From the first to the last scene of the movie, director Visconti excels at his art, to the extent that the movie is ensured to remain as a cultural treasure for only God knows how long. It is perfection - as a movie, that is, but the story has some minor shortcomings.

Thomas Mann's novel is also a perfect piece of art, so of course it is impossible to bring into another media. Visconti follows the story pretty much, and it is only when he allows himself to deviate slightly, that the transition falters. And no matter how wonderful the scenery is, the tension in the air between the characters, the hundreds of subtle signals and allegories, the almost unbearably heightened serving of Mahler's music - still, the minute anomalies in the plot disturb me.

Maybe I'm just a victim of man's desire to flaw the flawless. Nevertheless, I will offer one example, which I regard as crucial.

WARNING: SPOILERS

In Mann's story, Aschenbach eats the strawberries which probably contain the disease that will kill him, after giving up his frustrated chase of the boy Tadzio in Venice. Unable to catch one delight, he settles for another - which poisons him. It is very subtle in the book, but it is there. The forbidden fruit, of sorts, but more a sign of him surrendering life itself.

In Visconti's film, he also eats strawberries, but in a rather insignificant scene by the beach. The chase in Venice ends in a much more melodramatic way. It works, too, but lacks some subtlety, indeed, and also the multi-layered symbolism, giving food for thought.

But that's all forgiven, when the film allows us to feast on beautiful sceneries, faces and constellations, and certainly as many other symbols as we can possibly digest - the last gesture of Tadzio, standing in the water, being the equally sublime and mysterious finale.


Contains Spoilers

Luchino Visconti's film adaptation of Thomas Mann's novella is visually, if not philosophically, faithful to its source (Britten's opera offers a more faithful reading of the Apollonian/Dionysian struggles which consume the aging writer). It is certainly one of the most gorgeous films ever made.

 In the Visconti version, the emphasis is more on the physical aspects of the story. Never has Venice looked more beautiful and alluring, more decadent and effete. If you've read the novella, it's like having the descriptions on its pages come to life. Dirk Bogarde gives an outstanding performance as Gustav von Aschenbach. Although he has very little dialogue, he conveys the bitterness, aroused passion and finally, pitiful yearning of Aschenbach through facial expressions alone. Bjorn Andresen, the young actor who plays Tadzio, the beautiful object of Aschenbach's desire, was perfectly cast. He too plays the part with facial expressions and gestures. The Tadzio character is pivotal to the story, so any actor in this role must be worthy of inspiring passion and desire. Visconti, with his incredible eye for beauty, knew exactly what he was doing. And changing Ashenbach from a writer to a composer based on Gustav Mahler, and then using Mahler's music, especially the Adagietto from the 5th Symphony, was another brilliant stroke. Although I'd read the Mann story before the film, Mahler's music and Death in Venice will always be inextricably linked in my mind. As will the haunting images which appear throughout the film, especially that last one of Ashenbach dying on the beach as Tadzio walks slowly into the sea.

 One day this film will be released in DVD widescreen format and its visual splendors completely restored to us.


Personally, I can only but agree with Stephen-12: indulge. There's really no point in trying to 'capture' this film. I like movies where nothing (explicitly) happens. Herzog's 'Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes' has got the same nothingness, though that movie is less convincing, since the climaxes are rather in the beginning of the story, so Herzog had to focus on nature versus Kinski. Morte a Venezia is wholly different though, since it has several climaxes, turns, etc. In fact, from the point where Aschenbach's luggage is lost, the movie almost 'rushes' to its grand finale (his final grains of sand begin running through the hourglass after the moment of bliss where he fantasises about warning the Polish family and caressing Tadzio's hair).

You can, if you want to, seek some real clues/symbols in this one (his trying to leave behind his luggage from the moment he arrives, the pointing Tadzio at the end, the fact that in the whole film content and form are completely in sinc), but there's no point in doing this: it won't make the film better or worse, since its force lies in the whole storyline's undertow, which is never made explicit. Tons of history, decaying Europe, the end of the 'romantic era' as we've come to know it, which has proven to be only the beginning of it (individual emotions & expression are more important now than they ever were). But wait, now I myself am beginning to develop the one minor (tiny) flaw of the film: the 'let's talk about art'-parts. Now there's one thing never to do. I myself believe it could have been expressed by other means. Furthermore, I believe it becomes already very clear in the rest of the film.

I don't like explicit films. I can read books, so I don't want a storyline that speaks merely to my rationale. I prefer films that you cannot explain in words, but only in film (Lynch's Lost Highway, Weir's Picknick at Hanging Rock and Roeg's Man Who fell To Earth also belong in this category), for then, and then only, it has a reason to exist as film and not merely as a book. So what about Thomas Mann's novella? I've never read it, but forget about it! The movie gives a different point of view: it says things you can never say in a book. It uses the movie-art to make you feel, through images and music, the same thing that Mann made you feel, using text. Equally brilliant, but different worlds.


Visconti's masterpiece! I admit that I am unfamiliar with much of his work but I cannot imagine his other work surpassing this fabulous film. Last night I watched Death in Venice after an absence of about 25 years and was totally captivated by all that I saw. This captivation was a pastiche composed of many elements: The extraordinary shots directed by Visconte, primarily his love of long, languorous shots of people dining, swimming, walking and containing a significant character passing through this mass of people; the cinematographers brilliant interpretation of Visconti's shot selection; the acting by the principles without over-riding dialog and conveying the scenes complexity through facial features alone.

It is true: young people watching this film for the first time must be aware that they are watching a unique film, a film that could not be made in 2006. A film whose time rests in those brief handful of years in the Sixties and early Seventies of the last century when artistic license was passed to film directors and money-men took secondary roles. As many of the recent IMDb commentator's have written, this film, in their judgment, is long, boring (too little action) and pretentious. I suppose by the standards of Hollywood pap, these comments contain merit. Unfortunately they tragically minimize the amazing beauty and depth of this work and others like it from those years.

Please, if you have not seen Death in Venice, rent a copy and immerse yourself in a film and story from another time. You will be rewarded.


I saw this film many years ago, and absolutely hated it -- I could not wait for it to end, and would have walked out, but there was a girl sleeping on my shoulder. You know what? I have never forgotten this film, and more, I would say that it continues to haunt me with its images and music over the years. How many movies have I wept over and laughed over in the moviehouse, then forgotten as soon as I hit the street, like ... you see, I can't even think of one! Rarer are films like Death in Venice that enter your consciousness and work sea changes. The French like to say film is an art, and movies like this one prove they are right. I give it 10 stars, up from the 3 I gave it the night I saw it.


Philistines beware, especially American ones! This has all the elements you'll hate - a langorous approach to film language, a painterly sense of composition, an intense homoerotic focus to its elegant narrative, a wonderful and unusual use of music and, even worse, it's based on a story you'd probably hate as well... If, however, you do feel that films don't to have derivative plotlines, be full of action and crappy dialogue, don't need the visual grammar of MTV/TV Commercials, then watch this. It's one of my favourite films, and is perhaps Visconti's most perfectly formed piece of work. It's sublime, like the movement of Mahler he uses insistently throughout the film.


I'm not sure where to start with this. In short, it was a disappointing movie. Having taught the novella, I was aware that it would be a hard story to turn into a movie. The movie has a couple of interesting lines (mainly between Alfred and Aschenbach) but it doesn't represent the debate on art that basically shapes the novella.

For one, I was expecting an older Aschenbach and a younger Tadzio. In the book, Tadzio is fourteen, but he is described as pure, ideal, innocent, whereas in the movie he reeks of sexuality and is a tease. He is an accomplice to Aschenbach, he always looks back at him, almost provokingly. In the book, it is Aschenbach who steals glances at the boy. As for Aschenbach, I imagined something closer to the professor-turned-clown in The Blue Angel (based on a story by Thomas Mann's brother Heinrich) than this forty-year old with hardly any gray hair. In all fairness, I do think that Dirk Bogarde did a good job, but either someone else should have done that, or he should have made to look older at the beginning.

I know that the discovery of homosexuality is important to the story, but the movie minimizes the talk about art and the duality between the Apollonian and Dyonisian inspirations and focuses instead on Aschenbach's obsession of Tadzio and does not justify it. I liked the fact that Mahler's music was used, because ultimately he did inspire Mann to write his story. I'm not sure turning Aschenbach into a musician was a particularly good move. Or the creation of Alfred who I don't remember in the book.

And one thing that really got to me was the sound and how it did not match the actors' lips. I was wondering if it was dubbed because I expected it to be in Italian. But then I remembered that each Italian movie I have watched has this problem. It just bothers me because these directors (Fellini is the other person I'm thinking of) are supposed to epitomize perfection in Italian cinema, and here are their characters laughing without sound, then you hear a noise that doesn't correspond to their faces (I'm thinking of the scenes when Aschenbach almost collapses and starts laughing. This scene could/should have been the strongest, but it was annoying instead).


His music, especially what we hear of it here, is very slow. From around the time of Bach's death composers had been working out ways of making music progress at a slower and slower pace: over a century later, Wagner and then Mahler wrote pieces that are about as slow as it is possible for music to get. -Of course, one can cheat by writing a 4/4 march and then specifying a tempo of, say, semiquaver = 1, but that tempo wouldn't be the correct tempo. Wagner and Mahler wrote music that is PROPERLY played at a snail's pace. Given that the slowness in no sense sounds too slow "snail's pace" is the wrong expression. A critic wrote of a famous Wagner conductor, "He doesn't beat time, he beats eternity." For all I know this was meant as a compliment.

I get the feeling that around the early 1970s directors worked out how to make the slowest possible films: there's "Death in Venice", and there's "Solyaris". I much prefer the former. For one thing, "Solyaris" steps over the line, or some line, and becomes soporific; "Death in Venice" is gripping from beginning to end. Not much happens, but it all happens in the right sequence, at the right pace, with photography you can get lost in

Another way of cheating with music, by the way, is to write something that doesn't really have a tempo at all. Such music sounds slow, but is really just unmusical, just as many films feel slow because they lack rhythm and form. "Death in Venice" isn't one of them. Beautiful in every respect, it will remind you of the timelessness and contextlessness of quality. You need no theoretical knowledge to respond to Visconti's mastery, as you do to respond to a lesser director's incompetence. It's a great work.


