This was very good, except for two things which I'll mention at the end. The animation is great, highlighted by Nick Park and company's trademark of exaggerated teeth and mouths of the characters, which make you laugh almost every time you see someone. The color was magnificent, too.

The best part of the film, however, is the clever comedy woven throughout. This is another of these animated films in which there is so much to see and hear each frame that it would require many viewings to catch all the gags. It's just a funny exaggerated look at the oddball "Wallace" and his silent-and-smart dog "Gromit." Along the way, it pokes fun people who get carried away with their vegetable gardens, something akin to how the obsessive dog lovers were pictured in "Best Of Show."

My only complaints were two typical traits of today's films, animated or not: 1 - let's make the cleric in the film look like a total idiot; 2 - let's overdo the final action scene with the predictable result but way overdone. Those aside, this is still a very amusing film that should provide a lot of laughs to many people and a movie to enjoy multiple times.


In 1989, Aardman Animations introduced the two heros in The Grand Day Out. In 1993, they fought an evil penguin in The Wrong Trousers. And in 1995, they had to rescue sheep from an evil robot dog in A Close Shave. In 2005, they're back and they are going to fight something that used to be cute and cuddlely in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit. In this full feature film, Wallace and Gromit work in Anit-Pesto, a pest-control business. There's going to be a Giant Vegetable Competition, but rabbits keep eating the neighbors vegies. Wallace and Gromit takes care with that problem. But Wallace had an idea. He will brainwash the bunnies with his machine. After doing that, something suddenly eats all of the vegies in the neighborhood and it's big. It's up to Wallace and Gromit to save the day. As a fan of these two characters, I was impressed. It kept what the 3 previous chapters had and instead adding a lot of Hollywood actors for voice-overs, they put a no name cast to the job and boy, they did a fantastic job. Wallace and Gromit has not changed. Wallace is still the cheese-loving freak like he always was and Gromit is the silent newspaper reading dog. Also, the script was not too shabby like other family movies were. There is a twist of who the Were-Rabbit really is. The direction from Nick Park (the director of the 3 previous chapters) does a really good job with the storyline. Instead of adding the Hollywood formula in it, he just took the style of the previous chapters and adds a bit of a dark fantasy twist in it. Well done, Nick. The rabbits are also funny and adorable, but the funniest rabbit in the movie is one who has the mix of Wallace in him. The characters were not bad and they weren't annoying, but they'll never top Wallace and Gromit. The animation is indeed fantastic and wonderful. I've never seen a clay-animated movie that is so amazing since Chicken Run. Overall, fans of the two knuckleheads (including the teens) will love this fantastic film. It is a well done film that should get an Oscar next year. Hooray, Wallace and Gromit. 10/10


My only problem with The Curse of the Were-Rabbit is that the movie does not take the time to properly introduce Wallace and Gromit to those not familiar with Park's short films. Strangely, "A Close Shave" manages to do this with a lot less time to spare. Still, I loved seeing the boys back in action and loved all the new characters, human and otherwise. I especially loved Ralph Fiennes voice as the scheming Victor Quartermaine. It is also interesting to see the series on the large screen. The workmanship with the clay characters really stands out. It's a hoot, and great for the whole family! I buy very few DVDs but I have every Wallace and Gromit and will happily add this one.


''Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit'' is the same type of animation and from the same creators of ''Chicken run'', but the story now is other: Wallace, a inventor who loves cheese and his smart dog Gromit who is always helping Wallace in his problems,are trying to keep the rabbits away from everybody's vegetables,since there is in their town, an annual Giant Vegetable Competition. But when Wallace tries an invention he did, to make the rabbits avoids vegetable, the one who is going to be cursed is him. Before watching this movie I didn't knew that these two characters already existed and were famous.I loved Gromit, and I think he is one of the coolest dogs I already saw.

aka "Wallace & Gromit-A Batalha dos Vegetais" - Brazil


Imaginative, quick-paced, satirical! Americans do 'zany', but the Brits do 'witty' -- and they love to poke fun at themselves (ahem: unattractive teeth, large lips/nose, 'veddy' common or 'veddy' snobby, obsession with the 'gahden'). Inside jokes for the older folk in the audience, lots of action for the kiddies. Subtle use of devices from other classic films (watch for 'Back to the Future', 'Indiana Jones..', 'Harvey', 'Tremors'.. and more). Also, a nifty 'buddy' film (Gromit is a quiet, but resourceful sidekick). Add brilliant voice work by Bonham-Carter and Fiennes (is it true? the best acting these days is being done in animation?) - enjoy! I saw it with the grandkids. fun time for all. - canuckteach


This film is what most of the industry has forgotten how to make: FAMILY entertainment, meaning something which is enjoyable to people of all ages. This particular Wallace & Gromit can be enjoyed by everyone from toddlers who like the colors and cute bunnies to their grandparents who understand the adult references.

This film has direction as good as any I've ever seen, and I mean that literally. It is also packed with tiny bits of humor, and each scene has so many humorous details in the background that I'm going to have to buy it, if only in order to read all the signs and handbills in W & G's world.

I plan to see this movie at least twice more in theaters, then buy it on DVD. You too should see it.


Who can ask for more? Taking my 2 and 4 year old children was a risk, I admit. But well worth it. They were enthralled from credit to credit, with their parents beside them.

I have taken the kids to films before with mixed results: too scary, too boring, too sophisticated, whatever. With this film, however, I was glad to see a smart film with wit, style and a sense of passion emanating from the screen. Any film that takes 5(!) years of production to make, good or bad, deserves some respect for the bravery and the patience it takes to film a film like this.

O.K. I'm gushing a little. Then again, why wouldn't I get excited? Looking through the movie listing today only reminded me of the poor quality of films that are distributed. At least for the moment Regardless, W & G is a film well made. Perhaps the originality wasn't the most inspired, nevertheless, well told and well paced.

Too much adult humour? Too many sex references? Maybe. Though my kids didn't quite catch them. Too young. So, in my case, I didn't really notice.

Well, needless to say, I liked it.


There was something about the original three films that made them so special and delightful - probably the length of them. Unfortunately this lacks the charm, but it still ends up being a fun film.

The bright, shimmering side is that our favourite plasticene figures are still doing a cracking great job, there is good plasticene animation used, there is a silly, but well-structured and entertaining plot, an exciting, fun adventure, a good plot idea (a were-rabbit and a giant vedgetable competition) and good new characters!

As well as lacking the original charm, the only other slightly gloomy side of the film is that the humour, though good, is slightly overdone, especially compared to the original films.

The popular Giant Vedgetable Competition is drawing near and Wallace and Gromit are helping control rabbits from eating any vedgetables, now they are Anti Pesto. They are doing a good job, but soon, there is danger afoot. A were-rabbit is nearby...

Recommended to all Wallace and Gromit fans and to people who like plasticene films, enjoy "Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Wererabbit"! :-)


The folks at Aardman have done a cool, cute and wild adaptation of their short films of Wallace and Gromit to feature length, as the man and his dog, inventors who seem to have more of the intelligence (or practicality) for the latter. In this case they've invented a machine that can capture all of the bunnies that are eating up the crops all over a quiet English village. In particular for Mrs. Tottington (or 'Totty' for those who are 'intimate'), much to the chagrin of Victor Quartermaine, who just wants to kill all the rabbits with his trust rifle. Wallace and Gromit seem to have success with their machine, but Wallace has a mix-up: a machine he's made to make more food suddenly criss-crosses himself with a rabbit - the curse is on!

A lot of this is about as much light-hearted fun that a kid's movie could ask for, but it also tips its hat to the oldest tradition in classic cartoon slapstick: Looney Tunes, which in turn is indebted to much silent comedy and vaudeville. Granted, the Aardman guys (Nick Park and Steve Box) have a bunch more gimmicks and tricks and ingenuity with their material. It's never less than amazing to see how they put the stop motion to use, even when a joke or a gag might be a little on the funny "ho-ho" not funny "ha-ha" side (a tired criticism but I'll say it). Curse of the Were-Rabbit works so well on all fronts for the audience, in its warped story and sudden dips into exposition (the Golden Bullet story is a doozy), Park and Box and company never lose sight of glee in the material.

It's fuzzy and warm-hearted and completely off-the-wall for the kids (even the very youngest will love the adventures and strange gadgets, such as the truck Wallace and Gromit drive around in), and for adults there's little barbs of funky, absurdist tones in the midst of a classic English farce. Only (and I'm probably a minority opinion here) when compared to Chicken Run it's almost a little slight a work- there's less any plot than there is a series of running gags, and of course lots of puns involving bunnies and monsters and carnivals and cheese (and horrible men with egos in their guns like the Fiennes voiced Quartermaine). But when it strikes best, it's one of the most entertaining films of 2005. It gives me a big goofy smile anytime it's on TV.


Wallace & Gromit have been around for some time, but this was their first foray onto the silver screen. Fans of the British TV series, like myself, were eager to see them and the film did quite well in the theaters. Much of the reason is that the film is fun and quite original. In a world of CG movies like SHREK and TOY STORY, this stop-motion film is a nice alternative to the trend in children's movies as well as being totally unlike a cartoon. Plus, compared to much earlier stop-motion films (such as KING KONG and the Ray Harryhausen films such as SINBAD), the quality and movement of the characters are light years better--looking very fluid, natural and more alive.

