highly recommend this movie for lion King fans or just a night with the family. It's a fun flick with the same laughs and lovable characters as the first. So, hopefully, I'll get the same with the third installment to the Lion King series. Sit back and just think Hakuna Matata! It means no worries!

8/10


I wasn't sure when I heard about this coming out. I was thinking how dumb is Disney getting. I was wrong. I found it to be very good. I mean it's not The Lion King but it's cool to see another side from a certain point. It was very funny. Also it wasn't one of those corny disney sequels were the animation sucks, it was just like The Lion King animation. The only thing that eritated me was the whole movie theater thing through out the movie. Not to give anything way but you'll know what I am talking about. I also fun that it was cool to have most of the cast from the original to return. It was a very good movie over all.


I think Lion King 1 1/2 is one of the best sequels ever as if not the best out of the three Lion King movies! In the movie Timon and Pumbaa tell us where they came from and having trouble fitting in with others such as Timon having trouble digging tunnels with other Meercats! Timon and Pumbaa journey off into finding their dream place and find it and soon find it and also Simba who they raise but soon they must choose between their dream place or helping Simba face his evil Uncle Scar and proclaim his right as the Lion King of Pride Rock! Filled with wonderful new characters like Timon's Ma(Julie Kavner) and Uncle Max (Jerry Stiller). I think my favorite character was Uncle Max because he was very funney and was voiced by a funney comedian Jerry Stiller the father of Ben Stiller. Disney was smart to cast Stiller in that role! Filled with wonderful characters, animation, and story and music Lion King 1 1/2 is in my opinion the best of any sequel and better than Simba's Pride even though I will admit I really did like that one too! Lion King 1 1/2 is a great Disney sequel the whole family can enjoy! It's got a good story and is very funney! 10 out of 10!


Finally, Timon and Pumbaa in their own film...

'The Lion King 1 1/2: Hakuna Matata' is an irreverent new take on a classic tale. Which classic tale, you ask? Why, 'The Lion King' of course!

Yep, if there's one thing that Disney is never short of, it's narcissism.

But that doesn't mean that this isn't a good film. It's basically the events of 'The Lion King' as told from Timon and Pumbaa's perspective. And it's because of this that you'll have to know the story of 'The Lion King' by heart to see where they're coming from.

Anyway, at one level I was watching this and thinking "Oh my god this is so lame..." and on another level I was having a ball. Much of the humour is predictable - I mean, when Pumbaa makes up two beds, a big one for himself and a small one for Timon, within the first nanosecond we all know that Timon is going to take the big one. But that doesn't stop it from being hilarious, which, IMO, is 'Hakuna Matata' in a nutshell. It's not what happens, it's how.

And a note of warning: there are also some fart jokes. Seriously, did you expect anything else in a film where Pumbaa takes centre stage? But as fart jokes go, these are especially good, and should satisfy even the most particular connoisseur.

The returning voice talent is great. I'm kinda surprised that some of the actors were willing to return, what with most of them only having two or three lines (if they're lucky). Whoopi Goldberg is particularly welcome.

The music is also great. From 'Digga Tunnah' at the start to 'That's all I need', an adaption of 'Warthog Rhapsody' (a song that was cut from 'The Lion King' and is frankly much improved in this incarnation), the music leaves me with nothing to complain about whatsoever.

In the end, Timon and Pumbaa are awesome characters, and while it may be argued that 'Hakuna Matata' is simply an excuse to see them in various fun and assorted compromising situations then so be it. It's rare to find characters that you just want to spend time with.

Am I starting to sound creepy?

Either way, 'The Lion King 1 1/2' is great if you've seen 'The Lion King' far too many times. Especially if you are right now thinking "Don't be silly, there's no such thing as seeing 'The Lion King' too many times!"


"Lion King 1 1/2" is the funniest non-theatrical release from Disney. I recently saw this movie again after not seeing it in many years. I remember first time I saw it I didn't had any expectations at all and were pleasantly surprised by this watchable and highly entertaining movie.

Is it better than "Simba's Pride"? In many ways, yes. Though "Simba's Pride" wasn't exactly bad, it did suffer some problems: lack of an good script and bad characterizations, which made impact of what otherwise a okay film.

Anyway: It's nice to see Timon and Pumbaa's personalities blossom again in the way that we (or certainly me) loved about them in this film; in "Simba's Pride" they were completely annoying and I didn't liked the "Timon and Pumbaa" series neither.

