"The Devil in the Dark" is William Shatner's favorite episode. It is also one of my favorite episodes. The program is pure Star Trek because it deals with one of the series' main themes: the respect for other life forms. I do not think one could get a clearer example of one of the show's most interesting ideas. In this episode, Kirk and his crew have to confront a monster that is killing miners on a distant planet. The story is an excuse to explore the right that humans have to destroy creatures that are a vital part of the environment. Today's concerns with environmental causes make the show more relevant now than ever before. It is extremely well written and performed with gusto by our beloved cast. One memorable sequence involves Spock joining with the mind of the monster. Plenty of tension between Spock and Kirk (they want to solve the problem using different methods) adds to the fun. Shatner and Leonard Nimoy do some of their best work here.


I sympathized with the plight of the first man, Schmitter, we see killed in this episode. He reminded me of the trepidation associated with being a lone security guard at night somewhere - the type of work I did briefly about 20 years ago. Of course, I was never in danger of being burned to a crisp, as the colony chief (Lynch) is fond of describing. The monster in the dark here, murdering members of a deep mining colony, creates a scary impression in the first act. We don't really see it in the early scenes and, as many of us realize, the best monsters are sometimes left to the imagination. 'Big and shaggy' is one voiced description, but it actually turns out to resemble a big, lumpy pepperoni pizza, skittering along the ground like a silicon centipede - a limitation of the show's budget, unfortunately. This also shows in the latest matte painting, famous to Trek fans, the only way to convey a long shot of the mining operations.

But, the whole theme of this episode is about what's on the inside, rather than outward appearances, anyway. Sure, this Horta, a newly-discovered silicon-based life-form, looks like a mindless monster at first glance. Thanks to Spock's telepathic ability (probably the best use of a Vulcan mind meld for plot purposes), we learn it's a highly intelligent, even sophisticated creature. Besides Spock's instrumental use of his talent, McCoy gets to supersede his usual medical routine - healing a creature resembling rocks or asbestos. He also gets to utter one of his most famous lines, "I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer!" I found it very true-to-life in his scene where he exults in his success, though he's unable to get Kirk to share in his enthusiasm - Kirk's too busy organizing results. The episode throws unexpected turns in character & motivation at the audience as the story progresses; Spock champions the need to possibly preserve this discovered life as Kirk takes his usual stand on preventing the deaths of any red-shirts (no half measures, as in "The Man Trap"). But later, it's Kirk who, for some reason, holds back on firing a killing blast, as if the heat of the hunt had worn off and he'd had time to reflect on Spock's point (I believe it was during this episode's filming that Shatner learned his father had died). Uncharacteristic for most of the first season, this has a happy ending. The conflict stems from the needs of basic capitalism, such as meeting standard quotas, versus protecting the natural environment and its inhabitants - a space age version of protecting owls from the tractors of modern advancement. Somehow, despite many killings and a sense that everything could go to hell at any moment with one raised phaser, Kirk and Spock manage to broker an agreement which satisfies everyone. I guess people and silicates are more reasonable in the 23rd century.


Kirk and the crew are visiting a federation mining colony on a remote planet rich in mineral resources. The Devil in the Dark is the Horta, a very unusual silicon based life-form which tunnels through solid rock. The Horta has been killing miners and, it is decided, must be destroyed. But how?

It is hard to continue this review without writing a spoiler, so instead I simply concentrate on the technical aspects of the episode and touch on its themes. The special effects are OK, but many of the scenes with the Horta look a little absurd. The acting is fairly average for TOS. Some of the miners are a little awkward. Nimoy has the most difficult role of all in Devil in the Dark, and he pulls it off well.

Why is this still a favorite of mine?

Devil in the Dark is really an anthropological and ecological morality play disguised as an adventure. More than many episodes of this great TV series, it brings home the importance of maintaining an open mind and at least some degree of empathy toward others. Plus, it involves one of the most interesting, if not probable, plot twists in the original series.

Enjoy!


Of all the episodes of all series, this one holds the closest to Roddenberry's original tenet. According to the book THE MAKING OF STAR TREK, in Roddenberry's writer's guide to his story writers, he states that any alien creature, no matter how hideously ugly, impossible to believe, benign or malicious, MUST hold some semblance of humanity that the TV viewing public can empathize with and/or relate to. Devil In The Dark's HORTA, which resembles nothing more or less than a large blob of cow dung, is a mother protecting her babies, those ball-shaped silicon nodules the miners keep finding throughout the mine passages and destroying, because they have no idea what they are! This is one of my absolute favorite episodes if only for that!


This may not be the most exiting or incredible episode they've made, but in my opinion it remains as one of Star Trek and the Sci-Fi genre's most original episodes. Most ideas from retro Sci-Fi series especially including Star Trek has been reused several times, this one the other hand remains mostly as a one time triumph. This among the episodes that impressed me the most towards the end.

Another thing I like with this episode is how it has accomplished to create such and exiting and captivating story with such few special affects. Now without criticizing the episode I must admit the effects are very dated, but then again what can you expect from a TV show from 1967? But still the creature ("Horta") in this episode is basically just a carpet with some coloured rubber on it. Yet you forget this after about 1 minute and you only start thinking about it as what it's supposed to be. Also the caves don't exactly look like rock, but again you forget it after a few minutes. This episode is a living proof on how good acting and a good story, can make you ignore the visual effects.

The acting from the main cast is as usual great. This episode features the series second mind meld by Spock and is one of my favourites. So to say it simple Leonard Nimoy is definitely a scene stealer here, and his acting is excellent. Not that Kirk or Bones don't get their share of the episode but Spock is the most intriguing in this one. i like the fact that the episode is not about one specific character but evolves around the trio handling an alien problem. Also it's nice to see an episode who doesn't only happen on the Enterprise.