A film to divide its viewers. Just criticism points at its funereal pace, over-used snap zooms and persistent, lingering gazes between the protagonists. Advocates point to Dirk Bogarde's mighty performance and Pasqualino De Santis' benchmark photography of Venice.

Taken altogether, this might suggest an indulgent, romanticised elegy for the nobility of homosexual love (at a time, 1971, when it was becoming consensually legal). In fact Visconti has succeeded in making a richer, more complex film than such a single-issue vehicle. He has knit his ideas - foibles and all - into a meticulously paced arc.

Inside this does indeed sit the central performance of Bogarde's Aschenbach. Rather than a simpering, Johnny-come-lately gay, he manages to give a pathetic composer beaten by tragedy and misunderstood integrity who sees salvation in Tadzio. His mesmerised staggering around an increasingly hellish Venice after the boy is a straight metaphor for the artist's tenacity for truth in the teeth of the dilettante mob (and it is explicitly cut with such a flashback).

Mahler's music is possibly a little over-used although it is well appropriated. The Italian overdub is a wearing anachronism but thankfully the acting doesn't suffer too much. 7/10


The greatest tragedy man faces is that, capable so often of the divine he settles for the banal.From this fact does so much great tragedy emerge. Death in Venice is one of very few films with the patience and bravery to tackle this fact head-on.It confronts the human eye with beauty and inspiration in their two most inevitable human forms-self denial and decay. Undoubtedly this is the greatest film to have no discernable influence on mainstream cinema. Its austerely refined look, echoey sound, mixture of unsubtitled languages, and highly challenging themes being impossible to copy: as much an accident of its peculiar production as of the vision of its director. The central performance, at once rigid, aroused, and vulnerable in the face of expression and decadence highlights Bogarde as if not the best British actor of his generation then certainly the most adventurous. Able to hold on to sympathy as his desires take him over and interesting despite the endless close-ups and Mahler score playing above him Not one for a Friday night with your girlfriend but certainly OK if you want to explore the limits of human spiritual limitation.


If all movies had to be destroyed and only one could be spared, Death in Venice would have to be it. It is a monument in movie history. Much criticized for being slow, boring and too obvious in stating it's point (an old man discovers beauty in a young boy and is tragically destroyed, first mentally, then physically), we should appreciate this movie for what it is. 'Morte a Venezia' was shot over 30 years ago, and it portrays a period even further back, at the beginning of the twentieth century.

Life was slow then, compared to now. People were supposed to behave in a certain way, hiding their true emotions even from themselves. Director Visconti and Dirk Bogarde, the leading actor, admirably succeed in showing how the aging composer Von Aschenbach discovers his romantic interest in a young boy. For a man like Von Aschenbach, in his time, this must have been a shock too powerful to come to terms with. We see his inner struggle, mostly on the face of Bogarde, against the beautiful backdrop of Venice and accompanied by the most wonderful music, composed by Gustav Mahler.

This movie is slow, there is no denying it. No special effects, car chases or fights to keep the audience pinned to their seats. No perverted sex scenes either; the interaction between man and boy is limited to stolen glances from afar and the occasional smile.

So, basically, nothing much happens in this movie? Not if you want your senses to be hit like a base drum. If you want them to be played like the strings of a violin in a romantic concerto, this is the movie to do it.


CAUTION: SPOILERS

Although this film moved a bit slow at times, the brilliant scenery, richness of the characters and powerful themes make `Morte a Venezia' a rewarding experience. I have not read Thomas Mann's book, but I am certain that Visconti's visual splendour, musical score, and powerful evocation of conflict and desire must do it justice.

The study of Gustav von Aschenbach alludes to the human tendency to rationalize and quantify our emotions, behaviour and passion. This tendency is demonstrated in the scene in Germany between Alfred and Gustav when Alfred describes Music as being both mathematical--i.e. quantifiable--and emotional. This conflict arises again in the scene where young Tadzio is alone playing `Fuer Elise' in lobby of the Hotel and Gustav recalls his visit to a bordello where he is drawn to a prostitute who plays the same song. In his flashback, after paying the prostitute, Gustav is clearly physically seized by the consequences of his actions. This reaction acts as a reminder of the moral reaction to the temptations that Tadzio represents.

Ultimately, Gustav is forced to make his biggest decision: stay in Venice and resign himself to his lust and temptations? Or flee Venice to save his own life? His early attempt to flee Venice at the train station resulted in a futility and foreshadows the outcome of prolonging his stay.

Complimenting the captivating character interaction, Visconti's powerful scenery (especially of Venice at Dawn and the final scene of Tadzio walking into the water and pointing to the horizon) renders this film a true masterpiece.


Death in Venice is a movie I need to see once every ten years. It is always different, because I am always at a different stage of life.

The movie is about art, beauty, longing, death. Some scenes are painfully slow, others simply annoying to watch, especially if you have seem them before. Yet I would not want to miss a single frame. The music is repetitive, the main theme of the adagietto from Mahler's fifth is used again and again. Yet I would not want to miss a single note. When the last image fades, the last note dies, I am left numb and exhausted.

This movie is a monument to film making. As with most really good movies, the saturday evening crowd should stay away from it. And this is simply the best movie ever.


Morte a Venezia is one of my favorite movies. More than beautiful, it's really sublime. It gives you important aesthetic experiences, it's a masterpiece. I also recommend the novel. Luchino Visconti is a genius.


This film is a summary of Visconti's obssessions: the decadence of nobility, death, aesthetic search, homosexuality...All mingled with melancholic mastery. Slow-paced just to make you abler to contemplate all its beauty (which is in the music and the images as well as in the story)this is the type of film we are not allowed to enjoy anymore, brave, deeply personal and intelligent. The genuine fruit of a genius like Visconti.


Relish every moment of this languorous spectacle with music to match (Mahler's 5th is gorgeous, but listen to the vocal portion of the 3rd symphony so beautifully utilised in this film). There are many aspects to this film, but the main subject is the overpowering force of beauty, its spontaneous nature, absence of logic for love and adoration. I am also an ardent fan of Bogarde and believe he was rarely as wonderful (try him in "The Servant" however). Note: I recommmend multiple viewings.


This is a ravishing, yet spare adaption of Thomas Mann's novelette of the same title. Dirk Bogarde gives his finest screen performance - he himself believed so. The dialogue is minimal, so his face must register the nuances of his anguished character - a composer (a writer in the novelette - the only major alteration) who travels to Venice in 1910. Visconti revels in the portrayal of beauty, it's passing, and the whiff of decay beneath.Trained as an opera director, Visconti blends Mahler's music and imagery seamlessly in his finest film since "The Leopard" (another stunning film, which greatly influenced Coppola's Sicily in the "Godfather").


Luchino Visconti has become famous to the world after his marvelous production THE LEOPARD. Movie fans got to know the style of the director who introduced himself as one among the post war new realists, an aristocrat who developed his individual free thinking and, consequently, expressed them as an artist. However, when applied to this movie, MORTE A VENEZIA based upon the novel by Thomas Mann, it's a slightly different story.

The entire film is, at first view, so unique, so psychological and so much influenced by the various thoughts of an artist (both director and main character Gustav von Aschenbach) that it seems to be "unwatchable" for many viewers. Therefore, such opinions about the movie rose as being "too slow", "unendurable" or "endless boredom". Why? The reason seems to lie in a significant view widespread nowadays: "GOOD MOVIE IS PARALLEL TO FLAWLESS ACTION." Here, it would be appropriate to say: "GOOD MOVIE IS PARALLEL TO NO ACTION." As a matter of fact, everyone would be able to say one sentence about the whole movie's content and that would suffice. All that we find in MORTE A VENEZIA has a sense of vague reality filled with both profoundity and shallowness that appear to be significant for the sake of each single moment. And it is so when we notice the psychedelic scenes in Venice, when we see Gustav at the railroad station, when we are supplied with his intensely emotional memories. The insight into his decaying mind is sometimes so intense that the only way for the viewer to go on watching the film is to do his/her best to feel and experience rather than see and think. All is doomed to fade, to wither like flowers on meadow when their time comes. In other words, all has a sense of loss and death without many events or even dialogs. As a result, it is quite unlikely that you will get the idea of the movie after a single viewing. It must be seen more than twice with the mind that is constantly open. If you'll like it or not...that's a different story, very personal one.

The artistic values are the factor that is noticeable at first sight and stays with us throughout. Beauty as something very meaningful for the main character that appears to come and leave; rest as something he's heading for so badly and which comes to him in the most unexpected way; feeling that he finds in a teenage boy who appears as a model of all the dreams and desires, as a forbidden fruit of homosexual lust which vanishes. The costume designer Piero Tosi does a splendid job in this movie. Through lots of wonderful wardrobe he supplies us with a very realistic view of 1911 when the action takes place. The cinematographer Pasqualino De Santis provides us with a terrific visual experience that can be called a real feast for the eyes. And in the background comes Gustav Mahler's music, the composer whose life inspired Thomas Mann to introduce the character.

The performances are top notch, particularly from Dirk Bogart as the main character, Gustav von Aschenbach, who wants a rest after hard artistic job and vainly attempts to find it in crowded Venice. For the majority of the film, we have a great insight into his thoughts, feelings and acts of anger, exhaust and despair. Though sometimes depressing, he keeps us on the right track till the end not losing hope for the less tragic end... Tadzio (Bjorn Andersen) depicts the model of decadent homosexual desire but also a model of beauty and purity that appears to last pretty short... "Adieu Tadzio, it was all too short" says the main character. A great, though very controversial, job is done by Mark Burns as a sort of "super ego" Alfred with whom Gustav polemics about such ideals as beauty, justice, hope, human dignity. For Alfred, beauty belongs to the senses. How Freudian, yet how dangerous the idea might be! And ever present in artistic Italian movies of the time, Silvana Mangano - here as an elegant lady from Poland, Tadzio's mother.