This film could easily have been a stupid one, but fortunately the filmmakers didn't took the wrong turn and instead focused to make this film at times extremely hilarious. There are a few jokes that adults can enjoy on their own. The score is quite good. There are two new songs, which are catchy and two new characters, Timon's mom, (voiced by recognizable Marge Simpsons' Julie Kavner) and Uncle Max, which are enjoyable. The friendship between Timon and Pumbaa are touchingly portrayed. The emotional scenes are well integrated in the comical story and doesn't feel out of place, which it could have easily done (especially in comedies).

But is there something that distracts this picture from getting 10 votes from me? Yes, there is. Although they fortunately doesn't impact too much, but I'll mention them: 1. Many of the scenes from the first film are used in this one. Personally, it was weird to see the old scenes integrated with the new ones.

2. During the climax, some of the jokes becomes lame.

3. Storywise, this is Timon's story and although the filmmakers try to integrate his tale with Simba's, it makes the screenplay feel a little rushed at times.

But hey, those details doesn't impact this otherwise amusing movie. It is the only really acceptable Disney sequel, which should be in every movie collection.


Surprisingly not terrible and well animated for one of Disney's straight to video throw away sequels. Like the previous sequel (The Lion King 2) I was glad that Disney brought back most of the original voice actors which makes a big difference and they kept a good level of traditional animation. The plot wanders around for a while but we are distracted by an unending string of jokes ranging from hilarious to dull. To break up the detached plot and jokes they gave us some silly musical sequences, which much like the jokes, range from entertaining to a quick trip to the fridge. For the most part the MST3K-like moments are bland and full of untapped potential and really don't add a whole lot to the movie other than to act as a vehicle for an hour-long flashback. The new characters are at least likable, and the old characters are out doing their thing so I can't fault them there. Overall this movie in not bad and it makes for a nice frivolous filler between the more serious Lion King titles.


In this film we have the fabulous opportunity to see what happened to Timon and Pumbaa in the film when they are not shown - which is a lot! This film even goes back to before Simba and (presumbably) just after the birth of Kiara.

Quite true to the first film, "Lion King 1/2 (or Lion King 3 in other places)" is a funny, entertaining, exciting and surprising film (or sequel if that's what you want to call it). A bundle of surprises and hilarity await for you!

While Timon and Pumbaa are watching a film at the cinema (with a remote control), Timon and Pumbaa have an argument of what point of "The Lion King" they are going to start watching, as Timon wants to go to the part when he and Pumbaa come in and Pumbaa wants to go back to the beginning. They have a very fair compromise of watching the film of their own story, which is what awaits... It starts with Timon's first home...

For anyone with a good sense of humour who liked the first films of just about any age, enjoy "Lion King 1/2"! :-)


I actually like the original, and this film has its ups and downs. Here's just a few:

Ups: Most of the original voice cast returned.

Downs: I didn't like the voice of Timon's Ma. I know she did a voice in The Simpsons, but that show is just plain stupid.

Ups: We get to see Simba as a "teenager."

Downs: They wasted it with a slug-slurping contest between Timon and Simba.

Ups: It was Rafiki who told Timon about "Hakuna Matata."

Downs: How did Pumbaa find out about it?

Ups: Songs again. (some of the original songs were there, but they were just background music.)

Downs: But stupid songs. (a.k.a. Timon's solo.)

Overall, this is a pretty good movie. I'd recommend it for fans of the original. But if you don't like the original, chances are you won't like this one.

My Score: 7/10


Everyone, my name may sound weird, but there was nothing else!

Any way, I haven't seen anything like this before so it was crazy! Of course that's a good thing. It is a humorously interesting movie and my absolute all time favourite thing is how they intertwine other things into one! Like chicken little,, the fish pretending to be King Kong and Runt the pig saying, "Twas beauty who killed the beast", War of the worlds scene and more. Walt Disney company has NOT lost his touch maybe not for this one. Also, how they made it like they were watching a movie and it was like a home cinema.

However some parts don't fit. Like in the original lion king, weren't Timon and Pumbaa with Simba when he beat Scar? In this movie, they are not! they were fighting the hyenas backstage. Ther's more, the reason being why Pumbaa isn't so confident is because he was pushed away by the other animals and also, it's just Timon, Timon, Timon. Anybody realise that only Timonn's story was told, whereas pumbaa only had flashbacks?