Like most Star Trek episodes this episode tells us to have an open mind. I won't spoil the story, but evolves around what in the start seems like a typical monster story. It has killed several humans and therefore must be killed. But is that really all there is to it? I can assure you that the explanation in the end, will not disappoint you. This is still my favourite Star Trek TOS episode and i give it a 10/10.


Hey, it's only TV. Sure, it's STAR TREK, the most beloved bla bla, and this is a great one, but it's all relative. What it boils down to is a guy in elf ears grooving with a swatch of pizza-colored shag rug.

There's a kind of THIRD MAN noirishness to the tunnel hunt, and it's creepier than many episodes of what is after all one of the better TV shows. The suspense is actually suspenseful. The peril really feels perilous. As a little kid I think I cried when Spock told me that this hideous creature was as sad, scared and horrified as the people it was eating. This was one of my early lessons in empathy, a lesson reinforced by the EMPATH episode which was, if less thrilling, even more melancholy.

What bothered me when I was five was that this thing, which looks like meat and tomato barf, somehow actually consists more or less of rock. Now that kind of choice might seem visionary, a hippie designer's idea of through-the-looking-glass one-universism, but it might also just smack of the drug era.


I really thoroughly enjoyed this movie. For one it didn't have the corny special effects that the big budget movies have. The acting was decent in this one, only you can tell right off the bat that it's dubbed, but once you get over that fact, and that you can't switch languages on the DVD version it's cool. The plot line was very unique, you take a situation like a heat wave very common around the world, especially in Frankfurt which I've been to many times, and you take a garbage strike which happens often enough in this country and you have a recipe for disaster. i loved how the hordes of rats just went everywhere and how the idea that if you picked up the garbage, that's the last thing you wanna do, you pick it up, the rats don't get what the want, they are in essence following the garbage pick up, so you ask well if garbage men are on strike , who picks up the garbage, private contractors, anyway military wants to quarantine off the city oops wrong thing to do, then you would have all the rats take over the city, then throw in a mayor who wants to keep a lid on the budget, and line her pockets, you have a realistic movie, and the female lead is also a pleasure to watch on the screen, a very decent movie i thought, wish more were made like this, another small nitpick is the depiction of Frankfurt could have been done a little better, but for the average viewer who's never been to Frankfurt... i was born in Germany and been to Frankfurt many times.. it won't matter, but all in all a great big thumbs up.


This movie was recently shown subtitled not dubbed, on Australia's Special Broadcasting Service. I thought I read here that there is sometimes an assumption that *Revenge of the Rats* is a sequel. In fact, the rats are getting revenge for something that is done within this movie, or in human history. There is no prequel as far as I know.

Now, let's get The Pied Piper of Hamelin out of the way. Perhaps this tale crossed my mind when I was watching the film, but that's all. There was the use of the word "coffers" at the end of the movie. A dazed mayor tries to justify her actions by saying "the coffers were empty". "Coffers" isn't a word you hear around much these days, unless you read folk tales to your children, as I do. Since seeing *Revenge of the Rats*, I've read two versions of The Pied Piper of Hamelin. Now I see the comparison. A metaphorical fat but literally ugly mayor promises more than the city can afford, to get rid of the rats. This is about as far as I can follow the analogy. The children are not led to a door in a mountain, with one lame boy left behind to tell of a land of winged horses and fountains, where it is always spring and everyone is always happy.

There's a lot that is quite mainstream about this movie. The romance and the resolution especially. The female characters have potentially powerful roles in society but are really quite impotent. Where this film is quite rebellious (as compared with American cinema) is that it is anti-authoritarian. The helicopter pilot is sacked by the mayor for "doing good". The mayor and local government are portrayed as corrupt and pandering to big money. Finally, it is left to one doctor in Frankfurt to solve an epidemic of a fatal and contagious disease. Apparently there is no national Infectious Diseases authority to co-ordinate things or send in back-up.

I'm not a horror aficionado, so any horror I do see is usually mingled with humour. Right from the rat in the blood bank you can see this is going to have the right balance of horror and comedy for most viewers; the huge number of rats is impressive and the horror fans seem to be satisfied too.


Sometimes a movie is so bad it's kind of good. This movie was made in Germany and is dubbed in English, so you have to get past that. The acting also was stilted and forced, other than what was done by the real rats, who IMO did an excellent job of acting the part. Snaps to the rat wrangler. Anyway, the mayor of the city has decided to cut costs and the local garbage collectors go on strike as a result, thus leaving large piles of trash everywhere. This storyline has been used before, not to mention has happened in real life (too often unfortunately) and the audience is not in for any surprises. But this is fine. We know what's going to happen and when, and sometimes an audience needs a movie where a lot of brain cells are not necessary to follow along. We have our hero, down to the chiseled face and body, the semi-hero(s), and of course our heroine, who happens to be the doctor, but only still in training, though it is she who discovers what really is going on when so many people end up sick and dying, and not just from a rat bite. Of course the villain must die (okay, all the villains, meaning the rats), and the ending scene is one of those that reminds the audience that a sequel is in the works. This is one of those movies that you just sit back and enjoy for what it is and what it is not.


This wonderfully witty comedy-drama wowed the crowd at the Philadelphia Film Festival, whipping them into wild applause at its conclusion. Buttressed by adept performances by a nuanced cast, sturdy execution by director Jeff Hare, a brisk pace, and one of Peter Falk's best performances in years, the film emerges as a loving homage to the highs and woes of family life.

Falk excels as Jewish ninetysomething Morris Applebaum, a wildly eccentric Shakespearean thespian who decides to end his life, but not before rounding up his three grown children and throwing a "big fat Jewish suicide party." The film brims with indelible delights. There's Morris's "tushy room"; Laura San Giacomo's passionate rendering of Morris's cynical daughter; rapid-fire comedic dialogue that recalls the work of Neil Simon and Woody Allen; the wry timing of David Paymer, who plays Morris's tightly wound psychotherapist son; and Morris's patented egg creams (but be careful, drinking them too fast will cause a nasty brain freeze). It's all enveloped in a feel-good, intimate atmosphere set in New York City.