Memorable moments indeed constitute the movie's strong points; yet, not all viewers will find them unforgettable. They, similarly to the whole odd movie, require much effort to get onto the right track in director's individual ego and within the four walls of his psyche. Among such scenes, I consider the beach sequence pretty important, particularly the way Gustav observes Tadzio. The physical distance accurately represents the lack of courage to come closer... I also appreciate the shots when Gustav is sitting in the gondola and the city's view moves in the background - how memorably that may raise existential thoughts of transfer. Aren't we, people, a sort of "passangers" in the world, in the journey that life is.

In the end, I must tell you one important thing. I had found MORTE A VENEZIA extremely weird until I started to look deeper at what the director is really trying to convey. Then, every scene turned out to be meaningful in its interpretation with which you don't have to agree (I hardly agree with anything the main character does) but you should at least tolerate this as something the author badly wanted to say. Listen to his voice, allow him for a few words in one page of reality...

Therefore, there is a long way towards understanding the film since not many movies like that were being made in 1971 and are being made now. Paradoxically, it seems that we are all bound to have the right feelings about this film in the long run similarly to that we are all bound to experience once a strange, unavoidable, usually unexpected reality that death is... 7/10


Visconti's Death in Venice qualifies as one of the most beautiful films ever made. While watching, we acknowledge we are in the hands of a visionary genius. Endlessly opulent Death in Venice surely is; but in other important ways, it's an unsatisfying film. Thomas Mann writes with contempt and from a distance of von Aschenbach's literary career and output; of his imperious manner, his layer-upon-layer of programmed, self-conscious behavior. When Tadzio appears and obsession arises, it's evident that Aschenbach hasn't the slightest idea who he is beneath his Gilded-Age trappings and carefully lived life. In fact, upon seeing Tadzio, the 'Solitary,' as Mann sometimes calls him, splits in two. Aschenbach No. 1 absorbs the sight of a beautiful 14-year old boy, then attempts to intellectually process the giddy jolt in blood pressure as he would a work of art - a 'divine' work of art. But Aschenbach No. 2, emerges as a stalker who takes control of, then replaces, the rational Aschenbach No. 1. Like the original Aschenbach, his sexual-doppelganger is mortified to make human contact with the object of his obsession - and thus Tadzio remains a far-off ideal. Thomas Mann has no mercy for this game. Every shred of self knowledge comes too strong and too late; the excitement of sexual flush is too great to resist. That Venice is gripped by disease means nothing to Aschenbach - except that his game now has higher stakes. When he finally whispers beneath his breath 'I love you,' he knows that all is lost, and the abyss awaits. Is any of this filmable? Perhaps, and Visconti creates a visual feast impossible to look away from. But there are errors: He and Dirk Bogarde create Aschenbach as sympathetic; Mann, again, did not. Aschenbach's POV dominates the film and we are expected to identify. But nowhere on screen is there a man being torn apart from within. Bogarde toggles between the sublimely controlled and the ridiculously temperamental with ease - but what's underneath? Bogard's reactive performance has no mooring. Mann writes a character who is, in his imagination, doing the Dance of the Seven Veils, all too aware of the consequences such freedom invites, yet unable, unwilling to resist. Also, Visconti's screenplay creates a character not in the original - Alfred, a friend of Aschenbach's - to dramatize Mann's discussion of Art and Artists. These scenes are badly written disasters, and the actor who portrays Alfred is difficult to watch. Also, Visconti's Aschenbach is a Gilded-Age Teutonic composer, which I think works for the film; and the symphonies of Mahler substitute for Aschenbach's novels. Mahler's great music unfortunately is badly recorded and very badly played. So Death in Venice, as Visconti hands it to us, is not the complete success it might have been, but as a purely visual experience its power cannot be denied. All students of film, especially cinematography, will want to take a look.


A kooky, but funny bit of diversion. You kind of have to see it from the beginning to follow what's happening, but each report to earth has it's own little joke. Pretty good special effects for a very low budget sci-fi t.v. show. It's fun to watch. Sort of in the vein of Red Dwarf, but even more low budget. For someone who's just coming in in the middle of one of the episodes, what you have to realize is that these guys are all incompetent, because they've been moved up the ladder of command, because the other officers died. Also, the main guys are from the laundry corps, which is why they have laundry in everything. If you like Red Dwarf, you'll probably like this. Slightly different t.v. concept, in that all you see is the Commander's report each day.

It would be better if this were explained more, not just in the very beginning of the first episode, but then it was pretty hard to figure out what had happened in Red Dwarf too, if you hadn't been told.


After the death of all senior officers, Commander Craig-Scott, of the Laundry and Morale Corps, finds himself promoted to command of an intergalactic spaceship owned by Starcups Corporation. Its chief mission is to search for inhabitable planets and, of course, long-term coffee markets.

Craig-Scott and his second in command, Chief Blather, find themselves ill-prepared for command, except insofar as they are fully able to keep the crew's undies clean--which is not to diminish the importance of clean undies, especially when incompetent commanders cause those same undies to be, well, soiled on a regular basis.

The episodes are presented as a series of short, 2-3 minutes reports by the Commander to Earth. The humor is a mix of wry deadpan and outrageous physical comedy. Think Yes Minister meets Red Dwarf, but on a shoe-string budget. All the usual plot devices of sci-fi are here--aliens, nuclear weapons, computer malfunctions--but each is improved by the fresh lemony scent of high-grade laundry detergent.

Commander's Log is definitely low-budget, but the somewhat cheesy effects and props fit the absurd premise of the show. Remember those hilarious hockey helmets they wore on the old Battlestar Galactica? With the "Jofa" brand-name still visible? Okay, there's a lot of that in Commander's Log, but it's cute.

Commander's Log ain't high-art, but that's not what it's trying to be. It's just a little bit of off-kilter fun. It does a good job of being that.


I first heard about Commander's Log when I was on the concom for the local science fiction convention. Craig Bowlsby, Linden Banks, Sophie Banks, and Brian Oberquell came out to show the video and give a couple of panels on making TV on a shoestring budget. I have to say that I was very pleased when I finally had the chance to see the show. Comparisons with Red Dwarf are inevitable, since the first seasons of Red Dwarf were also shot on a low budget (although Commander's Log has to set some kind of record for the least amount of money spent per minute of air time), and thus have to make up for the lack of "eye candy" with good writing and acting. Linden Banks, who plays Chief Petty Officer Blather, does a particularly good job of presenting an earnest but clueless persona.

Bowlsby's original idea was for the story to be told in two minute "interstitials", shown in between other shows over the course of an evening, although for some reason, Space didn't get how cool an idea this would have been, and so the interstitials were all rolled up into a one-hour show, which Space normally showed in two half-hour episodes. The existing DVD doesn't include episode 3 (which premiered at Cascadia-Con in Seattle in 2005) or episode 4 (which was previewed at VCON in Vancouver in 2006), but if you're in touch with your local fannish community, you may catch news of a showing somewhere near you.


I recently saw Episodes 1-4, and now I can't wait for 5 & 6 to be available! (I've heard they are coming soon.) Commander's Log seems destined to become a cult hit among the university crowd and all others with a taste for quirky comedy. It's obvious that the budget was small, but the care taken in crafting the script is quite evident. In fact, the simplicity of the show allowed me appreciate the writing and the acting more. Bowlsby is a master of the put-down... I just wish I could remember all the best ones for later use on unsuspecting co-workers! Let's just say that if you don't like Commander's Log, I'll personally see to it that your undies get extra starch!


"Entrails of a Beauty" features a gang of Yakuza blokes gang-raping a woman and they drug her,and later on she dies and returns as this big slimy monster with a huge penis that has sharp teeth and also a big sloppy vagina.Crazy film,but not very good.The gore doesn't come until the last 20 minutes and most of the film is a standard soft core sex with lots of rape.Worth checking out,unfortunately heavily censored optically and nowhere near as much fun as "Entrails of a Virgin".


I know that Guts of a Beauty and Guts of a Virgin are crap films and are hated by many but I'm gonna put myself under the bus here and say I like 'em, especially Guts of a Beauty (aka Entrails of a Beautiful Woman). Watched it the other night with some folks at the pad and I was surprised how well it actually went over.

Entrails is the type of madcap cheapo horror softcore sleaze epic that you really just don't find too much of outside of Asia (specifically Japan in this case). It's basically a rape/revenge flick with a reincarnated monster instead of some silly shotgun murders or a motorboat-propelled noose or even a ticked off Daddy with a chainsaw...That stuff's just silly. Wouldn't you rather see a hermaphroditic monster with a hilarious little snake monster for a winky?

PERVERSION FACTOR: This movie is high in graphic, sometimes wacky rape sequences, fake pop shots, and satisfying masturbation and monster sex sequences that you oughta like if you like Corman nuggets like Humanoids From The Deep. I dunno, maybe that's a stretch but I personally didn't think Entrails of a Beautiful Woman let me down as an avid fan of Asian sleaze and bizarro B-pics.

Yeah, I know sometimes some of my recommendations are not always everyone's cuppa tea (even for those of you who like the same kind of garbage as I do) but I stand behind this one. 8/10.


This movie, I would like to say, was completely great. I can see how many people would think that it's just a shocker film. This isn't completely untrue, but it's as much of shocker fiction as Chuck Palahniuk's books are. One of my favorite movies of all time, Bijo no Harawata is a certain type of crudely made movie that you can have just about any reaction to. It's scary, funny, silly, gross, full of off-the-top material and to some people, arousing. The fist time I saw this, it was with my friend, and his mother had brought it home for him to see it. He said it was just some screwed up Japanese movie, but I saw so much more of it. It's badly made, yes, but it has a certain type of poignancy as to be beautiful, too. As the Director says himself, this is a shocker movie made for a certain reason. Its like atrophy. If you leave audiences soft, then the entire human race is going to be soft. I think this is a good philosophy, and I agree with it one-hundred percent. Bijo no Harawata is the type of movie that gang rapes the hell out of fitness, yogurt, and all of this new-wave stuff.


