In 1933 Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler sang and danced their way through three Warner Brother musicals that offered Depression era audiences a momentary distraction from their woes. Gold Diggers of 1933, 42nd Street and Footlight Parade were all set in the world of Broadway Theatre with basically the same theme of the show must go on. In addition to Keeler and Powell the films featured the kaleidiscopic choreography of Busby Berkeley, show stopping tunes and many of the same supporting players.

All are arguably classics of their genre but I must admit a clear preference for Footlight due to it's pace energy and lead James Cagney. Warren William in Gold Diggers and Warner Baxter in 42nd Street acquit themselves admirably as the shows production heads- particularly Baxter as the burned out Julian Marsh in search of one last box office smash. Both lack the infectious energy of Cagney however, who perfectly compliments the frenetic pace of putting on a Broadway musical. He is an absolute whirlwind as he deals with production numbers, unscrupulous partners and a gold digging girlfriend.

Of course Cagney alone does not make Footlight the classic that it is. The script crackles with some sharp double entendres delivered by a superlative supporting cast featuring Frank McHugh, Hugh Herbert, Guy Kibbee and especially Joan Blondell who cuts everyone down to size. Busby Berkeley's dance numbers are surreal, suggestive and risqué and done just in the nick of time before the arrival of the Hollywood Code in 34. Sadly, the thirties and sometime beyond would never see such a richly made musical with the verve and sass of Footlight again. Gentility and morality made sure of it.


The wit and pace and three show stopping Busby Berkley numbers put this ahead of the over-rated 42nd Street. This is the definitive 30's musical with a knockout frenetic performance from Jimmy Cagney. One of the last releases before the Motion Picture Production Code was strictly enforced. A must see.


Wow... what... a whirlwind. The 30's is a decade with plenty of movies of every type I can imagine, especially during the early talkies phase. There were movies which are painfully static and dull, like "Dracula" with Bella Lugosi, and there were those that just don't give it a rest, sometimes in a good way and other times not. This is one of the films that don't stop for a minute, and that is both a wonder and a pity. Lloyd Bacon, who also directed "42nd Street", must have been the king of the Depression Era musicals and he was probably excited with the possibilities sound brought to the world of cinema, for he filled this picture with it. There mustn't be a full minute or two without music or someone speaking. It's completely crazy! I was thinking the movie deserved a 5 (or a 6, tops) because the pacing was very poor, since it was insanely fast and I sometimes didn't know what was happening and what to think. The characters seemed to just running to and fro places, talking about things which didn't interest me and probably no one else. I thought I was just going to be rewarded with a small headache. I noticed Lloyd Bacon also cast the female lead in "42nd Street", Ruby Keeler, and "42nd Street" was a movie whose ending was the best part of it. And you know what? It happened the same thing with "Footlight Parade"! The ending is absolutely incredible! It has become, hands down, the most impressive musical I have ever seen. The final part presents us some musical numbers and those are, believe me, something that make seeing the other rest of the movie worth. The numbers are flawless! There are three big bits and the most impressive is surely the second one. Suddenly the screen was filled with gorgeous and inventive camera work, beautiful people and plain entertainment that made me forget my small headache.


Such energy and vitality. You just can't go wrong with Busby Berkley films and this certainly must be his best. Of course the choreography is wonderful, but also the banter between Cagney and Blondell is so colorful and such a delight. Don't miss this one.


089: Footlight Parade (1933) - released 9/30/1933, viewed 5/5/07.

The ice cream cone is invented in New York.

KEVIN: After a long and busy break, we hit another Busby Berkeley musical from Warner Bros. This time it's the ultra-fast paced Footlight Parade, starring James Cagney as juggernaut stage producer Chester Kent. I am 100% certain that Cagney was channeling Berkeley with his performance of the irrepressible Kent, who has to come up with new ideas for performances every minute. Joan Blondell is also excellent as the acid-tongued secretary-turned-love interest. The Ruby Keeler/Dick Powell subplot is not as major this time but no less enjoyable. One thing that baffled me was Berkeley's performances themselves, which seemed far too extravagant and complex to be performed on any stage, let alone a stage that would be showing a film afterwards. Obviously Busby doesn't let a little thing like story impede him from putting together the most over-the-top musical numbers he can possibly conjure. I liked nearly all of this movie until the end, with the shamelessly offensive number "Shanghai Lil," which, as one can guess, is about as stomach-turning as racially distasteful performances come.

DOUG: Six movies in three months. Got to be a new record. Anywaythis completes Warner Bros.' musical trilogy of 1933, preceded by '42nd Street' and 'Gold Diggers of 1933.' I would definitely recommend watching all three in a row. I wonder if James Cagney was channeling Busby Berkeley while he was playing Chester Kent in this movie, or if that the role as written was inspired by Busby. I hope it was; it seems to make sense that Berkeley is the kind of guy who would see elaborate dances in everyday occurrences the way Chester does. The funny thing about Cagney was that he didn't really look like a leading man in the traditional sense. He was 5'7", square-headed, and talked with an odd New York accent. But the guy was quite versatile, going from the venomous gangsters that made him so famous to the fast-talking producer-types we see here. And he could dance. Basically he was a leading man in the body of a character actor. The rest of the cast has some familiar faces; Joan Blondell returns and just about steals the show as Cagney's loyal and lusting secretary; Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler play the cute couple, but seem to get less screen time than before; Billy Barty pops up again as the mischievous imp. The movie is typical of the more racy and adult-oriented musicals of the pre-Code era, as opposed to those of the 50's and 60's that were more family oriented, and is an excellent climax of the Warner musicals of that year (the "Shanghai Lil" number not withstanding, with Keeler doing a poor job at looking Chinese).

Last film: Dinner At Eight (1933). Next film: I'm No Angel (1933).


Jimmy Cagney races by your eyes constantly in this story of a stage-producer who is vigorously struggling against the upcoming "talking" movies.

This story of love, deceit, women and dancing is presented in such a manner that as a viewer you are never treated to a dull moment. The direction of the mass scenes in the rehearsal rooms was enormously well done. The story never really got lost in this frantic pace.

Some parts of the material presented here have become a little dated but that doesn't matter because when you look at this in a 1933 time-frame it is fabulous to watch this next to a lot of the other drags of movies that were released during that time.

Jimmy Cagney is a sight for sore eyes in this film, never loosing his composure as the ever-working producer of previews made for the movie theaters as intros. In this way he tries to save his ass from going out of business, he was a broadway producer before he started this. Joan Blondell is fabulous as the neglected love-interest, Nan, she gives such a spirited performance that is so unusual for movies of that time, so cool to watch a woman who is portrayed as a strong woman for a change.

The only problem I had with the film were the enormous productions at the end. These were magnificent in itself, beautifully choreographed and wonderfully produced, but they just didn't seem to fit in the story. The only link they have to the main story is that Cagney had to put on 3 previews in 3 days to get a contract and that's what he did. I had a hard time believing that this was what the girls had been rehearsing during the entire movie and that these sets could fit in a movie theater. In this way the "Sitting On A Backyard Fence" was much more appropriate to the story.

The productions at the end seemed to drag this frantically paced story to a halt and that was not a good thing. I was tired after seeing the first Musical sequence and then I realized there were another two coming up. These sequences got a lot a chuckles from the audience as well.

All in all a great film with a sour ending.

9/10


I haven't written a review on IMDb for the longest time, however, I felt myself compelled to write this! When looking up this movie I found one particular review which urged people NOT to see this film. Do not pay any attention to this ignorant person! NOTHING is a fantastic film, full of laughs and above all... imagination! Aren't you sick and tired of being force fed the same old cycle of bubble-gum trash movies? Sometimes a film like NOTHING comes along and gives you something you have never seen before. I don't even care if you dislike (even hate) the movie, but no one has a right to discredit the film. IMDb has a monumental impact on reputations and no negative review should discredit the film like that. Just say you hate it and why you hate it... but don't try to tell people that they shouldn't watch it. We have minds of our own and will make up our own minds thank you.

If my judgment is any good, I'd say that more people will enjoy this movie as opposed to those who hate it.

Treat your mind to a bit of eye-candy! See NOTHING!


Charlie Kauffman has made weird metaphysical angst popular, but this canadian gem makes it hilarious.

Like most weird films the less said about plot the better but let's set the scene, two friends Anthony and Dave have been together since childhood, they can't cope with the world and eventually this means they no longer have to. But that is where even more problems begin.

I loved this film, it made me smile long after the final credits and that is a rare experience with so many mass produced pieces of "nothing" out there.

Don't miss this.


Just saw this at the 2003 Vancouver International Film Festival and it was funny as hell and a bit surreal. Takes place in Toronto, where these two losers live in this run-down house in the middle of a freeway system. David Hewlett (PIN, CUBE, CYPHER) and Andrew Miller (CUBE) are just great as the two losers who wish the world would just go away. The acting, dialogue and writing are very good, and the whole film looks great for such a low-budget flick. Director/Writer Vincenzo Natali was in attendance at this screening, and he seemed so intelligent and down-to-earth. This guy is so inventive with these great stories that work so well within small budgets, it puts big budget Hollywood crap to shame!


I wasn't sure what to expect but am I glad I went to see this. A smart, slightly twisted comedy that makes you think. I wasn't quite sure how a director can create "nothing", but leave it to Mr. Natali and the brilliant individuals at C.O.R.E. to create another low budget set that looks real (as real as nothing can be). Well worth your time and money, if you have the opportunity to see this, please go. You'll be glad you did.


The premise of this movie has been tickling my imagination for quite some time now. We've all heard or read about it in some kind of con-text. What would you do if you were all alone in the world? What would you do if the entire world suddenly disappeared in front of your eyes? In fact, the last part is actually what happens to Dave and Andrew, two room-mates living in a run-down house in the middle of a freeway system. Andrew is a nervous wreck to say the least and Dave is considered being one of the biggest losers of society. That alone is the main reason to why these two guys get so well along, because they simply only have each other to turn to when comforting is needed. Just until...

