First, what I didn't like. The acting was not really up to the Hamlet standard. Branagh was really over-the-top, doing a lot of yelling mostly. In my opinion, those actors who were not big-name celebrities generally did a better job; though I would except Billy Crystal and Robin Williams. (And Charlton Heston, too, but I wasn't sure if he was playing at being a hack.) A lot of the ambiguities in the play were clearly resolved one way in the flashbacks.

What I think speaks very much in this play's favor is that it is accessible. Shakespeare is hard to understand for the vast majority of people nowadays; many people are not even inclined to try, because of its reputation as Serious Literature and its archaic English. If they see this film they will understand clearly at least one man's interpretation of the play. They will be seeing it more as Shakespeare's audiences saw it: a play with sword fights and battles, and mighty kings and nobles, murder and incest and evil schemes and ghosts--and great art, if one cares to look for it, but in Shakespeare's day most didn't, any more than most people do now. Branagh's overacting, and his forcing of his interpretation of the story on the viewer, may detract from Shakespeare's art somewhat, but it is better that modern audiences get a piece of it, rather than nothing.

I've got to say one more thing though. Some people are complaining that "it's set in the 19th century and that wasn't Shakespeare's time". Well, in Shakespeare's time their costume and scenery was that of their own day for all of their plays. Shakespeare may have SAID it's in the days of ancient Rome or medieval Denmark or whatever, but he didn't dress his characters up like they were, he used the costumes of his own time. For the same reason his plays are full of anachronisms. For example, in King John the English and French have cannons--in Robin Hood's day. In Julius Caesar they talk of chimneys, which wouldn't be invented for another thousand years, and in Henry IV they talk about Machiavelli, who wasn't even born yet then. So I think this objection is silly--you might as well complain that the play isn't in Danish (after all they live in Denmark don't they?).


(Sorry for my faulty language, i am no native speaker ...)

Yes, this is a movie that almost demands an overwhelming reaction. Personally i agree upon all those superlatives that are around. But i won't use this rather sematically void way myself to describe the movie here. Because those "perfect! the one-and-only! best-ever!"-reviews make some people turn away (including me).

So if you are looking for another 'Hamlet' that has the potential to rival with many theatrical and all cinematic ones - Then don't miss this one, if you happen to find it anywhere. (Unfortunately not too many people will have any chance to see it. It seems there is no DVD out there, and the German language version - which is quite well done - is not available in any format.)

Just in case you decide to get a copy: Spare out that cut down two hours (or so) version of this movie. It is no use and no fun, and gives a wrong impression of a movie, that deals in an interesting way with flow and architecture. And its also crippled down to 4:3 aspect ratio.

Greetings from Germany, F.L.


The image of movie studios being financially-driven instead of creatively is not without truth (in fact, it's more true than false). This begs the question why Castle Rock Entertainment allowed Kenneth Branagh to create a full-length, uncut version of "Hamlet" with his complete creative control among other things. Of course, Branagh had to agree to some concessions (a star-studded cast, and a 2.5 hour version for wider release), but why would the film studio allow Branagh to spend money on a 4 hour version that they knew few would see? Could they have, at least in this case, had enough respect for the material and Branagh's vision to create something for only a few people? That is not a question that I can answer. Whatever the reason, this is a glorious vision for those who are willing to spend four hours watching "Hamlet." Everyone knows the story, so I will not spend much time on that. However, unlike other productions of the play, stage included, this is a completely uncut production, which has never been done before. According to some, Shakespeare never intended for the play to be produced uncut, leaving the decision of what to include to the director's discretion. That being said, I have no doubt that had he been able to see it, the Bard would have been overjoyed with Branagh's production.

The film is top-heavy with film stars, although most have mere bit parts. All play their parts equally well. I would have thought Branagh too old to play the part of Hamlet, and while he still may be, his performance more than makes up for it. Hamlet is a complex part, displaying every emotion from grief to anger, happiness to madness, and everything in between. Branagh nailed it. Derek Jacobi is terrific as the wily Claudius, whose deception and treachery sets all these things in motion; his unique voice is perfect for the role. Julie Christie is also very good as Gertrude, Hamlet's caring mother who doesn't realize what is going on until late in the game.

The classical actors are cast in bit parts (Judi Dench is on for all of 60 seconds and has no lines), but at least they're in it. Surprisingly, no one takes this to heart; everyone gives it their all, and it shows. Special mention has to go to Jack Lemmon and Billy Crystal, who are excellent. Robin Williams is a little too silly, but he's not bad (his part is pretty small anyway).

Yet, this is undeniably Branagh's show. He adapted one of the most famous plays in history, and in so doing, he took on a whale of a project; it's impressive that he got it done, but the fact that the film is this good is a monumental achievement. What I really liked about this film is that you don't have to be a Shakespeare scholar to enjoy it. As most people know, Shakespeare is difficult to digest, but Branagh and his cast understand this. "Hamlet" is still immensely enjoyable to just sit and listen to the actors deliver the brilliant dialogue and excellent acting.

This is a must see for anyone and everyone. It may be four hours long, but it's definitely worth it.


Grand epic as it is, Kenneth Branagh's monumental rendering of what is perhaps William Shakespeare's most popular tragedy suffers under the weight of its four hour playing time and certainly takes some real staying power. Two entirely separate sittings would most likely be better in order to fully appreciate what is certainly high class film making. While I absolutely acknowledge this masterpiece as such, I must confess to a lack of enthusiasm for the old bards flamboyance, his rhetoric (and he sends himself up so well) and his many flourishes. Thus "Hamlet" loses its impact as it loses its grip.

From Patrick Doyle's music to Alex Thomson's cinematography to Tim Harvey's exquisite sets, the movie is a feast of visual and aural delights, which compliments a fine cast. Branagh has taken on three huge mantels, adapting, directing and playing. His adaptation is superb, his direction strong, but by the time he got to the role of Hamlet, the strain seemed to be showing; yet still he does a fine job in what is an incredibly taxing role. Derek Jacobi gobbles up the sinister Claudius with glee, and Julie Christie is most dramatic as his queen, Gertrude. Richard Briers is marvellous as Polonius, and Charlton Heston is once again a strong screen influence as the player King. Many others drop by, including Jack Lemmon (superb in a very small role), Billy Crystal, Dame Judi Dench, Sir John Mills, Sir John Gielgud, Sir Richard Attenborough and Gerard Depardieu. The acting prize though must go to one of the great thespian discoveries of recent years, Kate Winslet. Hers is a moving portrayal of the most tragic figure in this whole affair, Ophelia.

To finish (before this review goes on longer than the film), I must say it is the length that really tests the viewer in this movie. Branagh has directed with purpose, giving many important, impacting scenes. Too many of them outstay their welcome. Watching this film holds a fantastic reminder of the many pearls of wisdom we have garnered from it. "Neither a lender nor a borrower be" or "Be true to thyself". And of course: "To be or not to be".

The opening two hours does take some perseverance, but if you do manage to stay tuned you are sure to be treated to a rousing finale which gathers momentum from the tragic funeral onward.

Monday, June 8, 1998 - Hoyts Croydon


This was the second of two filmed "Hamlets" in the nineties, the first being Franco Zeffirelli's, starring Mel Gibson, from 1990. Zeffirelli's version, like Laurence Olivier's from 1948, was based upon an abridged version of the play, with much of Shakespeare's original text being cut. (I have never seen Tony Richardson's 1969 version, but as that ran to less than two hours, shorter even than Zeffirelli's, I presume that was also abridged). Kenneth Branagh was attempting something much more ambitious- a film based on the complete text of the play, with a running time of around four hours.

With his "Henry V", Branagh claimed Olivier's crown as the cinema's leading Shakespearean, confirming his claim with his brilliant "Much Ado about Nothing", a rare example of a great film based on a Shakespeare comedy. "Hamlet" was his third Shakespeare film as director (he also acted as Iago in Oliver Parker's 1995 "Othello") and, as one might expect, it is very different to "Much Ado.". The earlier film, shot in a villa in the hills of Tuscany and the beautiful surrounding countryside, is a joyous, summertime film about everything that makes life worth living.

"Hamlet", by contrast is set in the depths of winter. (The flowers in the description of Ophelia's death suggest that Shakespeare himself thought of the action happening in summer). The look of the film is particularly striking, both sumptuous and chilly. It was filmed at Blenheim Palace, possibly England's most grandiose stately home, but also a rather forbidding one. The snowy exterior scenes are cold and wintry; the interior ones formal and elaborate. The action is updated to the mid nineteenth century; the female characters wear the elaborate fashions of that era, while the principal male ones mostly wear splendid military uniforms. (There is a contrast here with Zeffirelli's film, where both the interiors and the costumes were deliberately subdued in tone). The play is dominated by images of corruption and decay; Branagh's intention may have been to contrast a splendid surface with the underlying "something rotten in the state of Denmark".

The film is notable for the large number of big-name actors, some of them in very minor roles. (Blink, and you might miss John Gieldgud or Judi Dench). Apparently, an all-star cast was required by the production company, who were nervous about a four-hour film. Some of the imported Hollywood stars, such as Robin Williams' Osric, did not really come off, but others, like Charlton Heston's Player King or Billy Crystal's First Gravedigger, played their parts very well. Yorick, normally only seen as a skull, is here seen in flashback, played by the British comedian Ken Dodd. Brian Blessed, who often plays jovial characters, is cast against type as the Ghost, and makes the scenes in which he appears genuinely frightening.