Director Jeff Hare proves to be a master craftsman, drawing out memorable performances from his cast and lending the film a mirthful humanity. I was fortunate to see an earlier film by Hare: the dark and powerful "Perfect Little Man," starring Neal McDonough ("Minority Report") as a Los Angeles man spiraling into madness. The visceral grit of "Perfect" and the nostalgic breeze of "Checking Out" are a testament to Hare's eclecticism and wide-ranging talent. I'm looking forward to checking out his future work.

I heard "Checking Out" lacks a distributor at this point. Some wise company would do well to pick up this crowd-pleasing gem, for it's a potential box-office titan in the vein of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." Most nobly, it would give people around the world a chance to experience the joys of this movie.


It was a rare treat to see "Checking Out". I was touched by the characters, laughed a lot at the wonderful script, and was deeply moved by the genuine emotions magnificently portrayed by this ensemble cast and especially by Peter Falk. In fact, one of his scenes in the kitchen of his apartment with his children where he tells of his experience of his life, his deep love for his wife and his decisions about his life going forward is so profoundly real that it is at the highest level of the best Academy Award-winning performances. He is a consummate actor who out-did himself in this film. The screenwriter offers a combination of literary knowledge, timing, a gift for dialogue and hilarious situations that had me laughing out loud in the theater. I highly recommend "Checking Out" to everyone wanting to enjoy quality storytelling superbly acted.


At the 2005 Phoenix Film Festival, it was no secret which film ranked at the top of everyone's viewing list. Checking Out (2004)brought crowds of film lovers to Scottsdale's Harkins Cine-capri. Festival attendees who waited in line for hours, were turned away at the door, despite the two-theater screening capacity.

Checking Out (2004) is a beautifully-made moving picture; an inspiring comedy for a wide-range of audiences to enjoy. The director, Jeff Hare, blends traditional film technique with a new twist of creativity, capturing Peter Falk at his greatest and most sentimental moments (usually shown in intimate close-up shots) on the silver screen.

With its uplifting mix of witty humor and narrative plot development, Checking Out (2004) is a landmark independent film, well-deserving of your attention.


I was fortunate enough to catch this film at the Phoenix Film Festival and I must say that I very much enjoyed it. When I asked the Director if he had attended Film School I was very much impressed that he had not. Films like these don't come from people without talent. To get a start in commercials and then produce a heart felt family comedy like this shows real range. I'll certainly be keeping an eye on what he does next. As a good indie movie should, the film is very character driven. As apposed to your average Hollywood movie, which are mostly plot driven. The Film centers on a Jewish family in New York, the Applebaum's, who have all been invited back for their fathers "suicide" party. The film is stock full of witty, quick, jabbing, dialogue. The fact the small Jewish family is obsessed with being Jewish and anyone who is Jewish grounds the unrealistic situation of a "suicide" party in reality. Director Jeff Hare does a wonderful job at pulling the characters out of the actors and bringing them to life on screen. The production design brings the sets to life with lots of attention paid to small details making the setting feel like a home that's been lived in for 40 years. The editing keeps up with the dialogue in such a way that it makes you sit on your seat wondering who's going to stab who with the next witty phrase or punch line. And when appropriate the film slows down to let the audience dive a little deeper into the meanings and motivations hidden inside these lovable characters. If you're a fan of Woody Allen or films like "As Good as it Gets" go see this film.


"Checking Out" is a very witty and honest portrayal of a bizarre family that happens to be Jewish. Judaism plays virtually no role in the film, but American Jewish culture & behavior gets thoroughly sent up... it a loving way. I wish the movie dealt with the religious perspective on the topics it explores, because I think that would have been interesting.

I've never been a Columbo fan so I wasn't familiar with Peter Falk - he's a lot of fun to watch. It's great to see Judge Reinhold, Laura San Giacomo & David Paymer again - why don't they work more? They're all hilarious. The script is terrific with a lot of memorable one-liners I'll be sure to use with my own family. Watch for Gavin McLeod (Captain Stubing!) as the doorman.


'Checking Out' is an extraordinary film that towers above most film production. Its refreshing, witty humor is never an excuse to remain superficial. To the contrary, the film explores multifarious facets of the human spirit and human relations. Its warm approach promotes tolerance and acceptance of diversity and recognition of that which unites all people. The characters are charming and amusing, reflecting those idiosyncrasies that we can all laugh about in ourselves. The quick dialog and witty banter will keep you on your toes, and you may find yourself trying to contain your own laughter, as you won't want to miss a single phrase! You'll probably want to see it in the cinema and then again (over several more times) on video, and each time you will discover something new. After each viewing, you are sure to feel warm and uplifted.


Morris and Reva Applebaum had been the toast of Broadway in its heyday. At ninety, Morris is a widower. He summons his sons--the psychotherapist and the BMW car dealer--and his daughter, the television writer/producer--to attend a party in his honor, after which he will euthanize himself. Literal-minded creatures that they are, they take what he says at face value. He leads them, his grandchildren, and some others including an African-American-Jewish psychiatrist reminiscent of Godfrey Cambridge, on a merry chase through Manhattan as they try to stop him or dissuade him.

The comedy totally works. The performances are excellent. Peter Falk is in top form. This film does more than deserve an audience: it deserves popular success.