Straight from the beginning of the film lots and lots of problems happen to them. Both of them get involved with crime, Andrew suffers from paranoia and simply doesn't dare going out of the house. Dave is unsuccessful at his job and his colleagues don't treat him very well and with the respect he deserves. The amount of problems they face keeps increasing until that one day where they may have to face the inevitable and deal with it. This is just too much for them and they wish that everything would just go away... And of course that is exactly what happens.

The rest of the story places Dave and Andrew in this world of nothingness. At first they are surprised and have problems understanding and dealing with the features of this crazy environment, but later on they find out that they can do just about everything they want because it seems as if they are the only ones still left.

Nothing features an incredibly small cast - in fact, besides the first couple of shots from the film, we only see Dave (David Hewlett) and Andrew (Andrew Miller) in the entire film. It is clear that in order to pull this off, the cast has to be more than up for the task, because in a world where nothing exists there is nothing that can distract the viewer in any way. Vincenzo has decided to use a reasonable amount of close-up head shots to make it more interesting and it actually works quite well. Director of Photography, Derek Rogers, also has a nice way of teasing the audience by withholding visual information, especially at times where a character sees something and reacts to it, but we don't see it right away.

Obviously, this can't be an event driven film and it's not. Much of the action happens outside their house when they move around in the void. And that's where some of the most hilarious scenes take place, especially in the case of when Andrew discovers a candy bar.

Now, one could be thinking: "How does nothing look like?" Well, it looks like nothing indeed. The entire world of nothing is white... white no matter in what direction you look. This is the weakness of this film... After an hour or less it's getting extremely boring to look at and there has to be events to make sure it's more interesting to look at. Thank God, there are some. For example at times when the two lads, due to the properties of nothing, are able to jump really high as if nothing is made out of... tofu (as Andrew claims). It's fun to see how they are instantly able to use nothing to become gods of their own little society.

One of the best parts of the film is the set... Production designer Jasna Stefanovic has done a beautiful job in this film, the house in which these two guys live is so unnaturally fun to look at, still it seems right for these two to be living in a place like this. All in all, the production design is with no doubt one of the most powerful aspects of this film at it really makes the film worth watching...

However, the very best part of the film is the acting. Both David Hewlett and Andrew Miller really look like the professional actors they both are. The camera is on them for every second of the film and as previously said, there are just about no props in the film, they are really on a bare stage. With plenty of character development and some decent one-liners, clever dialogue (at times hilariously stupid), it all works to that end - and this really moves the movie away from the low-budget area to well-crafted handwork.

Let's talk a little about the visual effects, because they are definitely worth mentioning. Nothing features digital visual effects and prosthetics that equals any modern horror film. There's a rather horrifying dream sequence in the film, and although The Drews have milked that scene completely it's still fun to watch. One of the best visual effects in the film is at the end where Andrew and Dave suddenly discover their powers in this environment - they have the abilities to wish everything away, so what if they can do it the other way around and make things appear?

"Nothing" is a bright and well-lit movie, it really helps promoting the idea of them probably being dead (this is in fact one of their theories), but "Nothing" is a comedy and it slowly destroys its own theory. We don't know where they are or what has happened to them. We don't know if they will ever get out, because the movie ends before we see anything like that. The ending, by the way, is not as good as it could've been. It's rather easy to predict what is going to happen, still the writers have thought up a few incidents that help make it a little more interesting and in the end, it's a reasonably satisfactory one.

Take "Hollow Man", "Kill Bill", "Cube", "Epoch" and lots of other films and you have "Nothing". It really is an amalgam of different styles, still there is no other film (at least that I know of) Nothing is really like. For the people remembering the original Cube Production Commentary on its DVD may remember that Vincenzo Natali talked about how he came up with the story of Cube. He talks about him and André Bijelic having been room-mates at a time and they both were in this extremely dull room with no hope of getting out, "Nothing" could very well be the screened version of the origin of the Cube story, and to that end, it's almost like one of the Cube prequels.

What can I say? I enjoyed "Nothing", it is a great movie and the different parts of the movie are extremely well-made with tons of intelligent ideas, still I feel the movie is missing something and I have problems finding out precisely what it is... Maybe if we have a "Nothing 2" I can answer that question. "Nothing" is a great film, but not as good as I expected it to be.

Final rating: 7.5 / 10


NOTHING (3+ outta 5 stars) Another weird premise from the director of the movie "Cube". This time around there are two main characters who find themselves and their home transported to a mysterious white void. There is literally NOTHING outside of their small two-story house. Intriguing to be sure, but I thought the comedic tone established for this movie from the get-go was extremely ill-conceived. There needs to be some humour, certainly... and I have no problem with the humour that was eventually derived from the plight of our two heroes (their final "showdown" was definitely a hoot)... but I really think the movie would have been a lot better off if it had stayed more rooted in reality in the beginning. After watching the movie I watched the "Making of" feature on the DVD and a short trailer at the end is almost totally devoid of the "sillier" comedic aspects... making it look like a completely different (and slightly better) movie. The last half hour of the movie is where things really start to come together... similar in a way to the recent movie "Primer." The actors are fine when they are not overdoing the comedy shtick. They are really quite believable in their more "normal" moments. I was probably ready to write this movie off as a failed experiment at the midway point... but it won me over by the end. (And keep watching past the credits for the final scene... just don't ask me to explain it.)


... than this ;-) What would happen if Terry Gilliam and Douglas Adams would have worked together on one movie? This movie starts with a touch of Brazil... when, at a certain point, the story moves straight into the twilight zone... bringing up nothing new, but just nothing... and nothing is great fun! When Dave and Andrew starts to explore their new environment the movie gets really enjoyable... bouncing heads? well... yes ;-)

anyway... this movie was, imho, the biggest surprise at this year's FantasyFilmFest...

Just like in Cube and Cypher Natali gave this one a minimalistic, weird but very special design, which makes it hard to locate the place of the story or its time... timeless somehow...


Nothing is fantastic! Simple as that! It's a film that shouldn't work, yet does. Natali stays in the realm of Sci-Fi, however this film is also a comedy. Cypher it seemed was a big budget draining affair for Natali (at $7.5million! Woo-hoo Pa!) so with Nothing he scales down again. This is low budget, independent film-making at it's best. Simple, good old fashioned storytelling and an attempt at making a film for artistic merit as apposed to Hollywood's usual reasons for mostly financial gain. Nothing is a film about Nothing and before you ask, no it is not anything like Seinfeld! Basically Andrew and Dave are a couple of losers. They live in a strange looking house beneath two freeways. Andrew is a telesales travel agent who is agoraphobic while Dave is Andrews best mate who stays with him rent free to help him out. Dave is tired of it however and has a gorgeous girlfriend who he wants to move in with. By bizarre mis-fortunes however, Dave finds out his girlfriend embezzled a huge amount of money from Daves work-place incriminating Dave, and Andrew is wrongly accused of sexually assaulting a girl scout (Canadian humour people!). As it turns out Andrew's house is to be demolished as well and he can't stop it happening as the house was built on land it should not have been built on. Both Andrew and Dave are inside the house when the police and the demolition team come calling. They are desperate and can't escape, and in the panic and confusion just as the police burst in everything fades to white. What has happened? Have Dave and Andrew died? They wake to find themselves still in the house only it is quiet. No police, no demolition team, no angry girl scout mother! What happens is Dave and Andy discover they have the ability to "wish or hate away." As it turns out they have hated away the entire outside world. They are left alone. The house is surrounded by nothing, which is portrayed as pure white. So what this means is that the films setting is a house set and then just white. The film is an interesting view on human isolation and the psyche and of course as they spend more time alone together with no food and no water, they begin to tire of each other. They discover they can hate away hunger, which is useful but obviously things get out of hand shall we say. I can't reveal much but I must say bouncing heads are quite a sight to behold.

This film is quirky, funny, interesting. The effects are simple yet effective and Natali brings together two buddies from Cube, David Hewlett, and Andrew Millar to lead the film. They have chemistry and also work very well. They have to hold 90% of the movie by themselves and much of it in a pure white background, yet it works. Certainly I expect this to get the same diabolical treatment as Cypher did and it should appear on DVD in a year or two in the states. Nothing is a top quality and unique film and although not as good as Cube or Cypher it once again proves Natali as one of the best up and comers.

Natali is someone who has really interested me in his three features so far and I cannot wait for his next feature. I prey to god he doesn't do the proposed Necropolis, written and directed by ADD sufferer, the ever crap Paul Anderson. Vincenzo old buddy if Paul comes round to your pad, RUN!!! RUN LIKE THE WIND!! I hope and prey this guy doesn't take to Hollywood like Alex Proyas did (with the enjoyable yet pussy-footed, sugar coated, helium light: I Robot!). Keep your eyes peeled for this guy. ****


Sitting, Typing Nothing is the latest "what if?" fest offered by Vincenzio Natali, and starring David Hewlitt and Andrew Miller as two losers. One is having relationship problems, got canned from his job (because of relationship problems) and the police are out to get him (because of his job and his relationship problems). The other guy is a agoraphobic who refuses to go outside his home, is met by a bothersome girl guide who calls on her Mom to claim she was molested when he doesn't buy cookies from him. Oh yeah, the police are after him too, after the Mom of the girl scout call them in to arrest him.

Man, what a day.

What if you could make all of this disappear? That is the whole premise behind 'Nothing'. The two fools realize, the cops, the girl scout, the cars, the lawn, the road, everything disappear. There's nothing but white space! This is an interesting concept I thought. I also looked at the time of this, 30 minutes had gone in the movie, and I still had an hour left in the movie. Could the 2 actors make this work and keep us entertained for 60 minutes? Although the actors try, 60 minutes IS a long time and there is clearly dead air in places of this movie. But the two actors, whom are life-long friends with each other and the director, have such great repertoire with each other, that it was fun to watch for the dialogue and improve goofing around the two do. There are lots of supernatural elements, but it's more of their response to these elements that ultimately make this film worth seeing.