But apart from that , IT"S GREAT!


Disney have done it again. Brilliant the way Timone and Pumbaa are brought back to life yet again to tell us how they came to meet and help Simba when he needed them. I love this film and watch it over and over again. It shows how Timone lived with his family and fellow meerkats before setting off to find his dream home and adventure. Then he meets Pumbaa and things do change. Together, they search for the home Timon wants and repeatedly fail, which is funny as Timone gets more and more crazy. Then Simba turns up and we see more of his childhood than we did in the previous 2 films. The rest, you already know.


What a pleasant surprise: A Disney DTV (Direct to Video) sequel that's actually GOOD. "The Lion King 1 1/2" is a comedy affair that involves everyone's favorite meerkat and warthog, Timon and Pumbaa. It starts out with them watching the original movie and making comments, until Timon complains that "we're not here yet". After fighting over the remote, Timon and Pumbaa decide to tell the audience "their story". They start the new movie, and the laughs begin.

To be honest, I was losing hope in Disney. Most of their direct-to-video fare has been aggressively awful, with the story lines desperate to cash in on the original. "1 1/2" decides to try something different: It tells the original story from a new point of view. Okay, it adds some stuff, like where Timon came from and how he and Pumbaa met, but it's an interesting concept. Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella perfectly recapture the bond and friendship that made us love them in the first movie. There's also some neat movie parodies (including one scene that simultaneously spoofs 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly' and 'Cool Hand Luke), and the script is filled with funny memorable lines.

Added to the cast are Julie Kavner ("The Simpsons") as Timon's worry-wart mom, and Jerry Stiller as Timon's slightly crazy Uncle Max. Matthew Broderick shows up as Simba, and his "teen" scene reminded me of Ferris Bueller. Everyone does well, especially Robert Guillame (is that how you spell it?) as Rafiki, who exudes more and more Yoda-speak in this movie (Timon comments on this several times).

'The Lion King 1 1/2' is a perfect alternate choice for those of you getting tired of the Shrekification of animation. 10/10


If the Lion King was a Disney version of Hamlet, then the Lion King 3: Hakuna Matata is a Disney version of Guildenstern and Rosencrantz are Dead. Just like Tom Stoppard's beguiling film, we get to view the action from the point of view of two of the minor characters from the original: Timon, the meerkat with a penchant for breaking into song at the drop of a hat, and Pumbaa, the warthog with flatulence issues. By following their story - rather than Simba's - we get to see why all the animals bowed down as Simba was presented from Pride Rock. We find out what made Timon and Pumbaa decide to follow Simba back to Pride Rock to oust Scar. And we find out how they dealt with the hyena's once and for all. Nathan Lane as Timon gets most of the best jokes, but he is ably supported by Ernie Sabella as Pumbaa. It is also good to hear Matthew Broderick and Whoopi Goldberg reprising their roles. Julie Kavner and Jerry Stiller lend their distinctive voices to two new characters: Timon's mother and uncle. The only downside is the constant stop-start-rewind-fast-forward device which doesn't always help to progress the story. Having said that, there is a brilliant zoom near the beginning of the movie. With more laughs than any other third-in-a-Disney-series movie, Hakuna Matata is worth watching - if only for the hot tub scene which is still funny despite being a little bit predictable.


Possible SPOILERS: Not Sure

While watching The Lion King 1 1/2, I couldn't help but have mixed feelings about the whole film. It is definitely a good way to spend about an hour and 15 minutes. But there is nothing about it that would give you the same sort of feeling that The Lion King did. The story, for those who haven't read the other reviews, is about how Timon and Pumbaa meet, and how they affect events in the original Lion King.

There are actually some very funny jokes in the movie. My favorite part is when they show the pair raising Simba. However, for me the worst parts have to be when they show Timon and Pumbaa directly interfering with the events of the original. I can never look at the "Circle of Life" or "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" sequences the same way again (I'm okay with the "I Just Can't Wait to be King" sequence).

The voice talents are excellent. Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella do a wonderful job, as do Matthew Broderick, the guy who does Rafiki, and the hyenas. Even the actor who does young Simba sounded enough like Jonathon Taylor Thomas for me. But why did they even include a voice actor for Zazu? He literally had only 2 lines, and neither were very necessary. The additions of Julie Kavner and Jerry Stiller only add to the talent, although you still can't hear Timon's Mom's voice and not think of Marge Simpson.