GUTS OF A BEAUTY is a bit better than its predecessor GUTS OF A VIRGIN. Although this film isn't really a sequel in the sense that it has absolutely nothing to do with the first installment, I did find BEAUTY to be a little stronger and better put together all-the-way-around than VIRGIN...but then again, that's not really saying much.

BEAUTY starts off as a pretty rough and straight-faced exploit film. A couple of Yakuza cats are holding a young woman prisoner and begin gang raping her in pretty brutal fashion. As this nastiness is going on, the head guy tells the girl that they did the same to her sister and sold her into slavery in Africa, and that they're gonna do the same to her. They then shoot her up with some drugs and rape her some more. She somehow gets away and ends up at a clinic where the nurse there listens to her sob story. The rapee ends up freaking out from the stress of her prior experience and commits suicide. The clinic worker, moved by the young lady's story, decides to take revenge on the gang by seducing one of the lower-level guys and trying to hypnotize him to make him kill the Yakuza leaders. This whole plan backfires, so now Ms. Vigilante-Clinic-Worker gets exposed to much the same treatment that our original rapee got - only worse (some pretty rough butt-rape ensues along with the pre-requisite gang rape...). She too is drugged, but the drug has a strange side effect on our seemingly hapless victim ----- it turns her into a raging hermaphroditic BLOOD DEMON!!! (no sh!t, that's what really happens!!!) This is when BEAUTY really takes off with some pretty f!cking insane kill scenes - including a very classy chest-burst-rape that looks like a cross between ALIEN and a bad porn, and my favorite - a head-engulfed-by-demon-vagina kill (complete with demon vagina-slime...)that has to be seen to be believed...

Definitely some promising stuff going on in GUTS OF A BEAUTY, but still very disjointed feeling. BEAUTY almost feels like two different films being forced together in a non-compatible way. Still, I have to give the film credit - the rape scenes are very rough and misogynistic, and the kill scenes are just totally off the wall. A solid 7/10 for another crazy J-horror "classic".


Kazuo Komizu strikes again with "Entrails of a Beautiful Woman", the sequel to "Entrails of a Virgin". This time around the story is based around a psychologist (Megumi Ozawa) who decides to take on the Yakuza to avenge the suicide of a doped-up and raped patient that winds up on her doorstep one day. When she gets over her head and the Yakuza capture her, she learns their insidious plat of doping up girls and selling them into slavery. It apparently ends badly when she overdoses from the cocaine. But she soon melds with another body to be disposed of to becomedum, dum, dum  "Super Slime Hermaphrodite Zord"! This he, she = it makes mince meat out of the yakuza and saves the daynot really.

Well it is better than "Entrails of a Virgin", but not by much. Most of the film (a whopping 67 minutes) consists of rape and sex with fogging and the usual ho-hum stuff. Almost towards the end we finally get our gore groove on with a few cool sequence (like an Alien-inspired penis-monster through the stomach scene and a gooey asphyxiation) but it still suffers from a hyper low budget feel that makes it fun but can't elevate it from z-grade soft horror-core fare.


If they gave out awards for the most depraved and messed-up movies in the world, Japanese cinema would clean up: their exploitation cinema wipes the floor with most other contenders, the most extreme examples being absolutely jaw-dropping exercises in bad taste, nauseating gore, freakish weirdness, and misogynistic sex.

Guts of a Beauty is a prime example of such whacked out filth, offering discerning viewers just over an hour of full-on debauchery and gratuitous violence topped off with some very insane J-splatter goodness.

The film opens with a young woman named Yoshimi, whose search for her missing sister has led her into the hands of some nasty yakuza, who proceed to rape her and shoot her full of strong dope called Angel Rain. After the gangsters have finished having their fun with the poor woman, she manages to escape and flees to a nearby hospital where sexy psychologist Hiromi (Megumi Ozawa) attempts to help. However, the distraught and confused Yoshimi ends up throwing herself off the hospital roof, turning into a water melon as she hits the ground (at least that what it looked like to me!).

Seeking to avenge Yoshimi's death, Hiromi lures Higashi, a member of the yakuza, to her office, and, whilst jacking him off, hypnotises him into attacking his fellow gang members. After Higashi goes slash happy with a knife in the yakuza HQ, he is severely beaten and stabbed, forced to tell of his meeting with Hiromi, and then hacked into itty bitty pieces.

The psychologist is then captured by the gang, subjected to a spot of forced buggery (whilst simultaneously being forced to give head to a yakuza slut), and injected with Angel Rainafter which she promptly carks it. The gangsters then plonk her body in the boot of their car, along with the remains of Higashi, ready for disposal.

Before they can ditch the corpses, however, the super dope has an unexpected effect on Hiromi: she returns from the dead as a hermaphroditic monster with a toothy penis and a ravenous gash, and, hellbent on revenge, sets about killing the yakuza one-by-one; this leads to some memorable scenes of outrageously gory splatter, including a messy head squish, a man being suffocated by the monster's oozing vagina, and a woman being screwed to death by its giant, gnashing phallus.

As you can most likely tell from the above synopsis, this is some crazy, screwed up stuff, and probably not to the taste of most sane people, but for those weirdos who have long tired of mainstream cinema and are already well versed in Asian excess, Guts Of A Beauty should prove to be delightfully diverting and deviant fun.

7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb.


Just finished this impressively nutty affair and whilst I can't say as it was as good as I had hyped it up to be in my mind it was still an effective and at time pretty nasty piece of brain warped and misogyny fuelled J-trash. Its story tells of a poor gal searching for her sister who winds up getting raped and drugged by Yakuza scumbags, and the helpful lady doctor who sets out to avenge her, doing so in bizarrely gruesome fashion after a similar bout of rape and drugging. Oh yeah and there's a bit of straightforward sex in there as well, sadly its all soft core, as per the Japanese disapproval of below the belt nudity, but pixelation is minimal, in fact only really noticeable in a hilarious blow-job scene. Although writer/director Kazuo "Gaira" Komizu fails in creating an especially compelling tale this is at least pretty scuzzy stuff, diving early on into the well of filth with a pretty unsettling rape (made worse by the fact that the gal looks kinda young, though I'm pretty sure she was of age). Also, for the most part this is pretty professional looking stuff, maybe not stylish but it has a certain flair and the content is handled reasonably well, with particular kudos for largely avoiding having to employ much pixellation. Things are mostly sex/rape based for about two thirds of the sharp runtime and its pretty watchable if you groove to such fare, it gets a bit numbing after a while but the ladies are easy on the eye and it is reasonably harsh at times. The music, from Yôichi Takahashi is occasionally effective, though hardly a key part of the show it does in a few spots complement the action neatly, at any rate enough for me to notice it. More important are the effects, by Nobuaki Koga, which pack an impressively splattery punch when they appear, helped out by the lunatic nature of the climactic shenanigans. Things even pull to a curiously affecting ending, sure it ain't a weepy or anything, but for a film so gutter level for most of its runtime it is relatively poignant. Altogether this is a pretty entertaining diversion for mean spirited trash fans, especially those with a taste for Japanese rapey adventures. I could really have done with a longer revenge section and more gore, also perhaps more of a point/brains, but hey, it kept me watching and it is pretty nicely stocked with memorably wtf moments. So if you dig this sort of degenerate junk, probably worth your while, just maybe don't expect the second coming.


"What Alice Found" was a pleasant discovery. As written and directed by A. Dean Bell, this is combination of a road movie with a cautionary tale, as well as a voyage of discovery.

If you haven't seen the film, maybe you should stop reading here.

Alice is a case study of a young woman that wants to break away from the unhappy life she leads in a New England town. Her pretext for leaving is going to join her best friend, who is away studying at a Miami university. Alice is the product of a single mother's home, one that is struggling to make ends meet, in sharp contrast with the life of ease her friend seems to inhabit. In flashbacks we get to see Alice's life before going on the road.

Alice, like her namesake in "Alice in Wonderland", embarks in a trip to the unknown that life hasn't prepared her for. The highways of America are full of predators in search of the weak and innocent. Alice meets with disaster when her car breaks down the road and a friendly Southern couple come to her assistance when a strange man approaches in the darkness with the excuse he wants to help her. Sandra and Bill convince her to come along in their plush R.V. on her way down South.

Nothing has prepared Alice for what this couple turns out to be. After all, in her sheltered life, she hasn't dealt with what Sandra and Bill, her new benefactors do during the overnight stays at the rest stops in the American highways. It comes as a shock to her the realization that the kind Sandra is nothing but a prostitute that plies her trade among the truck driving populace one meets in those places.

Alice, brilliantly played by Emily Grace, is a study in how the young woman awakens to the new reality she can't escape. In fact, Sandra makes it seem so easy that Alice tries her luck at the oldest profession on earth in order to raise some badly needed money.

Judith Ivey gives a tremendous performance as Sandra. Ms. Ivey is perfect as the seemingly normal woman, one wouldn't suspect she is doing the nasty with clients she and Bill find along the route they travel. Ms. Ivey is amazing when she reveals the truth about her life to an accusing Alice. As the husband, Bill Raymond is good in his portrayal as the husband, that in reality is a procurer.

Under the excellent direction of Mr. Dean Bell, the film is not afraid to go to places mainstream films dare not to go. Congratulations to this director who has written a plausible story and has gathered the perfect cast to play it for our benefit.


Until I did a Web search on "What Alice Found", I didn't realize that the name of the film is embedded in the title of one of Lewis Carroll's books. The book's complete title is "Through the Looking-Glass (And What Alice Found There)".

The Alice of the film comes from a background quite different from that of Lewis Carroll's Alice. Her fresh and assertive character, however, is similar. The movie Alice begins as a young woman in New Hampshire who steals money from her ass-patting boss and takes off for Miami, vaguely planning to study marine biology and play with dolphins. She encounters a middle-aged couple in a motor home (the husband's retired from the military) who rescue her from a strange man at a roadside stop and from her car's breakdown (perhaps caused by their mechanizations).

As it turns out, the couple is heavily involved in truck stop prostitution and see sweet, young Alice as a promising recruit. The wife (played by Judith Ivey in a performance worthy of some big award) buys Alice sexy clothing and shows her how to apply hot makeup. Initially, Alice passively accepts her ministrations and, with the couple's instructions, does several tricks. The encounter shown in the most detail is quite different from most cinematic sex but may be typical of what most often happens in real life. The man is shy and deferential and apologizes for "finishing" too fast.