I watched this as part of my course at Aberystwyth University and it baffles me how this does not have a distributor in the UK. Well actually, it doesn't, because this film is everything a Hollywood film isn't - original, creative, quirky and humorous. It seems that today no-one really wants to see this type of movie as, in the simplest terms, it doesn't conform to the generic conventions most young viewers look for in a film.

I haven't written a review for the IMDb for ages but felt inclined to give this film a special mention, even if it is during my 30 minute break between classes! Essentially, it is about nothing, as the two main characters are plunged into their own world of nothingness through a hate of the world. The brilliance here is how the director sustains interest through the majority of the run time with only two characters and when the only mise-en-scene consists of half a house and a vast white, empty space. This is due in large part to the stellar performances of the actors, both of whom offer some great laughs while at the same time being able to add significant emotional depth to their roles.

I'd love to write some more but am on quite a time limit. However I encourage anyone and everyone to give this film a try. A very unique concept is brought to the screen in a coherent and well-executed fashion, with the combination of good performances, a strong script, nice sound design and (fairly) impressive visuals creating a very entertaining movie.

It's just a shame so few people know about Nothing....


I just saw this at the Toronto Film Festival, and I hope it gets wide release because I want to see it again! It is a character-driven film, and Andrew and David are more than up to the task. Any discussion of the plot might be

considered spoilers, so I'll just say that the storyline is clever, the acting is superb, and the effects are amazing. Well-filmed and well-paced too. One of the best films I have seen in ages, and very refreshing in this summer of dreary

movies. It had the audience laughing the whole time. See it if you can. (I particularly liked the "Candy bar! Candy bar!" scene.)


Director Vincenzo Natali first showed his penchant for character-based sci-fi flicks with his 1997 short film "Elevated", wherein 3 people remain trapped in an elevator while unseen monsters roam the building. His follow-up feature project "Cube", released later that year, had a very similar premise, this time with 6 people and instead of an elevator it was a vast expansion of interlocking cubic deathtraps. Both were admirable attempts to take the sci-fi genre a step further, by deliberately declining to show almost any visual stimulation, choosing instead to spend as much time as possible focusing on the human element, how the characters act, react and interact under incomprehensible and dangerous conditions. After his exploration into the mainstream with 2002's "Cypher", Natali has come back to his bizarre character-film trend to bring us "Nothing", his latest, and by far most optimistic and comedic take on the wide cinematic world of "What If?"

Dave (David Hewlett) and Andrew (Andrew Miller) are life-long friends, brought together by a mutual detachment from society and a lack of any one else to be with. Dave, who has always been hindered by a selfish and somewhat dimwitted nature, lives rent-free with Andrew at his ill-located and ill-constructed house, where he often takes advantage of Andrew's neurotic and antisocial mentality. Despite all this, the two misfits are happy together, until one day their deep character flaws, coupled with some astronomically bad luck, land them in the middle of some pretty serious, jail-sentence-worthy trouble. On top of this, they discover that their house has been deemed unfit for existence and is scheduled to be demolished before sunset, so in the hazy, nightmarish panic of everything going wrong for them, they wish that the whole world would just disappear. And it does.

Going any further with the synopsis would compromise a lot of the film's slow (occasionally too slow) reveal about what's happened to Dave and Andrew, and how they deal with their new reality. Natali's fascination with studying human behavior under duress (ala The Birds) is here in spades, but simply by making the main characters friends rather than strangers, he's able to break away from the thriller-horror element of this premise to open it up to a more comfortable and optimistic level. It's almost as if he's made the aphoristic opposite of "Cube".

Of course, the film is not 85 minutes of laughter and sunshine. In keeping with fundamental realism, our two anti-heroes' dynamic often becomes antagonistic, sometimes with rather nasty results. Like the "Desert Island" game, the film looks at how even best friends, when left alone together, can fall apart, but at the same time it shows that friends are vital to the quality of existence. In a very twisted, sci-fi way, this is a feel-good flick, with good heart and good intentions.

However, there are a few qualms to be had with "Nothing". While the two lead actors, Hewlett and Miller, do well with their parts, their characters are not nearly as interesting as they should have been, considering it is completely up to them to entertain us for the better part of an hour. There is some development in the relationship and personalities of Dave and Andrew, some background is given, but ultimately not enough. A generous viewer will sit through the less-engaging portions of the film to see it through to the end, but cynics will probably give up pretty fast.

Acting, as mentioned, is adequate, and considering the amount of 'green-screen' work that would've been needed, reasonably convincing. David Hewlett and Andrew Miller, who both wrote co-wrote the screenplay, have been long-time friends of Vincenzo Natali: Hewlett has in fact featured in every film Natali has made. Perhaps it was their creative input that steered this film in a more positive direction. Nonetheless, the story could have been a lot more involving. Granted, it is relatively entertaining considering that (no pun intended) nothing really happens, but you get the impression that, in more experienced hands, a lot more could've been done with this premise.

In all fairness, "Nothing" is an impressive piece of work in many ways. The concept is interesting, the direction is inventive, the script works on a human level and, most of all, it shows a progression in Natali's creative mentality. For fans of his work, this will be a delight, and for others it will be a nice way to pass a little unwanted time. It's just a shame that the director's fixation on human drama prevented it from being the great, fun film it could have been.


I watched the trailer on the DVD after seeing the film, and I think anyone who saw it before watching the film would be very surprised and possibly disappointed. It made much of the fact that the film was "by the director of Cube" and made it look like a horror film, when in fact it is an Absurdist comedy (IMDB's spell checker doesn't seem to think that Absurdist is a word, but it is), reminiscent of Rosencrantz and Guildernstern are Dead.

I love the way the story builds up slowly at first, then gradually escalates. I also enjoy the fact that no explanation is given for what happens in the film. That and the fact that the story plays out mainly in just the one set are the only respects in which this film is similar to Cube. I recommend it.


I chanced upon this movie because I had a free non-new release from Blockbuster and needed to grab something quickly, as the store was getting ready to close for the evening. The plain white cover and title intrigued me. I'm a (relatively speaking) "old" lady and my son is a young man of 30. I adore movies that are sheer entertainment, such as The Sixth Sense, Interview With A Vampire, Harry Potter and Beetlejuice. My son, on the other hand, is a film graduate and enjoys very specialized foreign films, such as those directed by Bergman or Hertzog. We generally hate each other's movie choices, HOWEVER, we both watched and LOVED the movie NOTHING! It was unlike any movie we'd ever seen before. We're both cynical/critical personality types and we usually crack on movies while we watch them -- but in this case we just laughed and enjoyed the film from start to finish. It is our opinion that if this movie had been promoted and shown in the main stream theaters in the U.S. it would have done very well indeed.


Having seen CUBE, I've been a fan of Vincenzo Natali's work. Natali seems to have this inept ability to take a storyline, and hardly wring it our like a wet towel for all the storyline he can muster. Instead, he lets the stories themselves unfold in natural ways, so much in fact, that you may in fact believe there is this Cube were people try to escape, or in the case of NOTHING, a large empty expanse where there is... nothing! The advert had me hooked instantly. It seemed so simple! Take two characters who no one likes, and send them to a world where there is nothing. Natali does this so simply that you forget the logic that a place where there is nothing cannot exist. In fact, the world of nothing becomes something of an irony within the film. There's nothing there, but also 'something' there.

It might be a good time to point out that the trailer is highly misleading. I was fortunate enough to actually understand that the film leaned to a more comedic side than the trailer otherwise told so. Therefore upon watching the film, i laughed every now and again, whereas someone who the advert mislead may find themselves utterly confused.

If i may take a minute to give the film some praise, where the film excels on is the concept. It is a genius concept to have a world of nothing, and to put two characters there, NOT two brilliant minded characters, who will philosophise and work out their surroundings, but two idiots who have absolutely no clue as to where the hell they are! Another strong point is the film's cinematography, though at first this may not seem it! Where each wall, north, earth, south, west, up and down is just a white plane, a perception of depth becomes faulty. It is hard to determine where things are placed in the Mis-En-Scene. The cinematography has many moments where this actually happens, but for the most part, the camera is placed so that two characters, or an object and a character are placed in the foreground and background, allowing a sense of depth to be realised.

However, this film does lack in certain areas. The film is relatively short, but even so, after a while the novelty of this world of nothing becomes rather dull, and you wish to find some form of resolution within the plot. We can also argue that the acting is once again, questionable. These two characters are in a sense, unlikeable, therefore we feel no sympathy at any point for these characters. However, on a flip side of that, the chemistry and friendship between the two characters seems real enough, but there is something lacking.

Even so, i do rank this as a thoroughly enjoyable film! Do not let the trailer fool you into thinking this is another science-fiction horror film. It is much more of a comedy than that! It is indeed worth watching though, purely for the concept itself!


Well, "Cube" (1997), Vincenzo's first movie, was one of the most interesting and tricky ideas that I've ever seen when talking about movies. They had just one scenery, a bunch of actors and a plot. So, what made it so special were all the effective direction, great dialogs and a bizarre condition that characters had to deal like rats in a labyrinth. His second movie, "Cypher" (2002), was all about its story, but it wasn't so good as "Cube" but here are the characters being tested like rats again.

