Lizzie Borden's Love Crimes is an important film, dealing with the dark side of female sexuality (and including full frontal female nudity, which sure beats the male kind). It flirts with sadomasochism and the captive falling in love with captor theory.

This treatment of feminine libido is sometimes shallow and jerky, but Borden has travelled well beyond feminist dogma of females gaining power through their insatiable lust.

One striking scene exposes the female fetish for horses, when the antagonist, a counterfeit fashion photographer, is seducing an older woman wearing breeches by asking her to show how she rides a horse. He shoves a riding crop between her legs, pressing it against her crotch, and this greatly increases her excitement.

Then suddenly he leaves her home and she swears abjectly at the closed door.

Patrick Bergin plays the con artist, and though he falls a long distance from handsome, he picks on plain Janes and has enough screen presence to make one believe the women could swallow his line. By all reports, Sean Young proves a weird person, and she is scarcely beautiful. Yet in this film as the district attorney her intense face and long-limbed slender body and accentuated hips and periodically disjointed movement alchemize into erotic fascination. Her performance is forceful and complex.

Borden possesses an intriguing worldview, and the fact that it stands so at odds with the modern feckless zeitgeist I truly appreciate.


This is by far my favorite film of all time. That's mainly because it's not afraid to delve into some very politically incorrect topics (such as spanking and female submissiveness) that other mainstream films are just too timid to touch. Nothing seems to be off-limits in this film as the director freely develops the story without any concern given to possibly offending the viewer. However, I don't think anything was done here purely for shock value or to purposely offend anyone. Sean Young turns in an excellent and courageous performance. Most established mainstream actresses would not have taken on this role or would have asked for some major script changes before accepting it. The other cast members do a fine job as well.

Have you noticed that this movie hasn't appeared on pay cable since an obligatory brief run a year after it hit the theaters? Have you ever wondered why? The obvious reason is that it just doesn't fit today's political atmosphere. It seems quite ironic to me that some premium channels now carry softcore porn (that's getting closer and closer to hardcore porn) but will not carry a mainstream movie like "Love Crimes". Sadly, even though this movie is only 11 years old, it could probably not be made today.


In Lizzie Borden's "Love Crimes" (1992), Sean Young plays a gritty D.A. in Atlanta. She's a loner who gets herself too deeply involved in the case of a man (Patrick Bergin) who poses as a famous fashion photographer and seduces women, takes compromising photos of them, then leaves them.

Naturally, this tough loner decides to enter the phony shutterbug's life by posing as his prey, intending to bring him to justice. They meet, they make love, then the next thing she knows, she is over his lap, getting spanked. (Note: The spanking scene is only in the "unrated" version of this film. The R-rated version omits it and several other scenes that would make the plot more lucid.) This psychological thriller includes several scenes of female nudity and disturbing images, such as Bergin chasing one of his victims around the room, flailing at her with a riding crop.

As a thriller, "Love Crimes" is at its best when Sean Young is playing her cat-and-mouse game with Bergin, trying to catch him in an incriminating act. It's unfortunate that the film doesn't end, it just stops. That's true. Director Lizzie Borden may have just run out of story to tell, but after 92 minutes the credits roll, and we are left with a puzzling "what just happened?" bewilderment.

The unfolding of Young's plan is played out in engaging style, but the lack of a coherent ending will be a turn-off for some viewers.

Dan (daneldorado@yahoo.com)


Petter Mattei's "Love in the Time of Money" is a visually stunning film to watch. Mr. Mattei offers us a vivid portrait about human relations. This is a movie that seems to be telling us what money, power and success do to people in the different situations we encounter.

This being a variation on the Arthur Schnitzler's play about the same theme, the director transfers the action to the present time New York where all these different characters meet and connect. Each one is connected in one way, or another to the next person, but no one seems to know the previous point of contact. Stylishly, the film has a sophisticated luxurious look. We are taken to see how these people live and the world they live in their own habitat.

The only thing one gets out of all these souls in the picture is the different stages of loneliness each one inhabits. A big city is not exactly the best place in which human relations find sincere fulfillment, as one discerns is the case with most of the people we encounter.

The acting is good under Mr. Mattei's direction. Steve Buscemi, Rosario Dawson, Carol Kane, Michael Imperioli, Adrian Grenier, and the rest of the talented cast, make these characters come alive.

We wish Mr. Mattei good luck and await anxiously for his next work.


(Question) What do you call 100 film critics buried up to their necks in sand? (Answer) A good start. Well, I don't know Peter Mattei from Adam but if he is the budding auteur his filmography suggests, "Love in the Time of Money" is a "good start". A classy shoot with whimsical music box style music, this flick looks at a chain of tenuous relationships as it moves from person A to person B to person C...etc...and back again ending with persons A & B in carousel fashion. The film gently probes the unhappy circumstances of nine people with finely rendered shadings beginning and ending with a street whore and her client. The downside of this film is the lack of a story which may have something to do with the many critical slams it received. I watched the behemoth "Angels in America" last night and was bored at the end while this little concatenation of character studies kept me spell bound. Use caution. I may be the only person who really liked this flick. (B)


This film sat on my Tivo for weeks before I watched it. I dreaded a self-indulgent yuppie flick about relationships gone bad. I was wrong; this was an engrossing excursion into the screwed-up libidos of New Yorkers.

The format is the same as Max Ophuls' "La Ronde," based on a play by Arthur Schnitzler, who is given an "inspired by" credit. It starts from one person, a prostitute , standing on a street corner in Brooklyn. She is picked up by a home contractor, who has sex with her on the hood of a car, but can't come. He refuses to pay her. When he's off peeing, she answers his cell phone and takes a message. She runs away with his keys.

Then the story switches to the contractor, who pays a professional call on a rich, bored New York woman, who plays with him until he is aroused, then she pulls away. She tells him how desperate and unhappy she is; he tells her how beautiful she is, and lucky. As he is leaving, she asks if he would have sex with her. She sits on top of him, bounces up and down. This time he comes, the he leaves.

The woman and her husband throw a dinner party for their trendy friends. Hubby (Robert) is talking business, wife (Ellen) is bored, and switches the subject to sex, and how often men and women think about it. Husband switches conversation to desert. Later, after the guests leave, Ellen tries to entice Robert into sex. Robert wants none of it, and puts on a jazz record. Ellen turns on the radio; Robert turns up the music; Ellen turns on the TV; Robert turns on another TV. Cacophony ensues. Ellen goes up on the roof, Robert joins her. Ellen confesses that she needs to experience more men, men other than Robert. Robert says that he too needs to experience men.

We next follow Robert as he visits an artist, Martin, played by Steve Buscemi. I wish Buscemi could have more roles like this, where he is a sexy, smart, totally desirable guy. Robert praises Martin's work, much more than it deserves, promises to get it into a show. Martin is excited, until it turns out that Robert is speaking out of his groin, it is all a mating dance. Robert tries to kiss Martin, on the lips, and Martin pulls back, saying that he is not gay. Robert asserts that he's not gay either, Martin scoffs. Both admit that the artworks are bad. Robert is about to leave, when Martin allows Robert to kiss him. They make out, and Robert goes down on Martin.

Next we follow Martin, as he prepares for an art show at a Manhattan gallery. He is smitten by the receptionist, Anna, played by Rosario Dawson. (I had to cut some of this review to keep it under 1000 words) ... and they make love to each other.

We next follow Anna, who is sitting at a lunch stand. Her boyfriend, Nick (Adrian Grenier), enters, bearing flowers. She is cold toward him; he tries to figure out why. He coaxes out of her the information that she has had sex with someone while he was in San Francisco. She coaxes out of him the fact that he has stayed with his ex-gf while in San Francisco, and had sex with her. The latter revelation turns out to be a lie. The two of them make out in the luncheonette, but she decides that they must break up. Nick is heartbroken.

And we follow Nick, who confesses his troubles to an older woman who he meets on a park bench, Joey (Carol Kane). Joey is sort of weird and child-like, but is a good audience for Nick, who needs a sympathetic ear. The two of them go to Coney Island at night, and look at the stars. Nick falls under Joey's spell, despite the age difference between them. They go back to Joey's apartment, and Nick gradually realizes that he is about to have sex with a crazy old woman. She is on top of him, doesn't want to let him go. But he manages to escape.

(This is, by the way, the best Carol Kane role since she played Latke's wife in Taxi.) Joey's phone rings, and it is a man calling the Psychic Friends Network, and Joey is one of the psychic friends. Although she is still hurting from Nick, she gradually gets into her psychic shtick. The man is at his office, late at night, and wants to have phone sex with her. Although that is not Joey's business, Joey goes along, and coaxes the man to come. She wants to keep talking, although the man want to get off the phone, and finds out that he has embezzled a lot of money from his company, and will be found out tomorrow. His life is ruined. Joey realizes that the man is going to commit suicide, and she tries to make him believe that she is his friend, that she cares about him. And she does care about him.

But the man packs a gun into his briefcase, and goes off to seek a prostitute on the Brooklyn waterfront, and we come back to the beginning, to the same prostitute who started out La Ronde. She wants to give him $75,000 in cash if she will kill him. He tried to kill himself, but couldn't do it. The prostitute does not want to do it, but he insists, holding her hand, holding the gun inside his mouth, telling her where to aim. Eventually, the gun goes off, and we see the prostitute walking down the street, and arriving at the corner where she normally does business. The contractor who didn't pay her earlier in the movie drives up, rolls down the window. They look at each other. THE END.


Overall, I enjoyed this film and would recommend it to indie film lovers.

However, I really want to note the similarities between parts of this film and Nichols' Closer. One scene especially where Adrian Grenier's character is questioning Rosario Dawson's about her sex life while he was away is remarkably similar to the scene in Closer where Clive Owen's character is questioning Julia Roberts, although it is acted with less harshness and intensity in "Love." Also note that "Anna" is the name of both Dawson's and Roberts' character. Can't be coincidence. Now Closer is based on Patrick Marber's play and supposedly this film is loosely based on Arthur Schnitzler's "Reigen" so I'm not sure how this connection formed.