There are some scenes that seem to not fit in with the original, the one coming to mind being when they are pride rock at the end. How did they have time to fit in the initial fight with the hyenas?

As for the DVD itself, you can't help but feel that for a 2 disc set, the special features are especially lacking. They could have easily fit a commentary, or another aspect ratio on the 1st disc. I enjoyed the "Who Wants to be King of the Jungle" game, even if it is the most shameful example of cross promotion I've ever seen. Some of the questions are actually difficult.

Overall, a good movie, though not nearly as good as TLK or even TLK2.


I watched Lion king more times that all my friends put togther. Having a baby sister.. you know how it is. By now i memorized both the plot and the lines. After Lion king 2 came out i was like ok well let me see... the second one was significantly weaker... then i saw an ad for lion king 1 and 1/2... I was like ok there we go again. After watching the 1 1/2 i was like wow. All my expectations (for repetitevness) were broken. A truly lovely and original plot keeps you glued to your seat for the entire time. I have noticed that the cartoon was filled with so many comical moments that ROFlmao will apply here 100%.

I definetly recommend seeing the cartoon.


The Lion King 1 1/2 is a very cute story to go along with The Lion King. It basically follows the original story of The Lion King but with a couple of twists. In the movie,e vents are explained by a different characters point of view. This story is still an original plot.

As far as sequels go, Disney isn't all that great at making worthwhile ones. This one, being the third part to The Lion King (Simba's Pride is the second.) actually has an original idea to it while still involving the fun of the first. Timon and Pumbaa travel along looking for the ideal place to live. After searching far and wide, they find the place of "Hakuna Matata". They then meet a small lion named Simba, and go through many things that parents today go through.

I think this is a very good movie, and I'm happy to add it to my collection.


While in a plane, flicking through the large choice of movies, I came across Live! almost accidentally. oh boy! what a choice.

I remembered vaguely seeing the trailer over a year ago and completely forgot about it expecting no more than another cheesy nonsense movie about a stupid reality show. Now I can easily say this has been a hell of a ride. I don't remember last time I have been so excited, terrified. Not sure if it was the high altitude playing with my senses, but the suspense grow gradually through the movie until reaching a climax where you can't turn away from the screen, literally sitting on the edge of your seat and biting the remaining nails you've got.

You will first go through a personal moral assessment of where you stand about the righteousness of the show. You will drift from thinking "how come the human being can be so vicious" to "why not after all?".Ask yourself would you do it. Then learn about the contestants, their motives and start guessing. You will then watch contestant pulling the trigger one by one and get excited even though you know the first candidate is safe.

Good acting, good directing, with a movie experience that reminds you those old movies where you knew what would happen in the next scene but still were craving for more.

*Spoilers* couple of things i would have changed:

- the casting of the contestants. i have really been moved by the farmer and we should have had a bit more like him. The idea of a rich writer who wants to be famous is a bit stupid, it felt like you didn't care about some of the contestants. Although this might have been done on purpose, i think the audience should have been able to associate with the majority of the contestants. - game rules, a big glitch :

what happens if the 5th contestants doesn't die when he pulls the trigger. do you seriously think the last standing guy will pull the trigger and execute himself!!! they should have given a chance to all contestants to live, ie: if 5th is a blank too, then no one dies.

interestingly I haven't been bothered too much by this bad points cause i really had a good time. just wish i had some popcorn with me!


Why has this not been released? I kind of thought it must be a bit rubbish since it hasn't been. How wrong can a girl be! This film is, in a word, enthralling.

You will be captivated. It holds your attention from the start and its pace never slows.

The final part of the film, the "episode" as it were (not giving anything away, you saw that in the trailer) is also unmissable. You will chose a favourite, you will be shocked, you wont be able to go and make a cup of coffee because you need to find out what happens. The adrenalin rises and you cant not watch. Cudos to the actors, it's very believable. And it doesn't stop there, they have a final shock for you.

It also makes you question reality TV and if you would watch. And how far away from this are we, really? Endemol (who make big brother) made a TV show in Holland last year offering a dying woman's kidney to patients in need of a transplant. The show was revealed at the end to be a hoax, ostensibly to raise awareness of organ donation, but are we getting too close for comfort?


This movie probably would only get a 7 or 8 from me to tell the truth if I had seen trailers or had any kind of knowledge of what the film is all about. Since it was virtually all a surprise it was almost a perfect piece of edgy entertainment that gets a strong 9 from me.