"Nothing" is something very interesting and gets Vincenzo coming back to his 'Cube days', locking the characters once again in a very different space with no time once more playing with the characters like playing with rats in an experience room. But instead of a thriller sci-fi (even some of the promotional teasers and trailers erroneous seemed like that), "Nothing" is a loose and light comedy that for sure can be called a modern satire about our society and also about the intolerant world we're living. Once again Vicenzo amaze us with a great idea into a so small kind of thing. 2 actors and a blinding white scenario, that's all you got most part of time and you don't need more than that. While "Cube" is a claustrophobic experience and "Cypher" confusing, "Nothing" is completely the opposite but at the same time also desperate.

This movie proves once again that a smart idea means much more than just a millionaire budget. Of course that the movie fails sometimes, but its prime idea means a lot and offsets any flaws. There's nothing more to be said about this movie because everything is a brilliant surprise and a totally different experience that I had in movies since "Cube".


A light-hearted comedy, Nothing shows us a world that we sometimes wish to escape to: a world of nothing. Anything you don't like, be it a stack of bills, a bad memory, or even hunger can disappear at your wish. They approached this movie very well, and with an enjoyable starring duo, there were only a few things I didn't like about Nothing, and they weren't even part of the main movie.

First, the post-credits scene (and yes, there is one): Good for a chuckle, but what were they trying to accomplish with that? I was confused and eager to see a return to something after a whole movie of nothing. Instead, we just hear a random assortment of noises and they scream. It tries to set up a sequel in my opinion, and wasn't really necessary, nor was it funny after the turtle crawled out of frame.

Second, the trailer: I saw the trailer on the DVD, and like others have already said this, it promotes a horror movie that never came. Oh well, poor marketing I guess.

If you see this at your movie rental store, take a look, because Nothing is a great movie to watch. If you have a big screen though, you might want to wear shades.


Tweaked a little bit, 'Nothing' could be a children's film. It's a very clever concept, touches upon some interesting metaphysical themes, and goes against pretty much every Hollywood convention you can think of...what goes against everything more than, literally, "nothing"? Nothing is the story of two friends who wish the world away when everything goes wrong with their lives. All that's left is what they don't hate, and a big empty white space. It's hard to focus a story on just two actors for the majority of your film, especially without any cuts to anything going on outside the plot. It focuses on pretty much one subject, but that's prime Vincenzo Natali territory. If you've seen 'Cube', you know already that he tends to like that type of situation. The "nothing" in this movie is apparently infinite space, but Natali somehow manages to make it somewhat claustrophobic, if only because there's literally nothing else, and nowhere else to go. The actors sell it, although you can tell these guys are friends anyway. Two actors from 'Cube' return here (Worth and Kazan), but are entirely different characters. They change throughout the story, and while they're not the strongest actors in the world, they're at least believable.

The reason I say this could be a children's film under the right tweaks, is because aside from a few f-bombs and a somewhat unnecessary bloody dream sequence, the whimsical and often silly feel of this movie could very much be digested easily by kids. So I find it an odd choice that the writers decided to add some crass language and a small amount of gore, especially considering there isn't very much of it. This could've gotten a PG rating easily had they simply cut a few things out and changed a little dialogue. There is very little objectionable about this film, but just enough to keep parents from wanting their kids to see it. I only say that's a shame because not because I support censorship, but because that may have been the only thing preventing this movie from having wider exposure.

At any rate, this is a reasonably entertaining film, albeit with a few dragged-out scenes. But for literally being about nothing, and focused entirely on two characters and their interactions with absolutely nothing, they do a surprisingly good job for an independent film.


I thought this was an awesome movie. The theme song is sweet! :) Anyway, the only thing that somewhat bothered me was in the beginning, when everything should have been normal. It was very weird and unrealistic. The big cable company is mainly what I'm talking about. Apart from that, the movie was very creative. I think that all the acting was well done, the actors acted out their characters' personalities perfectly. Everything fit together well. It really is a shame that their isn't a soundtrack. That would have been great! Because this is a Canadian film, and because it is one of my favorites, I give this movie a 10 out of 10!


I can only agree with taximeter that this is a fantastic film and should be seen by a wide audience. The imagination on display, the visual interpretation of the script, the humor is constantly surprising. The two leads are great and really carry the film. My advice would be to not even watch a trailer, just rent the film and watch without expectations. I rented from blockbuster, so it is readily available in brisbane, not everyone will enjoy it but i think most people will have an opinion and that's always good, unless it's just 'that was stupid'. I loved this film, you just don't get to see gem's like this every day. This should become a cult favorite. Give it a try, you may just feel the same way about it as i do.


This is a good movie, but it is not recommended if you don't like intelligent movies. It's about two guys that wish that the world would go away,and that's exactly what they get. The acting is great, the ending was not predictable,and it actually had a good story unlike most movies these days. People complain about the movie being too simple or too boring. I think they should just stick to movies like The Toxic Avenger (I actually like B movies) or The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. One note: If you notice this, this has exactly the same actors from Cube except four actors. Make it two notes: Wait after the credits (Trust me on this one). Enjoy the movie.


I work at a movie store, and as such, I am always on the look-out for an excellent movie. I decided to check out Nothing as it sat in our Canadian section, and I've been trying to support my country's movie industry. I was in for a surprise. The film features David Hewlett and Andrew Miller in a highly entertaining story that seems to delve into so much of our minds and relationships...without working that hard. It is consistently comedic through the interaction of the two characters, as well as some funny exchanges ("We can't be dead, we have cable!"). What more can I say without noting that it is worth a shot, even if you abandon it within the first half an hour.


This movie was very funny, I couldn't stop smiling when watching this and have already watched it twice in a period of 2 days! The movie is distinctively unique in it's humor and visuals, both are terrific and on par with Natali's other (more serious) movie gems Cube and Cypher. I have become a huge Vincenzo Natali fan ever since watching Cypher and everything he's made is very interesting.

Very likable about this movie are the music and "loser" characters Dave and Andrew, portrayed by David Hewlett and Andrew Miller (co-writer of the story), actors I both like very much. Also cool are the X-Box Dead Or Alive fights (you even see Dave playing Halo at a point) and Andrew's amazing guitar solo, among many other things.

All in all a great feel-good film about friendship. You have to see this!


Yes...I'm going with the 1-0 on this and here's why. In the last few years, I have watched quite a few comedies and only left with a few mild laughs and a couple video rental late fees because the movies were that easy to forget. Then I stumble upon "Nothing". Looked interesting, wasn't expecting much though. I was wrong. This was probably one of the funniest movies I have ever had the chance to watch. Dave and Andrew make a great comedic pair and the humor was catchy enough to remember, but not over complex to the point of missing the joke. I don't want to remark on any of the actual scenes, because I do feel this is a movie worth seeing for once. With more and more pointless concepts coming into movies (you know, like killer military jets and "fresh" remakes that are ruining old classics), This movie will make you happy to say it's OK to laugh at "Nothing".


the only word that sums up this movie is quirky. it's a light-hearted romp through an existential concept. bouncy (in more way than one) and a bit nutty. i wouldn't exactly call it grand and unforgettable cinema and it doesn't seem quite as memorable as the director's first movie "cube" but it's a good pit of fluff to watch on a Sunday morning. the acting veers from respectable to annoying at times but i believe that's how it was to be written. done as a serious movie it could perhaps have been great or may very well have stepped into a state of pretension. a little like "the matrix" meets "head" meets "human nature".

6.8 out of ten


Whether it's a good movie or not, films of this kind has to be made, i think. It remembers me of "I love Huckabees", a overwhelmingly puzzling movie with Isabelle Huppert being sodomized by a young American in a mud pond, in a merry sadistic-masochist way (??!!!!). I hope the director will go on stepping across the border, as though i felt the choices Vincenzo Natali made, were not always subtle (some of the scenes were unhappily kind of "tarte-à-la-crème", like a childish slapstick), speaking about script and cinematography The color of "Cube" was black, "Nothing" is white, more cheerful, surprisingly, than the former films of Natali.


I totally agree that "Nothing" is a fantastic film! I've not laughed so much when watching a film for ages! and David Hewlett and Andrew Miller are fantastic in this! they really work well together! This film may not appeal to some people (I can't really say why without spoiling it!) but each to their own! I loved it and highly recommend it!

The directing is great and some of the shots are very clever. It looks as though they may have had a lot of fun when filming it!

Although there are really only main 2 characters in the film and not an awful lot of props the actors manage to pull it off and make the film enjoyable to watch.


Make the World go away. Get it off my shoulder. Say the things you used to say, and make the World go away.

Well, Dave (David Hewlett) and Andrew (Andrew Miller) were in a pickle, one for embezzlement, and the other for kissing a child. Neither was guilty, but faced with charges and their house about to be torn down, they ended up in, well, nothing. The whole World, except for their house went away.

It is kind of weird, but funny, too. Just what would you do if you were all alone in the world? The two friends just enjoy each other's company, and do what they want. But, that gets old fast, it seems.

Then they start to improve their live by hating away memories. The sound effects during this were great.

Things really got weird at the end. This film was the product of a great imagination, and written and directed by Vincenzo Natali, with help from the two stars. It just has to be seen.


I love this movie. My friend Marcus and I were browsing the local Hastings because we had an urge to rent something we had never seen before and stumbled across this fine film. We had no idea what it was going to be about, but it turned out spectacular. 2 thumbs up. I liked how the film was shot, and the actors were very funny. If you are are looking for a funny movie that also makes you think I highly suggest you quickly run to your local video store and find this movie. I would tell you some of my favorite parts but that might ruin the film for you so I won't. This movie is definitely on my top 10 list of good movies. Do you really think Nothing is bouncy?


What a delightful film...

Accompanied by Oscar-winning Composer RACHEL PORTMAN's lush, emotional and dreamy music, this film remains a pure delight worthy of viewing more than once a year.

Incredible casting...

Gwyneth Paltrow was perfect for the role of Emma. Toni Collette was great as Harriett Smith.