The timing of this film being released could not be better, particularly in light of all the turmoil in this world today. The film is a heartwarming, endearing and witty a piece. If you have siblings and still have parents alive, this will hit home well for the viewer. If you've lost your parents, then it will touch you deeply. The laughs come frequently, the ensemble cast works very well together and are believable. This film is intelligently written and the lines that come from each of the actors make the viewer laugh out loud frequently. There are moments that will bring tears to your eyes as well. I would recommend this film to anyone who respects the importantce of family and can follow an intelligent film.


I just saw "Checking Out" at the Philadelphia Film Festival. What a terrific combination of a heartwarming storyline and a great cast. Director Jeff Hare has done an outstanding job of inviting the audience into the disjointed, yet hilarious world of Morris Applebaum and family. The family life is presented in such a way that we enjoy the crazy antics yet feel the real pain and concern they have for one another.

Typically I am not a Peter Falk fan, but he IS Morris Applebaum and plays the role with great humor and humanity.

I hope that everyone gets to see this wonderful movie and enjoy it as I did.

Hats off to the Director, Cast, and Crew for a job well done!


I too was fortunate enough to see "Checking Out" with Peter Falk at The Phoenix Film Festival. This is an extremely sweet character driven film that leaves the audience enthralled in the Applebaum's plight in life. More than funny, each character in the family contributes priceless comic relief that not only spurs laughter but inspires a few joyful tears as well. Peter Falk was born to play this role. He plays a 90ish "young" father of three who brings his adult children together in what could possibly be one of the most important times in his and their lives. The 2 day journey that the Applebaum family takes though the delightful backdrop of New York (with carefully selected characters), not only leaves the audience wanting more, but nourishes ones own sense of family. "Checking Out" is a must see film, not only for all those who cherish family, but also all those who don't!!! My thanks to the director who took the chance to bring this GIFT to its audience. Robin Sly, Scottsdale, Arizona


I just saw this film at the phoenix film festival today and loved it. The synopsis was listed in our program as "an old Shakespearean actor invites his three children to his suicide party". I wasn't sure if I was going to see it because when I read about it I liked the idea of a "suicide party" it sounded very interesting to me, but "old Shakespearean actor" had me worried that the film would be kind of dry and boring. But I decided to give it a try. I am glad that I did. It was not dry and boring in the least, that dialogue was great, funny in a clever way, but not pretentious and difficult to understand. Peter Falk was terrific in this role, he stole the show. I also was pleasantly surprised by Laura San Giacomo's performance, usually she bugs me, but I enjoyed watching her in this film very much. I think Judge Reinhold's part could have been done better by another actor, at times he seemed kind of cheesy and it looked like acting, not like you were just watching this character. But the movie was so good I was able to forgive one actor's awkwardness. I would recommend this film to anyone and have already told a few people to see it as soon as it is available to the general public. Who knew suicide could be so hilarious?


A wonderful story that should be seen by all families. The story, acting, and production values are all first rate. I highly recommend "Checking Out!"

Peter Falk is marvelous as an aging actor who wants to decide when he will die, so he can continue to know how things will end and not be "a member of the audience." His three children rush to New York to confront him and try to change his mind. There are, of course unresolved family issues to be addressed, and the script and actors handle them well and with great humor.

The story is about a Jewish family, but it could easily be about any other family. Well, maybe not a WASP family. The siblings have issues with each other and also with their father. I loved the writing and directing, as well as the acting. All in all, a humorous and touching film.


Peter Falk shines as 90 year old Morris Applebaum, the patriarch who has decided it's time to "check out" after holding a final, blow-out bash. His three children, Lauran San Giacomo, David Paymer and Judge Reinhold are notified/invited by letter and immediately arrive on his doorstep to deal with their eccentric father. There is a great father/daughter chemistry with Laura San Giacomo, whose character happens to undergo the most growth from the ordeal. It's a well rounded example of your average, dysfunctional family and their memories, pains, growth and ignorance/tolerance of each others' lives. The musical score is one you'll enjoy and the one liners are well timed and hilarious. Although I found the actual "Checking Out" party a let down, the rest of the film is sure to make you laugh, cry and leave the theater with a smile on your face. Move over "Big Fat Greek Wedding"....the "Big Fat Jewish Suicide" has arrived.


Peter is top notch, he is acting, and looking great. feels like watching a live play, great camera works, and i was sad it was over. Can not wait until it is on the big screen. Super cast, this could be a big hit. I like the way the kids interact as sister and two brothers, really made me think of my own brothers going through a situation like what Peter, the happy father who thinks he will end his life after a big party... The colors and sets were delightful to the eyes, helps so much to draw you into the film/play... I was so happy to see Peter not be Colombo, this guy could always act, and now this is a movie that gives him that range. I recommend you take your family to this movie. Perhaps the teenagers will not get much from this, no guns, fast cars, dumb lines, stupid fart jokes... but your adult kids will love it. Good show for a night with them.

Jason


When I first heard that the subject matter for Checking Out was a self orchestrated suicide party, my first thought was how morbid, tasteless and then a comedy on top of that. I was skeptical. But I was dead wrong. I totally loved it. The cast, the funny one liners and especially the surprise ending. Suicide is a delicate issue, but it was handled very well. Comical yes, but tender where it needed to be. Checking Out also deals with other common issues that I believe a lot of families can relate with and it does with tact and humor. I highly recommend Checking Out. A MUST SEE. I look forward to its release to the public.


I understand "Checking Out" will likely be released in Theatres in the USA in June 2006, and on DVD in November 2006. My recommendation is to not miss "Checking Out"!! This Comedy Film will entertain everyone, who will all relate to the characters, family relationships and multiple social issues that are portrayed. "Checking Out" will make you laugh throughout with quick fire clever humor built into almost every line, and may make you poignantly cry in a touching positive way as well.

The subject of suicide is dealt with in a comical way, that at the same time may help people considering it understand the impacts this act may have on those their life has touched and on those who love them. Lets hope that "Checking Out" can have a positive impact and help prevent those considering suicide from acting it out, especially in the 16-25 age group that has the highest rate of suicide in the USA.