Anyone have an idea?


Terrfic film with a slightyly slow start - give it a chance to start cooking. Story builds in interest and complexity. Characters and storyline subvert expectation and cliche at all the right moments. Superb New York City locations - gritty, real - are a fantastic antidote to the commercial imperatives of "Sex in the City" - in fact, the entire film is an antidote to the HBO/Hollywood notion of New York City , sex and relationships. It's a rare film that treats its characters so honestly and compassionately. LOVED IT! Great cast with notable performances by Steve Buscemi, Rosario Dawson, and her love interest (forgot his name!).


Terrific film with a slightly slow start - give it a chance to get cooking. Story builds in interest and complexity. Characters and story line subvert expectation and cliche at all the right moments. Superb New York City locations - gritty, real - are a fantastic antidote to the commercial imperatives of "Sex in the City" - in fact, the entire film is an antidote to the HBO/Hollywood notion of New York City , sex and relationships. It's a rare film that treats its characters so honestly and compassionately. LOVED IT! Great cast with notable performances by Steve Buscemi, Rosario Dawson, and her love interest (forgot his name!).


I chose to watch this film at Tribeca based on Judd Hirsch and Scott Cohen and found it to be one of the best movies in the festival. Both leading actors deliver a well rounded sensitive performance that seems to match the characters on a personal level. The director did a great job bringing the characters and story to life with skill that is usually not seen in a first-time production.

One interesting aspect of this film is the love of woodwork and New York City (Brooklyn in specific). The movie revolves around the family furniture making business and weaves delicate cinematography of both carpentry and ordinary Brooklyn life  again kudos to the director on this fine choice.

This is gem and I would whole heartedly recommend it (I'm sure it will make it to the screen).


I understand this film to be a debut feature and as such, it is very impressive. It has the feel and pacing of a "true indie", yet director Todd Yellin clearly possesses the photographic and editorial vision, command and judgment of a mature and seasoned professional. The shots are well framed and thought out and serve to move the story forward. He, and screenwriter Ivan Solomon deliver a story that has much more depth and lyricism than typical "paint by numbers" type scripts. It's a story that needs Judd Hirsch caliber character talent to have a shot at working. Judd is fantastic as usual; as are Scott Cohen and the beautiful Susan Floyd. The real surprise though is Elliot Korte who plays Adam Groden. Yellin was able to coax nuance out of the young actor in a role that could have been easily devalued by stereotype or overreach. Anyway, I found the film refreshing and entertaining.


I found this movie thought-provoking, and its ambiguity refreshing in a world of quick-fix films where we are manipulated into loving the "good guy" and hating the "bad guy." Scott Cohen, a very handsome television actor, does a great job of portraying the family black sheep/lost child who aspires to gain his father's love and respect, as well as that of his widowed sister-in-law with whom he apparently has a history. Judd Hirsch plays against his usual good guy image as a father who triangulated his sons and now is left with the one he always rejected.

When I saw this at the Tribeca Film Festival, I was enchanted by the lovely way the sawdust was used to portray a family tradition, as explained by the director.

This is a fitting successor to the classic "Ordinary People." I just realized, Judd Hirsch was in that, too!


I saw "Brother's Shadow" at the Tribeca Film Festival and found myself still thinking about it two days later. The story of a prodigal son (Scott Cohen) returning to his family's custom furniture business after a stint in jail, it offers all the necessary qualities of a solid drama--memorable characters; sharp, observant dialog; sensitive use of the camera by a filmmaker who thinks visually.

But more than that, it presents something that is all too rare at the multiplex these days: the uncompromising vision of a mature sensibility. The talent of director-screenwriter Todd S. Yellin seems to emerge full-blown, but we get the sense he (like his protagonist) has paid his dues. He knows how real people struggle in this world, and he knows how we yearn to see--or at least, to experience vicariously--success. Yet Yellin respects his audience too much to blow happy smoke up our rear ends. In the end, we see that Jake's triumph doesn't lie in commissions, or even in the esteem of his family, but in "the work" he couldn't abandon if he tried.

It's an essential theme in a world (and especially a movie industry) that can't rise above "the bottom line". This film deserves a wide audience.


What percentage of movies does a person go to see these days that leave them wondering what happened to their eight to ten dollars? ANSWER: TOO MANY! This movie isn't like that. It is a story about real people that are sometimes a combination of both likable and unlikable.

Downside:

Not enough character development & some plot lines left twisting in the wind.

Upside:

Forces viewers to think about the choices they have made for good or bad in their own lives.

Well acted by: Scott Cohen, Judd Hirsch, Susan Floyd, Ato Essandoh and Elliot Korte.

Contains some good lighthearted humor.


One of the things that interested me most about this film is the way the characters and their associated histories are developed on the fly. I suppose the writers wanted us to gain interest in the characters by not force feeding their characters. The premise of using the art and craft of furniture design and construction was a unique theme and/or analogy for what families/siblings go through in life. The complexity of having a twin serve as a surrogate father and even husband added great tension towards making this film emotionally interesting. Also, although the story was not one that the masses might directly relate to (i.e. Jewish/twins/family business) the themes are fairly universal as every family has a black sheep in it. That made it very engaging.


I saw Brother's Shadow at the Tribeca Film Festival and loved it! Judd Hirsch and Scott Cohen are great as father and son. The film follows Scott Cohen from parole in Alaska back to his family in Brooklyn. He shows up there because his brother has died, and he embarks on a journey to slowly repair his estranged relationships with his brother's wife and child and his father who has never forgiven him for being the black sheep of the family. The story takes us deep into the hearts and minds of this family and allows you to more deeply understand the complexity of their lives. Also, the imagery of the woodworking business and the Brooklyn backdrop sets the tone for this rich and revealing family portrait.


Kudos to the writers of this film for creating a supremely engaging drama. The curious character development is indicative of a nuanced and well schooled writing team. The audience member cannot but help but to feel that (s)he must make wrenching emotional decisions pitting the cerebral against the libidinal. The viewer has an opportunity to develop the character herself, though her predictions are rarely validated.

Credit is also due to the filmmakers for breathing life into the setting. The wood-shop is transformed into a unique persona as the film unfolds, with its own traits, faults, a variety of highly charged relationships, and of course a fate inexorably tied to that of the other principals.

Make sure to catch this one at your local art-house.


Those who only remember the late Sir Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirot or a professional raconteur would do well to seek out this charming piece of late '60s satire. Ustinov stars as a convicted embezzler (we first see him during his last day in gaol where he is preparing the prison governor's tax return) who, sensing that the future is in computers, poses (by means of a deft piece of identity theft) as a computer expert and sets out to infiltrate an American multinational.

Ustinov (who co-wrote the script) is on top form, as is the delightful Maggie Smith, here unusually cast as an accident-prone cockney-sparrow dolly bird. Bob Newhart also puts in an amusing performance as a suspicious executive who has designs on Maggie Smith. In addition, Karl Malden is satisfyingly sleazy as Ustinov and Newhart's womanising boss.

What do I particularly like about this film? Not only is it a well-thought-out 'caper movie' but it's also a touching little love story; Ustinov and Smith are very convincing as the two misfits stumbling into love (the whole scene involving the deck of cards is particularly effective.)

So, what is there not to like? Well, the script is no more computer-literate than most films (that is, hardly at all) even though it captures the feel of late '60s 'big iron' business computing quite well. Also there are a couple of small plot glitches that you're not likely to notice until the second or third viewing, but I consider these to be minor niggles.

As I said, this is a film which is well worth seeking out, and after you've seen it once you'll want to see it again at regular intervals.


If there were two more charming performers than Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith appearing together in a more charming movie in 1968, I don't know who they were. I first saw this delightful little satiric gem 25 years ago at the age of 16, and I consider any year in which I have failed to sit down to watch it again a wasted one. It's intelligent, quirky, neat, wistful, sweet, gently subversive, and utterly enchanting. The romance of these two social misfits is both richly comic and terribly moving - never more so than in Maggie Smith's desperate attempt to bring up the right card in the deck, a scene that's both ruefully funny and a perfect thumbnail portrait of heartbreaking loneliness. And that final freeze-frame on the anxious, concerned, loving face of Ustinov as he asks, "Are you all right?" - has anyone ever made the look and sound of devotion so perfectly and nakedly honest? I would never want to know anyone well who didn't love this movie.


This movie is now appearing on digital TV at least once a month, I've watched it a dozen or more times, and it never ceases to delight me. If it was on tomorrow I'd watch it again. Such is the artistry that Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith, two great magicians of the acting profession can create, helped in no small way by the superb supporting trio of Karl Malden, Bob Newhart and Robert Morley. Not forgetting others in minor roles.

It is a simple tale, simply told, of an ex-con, a lovable embezzler, battling and succeeding with the then "new age technology" i.e computers, and finding affection in the process. Even if it is a tad (tongue in cheek) implausible, even unbelievable, the characters are not. There is no violence, no sex, no bad language, and best of all no awful method acting which is so prevalent today. A real lesson to modern movie-makers on how to make a great show from, and with, virtually nothing...except outstanding talent.


I recently found this movie on VHS after looking for it for a number of years, I was not disappointed. It gets better every time I see it. Peter Ustinov stars and co-wrote the original screenplay (nominated for an Academy Award). Other stars you've heard of include Karl Malden, Bob Newhart and Cesar Romero. Ustinov plays an accountant/embezzler, just released from England's infamous Wormwood Scrubs prison (he had embezzled from the Conservative Party headquarters, selected because he is a Liberal). He immediately begins a search for a new employer from whom he can embezzle, and discovers that computers are the wave of the future. He social-engineers his way into a London men's club and learns the identity of the best computer experts in town, he steals the identity of one Caesar Smith, who has just left town for South America to pursue his hobby of collecting moths in the wild. He talks his way into Ta-Can-Co, an American conglomerate headed by Carlton Klemper (Karl Malden). Klemper hires Smith and shows him around the computer center, especially its security feature consisting of a flashing blue light. Ustinov asks the computer how to defeat its security and the computer obligingly tells, him, "Disconnect blue light." Using hacking techniques from 30 years in the future, Ustinov breaks into the system and programs the computer to generate checks written to various bogus companies. The scheme starts to unravel when Klemper's assistant Willard G. Gnatpole (Bob Newhart) notices the amount of business Ta-Can-Co appears to be transacting with Ustinov's scam companies. With the help of his secretary Patty Terwilliger (Maggie Smith), Ustinov manages to avoid prosecution and lives happily ever after. To tell you how would spoil this very funny, romantic, intelligent, and ahead-of-its-time picture.