Of the major characters, perhaps the weakest was Kate Winslet's Ophelia. Branagh's leading lady in his first two Shakespeare films was his then wife Emma Thompson, but their marriage ended in divorce in 1995. I did, however, find myself wishing that Thompson had been cast in the role; although Winslet came into her own in the Ophelia's mad scenes, she seemed weak in the earlier ones where her character is still sane. (I preferred Helena Bonham Carter in Zeffirelli's version). Richard Briers plays Polonius with a greater dignity than he is often given, a wise and experienced counsellor rather than a prating old fool. Julie Christie also brings dignity to the role of Gertrude; there is no attempt here, as there was with Gibson and Glenn Close in the Zeffirelli version, to suggest an incestuous attachment between her and Hamlet. (An interpretation which owes more to Freud than it does to Shakespeare). The age difference between Christie and Branagh is great enough for them to be credible as mother and son, which was certainly not the case with Close and Gibson. (Olivier's Gertrude, Eileen Herlie, was, bizarrely, thirteen years younger than him).

Branagh stated that his intention in restoring those scenes which are often cut in cinematic versions was to "reinforce the idea that the play is about a national as well as domestic tragedy." Much stress is placed upon the war with Norway and the Norwegian Prince Fortinbras- a subplot ignored altogether by Zeffirelli. This emphasis on national tragedy is perhaps best shown in the character of Claudius, sometimes played as a one-dimensional villain. There is something about Derek Jacobi's performance which suggests that Claudius could have been a good man under different circumstances, but that he allowed himself to be led astray by ambition and lust. He could have been a good and loyal servant to his brother, but chose to rule as a bad king. Although he is tormented by guilt, he can see no way to make amends for the evil he has done.

Branagh, a wonderfully fluent speaker of Shakespeare's verse, is superb in the main role. Like Gibson, he has little time for the old concept of Hamlet as indecisive, passive and melancholy. His is an active, physical, energetic Hamlet, something best shown in his fatal duel with Laertes. His guiding principle is not world-weary despair, but an active disgust with evil and corruption.

It was a gamble for Branagh to make a four-hour epic, and the film did not do well at the box office. It was, however, praised by many critics, James Berardinelli being particularly enthusiastic. My own opinion is that, whatever the financial returns may have been, Branagh's gamble paid off in artistic terms. By concentrating on the full text, he was able to bring out the full meaning and full emotional power of Shakespeare's most complex play. When I reviewed his "Much Ado", I said it was the greatest ever film of a Shakespeare comedy. His "Hamlet" may just be the greatest ever film of a Shakespeare tragedy. 10/10


Branagh is one of the few who understands the difference between a film and a play. Hamlet is probably the most faithful adaptation of Shakespeare to a film and yet is a very dynamic film, almost an action thriller. The scene of Hamlet's meeting with his father's ghost won't leave your mind.


There were a lot of things going against this movie for me before I watched it.

First, I was a typical high school senior, in a Shakespeare class I didn't really even like, much less understood half of! Shakespeare would be no more than UNINTELLIGIBLE without me pouring ALL my concentration into his almost encrypted plays... encrypted with his extremely difficult to understand language.... and then I still wouldn't get most of it.

Second, it was 4 hours long! I never thought that could be a good thing.

Well let me tell you something. This movie was so masterful, so beautiful, I actually understood all the language as it was being performed. Now, the script was followed to the letter in this movie, the same script that was incomprehensible to me in Shakespeare class. And here I was my mind opening and me understanding it. I was doubting myself while watching the movie almost! But lo and behold... when performed, and only then, Shakespeare comes to life. So this version of Hamlet showed me that Shakespeare is indeed a master, who wrote great stories. When I saw it on the big screen, especially in the high budget major motion picture style (with beautiful cinematography and photography), and acted amazingly by Brannagh and cast, somehow.... I understood what was going on. What was being said. The language is awesome and passionate. It allows for more raw emotion... when words can't describe something, maybe Shakespeare's words can.

I still hold to this day that Fist of The North Star (animated, english dub) is the greatest movie ever made. No movie provides more sheer entertainment. But for a movie to come close to dethroning Fist from that position (which Hamlet did -- it came close) is truly amazing.... awe inspiring. It wasn't a movie. It was an event.

Even more amazing, it made me appreciate shakespeare. Wow. Powerful. Powerful is the word. One of the rare, TRULY powerful movies out there.

This gets 2 hundred trillion stars out of infinity stars. Yes yes.

By the way, all you kids out there in a Shakespeare class... forget it. You're wasting you're time. You have to see the plays performed. Only then will justice be done to them.


When I first read Hamlet, I couldn't help but think of the ending of OUTRAGEOUS FORTUNE, where Bette Midler puts down the play because of how indecisive he is, and says, "Give me Romeo any day." Five acts of a man trying to decide whether or not to kill his uncle or not? Seemed like overkill to me. But upon further reading, I grew to really appreciate the play. I've seen the Olivier and Gibson movie versions(and part of the Nicol Williamson version), and all of them take their model from Olivier; the melancholy Dane. Olivier at least did it without being self-indulgent about it, but Gibson and, from what I saw, Williamson, looked like they went to the "Look, Ma, I'm acting! I'm acting!" school.

Now here comes Kenneth Branagh's version, which is breathtaking from start to finish. It finished #2 on my top ten of 1996(behind THE ENGLISH PATIENT, and ahead of LONE STAR, JERRY MAGUIRE, FARGO, SECRETS & LIES, EVERYONE SAYS I LOVE YOU, FLIRTING WITH DISASTER, BIG NIGHT, and LOOKING FOR RICHARD), and it's the best Hamlet, and maybe the best Shakespeare, put to film. Obviously, Branagh's talents as a filmmaker, for making the full-length version, in 70mm print, and not losing our interest for four hours, is great, but what seems to get overlooked in discussions about this film is his performance in the title role. This was my favorite performance of the year by far. Branagh avoids the melodrama which actors seem to get trapped in by playing Hamlet as a normal, regular human being, and makes us understand his actions and feelings each step of the way. And unlike Olivier, who depended mostly on his voice, Branagh uses his entire body to demonstrate the range of emotions that Hamlet goes through, but since he plays him as normal, none of it seems like scenery-chewing.

The rest of the cast is top-notch as well. I didn't even mind Jack Lemmon, though I agree he was the weakest member of the cast. The most surprising turn came from Charlton Heston; I've always found him stiff as a board, but he's quite commanding as the Player King. The other big surprise was Billy Crystal; I thought I'd find him all wrong as the 1st Gravedigger, but he was his usual funny self while being in character. All in all, a glorious film!


Kenneth Branagh shows off his excellent skill in both acting and writing in this deep and thought provoking interpretation of Shakespeare's most classic and well-written tragedy. Kenneth plays the role of Hamlet with such a distinct emotion that provokes tears. Kate Winslet's performance is also of great note.


I had never read Shakespeare's Hamlet before watching it but I did have a Shakespeare book with me and could follow the dialogue through it. My view on the movie may be partially biased since I had never read the play before, but I got pulled into this movie's grasp. Shakespeare is undoubtedly one of the best writers ever to have lived and the story of Hamlet is definitely one of his best achievements.

But now on to the movie...

I found that all the actors in the movie had a firm grasp of what they were saying and thus, were able to articulate it quite well. Leonardo in Romeo and Juliet is nothing compared to Kenneth Branagh and the King. The thing I liked about this was that it worked very well as a "MOVIE" and not as a play you are studying. You don't need to be affluent with Shakespeare to relate to all the Misery hamlet has to go through. I would recommend this movie to a wide audience.

That's my two cents.


After the initial shock of realizing the guts of Mr Branagh to film this, I was literally shaking with the excitement of having this epic just ahead of me. I was not disappointed. So true to Shakespeare and yet so accessible. It blew my mind. I always enjoy seeing, or rather listening to, Branagh and it made me wonder...is this movie dubbed in other countries? That would be like painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa.


This is the definitive movie version of Hamlet. Branagh cuts nothing, but there are no wasted moments.


I went to see Hamlet because I was in between jobs. I figured 4 hours would be great, I've been a fan of Branagh; Dead Again, Henry V. I was completely overwhelmed by the direction, acting, cinematography that this film captured. Like other reviews the 4 hours passes swiftly. Branagh doesn't play Hamlet, he is Hamlet, he was born for this. When I watch this film I'm constantly trying to find faults, I've looked at the goofs and haven't noticed them. How he was able to move the camera in and out of the Hall with all the mirrors is a mystery to me. This movie was shot in 70 mil. It's a shame that Columbia hasn't released a Widescreen version of this on VHS. I own a DVD player, and I'd take this over Titanic any day. So Columbia if you're listening put this film out the way it should be watched! And I don't know what happened at the Oscars. This should have swept Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Direction, best cinematography. What films were they watching? I felt sorry for Branagh at the Oscars when he did a tribute to Shakespeare on the screen. They should have been giving a tribute to Branagh for bringing us one of the greatest films of all time.


Why didn't this pick up a bag full of Oscars? It is an amazing interpretaion of an oft-filmed/performed piece. The visuals are breathtaking (especially in wide-screen...the pan & scan really kills this film's wonderful cinematography and sets). Every frame is a painting. Astounding. The play is almost completely intact, and Branagh's passion for it is clear from the opening titles on. No Zefferelli here, just great storytelling the way only film can, but rarely does. Jacobi is especially perfect as Hamlet's murderous Uncle: he doesn't play him as a mustache- curling evil villian, but a charming politician, allowing us to see why only Hamlet suspects foul play. Branagh also nails the subtlety of the line between Hamlet's fake/real madness and the burning revenge inside him. And the many cameos come off quite well, everyone from Billy Crystal and Robin Williams to Gerard Depardeu and Charlton Heston, unobtrusive if you are sucked into Branagh's vision the way I was. A mesmerizing piece.


I have never observed four hours pass quite so quickly as when I saw this film. This film restores the power and art to Hamlet that it was always meant to have. Even those oh-so famous speeches are done in new and inventive ways. And the cast is incredible, Brannagh the brightest star. It is his charisma, power and command of the role that defines the movie. Making it a full and complete version fills so many holes and allows for new appreciation of the tragedy despite the length. Where one would expect the dark, gloomy cliched castle, we are treated to a sumptuous feast for the eyes. The only gloom comes from Hamlet himself, as it should. Well worth your time, all four hours of it.