Apart from the quality of the animation, this movie also deserves kudos on every other level. First, the voice actors do a great job. Second, the script is very simple but also very cute and enjoyable--with a few double-entendres that should probably go way over the kids' heads. Third, they manage to make this not only a movie for kids but people of all ages as the film is neither saccharine nor aimed solely at the younger crowd. In particular, I was captivated by incredibly cute the film was--and especially the adorable bunnies. I especially liked them in the closing credits--which made me very happy I stayed to watch the entire film.

The bottom line is that unless you are a real stick-in-the-mud, you will enjoy this film. It's fresh, funny and amazingly clever. I hope we see a sequel--and this is saying something, as I usually hate sequels.


Going into this movie, I was a bit cautious. I have always been a bit iffy about claymation movies. I've always enjoyed decent animated movies, but claymation was always different to me. But this one caught me by surprise. Wallace And Gromit are extremely lovable characters, and it's a great story with jokes for all ages. There's the silly burp/fart jokes for the kids and the subtle, but over the head of young kids, jokes for us older people. Very neat claymation and while the story had holes, it kept my interest beginning to end.

It's so rare to find pure and uncorrupted humor these days, this movie was all the more refreshing. Wallace and Gromit go doing their normal thing, which is exterminating HUMANELY the buggers that ruin people's vegetable crops. But this time they find themselves fighting some form of a freak huge rabbit that their humanely built traps can't even keep under tabs. Great laughs and a great hour and a half of fun. If you have not exposed yourself to Wallace And Gromit, I highly recommend this movie.

The only reason I rate it a 7 and not higher is because it's still a family movie and I don't have kids. I enjoyed it, but if I had been watching it with some little rug rats and my wife, it'd be at least a 9 for sure! Give it a shot!


This scene shows how Wallace's experiment by using his brain manipulation invention goes terribly wrong, creating the "Were Rabbit". His desire as a social entrepreneur is to improve society for the better, therefore, created a "Brain Manipulator" machine. He risked his own life to help solve Tottington's pests' rabbit problem and more importantly to overcome the overcrowding of rabbits being collected and stored in his basement. Though he thought his experiment worked, however, it resulted in placing more pressure on him and Gromit to find a solution before the Annual Vegetable Competition again risking his life. Gromit, who is a silent faithful dog and a loyal helper finds himself continuously thinking of innovative ways to save his master, from his radical crazy inventions going terribly wrong. What is interesting in this movie, is trying to identify: who is more entrepreneurial, Wallace or Gromit?


I was extremely amused to read some of the bad reviews on this movie. First, many have said that they have taken their 4 year old daughters and granddaughters to see this and they did not enjoy it. First, I don't believe that this is a kid's movie, at least not a movie for very very young children, not 4 at least. It has very subtle humor, but it is not meant to offer quick amusement as seen in Tom and Jerry or something like this. Many people have also complained that it goes very very slowly....I guess those people are all used to "quantity" over "quality". While I have a small quality problem myself with this movie and that is that the movie was not as detail oriented as the short movies, I still believe that it managed quite well for a full feature film. And how can people complain about the jokes?? The jokes were sensible, timely and well thought out, never rude insulting or "in your face". Wallace is extremely smart, yet cautious and Grommit is the most adorable, smart and cute character that could be. This was a beautiful movie and the theme was very appropriate...for adults that is....especially with the increase of obesity and metabolic disease in the world, there's nothing wrong with promoting vegetables and fruits for once...and this was accomplished in a very tasteful manner in that ...while people are concerned with the aspect of vegetables that doesn't necessarily mean that the are healthier or that they eat more of them...but just that they temper with nature, which is in fact what caused the legend of the were rabbit to come true. And for those out there that complained about the religious jokes, I say...came on! are you for real? Many villages revolve around the local church, and legends/premonitions etc. are normal themes, no harm done. This movie was absolutely amazing, yet some people had negative comments on it and I find this absolutely absurd!!!


If you haven't watched the movie yet, but you do like comedy, go out and buy or at least rent it! The fact it won, the animation Oscar, is not a coincidence! I haven't watched many other Wallace & Gromit movies (in fact, I think I only watched one other), but the humor is very distinctive ... and some would also say very British. In a good way of course!

The story will only be an excuse for all the jokes to come, but although it's not the most elaborate one, it still works (by the way, my niece did guess see one of the big surprises coming, I didn't, Kudos to her ;o) ). I do think, that after you watch this one, you'll go out and seek the other W&G movies, that are out there. Have fun!


A great animation movie that really gets up to the level of oldies like "The Lion King" .

I went to see this with one of my best Belgian friends who also watched the series on TV . I was lucky because I didn't know people in Belgium were aware of "Wallace and Gromit" .

When it started and that good old theme started it started to bring back memories of me watching it when I was 5 .

The humor itself was very funny . Some nice sitcom style scenes , some wordplay or just plain jokes . The animation isn't as impressive if you have know the series but it is still fun to watch is you realize how it gets done.

My Conclusion : Not only can it keep my happy and entertained , some of the humor can easily appeal to older people so I say : Go and watch "Curse of The Were-Rabbit" as soon as you can .


Although it isn't half as hilarious as "Chicken Run," the new Wallace and Gromit comedy "The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" (*** out of ****) yields more laughs than most live action comedies. British director Nick Park, who created the Wallace and Gromit characters, and co-director Steve Box rely on the old-fashioned, stop-motion method of animation--known best as claymation--to create several visually adorable characters in more than enough side-splitting scenes about a monstrously mutant hare out to devour every vegetable in sight. Amusing as its whimsical storyline is, the heart of the hilarity lies in the imaginative way with which Park and company have painstakingly constructed characters and gags out of a brand of modeling clay called Plasticine. Basically, every shot that you see in "The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" required patient souls that made minor alterations in the clay characters for a series of individual shots that merge into a veritable montage of merriment. Hollywood pioneered claymation as a form of animation as far back as the silent movies of the 1920s, before the industry turned its back on the complicated process. Aardman Studio animators managed to crank out a mere three seconds of usable footage per day. For the record, "The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" took five years to make. The lumpy looking characters, with thumb-prints clearly visible in their respective clay complexions, look incredibly funny with their ping-pong ball eyes and over-biting mouths. Interestingly, Gromit emerges as the funniest character, a lovable mutt with no mouth but an expressively inexpressive face who says more than most of the talking characters.

Wallace and Gromit are respectively master and pooch. As the human half of the duo, Wallace is a homily looking moron without a clue who somehow manages to construct machines that do some rather incredible things. One of the funnier scenes shows master and pooch awakened by a system of chutes, hatches, and spring-operated contraptions that dress and feed them. Meanwhile, Gromit is the animal half. The running joke is that Gromit shows more common sense than his genius of a master. As good as his ideas and inventions are, Wallace could not succeed without the loyal Gromit giving him a hand. Our heroes run a pest protection business called 'Anti-Pesto.' Essentially, they must protect every vegetable patch for miles around using an ungainly looking device called a Bun-Van 6000 that literally sucks rabbits out of their ground and into a huge glass container. No, Wallace and Gromit don't kill the critters. Instead, they keep them as pets, and Wallace experiments with an inventionMind-O-Matic--designed to convert hares into carrot-haters. This "Frankenstein" meets "The Fly" approach plunges poor Wallace into deep trouble when he swaps bits of his brain with that of a rabbit. Not long thereafter, a mysterious towering terror stalks the vegetable patches on full moon nights and creates chaos for everyone as the village's 517th annual Vegetable Contest approaches.

Initially, Wallace and Gromit appeared in Park's Oscar-nominated, film school project "A Grand Day Out" (1989). Since then Aardman has released ten other animated shorts, among them "Wallace and Gromit: A Close Shave" (1993) and the Oscar-winning Wallace and Gromit: The Wrong Trousers" (1995). "Curse of the Were-Rabbit" differs not only because it represents the duo's big-screen debut, but also it runs a whopping 85 minutes. The first two-thirds of "Were-Rabbit" contain better gags than the last third, but Park and company never miss a chance to slip in an adult joke that kids won't get but attentive grown-ups will appreciate. "Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" is hare-raising fun.


Arising from characters previously developed in a series of much-lauded shorts, THE CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT is about as far from run-of-the-mill "family fare" as you can get: beautifully crafted and with witty dialogue and clever concepts, this really is a movie that will appeal to almost every member of the family.

The story concerns Wallace and his dog Gromit, who live in a village obsessed with growing large vegetables for the annual fair and who operate "Anti-Pesto," a humane solution to all those pesky rabbits that torment passionate gardeners everywhere. The business is a great success--but Wallace proves a bit too clever for his own good. When he tries to "rehabilitate" rabbits from their vegetable-crunching ways, he unexpectedly unleashes an ancient horror of legendary proportions: the Were-Rabbit! And suddenly no vegetable in town is safe! The movie is full of crazy inventions, unexpectedly smart dialogue, and references to everything from KING KONG to THE WOLF MAN--more than enough to entice even a jaded teenager--but the real charm of the thing is in its characters. The amount of personality the artists and animators can wring from bits of clay is amazing: they seem as fully alive as any flesh-and-blood actor. The DVD release (and I recommend the widescreen) includes a number of informative and entertaining extras as well. Greatly recommended! GFT, Amazon Reviewer


The first full-length film featuring the Aardman characters Wallace and Gromit manages to bring in elements of all the previous half-hour show which aired on television.