It's very sly for all of the 60's look to the movie. The humor is quite gentle, but it grew on me much more than I expected. The cast is first-rate and they appear to be having a wonderful time. Ustinov wanders through the film muttering some quite funny things under his breath, and it's all very inconsequential; I'll buy the movie as soon as it comes out on DVD. The plot is that Ustinov as an embezzler released from prison posing as a computer whiz and embezzling money from an American company with an office in London. Maggie Smith is his secretary for a while, and watching her get fired from many different jobs is part of the fun. Bob Newhart is his usual deadpan self, and Karl Malden has fun as the dense and sleazy executive running the London office. The ending is funny and nicely cynical.


I first saw this film about 11 years ago when my former college Accounting professor recommended it to me. I was amazed that a movie from 1968 could so coherently and hilariously portray computer crime. Maggie Smith is delightful and Ustinov plays the "retro hacker" perfectly. "O Nolo Mio"!!!!!


"Hot Millions" is a delightful comedy that is made even better by the presence of the marvelous cast assembled for it. The movie is a tribute to the genius of Peter Ustinov, who wrote the screen play and appears as the key figure of an enterprising embezzler. The movie, directed by Eric Till, doesn't show signs of having dated as terribly, as some others from that period.

At the center of the action is a friendly man, Marcus Pendleton, who, before being released from prison, fixes the income tax forms for the warden, who is amazed of the refund he is owed by the government. Marcus, who is a genius at numbers, sees opportunities where others wouldn't. He starts working for a firm that uses the latest computer for its accounting, but Pendleton is a resourceful man who finds a way to take advantage of the system and establishes different phony accounts in different parts of the continent.

Marcus is assigned a secretary, who also happens to have a flat in his building. The inept Patty is seen working as a bus fare taker who manages to make a mess of everything. How she lands a job as a secretary is beyond comprehension, but things are never the same in the office when the creepy Willard Gnatpole decides to go after her, but have no fear, Patty's heart belongs to Marcus, who is an accomplished pianist and she is a flutist and they make beautiful music together.

The best thing in the film is Peter Ustinov. He clearly understood how Marcus should be played and runs away with the film. Mr. Ustinov gives an assured account of the embezzler. The excellent Maggie Smith is also at her best with her take on Patty, the kind woman who adores Marcus and who proves to be a genius herself when it comes to investing the money she finds in Marcus' pockets.

Karl Malden is perfect as the American in charge of the corporation. Bob Newhart also appears as Gnatpole, the man who desires Patty, but can't get her to reciprocate. The marvelous Robert Morley is seen as Caesar Smith, whose identity Marcus has assumed. Cesar Romero appears also in a cameo role as an airport customs inspector.

"Hot Millions" will delight everyone looking for a fun time in the company of that unsavory, but charming character, Marcus Pendleton.


I saw the description of the movie on TCM and only let it run because I like both Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith, so I was delightfully surprised to find that I really liked the movie and found it quite exceptional. Of course, it is seriously dated, but as a period piece it is well worth watching just for the subtle humour in insight into life and lifestyle almost forty years ago. Now the only problem is trying to find it on DVD so I can watch it more often. I also was quite taken with the performances of Smith and Ustinov as the leads, and of Karl Malden, Bob Newhart, and the cameo appearances by Robert Morley and Cesar Romero.


I just saw Hot Millions on TCM and I had completely forgotten this gem. Ustinov creates a clever and divisive plot that has him cleverly going from two bit con man to ingenious... Well you'll see. Maggie Smith is perfect as the bumbling secretary/neighbor who has a tough time holding a job but has a warm and vibrant personality that beams through in this picture. She creates a fine portrayal of a warm, witty and real person who in the long run...well...

Molden and Newhart as top executives take on the challenge of making what could be banal roles and make them come out into a comic life of their own.

Robert Morley and Ceasar Romero are just a pleasure to see and I know at least in Romero's case Ustinov is extending a helping hand of work.

This film is meant to be a shot back at the rising computer age and it's problems for the average con man or man for that matter but in fact the characters are so involving and so much fun to watch that the computer sub plot is almost lost...I say almost.

Let down your usual expectations of modern comedy and look for the great performances and friendly, forgiving and deeply involving plot in this picture.


I can only echo the praise of the other reviews here. It's a delightful film with a feelgood factor that it achieves without crossing the line into soppy sentimentality. Naturally sweet - no added sugar.

One small point: it seems to me that the mild objections raised about Ustinov's character Pendelton being able to walk in and defeat the system security ignore the fact that Pendelton is clearly a genius/savant at this sort of thing. Yes, the film was pretty computer illiterate, but it did show Pendelton 'studying computers' at his flat, and I believe the implication was supposed to be that his gifts allowed him to simply engulf the whole subject, practically overnight.

There were a few odd moments when it appeared in some scenes that Gnatpole was trying to test Pendelton's knowledge and call his bluff. I'm not sure whether we were supposed to believe that Pendelton cunningly weaselled his way out of these situations, or whether he was actually knowledgeable enough to pass the tests - it was a little unclear.

Certainly he had to know enough to set up the dummy accounts. Presumably Wallach and Ustinov were relying on their own rather foggy notion of how computers worked in those days, and in order to understand in detail what they were getting at, it's necessary to know quite what their concept was. They knew there was something about 'procedures' which was important; they thought that the 'smart light' could actually control security, rather than just indicate its state; they thought that the (dumb) user terminal's features would strongly influence what could be done on the mainframe itself - though apart from things like graphics feature I don't see it meself.

Mostly, I think they tried to avoid the subject of actual computer operations as far as they could, and they did that rather well. Allowing them a bit of artistic license, I don't think their efforts had any flaws worthy of note.

CD


"Hot Millions" is a well-written, well-acted tale about an embezzler who steals (whoops! -- too low class a word for an embezzler, according to Peter Ustinov's lead character) a "hot million" from the London branch of a U.S. corporation by creating shell corporations on the continent and using the firm's ostensibly secure computer to transfer funds to them. (Remember, spoiler police, this is a comedy, not a mystery.)

From 1968, this movie's depiction of computers may seem naive to today's more computer-literate populace; but as one who has worked with computers since before this film was released, I would assert that even then, this smacks of having been written by and for computer illiterates, probably on purpose to heighten the droll comedic aspects of this British flick.

If one has little taste for this type of entertainment, the movie may seem to drag in spots. Fortunately, it has a nicely wrapped-up ending; unfortunately, the end credits give no indication of the classical music used therein -- the symphonic piece at the end and the piano-flute duet in the middle -- just the song sung by Lulu which I totally don't remember.


Without Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith, this could easily have been a turkey. But they are brilliant. Ustinov is at his best, and for fans of Maggie, it is great to see her in her early days, matching Ustinov every step of the way for with and timing. For Englishmen in their fifties (and I am in that bracket), it is always entertaining to see glimpses of and hear sounds of the Swinging Sixties, and although this film spends a lot of time in offices, it has plenty of Sixties nostalgia, including red buses, Carnaby Street, a song by Lulu and a delicious shot up the micro-skirt of a waitress, the like of which England has never seen since in public places. As an I.T. engineer, I know that the computer hacking tricks are laughable, but they are not meant to be taken seriously. Nor are the wonderful stereotypes of Italians, French and Germans.


Talk about a dream cast - just two of the most wonderful actors who ever appeared anywhere - Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith - together - in "Hot Millions," a funny, quirky comedy also starring Karl Malden, Robert Morley, and Bob Newhart. Ustinov is an ex-con embezzler who gets the resume of a talented computer programmer (Morley) and takes a position in a firm run by Malden - with the goal of embezzlement in mind. It's not smooth sailing; he has attracted the attention of his competitor at the company, played by Newhart, and his neighbor, Maggie Smith (who knows him at their place of residence under another name), becomes his secretary for a brief period. She can't keep a job and she is seen throughout the film in a variety of employment - all ending with her being fired. When Newhart makes advances to her, she invites Ustinov over to her flat for curry as a cover-up, but the two soon decide they're made for each other. Of course, she doesn't know Ustinov is a crook.

This is such a good movie - you can't help but love Ustinov and Smith and be fascinated by Ustinov's machinations, his genius, and the ways he slithers out of trouble. But there's a twist ending that will show you who really has the brains. Don't miss this movie, set in '60s London. It's worth if it only to hear Maggie Smith whine, "I've been sacked."


Hot Millions is a great movie in every way. A fun, offbeat story with wonderful performances by four of the best professionals ever to work in the business. Peter Ustinov is brilliant, as usual, and Maggie Smith---definitely one of the greatest actresses of all time--- is a total delight. Karl Malden and Bob Newhart round out the cast and are also perfect. If you want a movie that has perfect casting, this is it. What is so impressive is the way these people work off each other in such a natural and effortless way, creating lots of laughs and fun moments throughout. Peter Ustinov was a genius with a wonderful sense of humor and this is one of his most memorable performances. The direction, photography, and editing are also first-rate, and it's a great time capsule of London in the '60s. It's definitely on my all-time favorites list.


A clever, undeniably entertaining romp starring Peter Ustinov as a career embezzler with his sights set on a US conglomerate in London. He's abetted by foxy (and deceptively sharp) Maggie Smith and threatened with exposure by jealous company man Bob Newhart. This is a heist film with a lot of brains. Ustinov is exceptional as is Smith and Newhart is quite funny. The real surprise is Karl Malden, as the pill popping "executive vice-president." Malden has seldom been so loose. Cesar Romero and Robert Morley pop up in some funny cameos. The excellent music score is by Laurie Johnson. Eric Till's direction is brisk and the script by Ustinov and Ira Wallach is first-rate & very smart. A swinging good time!