The script is wonderfully written, perfectly casted, and loaded with synchronicity and meaningful flashbacks in time, whose significance become more apparent throughout the film and especially at the ending. I believe the script is worthy of an Academy Award Nomination for "Best Screenplay, Play to a Movie" ( The Phoenix Film Festival honored "Checking Out" with a "Best Screenplay Award" ).

The cast is loaded with great actors that out do themselves, and have a long track record of great performances, acting award nominations and wins. I feel Peter Falk's performance in "Checking Out" is worthy of an Academy Award Nomination, and is the most challenging and wide ranging of his career. Laura San Giacomo's performance and chemistry with Peter Falk as her father is masterful, and was recognized at the Palm Beach International Film Festival with a "Best Actress Award."

Even the teenage characters in the movie shine and are played by young acting phenoms Dan Byrd ( Movies: A Cinderalla Story with Hilary Duff; 3 Young Artist Award nominations, Won 1 ) and Mary Elizabeth Winstead ( TV: Monster Island, Wolf Lake, Passions, Touched by an Angel; 2 Young Star Nominations ).

Director Jeff Hare and Producer Mark Lane wonderfully develop the characters, their interrelationships, and the story line of this entertaining, enjoyable yet complex script.

The film editing keeps the pace of the film moving quickly, only appropriately slowing in the poignant scenes, so that the audience will never loose interest from the beginning to the end.

Don't miss this film that you can take the whole family to see and all will enjoy it.


Checking Out will be released Friday September 15th, 2006. through the AMC theater chain starting in New York City. Times Square, 66th and 3rd Ave, West 84th Street. This film has been one from the heart, for the heart. Mark Lane, Jon Karas,Richard Marcus, Jeff Hare, Dana Harrloe,Matt Jensen Ed Abrams, Nick Pike, Peter Falk, Laura San Giacomo, David Paymer, Judge Reinhold, all the cast and crew knew from day one that this film was something special. The need to comfort the elderly is intended, the closeness of family is more apparent now then ever. I would recommend this film to all ages and races. This story rings the truth to anyone with or without family.


This movie is hilarious, bright and insightful. Though perhaps the story would work well involving almost any ethnic group, the inherent Jewishness of the characters gives extra meaning to the bounty of wonderful dialog. There were so many social issues covered in the plot that for that reason alone it would have been worth seeing; -but the real treasure was in the warm laughter that spread throughout the appreciative audience. The medley of complex characters with their various strengths and weaknesses play out their roles with all the pathos and humor one would expect from the Shakespearean drama their lives seem to parody. This is a film about family; - about the often fragile, sometimes invisible binding together of diverse personalities and lifestyles, first among siblings and parents, and inevitably among the larger family of friends and even strangers. The technical aspects of the film have given the movie a pace and development that keep the viewer intrigued until the final scene. Peter Falk is amazing, as always, in his role as family patriarch Morris Applebaum. Strong performances by a fine cast include a surprise guest. Don't miss this movie!


I saw this movie last night at the Phila. Film festival. It was an interesting and funny movie that had some endearing and moving scenes. Peter Falk was excellent as was the rest of cast. They were believable and played their roles well. The movie may have gone a bit long and the conclusion was okay. The audience laughed at the right places. The family dynamics were terrific and though this was a Jewish family, they could have been Italian, Irish or any other including Greek. I recommend this film if you are interested in laughing at a subject that isn't often handled that way. IOT makes you think about the consequence's of your actions and how they affect others in your life and those who are not clearly in your life.


Many movies try to take universal themes and make a comedy; but few will rise to the occasion like "Checking Out." The movie is brilliant. The dialogue is well written and true to form. The acting is absolutely prima. Peter Falk has given a truly great performance - as an actor; as an actor. He is able to carry the cast to greatness. Another great performance is given by Laura San Giacomo. She is such an intriguing actress. Her performances take one by surprise. She delivers no matter what role she is asked to give - from wacko in Stephen King's "The Stand" to her television performances. However, "Checking Out" allows her to shine. It is a role she is meant to play. The film is brilliantly directed by Jeff Hare. He was able to bring out the best in his cast and his direction - in every aspect - made the film a wonderful treasure. Jeff Hare was able to make a difficult theme laughable and yet profound. He gives us an up close and personal look at why indie films need to be made. The directors knowledge of his cast and script are extended to the finished film. The results are superb.

Hopefully, it will be made available to large audiences because this is one you won't want to miss. It has the potential of being the sleeper hit of 2005 - in the fashion of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding."


I saw the premier of this movie during the 2005 Phoenix Film Festival and was very impressed with the skill Director, Jeff Hare, exhibited in bringing this timely topic to the screen. The cast of characters meshed perfectly and allowed us to examine the issue of a senior wishing to die on "his own terms" in a very warm and humorous way. Peter Falk was brilliant as Morris and the supporting group of family members and friends were perfectly cast in their roles. The interaction of the family, friends and outsiders with Morris created a realistic view of how families address the issue of their parents aging and their wishes to die with dignity.

Although this movie is ostensibly a movie about a Jewish Actor and his family, it is truly a movie about all families. The jokes the family and Morris crack during this romp through the life of a "Force of Nature" are fresh and realistic. Childhood rivalries, adult successes and failures, and hope for the children are integral to this screenplay. While many will question how you can make the topic of suicide "humorous", I thought the treatment logical and timely. If you are not afraid to shed a few tears or laugh at the quips of a family struggling with this issue, then you MUST SEE THIS MOVIE.

The movie was awarded "Best Picture" at the Phoenix Film Festival.