Wallace runs a company to humanely capture rogue rabbits from people's vegetable gardens, and has the bright idea to try out his invention on the hapless bunnies once they're caught. Of course, as in other Wallace and Gromit films, things don't quite work out as planned.

Similarly to A Close Shave, there's a love interest for Wallace, in this case the village Lady Posh, and a big mean villain with a bullish dog. Gromit is beautifully animated with a wide range of expressions making the character laugh out loud funny. And of course Peter Sallis provides the voice of Wallace again and is a perfect fit.

And as in A Grand Day Out, cheese features heavily to great comedic effect as the film moves along.

On the negative side this film is a little on the long side. There are great effects, and some pieces which make you sit up and watch, but perhaps this story would have worked better as another short subject rather than pushing it to feature-length.


Following on from the huge success of Nick Park and the Aardman team with the Wallace and Gromit short animations we now have the first (hopefully of many) feature with the plasticine characters that so many love. The DVD of the movie has proved to be the most durable and best used of my two children's many Christmas presents by a long way. The plot of the movie is straightforward enough but the beauty of the W & G films for me is the background gags. There are plenty of up front gags and slapstick for kids and adults to enjoy but the background is the killer for me. All in a classy addition to an already classy filmography for Nick Park etal and I would recommend fans and new watchers to see this film....often.


Simply delightful claymation feature from Nick Park and company spoofing such film-greats as "King Kong" and "The Wolf Man" has Wallace and Gromit as rabbit security finding it difficult to solve a major problem in their village..a giant were-rabbit is feasting lavishly on the vegetable crops of the citizens! What makes this even worse is that the great vegetable festival is about to commence and the citizens have all prepared dutifully to win the top of prize. What makes the situation even worse is Wallace is the reason behind the whole vegetable-eating rampage..he was testing out a new invention regarding taking his brain waves in an attempt to brain wash captured rabbits into disliking vegetable crops. What occurs is catastrophic as some sort of hybrid were-rabbit is created in the process..and it has more to do with Wallace than he could ever imagine. It'll be up to his loyal(..and startlingly intelligent)and fast-thinking dog Gromit to save the day.

This is a clever and imaginative effort from the crew behind other Oscar winning claymation features starring Wallace and Gromit. Seeing good ole-fashioned claymation is refreshing considering the CGI boom that has featured rather lackluster fare here recently as the industry spits out more and more mediocre product. Here, we get a full feature with witty humor and some wild stunts featuring marvelous animation, not to mention gut-busting sight gags.


Leland Fitzgerald (Ryan Gosling) is sent to jail for the murder of an autistic kid. When pressured with the question 'Why?' he doesn't have an answer. While in jail he meets Pearl (Don Cheadle), his teacher, who decides to take matters into his own hands and helps Leland figure out why he did it. Throughout this film we learn all about Leland's troubled life, including his ex-girlfriend Becky(Jena Malone), his famous father Albert(Kevin Spacey)and his whole sad life.

This film is Matthew Ryan Hoge's second movie, and it is spectacular in nearly everyway. This is one movie which will leave you thinking in the end, and wondering about how it all works. The movie is quite dark, but if you can handle that then you will realize just how good a film it is.

In this movie, there is no bad guy. There is no one you can blame for anything that happens. There's no stereotyping, and the audience does not try to prove Leland guilty. Instead, we sit back, relax, and watch this boy's life unfold throughout the corse of the movie. All the problems depicted in the story are very real. Drug addiction, parental expectations, overwhelming sadness; they all exist in our world.

Ryan Gosling gives one of the greatest performances of his career in this movie, as the depressed teenager Leland. His father lives in Europe and doesn't really care much about his son. The only person he loves is Becky, but she has problems of her own. He knows exactly what he did, but as he says in the film, 'You want a why, but maybe there isn't one. Maybe this is something that just happened.' There is a why, but we don't find out about it until the end. As you watch the movie, the audience finds themselves amazed that such a young person could know so much about the world. Leland notices things that people tend to ignore.

A particular thought-provoking scene which really affected me was during one of Leland's conversations with Pearl. Pearl just cheated on his wife and when Leland asks why, Pearl replies that he's only human. Then Leland says something which never really occurs to anyone: "Why do people only say that when they've done something wrong?"

Another fantastic acting job was provided by Chris Klein. In the film he plays Allen Harris, the boyfriend of Becky's sister Julie (Michelle Williams). Although he is not one of the main characters, I found myself amazed at how deep his character was. You can relate to Allen a lot. You know how much he cares for the Pollard family. It's as if they were his own flesh and blood. By the end of the movie, you realize just how far he would go to help them.

Overall, this movie is a masterpiece which has been overlooked by quite a few people. If, however, you take the time to watch it, you will most likely see that everything I've mentioned above is true. And once you're finished watching it, you'll never look at the world the same way again.

9.5/10


Don't let any reviews (critics, IMDb users or mine) influence you seeing this movie. I read only the plot premise and became intrigued. After watching, this movie, in my opinion, is definitely worth seeing. It gives a perspective on life that many have probably not contemplated. Its is not however, as Leland himself says, a movie that "can be wrapped up in a neat package with a bow and everything." Other user reviews on this website claim to have a psychological background and imply that the story is not feasible. Quite obviously they missed the entire point of the movie, which is disappointing. to say the least.

In short, it is a well acted, well directed movie. The story is not a feel good one, but I feel if you don't come away from the movie feeling good, you may just have missed something. To characterize it as "art house" is unfair, in my opinion, but as our society likes labels, this is probably the one that fits. If you find you know everything there is to know about the world... I'd suggest skipping this one. If you feel movies should be a form of escape "from the world"... you won't find it here. But if you do watch it... you just might find something in yourself.


Leland P. Fitzgerald (Ryan Gosling) has committed an unspeakable crime, the stabbing of the retarded younger brother of his ex-girlfriend Becky (Jena Malone). No one, least of all Leland himself, can explain why he's done what he's done, whether the act was premeditated or spontaneous, done out of hatred or love.

In the detention center, Leland meets Pearl Madison (Don Cheadle), a onetime novel writer who sees in Leland's case a second opportunity. But Pearl also wants to understand Leland's motivation and takes him under his wing as a confidante in the prison.

The film jumps from the past to the present several times, often allowing the past to act as a context to the present, and vice versa. Writer/director Matthew Ryan Hodge shows how Leland's crime - and the events leading up to it - affect the people in his life, from Becky to her family to Leland's mother (Lena Olin) and estranged father (Kevin Spacey) to Allen (Chris Klein), a young man who is staying with Becky's family after the death of his own mother.

The chief asset in the movie is Gosling, who is perfectly cast as the 15-year-old pseudopsychopath. Like Bartleby the Scrivener, Gosling's Leland just exists; he shows little emotion during the film, but instead his expressions belie an ocean of guilt, sadness, love, and rage.

Each of the main actors offered perhaps their best work to date, save Spacey (who's not exactly a novice). Special praise is due to Malone and Klein, two young performers who are better known for lighthearted comedy fare than the heavy drama of this movie.

Another huge benefit in terms of the story is that none of the characters is flawless; none are heroes out to save the day. This is simply not a black-and-white movie.


I was looking at the external reviews (Ebert, etc.) for this film and they were all pretty much negative. However, after reading many of them, I noticed that they all made the same point. Critics were upset that the film centers around what appears to be a senseless murder of an autistic child. Certainly, this is a disturbing image. Critics like Ebert want a traditional detective story that uncovers why the killing happened and squarely places blame on the guilty. They want blame to be cast and resolved. Well, that status-quo theme is kind of what the movie is parodying. Just like society, the critics wanted a very quick resolution so they could move on to their next tragic opera. Perhaps there is no simple question to be answered here? There is a whole lot more to what happened then what is on the surface. The film does not seek to rationalize what happens, but rather understand the why. What also steams me so much about these inane reviews is that all they look at in the way of performances is Spacey and Cheadle, who were both great (and generally are). But there are other great performances at work here other than just the two current icons of Hollywood. Gosling gives an incredible performance that really only somebody of his extreme talent could deliver. Somehow, Gosling is able to make the killer of an autistic child sympathetic. This irritates many, I am sure. However, if one watches the film, they see what Leeland's motivation is, it is wrong, but it is not evil. Malone is also on top of her game as yet another confused young character. Basically, the killing of the child in this film is not the main theme of the movie. The main theme is life itself and how people go about dealing with it, the highs and lows, and how they attempt to sometimes help others deal with their lives (which does not seem to work out very well). There is a lot of good and bad in this world and how we handle each has direct impact on how much more good and bad will take place, and sometimes a confused attempt at doing good, can lead to a whole bunch more of bad. I think this is one of the more memorable films in sometime and has an ending that is as touching as anything in recent movie history. I strongly believe people should view this film, with an open mind.


I am no Ebert. What I am is a compassionate and I have never felt more compassion for a fictional character than I felt for Leland P. Fitzgerald. Sorry if I do not offer a critique, but I see nothing but perfection in this film. I am sure that many who watch this film will never see the same things I do, but if you look hard enough maybe you will see something you weren't expecting. I've read that the character of Leland was flawed. It seems to me that who wrote this was not able to see past the Question this movie presents. I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't see the answers this movie delivers. Open your heart more than your mind and you may be able to let this Leland P. Fitzgerald show you a world that truly has a meaning. Excepcional story with extraordinary acting. Ryan Gosling deserves to be talked about.