Peter Ustinov plays an embezzler who is just getting out of prison when the film begins. As soon as he walks out the gates, he immediately begins working on a scheme to once again make a bundle by stealing, though this time he has his sights set pretty high. This is actually one of the weak points about the film, as he apparently knows nothing about computers (few did back in 1968) but manages to become a computer genius literally overnight! Yeah, right. Anyway, he comes up with a scheme to impersonate a computer expert and obtain a job with a large American corporation so he can eventually embezzle a ton of cash. Considering his knowledge of computers is rudimentary, it's amazing how he puts into effect a brilliant plan AND manages to infiltrate the computer system and its defenses. But, it's a movie after all, so I was able to suspend disbelief. By the end of the film, he and his new wife (Maggie Smith) are able to run away with a million pounds.

At the very end, though, it gets very, very confusing and Smith announces she's managed to actually accumulate more than two million by shrewd investing in the companies that Ustinov started (though she didn't realize they were all dummy companies). This should mean that eventually these stocks she bought were worthless. What they seem to imply (and I could be guessing wrong here) is that Ustinov and his new partners quickly cashed in the stocks before this became known and the stocks would thereby then become worthless. Either way, the film seems to post on a magical ending whereby no one is hurt and everyone is happy--and this just didn't make much sense. It's a shame, really, as the acting and most of the writing was great. Karl Malden, Bob Newhart, Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith were just wonderful.

If I seem to have interpreted the end, let me know, as the film seemed very vague in details at the end.


It's about an embezzler, Peter Ustinov, who infiltrates a British company, Texa-Conn or something like that, posing as a computer whiz and security expert. He secretly learns to hack into the computer, while gathering the admiration of his boss, Karl Malden, the enmity of his office rival, Bob Newhart, and the love of his inept secretary, Maggie Smith.

Some of the business details were a little murky to these non-business-oriented eyes but they're believable enough and I got the general idea. Ustinov, the peculating Peter, establishes phony businesses in Paris, Rome, and Stuttgart, and uses Texa-Conn's computer to send all kinds of money to these ersatz establishments. The overseas companies, of course, consist of nothing more than himself, Ustinov, and the addresses are an abandoned artist's loft in Paris, a barber shop in Rome, and a bakery in Germany. He simply visits them to collect the checks he's sent himself.

I didn't think I'd like it for the first few minutes because it seemed rather on the slow side. I was expecting something with a faster tempo and more outrage, along the lines of "The Pink Panther" or "The Lavender Hill Gang." But this film insinuates itself into your good graces as you come to appreciate the understated humor in the plot, the characterizations, and the dialog.

Probably it would be a bad idea to give away too many of the relatively subtle gags but here are some examples of the more noticeable.

Ustinov to Secretary Smith: "Let me have the assets of these companies." Smith: "Assets? What are they?" Ustinov: "Little female donkeys." Now, nothing is made of this little exchange. There's a quick cut and no delay for any laughter, which is appropriate because one's reaction is more likely to be a smile than a laugh.

Ustinov searches out that crummy loft in Paris. It's covered with cobwebs. Bricks are strewn around and a couple of the former occupant's paintings have been left behind. The landlord doesn't speak English and Ustinov knows no French. Ustinov points to a child-like painting of a nude woman and chuckles, "Ah. A fam fye-tal, eh?" Landlord chuckles too, replies: "Vous le prenez pour une anee?" Ustinov: "Oh -- ANNIE, so that's her name!" Landlord: "Oui?" Ustinov: "Entente cordiale!" (Mes amis, if I got those genders wrong, je m'excuse.) Bob Newhart as Willard Gnatpole (!) has the hots for Maggie Smith and is supposed to be driving her home but tells her he's taking "the scenic route." There is an immediate sequence of suggestive traffic signs. "Caution." "Lay-By." "Give Way." "Yield." Ending with the imperious "STOP/CHILDREN." There's another montage when Ustinov's scheme is about to be discovered by the board of directors -- blurry rooftops, police cars, a farewell embrace from Maggie, ending with a sign: PRISON, Wormwood Scrubs.

Well, maybe one more. I still can't get over Malden as the boss, declaring decisively, "I never agonize over decisions," then gulping a handful of pills and washing them down with a glass of water.

The acting is unarguably fine. It's Bob Newhart's best role, for instance. Not that he had that many, and not that his range wasn't limited, but he's perfect in this part. The musical score by Laurie Johnson obviously had a good deal of effort put into it. She seems to have written a brief concerto for flute. Ustinov's passion is music and his overseas establishments are headed by false names like Claude Debussy and Giacconino Rossini. Stuttgart's phony president is somebody named Schmidt, and he's an anomalous clinker. Maggi Smith is pretty, sexy, bourgeois, and turns out to be not nearly so dumb as she seems.

Delightful, in its own quiet way, but don't expect comic fireworks.


This is a rip-roaring British comedy movie and one that i could watch over and over again without growing tired. Peter Ustinov has never performed in a bad role and this is no exception, particularly with his dry wit but very clever master plan. Karl Malden has always been an admirer of mine since he starred in 'Streets of San Francisco'. I believe that Maggie Smith is the real star of this film though, appearing to be so inept at everything she tries to do but in truth is so switched on, particularly at the end when she informs everyone that she has invested so much money that she has discovered whilst laundering his clothes. One thing does concern me though, could someone please tell me why i cannot purchase this on either DVD or VHS format in the UK, could someone please assist?


I think this movie is well done and realistic. I you are used to watching Hollywood "action" movies, and use that as a standard to rate this movie, you are bound to be disappointed. This movie is much closer to real life than 95% of what Hollywood can produce, and that is what lifts it above the average action movie. I have no experience with Swedish military whatsoever, and can therefore not point out any mistakes in the way they act. But as i have seen the "making of" extra I'm convinced that there has been done a lot to avoid any mistakes. This is a movie i will recommend for others to watch. High quality realistic story and movie.


I did not set very high expectations for this movie, which left me pleasantly surprised. The story is a little strange sometimes but overall I think it has an acceptable credibility. The action scenes are rather nice and the accompanying music is used to induce a a bit of patriotic feelings common to US movies. This may not be the best movie ever but it's uncommon for Sweden and I hope to see more similar ones in the future.


As an employee of the Swedish Air Force I enjoyed the nice Gripen and Hkp 9 (MBB Bo 105) flight scenes in this movie. One of the few disappointments was the EWS 39 jammer pod, in this case an inert Rb 75 (Maverick) missile painted black with the letters "EWS 39" in white along the side. Real jammer pods definitely do not look like that, at least not the ones I've seen.

But apart from that, it's an entertaining movie with a very amusing ending (the last minute). Anyone interested in seeing various Swedish military units, including the now-legendary SSG, on film should see this one.


This first installment of Crispin Glover's personal magnum opus asks you to think a little, and so can't be recommended for any viewer who doesn't want to sit and puzzle over Glover's imagery or follow the surprisingly simplebut weirdly obfuscatedthread of his narrative. To the more casual viewer, yes, it's probably going to come off as a confusing mish-mash of odd, startling, and disturbing imagery for imagery's sake.

You get the sense that Glover doesn't mind that this is the case, and he'll almost as gladly listen to why someone hated the film as to why they enjoyed it. Glover's innate eagerness for and about his work and how audiences interpret it is strongly communicated not only through the film itself, but also through the unusual question and answer sessions that he frequently conducts following showings; he clearly hopes that people will continue to think about what he has presented.

The easiest way to interpret and dismiss the film is to label it as Dada or nihilist, a juvenile attack on the modern movie industry from an actor who's worked both without and within. But there's a reason why Glover performs his slideshow before showing his movie, and it's not only to sell books; his books juxtapose and create a narrative from images and text that Glover pieced together, and What Is It? does similarly with imagery drawn from Western culture.

What Is It? is an endearing and compelling film in ways one hardly expects while viewing. Much has already been made about Glover's use of actors with Down's syndrome, and indeed that is one of the most initially striking aspects of the film. So jarring, in fact, that many seem to interpret it as some sort of far-reaching crusade to see a more realistic and/or dignified portrayal of the disabled in movies and televisionor, on the absolute other end of the spectrum, as a kind of direct exploitation of the disabled. But it's not either, and maybe that's part of what makes this film so uncomfortable for many: the underlying agenda is not a political one or one of hatred, but one of looking beyond the mainstream culture into a kind of outsider ugliness. It's not a film about Down's syndrome, but it is a film that is owned by the actors with Down's syndrome who appear in it.

I'm the sort of person who is entirely gung-ho when it comes to ugliness and strangeness being portrayed so starkly that it is beautiful; happily for me, this is pretty much exactly how What Is It? presents itself to viewers. Glover uses the strange images of snails, death, and the disabled in part because he wants his audience to feel discomfort at either the sheer oddness of the imagery or the visceral reaction one has to the dying screams of an anthropomorphized snail. In some ways, the weirdly compelling (and occasionally downright grotesque) elements of What Is It? remind me of the work of the painter Francis Bacon he of the infamous popes, yes, and the odd distortions of the human figure that inevitably make viewers cringe and want to look away. Like Bacon's paintings, Glover's film manages to be opulent and humble, grainy and polished, chaotic and well-realized and the contradictions help to make it all the more disconcerting. But still this is not an entirely serious film, and it largely manages to sidestep the greatest pitfalls of pretension through the use of humor that, for the most part, derives from the use (and juxtaposition) of familiar items, images, and names of popular culture. And when What Is It? is funny, it is very funny.

Overall, What Is It? is an impressive first film from Glover as a director and writer, and his presence as an actor in the film proves not to be nearly the distraction one might expect it to be. Watching it is like being an observer in the kind of dream that isn't exactly good or bad, but just strange and that leaves you feeling slightly grimy when you wake up. If that's the kind of art you enjoy, What Is It? is likely to exceed your expectations and be well-worth the effort of catching it in the theatre, along with The Big Slide Show and Glover himself. All in all, it's an experience you're unlikely to forget any time soon.