The character who stole the film was MISS BATES!!! She was mesmerizing to watch, one finds oneself on the edge of ones' seat just hanging on her every word and laughing hysterically WITH her. One of the most endearing characters I have come across in ages. From one of the opening scenes when she is thanking Mr. Woodhouse for sending "that lovely quarter-hind of pork... PORK, MOTHER!!!" she shouts into her daffy and clearly hearing impaired Mother, Mrs. Bates (played by Emma Thompson's mother, Phyllida Law) who looks forlorn and lost.

The comical ways that Emma would avoid the grating Miss Bates builds itself up for one truly gut-wrenching scene at the picnic when Emma insults Miss Bates who takes her cruel dig to her heart. We then see poor Miss Bates stammering and on the verge of tears and just so crushed one can not help but feel one's heart ripped out to her on her behalf. It is a classic scene, one to be rewound and played over & over...

The ending is right up there with "Sense & Sensibility" and provides one of life's greatest lessons about how one should marry one's best friend...

I hope that this film delights you all as much as it has myself.

I ADORED it!


By no means my favourite Austen novel, and Paltrow is by no means my favourite actress, but I found the film almost totally delightful. Paltrow does a good job, and Cummings, Stevenson and the one who plays 'Miss Bates' are all absolutely terrific. The period detail is not alienating; the feel of the movie is just right, in fact. But the real 'find' is Jeremy Northam as Mr Knightley. There could not be more perfect casting, IMO. I hated Mr K in the novel, but found him wonderfully human and humane in the film. Northam's good looks and smiling eyes are no hindrance to enjoyment, either! Highly recommended. AnaR


I was so impressed with Doug McGrath's film version of the Jane Austen novel "Emma," and I loved the music score by Rachel Portman so much, that when I went to the video store one day and discovered the two had re-united for "Nicholas Nickleby" I immediately rented it without any other consideration.

I have read the book, and for those overly-critical fans of this Jane Austen adaptation, I don't know what else McGrath could have done to more perfectly capture the spirit and major plot elements of Miss Austen's work, especially given the limitations of a two hour movie (which some have complained about being too long!). And as far as Gwen Paltrow's accent is concerned, I must confess I wasn't too familiar with her when I saw this at the theater initially, and I was absolutely convinced at the time that she was an English actress!

I am taken aback by those who criticized the film for its lush scenery. That is one of the things I enjoy and look forward to seeing in period pieces set in the English countryside. The film's beautiful backgrounds are a major contributor to its appeal and success. If your idea of escapist fare is something bleaker, then perhaps you should rent something like "Death Wish III!"

The English country settings are as attractive and charming as the cast, and combine with the story and soundtrack for entertainment that makes you not tire of repeat viewings. McGrath is a wonder at choreographing the interplay of subtle expressions that are so essential in conveying the complicated romantic intrigue that occurs in this story.

This refreshing movie could also be a clinic on how enjoyable a film can be minus sex, violence or even a villainous antagonist. The story is often amusing, endearing, and at times, quite touching.

I have seen many competent Jane Austen book adaptations but this is without question my favorite.


This is one of the best films I have seen in years! I am not a Gwyneth Paltrow fan, but she is excellent as Emma Woodhouse. Alan Cumming is superb as Reverand Elton, and Emma Thompson's sister, Sophie, is hysterical as Miss Bates. And check out the gorgeous Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley; what a gentleman! Whoever said you need sex and violence in a movie to make it good has never seen Emma. I think that is what separates it from so many others--it's classy.

If you're looking for a film that you can watch with the whole family, or looking for a romance for yourself, look no further. Emma is that movie. With a beautiful setting, wonderful costumes, and an outstanding cast (have I mentioned the gorgeous Jeremy Northam?), Emma is a perfect ten!


Romance is in the air and love is in bloom in Victorian era England, in this light-hearted story set against a society in a time in which manners were still in vogue, the ladies were charming and elegant, and the gentlemen dashing. `Emma,' based on the novel by Jane Austen and written for the screen and directed by Douglas McGrath, stars the lovely Gwyneth Paltrow in the title role. A self-appointed matchmaker, Emma takes great delight in the romantic notion of playing Cupid and attempting to pair up those she feels are suited to one another. Coming off a successful matching that ended in marriage, she next sets her sights on finding a mate for her friend, Harriet (Toni Collette), but the outcome of her initial attempt proves to be less than satisfying. Meanwhile, her endeavors are tempered by by the handsome Mr. Knightley (Jeremy Northam), whose insights into matters of the heart often seem to be a bit more astute than Emma's, and lend some needed balance to the proceedings. And Emma, so concerned with what is right for others, neglects the heart that is actually the most important of all: Her own. The world goes round and love abounds, but Emma is about to miss the boat. Luckily for her, however, the is someone just right for her waiting in the wings. Now, if she can but stop long enough to realize it. But as everyone who has known true love knows, matters of the heart can go right or wrong in an instant, depending upon the slightest thing; and while romance is at hand for Emma, she must first recognize it, and seize the moment.

	McGrath has crafted and delivered a delightful, feel-good film that is like a breath of fresh air in our often turbulent world. There may be an air of frivolity about it, but in retrospect, this story deals with something that is perhaps the most important thing there is-- in all honesty-- to just about anyone: Love. And with McGrath's impeccable sense of pace and timing, it all plays out here in a way that is entirely entertaining and enjoyable. It's a pleasant, affecting film, with a wonderful cast, that successfully transports the viewer to another time and another place. It's light fare, but absorbing; and the picturesque settings and proceedings offer a sense of well-being and calm that allows you to immerse yourself in it and simply go with the flow.

	The winsome Paltrow, who won the Oscar for best actress for `Shakespeare In Love' two years after making this one, seems comfortable and right at home in this genre. She personifies all things British, and does it with such naturalness and facility that it's the kind of performance that is easily taken for granted or overlooked altogether. She's simply so good at what she does and makes it look so easy. She has a charismatic screen presence and an endearing manner, very reminiscent of Audrey Hepburn. Yet Paltrow is unique. As an actor, she has a wide range and style and has demonstrated-- with such films as `Hard Eight,' `Hush' and `A Perfect Murder'-- that she can play just about any part effectively, and with that personal touch that makes any role she plays her own. But it's with characters like Emma that she really shines. She is so expressive and open, and her personality is so engaging, that she is someone to whom it is easy to relate and just a joy to watch, regardless of the part she is playing. And for Emma, she is absolutely perfect.

	Jeremy Northam also acquits himself extremely well in the role of Knightley, and like Paltrow, seems suited to the genre-- in the right role, that is; his performance in the more recent `The Golden Bowl,' in which he played an Italian Prince, was less than satisfying. Here, however, he is perfect; he is handsome, and carries himself in such a way that makes Knightley believable and very real. Like Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy in the miniseries `Pride and Prejudice,' Northam has created a memorable character with his own Mr. Knightley.

	Also excellent in supporting roles and worthy of mention are Toni Collette, as Emma's friend Harriet Smith; and Alan Cumming, as the Reverend Elton. Respectively, Collette and Cumming create characters who are very real people, and as such become a vital asset to the overall success of this film. And it demonstrates just how invaluable the supporting players are in the world of the cinema, and to films of any genre.

	The supporting cast includes Greta Scacchi (Mrs. Weston), Denys Hawthorne (Mr. Woodhouse), Sophie Thompson (Miss Bates), Kathleen Byron (Mrs. Goddard), Phyllida Law (Mrs. Bates), Polly Walker (Jane Fairfax) and Ewan McGregor (Frank Churchill). An uplifting, elegant film, `Emma' is a reminder of civilized behavior and the value of gentleness and grace in a world too often beset with unpleasantness. And even if it's only through the magic of the silver screen, it's nice to be able to escape to such a world as this, if only for a couple of hours, as it fulfills the need for that renewal of faith in the human spirit. And that's the magic of the movies. I rate this one 9/10.


I have no idea how a Texan (the director, Douglas McGrath) and the American actress Gwyneth Paltrow ever pulled this off but seeing this again will remind you what all the fuss about Ms. Paltrow was in the first place! I had long since gone off the woman and still feel she is rather dull in her Oscar-winning "Shakespeare In Love" performance but she gets all the beats right here--she is nigh on perfect as Emma Woodhouse. She may have won her Oscar for Shakespeare but she should be remembered for this.

Of course, she's surrounded by a great supporting cast including Toni Collette, Greta Scacchi, Juliette Stevenson et al...Jeremy Northam is very appealing as the love interest, even if the script wallows a bit in his declaration of love to Paltrow (in the process, allowing all of the tension to drain out of their relationship); several years on, Ewan's hair is a little easier to take than it was in '96 and, personally, I find puckish Alan Cumming a grating presence in anything nowadays. But the standout is, without a doubt, Sophie Thompson (sister of Emma Thompson, daughter of Phyllida Law) as Miss Bates; what this version needs is a scene where Emma reconciles with Miss Bates, as she is the character to whose fate we are drawn. The film is worth watching (again even) for her performance alone.

All in all, this has aged wonderfully with charm to spare and more than enough subtlety to sort out the British class system. Well worth a rental (because its unlikely that Paltrow will ever be this good again--but we'll always have Emma).


Jane Austen would definitely approve of this one!

Gwyneth Paltrow does an awesome job capturing the attitude of Emma. She is funny without being excessively silly, yet elegant. She puts on a very convincing British accent (not being British myself, maybe I'm not the best judge, but she fooled me...she was also excellent in "Sliding Doors"...I sometimes forget she's American ~!).

Also brilliant are Jeremy Northam and Sophie Thompson and Phyllida Law (Emma Thompson's sister and mother) as the Bates women. They nearly steal the show...and Ms. Law doesn't even have any lines!

Highly recommended.


Emma is a true romance. If you love the soppy stuff, charged with wit and folly, you will love this movie! Its true to the novel, which is very important, with a few twists added for pleasure. Gwen is not one of my fave actreesess but she does justice to a role that required everything that she had to offer in spades. She shines in a role i think no other actress could have done proper justice to.