A lot of people don't think Branagh's Hamlet film is all that good, but I must admit I think it is splendid. Like virtually every production of Shakespeare, it has problems and it has had to make hard choices, not all of which work out. The thing about the "secret doors everywhere", for instance, simply doesn't work. That element never achieves the ominous feeling of metaphor or analogy that it attempts to, which results in the play being too gaudy and losing its trademark sense of a thousand mysteries looming. This is the biggest problem with this production. And while it's a biggie, I'm also inclined to say that it's the only problem. Almost everything else works out absolutely beautifully. All right, so Branagh is a mite too old for the title role. And the relationship with Ophelia seems a little forced. And he gets too hysterical at times. But that's it. No other complaints. Even with these faults, I think this version is a seminal one, and if it's not as powerful a drama as it ought to be, it's every bit the literary work that it equally ought to be. We get the complete text of the longest version of the play, innovatively and expensively brought to the screen, mostly enunciated in perfect and modern and highly understandable voices - even if they sometimes speak too quickly in order to get the massive text over with. But in a staging of Shakespeare, it simply is not possible to speak slowly enough for the audience to really appreciate the full depths of the language. For that, one must delve into the print versions of the plays.

All the actors of this version are simply mesmerizing and utterly and instantly classic (incl. Jack Lemmon). Julie Christie as Gertrude is surely one of the best ever, and even the American actors are astounding, esp. Charlton Heston as the Player King - who would have thought it?! (A story is going around that Heston once played Hamlet on stage, and when a critic in the front row couldn't stand his hammy acting and said out loud, "This is terrible!", Heston reportedly retorted right from the stage: "Well, I didn't write this crap!" Of course it may not be true, but it's a funny story - and if true, a bold and ironic choice for Branagh to include Heston here.) Robin Williams as "Young Ozric" is perhaps not young enough for the part, but he makes it a comical one, which is warranted.

Overall it is a very well-produced version, with most of the key scenes being, to my mind, supremely memorable. Of course, I watched this movie just as I was becoming interested in Shakespeare (and around the same time as Luhrmann's formidable Romeo+Juliet), and it made a great impression on me, which must account for some of my fondness for it.

All things considered, I must pronounce Branagh's Hamlet to be my favorite one, with Derek Jacobi's 1980 BBC version a close second. I probably like Branagh's Shakespeare work more than most, finding him an expert interpreter and popularizer, with an attractively casual attitude to the words and a deep and appropriately and unashamedly enthusiastic appreciation of the text. In the world of Shakespeare acting, the two brightest luminaries remain Olivier and Branagh, and while Olivier is the superior actor, Branagh brings Shakespeare down from the pedestal of snobbery and artifice, and transforms it into churlish, easy-going, populistic worldliness while compromising none of its dignity. Branagh, I believe, brings out a truer Shakespeare than the world has yet seen.

And so, 10 out of 10 for an absolutely tremendous Hamlet.


One of the best movie-dramas I have ever seen. We do a lot of acting in the church and this is one that can be used as a resource that highlights all the good things that actors can do in their work. I highly recommend this one, especially for those who have an interest in acting, as a "must see." There are several scenes of note. For one, the graveyard scene when Hamlet encounters Yorick (everyone knows about THAT scene by just going to elementary school), and his interaction with the skull was extremely well done. The logic used in this scene was tremendous--I suppose a testament to Shakespeare more than anything else. For a second, I very much enjoyed the scene where Hamlet, Horatio and the character played by Robin Williams discussed the upcoming duel.


William Shakespeare would be very proud of this particular version of his play. Not only is it the best movie version of it, but it's also the only complete version of Hamlet. Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet is simply genius. Not only because it was written by Shakespeare, but also because it had the guts to do the whole thing, even if it went just over four hours.

We all know the story of the Prince of Denmark and his plot to avenge his father's death, so I won't go into the details of the story. I will, however, tell you that the best part of this Hamlet version is not the breathtaking sets or the stunning photography, but the actors' interpretations of each character. I doubt you'll find a better Polonius than Richard Briers' delicious portrayal. Plus, you can't go wrong with Julie Christie and Jack Lemmon. Also, Derek Jacobi, a regular among Shakespeare adaptations is magnificent as the antagonist to Hamlet.

Of course, we must talk about Kenneth Branagh. He wowed audiences when he came onto the scene with his first outing with Shakespeare, Henry V. He outdoes himself with Hamlet. Sure, Olivier's presence was captivating, but I think Branagh's performance is wonderful. When you watch him on screen, it's almost as if he knew exactly how Shakespeare wanted the role to be played. How he wasn't nominated for an Oscar is a total mystery. At least the movie got a few nominations and even an odd choice for Screenplay. I guess they know good writing when they see it though.

All in all, you'll never find a more rich and lavish production of the Bard's best play. To say that the technical aspects were awesome would be an understatement. If you love this play and are a fan of Shakespeare, you definitely need to check this movie out. Even if you don't really care for Shakespeare, the visuals will keep you occupied for the duration of the film. You may not think you'll be able to sit through all of it at once, but you'll soon find out that pausing this movie will make you want to see it even more.


It would require the beauty and eloquence of Shakespeare to do justice to this outstanding cinematic feat. Nevertheless, I'll give it a go.

As far as adaptations of Hamlet go this one is already at a better starting point than all other versions since it encompasses the entire play. Still this is no guarantee for a first-rate movie, or even a good one. Usually I'm not much for movies that are overlong and the trend that seems to be prevalent in Hollywood today, namely that movies should be at least two hours long, preferably three, is one that hopefully won't last long. Few stories are strong enough to withstand such extensive exploration and could do with some cutting. Making a four-hour-long movie and keeping it interesting is no small undertaking, but Kenneth Branagh pulls it off with flying colours. He has managed to make a very long movie seem no more than any average movie. I was completely engrossed from start to finish.

The cast is excellent with Kenneth Branagh himself as the tormented prince giving a strong and memorable performance. He manages to convey his feelings admirably through his voice and one does not have to be an expert on Shakespearean verse to catch the myriad of emotions that are waging inside him. Kate Winslet was a positive surprise, I must say. I didn't know what to expect really. I've always liked her well enough as an actor, but wasn't sure she could pull off playing Shakespeare. Well, she certainly eradicated all doubts with her performance. She is the best Ophelia I have seen and lent such depth to the character and was simply wonderful. Other brilliant performances are Derek Jacobi as Claudius, Richard Briers as Polonius and Nicholas Farrell as Horatio to name but a few. I liked the fact that Branagh used some internationally more famous stars to play in some of the minor roles; I especially enjoyed the sparring between Hamlet and the gravedigger played by Billy Crystal.

The setting of the play in the 19th century gives a welcome change to the usually gloomier Gothic settings. It is overall much lighter than other versions I've seen, more colourful and lavish, but this does not distract from the tragedy of the play. It is exceptional, stylish and aesthetically pleasing, a definite delight to the eye and other senses as well. The music by Patrick Doyle is as always magical and thoroughly in tune with the movie. One can only feel a deep sense of satisfaction after having seen this. I am shocked and appalled that this exquisite work of art did not win an Academy award for best picture, even more so that it wasn't even nominated. There is no way there was a better movie made that year, or any other year for that matter. This is as close to perfection as you can hope to get.

To sum up, a stunning work of pure genius and I cannot see how anyone could top this. My hat's off to you Mr. Branagh.


Kenneth Branagh's "Hamlet" hits all the marks. The acting is magnificent, the 70mm cinematography is gorgeous, the Oscar-nominated costumes and sets are stunning, and Patrick Doyle's score (also Oscar-nominated) is sensitive and moving. Oh yeah - the screenplay, by some guy named Will S., isn't too bad either. Film critics ribbed Branagh for receiving the films' fourth Oscar nod for "adapting" the screenplay, but his decision to use the full text was a gutsy one. I can't think of many better ways to make four hours fly by.

Nearly every decision Branagh makes works brilliantly: the use of England's Blenheim Palace for exteriors, the Edwardian dress, and the staging of "To be or not to be" in a hall of mirrors, to name a few. The casting of Hollywood luminaries such as Robin Williams, Billy Crystal and Jack Lemmon in minor parts can be distracting, but that's nitpicking. The principal cast excels: Derek Jacobi captures the conflicted nature of Claudius; Kate Winslet acutely depicts Ophelia's descent into madness; Julie Christie brings passion to her portrayal of Gertrude; Richard Briers is pitch-perfect as the conniving Polonius; and Nicholas Farrell elevates the potentially thankless role of Horatio to the apotheosis of true friendship. Every speech, every line, every word is delivered with passion and conviction; there isn't a wasted moment in the entire film. The final scenes magnify the extent of Shakespeare's tragedy in a way not possible with theatrical adaptations.

Branagh's "Hamlet" is a bold, ambitious, and ultimately successful attempt to match the grandeur and poetry of Shakespeare's language with equally eloquent imagery. It's arguably the greatest Shakespearean adaptation ever filmed  strong praise, but well deserved.


Hamlet is by far my favorite of all of Shakespeare's works. Branaugh is one heck of an actor. His portrayal of this was just amazing. His soliloquies were breathtaking. For as long as it was it is rare for a film to hold my interest, however I was engrossed in this particular piece. I recommend this to anyone both fan of Shakespeare and those not so much. This has everything the modern world looks for in its films: murder, betrayal, and deceit. Not to knock Mel Gibson's version, but Branaughs touches the whole work. This leaves no stone unturned. When you finish the film it will feel as if you read the play yourself. Um how you say "two thumbs up".