Before I saw this film, I read the comment of someone who wasn't very fond of it. This I must admit made me apprehensive to dedicate 1 hour and 48 minutes of my life to it, but I'm glad I did. Ryan Gosling is a fantastic actor, I especially loved the Believer. Don Cheadle was also fantastic. The film presented an interesting view on life and death. It was very touching and very sad, yet it kept me interested, which most touching stories cannot do. It is a film that reckless of whether or not you like it, you should see it. It was unique,and I don;t think that anyone will ever be able to duplicate it. All of the young actors did surprisingly well given the subject matter and the emotion that must have gone into it. I was pleasantly surprised.


There are subtleties in this film that I think a lot of people may miss if they're not careful. You really need to follow what Leland says and read his character to figure out the intended "why" the movie presents at the end. Nothing it solid, it's not definite, it's about what the individual viewer takes out of it. I think that was the plan from the get-go, people aren't meant to all understand it in the same way, it's almost about forming your own personal relationship with Leland in order to maybe feel him a little better.

The storyline is interesting but its summary could never explain what the movie really is. It's dramatic and thought provoking, a lot of heavy ideas, but the pace of the movie is almost soothing, even with its more intense scenes with yelling. I think it's probably Leland, he's just calm and almost serene, even for all of his sadness. The movie personifies Leland in a way.

Of course it is captivating and draws you in if you let it, but there are some recycled ideas. I mean, Leland has a lot of impressive dialogue, he is anything but typical, but he's not a prophet. Everything he says is not a revelation, many people I know have mentioned things he mentioned, even I have observed a few things he's observed. Leland is the unique and attractive character he is probably mostly for Ryan Gosling's portrayal.

In the end the acting is all exceptional, there are no real bad guys, there is no way to psychologically evaluate Leland, only to maybe understand him and life a little better.

Comparable to Igby Goes Down I think, not comedic, but similar in its general outlook on life.


Every role, down to the smallest, has been cast and acted with bravado.

The extraordinary Jena Malone never takes a misstep. Her two co-stars are equal to her in this film. Ryan Gosling may be the best actor of his generation. Chris Klein gives his best performance to date. This is a thought and conversation provoking film that should be seen by teens and young adults. You'll think and talk about this film for days. Highly recommended.


This is a movie that really makes you think about your life, our culture, family structures and situational actions. I will not give the plot in this post, I think others have beat me to it already. I hope that despite reading opinions on this site, you will take the chance and see this movie for yourself. I went to see this movie with my husband and a friend and I must say, after the movie was over there was total silence in the theater. After a few minutes I looked behind me and everyone in the theater was staring at the screen, lost in thought. This will make you delve deep into your psychological abyss to ponder several things:

How much does society influence my life and the lives of my generation?

How long does someone have to pay for mistakes that they have made?

If there is a second chance given, is it ever realized?

Is it better to live in a box or to not live at all?

My questions are not intended to show my approval or disapproval of Leland's actions. I do not want my opinion of them to in any way dictate what you will take away from this film so I am not giving it. See it for yourself. I am still lost in thought, attempting to answer my many questions from the film. I enjoyed it greatly and hope that you will too. This film is not trying to answer questions, condone any action or promote any punishment. This movie is trying to make us all evaluate our lives and take off the rose colored glasses that most of us view the world through.

Great movie. 9 out of 10 stars


One wonders about the state of a society that produce a father like Albert T. Fitzgerald, who we first meet on a plane, as he is heading toward the place he abandoned a long time ago, and where he left a wife and a child who is now accused of murdering a mentally challenged boy. When we first see him, he has caught a headline in the paper the woman in front of him is reading. Rather rudely, he asks her if he could have the newspaper, and the lady offers other sections. Well, that's not what he asked, what he wants the woman to do, is to give him the front section she is reading.

Matthew Ryan Hoge wrote and directed this disturbing film that reflects, in many ways, our society as it is today. In fact, Mr. Hoge is pointing out exactly at what is wrong with it.

The film presents Leland, a teen ager who can't even differentiate between fantasy and reality. It's evident that killing a human being, even the sweet and innocent boy who hasn't done anything to deserve it, will have fatal consequences, not only for himself, but for his own family, and the family of the slain boy. In fact, Leland seems to have no idea about what motivated him to commit the crime for he does not show any repentance about it.

It's obvious Leland has been traumatized by his parents divorce. His own father is an aloof man who couldn't care less about him. It's Pearl, the teacher in the juvenile detention center who sees the turmoil inside the young man and wants to help, but unfortunately, he doesn't have a chance.

The best thing in the film is Don Cheadle, a great actor who always delivers. The ensemble cast does good work under Mr. Hoge's direction. Kevin Spacey has a good opportunity playing the egotistical father of the accused murderer and makes us detest him for being an arrogant idiot.

Although a bit long, the film leaves us with more questions than what it answered.


I noted that the official IMDb review refers to Leland as a sociopath. I believe that this diagnosis is manifestly and profoundly incorrect.

This is a movie about sadness, and about the ability of one particular teenage boy to see sadness in daily life, as it lies in wait around every corner, in advance of the unfolding of the lives that it impacts. A sociopath is a person who cannot empathize with others, and who, while understanding the difference between right and wrong, does not care about this difference. A sociopath is a subject who places himself or herself at the center of that subject's universe, with total disregard for the impact that the subject's actions have for those around him or her. One of the defining characteristics of a sociopath is that a true sociopath lacks the ability to feel empathy -- lacks the ability to feel that which others feel, and does not correlate changes in the moods of others as the result of that sociopath's actions with those actions. A sociopath CANNOT feel the pain of others, or understand that the pain of others is the result of the sociopath's own actions. A sociopath is a person who is not completely formed. A vital chunk is missing from the psychological and emotional makeup of a true sociopath, rendering the sociopath immune to "talking therapy" and other treatment modalities that involve human interaction and the exploration of personal feelings. Sociopathy is devastating, even when the subject is treated and placed in a highly structured environment aimed at containing the damage that the sociopath can do to others. Many sociopaths function more or less normally and never raise a blip on the radar of the criminal justice system, although they tend to leave a trail of emotional debris in their wakes.

Leland Fitzgerald is no sociopath. He is a person who is blessed (or cursed) with the ability to foresee what he considers to be the inevitable consequences and outcomes of human interactions. Leland literally sees sadness written into the eyes and faces of people around him, as he slowly assimilates and internalizes the philosophy that life is about loss, and that people slowly succumb to the inevitable and inexorable fact that, for want of a better metaphor, things fall apart. People who fall in love and who kiss and cuddle today turn into "pathetic" elderly couples. The electricity in the eyes of Leland's "mother" (a wealthy New York socialite who loves Leland and who invites him into the home that she shares with her family when he arrives in New York City, alone and determined to remain in the city at the age of 12) fades as she explains to him, on the last of his visits to New York City, that she learned that her husband had been cheating on her all the time, that she got a divorce, that having one's heart broken happens to everybody, and that such loss is an inevitable part of growing up. Her eyes still reflect light, but the electricity that once illuminated them is gone. This scene -- this explanation, late is it is in coming -- is crucial to understanding why Leland commits a seemingly savage, senseless crime (killing the retarded younger brother of his ex-girlfriend). Leland knows what lies ahead for this little boy -- a lifetime of unattainable goals, of being taught only words that signify danger, of never knowing the love of another human being, of never feeling such love, and of never connecting with another person. More than any other character in this movie, this little boy personifies everything that Leland sees as being inevitable and horrifying about the world. Leland's act -- killing this little boy -- is, for Leland, an act of mercy, committed because this was the one thing that he COULD do in a world in which actions cannot change outcomes. Whereas a true sociopath knows that actions can and do change outcomes but does not care about the harm inflicted on others by those actions, Leland does care. What most people view as a barbaric and horrifying act is, in Leland's eyes, the only decent thing that he can do to alleviate the suffering of just one person.

It would be comforting to be able to present this as an explanation of Leland's actions -- comforting, but incomplete. For in the end, "blame" for Leland's actions lies elsewhere. As is so often the case, there are no easy explanations and no balm to apply to the outraged soul. Why did Leland not learn something that even the most pessimistic people usually acknowledge -- that sometimes -- just sometimes -- people DO remain in love, and that relationships DO succeed, and that even the saddest lives ARE transformed? For Leland, there is no middle ground, no inner core to which he can retreat and regroup. There is only pain and sadness. One is tempted to blame his arrogant and thoroughly unpleasant father -- the brilliant writer (played by Kevin Spacey) -- for not being there at critical times during Leland's development, but given this man's thuggish nastiness, that may have been a blessing.

In the end, this viewer was moved by a tremendous sense of sadness. Why was Leland doomed to view the world through a veil of pessimism and depression? There is a maturity to Leland's character -- present, for example, when he repeatedly insists that nobody was to blame for his girlfriend breaking up with him -- that is both stoic and heartbreaking. Stoic, in that it is absolutely genuine, notwithstanding the heated denunciations of Leland's teacher. But heartbreaking, in that it is born not so much of understanding as of despair. Leland's indifference to his fate is merely a reflection of the utter certainty of his belief that nothing really matters. Nothing that he does can change his fate.

This is not sociopathy on display. This is, if anything, its polar opposite......


Leland follows the story of Leland P. Fitzgerald (Ryan Gosling), a disaffected teenager who has apparently murdered a severely retarded peer, the brother of a girl he was dating. The issue is not whether he did it or not  Leland admits to it, straight away  but rather, why. Interestingly, rather than a crime drama, Leland becomes a character story, examining why people do what they do  not necessarily the easiest ground to till.