I read through some of the comments briefly and saw that someone else had almost the same experience as me and he advised to just watch it. It was good advice. Read the rest at your own risk of spoiling.

Eva Mendez plays a head-strong, success-starved network TV programmer that took a joke made by a co-worker while brain-storming TV program ideas about Russian Roulette seriously. The story follows her in a documentary style on her pursuit to make this happen.


This is a film that was very well done. I had heard mixed reviews while it was in production and have been waiting for its release! Cheers to the director and all the actors. The supporting cast gave Eva Mendez what she needed to take this to the top. As everyone else here states, the latter portion of the film is riveting. Katie Cassidy did an amazing job with her character, being she had not done a lot of work when this film was made. She has quite the career ahead of her. I was amazed at her performance. I completely enjoyed the film, questioned my values in life and priorities, and am a better person for it! A great message lies within the film. Release it so all can enjoy!


This is widely viewed in Australia as one of the best cop dramas ever produced here ... and for my money, anywhere. It's raw, gritty, the characters are real, the situations are believable and it doesn't shy away from the darker side of life confronted every day by cops and the criminals, victims, lawyers and other people in their various orbits.

This show ran for 2 seasons and was discontinued because the show didn't sell well overseas. We are all sorry for its loss: however, like Fawlty Towers, we will be able to revere this as a limited-length series of uniformly high quality.


In the ten years since Wildside aired, nothing has really come close to its quality in local production. This includes the two series of the enjoyable but overrated Underbelly, which have brought to life events in the recent criminal history of both Sydney and Melbourne. The miniseries Blue Murder (which also starred Tony Martin, but as someone on the other side of the law) may be the exception.

Wildside is currently being repeated late at night on the ABC. Having not watched the show in quite a while, I'm still impressed by its uncompromising story lines and very human characters. The cast is excellent: Tony Martin as a detective haunted by the disappearance of his son, Rachael Blake (who later hooked up with Martin in real life) as a community worker struggling with alcoholism, and Alex Dimitriades as a young cop whose vice is gambling. Equally good support roles are provided by Aaron Pederson, Jessica Napier, Mary Coustas (yes, Effie herself), and a young Abbie Cornish.

The ABC inexplicably released only the first three episodes on DVD a couple of years ago. The logic of this sort of marketing is beyond me, but I'm guessing it may have something to do with licensing disagreements with the original producers.

A great series which has aged remarkably well. Here's hoping the ABC's DVD department gets its act together.

(According to a moderator on an ABC message board, some sort of further DVD release is due in December 2009)


I'm writing this 9 years after the final episode was aired and I am still reeling from the impact Wildside has had on me.

It has effectively gone where numerous other cop dramas have gone and succeeded. But it took it further and didn't stray from the realism of the streets, often portraying life events and characters down to a T.

I am sorely missing this series, instead we have are given the stupid "Underbelly" which is over dramatised and acted creating a whole load of American-esquire garbage.

Wildside stayed true to the uniqueness of Sydney and for that I am truly indebted to this wonderful series. The acting was A-grade and it's a shame to see only a few actors have furthered their career whilst others have faded into obscurity.

I don't want Australia to forget this wonderful piece of their television history, thus I ask the ABC to release the complete series on DVD, not the first three. Give this series the ending it deserves.


The final season of Roseanne was a roller coaster ride of crazy. This final episode does just what a previous comment says, it tells us that as much as we might have thought we knew the characters we did not. Roseanne reaches back to season one, and tells us that this show has been her rendition of her life. She says in this final episode that she changed events and people as she sees fit. Scott was not really with Leon, but he existed. Mark and David married opposite wives in real life, and Dan died when she made him live. As events happened in her life, she changed them in her writing. Don't we all wish we could do that. Don't we all have a moment in time that we wish we could just use an eraser and change to our liking. This is what she did with the entire episode. And to another comment I would say that I don't feel cheated, the family was real in my mind, she just changed the way that events happened in their lives. An A+ ending to an A+ show!!!!