In "Checking Out", Peter Falk plays an elderly New Yorker who summons his children home so that they can be with him before he plans to commit suicide. As the movie progresses, we get to see everyone's flaws and other problems. While some people may interpret this as a "heartwarming" movie, I mostly enjoyed it for Peter Falk's character not letting anything get him down, and even engaging in a little lewdness now and then.

So, it might not be the best movie ever, but still worth seeing. I've long thought that Peter Falk has the perfect look to play this sort of role, what with his glass eye and all. Also starring Laura San Giacomo, David Paymer, Judge Reinhold and Shera Danese (Falk's real-life wife).


Take someone you love or want to love and go see this film.

It touches you in all the right places.

All the other reviewers here have said it all.

Perhaps the cynical will not be impressed.

They only seem to like the stuff that leaves you depressed for days.

This film is Ga-run-teed to stay with you for life.

I am so gratified that the Director is not USC trained.

This validates my premise that there is too much mediocrity and conformity in film these days.

It is because of the USC lockstep mentality and inbreeding.

Hooray for Jeff Hare and Richard Marcus, cast and crew. Well Done!


This Film exhibits dear irony, shaggy-dog roundabout story lines woven with subtle cultural references, Classic parallels, masterful use of rich saturated color, and fabulous rendition of chase scenes a'la Keystone Cops.

The ensemble work of the cast and entire crew is Charming. Literally. How else could I go on so?

This film speaks to everyone. The deft and poignant use of so many universal archetypes: That's what makes this Film so deep down satisfying.

As a mature student of film, I find Checking Out contains all the vital elements. Sure and Bergorra, it's not the GODFATHER, but would serve perfectly as follow up; Tragedy's mandatory Satyr play that sweetly binds our collective cathartic wounds.

Get thee to a theatre and see this film, you will be treated to a unique masterpiece.


This movie is well made, it is beautiful and wise. It is heart-warming. It is great. And again it shows how great Peter Falk is... he is fantastic and he even gets better, the older he gets! Thank you, Peter Falk! Thank you very much for this gem of a movie!

This movie entertains. There is lot of wisdom in this movie. There is lot of humor in this movie. There is life in this movie... and meaning. This movie shows, how life can be.

Peter Falk is in that movie. He is just great! Where is the Oscar for Peter Falk? He deserves it so very much.

Peter Falk just turned 80. I do sincerely hope that there will be more movies!

Walter J. Langbein


A hilarious comedy by the best director ever, Oz Scott. The list of eighties TV icons goes on and on. Milano (Who's The Boss), Yothers (Family Ties), Stone (Mr. Belvedere), Robinson (Night Court), Jackee (227), D'abo (Wonder Years), Walston (Mr. Hand!!!). It is one of the funniest movies ever. Great lines, meaningless subplots, cheesy, bad acting. It is about a group of high school kids who need to pass drivers' ed. Mac from Night Court needs them to pass their final exam, or he'll be fired. Great performance by Brian Bloom as the jerk/kinda cool guy Riko Conner, but is nothing compared to B.D. Wong's Kiki (pronounced kee-chee). A great movie for all ages, so bad it's good.


I LOVED this movie when I was younger, and I have actually been looking for it again!! I would love to watch it again!! The information is all correct, but the cover doesn't look like it would match - I can't say for sure though. From what I remember, the movie was about these kids (Alyssa Milano, Tina Yothers, etc.) in a driving class, and it also shows the mischief they get into outside the class. Edie McClurg was Alyssa Milano's mother in the movie. I remember I really liked it so if anyone knows where I can get a copy (preferably DVD) of the movie listed above (with those stars in it) I would love to know. Thank-you :)


To understand "Crash Course" in the right context, you must understand the 80's in TV. Most TV shows didn't have any point. The sitcom outpopulated the drama at least 3 to 1. They were still figuring out where the lines were so that they could cross them. (TV Shows like "Hail to the Chief" was quite the bold step!) This made-for-TV movie "Crash Course" featured an All-Star cast, bringing together members from all the 80's classics: "227", "Family Ties", "Who's the Boss?", et al. Directors must've had a certain penchant for those all-star movies then. Still, this movie offered very light fare and a simplistic view of heroism and maturity. And that's not bad sometimes. Viva Soleil Moon Frye.


This video has heartfelt memories. It has a great cast and all the actors did a great job. I have been searching to buy this video. If anybody knows of where I can purchase, please e-mail me. I really want to add this to my collection.


Halloween 666 (1995) The producer's cut review!

Halloween 666 starts of with a recap of the horrific ending to Part five. If you thought the last chapter was dark, this one will really blow your mind. A mysterious "Man in Black" has raided the Haddonfield Police Department freeing Micheal Myers. In the process poor Jamie Lloyd was abducted by strange cultists. What they want with her? Who knows, but let's just say her long suffering will end soon. Doctor Loomis is back spending the rest of his twilight years trying to stop Michael Myers from killing any more innocents (good luck). A friend of Loomis, Doctor Wynn comes back after a four sequel hiatus to help the good doctor. Another old face from part one guest stars as well.

This dark and dreary sequel was dismantled during the post production editing. For some reason the distributors felt that the final product wasn't worth the average horror film watcher's time. So they decide to dumb it down. Then after having the film sit on the shelf for several months it laid an egg at the box office. No matter what they did to the film, they made it worse. They should have left well enough alone. Hey, the film company knows better than the filmmakers now....don't they?

Producer's Cut :Highly recommended

Released version: Not recommended


This was a really interesting Halloween film. I wasnt to thrilled with the whole Thorn theory but it still makes for a good film. I liked getting to see Tommy Doyle back but sadly Donald Pleasance died right after shooting. The film had a really REALLY bad director who didnt give a flip about the series, from what I heard treated Donald bad, and wouldnt let Danielle Harris come back as Jamie. Its like he was just trying to bring down the film, but I still liked it. There were alot of cuts and music changes and if you're lucky you can get the Producers Cut which features over 40 min. of never before scenes. With those scenes it turns into a whole new movie. Check it out if you have the chance.