What's wonderful about Alice (and different from her prototypes from Clarissa to Sister Carrie) is that she learns from her experiences and asserts herself. This is how things really are. Prostitution is everywhere. People are neither all good or all bad. Alice leaves the motor home with her well-earned money and a feeling of mutual respect.


Writer-director Dean Bell offered many surprises and engaging moments in this modest yet compelling road film. His dialogue was snappy, and his use of very short flashback sequences was especially effective in the film's narrative structure.

At the heart of the film is the character of Alice, who is running away from her New England past in a desperate effort to get to Florida. Along the way, she travels with a pair of eccentrics, Bill and Sandra, who incredibly make the attempt to groom Alice as a prostitute earning money at truck stops.

As a newcomer performing in her first screen role, Emily Grace as Alice is sensational. There is not a false note in her character choices. But the film is worth watching above all for the wily yet sensitive character of Sandra, as masterfully created by Judith Ivey. There is an especially sly subtext to virtually every moment in which Ivey is on-camera. As a viewer, I found myself stopping the tape, hitting rewind, and reviewing her scenes in order to attempt to discern the psychological subtleties.

The film raises the following question about the characters: Are Bill and Sandra good Samaritans, or are they an evil pair of Dickensian predators preying upon the youthful Alice? One of the strengths of the film is that it never quite fully answers that question. Alice seems more self-confident than she started out as a result of her experiences with Bill and Sandra. But is she really a better person?

Part comedy, part road picture, and part coming-of-age drama, this carefully crafted film succeeds in involving us on many levels.


This is a low budget, well acted little gem. Alice, a small town Massachusetts teenager, fed up with her existence, takes to the road to escape her mother who flips burgers and her own job as a check out in a super market. She sets out for Florida and to stay with her wealthier high school friend who is a freshman at Miami. After her car suspiciously breaks down on the thruway and she loses all her money, she ends up with a retired couple in an RV who also happen to be traveling to Florida.. The couple, brilliantly played by Judith Ivy and Bill Raymond are overly hospitable and, it turns out, a prostitute and and her pimp. Slowly, Alice is lured into truck stop prostitution as the RV meanders down the thruway in the general direction of Florida. Through intermittent flashbacks, we learn a little more about Alice and her desire to leave tiny Milford. We also see the couple in a new light and their life and the choices made by the couple and Alice all seem quite credible. An excellent, well made film that you will think about when it is over.


Having worked professionally with young girls on the run, I found this film surprisingly authentic. I would never have found it had a friend not loaned his videotape. There are classic themes here: Coming of Age, Mother/Daughter Estrangement, The Limited Choices of the Underprivileged, Who is the Good Samaritan, Tragedy is in Every Life & the many layers or relationships. Flashbacks are meaningful (when Alice acquires a gun we know she has some familiarity with how to use it) and it does not end in cliché. The cast really "sells" their roles. It is adult material and the audio is a bit too grainy. Allow it 15 minutes to so to draw you in.


It's a sad state in corporate Hollywood when a movie surprises you by not taking routes you've been seeing in the movie house since day one. I had literally no idea how this film was going to end, because it went left when I expected it to go right, zigged when I expected a zag, etc. This could have easily unraveled into generic suspense thriller, or depressing white trash drama, but it stayed a course all its own till the end. It is a sad story, though. Not because of what happens to Alice, but because of the sad world that surrounds her and leads her down this path.

The plot has a quiet dignity of form that's usually reserved for theater, but the pacing could use some tightening up. Either way, it's a very good film, and for some reason I suspect sour grapes from those who have scored this one low.


While I can understand some of the points made regarding the cinematography (I thought a more purposeful approach would have better supported the low-fi, home movie feel) I must say that I thought the script and acting of WHAT ALICE FOUND were excellent! Dean Bell has crafted a real gem that Judith Ivey charms with character-driven delight. Her performance of Sandra is a pleasure -- unfolding, alternately, as diabolical and romantic. We are at once intrigued and repulsed by her actions... and never given more information than is necessary. Her's and the supporting cast's efforts meet Bell's post-modern fairy tale with arms wide open. Emily Grace's Alice is infused with a doey-eyed magic. She seems to mold like clay before us, morphing into some sort of beautiful, lost beast. By the end, we are at odds with words, as she is, saying goodbye to her mother. Kudos also should be doled out to Jane Lincoln Taylor -- whose Mother provides the right amount of tragic historic weight -- and Justin Parkinson -- whose shy first-time John, Sam, provides one of the sweetest, if not most awkward, sex scenes in film. Bell has created a first rate story and assembled a plethora of talent to make it.


This is a very amazing movie! The characters seemed so realistic to me, it was hard to believe they weren't real people. Being from the South, I thought Judith Ivey's character seemed especially real, and as everyone else has mentioned, she does an outstanding acting job. The characters are not beautiful and look nothing like the average Hollywood stars - their imperfect bodies and personalities seem so much more natural and real.

One reviewer mentioned that the main character, Alice, had no good reason to run away from home, which is true - she didn't have any moral or upstanding reason to run away, such as escaping child abuse, etc. I thought that she was just fed up with dead-end jobs in a working class life and wanted to flee down to Florida where her friend lived the appealing and privileged life of a college student in Miami. The actress shows Alice's confusion, uncertainty, and questioning turn into decisiveness and willingness to take control of her life with impressive naturalness. The film also shows how Alice is trapped in situations with seemingly no options, causing her to panic, take action, and reach out for help.

At first, the grainy filming style put me off and made me think that it was a very low budget or homemade movie, but in actuality it is very well done. The home movie quality really makes you feel like you are there with the characters, a part of their RV trip across the country. This is definitely a film worth seeing, although I don't quite understand all the descriptions of it as a heart-warming coming of age tale. It is rather vulgar and disturbing at times, even if it is not completely sad in the end.


There's nothing much to the story. A young woman steals some money from the dreary Vermont supermarket where she works, decides to run away to Florida where he has dreams of attending school with her friend Julie, and encounters an odd couple on the highway. If you remember the elderly couple from "Rosemary's Baby," you have some idea of what these two are like. Bill has a comical face and is retired from the Army. Sandra is an ex stripper now become a truckstop whore, although we don't find this out at once. They're affectionate, helpful, and full of common sense.

They more or less adopt the girl, Alice, and promise to give her a ride in their elaborate RV, although they are not driving "directly" to Florida.

This is where the film could have gone one-hundred-percent wrong. All the film makers had to do was turn the elderly couple into the personification of evil. They would take the virginal Alice (handcuffed to the bed or whatever) and sell her body to any greaseball driver who has a lot of money and likes rough sex. (Alice would have had a heck of a time escaping, with lots of aborted attempts, before the final shootout.) But, no. The couple really IS pretty nice, and Alice is far from virginal. Alice overhears Sandra with a customer, asks about the business, and tries to turn a trick on her own. Bill prevents anything from happening and insists she do the job right if she's going to do it at all. They don't talk her into it. They guide her.

Alice makes several hundred dollars, which is several hundred dollars more than she had when she met the couple. Bill and Sandra keep her money in the safe where customers aren't going to find it. Alice misunderstands. She doesn't find whoring very pleasant work, and she thinks she'll never be paid off because every time she asks to be dropped off, Sandra responds with, "What? Not here, honey. Not in the middle of nowhere." However, after she is talked into handing her gun over to Sandra, the couple give her the money she wants and rather lovingly release her to continue her trip to Florida.

You know what I found the most tragic moment in the film? It had nothing to do with prostitution or thievery. Alice has been expecting to room with her friend Julie after she arrives in Miami. Julie is after all a legitimate student. But when Alice calls her friend from someplace in Alabama to assure her she's on her way but will be late, Julie hesitates and says, "Well -- my mother doesn't think you should room with us. And to tell you the truth, my roommate isn't cool on it either. I invited you down, sure, but I thought it was just like a visit for a week or something. Go back to Milford, Alice" There is a long silence before Alice hangs up.

Only one shot is fired (a few white frames of film) and no one is hit. Tears appear only once. Nobody slugs anybody else. No car explodes in a fireball. No cop chases them down the Interstate.

The direction is occasionally clumsy. Too much cross-cutting between Sandra trying to disarm Alice and Alice's hand holding the wobbling pistol. There is hardly any musical score. There is brief male and female nudity and it's awkward, as it's probably supposed to be. Alice isn't unattractive but she is not babalicious either. She sports Asiatic eyes, a kind of robust version of Molly Parker. The cinematography looks cheap and the colors are washed out. The direction is a straightforward narrative, with a few illuminating flashbacks. Nothing is wasted. And it was all evidently shot around Danbury, Connecticut. The city sticks in my mind because I drove through it after one of its floods and remember the cars caked with a film of mud all the way up to the door handles.

I don't know exactly What Alice Found. (I dread even THINKING that the answer to the riddle is that "she found herself.") The acting isn't bad at all. Judith Ivey is better than that. It's definitely worth seeing, a quiet, orderly film that treats the audience like adults.


Six out of seven people who took the time to comment on this movie have very positive responses. The one negative review happens to reside (or did) on the first page of the movie's location in the IMDb.

I found "What Alice Found" to be one of the best movies almost no one's heard of that I have seen this year. It's 6.4 rating is misleading and may be more a function of the difficult subject matter than the quality of the movie. Who would think that a movie purportedly about truck stop prostitution would be worth seeing? Guess again.

For me, "Alice" was a positively gripping psychological thriller. I was virtually on the edge of my seat the entire time. It's a very credible story with a realistic script and is very well cast. In a fairer world, actress Judith Ivey would win awards for keeping you guessing whether she was good or evil.

Ignore the rating and see this terrific movie. (And by the way, I wish there was a soundtrack album.)