Hilarious, evocative, confusing, brilliant film. Reminds me of Bunuel's L'Age D'Or or Jodorowsky's Holy Mountain-- lots of strange characters mucking about and looking for..... what is it? I laughed almost the whole way through, all the while keeping a peripheral eye on the bewildered and occasionally horrified reactions of the audience that surrounded me in the theatre. Entertaining through and through, from the beginning to the guts and poisoned entrails all the way to the end, if it was an end. I only wish i could remember every detail. It haunts me sometimes.

Honestly, though, i have only the most positive recollections of this film. As it doesn't seem to be available to take home and watch, i suppose i'll have to wait a few more years until Crispin Glover comes my way again with his Big Slide Show (and subsequent "What is it?" screening)... I saw this film in Atlanta almost directly after being involved in a rather devastating car crash, so i was slightly dazed at the time, which was perhaps a very good state of mind to watch the prophetic talking arthropods and the retards in the superhero costumes and godlike Glover in his appropriate burly-Q setting, scantily clad girlies rising out of the floor like a magnificent DADAist wet dream.

Is it a statement on Life As We Know It? Of course everyone EXPECTS art to be just that. I rather think that the truth is more evident in the absences and in the negative space. What you don't tell us is what we must deduce, but is far more valid than the lies that other people feed us day in and day out. Rather one "WHAT IS IT?" than 5000 movies like "Titanic" or "Sleepless in Seattle" (shudder, gag, groan).

Thank you, Mr. Glover (additionally a fun man to watch on screen or at his Big Slide Show-- smart, funny, quirky, and outrageously hot). Make more films, write more books, keep the nightmare alive.


It takes a very special kind of person to make a movie that is so wretched, beguiling, disgusting and repulsive, but make it in a way that also makes it brilliant and the quintessence of personal cinematic liberation. Crispin Glover, in all of his "out there" antics and predispositions, truly made something that is unique. In a world that has become starkly partisan, this film seems to evade the standard lines of creativity and art and effectively startle everyone.

Right off the bat, the film takes on a rather distant paradigm (if there really is a model at all) and initially shapes it with the likes of Shirley Temple in front of a swastika and naked women pleasuring a man with cerebral palsy. It's rather shocking stuff, but if you had the opportunity for the Q&A sessions after the screenings, it clearly opens up a bag of worms that leaves you wondering whether this is art or just the lowest common denominator. In either guise, you sense the tremor that this film will ultimately cause. It will never be accepted, not even by the supposed auteurs of the world who boringly speak about the human condition. You may not like it, but it is certainly something worth watching.


I didn't know what to make of this film. I guess that is what it was all about really. I have never seen a film like it and I doubt that I really ever will again. Glover puts together something that is unique to him. I think to appreciate it you have to read some of his poetry, maybe see one of his slide shows. I really like this guy, he is just so bizarre I can't help it. Note: I saw this film before it was through its final editing, so maybe what I have seen and what others have seen are different. I will know, I guess, if I choose to view the film again. I think I will have to be properly drug influenced...


This film is very interesting. I have seen it twice and it seems Glover hit the nail on the head with what he claims to he wants to accomplish. I for one can relate to the outrage that the filmmaker clearly expresses against the current thoughtless corporate drivel that is an onslaught in our every media center, and the things that we as a culture are supposed to not "think" about due to corporate media control. The outrage that Glover expresses through the "outrageous" elements in the films is both clear in its visceral aggressiveness and beautiful in its poetic potency. I am glad I saw this film and it is even clearer that Glover is up to something interesting with part two of what will be a trilogy. It is fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE. See that also. People that dismiss this film as "thoughtless" or "pretentious" are really missing the boat. This is an intelligent films. If you can see it with his live show he performs before with his books, that is also very wroth while. The way you get in to his mindset is really something. You will have an experience!


Flat out the funniest spoof of pretentious art house films ever made.

This flick exposes all the clichés, and then some! Excruciatingly bad (Downs-Syndrome!) actors. Terribly heavy self important dialog. Scenes that are supposed to shock but fall flat. Jarring editing. Pointless plot points. All wrapped up in a kind of smirky miasma of disrespect for the audience and vague psych-drivel.

It achieves exactly what it was designed to. A hilarious satire of those tedious movies made by spoiled teenage trust-funders, to show to their parents when they ask them what they've been doing for the last two years! After "What Is It?" received its Cannes award, presenter Werner Herzog was rumored to have been told that the film was in fact a spoof, in part of his own films! He supposedly blew up at the info. To this day he refuses to discuss the incident.

Anyway, see it and laugh, this will be a classic of humor for many years to come.


I am currently on vacation in Israel for summer, and so was able to see this incredible film. A bit of a warning before I begin writing: I speak fluent Hebrew, and so the Hebrew parts were no problem; however, about a quarter (a bit less) of the film is in Arabic, and I was unable to understand a bit of this subtitled bit. This did not detract from my understanding of the film, but did cause me to miss a few jokes which evoked some strong laughs in the theater.

After a year of American Cinema which many hailed as one of the greatest years for homosexual cinema and relationships, it takes something truly special to stand head and shoulders above the rest; yet, "The Bubble" surpasses all others with its blend of excellent acting, witty dialogue, and relevant political climate.

The film opens on a checkpoint on the Israeli-Palestinian border; For the first few moments, we are unsure about the type of movie we have walked in on. Yet, this is an important element of this film's strength. The political situation, and the extreme tension in the air is constantly in the background. Most importantly, Tel Aviv serves as a character of its own in this film. It is constantly referenced. Street names and restaurant names are constantly exchanged. The skyline and city development is critiqued quite harshly, and ultimately the city evolves along with the film The film focuses on the love between Noam (Ohad Knoller) and a Palestinian immigrant, Ashraf(Yousef 'Joe' Sweid), with the societies of Tel Aviv and Palestine serving as a constant foil. We always know that their relationship is forbidden, and this creates a sense of urgency rarely present in cinema. The love is incredibly strong, and stands as the centerpiece of the film. The secondary relationships and friendships are equally strong: flamboyant restaurant owner Yelli's ( Yousef 'Joe' Sweid) relationship with the ultra-butch and grating golani solider, Golan (Zohar Liba), is particularly a source of amusement. The love scenes which abound in this film are all exquisite, fine crafted works of art, and the cinematography is astounding: In the first love scene of the film, the camera pans down as a male character gives oral sex to Lulu (Daniela Virtzer), and dissolves into a shot of Noam and Ashraf. This shot any many others lead the viewer to realize that all of these relationships are expressions of the very same form of love.

To give away more of the storyline would be a tragedy, but know that there is a lot of political tension and tragedy which touches onto the current world political climate, so I will instead focus on the witty dialogue. Even when watching this movie in my second language, I could not stop laughing throughout. Lines of particular amusement include the question of whether gay suicide bombers receive virgin women or men in heaven, and an analogy of Sampson from the bible as the worlds first suicide bomber. This dialogue shows a particular sense of purity and reality which is rarely seen in Cinema. The music used in the film is also particularly powerful. Music is only used in times when characters legitimately could or should be listening to it, and in one scene the music weakens when a character removes one earphone and stops when he removes the other. Little elements like this truly elevate the film.

I could not give greater recommendation to a film; this is a superb work of cinema which is catharthic as well as extremely well crafted.


The reviewer who called this movie a bust has clearly missed the point. It's obvious he hasn't been young or innocent in a very long time, or he might have understood that the tragedy of it was that the well-meaning young characters actually thought they COULD make a difference by putting up posters and holding a rave for peace. If only it was that easy. But the cynics sit and sneer at people who earnestly try their best to make things better, as the situation gets worse and worse every single day. Well, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

The central theme is that revenge begets more revenge, which begets even more, in an ever-expanding bloodbath. Both sides will tell you tales of atrocities committed by the other side, which they think justify their committing even MORE in retaliation. Where does it end? And apparently he missed the significance of "the bubble" referred to in the name, which was that people living in Tel Aviv are strangely cut off from the ugly realities of what is going on all around them, which is partly why they seemed so naive. (He also seemed to think that Ashraf could slip through the checkpoints without a problem, which tells me he wasn't paying attention when Ashraf related the delays and problems he had encountered.)

I found it very brave of the director, the screenplay writer, and both star-crossed lovers, to update the Romeo & Juliet story to a modern troubled land, and to make both lovers male. Let's be honest here: Very few people would have a problem if one of them had been a female (young love wins all hearts) -- but when people's uneasiness with their sexuality is added to the fact that, incredibly, these same people would rather have them HATE each other, then the conclusion is inevitable.


Eytan Fox did it again : move the viewer's heart in a modest story taking place in an overwhelming mess. The movie also succeeds in describing so perfectly and subtly the atmosphere of the incredible city that is Tel Aviv.

I was there a month ago and it is all there : the lifestyle, the relationships, the heart-beating city, the mess, the chock of utopian mindsets in the most light-hearted, blithe and oblivious megalopolis ever.

Strongly recommend: it is a voyage for the heart and the mind, with an interesting perspective to the Israelo-Palestinian conflict.

Nota Bene: There is central gay plot in the movie. If you do not think you are too gay-friendly, be prepared to be challenged and finally see it as "just love". (and don't worry: the chick is hot too!)


It's one of the best movies I've seen in the last 2 years (I've seen the premier in Tel-Aviv, Israel in the summer of 2006, exactly when the last war has began...) This problem in communication between the people, that causes wars, is interesting me for a long time, and it doesn't matter who- boys and girls, straight and gays, Jews and Arabs... I've seen the Bubble already 3 times, and it still surprising and exciting me- each character reminds me of one of the many people i know, and the difference between them, like between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem... The last time i saw it- was with my friend, who is a Christian Arab, and it was on the independence day of Israel ( the most symbolic i could ! how ironic) and... he cried in the end!!! - if he's been touched and wasn't embarrassed- everyone would be touched by The Bubble!