A beautiful and touching movie that deserves a wider viewing than it is likely to get. Semra Turan plays Aicha, a second generation Turkish immigrant, who tries to break the mold. Neither entirely at home with her moderately conservative Muslim family, nor with her liberal Danish friends, Aicha's martial arts experience becomes a fight to find herself and have the strength to allow herself to be who she wants to be in spite of both family and friends.

Director Natasha Arthy manages to balance introspection and narrative so that it has depth without becoming ponderous philosophical discourse, and drawing on Xian Gao's choreography skills pays off in spectacular fight sequences. In the end, however, it is Semra Turan's stunning debut performance that gives this movie spirit. Raw charisma and requisite martial arts skills are complimented by heart to make her personal drama believable.

Well worth your while.


When I took my seat in the cinema I was in a cool mood and didn't plan on changing it. But this movie is a dramatic powerhouse. I was all in sweat and needed a shower afterward. So what have we? Theoretically a coming of age story of a teenage Turkish girl living in Copenhagen, Denmark. It came to my mind soon that the plot seemed pretty much completely borrowed from "Bend it like Beckham", where we had an Indian girl playing football and spoiling the wedding of her sister. Here we have it transferred to a Turkish girl spoiling her brother's wedding by doing Kung Fu. And we have a love story and a competition of course, too. After I accepted this, this really turned out to be a gripping, emotional drama and it shows off some beautiful Kung Fu (I'm not an expert, though). The lead actress Semra Turan is not only Denmark's female champion but she also delivers an excellent performance, so that it appears to be safe to assume that we have quite some autobiographic impressions here taking into account that this is her first movie and that she has no education as an actress. Rest of the supporting cast is okay, camera good, Kung Fu intense. Sidenotes: - The male Turkish audience showed respect so that they must have done something right. - The audience burst into cheers when our heroine finally fought back and attacked the boys who were gravely beating up her brother in revenge. - Xian Gao, a Chinese cinematic Kung Fu instructor/actor (Hidden Tiger, Crouching Dragon) played the lead role's master

If you get the chance to see this in cinema do it, you'll probably have a good and intense experience and I don't know if this works on small screen as well


When you are in a gloomy or depressed mood, go watch this film. It shows a lot of beauty and joy in a very simple everyday setting, and it is very encouraging, in particular from a feminist and a humanist perspective.

When you know both the Turkish language and either the Danish or the German language, go watch the film in any case. Half of the dialog is Danish in the original, synchronized to German in the translated version, the other half Turkish, subtitled in Danish or German, respectively. When i watched it in Mannheim, Germany, the reaction of the Turkish-speaking audience proved that there must be a lot of humor in the Turkish dialog, which, deplorably, mostly escaped me, being only imperfectly rendered in the subtitles. Still, the film is interesting even if you lack knowledge of the Turkish.

Esthetically, the movie is playing a lot on the theme of speed and slowness. On first sight, there is lots of corporeal movement fast as lightning, making it a quick, an agitated film. In particular, even though this is a Kung Fu movie, watch out for the running scenes, beautifully expressing a wealth of emotions. But there are quite a few very slow, emotionally intense scenes, too. And above all, the characters develop at a much slower pace than you would expect in a drama about the coming of age; still, there is some movement in the characters to: Closely watch the villain Omar, whose part and acting i liked very much.

The contrast of speed and stillness nicely contributes to the depiction of human rage and dignity - shown at once, in the same characters, at the same time.


When I went to watch this movie my expectations were really low, but I was pleasantly surprised.

I thought I was going to watch a boring teen-flick, BUT in fact the plot is interesting and well executed, the acting was somewhat convincing - especially from Melville who really shows his talent in this movie, and the fight scenes were - for a low budget movie - very well done .

I think this movie deserves a broader audience than it has received. It is a movie, which can be seen by the whole family - maybe not the smallest of kids, since it contains some rather rough scenes. A movie about love, and the problems that can occur, when you go against your family traditions.

Yes, the movie is very much like "Bend it like Beckham", but I actually think this movie pulls it off better.


It's a rather good movie, but too Americanised in it's predictability. Change the Kung Fu for football and the Turkish Family for a Pakistani one, and you get to watch Bend It Like Beckham (2002) almost scene for scene. A nice feature the serves as the backbone of the movie is the progression of fights with the mysterious ninja under the highway, beginning with miserable losses and slowly progressing until the last fight is a win against oneself, as the Kung Fu master stressed several times. On a different level, the Danish life is revealed quite different than the image it has by outsiders: the non indigenous immigrants that make a large proportion (actually, the majority) of the Danish citizenry, the graffiti in the Copenhagen suburbs, the taunting of the immigrant girl in the begging of the movie. All portray a different picture than one has in mind when one hears the word Denmark.


Cinematography--Compared to 'The Wrestler,' a degree of verite and cinematic skill that disarms the viewer, and then hypnotizes as well.

Acting--The dialogue is minimal, but the pauses and silence poignant.

Story--The conflict in a 'balkanized' Denmark is volatile, as we saw recently jihad murders in the Netherlands and riots in France. While I harbor no love for Islam, the departure from the West from Christian values holds no cause for celebration.

The director of this film managed to mirror the two societies in a way that belabored neither, emphasizing the development of Aicha as an individual who became a champion, not so much in the ring, but to all those around her. Even her worst . . . I will stop here to avoid the spoiler.


The film notes describe the main role family, as Turkish immigrants which living in Denmark. However, it is so clear to understand that the fact is, the behavior and the culture point the family is absolute Kurdish. Similar social pressures and even cultural murders keep going on Turkey today on Kurdish ethnicity societies. What a worry...

It is widely accepted issue in Turkey today, the Kurdish immigrants living in European Countries today, which have moved from Turkey at 70's are culturally connected to the feudal moral laws system, by growing daughters and women under pressure, are giving harm to the Turkish International Image. Also, as same as widely accepted another issue is the Turkish or Kurdish immigrants on these countries are the reason negative aim about the Community Europe Nominee.


It's a good show, and I find it funny. Finally the bad Latin stereo types are over! ¡Gracias, Señor Lopez! I love this show, and I just started watching it about three months ago. The whole concept about a Latin family TV show really amazed me. I am surprised that finally Latinos have a good shot to be on TV. This show is probably one the best I've seen, it's funny, heartwarming, touchy, and nice.


George Lopez is a funny man even without the sitcom. The first episodes I saw of this too often made jokes at the expense of his mom. As I have watched this more, there has been more & more variety. No one on the cast is really safe from his wit now.

It seems to me as this season has progressed that George is getting more comfortable with the family sitcom Dad role. At first he wasn't, but he is getting More & more into a groove. This makes both him & the shows progressively funnier. They had added a couple of characters for George to play off this year too. His wife's dad is getting more & more involved in the plot.

His mom is still there, but not as central as past seasons. I think it is prudent to say with George's sense of comic timing, & ABC's lack of good sitcoms, George Lopez has a good chance of being here on ABC long after George W. Bush.


I have been watching this show since I was 14 and I've loved it ever since. I love this show because it's just plain funny! You will enjoy this show a lot because it shows something new and funnier everyday and my favorite part is when Benny always has her last comments on George after every punchline about his fat giant head.*laughs* I would laugh and I'd watch it with my friends at home it'd be like we were watching a funny movie but short. Love George Lopez. Funny, talented,funny,spectacular. This is a cool-funny-family comedy series enjoyable to everyone and you will definitely enjoy it--I did! And if you haven't watched it yet I suggest that you start watching because you wouldn't want to stop watching it. Even though there aren't anymore brand new episodes I still enjoy the re-runs. Still funny. Never wears off.

9/10


when i saw commercials for this i was thinking "NO WHAT HAS NICK AT NITE DONE!" because it was taking up "fresh prince" slots. well, i still love the fresh prince. but george lopez is a surprisingly good show. i love how not-stereotypical benny is. carmen is a pretty good character, its really funny to see how stupid and overemotional she can be sometimes. i feel bad for the guy who plays max, he looks much younger then he actually is! but max is a fun character, and acted well. and yeah, angie is a little stereotypical, but she has her funny moments. ha ha george does have a big head! nah but he can be really good too. funny show! it definitely should be on more often then home improvement.


Yes, it's over the top, yes it's a bit clichéd and yes, Constance Marie is a total babe and worthy of seeing again and again! The jokes and gags might get old and repetitive after a while but the show's still fun to watch. Since it's a family show the humour is toned down and the writers have incorporated family values and ideals in between the gags.

George Lopez is funny. Don't take him seriously and the show's a winner. I'm sure he didn't intend his character to be serious or a paragon of virtue. His outbursts and shouts of glee are hilarious...

I do have to say that the one big, dark, bitter spot is Benny. I hate the character...so much so that anytime she's on for more than 30 seconds I mute the TV just so I don't have to hear her. There is nothing funny about her dialogue or her jokes. As a mother she has to be the worst out there and I am just shocked and surprised that George, as the character, would stand by such a deplorable person for so long.

Even so anytime I get ticked off at seeing Benny I think to myself: seeing her is a lot better than having to watch the Bill Engvall Show. Now there's a bad sitcom...


George Lopez never caught my interest in his stand up comedy and he still doesn't. But this show is a work of art. It's not ever show where the jokes keep you laughing every time you remember it (and jokes that re memorable at that). This show just has an upbeat look to it and the characters range from an old, short drunk to an dyslexic teenager. I don't know who writes this show but that person does a great job. If they had just continued the show I'm sure that it would get a positive response from the critics of this great country. If you are looking for a good, traditional comedy, then George Lopez is the show for you! The one bad thing is the title. George Lopez? Really? Imagine the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air being "Will Smith". C'mon man! But otherwise, this show is genius! 10/10


From the beginning of the show Carmen was there. She was one of the best characters. Why did they get rid of her?! The show not the same as before. Its way worse.