At the first glance of this film the camera angles immediately make you think that this is a low budget film that will bore you to tears or make you press the stop button. Surprisingly, the storyline comes forward and is played through the screen in a way that I feel most would relate to. I scored this movie at 7 but like most would, felt it should be a 10, you will understand as you watch it because its a rare thing for a film to be in touch with a persons feelings and how life should be shown by a TV set. Most films try to leave you in awe of their special effects, twists and turns etc, this film dealt a true hand showed a good film backed by an Alabama style storyline that most would feel was a good waste of a couple of hours. Wish I had put the popcorn maker on after all well done!


A great performance by Emily Grace! I stumbled upon this movie while browsing my satellite listings and was curious by the summary of the plot giving by my satellite service provider. I was high entertained and had much compassion for the character "Alice" played by Emily Grace. The story had me guessing in what would happen to Alice and was not predicable. The overall story was refreshing and had some great twists to the supporting characters. The ending of the story ended on a rather fair way. I will purchase this DVD to add to my library. I am a new fan of Emily Grace and I high anticipate in seeing more from her performances.


I just saw this on cable. I liked it. It held my interest and the dramatic choices were good. The old couple were very good and good at being subtly creepy. The cinematography is not so great, but the shabby video also adds to the sense of realism, so its a trade-off, you know? At times the girl would hit the New England accent to hard. The accent would sort of come and go. Anyway, I thought the film was well done overall, though. The storyline was strong and dramatic tension was held because you felt their was some subtle mystery going on, even though things seemed mundane. Good job on a low budget. Another good SUNY Purchase filmmaker. Way to go.


Judith Ivey as the scamming old whore is awesome. Emily Grace the young girl. Is innocent and exciting as she learns whats going down. Excellent direction and camera. Story is dark and disturbing.Supporting cast is good. Shows what happens and can happen with a run of bad luck. Great independent film. Small cast. Pace is slow at first and then moves good. A good movie to show your teen age daughter who has aspirations of leaving home early, for the open road and adventure. This movie, film has a low budget feel to it, but it works because of the low lifes and areas that these people move in. I will never stop a rest stop again with out thinking of this movie and checking my tires before I go.


at the story. It is reality mixed with Americana- and very original.

Emily Grace is a young girl tired of her boring life working at a minimum wage job, in New England. Her sleazy boss propositions her- she quits and takes a little bit of cash from the register. Driving from New Hampshire to Miami, Florida, is not a short trip, and her Ford Escort dies out. She then meets a personable older couple, portrayed by Judith Ivey and Bill Raymond. They have an RV and graciously offer to help her out- it isn't safe for a girl to be alone on the road. Especially I-95.

Emily Grace is very realistic as Alice, and initially lets the Judith Ivey character help her; buy her decent clothes, cosmetics, etc. At first it is a nice vacation for Alice, who hopes to hook up with her girlfriend, who attends college in Miami. There is interesting cinematography, as the trio drives the RV down to Florida: the rest-stops, bland scenery and eventually beautiful mountains of North Carolina.

Eventually there is something awry, and the Ivey character apparently has fabricated stories about her daughter, as well as her husband, who now seems a bit sinister.

I will not spoil the outcome of this film- but it ends positively as the audience waits in suspense- This film reminded me a bit of Spielberg's "Duel"- while it was initially not as menacing- the moral of the story is - you never know what people are thinking- especially if you are driving cross-country. Beware!!. You will enjoy this film.


This is most likely the best picture not many will see. It presented a culture in a real unhollywoodized way. A must see for all who like Indie and for those who don't. I think this movie will draw more into the Indie scene. The acting was top notch! The character of Alice was portreyed so well. With perfect akwardness. This movie ahould be brought to the mainstream! I think it would do phenominally! ALICE is the most real look at an element of our culture that I have seen since GO ASK ALICE. A look that is untouched by the Hollywood hand. Movies like this show young people that these things aren't glamorous but that they are real and compelling. If you liked PIECES OF APRIL you will love this one!


I wasn't expecting a whole lot when I rented this film, as a lot of independent films seem to be a bit overrated these days (well, Hollywood films too for that matter) but this movie was fantastic, really great, it's too bad it didn't reach a huge audience because it's just superb. I really love Alice's determination, it really makes me look upon my life as a gift, and i see how privileged I am just to have an education. But all of that aside, this movie really proves that a good artist can tell a good story, no matter what the budget, it's an excellent film and everyone should watch it, they will love it and definitely learn something from it. I don't have to be roger ebert to know it's one of the best movies I've seen all year, and certainly one of the most truthful.


Fantastic film! Wow - this is really a treat. I can't believe that I discovered such a gem of a movie.

A pretty young girl traveling south to Florida meets a friendly older couple with an RV, after she has a flat at a rest stop. However she learns that things aren't as they seem and the couple gets a bit creepy after she spends some time on the road with them.

Everyone in it was just so perfect for their parts you just about believe that you are watching this happen in real life in front of you.

Newcomer Emily Grace did a fantastic job as the really cute, yet somewhat shy Alice. Emily gives you the feeling that you can understand what she is experiencing and you can see just how she got into the situation that develops in the film. I'm sure we'll be seeing Emily in more films in the future.

Contrary to what some others have said, the lighting and photography in this were just perfect. The editing was done well too - just the right way to put together images of the highway to give you the feeling that you are traveling along with the cast on their road trip.

I didn't see it on the big screen, but I can only urge everyone to go out and see it. More films like this are *exactly* what we need.

SF


"What Alice Found" is the greatest movie that nobody's ever heard of! I underestimated it when I heard of it, and I though that it would all sex, no plot, and just really stupid, but in reality, it was really good. They say all indie movies suck, but this one, and "Napoleon Dynamite" didn't suck. I asked my friend, who'd seen it before I did, and she said that Alice has all these three-ways, and you see all this nudity, but no, there is no three-way that I remember, and little nudity. The movie did have a point, and it taught me never trust hitchhikers. I liked that in the end, they got Alice a little dolphin In the end, on her way to Flordia. I totally suggest seeing this movie.


I gave this 9 stars out of a possible 10. If it had had just a teensy weensy bit more plot line I would have given it 10.

Nonetheless it is a highly interesting film.

Judith Ivey, playing a likable old floozy, should have been given the Oscar for her performance.

Emily Grace (portraying Alice), whom I had never seen before, also does an excellent job and has THE sexiest body I think I've ever seen on film.

In a beat to heck old car, Alice has lit out from the n.e. for Florida where she has a friend (or maybe it's her sister, I'm not sure, and that's my fault, not the film's), and high hopes of going to college, which she and her family can't really afford.

She seems rather vulnerable out there on the road alone, and sure enough she encounters some slightly rough looking characters and shortly after that it's discovered there's a hole in one of her tires.

She is at a rest stop at the time and is assisted by a woman named Sandra and her husband, Bill, an older couple who are traveling in an RV.

They're going south, to Florida, and take her under their wing, but is everyone quite the way they're presenting themselves? Flashbacks and paranoia enter the story as our young heroine learns some new lessons about life.


Excellent story, wonderful acting, amazing production values and a cool, action-packed short with a perfect twist at the end. What a great short film!

I saw this film in Vail or Aspen at a film festival and was wowed by it. Then I saw it again at another festival (where it won again) and I was even more impressed because subtle touches become evident the second time around - for a short film, this packs a lot of clever layers into a short time.

AWOL is not for the faint of heart, but it is very well done and completely impressive for a short film - for any film actually. It's an interesting story told very well, and every scene moves the story, which reveals good film-making instincts went into making this film. The film looks gorgeous and David Morse is also stunning, with a dynamic performance delivered in every scene. Watching his character attempt to defeat the curveballs life is throwing him makes a great viewing experience.

It also should be noted, that when tortures of war are in the headlines everyday, the lines between reality, good and evil, can get very gray while the rhetoric gets loud and attempts to make things black and white. AWOL smartly allows the audience to decide for themselves what they think the message is, what is real and what is not, which adds to the mystery.

Both times I've seen it, the audience was WAY more into this movie than the others playing with it, which is saying a lot. There are a lot of shorts out there right now, but few deliver the kind of all around excellence and complex subject matter that AWOL does.

It sounds to me like the previous reviewer is off his or her rocker, or has some personal agenda, because this really is a great example of short independent film-making. I see a LOT of short films, and I must say if only ALL the shorts making the festival rounds were this good, THEN the shorts business would have some serious legs.


I too saw this film at a film festival, but unlike the previous poster I found it both interesting and original. In a sea of terrible features, shorts are often twice as bad do to small budgets and poor acting, A.W.O.L however is a taut little thriller that hearkens back to "The Outer Limits." The performances are solid, not that one would expect otherwise from Morse or McGinley, and the directing is sharp and on the money. I personally find it difficult to reconcile the previous poster's comments with the film I saw. A.W.O.L is quite aptly written by Shane Black, who, as is usually the case, plays with the genre both paying homage to the stories pulp sensibilities, while simultaneously winking at the audience and never taking itself too seriously. All in all A.W.O.L proves to be an extremely well executed and fun film.


If you're into alternate realities, contemplating what's real and what's just a fantasy, this is an edge-of-your-seat thriller that'll keep you guessing and really make you think. Try to get a copy of it and see for yourself! I watched it at an L.A. film festival recently and it was by far the best one in the group that I saw. It helped that it was actually about something, unlike the others that were screened. It's very well directed and the production value is top notch. I would compare it to Jacob's Ladder in that it keeps you guessing as to what the true reality is of the world that we're in. You should definitely try to hunt this film down and if it's screening at any festivals near you, try to check it out.


This movie takes the psychological thriller to new depths. Well written by Shane Black, the film is executed phenomenally by the cast under the watchful eye of Director Jack Swanstrom. Clearly, Swanstrom is a director that we should look out for in the future. His strength lies in his adaptation of personal experiences both on screen and in the classroom.

This thought-provoking film is a must see for anyone who can appreciate action, drama, suspense, and mystery. As with all good films, the viewer goes on a journey of their own to find their individual interpretation of the movie. The mystical aspect of the film is intriguing and adds to the suspense. You find your self looking for the answers along with Marquette. Audiences have liked the movie on the festival circuit - with many awards received, they must have agreed that A.W.O.L. (2006) is well worth watching.

I'd love to own a copy - how do I go about getting one?