Jeremy Northam, as the hero. how shocked are you? I never looked upon him as overtly handsome but heck! What the right role can do for you! He looks so good as the sensible, regal Mr. K, that i am literally looking at him in a new light. He makes and excellent romantic lead. The charm and character that he brings to his role is wonderful!

Ewan McGregor, Greta Sacchi brings in the rest. a good cast. A good movie. If you are a fan of Jane Austen, see this movie, along with Pride and Prejudice - AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, buy the books. It enhances the movie to heights that are extraordinary


This is a good adaptation of Austen's novel. Good, but not brilliant.

The cinematography is inventive, crossing at times the border to gimmickry, but it certainly avoids the trap of making this look like a boring TV soap in costumes, given that the entire story is dialogue-driven.

The acting is competent. Ms Paltrow is aloof, as her character requires, but the required distance from the other characters is accompanied by a much less appropriate detachment from her own actions. In other words, she does not seem to care enough of the results of her match-making endeavours. Some of the supporting cast is guilty of over-acting - very much in the style that is appreciated on stage but out of place in motion pictures. Personally, I had problems accepting Alan Cumming as Mr Elton - to no fault of his own, except for having left such an impression as a gay trolley-dolly in "The High Life" that it is now difficult to accept him playing any serious part. Acting honours go to Toni Collette who manages to radiate warmth, and Jeremy Northam who pitches his character at just the right level.


Well, I guess I'm emotionally attached to this movie since it's the first one I went to see more than 10 times in the cinema ... helping me through my master's thesis, or rather keeping me from working on it!

But on watching it again several years (and many many movies) later - what a well-crafted little gem this is! I've never seen Gwyneth Paltrow in a more convincing performance, and Jeremy Northam is the perfect Mr Knightley - where does one meet such a man??? <<<sigh>>> Sophie Thompson's turn as Ms Bates is virtuoso acting of the finest (oh, napkins, sorry!) and the rest of the cast is no disappointment either - Toni Colette brings a lot of Muriel to her Harriet, and Ewan McGregor is convincingly charming - and Alan Cumming and Juliet Stevenson are the perfect "impossible" couple!

Of course the sets and costumes, and the beautiful soundtrack contribute a lot to the feelgood, almost Hobbiton-like atmosphere of the movie - although as far as cinematography and art decoration go, it's almost a case of visual overload. Very very pretty, but a little more austerity might have conveyed a better sense of period. But the good thing is, the movie doesn't take itself too seriously, and there is plenty of fun - and some pretty cool editing - that keep it from sinking into saccharine Merry Old England mode.

My particular favorite is the ball scene - some beautiful acting and directing here, and the concluding dance summarizes the relationship between Emma and Mr Knightley just beautifully. Pity that the final proposal scene goes on for just a little too long - cut two shots (I can think of exactly which ones!) and it would have been much more in keeping with the rest of the movie.

Gosh, I just realize (by reading the imdb listings) that I've seen Jeremy Northam in at least three movies without even being aware that it was him - seems he's got a lot more going for him, as an actor, than just being a gentlemanlike English heartthrob! Hmm, guess I need to pay my video store a visit...

Lovely movie. My favorite Jane Austen adaptation so far - though perhaps Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility is, strictly speaking, the better movie, this one is closest to my heart - and I've certainly seen it many more times! Watch it if you can - and don't be too hard on its little imperfections.


I saw this movie being a Jane Austen addicted and always feeling doubtful about cinematographic rendering of the complexity of her novels: well, this transposition is simply accurate, intelligent, delicate, careful, tactful, respectful, intense, in a word, perfect!

"Emma" is one of Austen's most delightful and funny novels, thanks to overall irony pervading situations and characters. The movie respected this subtle irony, not disregarding the comic element (Miss Bates above all). What engaged me in the novel, and the movie renders it clearly, is the deep knowledge of human life shown by the English novelist, and the modern look with which women, men, and their relation are handled, and it is astounding if we think how a woman novelist of the 18th century, who lived almost a secluded life, could grasp such depth and truth about life as she did: that most and still fascinates me. We can feel this modernity throughout the movie: just replace costumes, and use a more current language but the situations, the feelings, the ideas would be extremely modern. I think of the morbid interest in other people's lives, or that insinuating envy which now as ever rule women's relations, and still the difficulty in revealing, and giving expression to one's feelings, especially love: every situation gets a universal and out-of-time value.

The cast is really talented and offer very good and extremely brilliant performances: a young Gwyneth Paltrow is particularly suitable for this role (nowadays she would be probably too mature for it), Toni Colette is simply great. And how I envied them for the wonderful dresses they could wear! And then, the breathtaking English countryside, where every situation gets such a magic and dream-like dimension... a really enjoyable and deserving movie.


I'm a huge Jane Austen fan and besides being a feature-length film (a true fan wants to see as little left out as possible and that can only be achieved in a mini-series) it was really great. Gwyneth Paltrow really captures the slightly clueless but well-intentioned rich girl and Jeremy Northam IS Mr. Knightly with his poise and nobility. I wasn't thrilled with Ewan McGregor even though I like him very much as an actor but didn't feel it spoiled the movie at all. Like I said, as a Jane Austen fan there were things I would have liked to have seen included that weren't but that would have made it much longer than permissible for a feature length film and as it was I felt they really encapsulated the story well. I've seen every adaptation of this book and felt this was the best one!


Wrapped in gorgeous English country backgrounds, Emma is a delicious confection to be relished for dreamy getaways.

Emma (Gwyneth Paltrow) is a graceful, intelligent young woman who has just married off her governess--and confidant--to a marriage which Emma takes the credit in matchmaking. Eager to use her talent in arranging things for the people around her, she decides to match the vicar, Mr. Elton (Alan Cummings) with her pretty young friend, Harriet (Toni Collette).

The result is a series of mixed signals and mistaken interpretations that end up sorting themselves out, with Emma learning that she did not have as much control over events as she thought.

The film is full of Jane Austen's witty and wry characterizations. Gwyneth Paltrow is at her best, portraying this maiden of a restrained, polite society with wit and ease. Her growing romance with the unparalleled Mr. Knightley (Jeremy Northam) is the heart of this film. Mr. Knightley is one of the greatest romantic leading men in films. He is incredibly handsome, in a modest, relaxed way that is irresistible. He is certainly well-matched to Gwyneth Paltrow. Their charming friendship that began when he was 16 and she was an infant, has blossomed as he, a family friend, matches wits with her in an older brotherly fashion that grows into something more. With a wry look or understated jab at Emma, Northam's Knightley is a delight to watch.

Other wonderful characterizations include the comic Juliet Stevenson, Greta Scacchi, Ewan McGregor, Polly Walker, and the talkative spinster, Miss Bates, who is very funny.

Seeming shorter and more flowing than most Jane Austin adaptations, Emma has comic rhythm that promises true enjoyment.


Lavish production values and solid performances in this straightforward adaption of Jane Austen's satirical classic about the marriage game within and between the classes in provincial 18th Century England. Northam and Paltrow are a salutory mixture as friends who must pass through jealousies and lies to discover that they love each other. Good humor is a sustaining virtue which goes a long way towards explaining the accessability of the aged source material (which has been toned down a bit in its harsh scepticism). I liked the look of the film and how shots were set up, and I thought it didn't rely too much on successions of head shots like most other films of the 80s and 90s do. Very good results.


"Emma" was a product of what might be called by the First Great Jane Austen Cycle of the mid-nineties, and it was recently shown on British television, doubtless because of the interest in the author created by the Second Great Jane Austen Cycle which started with "Pride and Prejudice" two years ago. We currently have in the cinemas the Austen biopic "Becoming Jane", and ITV have recently produced three TV movies based on Austen novels. These include "Northanger Abbey", the only one of the six major novels not to have been filmed previously, so the cycle should now be complete. No doubt, however, there will be more to come in the near future. (There is, after all, her juvenile "Love and Freindship" (sic), the short novella "Lady Susan", and someone, somewhere, has doubtless supplied endings to her two unfinished fragments "The Watsons" and "Sanditon". Then there are all those Austen sequels churned out by modern writers).

The main character is Emma Woodhouse, a young lady from an aristocratic family in Regency England. (Not, as some reviewers have assumed, Victorian England- Austen died before Queen Victoria was even born). Emma is, financially, considerably better off than most Austen heroines such as Elizabeth Bennett or Fanny Price, and has no need to find herself a wealthy husband. Instead, her main preoccupation seems to be finding husbands for her friends. She persuades her friend Harriet to turn down a proposal of marriage from a young farmer, Robert Martin, believing that Harriet should be setting her sights on the ambitious clergyman Mr Elton. This scheme goes disastrously wrong, however, as Elton has no interest in Harriet, but has fallen in love with Emma herself. The speed with which Emma rejects his proposal makes one wonder just why she was so keen to match her friend with a man she regards (with good reason) as an unsuitable marriage partner for herself. This being a Jane Austen plot, Emma turns out to be less of a committed spinster than she seems, and she too finds herself falling in love, leading to further complications.

Emma always insists that she will not marry without affection, and when she does find a partner, the handsome Mr Knightley, we feel that this will indeed be an affectionate marriage. It does not, however, seem likely to be a very passionate one (unlike, say, that of Elizabeth Bennett and Mr Darcy). Knightley, who is sixteen years older than Emma (she is 21, he 37), and related to her by marriage, is more like a father-figure than a lover. Much more of a father-figure, in fact, than her actual father, a querulous and selfish old hypochondriac who seems more like her grandfather. When Emma is rude to her unbearably garrulous and tedious friend Miss Bates, it is Knightley who chides her for her lack of manners. (His surname is probably meant to indicate his gentlemanly nature- nineteenth-century gentlemen liked to think of themselves as the modern equivalent of mediaeval knights with their elaborate codes of chivalry). Both Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeremy Northam play their parts very well, but this is not really one of the great screen romances.