The best episodes were with Carmen in them. You can't replace someone from the beginning! That is like South Park without Kyle or Child's Play without Chucky! It's not right! The niece who replaced her is just, ugh! Awful. She doesn't fit into the storyline at all. She was one of the main characters, and the niece can't replace her. She was an awesome actress. Way better than the niece. Get her back, or you'll lose a TON of viewers.


I really like this show. That is why I was disappointed to learn recently that George Lopez is a racist, and that he fired Masiela Lusha off the show, simply because he discovered that she wasn't a Latino emigrant, but was an emigrant from Albania. I learned this from people on the show. She was really one of the better parts of the show, and thus, to learn that even among those who you would think would be sensitive to racism, that they can also hate someone, just because of the country where they were born, is really disappointing. I really like this show. That is why I was disappointed to learn recently that George Lopez is a racist, and that he fired Masiela Lusha off the show, simply because he discovered that she wasn't a Latino emigrant, but was an emigrant from Albania. I learned this from people on the show. She was really one of the better parts of the show, and thus, to learn that even among those who you would think would be sensitive to racism, that they can also hate someone, just because of the country where they were born, is really disappointing.


"GEORGE LOPEZ," in my opinion, is an absolute ABC classic! I haven't seen every episode, but I still enjoy it. There are many episodes that I enjoyed. One of them was where Amy (Sandra Bullock) walked into a moving piece of machinery. If you want to know why, you'll have to have seen it for yourself. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. In conclusion, even though new episodes can currently be seen, I strongly recommend you catch it just in case it goes off the air for good.


This movie might not put the Catholic church in the best light but it is telling a story based on true events. Unfortunately not everything in life, including religion, are all nice and rosy. Sometimes people and groups do things that at the time seem like the right thing but in retrospective do not look as great as they once did. "A Love Divided" tells the story of a family, yes it does incorporate religion, but really the story is about a family, and that family's ability to stay together no matter what is thrown at them. This film is also based on true events which is not to say that this story, scene by scene, is true, but if you were to look at news articles from that time period you would be able to see that neither churches handled the incident in a way that was helpful towards the family. Both churches are at fault here, the Catholic church for forcing such a regulation on the family in the first place and not responding to the violence that came with it and the Protestant church for telling the mother that she should just obey her husband and his priest and not put up a fight. In this case both let this family down. I believe that the film does a good job in showing this struggle in both the church and the family. It in no way shape or form is putting down the Catholic church, just the opposite, it shows how one incident can change the course of that religion's ideas and how one person can have an effect far more reaching then just themselves.


This movie is about a side of Ireland that Americans don't normally see, the narrow-minded religiously prejudiced side of the 'friendliest race in the world'. The movie, by the admission of the inhabitants of Fethard who are old enough to remember the events, is fairly accurate (though they insist that the film-makers invented some of the more violent scenes just to spice up the action).

The movie was very unpopular in Ireland as it portrayed the Catholic church in a bad light, but the simple fact is that representatives of the Catholic church *did* organise vetoes of minorities (before Protestants it was the Jews).

The film is a fascinating insight into the whole issue of religion in Ireland


I never fail to be amazed and horrified by the evil that has been predicated in the history of the world in the name of religion, and it seems that the machinations of the Catholic Church in Twentieth Century Ireland rank right up there near the top - considering that the wisdom of history and modern times should have had some sobering effect.

A Love Divided is the story of a real family scarred by ignorant intolerance and prejudice all in the name of an inane Church doctrine. At the beginning of the film, we are offered a view of the bucolic life in a small Irish village in which Sheila and Sean Cloney are happily married with two young children. Sean is Catholic and Sheila is Protestant, but she has no qualms with their children being raised as Catholic. There is no sign of any animosity between the Catholics and Protestants in the village. The peaceful and loving relationships are soon shattered when Sheila expresses the desire to have their older child attend the Protestant school. The local priest takes it upon himself to forbid this "sin" and soon has Sheila's husband and the entire Catholic population of the village turned against her as well as her father, the local dairy farmer. In an act of defiance and desperation, Sheila kidnaps her two daughters and flees from the area.

Special note should be given to Orla Brady who plays Sheila. She gives an extremely powerful performance in which the viewer is drawn in to the emotional trauma in which she decides to reject the wishes of a husband she deeply loves in order to express her fervent desire to establish herself as independent from the pressures of the establishment. On an equal footing is Liam Cunningham who plays Sean for he gives a realistic portrait of a man not nearly as complex as his wife who is torn between his love for her and the influence of Church and community.

If fiction, this film would have been a compelling and interesting drama. Considering it is true, it changes to a horrific tragedy. In real life, the people and the village never fully recovered from the events that took place there. It took almost half a century for the Church to acknowledge its negative role in the events, and even though Sheila and Sean lived out their lives in the area, they never fully recovered from what was done to them by the religious leaders and their fellow villagers.

Whether it be denying basic rights to education of choice, crashing planes into buildings, subjugating women, condemning whole races, or just plain on torture and murder, we humans certainly have the ability to use religion as a powerful negative force in our society.


OH WOW. I saw this film at the Irish International Film Fleadh in Manhattan on 12 March 2000. Both stars were in attendance and were available for questions afterward. WHAT A GORGEOUS FILM! Although set in Ireland amid Catholic/Protestant antagonism, the story could have happened anywhere between any two groups of people who hate each other. The horror of how quickly people can get carried away when they are given a chance to vent their hate and anger was woven beautifully with a moving love story drizzled with humor and fun. If this one does not get picked up in the USA, it would truly be most unfortunate.

As for the stars and supporting players...FIRST RATE. They call Orla Brady the Irish Meryl Streep, I heard. It is my opinion that she is BETTER than Meryl Streep. They should be calling Meryl the American Orla Brady! And, Liam Cunningham's steady and powerful portrayal of a simple and private man sucked into a political war was brilliant.

SEE THIS MOVIE.


Oh dear . Yet another example of " Oireland " and religion . No doubt we'll be seeing some depressing nonsense featuring some " hunky and macho freedom fighters " from the IRA . Well that was my initial reaction when the credits started but just over an hour and a half later I was in a state of shock . What a superb movie

The story starts on the day of the wedding between Sean Cloney and Sheila Kelly in the 1950s . There is a slight problem since they're getting married in the catholic church and that is Sheila is a protestant but in order for the wedding to happen Sheila takes a pledge that her children will be brought up catholic and attend the catholic school when they're old enough . The story - Which is set in the 1950s - then jumps forward a few years when the Cloney daughters are about to start school but Sheila has decided they'll be attending the local protestant school much to the disgust of local priest Father Stafford . From there things escalate

Let me put my cards on the table and state that despite having both Irish catholic and Scottish protestant heritage I was brought up as agnostic and have considered myself as an atheist throughout my adult life . In fact when it comes to religion I consider myself a Marxist and religion is a cynical weapon used to manipulate people . A LOVE DIVIDED shows what happens when self appointed moral guardians take it upon themselves to tell other people what to think and believe . May I have the temerity to state that if Karl Marx saw this movie he'd love it and call it a masterpiece ? Perhaps I shouldn't since the drama of this story shows what happens when other people do your thinking for you

In reply to the couple of reviewers who have claimed this movie is propaganda of the worst sort I don't claim to know the exact details of what happened in County Wexford and there's no denying that Father Stafford and his flock of catholic sheep are portrayed as being the bad guys but Sheila isn't blameless herself . Think about a woman living in a rural village in 1950s Ireland who takes a pledge to bring her children up as catholics then changes her mind and believes there will be no consequences of this ? This is a warning against taking pledges and not keeping to them . Not only that but she disappears to let other people pick up the pieces of their shattered lives . There's also something that no one else has picked up upon and that is that the only character with any type of moral sense is former IRA man Andy Bailey who is shown as being gallant not because he was a former IRA member ( That makes a change . We're not talking about THE DEVIL'S OWN here ) but simply because he is an atheist who has decided to think for himself

A LOVE DIVIDED is a superb movie that has a lot to say for itself , all of which I agree with . If there's any sort of criticism it's that it feels too much like a TVM rather than a cinematic movie but believe me I can live with that and is essential viewing to anyone who thinks religion is the opium of the masses


This was a gem. Amazing acting from the leads Liam Cunningham, Orla Brady and all the supporting cast. The movie raises a subject not only pertinent to Ireland and Irish history but to many communities around the world and many marriage units within those communities. With intensity and sincerity the movie shows how the religious convictions and traditions drove a wedge on a loving and passionate family. The title "Love divided" couldn't capture it any better. Even though it was a true story and happening in Ireland of the 50th seeing how the life of the whole village erodes and "pogroms" are starting reminded me of Russian history. The intolerance and prejudice are still too powerful in the world and unfortunately it's deeply hidden inside the human nature. Just like in the movie the Liam Cunningham's character says "the hatred had always been there under the surface". It was interesting to watch the moral choices people were making in this story. Also the character of a catholic priest and what happened to him in the end of the story was quite meaningful. The story however gives hope that love of two people can conquer everything and love makes us better, stronger. Liam Cunningham's character goes through the whole transformation in the course of the story becoming a man he always wanted to be. Again acting is a top notch. Story is fast-paced. Irish countryside is as beautiful as ever. Highly recommended.


To say this film is simply a demonisation of Catholics and a misrepresentation of history is untrue. That is not what this film is.

What this film is is a comment on the abuses of the Church (although this could be substituted for any powerful body), the ways that this abuse affects people and families and the way so many people choose to simply allow and often participate in the abuse without thinking for themselves. The fact that it is the Catholic church which is in the wrong is simply because of the nature of the true story the film is based upon. To label this as propaganda against Catholics seems to miss the truth about what the Catholic Church has done at times; its history is often not great and is something that films like this highlight and that needs to be highlighted. Yes we should comment on the abuses committed by other organisations but that is not for the remit of this film.