The season finale sent mix messages, I felt feelings of joy, and also feelings of being lied to and deceived. Roseanne tells all her viewers that the entire season nine was a lie because her husband, Dan, had died. She also admits the family never won the lottery, and what season 9 was a lie just being how she wished or wanted it to be. I'm still confused about when she said Becky ended up with David, and Darlene with Mark because Becky and Mark admit to being pregnant. So I believe that is just how she wanted it to be, but it wasn't. So the season finale was good, but sent mixed feelings. I will always be a fan of the show. :)


Maybe some people may consider this a slow movie. However, it's precisely this "slow burning" that allows it to profoundly affect the viewer. Like that marvelous first scene: first, we can hear the voices; then, we are allowed to see the characters; finally, the camera slowly pans back and to the side and we see another character, a young man who is just sitting there, apparently not even listening to the conversation or, at least, not really caring. The fact that this young man will be the leading role shows the movie's strategy: allowing the character to develop and be determined by the environment surrounding him but without remarking the points more than necessary. People come and go, flow in and out of his life. Although most of the movie follows him (and most of the supporting characters are only seen when close to him, defined according to the relationship maintained with him), we are induced to believe that we are being objective, so subtle is the director touch.


This is the touching story of two families in Israel and the relationships within each family. Each family has a gay son. The stories are interrelated at that point but this film is about all of the family members, not just the two sons. The portraits of each of the family members in both families are well drawn and the story is consistently interesting if a bit bleak.


"Amazing Grace" has a languid feel to it as it tells a contemporary story of various lives in an apartment building. The language spoken is Hebrew, but the drama could take place in any modern city. It observes family values, romantic relationships, and age group characteristics with equal aplomb. It does not judge the characters, only present them in a straight forward manner, as they strive to work out their individual problems in this modern world. The quality of acting is very good, and the observations made on the characters are astute and sharp. I appreciate this flowing film very much.


Unfortunately, the director Amos Guttman died from Aids-related illnesses the year after making this film, so we don't know how many more gay-related films we might have had from him. I found this used DVD, from Cinevista, on Amazon, but it looks like none of his other works are still available. Hessed Mufla (Amazing Grace) contains full frontal male nudity, at least in magazines, which turn into a wishful dream sequence. and some drug use. This is the story of two families getting by, or trying to, but the mothers, the daughters, and the gay sons all have their own problems to figure out. Jonathan (played by Gal Hoyberger) meets up with the next door neighbor Thomas, who has his own problems, of course. Either the translations are a little weak, or maybe Guttman kept the conversation sparse on purpose, for a little mystery. Watching this, I get the feeling we're not getting the whole story, but that's OK. Throw in a cute gay roommate ex-lover Miki (Aki Avni, who went on to do many projects, mostly Isreali TV) Lots of smoking. Lots of worrying by the mothers. A great blues song "All Night Long Blues" done by an unknown female artist; if she is listed in the credits,sadly it was not translated to English. Nice to see mothers and siblings treating gay relationships with respect, like any other relationship. But then, USA always has been years behind other countries in this way. A good way to spend 98 minutes... I wanted to see even more of it. Won awards at several film festivals, acc to IMDb and the film jacket.


ever watched. It deals so gently and subtly not only with Aids (which is only alluded) and gay life, but also with old age, dying and death. It's a deep and beautiful movie, (also visually), of a very special director. Highly recommanded1


This wartime sitcom written by Jimmy Perry and David Croft, who wrote TV's best programme ever Dads Army, was not as good as Dads Army, but still very, very funny.

It is about A concert band in India. Most episodes were about BSM Williams (Windsor Davies) trying to get the concert party, who he referred to as a bunch of puffs, posted up the jungle. He was always unsuccessful as the vague Colonel Reynolds (Donald Hewlett) and the stupid Captain Ashwood (Michael Knowles) were big fans of the concert party. The concert party consisted of Bombadier Solomans (George Layton), Ginger Rogers impersonator Gunner "Gloria" Beaumont (Melvyn Hayes), University educated piano player Gunner "La de da" Gunner Graham, a.k.a Padarouski (John Clegg), singer Gunner "Lofty" Sugden, Gunner Parkins (Christopher Mitchell) (Williams thought Parkins was his son, he was quite wrong), big eater Gunner "Nosher" Evans and animal impersonator's (Kenneth MacDonald), he was no Percy Edwards. Also, heavily involved in the adventures were faithful Indian servant Rangi Ram (Michael Bates), with the Char-Wallah and the Punkah-Wallah (Dino Shafeek and Babar Bhatti) giving Ram wonderful support.