Wow, "The Curse of Michael Myers" what a great film. Suspenseful, entertaining, creative and a clever plot which I love. Many hate the 'Thorn' concept, I love it. I think that it gives the Halloween series some plot. Marianne Hagan is a wonderful actress and turns in a excellent performance, especially for her first film and Paul Rudd and Donald Pleasence are great also. My only complaint is that why wasn't Danielle Harris in this film as Jamie? She wanted to return, but the producers said no. I thought J.C Brandy was great, but I love Danielle Harris. Still, I love Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers. I think The Shape's mask looks the best in this film and George P. Wilbur is the best Michael Myers ever. Incredibly creepy and suspenseful, Halloween 6 rules!

I adore this very violent, but immensely enjoyable film. The Halloween horror series - by far the best in the Genre.

10 out of 10.


For some reason, I always enjoy movies that people hate, when I really don't think they're that bad - and this is one of those films. In the case of this movie, I think it is way too over-criticized, I really isn't that bad of a film at all. In fact, I think this is one of the better sequels. "Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers" begins on the night before Halloween, where Michael brutally murders Jamie Lloyd (who was taken captive by the "Man In Black" in part 5) after she gives birth to his baby. We are then introduced to the Strode family, who is now coincidentally living in the old Myers house (which seems to change in each film). Kara and her son Danny are the main characters, along with Tommy Doyle, the now adult boy who survived the original killings. They must fight together to save Jamie's baby from an evil cult that takes care of Michael, while Michael himself is driven to kill by an old Celtic ritual where he must sacrifice an entire family in Haddonfield.

This is surely one of the best sequels in the series, in my opinion anyway, and I can't understand all of the hate it has gotten. It had some nice suspense, an interesting plot (but sometimes confusing, I'll admit), some scary moments here and there, and plenty of gore and knife slashings to appease all of you gorehounds. Not all of the acting wasn't particularly great, but it was convincing enough for me. Marianne Hagan is the leading lady and she is very likable. Paul Rudd plays a grown-up Tommy Doyle, and is also very talented and plays his part nicely. The rest of the supporting cast (besides the brilliant Donald Pleasance) isn't much to praise, but it wasn't too bad either, all things considered. I'm still not sure if giving an explanation for why Michael kills was completely necessary, but it turned out to be okay in the end and I wasn't upset with the way they tied everything together. The open-ended conclusion was also kind of eerie, but could have been something more.

I have also seen the infamous "Producer's Cut" of this film, the original cut of it, and I think that in some respects, it is better. It further explains the Thorn curse that drives Michael and has some extra scenes that really helped support the film, plus the ending was a lot better in my opinion. It felt more natural than the conclusion that we're given in the studio cut of the film. I wish that Dimension would release this alternate version of the film, because I personally think it is better. The chances of that are very slim though.

Overall, "Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers" is a very good sequel and will please all of the fans of the series. This movie isn't the best of all horror movies, but it's definitely worth renting if you want to see Michael do his thing. Just don't expect brilliance, and you'll enjoy it. 7/10.


This movie is pretty good as it is, but the unreleased Producer's Cut is my favorite movie in the series after the original. Jamie's story is handled differently, the death scenes are done 10 times better, there's more footage of ritual type stuff giving more story about Micheal, Jamie and her baby. There is also an alternate ending which is also better. Why they didn't release this version instead I have no damned clue. If you can find this version, see it.


This sequel is brilliant and is the last film Donald Pleasance (Dr.Loomis) worked on before his death. I loved the new direction the film took with the story instead of just Michael Myers wanting to kill his family. I love this whole series and apart from the first and second movies this is by far the best.


i bought this in the budget department last week. i had halloween and halloween II already, and since i aim to collect every horror film ever, i chose this. after all, the 1st two were good.

this film is pretty intelligent to tell the truth. it seems to create the correct atmosphere, and has a nice "history of michael myers". it uses the old locations from the original, and the main character is the kid whom laurie strode babysat that fateful halloween in 1978...

the climax also is fairly satisfying. anyways, it is A LOT better than H20, which frankly, is absolute crap.


...dislike this movie and everyone would understand why. The plot is poor, so is the acting. But in my opinion it is better than Halloween 5, although even this does not give many surprising moments. A few scenes are really well directed. But these few moments do not deliver the reason to rent it. I do not despise violence in movies, but H6 features extraordinary strong and bloody scenes which do not fit to the tradition of the Halloween-Movies. The most sucking aspect about H6 is the lack of tension. No comparison to the first masterpiece.

Halloween 6 only gets 4 out of 10 stars from me. If you want, rent it. But don't expect a great horror-experience....


Although I brought this film by accident (I thought it was the original Halloween(stupid eh!)) I was surprised by how good it was, many sequels just continue the events of the previous films, this however tried and succeeded in explaining the events of the prequels, why does Michael Myers kill people and how come he seems to have supernatural abilities. I thought this was a top horror film full of action, suspense and surprises, I'm very glad I brought it. I've given it 9 out of 10.


Halloween:The Curse Of Michael Myers is probably the best sequel out of all of the Halloween flicks. Jamie, serial killer Michael Myers' niece, bears a baby who is then taken by the Man In Black from the conclusion of Halloween 5. A kind nurse helps Jamie escapes but Myers quickly tracks her down and kills her. Jamie's baby is found and rescued by Tommy Doyle, one of the kids Jamie Lee babysat in the original film, and Myers arrives in Haddonfield and begins to kill off the Strode clan living in his old house. The film concludes with scenes revealing clues to Michael's evil, the identity of the Man In Black, and a close to the whole Dr. Loomis/Michael Myers storyline. I highly recommend this brilliant horror masterpiece.