I got this one a few weeks ago and love it! It's modern, light but filled with true complexities of life. It questions and answers, just like other Eytan Fox movies. This is my favorite, along with Jossi & Jagger. This pictures a lot more, universally, than only the bubbles we may live in. You don't need to be Jewish or homosexual to enjoy this - I'm not, but the movie goes directly to my top ten movies. At first it seems like pure entertainment but it does make you think further. Relationships we have to live with are superficial, meaningful, deep, fatal, you name it. You don't know what's coming, and you definitely don't know where this story is heading as you watch it the first time. It is worth seeing several times. Fox movies include great bonus material - here a great music video and "the making of" (including explanation of the title, interviewing Lior Ashknenazi who plays himself in the movie and Arabs with doubts about the Israeli life styles).


I saw this movie when I was in Israel for the summer. my Hebrew is not fluent, so the subtitles were very useful, I didn't feel lost at any point in the movie. You tend to get used to subtitles after about 5 minutes.

This movie blew me away!!!!!! It depicts two of the most prominent taboos in the middle east today: A homosexual relationship between an Israeli and a Palestinian. It allows a person to enter both realms of the conflict simultaneously. The dilemma, the emotions entailed. The movie climaxes in tragedy when anger and rage drive one of the lovers to one extremist side! an absolute must see!!


The Israeli/Palestinian conflict persists and while the world may be aware of the violence surrounding the division of the two countries, few have a clue to the other aspect of the division - the group of people who want peace and work toward eradicating the separation. Eytan Fox, in THE BUBBLE ('Ha-Buah'), has created a much needed alternative viewpoint of the schism, electing to tell a story that contains some fine humor, a lot of love, and a taste of brutal reality. It is a window into a situation that begs for understanding.

In Tel Aviv three close friends are roommates: Lulu (Daniela Virtzer), a beautiful young woman with strong opinions; Yali (Alon Friedman), a very 'out' gay young man who works in a popular café; and Noam (Ohad Knoller), a handsome, somewhat shy fellow who, in addition to his day job in a music shop, is a member of the National Guard and therefore spends his free time serving as a guard at the city's checkpoints. It is during one of these guard duty weekends that he meets a young Palestinian named Ashraf (Yousef 'Joe' Sweid), and a mutual attraction occurs. The three friends decide to 'stowaway' the illegally present Ashraf (whom they nickname with an Israeli name) and while Ashraf and Noam settle into a love relationship, Yali hires Ashraf at his café, and Yali and Lulu both proceed to find love interests, too. All goes well until Ashraf must return home for his sister's wedding. Though in Tel Aviv Ashraf has been able to be openly gay with Noam, life is far different in Jerusalem: Ashraf is told he must marry his sister's groom-to-be sister. In an attempt to rescue Ashraf from his fate, Noam and Lulu disguise themselves as French reporters to gain access to Ashraf. In a moment of supposed seclusion, Noam and Ashraf are discovered kissing by the groom-to-be, and this act gives cause for blackmail in order for Ashraf to remain 'in the closet'.

While the young people in Tel Aviv are dancing at an event to raise attention for peaceful coexistence, an attack occurs in Jerusalem - one that has grave consequences not only immediately, but also in the revenge mission Ashraf must now assume. The ending is tragic on many levels and it underlines just how serious the problem between these two countries is.

The acting is so very natural that from both the comedic and the tragic aspects the audience completely believes in these beautiful young people. The story finds the right balance between the serious and the lighthearted and it is this balance than makes Eytan Fox such a fine writer/director. More people should watch this important and very fine film. In Hebrew, Arabic, and English with subtitles. Grady Harp


Since the advent of literature, people of all nationalities have been fascinated and easily touched by accounts of unhappy love. Even more fascinating have always been the tales of impossible love, love that cannot be. The Israeli filmmaker Eytan Fox' latest film The Bubble" is about that. And then it is also not. The title of the film refers to the bubble" that is Tel-Aviv set against the background of the political realities of Israel. The country's cosmopolitan and unofficial capital city doesn't have much in common with Nablus, a city in the Palestinian West Bank which also features in the film. It doesn't have much in common with the tense and hateful atmosphere at the Palestinian checkpoints. Actually, it doesn't seem to have much in common with anything surrounding it. The bubble" of Tel-Aviv allows people to have a lifestyle which isn't much different from what you may expect in any Western city. Teenage girls looking for Britney Spears' records, a lifestyle magazine editor looking for a sexy cover for his next issue, trendy people sitting in trendy cafes discussing trendy things over cups of cappuccino and other similarly trendy drinks, while those at home are watching the local edition of Pop Idol. It is this bubble" that also has the potential to lull one's mind into a false sense of reality.

The film evolves around the lives of three young Israelis who share a flat and, for the most part, try to stay out of politics. Yelli, the camp owner and manager of Orna & Ella", a hip cafe, rarely leaves the city and prefers not to think about the crap that surrounds them". Noam, a soft and easygoing employee of a slightly avantguard record store, seems to be equally unwilling to engage in long political discussions and contemplations. Lulu, the only female of the lot, is on the contrary linked to the Israeli Left, although her political activities seem to be confined to raves against the occupation". Yelli and Noam naturally don't object to participating in these. Lulu and her political friends make t-shirts with the rave's logo, put up posters and hand out booklets advertising it in the neighbourhood. Their main concern seems to be that there are never any actual Palestinians participating and that the police might come and spoil all the fun for them again. The closest they come to an actual confrontation is when they get into a scuffle with some not so Palestinian-friendly locals who try to prevent them from handing out the leaflets. In other words, predictable products of the bubble".

The opening scenes of the film take us to a checkpoint on a road to Nablus where we also find Noam doing his reserve duty. A group of Palestinians is being thoroughly checked before entering Israel, among them a pregnant woman who suddenly goes into labour and gives birth to a stillborn child despite the best efforts from Noam and the doctor who eventually arrives in an ambulance. The woman is comforted by a young man who later turns up on Noam's doorstep in Tel-Aviv with his ID which the latter obviously dropped during the ordeal on the border. His name is Ashraf, he's Palestinian and he's gay. And he hasn't just come to hand back the ID, he has come to see Noam. Without a permit to live in Israel and despite the initial hesitation from Noam's flatmates he stays. He soon gets a Jewish name and a job at Yelli's cafe. Having grown up in Jerusalem with Hebrew, he doesn't have an Arabic accent which makes it possible for him and his newly found friends to conceal his identity. The sky is light blue and the air is sweet. But it cannot last. For he has become part of an equation which was never meant to be.

At one point, Noam and Ashraf watch a play called Bent about two prisoners in a Nazi concentration camp who have a love relationship which can never become physical or visible to the surrounding guards. They find a way of being together on another level, a metaphysical one, a level where no one else has access. This is also where our couple arrives in the end. And it couldn't have been much different for them, not in today's Israel.

The Bubble" is a political statement about the bubble that bursts when confronted with the political realities of today's Israel set against the background of a beautiful and awkward love story involving an Israeli and a Palestinian, the impossible love story in a divided world where no such things as compromise or other colours than black and white exist. The Bubble" is also a beautiful film about people, gay and straight, inhabiting that strange city, Tel-Aviv, shown through the eyes of people who really care about them. The film's premise may have its flaws and the fatal chain of events may seem somewhat construed, but its strong message and emotional impact will not leave you untouched.


It's difficult to not have a liking for Israeli director Eytan Fox and for his movies, which describe the life in the middle east and the inherent problems gay people can have in these regions. Besides he also gave voice to the young generations, and to the remarkable part of them, who really need PEACE and who want to take no further notice of a war that for too much time marked the existences of people, both in Israel both in Palestine. These reasons, in my opinion, are sufficient to consider Fox a noteworthy director, even when his feeling for the melodrama is a tad out of control. However the fans of his movies (that he realized on team with Gal Uchovsky, his producer, co-screenwriter and also life companion) seem to not being vexed by this, since his new feature, THE BUBBLE (HA-BUAH), is having the same success of the previous YOSSI & JAGGER and WALK ON THE WATER. Announced as a contemporary gay version of "Romeo & Juliet", set in the present day Tel Aviv instead of Verona and with two men (one Israeli and the other Palestinian) at the place of the two Shakespearean young lovers, the film actually is quite different from that or, better, it's also something else. In fact the bubble of the title is the world apart in which the leading man, Noam, played by the Fox regular Ohad Knoller (Yossi in YOSSI & JAGGER, but I must confess I miss Jagger, the astonishing Yehuda Levi!) and his two co-tenants, a guy and a girl, chose to live. Around thirty-years-old, restless, witty and firm (despite the protagonist just spent a period as national service in a checkpoint on the frontier with the Palestine) to live a life that won't be only made of war. The two guys are gay and along with the girl they have established a trio in which they brotherly love and support each other. Their lives are destined to change when Noam falls in love with Ashraf (the TV star Yousef 'Joe' Sweid) a young Palestinian who came to live in Tel Aviv. The laws so far in force among the group are neglected, but not the will to aid one friend. Still it won't be easy for Noam and his friends, 'cause Ashraf is clandestine in Israel and in the meantime his family, who lives in Palestine and doesn't know he's gay, is looking forward to settle his wedding with a very beautiful girl, who is a relative of Ashraf's beloved sister bridegroom-to-be, who he is also a terrorist and he will have a strong liability in the development of the plot, with consequences not just for the two men. Because the prejudices against the homosexuality and the peace (interesting dualism, if not automatic) are stubborn and so the tragedy is unavoidable. Even if the film focus on the obstacles the relationship between Noam and Ashraf meets with, it doesn't the overlook the other characters, which turn out well written (for example Golan, the boyfriend of Yelli, Noam's fellow tenant, introduced as a lively boor, and then disclosed as a sweeter and more open minded person) and aptly performed (besides the two leads, we mustn't disregard the funny Zohar Liba and the lovely Daniela Virtzer, the girl of the gang; moreover LATE MARRIAGE's star Lior Ashkenazi appears as himself in a cameo). It also melds the gloomy tones with the more brilliant ones, even if the director can't do without a melodramatic conclusion. I watched this movie more than a month ago and in the meantime I often thought about it, proof that Fox and his pal have a knack to strike home.