It is an amazing film which brought me to tears and well worth watching - 'if we do not study the past, we are bound to repeat it'


Generally I like something light and fun, so this film shouldn't have appealed to me. But it grabbed me from the start. The story of a family's choices and challenges seem obvious, but it raises the question over and over: "What if it was my family? My choice?" I cried and laughed when they did because I really felt what the people involved felt. It was in places difficult to watch, but more difficult to turn away. The story is true, and life is sometimes difficult to watch! It shows what film-makers can do without sex, violence, or special effects: a good story is a good story all by itself. The best and most unpredictable stories are all true ones. Like real life, you really don't know what'll happen next, or why people do the things that they do!


I never thought an old cartoon would bring tears to my eyes! When I first purchased Casper & Friends: Spooking About Africa, I so much wanted to see the very first Casper cartoon entitled The Friendly Ghost (1945), But when I saw the next cartoon, There's Good Boos To-Night (1948), It made me break down! I couldn't believe how sad and tragic it was after seeing Casper's fox get killed! I never saw anything like that in the other Casper cartoons! This is the saddest one of all! It was so depressing, I just couldn't watch it again. It's just like seeing Lassie die at the end of a movie. I know it's a classic,But it's too much for us old cartoon fans to handle like me! If I wanted to watch something old and classic, I rather watch something happy and funny! But when I think about this Casper cartoon, I think about my cats!


I've often wondered just how much CASPER was meant for children...with all the issues revolving around his identity (in this film we are lead to believe that he is the spirit of a dead child, as his home is a cemetery plot), as well as the disturbing message brought by this particular film. Maybe Casper was meant more as a morality play, or Famous Studios felt like breaking new ground in 'reality' cartoons.

THERE'S GOOD BOOS TONIGHT is a well-animated project-no doubt there. But, the plot development involving the fox (who becomes Casper's friend, but meets a tragic end) is a concern.

Give Famous Studios credit--they tackle death with respect...but, the stark image of Casper's mourning is rather graphic and disturbing for children (though the denouement does offer a happy ending, but I won't give away the ending), and the violence is rather steep, even for 1940's standards.

This might be a good cartoon for parents to use in helping explain death to children--but I wouldn't pop it into the VCR for a perky cartoon break.


I was about 12 years old when I saw this classic "Casper the Friendly Ghost" cartoon. Figured it was an early one since Casper didn't look *right*, the same way Porky Pig doesn't look *right* in the old 1930's cartoons. But I digress...

Anyway, this episode in the friendly phantom's afterlife concerns him befriending a young fox todd whom he names Ferdie. I remember being happy to see Casper have a friend, as those who have watched the cartoons are wont to know that most people run away from him, screaming "A Ghost!"

Casper and Ferdie have some fun together until someone else shows up... I hate to leave you with a semi-spoiler, but the cartoon is only seven minutes long, so you can't really be too ambiguous. Besides, anyone who reads the IMDb synopsis of the cartoon can deduce what happens next...

The finale is a bit heartbreaking. In fact, it's probably the saddest I've ever felt watching a cartoon. But that only means that it moved me, which probably explains why I decided to write a comment on this particular cartoon and not very many others. Or heck, the fact that I actually REMEMBER this cartoon at all is due to its emotional effect on me -- I haven't seen it since. But the cartoon does end on an upbeat note, and I was pleased to see Casper and Ferdie happy again.

I'd give this cartoon 8 out of 10 stars. Second only to the Warner Bros. cartoon "Peace on Earth," this is the most I've ever been moved by an animated short.


I remember Casper comic books, but don't remember any cartoons. Maybe they weren't memorable; I don't know but at my advanced age, here I am watching this very early Casper animated short yesterday. Afterward, I was shocked to read the user-comments here. Did people miss the ending?

I have to learn all over again that Casper isn't like the other ghosts, who like to go out each night and scare the c--p out of everyone. "He sees no future in that," according to the narrator here. Instead, one night he goes out to the rural section of town, inadvertently scares some animals and can't find any friends. It brings him to tears, until a little fox hears him bawling and befriends him. The two become buddies but soon, the fox is running for his life with a fox hunt in progress.

Other reviews have all mentioned what happens, so I'll touch on that, too. The fox is killed by hunting dogs (not shown) and Casper is in tears for losing "the only friend I ever had." But, nobody mentions the happy ending to this story. "Ferdie" the fox becomes a spirit-figure like Casper, jumps on his lap, licks his face and the narrator comments "they lived happily ever after." Both characters look overjoyed.

What is so sad about that? This is a nice story with a nice, happy ending.


No other movie has made me feel like this before... and I don't feel bad. Like, I don't want my money back or the time that I waited to watch this movie (9 months) nor do I feel bad about using two hours of a sunny summer day in order to view this ______. The reason I say "_____" is because no matter how hard I wrack my brain I just can't seem to come up with a word in ANY of the seven languages that movie was in to sum it up. I have no idea what was going on the entire time and half way through the movie I needed a breather. No movie has ever done this to me before. Never in my life have I wanted cauliflower, milk, and baguettes this much. Thank you. - Ed

Uh. *clears throat* No words. No thoughts. I don't know. I truly don't know. - Cait


La Teta y la Luna is a symbolic spain film. Everything that in this film occurs has a symbolic meaning. It is totally different to the usual movie that one has access.

This film is good but it will be good only for the people who want look for the meaning of everything in the film's tale. I must advice that this is not a sample film.

Please enjoy!!!


This is actually one of my favorite films, I would recommend that EVERYONE watches it. There is some great acting in it and it shows that not all "good" films are American....


I thoroughly enjoyed this film for its humor and pathos. I especially like the way the characters welcomed Gina's various suitors. With friends (and family) like these anyone would feel nurtured and loved. I found the writing witty and natural and the actors made the material come alive.


Franco proves, once again, that he is the prince of surreal & erotic cinema. True, much of his work can be viewed as entertaining sleaze but with Succubus (Necronomicon) he shows what he is truly capable of when he lets his warped creativity run riot and gives us a film that is both hypnotic and enigmatic whilst still maintaining the delirious eroticism intrinsic in his work. Jerry Van Rooyen's splendid score pulsates as the viewer is thrown from one bizarre scenario to another as we follow the trials of a striptease artist (Reynaud) who may be schizophrenic, or may indeed (as one mysterious character states) be a devil, attempt to come to terms with the world she inhabits. A beautiful and enigmatic piece of cinema highly recommended to anybody with even a passing interest in alternative cinema.


I haven't seen all of Jess Franco's movies, I have seen 5, I think, and there are more than 180 of them. So maybe it's a bit early to say so but "Necronomicon Geträumte Sünden" (better known as 'Succubus', but that is the cut version) is according to me if not the best, certainly on of Franco's best. Franco is best known (although 'known' might be slightly exaggerated) for "Vampiros Lesbos", a weird cultish movie that got more acclaim in the mid 90's when people found out Jess Franco was also an interesting composer. Through the soundtrack a happy few discovered the man and found out what was to be expected after seeing the video clip of 'The lion and the cucumber' ('Vampyros Lesbos OST'): Jess Franco is an overwhelming director. When the phone rang during 'Vampiros', I let it ring. I just wanted to see more of the movie. Since that moment Franco never could grip me that much. But then I stumbled on this movie. It is even better than "Vampiros Lesbos", I think. Franco is looking for what he can do with a story and a camera. We find out he can do a lot. I certainly didn't expect to find "Necronomicon" that great: its beginning didn't impress me at all. Remember, I had seen "Vampiros Lesbos" before (although chronologically that came only three years later) and both movies kinda start the same. But then the story went on, puzzling and gripping, beautiful camera work and the stuff you would like to see Godard do if he weren't so occupied with spreading his political messages. Later on in the movie I heard a dialogue about which art was or wasn't old-fashioned. The man says that all movies have to be old-fashioned because it takes weeks before the audience sees what got filmed. But the girl replies that "Bunuel, Fritz Lang and Godard yesterday made movies for tomorrow". Janine Reynaud is an interesting lead actress and of course Howard Vernon, a Franco regular, is also there. Luckily the acting is good (something that can spoil a lot of Franco movies for you, but not this one). But certainly watch out for the dummy scene. The erotic tension, the wild directing and the fact that it's a yesterday's movie for tomorrow make it a movie a lot of people should see. The fact that it is a bit more accessible than "Vampiros Lesbos" certainly helps.


As you probably already know, Jess Franco is one prolific guy. Hes made hundreds upon hundreds of films, many of which are crap. However, he managed to sneak in an occasionally quality work amongst all the assembly line exploitation. "Succubus" isn't his best work (thats either "The Diabolical Dr. Z" or "Vampyros Lesbos"), but it has many of his trademarks that make it a must for anyone interested in diving into his large catalog. He combines the erotic (alternating between showing full-frontal nudity and leaving somethings left to the imagination) and the surreal seamlessly. This is a very dreamlike film, full of great atmosphere. I particularly liked the constant namedropping. Despite coming off as being incredibly pretentious, its amusing to hear all of Franco's influences.

Still, there are many users who don't like "Succubus" and I can see where they're coming from. Its leisurely paced, but I can deal with that. More problematic is the incoherency. The script here was obviously rushed, and within five minutes into the film I had absolutely no idea what was going on (and it never really came together from that point on). Those who want some substance with their style, look elsewhere. Also, if its a horror film, it never really becomes scary or even suspenseful. Still, I was entertained by all the psychedelic silliness that I didn't really mind these major flaws all too much. (7/10)


Lorna Green(Janine Reynaud)is a performance artist for wealthy intellectuals at a local club. She falls prey to her fantasies as the promise of romantic interludes turn into murder as she kills those who believe that sex is on the horizon. It's quite possible that, through a form of hypnotic suggestion, someone(..a possible task master pulling her strings like a puppet)is guiding Lorna into killing those she comes across in secluded places just when it appears that love-making is about to begin. After the murders within her fantasies are committed, Lorna awakens bewildered, often clueless as to if what she was privy to within her dreams ever took place in reality.