And Leland features the required indie group of screwed-up people. Aside from the title character, there's also Pearl (Don Cheadle), who is his teacher at the juvenile correctional facility and who sees straight off that Leland is different. We meet Leland's distant and egotistical father (Kevin Spacey in an extended cameo), who never seems emotionally stirred in any way by what his son did. But the real flavorings come out when we immerse ourselves in the Pollards, the family of the retarded child. First, there's Leland's girlfriend Becky (Jena Malone), a drug addict who can't keep herself clean; her sister Julie (Michelle Williams), perhaps the most normal person in the film, who merely seeks to get away from it all; and Allen Harris (Chris Klein), a young man who lives with the Pollards and is Julie's boyfriend. Lastly, there's Ryan (Michael Welch), whom all the others call goofball, who cannot communicate and seems barely aware of his surroundings.

Leland focuses primarily on its eponymous protagonist, but the movie slowly  occasionally too slowly  burrows into everyone's lives, asking the chief question, why do people do what they do? While Leland discusses it openly in a journal Pearl allows him to keep, examining notions of good and bad and personal responsibility, all the characters at some point in the film face a moment where they must make the fundamental choice of their own happiness or another's, perhaps the most basic choice any human can make. And the movie takes a good look at what goes into those choices, and the consequences of them.

In the beginning of the film, you're simply struck by the depth of the cast. Spacey. Cheadle. Gosling. Michelle Williams. Even Chris Klein  these are people who for the most part tend to elevate any film they are in, and putting them all together makes for a heady brew. For a space in the middle the film seems to stall, sputtering along as it unfolds; it looks for a while as if it will be content merely to ask questions and not supply any answers. But when we arrive at the home stretch and the movie starts to hit its stride and come together, Leland becomes a quietly powerful piece of film-making. Leland's explanation of the world and his actions, in the end, bring every story into focus, and all the investment you've made in the film pays off.

Saying Ryan Gosling is excellent is like saying a sunny day is nice. At this point in his career it's redundant  this is one of the finest young actors working today, and it is a pleasure to watch him craft what could have been an unlikable character into a thought-provoking protagonist. Gosling employs such subtlety here that it hardly seems like acting; he has to face off most of the film opposite Don Cheadle, whom we know has the goods, and he not only holds his own, he elevates Cheadle's game as well. Cheadle himself is in top notch form, imbuing Pearl with a fully-rounded humanity  for good and bad. Spacey is kind of one-note, but that's the character, and he handles it excellently. I was surprised by Chris Klein; with this level of acting, I thought he would be buried in the mix, but he gives probably the turn of his career so far. Terrific work all around.

Leland is a bit of a downer, and again, it's draggy in spots. But it finishes strongly and leaves a lasting impact on the viewer (on this one, anyway). There's also a subtle commentary on racism in the film (in Leland's first day in juvenile hall class, he's the only white person in the room) that, like much of the movie, is very effectively handled. I wouldn't go so far as to call this required viewing  some might find it too slow or too odd  but I thought it was one of the better films I've seen in a while, far stronger and more satisfying than most fare out there. I'd recommend it  with the above caveats  if for no other reason than to watch Gosling further perfect his craft.


I remember seeing the trailer for this film and I absolutely knew I had to see this movie. It looked like something that would be right up my alley.

"The United States of Leland" is a terrific movie. It is not one that will leave you with a nice, pleasant ending, but with a sad, empty feeling instead. And when I say it will leave you with an "empty" feeling, I do not mean that as a bad thing. I believe that you are meant to fill that empty feeling with your own thoughts about the characters and human's general motives and how they act as parts of society.

Ryan Gosling is perfectly cast as Leland. He is intelligent, yet stoic. I like the way that he narrates the film with his journal. The supporting cast is terrific as well. Kevin Spacey is very good, as always, and Don Cheadle is amazing as Leland's teacher and mentor.

This was a great story and is very smart and thought provoking. I highly recommend it.


This has to be one of the most powerful message-sending movies i saw lately, it was absolutely flawless all the way, amazingly original and thought provoking. Story is unusual and original, and the characters make this story very very powerful. It's about a guy who kills his ex-girlfriend's retarded kid brother, and as he is sent to juvenile prison, through many memory flashbacks you get a grip on a story and you don't let it go until the very end. Murder he commits changes the course of life for every member of his family and the family of deceased, and as you watch and realize that everyone has its own story and its own dark side you just appreciate this movie even more, it's a total tour de force, cause those actions cannot be described by simple words. His motive of committing murder is left incompletely explained, and it makes viewers think. Acting was pretty much flawless, and the cast was very good, it contains many familiar faces. If you like the movies that are thought provoking and that just make u think during them(e.g. 'Donnie Darko', 'Mulholland Dr.') then 'The United States of Leland' is an excellent movie choice for you, otherwise you should pass this movie and watch it when you're in the mood for serious thought provoking movie.

10/10


This movie was a masterpiece of human emotions and experience. I think that a lot of people get caught up in Leland's apparent mental illness as the storyline, but I was drawn into the relationships of many of the characters and what they reveal about the force of human emotions. Much of the message of the movie is that we never know the good without the bad, which is a little cliché, but what makes this movie so good and so original is that it very eloquently portrays the crushing and devastating force that the bad can have, whether you see the bad everywhere like Leland, or are experiencing the utter helplessness of unrequited love or a relationship that just isn't going to work no matter how bad you want it to. This movie captures how helpless relationships and emotions can make you feel better than any movie I've seen, and it is as depressing a movie as it is good.


My God, Ryan Gosling has made a lot of deep characters in his career, this is one of his wonderful acting jobs. For me this is a very deep movie, needs a lot of concentration, not because is difficult to watch, just because you understand it if you put your shoes in this kid, even though has everything and has famous father that is a writer, has a deeper mind, you don't understand why he kills this poor kid, until you really heard what he has to say and you start to think, at least to me, that a lot of things that he says is true. Simple kid, sweet, very gentle, in a way normal like any teenage, but inside of him suffer because he start to look at the world in a different way, then you understand why he did what he did. I recommend this movie for those who likes deep drama.


I enjoyed, appreciated, will view this movie again because I am sure There are subtleties that I missed. Wonderfully cast, no over acting or Cliché performance or plot. Uses a tragic event to reflect multiple Relationships, how those involved in each relationship are connected (Or disconnected) and perceptions of life, what position each one Occupies in the relationship, in life and how they cope with the Confusion, joy, hurt and disappointment of discovering that things are not what they perceived them to be. At first I thought there were "Observers" and "the observed", but that is not the case, we are all connected somehow and our perceived separation is only in small degrees. I recommend the movie to everyone especially those in teaching, social work, religious counseling and every other person that breaths.


i loved catcher in the rye, it happens to be my favorite book. JD salinger, the author of catcher, has the rights to the book and made it so not one person can make a movie about it with his permission.

with that said, heres "united states of Leland." Beautiful movie with much meaning and depth in emotion. but a lot of it reminded me of catcher, almost too much reminded me of catcher. the few stories that Leland told in the movie such as visiting new york and his adventures were very similar to those of holden's in catcher, and the way Leland views people and emotions is also similar to Holden's, they both are simple and true to themselves and others. superior acting credited to don cheadle and Kevin spacy. great editing, all falls together perfectly, and loved the story all together. recommend as a buy or at least a rent. good movie.

the only thing that it does drag at some points but makes up for it in the long run. give it time and appreciate a good movie.


After stabbing a retarded boy, the fifteen years old troubled and pessimist Leland P. Fitzgerald (Ryan Gosling) is sent to a juvenile detention. His teacher and aspirant writer Pearl Madison (Don Cheadle) gets close and tries to understand him, first with intention of writing a book, and later becoming his friend. Leland slowly discloses his sad vision of world, showing that he is a sociopath.

"The United States of Leland" is a depressive and interesting study of a character. The low paced riveting screenplay discloses pieces of the story like a puzzle; there are excellent lines and dialogs; the performances are great, although the twenty-three years old Ryan Gosling does not convince as a fifteen years old teenager; but it seems that a part is missing to complete the puzzle and make "The United States of Leland" an unforgettable movie. The disappointing clarification of the "why" for the violent action of Leland against Ryan Pollard is not convincing or touching, indeed shows that this character is a totally deranged sociopath with a weird and sick sight of world. Further, the way Allen Harris gets Pearl's knife is ridiculous. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Mundo de Leland" ("The World of Leland")


The title comes from an alteration an adolescent inmate in a correctional facility makes on the front cover of his school book on government, titled "The United States;" he adds "of (his name)."

Many characterizations in this movie work well -- the scenes between Leland (Ryan Gosling) and Becky (Jena Malone), Pearl (Don Cheadle) and father Fitzgerald (Spacey) as well as with Leland, Becky and sister Julie (Michelle Williams), among many others.

But the central thread of this movie -- the fulcrum on which everything hangs -- is the character and motives of Leland. He's a somewhat shy, passive, nice high school student who daringly introduces himself to Becky whom (we find) is going to an alternative school because of a past history of drug problems. In Becky's family, she has a sister, Julie, who's just graduating from high school and preparing to go on to college; Julie's boy friend, Julie's age (and whose parents' had recently died) is also living with them.