Of the other characters, I liked Juliet Stephenson's vulgar Mrs Elton and Toni Collette's Harriet. I know that in the novel Harriet was a naïve young teenager, whereas here she is more like the character Collette played in "Muriel's Wedding"- a gauche, slightly overweight twentysomething, fretting about her chances of finding a man. Nevertheless, I felt that this characterisation worked well in the context of the film and did not detract from Austen's themes.

"Emma" is one of Austen's more light-hearted works, without the darker overtones of "Mansfield Park" or even "Pride and Prejudice", and this is reflected on screen. We see a world of beauty and grace, full of stately homes and elegant costumes and fine manners. Apart from the ruffianly gypsies, who make a very brief appearance, the only "poor" people we see are Mrs Bates and her daughter, and, as they live in the sort of picturesque rose-strewn thatched cottage which today would change hands for over £500,000, we can be sure that their poverty is relative, not absolute. In Emma's world, poverty is defined as not having your own stately home. This is, of course, not a comprehensive picture of early nineteenth-century life, but nobody has ever claimed Austen as the Regency equivalent of a kitchen-sink realist. Sophisticated romantic comedy, combined with a keen eye for analysing human character, was more in her line.

I would not rate this film quite as highly as the 1994 "Sense and Sensibility" or the recent "Pride and Prejudice"- it tends to drag a bit in the middle, although it has a strong beginning and strong ending- but it is, in the main, a highly enjoyable Austen adaptation. 7/10


A slight, charming little movie to be sure, but a superbly-crafted one. Gwyneth Paltrow shines in this early showcase for her British accent, and the cast assembled around her all lap up the dialogue. This came out around the time of Sense and Sensibility, and I'm sure I don't know why that one garnered all the Oscar attention. Emma is Jane Austen's most accessible and least stuffy story, told well.


Emma is a horribly flawed film based on Jane Austens classic novel. I have not read the book so I really didn't know that much about the plot, and yet I still predicted nearly the entire plot. There were also many scenes that frustrated me because of the bad writing or directing. The film is though for some reason very entertaining and I loved it. Of course there were all the scenes I disliked but the majority was well acted and funny. Gwyneth Paltrow gives one of her best performances as the heroine in Emma. The film also stars Toni Collette(Who has okay but has been much better) Ewan Mecgreger(Who has also been better but he is still very good here) Alan Cumming(Who I have never really been impressed with and is pretty much the same here) and Jeremy Northam(Who's performance is rather wooden at first look but actually fairly subtle, even if that was not what it needed) There have been much better adaptations of Jane Austen books but this one is still very entertaining and worth watching.


If you have any clue about Jane Austen´s production, you´ll now that she repeats the same in each of her novels: marriage, marriage and marriage! In my opinion all the movies made from her novels are a bit boring, but I like Austen´s characters, because they all have a certain personality and typical sayings they like to repeat as also in Emma. The thing that makes Emma good is Gwyneth Paltrow, she´s very good in her leading role. Also the fact that each one of the characters in the movie don´t seem to be able to think anything but how to get a good partner and soon married makes the movie hilarious.


First I bough this movie on VHS than I just had to buy it on dvd, it is on of my favorite movies of all time. I have read the book, but I really think the movie is much better. I loved Gwyneth Paltrow as Emma and Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley was an excellent chose. He was brilliant!

It's a 10/10 movie!!!


"Emma Woodhouse" Gwyneth Paltrow (Shakespeare in Love, Duets) has nothing to do with herself but painting, going with her friends on her chariot up and down, saying hello to people in town, and trying to match make everybody she knows. I guess there were no movies, no television in those days, and the girls had nothing to do but gossip. I wish she had read a little more. I like Gwyneth, and think that she is a lovely young woman. She is talented, and in "Emma" one has the privilege to hear Gwyneth sing. I am looking forward to seeing "Duets", where she is suppose to sing. She is brave to speak British English with all those native Britons, including Emma Thompson's sister, "Miss Bates" Sophie Thompson (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Dancing at Lughnasa). "Mrs. Elton" Juliet Stevenson (Truly, Madly Deeply) was considered one of the most promising actors in 1991. Gwyneth is part of the American movie royalty, being none other than the daughter of director Bruce Paltrow (St. Elsewhere) and Tony Award Winner Blythe Danner (The Myth of Fingerprints). She will hopefully be around for a real long time. Lucky us! I liked Emma and also recommend it. It is one of those old stories that are still accurate those days. Favorite scenes: Emma singing and playing the piano. I specially like it when she sings a duet. Favorite Quotes: Mr. Knightley": Emma, you didn't ask me to contribute a riddle." Emma: "Your entire personality is a riddle, Mr. Knightley. I thought you overqualified." Miss Bates: "It left us speechless, quite speechless I tell you, and we have not stopped talking of it since."


This is an OK adaptation, but not as good as the TV version. The actors are generally alright but I found Jeremy Northam rather wet as Mr Knightley, particularly compared to Mark Strong in the TV version. Gwyneth Paltrow is OK and her English accent is pretty good but again, I preferred Kate Beckinsale's Emma. There are excellent support performances from Toni Collette, Juliet Stephenson and Sophy Thompson.

The script is often played too much for laughs, the book is a comedy, but there are too many set-piece gags here, and also the Frank Churchill subplot is almost completely absent.

My biggest criticism is the scenery. It is far too lush. England has never been like this. It looks like a chocolate box. Only Americans would make it like this.

Despite these criticisms I enjoyed this film but would recommend the TV adaptation more.


I have not read the novel, though I understand that this is somewhat different from it; the fact that I rather enjoyed this, coupled with the fact that this really is not my genre, leads me to the decision of not pursuing reading the book. Having not read a single word of Austen's writing, I really can't compare this to any of her work. What I can say is that almost every line of dialog in this is clever, witty, and well-delivered, as well as the biggest source of comedy in this. This made me laugh out loud a lot, with perfect British and verbal material. Every acting performance is spot-on, and Paltrow completely nails the role of a kind matchmaker. The characters are well-written, credible and consistent. I did find a couple of them extremely irritating, however, and while I think that at least some of that was meant to be funny, it tended to get repeated excessively, and it honestly wasn't amusing the first time they appeared. The editing and cinematography are marvelous, and everything looks utterly gorgeous. Plot and pacing are great, you're never bored. It does end in a *really* obvious manner, but maybe that's what the audience of these prefer. I can't claim that this did not entertain me, it did from start to finish, and I'd watch it again. There is brief language in this. I recommend this to any fan of romance stories. 7/10


Mario is invited to Princess Peach's castle for cake. When Mario gets there, he finds out that Bowser has kidnapped her! Mario must save the day again. Unlike the 2-D games, Mario can explore anything he wants to. He can just roam around, climb trees trying to look for 1-Ups, find secrets in levels, and more. You can spend four hours in one level. No time limits. There are 16 worlds, with a number of stages, and there are star doors, which you need a certain number of stars to get into. Once you get in these star doors, you must go through a stage and fight Bowser at the end of the stage. To get to certain worlds, you need a number of stars to get in. You enter the world by going through a painting. There is so much stuff to do and so many hours of gameplay, I don't see how anyone could dislike this game. It's great. This launch title is the game that insured gamers that the N64 would have a good life. Every 3D plat-form game we know of has something in common with SM64. Banjo Kazooie and Banjo Tooie are examples that are commonly used. Super Mario 64 is one of the greatest games in the history of 3D games. 10 out of 10. If you have an N64, buy this game. It's hard to find used, because no one's selling this baby for 5 bucks at the pawn shop. A perfect 10.


This game is amazing. Really, you should get it if you don't have it. Although it is ancient now it was amazing when it came out. I believe that this game will always be a classic. It's just as good a Super Mario World or so. When I was young, my friend and I would sit and play this game for hours trying to beat it which we eventually did. It's not nearly as advanced as Super Mario Galaxy, but if you are a fellow Mario fan it is essential. It's fun entertaining and challenging. Everything you could want out of a fantasy game except for good graphics, (well it did come out in 1996.) ROCK ON 4EVA MARIO LUIGI AND YOSHI!!! Nintendo is the best!


Rated E

I never actually owned a Nintendo 64 but I have played one many times.In my opinion along with Conkers Bad Fur Day, Super Mario 64 is one of the best video games for the Nintendo 64 system.I have played this game plenty of times and its good every time.If you have an N64 and don't have this game you should try to find it.The original Super Mario Bros games were side scrolling video games but Super Mario 64 has a 3D Mario in a nice 3D environment.The game is sort of weird but there is plenty of things you can do in the game.You play as Super Mario and once again you must rescue Princess and the 120 power stars from Bowzer.Now you can do it in a 3D environment.Super Mario 64 is a very fun and good N64 game and I recommend it.

10/10


Yes, that's right, it is. I firmly believe that the N64 and the weird looking controller were both designed just so this game could be made. It was amazing the first time I saw it, with its huge environments and colorful characters, and its amazing now. The play control is perfect, the graphics are beautiful, and it has that Nintendo charm that is always so intangible but undeniably there. A must have for any N64 owner, and a reason to get an N64 for everyone else.


Or at least one of the best. I think this is a very fun and very cool game for the N64. Bowser is up to his usual shenanigans (yeah it's a dumb word but the only one I can think of) and Mario must stop him again. This game is very fun to play, and contains lots of nostalgia to me. The only bad thing about it is the graphics, which are awful to today's standards, but everything else is pretty good (especially the little mini-games you can unlock) It's the second best N64 game (the first best is Conker's Bad Fur Day) that I recommend to any Mario fan, or any fan of platform games. It beats out mediocre Super Mario Sunshine any day.