If someone asked me how to describe this particular work from Franco, I'd say it's elegant & difficult. By now, you've probably read other user comments befuddled by what this film is about, since a large portion of it takes place within the surreal atmosphere of a dream. Franco mentioned in an interview that he was heavily influenced by Godard early in his career, as far as film-making style, and so deciding to abandon a clear narrative structure in favor of trying to create a whole different type of viewing experience. And, as you read from the reaction of the user comments here..some like this decision, others find the style labouring, dull, and bewildering. I'll be the first to admit that the film is over my head, but even Franco himself, when quizzed by critics who watched "Succubus", admitted that he didn't even understand the film and he directed it! Some might say that "Succubus" was merely a precursor to his more admired work, "Venus in Furs", considered his masterwork by Franco-faithful, because it also adopts the surreal, dreamlike structure where the protagonist doesn't truly know whether he/she is experiencing something real or imagined. In a sense, like the protagonist, we are experiencing the same type of confusion..certainly, "Succubus" is unconventional film-making where we aren't given the keys to what is exactly going on. And, a great deal of the elusive dialogue doesn't help matters. "Succubus" is also populated by beatnik types and "poet-speak", Corman's film, "A Bucket of Blood" poked fun at. My personal favorite scene teases at a possible lesbian interlude between Lorna and a woman she meets at a posh party..quite a bizarre fantasy sequence where mannequins are used rather unusually. Great locations and jazz score..I liked this film myself, although I can understand why it does receive a negative reaction. Loved that one scene at the posh party with Lorna, a wee bit drunk, writhing on the floor in a gorgeous evening gown as others attending the shindig(..equally wasted)rush her in an embrace of kisses.


Delirious, near plot-less mood piece and if it's more LSD inspired than the Devil then we must remember when it was made! After a startling SM opening (which even itself is not what it seems) we move to soft focus and dream or imaginings or remembering. Lots of literary and cinematic references and indeed this is the Franco film that Lang himself praised. Beautiful and mesmerising the film unfolds at a leisurely pace but has a richness within each fold. A rare movie to languish within. Old Jess could make 'em when he tried. Fine central performances too including the indomitable Jack Taylor and Howard Vernon. I haven't even mentioned the Lisbon locations - ah!


Hey now, I can't claim to have seen all of the films of Jesse (Jesus) Franco, and there sure seem to be a lot of them, but this is one of the better (and weirder) of the lot that I have seen. I'd say most likely he was in his prime back in the late sixties/early seventies and anything lately has been a bit TOO strange for me, and it takes a lot for me to declare that. Anyway, this is like one big bad dream where parts of it seem to come true at various points. This woman is an actress or something, performs in some theater in Berlin where acts of "fake" torture are performed for an appreciative audience (?!) and she seems to have this problem with dreaming. The catch to what's real and what's not in this movie is apparently the real stuff is in sharp focus and the dream stuff isn't. She seems to exist in a state of deja vu. I won't say this makes a whole lot of sense but it is pretty wild and weird and entertaining. Shots of Berlin make it seem like a lonely and creepy place, so that adds to the atmosphere. The ending is extremely abrupt though, the film just ends and the tape went black, I guess no need to let you know it was over at that point. My copy was from the Anchor Bay Euro-Trash collection, and I say, give me more Euro-Trash, I can't get enough of that crap. But it's GOOD crap.


This film takes you on one family's impossible journey, and makes you feel every step of their odyssey. Beautifully acted and photographed, heartbreakingly real. Its last line, with its wistful hope, is one of the more powerful in memory.


Everyday we can watch a great number of film, soap... on tv. Sometimes a miracle happens. A great film, with real feelings, with great actors, with a great realisator-director. For me there are two films that everyone needs to see : the first is the Pacula ? "Sophie 's choice" with Meryl Streep. The second is "Journey of Hope". As human beings, we need to learn about humility, about love of the others, about acceptation of other civilisation, other way of living. We also have to struggle against racism and fascim. We must avoid judging, criticize; we only have to love our earth companion. This wonderful film, helps us reaching John (Lennon) his dream : Imagine all the people living live in peace. These two films are difficult to see : watch these, but sure you will be hurt, but better. Great film, great actors, terrible story, pain and cry guarantee, but also better understanding of the others. Enjoy it.


Frustrating to watch because of one man's stubbornness to leave his native country for the dream land in Switzerland and what he does to achieve that creates heartache for all those involved. Along the journey he encounters scumbags who take advantage of other human suffering and desperation.


If the redundancy of getting off the boat, on the boat, off the bus, on the bus.. is a way to waste time then you should go back to the Hollywood films that wrap this part up in one montage in order to get to the money shots. and in doing so leave you unconnected and in the cinematic limbo that results from not really showing the realities of life. The long drawn out travel sequences actually allow the viewer the same frustration and 'wait- in-line' feeling the characters must endure. Frustrating? yes. Vital? Indeed. the limbo of that travel is the key to the 'rootlessness' of this Turkish family. Beautiful film with great acting. Sad, but worth it.


The Journey of Hope (1990) is about a trek that many nomadic and poor Turks make so they could live the good life in Switzerland. These people are so desperate to live like Westerners that they'll give up their life and lives in an attempt to reach the promised land. So many of them are swindled by greedy crooks who make their living off of charging huge fees for desperate people who are in a no win situation. One family braves the cold, the treacherous mountain range and predatory criminals only to discover that there's not always a shining white light at the end of the tunnel. This problem exists world wide, not just in America. Some people tend to forget that. A heart breaker of a film that'll leave you wondering why at the end.

Highly recommended.


"Journey of Hope" tells of a poor Turkish family and their odyssey of hope which spirals downward into despair as they travel to Switzerland in search of prosperity. Although this Oscar winning film is fairly well crafted, it is lacking in substance and has many implausibilities. Much of the film's 1.7 hour run time is get on the bus, get off the bus, get on the boat, get off the boat, get in the van, get out of the van, etc.; time which could have been better spent or left out completely. The story has a predictable conclusion, especially for those who have an awareness of the common crime of trafficking in illegal immigrants. A worthwhile and reasonably entertaining watch but over-rated.


Anthony McGarten has adapted his play, Via Satellite, and directed the best comedic film to come out of New Zealand for a long time. Chrissy Dunn (Danielle Cormack) is a drop-out. She hasn't achieved much in her latter years and has grown resentful of her family since her father's deathbed confession. Her twin sister, Carol (also portrayed by Danielle Cormack) is basking in the media limelight as she represents New Zealand in swimming at the Olympics. A middle-aged, desireless and desperate director (Brian Sergent) and his good-natured cameraman - who is also Chrissy's one-night stand from the night previous - Paul (Karl Urban) film the Dunn family's proudest moment; watching Carol swim to victory. This wouldn't be so bad but Chrissy's family is the epitome of embarrassing. First of all there is the matriach of the Wellingtonian Dunns, Joyce (Donna Akerston). She makes fairy cakes and cocktail sausages for the all-important film crew and refuses to change the way she is. Her oldest daughter, Jen (Rima Te Wiata) is desperate to be something more than common. She has a nice home (with bedroom walls painted "Blackberry sorbet"), expensive tastes and a nasty parasitic attitude to match. She is also nearing 40 and desparate for a child. Her husband, Ken (Tim Balme) is an electrician and forces himself on jobs that don't need doing...as well as doing jobs that need to be done, ie Jen. The middle daughter, Lyn (Jodie Dorday - who won Best Supporting Actress at New Zealand Film Awards for this portrayal)is a "knocked-up" tart who has a dubious history with Ken. Both older sisters clash, the mother is in a state, Ken is as bad a ToolTime Tim Taylor, Carol is fuelling her Olympic desire and Chrissy is aware all of this is to be splashed on national tv - why shouldn't she be embarrassed? It is great to see some famous New Zealand faces perform in the suburban comedy that has witty lines to spare. I loved the sparring between Jen and Lyn. One is like an adult Mona-my-biological-clock-is-ticking-away, the other a narcisstic tramp who has what her sister desires - a bun in the oven. Climax of the film is quite sentimental and is nicely done. The performances are a treat and the film works perfectly. A great way to spend an hour-and-a-half.


I think Via Satellite is one of the best New Zealand made movies around. I loved the way the movie delt with all the characters within the entire movie. It was brilliant, and a heartfelt movie.

A well made movie, one which I will always remember, and watch again.


This tale set in Wellington, New Zealand suburbia (Tawa -home of the renowned Tawa College) is McCarten's first feature.

With a contemporary New Zealand flavour Via Satellite abounds with absolutely hilarious situations which develop in the (adult) family context. At the same time it manages to invoke intense emotions of sadness and despair.

One of the most moving and humourous movies of the year - not to be missed!


Chilling, majestic piece of cinematic fright, this film combines all the great elements of an intellectual thriller, with the grand vision of a director who has the instinctual capacity to pace a moody horror flick within the realm of his filmmaking genius that includes an eye for the original shot, an ice-cold soundtrack and an overall sense of dehumanization. This movie cuts through all the typical horror movies like a red-poker through a human eye, as it allows the viewer to not only feel the violence and psychosis of its protagonist, but appreciate the seed from which the derangement stems. One of the scariest things for people to face is the unknown and this film presents its plotting with just that thought in mind. The setting is perfect, in a desolate winter hideaway. The quietness of the moment is a character in itself, as the fermenting aggressor in Jack Torrance's mind wallows in this idle time, and breeds the devil's new playground. I always felt like the presence of evil was dormant in all of our minds, with only the circumstances of the moment, and the reasons given therein, needed to wake its violent ass and pounce over its unsuspecting victims. This film is a perfect example of this very thought.