This film is a complete re-imagining of Romeo and Juliet in Tel Aviv and Nablus. The lovers are one from Tel Aviv et the other from Nablus. There is a border between them, and a constant state of war with the Israeli army ever present everywhere and the Palestinian militants everywhere else with their bombs. The situation is bleak enough. We can imagine love in that enormous loveless trap. But the film goes several light years further by imagining the two lovers are gay, Noam from Tel Aviv and Ashraf from Nablus. To be gay is accepted in Tel Aviv. It is off limits in Nablus. The conflict between the two peoples, the two communities is thus doubled with a conflict between two cultures, two ethics. But this could even be livable if the war did not bring some extra dimension. Ashraf's sister is going to get married to a militant activist in Nablus. Ashraf finally tells his sister about his being gay. She cannot accept it but accepts to speak about it later. From the wedding itself the newly married husband sends a commando into Tel Aviv to set up a bomb attack. It takes place in a café in Tel Aviv and one friend of Noam's is severely wounded. Bad enough. The Isareli army sends a commando to Nablus to arrest the person responsible for this attack, but it turns sour and the newly married wife is shot dead in the street. The funeral follows the wedding. The husband and widower volunteers for a suicide bomb attack. Ashraf volunteers to take his place. The exiled lover comes back to Tel Aviv to die and kill a few people to avenge his sister. He arrives at a diner managed by some friends of Noam's. But Noam sees him and gets out to speak to him. Ashraf has moved back to the middle of the street and he detonates his bomb when Noam reaches him in the street. The vengeance reunites the two lovers in death. We thus have the dual conflict but we do not have the Prince of Verona, a neutral character that can impose peace, or even worse the Prince seems to have chosen sides and to be on the side of Israel. The game is entirely false and death is sure on both sides. But the dimension of impossible love is all the stronger because it is redoubled by a play in the film, a play that shows love in Auschwitz, between two prisoners, one wearing a yellow star and the other a pink triangle. This is both strikingly strong and breathtakingly shocking: gay love in Auschwitz. What comes out of the film is that over there in Tel Aviv or Nablus love is impossible. The film is thus a denunciation of the conflict in Palestine that cannot but continue though it has no reason to even exist though it has thousands of reasons to go on. We should never have let Great Britain deal with the region a long time ago. Today we have to find a solution in which no one will be humiliated. This will only be able to succeed if everyone comes together in order to find a lasting solution. But so far everyone is trying to avoid that general confrontation and discussion preferring bilateral manipulations. So suffering will go on and love will be forbidden, of course not sex since children are needed for the war to go on: so let's procreate more and more little soldiers. But love is just an extra-terrestrial concept.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine & University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne


Here's one more beauty in the string of beautiful films directed by Eytan Fox. The movie presents the story of star-crossed lovers (one Israeli, one Palestinian)in modern Tel Aviv. The film's effectiveness comes not only from its depiction of cross-ethnic conflict, but of conflicts personal and political within ethnic groups as well. For example, there's a telling moment when one of the secondary characters, openly gay, is visited in the hospital by his boyfriend who brings him flowers and tries to kiss him in front of his visiting family, and suddenly we see a wave of awkward discomfort wash through the room. Clearly the young man is not as open as he seems, and the family not as accepting as he might want them to be, while the boyfriend is confused and rejected. A good deal of complexity is packed into a fleeting moment. As we know from Yossi & Jagger, Fox is a master at efficiently packing emotional and psychological complexity into brief sequences. The film is also effective for the even-handed way it presents the mutual brutalities that Israelies and Palestinians inflict on each other. If you're not heartless, you'll cry through the last third of the movie. Though the plot is melodramatic, it's so intelligently written and acted that it reminds us of how satisfying good melodrama can be.


Directed and co-written by Eytan Fox the writer/director of the highly acclaimed 2002 mini feature "Yossi & Jagger" (2002). This comparative epic, at 1hr 53 minutes, is another fine romantic drama in which we must deal with tragedy as well as celebrate the beauty and joy in life. Westerners, especially urban gay men like myself, need to be moved outside our safety zone and be informed of the real life and death struggle elsewhere to be able to love with equity.

While "Yossi & Jagger" focused on a pair of gay lovers in the closeted confines of Israeli military service, "Ha Buah" is centred on a group of civilian friends, both straight and gay, who share a unit in the heart of Israel's generally gay-tolerant, but not always gay-friendly, capital Tel Aviv.

"Ha Buah" opens with a dramatic border check point scene in which Noam (Ohad Knoller  Yossi from "Yossi & Jagger") first meets handsome young Arab Ashraf (Yousef Sweid). Romance soon blooms  but in that political climate opportunities would have to be seized quickly or lost altogether.

From there we follow an intricate interplay among the members and lovers of the housemates and the unavoidable effect of Ashraf's very conservative family. If you follow this film's dialogue attentively enough then you will have no reason to be disappointed with the ending.

The soundtrack for "Ha Buah" is vibrant and the visuals are both beautiful and stark  i.e. real life in the Middle East.

The English subtitles are very easy to follow and you quickly relax and appreciate world cinema at its best.


Movies like this one, and C.R.A.Z.Y., make me very sad for American films with a gay subject matter. With the exception of Parting Glances and Brokeback Mountain, there are few other notable American films with the kind of depth and sincerity as this movie, The Bubble. This movie centers on two men, Noam and Ashwar, an Israle and Palestinian respectively. Their relationship is complicated by the tension between the Jews and Arabs in Israel. Couples, in the early stages of their relationships will struggle with who will call who next, or who will say "I love you" first. Noam and Ashwar's early love is complicated by suicide bombings, armed security check points, and racism. While Noam's friends accept and like Ashwar, who is Arab, it is clear that most of Tel Aviv's citizens probably don't.

One of the most touching moments, and there are many in this film, is when Noam and Ashwar attend a production of "Bent". We, as movie goers, see them watching this play, and the affect it has on the two of them is profoundly captured in their eyes. And ultimately, this touching moment is played out in a very sad way in the finale of the movie.

Ohad Knoller and Youseff 'Joe' Sweid are outstanding as Noam and Ashwar. Director Eytan Fox is brilliant in creating a cogent and interesting retelling of the Shakespeare classic Romeo and Juliet. And while most movies today have sex in them, (almost as a sport), this one goes back to the old tried and true version of sex with love and passion combined. It is so refreshing. Also refreshing is seeing two gay men being portrayed as people and not cartoons. There are cartoonish characters in this movie. It just doesn't happen to be the two gay guys for a change. Somewhere on this site I think I read a comparison between this movie and "Friends". Well, not really. Yes, these are youthful characters stumbling through their first uneasy steps into adulthood and relationships. But I don't recall getting "blowed up" as a backdrop to the insipid story lines in "Friends".

This is a very good movie. It has heart, and heartbreak. And like all good love stories love does win out. But not in it's intact glory of full bloom . Still, it's a very satisfying movie to watch.


This is the second Eytan Fox film I have seen. The fantastic actor, Lior Ashkenazi, who starred in Walk on Water, has a minor role in this film also.

But the real stars are the young Israelis who live together in a tiny apartment - Noam (Ohad Knoller), Lulu (Daniela Virtzer), and Yelli (Alon Friedman); and the Palestinian that joins them off and on - Ashraf (Yousef 'Joe' Sweid). There is sort of a Friends/Sex in the City thing going on (mostly gay), and they all just want the war to end so they can go on with their lives in peace.

But, that's the rub. No matter how many posters you put up or how many raves for peace you have, the war is not going to end. Many have tried over the years to bring the two sides to the table, but they just want to keep it going for whatever reason. There are many on the Israeli side, both there and here in the US, who just want it all and will not consider peace. There are many on the Palestinian side who apparently would be out of a job should peace ever come. It is in no one's interest to end this war, and the children suffer.

This is always on your mind as you watch this funny and engaging film. It won't go away. You know something tragic is going to happen and, of course, it does. With the feelings on both sides running strong, and revenge as the motivator, tragedy always happens, and that is what makes this an adult version of Friends/Sex in the City. There is no superficiality. It is real life, and it was a beautiful thing to see.


My father was the warden of the prison (he is retired now) showcased in this documentary and I've grown up around the prison life, so perhaps my views will be totally different from everyone else who watches this movie. I will say this, the filmmakers who brought us this 93-minute miracle are fantastic artists and even better people. They were brave enough to A) Show up and tell this story, B) Get inside these inmates minds and hearts, and C) Do all of this responsibly. Responsible to their art and, more importantly, responsible to the inmates and staff of Luther Luckett Correctional Complex. They should be commended without end for this work. To take 170 hours, yes HOURS, of footage and be able to cut and whittle it down to 93 riveting minutes is nothing short of extraordinary and they have my utmost respect.

I saw this film under circumstances that only a very, very few were able to see it. I was at the inmate screening. I was in the same room with these men as they watched their hearts being poured out on screen. I saw men crying on television crying in the chair in front of me and let me tell you, it was a very profound experience. These men have committed horrendous crimes in some cases, yet have found ways to try to redeem themselves, even if they view themselves as unredeemable. How many of us have the courage to do this? How many people could do what they have done in such a harsh environment? To see them react to the film was an experience I am eternally grateful for, and I will never forget that. I thank the men who allowed me this glimpse into their lives, I thank my father for making ALL of this possible, and I thank Philomath Films for taking the time to pour their blood, sweat, soul, and tears into this project.

This movie will change everything you think you know about prison life, and the inmates held within it. 'Oz' is not real, television is not real. 'Shakespeare Behind Bars' is.


One of the best parts of Sundance is seeing movies that you would otherwise almost certainly miss. Unless you're a real art-house devotee, you probably don't catch many documentaries. Only a handful get any recognizable distribution. Fortunately, Sundance has increased its commitment to documentaries in recent years.