Leland lives with his mother; his father (Kevin Spacey) and mother have long been divorced and his father is a famous novelist. Leland is very perceptive. The young boy in "The Sixth Sense" saw dead people; Leland sees teenage lovers and recognizes that years later they will divorce, that pain is going to follow many people's present experience of happiness. BUT, for reasons that are never made explicit, his prescient gift seems to operate some times, for some people, some relationships, and not for others. ???

Parts of the movie feel a bit like a derivative quilt -- borrowing from "American Beauty," "The Sixth Sense," "The Graduate," and possibly some others I didn't recognize. That wouldn't be bad if only the character of Leland worked.

I think Gosling did a great job of playing Leland but the script and the story imposed limitations. Would such an observant, meditative young man ever be homicidal? Even for altruistic reasons? Nothing in the film gives a reason for this. I'm a retired therapist with much experience working with families and teenagers; while many of the reactions shown in the film work -- this part, this most essential element certainly does not.

And there is at least one other element which, in my experience, would not fit with real life although it's not as critical. The reason for the differences between the sisters, Becky and Julie, are never hinted at but that's okay. Once two sibs begin occupying different roles (one the all good girl, the other the troubled one), the roles themselves can begin driving each other to more extreme positions. For the troubled one, Becky, it's kind of, "what do I have to do to be loved around here -- give up being me and become Julie?" And the pressure to live up to being the All-Good, parent-pleasing child, is no less intense on Julie. So, why would she break up with her boy friend of long-standing and of whom her parents so obviously approve?

Don Cheadle was good as Leland's teacher; all others were good in their parts. 98% of the scenes were good. What was missing was that crucial slip in understanding human nature.

Good acting; flawed story and psychology; worth seeing; not a total loss.


-only few can understand Leland's character, and to do that u most likely are inborn to see both sides of life,and to face this reality is very hard and can lead some few to bad acts(like Leland's character does)but for such sad and real reasons that his intentions were good,in the sense that the intention to save another from physical or mental(in this case)pain over long time. and it is really sad how mostly everyone in this movie makes mistakes in it, but the one character to make one through good intentions is killed by it. the lesson of this movie is for the unique person to see,realize,face and make right of the real life situation u see and to make right,or inspire one who can make right of a wrong situation. but before that...u have to see both sides of something and rationalize it for the sake of long peace,and tranquility of all human life.aka-Don't BE IGNORANT


Maybe people do like having the devil around more than God. Maybe we like that safety net of a reason; making a mistake only to blame the devil for the pain and suffering in the world. There is so much hardship, spilling out into the masses, that it is difficult to not see the sadness on the faces of all you pass. Leland P. Fitzgerald understands all of this; he knows that maybe everything won't be OK, and maybe helping someone leave this Earth to avoid the pain their life has waiting for them is a risk he needs to take for someone he loves. Credit goes to screenwriter/director Matthew Ryan Hoge for creating a lyrical prose about two suburban families who have crossed paths in good times and bad. Just looking at the cast of almost all A and B list actors shows that the material really resonates with its audience. Emotions don't need to be worn on one's sleeve to exist. Sometimes all we want to do is end the suffering.

Ryan Gosling brings an understated performance to the table here that encompasses the inwardness of his character Leland's emotions. He is a very passionate and intelligent young man, cutting through the BS of life, knowing what he sees and accepting the worse with the better. The film is a catharsis for the souls of those affected by the horrific event of Leland killing his ex-girlfriend's mentally challenged brother. In the confused mind of this teen, he goes into the incident knowing full well what he was going to do, he was going to stop the pain that he sees everywhere, but most of all on the face of young Ryan Pollard. Almost immediately he realizes that he has made a mistake, that maybe playing God is not a job he has been put on Earth to do. Whether or not this is true will soon be put to debate as the murder begins a chain of events, which finally bring meaning to many people's lives as they wake up to the tangential fragility of life. This boy has opened their eyes to both sorrow and rebirth.

With haunting ballads sung by former Sunny Day Real Estate frontman Jeremy Enigk, the movie goes through a journey of small vignettes of two families' lives in the aftermath of tragedy. The acting is superb throughout with special mention to a few. For someone who plays the naïve lug in most films, Chris Klein actually does well with much the same material here, yet also with an evolution into a man of purpose. His aloofness is effective when utilized in the right part, similar to his success in Election, and I am interested to see if directors will be allow him to expand his talents and sink his teeth into something more substantial. Jena Malone is effective in much the same effect as well, playing the role of troubled youth as she has in Donnie Darko and Life as a House; Don Cheadle is a stalwart of professionalism giving us a different take on the compassionate therapist from the one he did in Manic; and Martin Donovan is brilliant as the grieving father trying to keep his wits together and eventually realizing he must keep his family from falling apart as well. Also, it is great seeing the beautiful Sherilyn Fenn in a small but important role.

When tragedy hits, people band together to get through it all. As Leland astutely points out at one point, you see men and women helping others out and hugging when they see the pain and suffering surrounding them, but after a couple of days everything goes back to normal. Cheadle's character extrapolates the optimistic viewpoint that at least we get a glimpse of people's true nature of wanting to help and be good to each other, only to be shot back at with the retort, "well at least we do during tragedy." Maybe we don't want to think we are good natured because it does make us feel we should be good all the time, and that when bad, must have in-turn meant to be so. By being flawed we allow ourselves to rebound and try again. Leland's mistake lets him see the love he had for those close to him as well as opening the eyes of others to wake up and not let their loved ones drift any further from them. One can't focus on the sadness of others when they must first come to grips with their own. Hoge has crafted a parable for this and a truly effective piece of film-making with hopefully many more to come.


this is what confuses me about critics and their opinion. i usually do take in, what the critics say about a film, on most occasions before i see a movie.

however, i saw this one, without knowing anything about it. mainly because of the cast. kevin spacey and don cheadle are two of the most acclaimed and in my opinion best actors alive. and ryan gosling is on a fast escalating journey up there as well. his reality and humanity which he exudes in most of his portrayals, makes the audience truly believe in the character and whats happening to him.he's really my favourite actor of my generation. i've always found jena malone pretty cute,ever since donnie darko, and if she chooses to keep doing similar roles then heck i ain't complaining.

back to my point. this movie really moved me. i believed it. the acting was top class. as one would expect. the actually movie left the audience with the ultimate aim of a good movie; reflection and pondering which ensues after the final credits roll. i think i must watch it again to decipher how this movie was critically mauled. i know that their reviews must be taken with a pinch of salt. at least i know now.


The United States of Leland was an amazing movie. I kept passing it on the guide on my TV not knowing what it was and never having the chance to sit there and get into it. Then one morning when I woke up early, I saw that it was just about to start. So I decided to watch it. I had the time and interest to watch it. When I saw that Ryan Gosling was in the movie and then that he was the main character, I was immediately sucked in and could not move from my couch. The struggle that Leland goes through is such an inspiring story. Everyone has to deal with the same type of thoughts throughout sometime in their life whether it be a small minor detail or something as big as what he's going through. I have to sit and watch the movie again just to catch all the stuff that I may have missed the first time around. As a general comment... I would recommend this movie to anyone who is a Gosling fan or anyone who just likes a good movie with a real good story. The fact that there are so many other big stars who all also had great performances is just an added BONUS! So do what you can to take the time to check out this movie, I can almost be sure it won't be a waste of time.


This is a superb film and was immediately put in my top ten (trust me I know films!). It's one of the movies that really makes you think, not necessarily about the storyline but about yourself! The film is about a fifteen year old kid (Leland Fitzgerald)who kills an autistic boy. he is sent to juvenile hall where he meets Pearl Madison, his teacher. His relationship with Pearl slowly grows and eventually Pearl decides to write a story on Leland and his peers but as he gets closer to finding out Lelands motive he learns he must deal with his own issues first.

This is a great film and a must see with great music by the pixies and a fantastic score! Watch it!


Whenever Hayao Miyazaki does the "tri-fecta," (writes, directs, and animates a movie) he makes a classic film for the ages. He has done it again with Gake no ue no Ponyo.

The story is about a girl fish who is kept on a very tight leash along with her younger sisters by her father, a bitter ex-human wizard named Fujimoto. The fish escapes from her father and rides a jellyfish to shore, where she is caught up in a dredging operation and finds herself stuck in a bottle. This underwater sequence must be one of the most elaborately drawn animated scenes ever undertaken and stands on its own as a reason to search out the theatrical release. Miyazaki, who shows no fear of having a busy scene, has outdone himself. There were literally hundreds of individually-drawn sea creatures of every imaginable size all in motion at the same time.

When the fish escapes the dredging operation while still trapped in the bottle, a five-year old boy named Sousuke spots her in the water and is able to break the bottle, saving her. Since she is the result of her father's magic, she is capable of magic herself--and her father actively tries to retrieve her. The boy names the fish Ponyo. Just when Sousuke learns that Ponyo can speak, her father successfully retrieves her back into captivity.

After a war of wills with her father, Ponyo manages to escape again with the ability to change herself into a human. She meets up again with Sousuke in a storm and the story continues from there in many interesting ways. There is a cuteness factor in this film rivaling and arguably surpassing that of Tonari no Totoro. Joe Hisaishi, once again, provided outstanding musical support.

The story itself is simple--as are Miyazaki's films in general--and should appeal to a broad spectrum of viewers. While I haven't viewed it enough to be sure, the film doesn't seem to be one which will keep scholars in long discussions as Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi did. Nonetheless, this is the ultimate feel-good entertainment movie. I gave the movie a ten out of ten rating.