The show, just like Dads Army left many catchphrases. Rangi Ram used to say to his Punkah Wallah "Don't be such clever dickie" and he ended a lot of the shows saying "Here is a very old Hindu Proverb e.g When wife is having affair with best friend, it doesn't stop your house from catching fire" It was Williams though who had the most catchphrases. He would always shout "Shuddup!!!!!", say "Oh dear, how sad, never mind" and when talking to Gunner Graham, he would always sarcastically talk in a posh accent.

This show doesn't enjoy the same recognition as Dads Army did. This is probably due to a question of taste: This is seen as being crude. Williams is homophobic calling his men "Puffs", though it has to be said Williams is a bore. Also, some people think there is a racial element in the humour, using the fact that Michael Bates was blacked up to play Rangi Ram (Bates was actually born in India though and spoke Urdu before he spoke English), so the BBC will feel a bit uneasy putting it on, even though the vast majority of people who have actually WATCHED the show would agree that the show isn't racist, I know someone who is half Indian, and they weren't the slightest bit offended and agreed like I did that it was a very funny show. When I see an episode for the first time, I laugh probably more than I do for any other sitcom, but when I see it second time round, I don't laugh all that much, but no matter how many times I see Dads Army, I laugh many times in an episode.

Best Episode: The Road to Banu, series 1, episode 7


At the height of the 'Celebrity Big Brother' racism row in 2007 ( involving Shilpa Shetty and the late Jade Goody ), I condemned on an internet forum those 'C.B.B.' fans who praised the show, after years of bashing 'racist' '70's sitcoms such as 'Curry & Chips' & 'Love Thy Neighbour'. I thought they were being hypocritical, and said so. 'It Ain't Half Hot Mum' was then thrown into the argument, with some pointing out it had starred an English actor blacked-up. Well, yes, but Michael Bates had lived in India as a boy, and spoke Urdu fluently. The show's detractors overlook the reality he brought to his performance as bearer 'Rangi Ram'. The noted Indian character actor, Renu Setna, said in a 1995 documentary 'Perry & Croft: The Sitcoms' that he was upset when he heard Bates had landed the role, but added: "No Indian actor could have played that role as well as Bates.". Indeed.

'Mum' was Perry and Croft's companion show to 'Dad's Army'; also set in wartime, the sedate English town of Walmington-On-Sea had been replaced by the hot, steamy jungles of India, in particularly a place called Deolali, where an army concert party puts on shows for the troops, among them Bombadier Solomons ( George Layton, his first sitcom role since 'Doctor In Charge' ), camp Gunner 'Gloria' Beaumont ( Melvyn Hayes ), diminutive Gunner 'Lofty' Sugden, 'Lah de-dah' Gunner Graham ( John Clegg ), and Gunner Parkins ( the late Christopher Mitchell ). Presiding over this gang of misfits was the bellicose Sergeant-Major Williams ( the brilliant Windsor Davies ), who regarded them all as 'poofs'. His frustration at not being able to lead his men up the jungle to engage the enemy in combat made him bitter and bullying ( though he was nice to Parkins, whom he thought was his illegitimate son! ). Then there was ever-so English Colonel Reynolds ( Donald Hewlett ) and dimwitted Captain Ashwood ( Michael Knowles ). Rangi was like a wise old sage, beginning each show by talking to the camera and closing them by quoting obscure Hindu proverbs. He loved being bearer so much he came to regard himself as practically British. His friends were the tea-making Char Wallah ( the late Dino Shafeek, who went on to 'Mind Your Language' ) and the rope pulling Punka Wallah ( Babar Bhatti ). So real Indians featured in the show - another point its detractors ignore. Shafeek also provided what was described on the credits as 'vocal interruptions' ( similar to the '40's songs used as incidental music on 'Dad's Army' ). Each edition closed with him warbling 'Land Of Hope & Glory' only to be silenced by a 'Shut Up!' from Williams. The excellent opening theme was penned by Jimmy Perry and Derek Taverner.

Though never quite equalling 'Dad's Army' in the public's affections, 'Mum' nevertheless was popular enough to run for a total of eight seasons. In 1975, Davies and Estelle topped the charts with a cover version of that old chestnut 'Whispering Grass'. They then recorded an entire album of old chestnuts, entitled ( what else? ) 'Sing Lofty!'.

The show hit crisis point three years later when Bates died of cancer. Rather than recast the role of 'Rangi', the writers just let him be quietly forgotten. When George Layton left, the character of 'Gloria' took his place as 'Bombadier', providing another source of comedy.