Shakespeare Behind Bars is a powerful documentary about a dramatic production group at the Luther Luckett Correctional Complex in LaGrange, Kentucky. Every year a group of inmates present a Shakespearean play. Director Hank Rogerson and his crew follow the troupe as roles are self-selected, interpreted, rehearsed and ultimately performed.

The movie is filled with fascinating revelations for those of us that have not been exposed to prison environments. Despite the labels we know them by (convict, felon, murderer, etc.) we soon began to appreciate and respect these men as thinking feeling human beings. Serendipitously, the play chosen for the year of filming was The Tempest, with its penetrating focus on forgiveness and redemption. The actors all grapple with the relevance of the play to their lives, finding patterns and parallels with their characters and the meaning of the drama.

For a documentary film, like a book, the best that can be hoped for is that we experience something that changes our lives. Shakespeare Behind Bars was a personal revelation for me. "O brave new world, that has such creatures in it."


If you're going to put on a play within the prison walls why not go for the top playwright William Shakespeare? And if you are going to choose your cast from a whole lot of criminals serving long sentences for the most heinous crimes, you can be sure there will be plenty of time for rehearsals. In a Kentucky Correctional Prison a courageous project such as this was undertaken with amazing results. This film shows how it was all done.the casting.the rehearsals.the set and costumesand the final presentation of Shakespeare's play "The Tempest." It had not occurred to me before but there is an analogy between the setting of the play and the correctional prison. In the play the ship-wrecked characters are confined to an island with no contact with the outside world. Prison life too is much like that.

With a simple painted back drop of a surrounding seascape, the characters in a most pleasing assortment of costumes bellow out their lines to an approving audience, may be not quite as Shakespeare intended but with good heart and true sincerity for sure.

More interesting than the play itself were the little cameos of each man behind his character. One inmate saw the play as a lesson in forgiveness another as a redemption of his sins. It was quite moving to see the men wipe away a tear as they spoke of murder, shooting and strangulation. One had the feeling that they would all like to wind back the clock and reconsider their brutal actions. However (as someone said) the past was past, and the present was the beginning of a new future. At least the play gave temporary relief from the depressing thoughts of past events.

The prison authorities should be applauded for allowing the play to take place. Such an event would put Kentucky on the map and hopefully other prisons might follow their good example. It seems to me that everyone stands to benefitnot only the Kentucky prison but the prisoners themselves who need to find new confidence and self esteem and be prepared for the day when they go out on parole.


Shakespeare Behind Bars was a strangely uplifting documentary despite its content. Convicts at Luther Luckett Correctional Complex in LaGrange, Kentucky who have raped, murdered etc and surrounded by bad people in an obviously depressing environment find something they genuinely enjoy and can become important, popular and celebrated in acting. There are paralleled themes to 'Shawshank Redemption' with their institutionalised natures and search for forgives and redemption for their past lives. As we follow a generous, non judgemental Director, who gives up his time each year to Direct certain inmates in a chosen play by William Shakespeare (this time around, the 'Tempest', that was cleverly portrayed with the inmates who could relate to it so much with its penetrating focus on forgiveness and redemption in which they confide and relate to) we are introduced to each actor in formal interviews that are nicely paced with break up footage of them rehearsing. Each actor has their own story and tell of their regrets and reasons why they are there in emotional fashion with melancholic music over each in a traditional documentary sense. The strongest and most respected inmate (it would seem) is Sammie. The Director appears to immediately realise who the most interesting inmates were in Sammie (and later, Hal) and allows a longer, more in depth observation into the man and his personality. His presence is felt on screen and his personal revelations come as a shock to the audience, but give him such appeal in his emotional personality and a particular empathy is felt toward him. Hal is the same at the beginning of the film. He has other things that he does to pass the time that's shown as a comfortable hobby as it were in running an on site news broadcast programme. Again, through personal interviews and revelations self admitted by Hal (and nicely shot cutaways of Hal's body language, not the close-ups of his uncertain hand movement not only observed with him but others as well,) in particular his heart felt story about being unsure and scared of his true sexuality in a society that purely would not accept him as a homosexual until later on in the film where he is shown to be quite snide and rude to other inmates involved in the play as though he deems himself above all of them, in particular to Ron who already has a frustrating temperament in his acting. The relationship between all of the inmates involved in the play is shown as one of respect and unity to achieve something great for themselves. With nice (if not clichéd) motions of time passing by with titles etc everything seems to go right in the first act, and then on the build up to the public performance, things predictably go wrong. An induction of one of the actors being transferred and his character being replaced by a younger, newer inmate gives the narrative a nice subplot into someone who promises big, but in the end disappoints all and does not live up to their expectation. One inmate in particular (Big-G) welcomes the new inmate actor (Rick) with an evident will to nurture him into their beloved practise and hopefully become a good role model. The film seems to capture each inmates passion so well with something the audience can relate to especially when Rick is put in the 'Hole' for getting new tattoos (something nicely hinted upon earlier in the film when the warden stops a random inmate in the yard and asks him when he got a tattoo that's on his arm and we learn it's a punishable offence in the facility) and Big-G's disappointment is understood deeply. A happy ending? It all looks great when they are performing successfully (even being invited to perform elsewhere) and a sense of real unity echoes around them, but in the end, the film brings everyone back down to earth that this is short lived and everything they ever had or wanted was and will always be taken away from them. It is back to prison to pay for their crimes and no matter what redemption they seek in acting these plays, they won't be free men, their proud performances and recognition is undermined by the fact that they are the lowest of the low criminals and a nice halt in the uplifting music that plays in a shot of a long corridor that coincides with the lights turning off and doors shutting is a powerful image of their oppression. The Director seemed to be aware he was watching likable people in the documentary by given additional information at the end of the film into each actors future from the end of the film about where they are and what's happening to them now.


Shakespeare Behind Bars was the most surprising and delightful film I've seen all year. It's about a prison program, somewhere in California if I recall correctly, where the inmates have rehearsed and performed a different Shakespeare play every year for the past 14 years. The film follows their production of "The Tempest" from casting through performance, and in the process we learn some pretty amazing things about these men, who are all in for the most serious of crimes. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction -- if anyone tried to adapt this story into a fiction film, the audience would never buy it, but knowing that it's real makes it breathtaking to watch -- literally; I gasped out loud when I learned of one particularly gifted felon's crime. It's like some loopy episode of Oz, and all the more entertaining because the characters and their bizarre stories are real.


Believe it or not, Inspector Gadget's Last Case is what got me hooked on the whole Gadget thing.

My name is Miriam and I am twelve years old, so obviously I wasn't around when Inspector Gadget was at the top of his career. Sure, I'd heard of him, but I didn't really know him.

While reading, note that I NEVER SAW THE ORIGINAL SERIES (I would if it came on!). This is just about the only Gadget thing I've ever watched (even though I am now obsessed) and I will be focusing on what I liked about it since everyone else is so negative. For all you pessimists, I've got some cons down there, too. =P First off, for a childish sense of humor, you could deem this movie pretty funny. I thought it was, so sue me. I also thought the animation and character designs were good, and I'm also happy there was more Gadget in it, since he's my favorite character. (I do NOT like Penny.) Then there was Claw (his voice was awful, though) and the Madcat; I thought they were done fairly good too. Gadget's idiocy seemed pretty well in place, if not a bit exaggerated (i.e. sucking his hat-hand thing's thumb. Would make a good screen shot, though. =P) Oh, and I liked the song that ran in the credits. Yes, I am strange.

And, like all movies, there are some negatives, too.

Talking cars? What's up with that? You can tell this was aimed at younger boys. That wouldn't bother me quite so much if there wasn't the fact that the cars basically saved the day. I would have much preferred if Penny and Brain had taken their place. And, apparently, Gadget loved his car more than would be called natural. A bit weird, to say the least.

Oh, and the Chief was downright mean to Gadget. I mean, sheesh, yeah, he wasn't always the most cheerful of people, but he didn't HATE Gadget, from what I've read. Like the Inspector, his personality was exaggerated.

Well, that's pretty much all I have to say about this movie. I thought the animation made up for the car-centered plot and that it was overall pretty decent; more so than the live-action Gadget films (butchered, butchered, BUTCHERED!) at least. Maybe I'm just biased because this is what got me into Gadget in the first place, or maybe my mind is twisted, or maybe I'm just odd, but I really liked this movie, even if I'm the oldest it's recommended for.


Despite its rather salacious title, this is a light teen dramedy. Unless you're an old coot, you'll probably find it likeable. It isn't so good on developing characters or situations smoothly, though. When you view it, you get the feeling that you've been running back and forth to the kitchen even if you've been sitting down watching the whole time. This is one of those films that counts a great deal on your liking the characters, and they are appealing enough. Jennifer Connelly is the heartthrob of many, I know, but I've always liked the more obscure Maddie Corman. The teens get most of the screen time without a lot of intrusions from those pesky grown-ups. Is it just me or did most of the young males look an awful lot alike?


I originally came across Linda Feferman's Seven Minutes in Heaven when I was 14 and worked at a video store and I loved it. I recently watched the movie again and have realized that it is a lost treasure. The movie stars Jennifer Connelly, almost twenty years before she would go on to win an Oscar for Beautiful Mind, as Natalie Becker. Byron Thames plays her best friend in the world, Jeff Moran. The film is definitely a milder, cuter and softer version of the Pretty in Pink's and Some Kind of Wonderful's of the 1980's, which is exactly why it is so good. It's honest, not forced like those films, and parents will enjoy watching this movie with there kids.

When Natalie's Dad leave home on a business trip, Jeff convinces her that he should move in because his home life sucks. With support from Natalie's friend, Polly, played exquisitely by Maddie Corman, she lets him. But this movie isn't about putting kids in situations and seeing what they can get away with. The three leads are so natural and the script, surprisingly so honest, that what comes through best in their performances is heart breaking. These characters really do care about each other. It's a great film to show to kids who are reaching pre-teen adolescence.