As a long-time fan of Studio Ghibli and especially Hayao Miyazaki films, I went to the film right on the opening day. When I went out of the theater I had this strange feeling that something was missing, this "magical" feeling I was experiencing in all Miyazaki films before, but I couldn't say why it failed this time. After I thought about the other Ghibli movies, I may know the reason: this film had most of the elements of a great Miyazaki anime: cute characters, wonderful key animation, a great soundtrack composed by Joe Hisaishi and the warm story telling giving you the feeling of watching a high quality Japanese animation film. However, two elements were lacking: a deep story and dramaturgy. The purpose of this film was obviously to entertain small children with a simple story line as in case of "Totoro", so a complicated story as been told in "Spirited Away" or "Princess Mononoke" is not really necessary, but on the other hand, this story was simply too superficial. I could not connect to the main characters, because there was no character development, dramatic scenes were only limited and did not last very long. I really hate to give only 7 stars for a Miyazaki film, because I would give 10 stars to all previous movies right away, but this time it was simply not this wonderful "ghibli experience".


Hayao Miyazaki's magic continues with this absolute crowd pleaser Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea, his latest animated film, which turns on the usual sweetness to charm your socks off. I thought that the trailer featured its song which was quietly hypnotic, and I didn't have to wait for an invite to make sure I got my ticket for the sneak preview of the movie, scheduled to open here next week.

For fans of Studio Ghibli films, you'll probably know what you're in for, as Miyazaki has yet another winner in his filmography, that will win new fans over. I'm embarrassed to say the least that I've so far watched only My Neighbour Totoro (eyes that pile of Ghibli DVDs) and love it to bits, but I guess this would serve as a final push for me not to continue missing what would likely be animated films that I would enjoy.

Ponyo (voiced by Nara Yuria) is a magic goldfish that yearns to know what is life beyond the sea, with her constant forays in a bubble to the surface of the water to sneak a peek. Nonetheless these ambitions do not bode well with her humanoid dad Fujimoto (Tokoro Joji), who harbours some hatred toward the human race for pollution, and briefly touching a subplot on environmental protection / revenge by Mother Nature as well. An accident one day sees Ponyo being washed ashore, and picked up by five year old boy Sosuke (Doi Hiroki) who lives on a house on the said cliff with his mother Lisa (Yamaguchi Tomoko), while dad Koichi (Nagashima Kazushige) is mostly out to sea since he's a sailor. And you can expect some moments of throwback to the likes of The Little Mermaid, or Splash made for kids. Saying anything more would be to spoil the fun.

The artwork here is still simply astounding even though it's in 2D glory, knowing that each cell is painstakingly worked on. There are so many things going on at the same time within the same frame, that you'll probably be game for repeated viewings just to spot them all. This definitely beats any 3D or CG animated production any day given its beauty coming from its simplicity, and not only from the artwork department, but on its story too, despite complaints coming in that it took a leaf from the Hans Christian Andersen classic. While there are avenues to make this film extremely dark, it only suggested certain dark themes, but opted instead for a film with more positive emotions, suitable for both kids and adults alike.

At its core, its about love, that between the family members of Koichi, Lisa and Sosuke, and especially between mother and son. More so, it's about the love between the boy and his new pet fish which he christened Ponyo, and I tell you Ponyo herself has enough cuteness in her to beat the likes of Bolt, WallE and Eve all hands down. Characterization here is top notch, and it's hard not to fall in love with Ponyo, in whichever form adopted, especially when she's such a playful being who doesn't hide her emotions - if she's upset with you, either she turns away or you could expect a jet stream come spewing from her mouth into your face!

Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea is a definite shoo-in to my top films of this year without hesitation. And the next time I go to Tokyo, I'm sure as hell going to make my way to the Ghibli Museum to bask under the magical world brought to us by Hayao Miyazaki. Highly recommended film, so don't you go missing this on the big screen!


Quite simply, i was tickled pink watching this in the movie theatre and grinned from ear to ear; eyes wide open whilst trying to take all the details in that are at the same time insanely simple, fresh, yet incredibly sophisticated, breathtaking and in imaginative.

In terms of audience age range, it is probably pre Totoro. The plot works because of the pure heart of 5 years olds who are focused in what they want and conscientious in their pursuit. They lives in a world that is unspoilt by cynicism and cultural learning of how everything is 'suppose' to work. While most critics might disregard this film due to the lack of a 'message' or 'plot' film (Although it is in there somewhere), it is precisely for this reason the film should be cherished. Too often our judgement are impeded by our own limitations of cinematic and cultural standing. Like most of Miyasaki's film, each is totally unique but undeniably Miyasaki. Ponyo may at times feel so unique and fresh, it may feel alien like.

The viewing experience provide a wonderful change from all the generic children's products that are generally commercialised to please the adult demographics (ie/ Animals that talks like their human counterparts, Eddie Murphy in Shrek.) It is perhaps comforting to know that good old fashioned hand drawn cells still work so incredibly well in this digital era where Toystory/WallE/Shrek/Cars generally triumph. It therefore feeling rather nostalgic at the same time makes the film feels timeless, a bit like how Totoro and Jungle Book hasn't really aged.

The subtleties of each character's expression and body language is captured in such nuanced interpretation that digital films like Wall-e can never compete on, or if it does, it would be a very expensive process. It would be a big pity for Wall-E to win over this one at the Oscars, and it probably will this year. Yet it might be quite unfair to compare the 2 mediums, as it is really the craftsmanship and the story telling that wins at the end of the day. For this, Miyasaki is a true master of


This is the latest Ghibli movie and it is also a MAJOR departure from the studio's established style. First of all, this film was obviously aimed at young children, much more so than any of their previous films. It lacks the depth of the other films and features a brand new far less realistic style of animation and yet it is ever so entertaining. Even though there is nothing put in to attract adults, I still found myself drawn to the screen and fully immersed in the story. The movie's secret is brutal honesty with regard to the plot and the characters. The story and the characters are very upfront with their feelings/intentions etc. but that makes them all the more endearing. Special attention was also paid to the soundtrack which is absolutely amazing despite being way different from previous Ghibli soundtracks. I find myself singing the cute theme song all the time as will anyone who sees this movie!


While Hayao Miyazaki's movies have always been hit-or-miss with me with regards to story, they are unequivocally gorgeous to the eye, with characters of simple animation against a backdrop of artistic images. Ponyo sticks to that formula, with a lead character so adorable I want a plush doll of her and scenery so pretty it wouldn't look out of place framed up as a picture on a wall.

The story, on the other hand, I didn't enjoy quite as much as his last two wide-releases, Spirited Away and Howl's Moving Castle. It was just a tad too juvenile, coming across as more for kids and leaving adults to just enjoy the animation.

I was also disappointed that the score done by Joe Hisaishi, who also the scores for the above-mentioned two movies, wasn't nearly as memorable this time around. While I can't quite recall Howl's score now, I still remember it being one of the most beautiful I had ever heard. Ditto Spirited's - though I only remember it being very complementary to the movie. Maybe it's because Ponyo is more juvenile fare that the score isn't quite as haunting. In any case, this movie is still a must-watch for fans of anime or Miyazaki.


Hayao Miyazaki's latest and eighth film for Studio Ghibili, "Gake No Ue No Ponyo" (Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea) is a wonderfully fun and imaginative look at childhood. At a time when it seems that film animation has been dominated by Disney/Pixar's CGI masterpieces, it is both refreshing and comforting to know that Miyazaki is still relying on traditional hand-drawn animation to tell his charming and enchanting stories.

The story revolves around the friendship between a magical sea sprite/goldfish and the human child that she encounters during a curious outing to see the human world. The human child, Sosuke (Doi Hiroki) lives in a small house on a cliff overlooking a small port city in Southern Japan (based on Seto Island) where he lives with his young mom, Lisa (Yamaguchi Tomoko). Sosuke names the strange goldfish "Ponyo" and takes it to the daycare/nursing center that Lisa works at. Ponyo is definitely not your typical goldfish and soon begins to adapt and take on human aspects (she develops human speech and an appetite for ham meat) by sampling some blood from a cut on Sosuke's finger.

Yet just as Sosuke and Ponyo begin to develop a bond, Ponyo is taken back by her father, Fujimoto (Tokoro Joji) who is a former human who has rejected the surface world and is now attempting to collect and develop magical elixirs taken from the sea that aid him in repairing and rejuvenating the world's oceans.

Ponyo's desire to become human has become so strong however that Fujimoto is unable to contain her anymore and she takes on a more human appearance and breaks free from her water world home and goes back to see Sosuke.

During her breakout, Ponyo unintentionally releases Fujimoto's cache of magical elixirs which unleashes all sorts of magical sea creatures that causes a violent storm in the seas surrounding Sosuke's town. Desperate to resolve Ponyo's rebellion, he soon calls upon the help of his beautiful wife, Ponyo's mother - the water elemental, Mother/Lady of the Sea (Amami Yuki).

As with his past films, Miyazaki's "Gake No Ue No Ponyo" touches upon various themes of ecology and environmentalism, this time focusing on the health and vitality of the world's oceans. The opening sequence is at times sobering when Ponyo encounters a drudging vessel which is scraping the ocean's floor, uncovering mountains of garbage and debris. One can understand the anger and frustration of the character of Fujimoto who has spent his lifetime trying to repair the damage civilization is doing to its oceans, yet finding it an daunting and almost fruitless endeavor.