And it is within this film's subtle touches of the canvas, the clackity-clacks of the young boy's big wheel riding along the empty hallways of the hotel, the labyrinthian garden representing the mind's fine line between sane and insane, Kubrick's purposely transfixed editing inconsistencies, continuity errors and set mis-arrangements, that we discover a world guided by the righteous and tangible, but coaxed away by the powerful and unknown. I have never read the book upon which the film is based, but without that as a comparison point, I am proud to say that this is one of the most terrifying films that I have ever seen. I thought that the runtime of the film could've been cut by a little bit, but then again, I am not one of the most acclaimed directors in the history of film, so maybe I should keep my two-cent criticisms over a superb film, to myself. All in all, this movie captures your attention with its grand form and vision, ropes you in with some terror and eccentric direction, and ties you down and stabs you in the heart with its cold-eyed view of the man's mind gone overboard, creepy atmosphere and the loss of humanity.

Rating: 9/10


I was never a big fan of horror movies. They usually try cheap tricks to scare their audiences like loud noises and creepy children. They usually lack originality and contain overacting galore. The only horror movie i like was Stir of Echoes with Kevin Bacon. It was well-acted, and had a great story. But it has been joined and maybe even surpassed by Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, quite possibly the scariest movie ever.

The movie follows a writer (Jack Nicholson) and his family who agree to watch over a hotel while it is closed for the winter. There were rumors of the place being haunted and the last resident went crazy and murdered his family. But Jack is convinced it will be OK and he can use the quiet to overcome his writer's block. After months of solitude and silence however, Jack becomes a grumpy and later violent. Is it cabin fever or is there something in the hotel that is driving him mad?

One of the creepiest parts about the movie is the feeling of isolation that Kubrick makes. The hotel is very silent, and the rooms are huge, yet always empty. It is also eerily calm when Jack's son is riding his bike through the barren hallways. Jack Nicholson's performance is also one of his very best, scaring the hell out of me and making me sure to get out once in awhile. My favorite scene is when he is talking to a ghost from inside a walk-in refrigerator.

The Shining is tops for horror movies in my opinion, beating the snot out of crap like the Ring and The Blair Witch Project. It may be a oldie, but is definitely a goodie. 8/10


Okay, okay, maybe not THE greatest. I mean, The Exorcist and Psycho and a few others are hard to pass up, but The Shining is way up there. It is, however, by far the best Stephen King story that has been made into a movie. It's better than The Stand, better than Pet Sematary (if not quite as scary), better than Cujo, better than The Green Mile, better the Dolores Claiborne, better than Stand By Me (just barely, though), and yes, it's better than The Shawshank Redemption (shut up, it's better), I don't care WHAT the IMDb Top 250 says.

I read that, a couple of decades ago, Stanley Kubrick was sorting through novels at his home trying to find one that might make a good movie, and from the other room, his wife would hear a pounding noise every half hour or so as he threw books against the wall in frustration. Finally, she didn't hear any noise for almost two hours, and when she went to check and see if he had died in his chair or something (I tell this with all due respect, of course), she found him concentrating on a book that he had in his hand, and the book was The Shining. And thank God, too, because he went on to convert that book into one of the best horror films ever.

Stephen King can be thanked for the complexity of the story, about a man who takes his wife and son up to a remote hotel to oversee it during the extremely isolated winter as he works on his writing. Jack Nicholson can be thanked for his dead-on performance as Jack Torrance (how many movies has Jack been in where he plays a character named Jack?), as well as his flawless delivery of several now-famous lines (`Heeeeeere's Johnny!!'). Shelley Duvall can be thanked for giving a performance that allows the audience to relate to Jack's desires to kill her. Stanley Kubrick can be thanked for giving this excellent story his very recognizable touch, and whoever the casting director was can be thanked for scrounging up the creepiest twins on the planet to play the part of the murdered girls.

One of the most significant aspects of this movie, necessary for the story as a whole to have its most significant effect, is the isolation, and it's presents flawlessly. The film starts off with a lengthy scene following Jack as he drives up to the old hotel for his interview for the job of the caretaker for the winter. This is soon followed by the same thing following Jack and his family as they drive up the windy mountain road to the hotel. This time the scene is intermixed with shots of Jack, Wendy, and Danny talking in the car, in which Kubrick managed to sneak in a quick suggestion about the evils of TV, as Wendy voices her concern about talking about cannibalism in front of Danny, who says that it's okay because he's already seen it on TV (`See? It's okay, he saw it on the television.').

The hotel itself is the perfect setting for a story like this to take place, and it's bloody past is made much more frightening by the huge, echoing rooms and the long hallways. These rooms with their echoes constantly emphasize the emptiness of the hotel, but it is the hallways that really created most of the scariness of this movie, and Kubrick's traditional tracking shots give the hallways a creepy three-dimensional feel. Early in the film, there is a famous tracking shot that follows Danny in a large circle as he rides around the halls on his Big Wheel (is that what those are called?), and his relative speed (as well as the clunking made by the wheels as he goes back and forth from the hardwood floors to the throw rugs) gives the feeling of not knowing what is around the corner. And being a Stephen King story, you EXPECT something to jump out at you. I think that the best scene in the halls (as well as one of the scariest in the film) is when Danny is playing on the floor, and a ball rolls slowly up to him. He looks up and sees the long empty hallway, and because the ball is something of a child's toy, you expect that it must have been those horrendously creepy twins that rolled it to him. Anyway, you get the point. The Shining is a damn scary movie.

Besides having the rare quality of being a horror film that doesn't suck, The Shining has a very in depth story that really keeps you guessing and leaves you with a feeling that there was something that you missed. HAD Jack always been there, like Mr. Grady told him in the men's room? Was he really at that ball in 1921, or is that just someone who looks exactly like him? If he has always been the caretaker, as Mr. Grady also said, does that mean that it was HIM that went crazy and killed his wife and twin daughters, and not Mr. Grady, after all? It's one thing for a film to leave loose ends that should have been tied, that's just mediocre filmmaking. For example, The Amityville Horror, which obviously copied much of The Shining as far as its subject matter, did this. But it is entirely different when a film is presented in a way that really makes you think (as mostly all of Kubrick's movies are). One more thing that we can all thank Stanley Kubrick for, and we SHOULD thank him for, is for not throwing this book against the wall. That one toss would have been cinematic tragedy.


The Shining, you know what's weird about this movie? This is the movie that everyone, for people who claim to not like horror films, will always say that The Shining is a terrific film. This is Stanley Kubrick's classic vision of Stephen King's horror tale of madness and blood. This is just an incredible film and wither you have seen it or not, you have heard of it, know a few lines from it, and know some of the classic images. Who could forget Jack's "Here's Johnny!"? Who could forget "All Work and No Play Make Jack a Dull Boy"? Who could forget that chilling ending? This is the film that is unforgettable and honestly in my opinion is Kubrick's best work. I know there is a lot of argument in that department, a lot of people say it's 2001: A Space Odyssey or Clockwork Orange or even Dr. Strangelove, but if those film pioneered film making, then The Shining perfected it. This is the tale of isolation, madness, terrifying images, and the ultimate ghost story that will crawl underneath your skin.

Jack Torrance, Jack's son Danny, and Jack's wife, Wendy arrive at the Overlook Hotel on closing day. The elderly African-American chef, Dick Hallorann, surprises Danny by speaking to him telepathically and offering him some ice cream. He explains to Danny that he and his grandmother shared the gift; they called the communication "shining." Danny asks if there is anything to be afraid of in the hotel, particularly Room 237. Dick tells Danny that the hotel has a certain "shine" to it and many memories, not all of them good, and advises him to stay out of room 237 under all circumstances. Danny's curiosity about Room 237 finally gets the better of him when he sees the room has been opened. Danny shows up injured and visibly traumatized after Jack tells Wendy that he loves his family. Seeing this, Wendy thinks Jack has been abusing Danny. Jack wanders into the hotel's Gold Room where he meets a ghostly bartender named Lloyd. Danny starts calling out the word "redrum" frantically, and scribbling it on walls. He goes into a trance, and withdraws; he now says that he is Tony, his own "imaginary friend." Jack sabotages the hotel radio, cutting off communication from the outside world, but Hallorann has received Danny's telepathic cry for help and is on his way. Wendy discovers that Jack has been typing endless pages of manuscript repeating "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" formatted in various ways. Horrified, Jack threatens her and she knocks him unconscious with a baseball bat, locking him in a storage locker in the kitchen. Jack converses with Grady through the door of the locker, which then unlocks releasing him. Danny has written "REDRUM" in lipstick on the door of Wendy's bedroom. When she looks in the mirror, she sees that it is "Murder" spelled backwards. Jack picks up an axe and begins to chop through the door leading to his family's living quarters. "Here's Johnny!", and Jack's legendary image is born.

The Shining is one of those films that you seriously have to make time to see, this is an incredible film and still gives me nightmares. Jack Nicholson's performance is timeless and unforgettable. But one I also feel is extremely overlooked is Shelley Duvall, her scene of finding Jack's rant All Work is incredible, that's a look of horror and you can see that fear in her face after realizing her husband is mad. Also another incredible scene is when Jack sees a ghost woman in the bathtub, it's honestly one of the most terrifying scenes in horror cinema. The reason this film is so well known is because it's a film of perfection, it's been on The Simpsons, it's been shown in other films and it's a film that will forever stay with you when you see it, trust me.

10/10


Even though The Shining is over a quarter of a century old, I challenge anyone to not get freaked out by Jack Nicholson's descent into madness. This is a rare example of something so unique that no one has been able to rip it off; instead it has been referenced time and again in pop culture. The twins, the elevator of blood, RedRum, the crazy nonsense "writing"... this should be seen, if for nothing else, to understand all the allusions to it in daily life. The film is simultaneously scary, suspenseful, beautiful, and psychologically intriguing. It has the classic mystery of Hitchcock and the terror of a modern thriller. And it has what horror movies usually lack: a great script.