The last edition in 1981 saw the soldiers leave India by boat for Blighty, the Char Wallah watching them go with great sadness ( as did viewers ).

Repeats have been few and far between ( mainly on U.K. Gold ) all because of its so-called 'dodgy' reputation. This is strange. For one thing, the show was not specifically about racism. If a white man blacked-up is so wrong, why does David Lean's 1984 film 'A Passage to India' still get shown on television? ( it featured Alec Guinness as an Indian, and won two Oscars! ). It was derived from Jimmy Perry's own experiences. Some characters were based on real people ( the Sergeant-Major really did refer to his men as 'poofs' ). I take the view that if you are going to put history on television, get it right. Sanitizing the past, no matter how unsavoury it might seem to modern audiences, is fundamentally dishonest. 'Mum' was both funny and truthful, and viewers saw this. Thank heavens for D.V.D.'s I say. Time to stop this review. As Williams would say: "I'll have no gossiping in this jungle!"


Having enjoyed Joyce's complex novel so keenly I was prepared to be disappointed by Joseph Strick's and Fred Haines's screenplay, given the fabulous complexity of the original text. However, the film turned out to be very well done and a fine translation of the tone, naturalism, and levity of the book.

It certainly helps to have read the original text before viewing the film. I imagine the latter would seem disjointed, with very odd episodes apparently randomly stitched together, without a prior reading of the text to help grasp the plot.

It's amazing to see how "filthy" the film is, given that it was shot in Dublin in 1967. The Irish film censors only, finally, unbanned it for viewing by general audiences in Ireland as late as 2000 (it was shown to restricted audiences in a private cinema club, the Irish Film Theatre, in the late 1970s). Joyce's eroticism is not simply naturalistic and raunchy, it offers many wildly "perverse" episodes. Never mind that so many of these fetishes were unacceptable when the book was published in 1922 - they were still utterly taboo when the film was made in 1967.

It is astonishing and heartening to watch the cream of the Irish acting profession of the 1960s, respected players all, daring to utter and enact Joyce's hugely transgressive text with such gusto.

Bravo!


As if the film were not of value in itself, this is an excellent way to get an overview of the novel as a preface to reading it. In the summer of 1968 I saw the film in NYC; that fall in graduate school, I read the book for the first time. Some of the pleasure in reading the novel was my memory of the scrupulously detailed film. And for better or worse--and I've now read and taught the novel for over three decades--Milo O'Shea is still Leopold Bloom.


Ulysses as a film should in no way be compared with the novel, for they are two entirely different entities. However, that being said, the film still manages to maintain many of the elements that made the book work, but since it is a visual medium, it is more difficult to pull of stream-of-consciousness. I think this is the best film they could have made with the material... and this is from someone that routinely rants about films not being like their literary counterparts. I recommend the book, but the movie is still entertaining.


The film adaptation of James Joyce's Ulysses is excellent. The actors, the voice overs, the direction, it all captures the feel of the novel without sacrificing its own merits. The Milo O'Shea does an excellent job as Leopold Bloom, the cuckolded man married to the sassy Molly. I absolutely love this picture.


Brilliant adaptation of the largely interior monologues of Leopold Bloom, Stephen Dedalus, and Molly Bloom by Joseph Strick in recreating the endearing portrait of Dublin on June 16, 1904 - Bloomsday - a day to be celebrated - double entendre intended! Bravo director Strick, screenwriter Haines, as well as casting director and cinematographer in creating this masterpiece. Gunter Grass' novel, The Tin Drum filmed by Volker Schlöndorff (1979)is another fine film adaptation of interior monologue which I favorably compare with Strick's film.

While there are clearly recognized Dublin landmarks in the original novel and in the film, there are also recognizable characters, although with different names in the novel. For example, Buck Mulligan with whom Dedalus lives turns out to be a then prominent Dublin surgeon.

This film for all of its excellence is made even richer by additional viewings.

Brian invinoveritas1@AOL.com 15 June 2008


This movie took the Jerry Springer approach to super-human power. "Wilder Napalm" is the kind of theme-based movie that I love, addressing the idea that prodigies in America are defined either by their gifts or by attempts to hide them. At the same time, the movie points out that every prodigy is only human, and no more to be feared or worshipped than any other human being. This was a great comedy, fun and human with that slight satiric edge.