9/10 or: A


When I first got my N64 when I was five or six,I fell in love with it,and my first game was Super Mario 64.And I LOVED IT!The graphics were great for it's time,a good plot,great courses and above all,the best music I heard in a Nintendo game.

I don't remember the plot completely,but I think Princess Peach was kidnapped by Bowser,and Mario has to rescue her.The object of the game is to get 120 stars from the curses in the castle.Each had about five or six challnges to get the stars.There are secert parts of the castle,where you can get more stars.But of course,you have beat Bowser.*I think there are three levels to beat Bowser on* Lets start with the characters.Mario is the main character,and gets helpful advice from Toad,so he is basically one of your only alliances.I heard that Luigi and Yoshi are in the game towards the end.The main villain is Bowser,and there are a bunch of other characters like Boo and Goomba.The characters are really great.

Next,how about the graphics?People say Gameplay is more important then the graphics,and I agree completely.But with he great plot,there are great graphics.Especially for it's time.I have a whole bunch of other Nintendo games like 007 and their graphics don't compare to Super Mario.Bright colors,great effects and awesome sound effects.I found the graphics in the water courses very very good.Next to the Bowser world ones,it has the best graphics in the game.

Now,the music.This is my favorite part of the game.Growing up,when I played this at a young age,I'd gladly leave the game on all night so the music would put me to sleep.Especially the music from Jolly Roger Bay,which was peaceful and wonderful.There are others that are great too,especially in,once again,the worlds with Bowser,are the ones that stick with me the most and are my favorites.

This game was my favorite past time as a developing gamer,and I love it.This game gets 10/10 or *****(5)/*****(5) GO PLAY THE GAME!


one of the funnest mario's i've ever played. the levels are creative, there are fluid controls, and good graphics for its time. there's also a multitude of crazy bosses and enemies to fight. Sometimes the levels get frustrating, and if you leave out some of the hard levels and still, need to get more accomplished to fight a boss, it can be annoying. another complaint is the camera angle; though it works fairly well most of the time, it can be a pain in certain situations. if your a big time mario fan; this ones for you. even if your not a huge fan of him, i'd still recommend this one. its a big game, and getting what you need can take a while, but it's very satisfying. good for playing in short bursts of time. it will almost certainly hold your interest; it sure does hold mine!


Super Mario 64 is undoubtedly the greatest game ever created. It is so addicting that you could play it for hours upon hours without stopping for a break. I've beaten the game 4 times, but I've never gotten all 120 stars...(I've gotten 111)...but I hope to achieve them eventually. Even though I didn't officially play this game until I was seven in, I loved watching my sisters play it. Now I am 13 and still play this, erasing games and starting over again.

The graphics are unbelievable for an early N64 game. The gameplay is addictive. The controls are great. The levels are tough, but not impossible. The Bowser fights are challenging.

I would like to tell you more, but why don't you just get it for yourself? Put the X-BOX 360, PS3, and the Wii away and go find yourself a Nintendo 64 and play this amazing, wonderful game.


Although Super Mario 64 isn't like the rest of the games in the series, it is still a classic and is every bit as good as the old games. Games with this much replay value are few and far between. Plus, this game has so much variety. There are 15 levels each with several different tasks you can do, and many other hidden tasks. The game isn't very challenging, but its lack of challenge doesn't take away from the game at all. Once you beat it, you'll want to erase your game and start again. And its just as much fun the second time, or third time, or two hundredth time. A must own for any Nintendo 64 owner, and is a reason in itself to own a Nintendo 64.


Mario's first foray into the world of 3-dimensions is incredible. Miyamoto's masterpiece was reason enough to buy a Nintendo 64 when it was released in 1996 and it still holds all of it's charm today. This game is an instant classic that set the standard for 3D adventure/platform games.


It's a bit easy. That's about it.

The graphics are clean and realistic, except for the fact that some of the fences are 2d, but that's forgiveable. The rest of the graphics are cleaner than GoldenEye and many other N64 games. The sounds are magnificant. Everything from the speaking to the SFX are pleasant and realistic.

The camera angle is a bit frustrating at times, but it's the same for every platform game, like Banjo-Kazooie and Donkey Kong 64.

I got this game as a Christmas present in 1997, and since then, I have dutifully gotten 120 stars over 10 times.


I just thought it was excellent and I still do. I'm grateful we're still able to see different stuff from what Hollywood almost floods us with. Saving Grace is smart and enjoyable - those who feel offended by the marijuana thing better go see the America's bride sort of movie.

Saving Grace also shows that a funny movie doesn't have to be stupid. I was laughing my ass off during most of it but also pondering questions about what was the female lead character supposed to do to pay her deceased husband's debts.

In a nutshell - a witty storyline with typical English humour and good acting and directing. You couldn't ask for more.

7/10.


Great actors, an oscar nominee actress, stunning scenery, good strong story line and more laughs than you can fit into my new handbag (and thats quite big). This film was brilliant. It was beautifully acted in the more serious scenes and the funny moments were . .well, side splitting. I have never heard a cinema audience laugh so much, and tears were streaming down my cheeks during the 'stoned ladies in the tea shop' scene. Well done to the British film industry and to Craig Ferguson whose magic ingredients have made sure this is one of my favourite films of the year, if not of all time.


To sum this documentary up in a few words is next to impossible. Every fiber of your body tells you that this is not happening right from the opening montage of rapid-fire images, through to the last shot of the clean up at Ground Zero, but every frame is real. The story was thought up by two French brothers living in New York. Jules (28) and Gideon (31) Naudet (pronounced "Nau-day") want to make a documentary on New York City Firefighters, beginning with a "newbie" from the academy and follow him through the nine month probationary period to full-fledged firefighter. Seeking the help of their close friend, actor James Hanlon (36), an actor and firefighter at Station 1, Engine 7, the Naudets sift through the "Probies" at the academy and find one, Tony Benetakos to focus the bulk of their documentary on.

Tony becomes the butt of jokes and slowly learns the ins and outs of station life through the members of this close-knit family. Firefighters have a superstition about "Probies." It is that they are either "White Clouds" or "Black Clouds," meaning that with the latter, all kinds of fires follow the "Probie." The former means that very little fire activity follows, but one day, there will be the mother of all fires. Tony is a "White Cloud." After some initial growing pains, Tony settles into the firehouse as if he were a seasoned vet. Then the unthinkable occurs....

September 11, 2001 begins with a clear blue sky and an early morning call to go and see about a supposed gas leak not far from Wall Street. Because Jules has had little camera experience, Gideon hands a camera to his younger brother and tells him to ride with the chief, T. K. Pfeiffer. Arriving at about 8:42, the firefighters begin to use their gas detectors over a grate. Then the sudden roar of what seems to be a low flying airplane rips past the scene, and as Jules pans upwards, we see the first strike of the day. American Airlines Flight 11 smashes into the face of the North Tower of 1 World Trade. Pfeiffer orders his men into the fire engine and they head for the World Trade Center. Once there, Jules asks to accompany the Chief into the tower. Pfeiffer tells Naudet to stick close to him. Once inside, the full impact of the growing disaster begins to show on the faces of the men whose sole purpose is to save lives.

Gideon Naudet decides to leave the firehouse and walk down to the impact area. Once there, he captures the impact of the second plane, United Airlines Flight 175, with 2 World Trade. He knows Jules is with Chief Pfeiffer inside the towers. Watching and capturing the crowds' reaction to the unimaginable, Gideon begins to capture on tape the growing fear in Lower Manhattan. Inside tower one, Jules records the last view the world, or loved ones will have of their sons, fathers, uncles, grandfathers, husbands, boyfriends, friends as one by one, each firefighter, carrying 60 lbs of equipment begin the long arduous climb up 80 stories to rescue the injured and trapped. Jules also catches the last glimpse Chief Pfeiffer will have of his brother, Kevin, as he leaves to do his selfless duty. Also caught on video is the gutwrenching sound of falling bodies hitting pavement from victims choosing to jump from the higher floors above the impact zones, sooner than face death at the hands of the flames and smoke. But Jules is respectful, never once does he capture a sensationalistic moment...the money shot. His work is professional through his baptism of fire. He also catches the sight of debris falling from tower two after it is hit by the second plane and the ordered way the firefighters evacuated civilians from the building. Then Jules is caught in the collapse of the south tower and the first official victim is taken: Father Michael Judd, the Chaplain for the fire department. Then as Jules and Chief Pfeiffer make their way from the fallout of the collapse of tower two, tower one begins its structural collapse.

What results is a breathtakingly, poignant view from inside Ground Zero as Jules and Gideon work separately to document that day. Not knowing if either is alive, each fearing the worst. As each firefighter arrives at the firehouse, they greet each other with joyous hugs at having made it back. And in one moment of overwhelming emotion, Jules and Gideon are reunited. As Jules cries on his brother's shoulder, Gideon embraces his younger brother as Hanlon makes the filmmakers the subject. There is one fearful moment when Tony Benetakos, who left the station with a former chief, is believed to have been lost...but returns to the fold, this "Probie" has proven himself.

Shown with only three interruptions, 9/11 is a stunning achievement in documentary filmmaking. It ranks up there with the Hindenburg footage in showing history as it unfolds. The Naudets are to be commended for their deft handling of the subject. In lesser hands, the tendency would be toward the sensational, but the Naudets temper their eye toward dignity and compassion. Narrated by Hanlon, we get the feel of his words as he takes the audience through the events of September 11. Robert De Niro hosts the program in a sombre, restrained way. He never seeks the camera for his own glory, rather he lays out the scenes you are about to see. I also commend CBS for their bravery at airing this special. Chastised for their attempt at grabbing ratings, they temper their editing toward the emotions of the relatives of those who perished. This is a must see for anyone who needs to be reminded of what true heroism is. It isn't about dribbling a basketball, or selling an album of hate lyrics...9/11 is about humanity at its best. Heroism at its finest and the cost of freedom.