After being off the air for a while, Columbo returned with some new made-for-TV mysteries that, while not being as good as the original series, are better than the shows that were done in the later '90s.

"Murder Can Be Hazardous to Your Health" used the then (and I guess now, if you think about it) true crime shows as the situation for a murder. The murder is committed by a very successful, egomaniacal true crime show host, George Hamilton (in a nice bit of casting). His chain-smoking nemesis, who lost the job to him, played by Peter Haskell, attempts to blackmail Hamilton when he discovers a porno video Hamilton made with an underage actress in his salad days. Hamilton uses Haskell's cigarettes to deliver the death blow via poison, giving himself an alibi as well.

Columbo is brought in to find out what happened. You know the rest. Highly entertaining.


I sort of liked this Columbo movie its atmosphere, which was real thriller like and its approach even at times reminded me of film-noir, in the movie its first 30 minutes or so. It's really nice and done in a good old fashioned way, with the right camera angles and use of light. It doesn't mean instantly that this movie is a brilliant one though but its solid enough to consider this a good late Columbo movie entry. It's definitely a better movie than the average 'later' Columbo movie entry.

26 years after his previous Columbo movie appearance, George Hamilton returns once again to play the main lead opposite Peter Falk, again as the murderer, in a total different and new role of course. I liked him in his role and he was a good Columbo 'villain', who gave the good old Lieutenant some good competition. They had some nice sequences together. Problem with the 'modern' new Columbo movies always sort of had been that it didn't feature a good well known actor opposite Peter Falk. This movie obviously doesn't suffer from this problem. But I must say though that this movie doesn't feature Peter Falk at this best. He has certainly played the character better and his performance isn't quite consistent enough within this movie, which is probably also due to he movie its director Daryl Duke, who also directed the really dreadful movie "Tai-Pan", among many other projects.

It has a rather good and enjoyable story but the fact that the same sort of plot to cover up the murder had been used before in an earlier Columbo movie also doesn't help of course. It got used before in the 1975 movie "Columbo: Playback". Nevertheless it of course also still has plenty enough 'original' moments of its own with its story, even though of course in essence every Columbo movie is more or less the same. But oh well, that is what made the Columbo series so great and consistent. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

It also is true that within this movie more clues than usual are left out for the Lieutenant, which doesn't mean that the movie its murderer is more stupid or sloppy but I more see it as the writers being more overly enthusiastic than others. It doesn't make the movie or story bad and it in fact perhaps even makes it more enjoyable, to see Columbo hard at work and discovering all kind of small but important clues. Luckily the movie is also filled with some enjoyable effective relieving Columbo-comedy.

Simply a good late Columbo movie entry.

7/10


Back in the 60's, this grim study of Joy, a young proletarian wife, was the introduction to the career of Ken Loach, who became one of the most distinguished and respected British filmmakers of all time. By then I knew very little about Brecht, politics or the reality of the under-privileged, and I was quite impressed by the aesthetic of the film, its free style, its austere color cinematography, and Joy's monologues in front of the camera. I was also much surprised to find that Terence Stamp (who had become a celebrity, thanks to "Billy Budd", "The Collector" and "Modesty Blaise") had so little screen time. Although 20th Century Fox distributed "Poor Cow" in Panama, Loach did not stay in mainstream cinema (which this film hardly is) and I lost contact with his films. I just heard of his successes, "Kes", "Family Life", "Black Jack". until I caught up in the 80's. The beautiful title song by Donovan, by the way, is available in his anthology "Troubadour".


Ken Loach showed the world the down-and-out flip side of Swinging London with "Poor Cow", about London woman Joy (Carol White) hooking up with a thief and having a son with him, only to see the man end up in the slammer. While his friend (Terence Stamp) manages to help her out some, he proves to be little better in what a loser he is. It soon becomes clear to Joy that she's going to have to make a serious decision about where she's going in her life.

One thing that I determined - I don't know whether or not this is accurate - was a use of irony in the movie. Her name is Joy, but she experiences no joy in her life. Even if that wasn't intended, it's still a movie that I recommend to everyone. Featuring songs by Donovan (one of which - "Colors" - appeared in another Terence Stamp movie: "The Limey" (which, incidentally, came out in 1999, when I was as old as my parents were when "Poor Cow" came out)).


One of the best of the 'kitchen-sinks'. Fantastic views of London and invaluable snippets of working class life of the 60's. Loach's eye seems to capture everything, yet makes no judgment - a taste of things to come. As with 'Kes', 'Riff-raff' and 'Sweet Sixteen', it serves as a cinematic social history of Britain. Carol White is completely convincing, you love her, fancy her, want to take care of her, but hold your head at her self-destructive decisions and still follow her in some vain hope. Well backed up by Terence Stamp, ( fresh off 'The collector', also catch 'The Hit' ) and a plethora of English faces ( all looking very young ). Pefectly set to Donovan's dulcet tones. Stamp sings 'Yellow is the color', in a lovely scene, ending with him saying, " Getting better, ain't I " ( song also used in 'The rules of Attraction' - I think ) Watch Carol Whites screen mum getting ready to 'go out and get a bloke', putting on her false eye-lashes to the sound of 'Rosie' on the radio - priceless. A treasure for anyone who was around at the time and a reminder of how good life is now in England. Incidentally Soderburgh used clips from 'Poor cow' in 'The Limey'.


Recently released on British DVD, this is a good movie (as long as you have an attention span and IQ of more than a fruit fly). Not as depressing as it could have been, this is kitchen-sink at its most dirty. Terrance Stamp is great in it, the music is sweet, Carol White is very believeable as the single mum tart who can't stop loving criminals.

My favourite scene is where Carol and her friend who works in the pub with her (the one with the enormous beehive hairdo which comes down over one eye) sit outisde and gossip about all the men who walk past.

The only thing that marred this was the shakey acting of Carol's first husband, but if you can get past that, you're OK. And Donovan provides some of the most languid, mellow, bittersweet lyrics to come out of the 60s.


Not a film of entertainment, but of real lives & limited ambition for the working class in 60's. Enjoyable because of my upbringing, not sure it'd work for most people. Typical Loach. Full of TV actors/actresses of 70's/80's/90's.


This Is one of those classic American made for TV movies that are just made for watching on a rainy afternoon. Although the script is highly implausible it never takes itself too seriously and neither do the cast which leads to a great tongue in cheek murder mystery / horror film best enjoyed with a bid bag of popcorn or box of chocolates. A big bonus of this film is the fantastic location filming and despite the strange goings on and even stranger residents round Lake Tommahawk I for one would not mind living there!

All in all a great film to watch over and over again.


The premise of the story is common enough; average family wants out of the rat race; wants to find the simple life....so they move from Sherman Oaks,California to Lake Tomahawk; kids in tow.

The lake is beautiful, they have leased an old house....but wait; there may be something in the lake; people are being murdered, and no one knows how (never mind why). Gerald McRaney is excellent, a familiar face for Lifetime viewers; Valerie Harper is also good; since this film was made in '88 maybe the writer should produce a sequel!.

You will also enjoy Barry Corbin as the town eccentric, and Darryl Anderson as a Bruce Dern-lookalike/crazed military man.

While the story plot is a bit over the top; if you are a movie buff you will be reminded of similar scenarios from ""Psycho""; ""Deliverance""; as well as other horror stories of that genre. Several camera shots and sequences will give you a sense of deja vu.

Sit back and enjoy; if you don't take it too seriously it is very entertaining; and better than, for example the more recent movie:

""I Know What You Did Last Summer""; it seems they made better movies in the good old 80's!.


Rachel and Chuck Yoman (Valerie Harper, Gerald McRaney), decided the city is too busy and dangerous for their family, so they packed up their reluctant son (Gregory Togel) and daughter (Tammy Lauren) and moved back to a lake like the one Rachel lived at as a child.

They say you can not go home again but this is an ideal rural home with what at first seems like a Mayberry feel. Later the residence seems to be more like the people in Deliverance. Soon bodies start turning up and everybody looks suspect with the exception of a few friendly faces. This does not keep the family from enjoying running around and messing around in the woods.

We find that they have to be super ignorant to find the secrets and not tell anyone until they get ax-cepted as the antagonists.

Can the ignored young Stevie save his parents or will their pursuer(s) put his/her foot in it?

This film is more than most parodies as it was played with strait faces. They could not have chosen better actors and Daryl Anderson was exceptionally creepy. An added plus is that they let us know what is happening before the characters find out, instead of pulling a clue out of the hat after the fact. Anyway this made for TV movie is good for a few laughs.


Closet Land. The title itself conjures up thoughts of secrets. And that is really what's at the heart of this Amnesty International film. Government secrets, personal secrets, both are integral pieces of this story.

By far the greatest acting seen in too long a time, both Alan Rickman and Madeleine Stowe were phenomenal in their portrayal of a Government Interrogator and Victim respectively. With only the two actors in this unusual standard length film, it is instantly clear that both actors were dedicated and talented enough to pull the viewer into this tiny bubble of a world and shut the door.

A WORD OF CAUTION...

What isn't mentioned on the description of this movie is that there is a subplot that deals with childhood sexual abuse. While there is no graphic detail about the abuse, the nature of it may be difficult for some viewers to watch - especially given the intensity of the film on whole.

I'm not a big fan of Amnesty International films, but this movie drew me in because the acting was so exceptional, and I can't help but make this movie one of my personal favorites.


"Closet Land" was sponsored by Amnesty International and does have a lot of political overtones, but there's so much more to this richly stirring story than that...

This is not just about the political tension of the late 80s - it's about the personal persecution that a woman puts herself through as a child who was molested by a family friend. We see the subtle allusion to the parallels of a dishonest government/society structure and the culture of sexual predation where one in four young children are molested and one in three women has experienced some form of rape.

For me, it brings up a chilling chicken-and-egg question: does the attitude of our sexual repression-leading-to-predation create the political environment of fear and censoring, or does the socio-political dysfunction fuel a culture of sexual predation? The psychological ramifications of even asking this question force us to a place where we are brought to develop our own answers.