Enough can not be said of the remarkable animation in this film. It is at times bizarre and outrageous but at the same time charming and curious. Clearly Miyazaki wanted to capture the sense and style of a child's imagination. The art style has the appearance of crayon/pencil drawings and is wonderfully colorful and fanciful. It is almost like a child's color book come to life.

Child actors Nara Yuria and Doi Hiroki do great work as Ponyo and Sosuke. They bring adorable charm to their roles. Nara Yuria in particular sounds so darn cute as Ponyo that it is little wonder that Doi's Sosuke falls for the magical girl. Former campaign girl/model and actress Yamaguchi Tomoko (Shichinin No Otaku, Swallowtail) is also very good in her role as Sosuke's modern mom, Lisa. I was a bit confused at first by her character as I initially thought she was Sosuke's older sister. It also didn't help that Sosuke kept referring to her as "Lisa" rather than Mom but I guess it is perhaps a sign of the times and an indicator of the modern Japanese family (in the anime series Crayon Shinchan, Shinnosuke also refers to his mom by first name as well).

80s comedian Tokoro Joji sounds totally different as the serious Fujimoto but wisely doesn't make his character sound cartoony villainous or goofy menacing. While we don't get to know his character more, former pro-baseball player and actor Nagashima Kazushige ( who portrays Sosuke's father Koichi) also delivers some nice voice work. The opening theme "Umi No Okasan" by Japanese soprano Masako Hayashi is simply beautiful and stirring. In contrast the Fujimaki Fujioka and Nozomi Ohashi "Geke No Ue No Ponyo" theme is light and amusing and evokes images of a traditional Japanese nursery rhyme. During one brilliant sequence the soundtrack takes on an almost Wagnerian operatic sound with music that sounds like "Die Walküre".

The film is not perfect however and does suffer from moments where the central story of Ponyo and Sosuke takes a back seat to some of Miyazaki's overwhelming fantastical visuals. I also had wished we had more time to explore Fujimoto's back-story as well as the relationship between Sosuke and his father.

Like "Kiki's Delivery Service/Majo No Takkyubin", "Howl's Moving Castle", "Princess Momonoke/Momonoke Hime" and "My Neighbor Totoro/Tonari No Totoro", "Gake No Ue No Ponyo" is another Miyazaki classic that is a marvelous feast for the eyes. Like a modern day fairytale, the film tells a timeless story of friendship and love that will surely be cherished in years to come.


I have recently watched this film, and have decided to comment on it.

the best way to watch this film is to not expect what you have seen in the past by Miyazaki. Miyazaki is well known for his work on on Spirited away and Howl's moving castle. well for western viewers anyway. both of them films were kind of similar to each other but at the same time completely different. However Ponyo is a whole different type of story and animation all together.

The story follows "Ponyo" a fish that has the face a girl. After Ponyo runs away from her home at the bottom of the sea, she find a whole new world she never knew was out there, and new trouble as well, when she almost caught by a fishing boat, she was rescued by a five year old boy known as Sousuke.

the story then follows the two of them and the pure friendship between a boy and a fish. can Ponyo really stay with Sousuke forever ?

I feel the movie was inspired by "The little mermaid" and at the same time similar to "Tonari no Totoro"

the movie is very short and you have very little time to learn about the characters in this movie. But the Characters a fish and a little boy so how much are you expecting to learn about them? the film is set over about what seems to be 3 days, I think this is why the movie is so short.

I really enjoyed watching this movie and I hope you all enjoy this movie as well


I have a strong feeling that what you think of this film will strongly depend on your frame of reference. If you've never seen a Miyazaki film before, then it will probably confuse the heck out of you. If you have seen a Miyazaki film before, then it will still probably confuse the heck out of you....but you won't really care! That's because I found that the first time I saw one of his animated films, I tried too hard to figure out what was happening and why--and it impacted my enjoyment of the film. Now that I have seen just about every Miyazaki film, I see the bizarreness and just take it all in--enjoying the beauty of it all. In many ways, these films (at least to Western audiences) is like drugs--lots of strange and beautiful images that don't always initially make sense but sure feel great to see!! Of all the Miyazaki films, this might have the most unusual and incomprehensible story line--even more so than SPIRITED AWAY and PRINCESS MONONOKE or MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO. But, like these and many other Studio Gibli films, if you just sit back and watch you are rewarded with a fabulous tale. But, because it is so hard to describe (and others have already done so), I won't even go there.

As for the artwork, it's very typical of one of these Japanese films, though there was one noticeable change. There was a very extensive use of what looked like colored pencils for the backgrounds. This was NOT a bad thing at all--the lovely pastel-like look was very pleasing and unique. In some ways it looked like a tiny bit of Bill Plympton's art style was infused into a typical Miyazaki film. With a high frame-rate, exceptional character animation (which imbued them with tons of personality) and a great "wow-factor", this is an exceptional film for all ages. Though clearly designed more for younger audiences (the TOTORO fans especially), it is a bit scary here and there (during the storm segments) but there is plenty of great stuff for adults. As an adult (at least chronologically so), I loved the cute stuff and applaud the other-worldliness of the film.

A great film--among Miyazaki's best. I don't give it a 10 because I am hesitant to ever do that--plus I did like a few of the studio's other films a bit more (particularly TOTORO). But that DOESN'T mean you shouldn't rush out now and see it--do it and do yourself a favor.


Miyazaki's Studio Ghibli shows his wonderful touch animating, infusing life, in every little action of the characters in Ponyo. When Sosuke puts down so carefully his little boat to reach for the red fish you know that you'll have a very good time watching this movie.

The characters are interesting and you really care for them. They recall visually other stories, Riisa seems a grown up Nausicaa with a son, an old lady in wheelchair remembers the witch in Howl's Moving Castle.

The presence of the elements, wind, rain, and the sea with its great, powerful waves, is so strong that I think it has never been evoked in such a way in any other movie. It is a simple story, loosely inspired by "the little mermaid", and it reach for the very heart of the audience, just like Totoro, the other Miyazaki's true masterpiece.

An instant classic, with a great soundtrack and a catchy song during the ending credits. Don't miss it.


Said to be inspired from Disney's The Little Mermaid, Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea is Japanese animation master, Hayao Miyazaki's next big work after the well-received Spirited Away in 2001 and Howl's Moving Castle in 2004. In Ponyo, his signature style of animating fantasy realms and children characters are on display once again.

Sosuke (Hiroki Doi), the boy lead in the film discovers a 'goldfish' trapped in a glass jar while playing by the seaside below the cliff. He stays with his mum, Lisa (Tomoko Yamaguchi) above and atop it. Sosuke shakes the jar forcefully to try and get the 'goldfish' out but the little 'goldfish' is stuck. He then tries to pull it out but it just cannot come loose. Sosuke then place the jar on the ground before smashing a small rock onto it, breaking it into pieces instantly while suffering a small cut on the finger. He then checks inquisitively to see if the 'goldfish' is still alive. As he observes it, the 'goldfish' reacts by licking the blood off his finger suddenly. Excited, Sosuke quickly rushes back to the house and put the 'goldfish' in a small bucket of water in hope that it will survive. It did and he named it 'Ponyo'(Yuria Nara).

The above scene would signify what is to come for the remainder of the film. It is of the interactions between Sosuke and Ponyo. And it is one that Hayao Miyazaki did meticulously well in portraying. He must have a keen sense of observation and understanding of how children behave before he depicts this chemistry of communication between the two main characters. The behavior of the children would also extend into the rest of the film in their further encounters.

The affection between Sosuke and Ponyo grew as the film progresses from the moment Sosuke brought Ponyo to school in Lisa's car. The best moment came when the two were reunited after a brief separation when Ponyo's father, Fujimoto (George Tokoro), a magical sea dweller recaptures the errant Ponyo before encapsulating her in a magic bubble with kind intention.

Fujimoto who was once human has grown to refer humans with disgust for polluting the sea and stealing its life. But all Ponyo wants is to be human and be with Sosuke so for a second time she escapes, accidentally emptying his father's precious store of magical elixir into the sea, creating a storm of tidal waves and engulfing the small town in the process.

What follows are the adventures of Sosuke and Ponyo in the flooded town.

Is there a happily ever after in this one? Would true love prevail? You find out.

Looking at the art in Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea, there appears to be a deviation from Miyazaki's past works in terms of rendering. It looks unfamiliar because the environment apart from the characters at play in every scene is not colored in the usual fashion as in Spirited Away (2001) and Howl's Moving Castle (2004). The aesthetical appeal is discounted from what appears to be color penciled drawings. The objects and characters are also not as detailed as before.

This is peculiar if taken on face value but from the way the story is written and told, the possible explanation is that Miyazaki is allowing the audience to view the film with a child's tint, yet allowing the adults to reminisce on a Japan when they were younger. This move could have prevented prospective moviegoers, new to Miyazaki's work to see it. The trailer did nothing to promote Ponyo as well. Taking the case to Japan however would be a different story as Miyazaki's credential far than exceed any marketing technique.

In summary though, the whole did not equal to its parts. Aside from Miyazaki's ability to cast vivacious and animated characters, the film lacks elements of thrill and wonder when measured against previous works, resulting in a deficit of big screen presence.

The sparks of Ponyo and Sosuke failed to light up the film in a big way but moments of warmth, kindness, and love can still be found in recognizing the film as one that is not made for the kids, but of the kids who everyone is or once was.