In the end, our young lady writer (Stowe) has a similar moment to the one at the end of Hensen's "Labyrinth" - she realizes in one shining, brilliant moment that the idea of having her power stolen from her by the secret police (Rickman) is an illusion. No one can steal your power - they can only trick you into giving it up, and then you have the right to take it back at any time.

This is not a movie to be entered into lightly, and you most certainly do ENTER it. The minimalist aspects coupled with the child-like animation stirs the deepest parts of the psyche and leaves no viewer unchanged.


This film hits the heart with a reality like no other I have seen. It shows what us what we, in a democratic society, take for granted, and just what we are lucky enough not to be experiencing. The acting in the film is superb, sometimes you have to remind yourself that the movie is a dramatization, and not real life. Mr. Rickman does wonders with his role (as he does with all roles) making the interrogator fully dimensional and human. The set is incredible. It gives the feeling of 'in the round" theater. Which does not add or take away from the emotion of the action. This movie seeks to open the eyes of the viewer, and I'd say they have made a success of that goal.


Acting, of course! Think about it, Closet Land could easily have turned out so horribly - an entire movie filmed in one room with only two people, they better have some damned interesting things to chat about.

But it didn't turn out horribly. On the contrary, thanks to incredible portrayals by both Stowe and Rickman, Closet Land is a masterpiece in its own right.

That's not to say it is for everyone. Persons who have had their attention spans decreased through glitzy sex scenes and random gun fire may have trouble digesting Closet Land. However, those who can appreciate good story telling without explosions should give it a look (no matter how many video stores you have to call to find someone who has it in stock).


This movie gave me recurring nightmares, with Alan Rickman's voice representing an omnipotent, insidious, fascist ruler. The scariest movie I have ever seen - psychological terror more powerful than anything any "horror" movie has ever achieved. Alan Rickman's voice will always represent to me the power and terror of a totalitarian state, reminiscent of Orwell's 1984. This movie describes to those who don't care the reality of a large part of current world governments. This film is disturbing, but in a way that everyone should watch it - it's a description of a reality that no one should ever have to experience, but so many do.


"Closet Land" tells a powerful story and has many different subtle elements. You could read lots of stuff about the movie's plot before hand, but you don't really need to. All you need to know is that the movie is all about an interrogation. Along the way, we learn lots of things about the interrogator and the person being interrogated. We also learn that the world can be a dark and scary place. Especially when you have absolutely no control over it.

In the end, the movie amounts to a warning (really though, the movie has several different aspects to it) about what happens to people's freedoms when they "look the other way" and ignore injustices happening to those around them.

If you've got about an hour and a half and know where you can rent this, I strongly recommend that you do so.


Like Margot in "Fear of Fear" falls victim of her ambitious husband, like Fox in "Fox and his friends" is driven into suicide by his boyfriend who took all his money away, like Xaverl Bolwieser in "The Stationsmaster's Wife" who goes to prison in order to give his cheating wife a chance to get rid of him, like Hermann Hermann who seeks refuge in insanity in order to flee his stupid wife and bankrupt company, so also Hans Epp is a victim of the German "Wirtschaftswunder"-Society after World War II in R.W. Fassbinder's "The Merchant of the Four Seasons". Simply from the fact that Fassbinder played through social abuse between men and women as well as between hetero- and homosexual couples, it should be clear that he does not favorize any sex.

In Hans Epp's case there are the women who drive him into despair, illness and finally death. When he comes back from the Foreign Legion where he flew because he could not stand anymore the pressure of his mother, she complains that he is still alive while the good boy from her neighbor had been killed. Then Hans gets a job as a policeman, but is surprised by his foreman while he is seduced by a prostitute. After having lost his job, he works as a fruit-merchant with little income, going from backyard to backyard "crying out" his produce. His mother, one of his sisters and her husband are ashamed to have such a "street-worker" in their family. "The love of his life" (she has no name in the movie) refuses to marry him because his job does not fit together with her social status and origin. So he marries Irmgard whom he does not love and who does not love him. From her constant pressure on him he flees into drinking. One evening, after his wife was stalking him, he explodes and hits her. She flees to her family for which this event was just what they have been waiting for. When Irmgard is calling a lawyer for divorce, Hans suffers a heart attack. Imrgard decides to stay with him, but from now on, he is not allowed anymore to do heavy work and to drink alcohol. So he starts to feel more and more superfluous, gets quieter and quieter and more and more depressive. When he finds out that Irmgard cheats him, he chooses to end his life, but not like Hermann Hermann by having a trip into the light of madness, but he drinks himself to death in front of Imrgard, their little daughter and his boozing buddies. Fassbinder said in an interview that Hans knew what he was doing. The question, however is: Did Hans just kill himself because he could not stand anymore his miserable environment, or did he make self-justice?


I'd be hard pressed to say what is it that makes this film so important to me. While a very good movie, this is definitely not the most outstanding Fassbinder's film. Still along with the American Soldier it keeps making it into my personal list of favorites whenever I get to thinking about it.


What kind I say about this movie. well for starters, I thought that this film was okay, not the greatest not worst. I said this cause I thought that the script was great and original, really different and refreshing. Now I wouldn't say that it's the greatest film that I've seeing cause of the acting. The actors that played each role, seems that they played them without emotions, as if they took the life out of them. When the wife laughed or cried, this didn't look real to me for some reason, that's just an example, but sincerely all the characters didn't act real at all. I wish I could say more positive things about this film so you guys can see it at least once but how can I do that since I know that I'm not going to see this movie again. I rented this film from the library of my school, without hearing anything about the film itself or the director. I took a chance because the story that was describe on the back sounded really interesting and it really was.


After the across-the-board success of MY NAME IS BARBRA, CBS television permitted Barbra to create an even more elaborate follow-up as her second special. Streisand wisely knew, in order to follow in the ground-breaking success of MY NAME IS BARBRA, that her second special would indeed need to raise the bar even further in inventiveness and spectacle. Not surprisingly, she succeeded once again. Even more impressively, Streisand managed to mount this large production without sacrificing the intimacy and vision of MY NAME IS BARBRA.

Once again, the special is divided into three distinct Acts. Filming on location at Bergdorf Goodman's department store was so successful in the first special, that Streisand and company decided to film on location once again for the first Act of this second special. The decided-upon location this time was the Philadelphia Art Museum, which would allow endless chances for Barbra to "enter" different art works that would correspond with the songs being performed. In addition to the numerous artistic possibilities that this location made possible, the museum would offer the perfect opportunity to take advantage of filming in color.

After the recording of "Draw Me a Circle" that is set against the opening credits, Barbra then dashes around the museum in a maid costume to the strains of Kern and Harbach's "Yesterdays." She stops to admire various paintings and statues, often becoming the character that is depicted and singing a thematically appropriate song. Streisand performs a bittersweet rendition of Hammerstein and Romberg's "One Kiss" as Thomas Eakin's CONCERT SINGER, delivers a hilariously campy performance of Chopin's "Minute Waltz" as Marie Antoinette, embraces abstract art with the frenetic rhythm of Peter Matz's "Gotta Move," and performs a wrenching rendition of "Non C'est Rien" as a distraught Modigliani girl. The high point of Act I, however, is when Streisand compares profiles with the bust sculpture of Egyptian Queen Nefertiti, while singing a tour de force rendition of Rogers and Hart's "Where or When." The Act II circus medley allows Streisand to interact with various farm and circus animals, while singing various songs with farm/circus/animal themes. Some highlights include Barbra singing "Were Thine That Special Face" to a baby elephant, performing "I've Grown Accustomed to that Face" as a serenade to a piglet, the campy "Sam, You Made the Pants to Long" sung to a group of baby penguins, and Barbra comparing profiles with an anteater while crooning "We Have So Much in Common." Streisand also swings on a trapeze and leaps from a trampoline to the chorus of "Spring Again," and then slows things down by performing a haunting version of "I Stayed Too Long at the Fair" while seated alone on stage. Barbra also gets the chance to show off her pet poodle Sadie in this segment, and even speak a little French.

The Act III concert is once again the high point of the hour. Dressed in a slenderizing white wool dress, the concert segment is performed on a uniquely-designed stage with a partial staircase that leads nowhere. Streisand opens the Act with a sultry rendition of Harold Arlen's "Anyplace I Hang My Hat Is Home," before launching into heartfelt versions of the familiar standard "It Had to Be You" and the rarely-heard "C'est Si Bon (It's So Good)." Streisand then really amazes the audience with a breathtakingly powerful, octave-soaring performance of the Sweet Charity ballad "Where Am I Going," of which Streisand delivers the definitive rendition of. Streisand also introduces the then-newly written Richard Maltby, Jr.-David Shire ballad "Starting Here, Starting Now," which contains an impassioned vocal from Streisand that ranks among the very best vocal performances of her long career.

More than anything else, Color Me Barbra was a showcase for Streisand's ever-increasing, mega-watt star power. Despite the presence of even more visual razzle-dazzle, Streisand herself is always the main attraction. Her voice sounds as beautiful as ever, and this special was the first to showcase how strikingly she photographs in color. As with MY NAME IS BARBRA, COLOR ME BARBRA was another rating-smash and spawned yet another Top-Five, Gold-selling soundtrack album. Simply put, COLOR ME BARBRA defies tradition and emerges as a sequel that is nearly on par with a classic original.


Follow-up to 1965's "My Name Is Barbra", and shot in brilliant color, "Color Me Barbra" has La Streisand alternating nostalgia, clowning comedy, feminine romantic angst, and beguiling seriousness for a crazy-quilt hour of show-biz razzle dazzle. She's a cut-up and a femme fatale, a sprite and an enigma. With her Egyptian eye make-up and ever-changing hairstyles, she's also a chameleon. Her voice is rich and moving, even if a few of her songs are not ("One Kiss", "Yesterdays"). The circus sequence isn't as intriguing as the museum trip (with the conceit of Barbra becoming the images in the paintings, an idea which works better than you may think). The circus-medley (built around songs featuring the word "face"!) is girlishly cute without ever really becoming enchanting. Still, this is a lively, jazzy special--not quite as emotionally tantalizing as "My Name Is Barbra", but certainly a sterling sophomore effort.