Halloween:The Curse Of Michael Myers is Rated R for strong graphic violence, extreme gore, brief sexuality, language, and brief nudity.


I personally LOVE this film amidst the Halloween series. I've found, after watching it with many friends, that you enjoy it completely, or find it absolutely unbearable. Personally, i've watched it dozens of times, and it never gets old. There is a great back story within the movie itself, and a lot of different things are finally explained. It's a rather short movie, at just shy of 90-minutes, but it's definitely a thrill ride.

The shape seems to be pretty brutal in this film, but the acting is still there with the way he walks, stalks and kills. There are a lot of neat little screen shots with Micheal appearing in the background, which adds more of a spooky element to the movie.


This review is based on the Producer's Cut:

'Halloween 5' was a major disappointment at the box office way back in '89. Personally, I've always loved it and am proud to have it in my collection. But because of it's failure and also because of rights issues, it would be 6 years before we would see another installment. The film had the makings of being one of the best, if not the best in the series. A hardcore fan writing the script, the return of not only Donald Pleasence as Dr. Loomis and George Wilbur as Michael Myers, but also the return of the character of Tommy Doyle from the first film, a major studio backing the project, and a Fall release all made the film sound like a hit in the making. So what went wrong? I'll give you two good reasons: Re-shoots and poor editing. Due to a bad test screening and also the unfortunate passing of Donald Pleasence, the film was changed, and not for the better. The film, like parts III and 5, tanked at the box office and earned negative reviews from both critics and most series fans. But then, thanks to the magic of bootlegging, the original cut leaked out and many fans, including my self, were very happy. I will end this portion of my review by saying this: This film is, so far at least, my favorite 'Halloween' film and I'm not afraid to admit that.

Pros: The score is simply spellbinding. Has some of the best writing and dialogue of the series. 'Halloween 4' emulated the original in that it was more about suspense and mood instead of blood and guts, and 6 is the same way. Great performances, especially from the late and very missed Donald Pleasence. Moves at a breathtaking pace. An interesting explanation for Michael's evil and why he won't die. Some brutal kills. Some pretty chilling moments, my favorite being the one involving Kim Darby's character. A lot of really cool nods to the previous films. Some good surprises. Like the previous two sequels, this one has an awesome cliffhanger ending.

Cons: Though the explanation for Michael's evil is fascinating, it does make him a little less scary. Since when can Michael move around from place to place so fast?

Final thoughts: This was the first 'Halloween' that I saw in the theatre. I was so excited because I really had thought 5 would be the last and then I heard this was happening. I enjoyed it at the time, but over time I saw it for what it really was: A great movie trapped in an OK one with a terrible ending. Why did the filmmakers have to listen to the people at the test screenings? If they had released this superior version it may have done much better and the series might not be stuck in the mess it's in right now.

My rating: 5/5


Wow, I can't believe i'm the first and only one to post a comment on this great movie.

Although the movie itself seemed interesting enough the real thing that attracted me to this one is Matt lillard, granted most people probably either think he's too caffeine happy or just plain sucks but we're both the same age and from the same generation and i've watched this guy so many times that he's one of my favorites now. This is one of the few movies where he is the big shot and main star kind of like in SLC Punk, another great Lillard film.

Baiscally this is storywise your usual heist movies but with more twists than anything, which start to amount to craziness. Also very notable in this movie is another great actor named vincent D'onofrio, a very under appreciated person in the film industry. The woman in the movie is a newcomer and she isn't too bad although you know they hired her mainly for her accent and the nude scene =)

It's a game of jack vs jill vs bob as each want to reap the rewards but share with no one. They all try to get eachother to kill off the other and it's a timebomb waiting to explode. Matt shows his true prowess as the scheming JAck who initially starts the whole scheme. Vincent and woman play a couple of art thieves who are in need of money due to a lack of business. Vince's character is a bit deranged and skitz's throughout the movie but that only add to the intensity of the film.

The surprises left and right are well welcomed and the ending is very non cliche and makes you feel happy, well maybe that depends on the type of endings you like. This movie kept me very interested besides the fact Matt was in it, it's a great movie and i'd highly recommend it to anyone who likes movies. Critic's probably won't like this movie, but they don't watch movies cause they like movies anyway.


Im a huge M Lillard fan that's why I ended up watching this movie. Honestly I doubt that if he wasn't in the movie i would of enjoyed it as much or even watched it but once I did watch it realize the story was pretty decent. A bad ending I must say but I did see it coming. It's a low budget movie and some of the actors weren't really good but all in all I rated this movie 7/10.

The suspense of wondering what Lillard was actually up to was what really keeped me interested in this movie.

Its a good rental!

7/10


I must warn you, there are some spoilers in it. But to start it off, I got "Spanish Judges" on February I think. It was mention it was the last copy, but as I see, it wasn't back-ordered. But either way, I have it. I thought it was good. I wanted to see this mainly because of the great actor, Matthew Lillard (I'm surprised no one on the reviews mention the scar) although it is kind of low budget, getting enough money to make this film would be worth spending. Man, what a good actor.

The story it about a con artist known as Jack (Matthew Lillard) who "claims" to have merchandises called The Spanish Judges. If you don't know what Spanish Judges are or haven't seen the trailer for this and this is the first review you have read, I won't even say what they are. I figure it would be a big twist of no one knew what it was. He needs protection, so he hires a couple who are also crooks, Max and Jamie (Vincent D'Onofrio and Valeria Golino) as well as a crook that goes by the name of Piece (Mark Boone Junior). He has a girlfriend who won't even tell anyone her name because she's from Mars, as she said. So they (mainly Jack) call her "Mars Girl". Everything starts out fine, but then it turns to one big game. A game that involves some lust, lies and betrayal.

There was some over acting in it (Matt and Valeria, as well as Tamara, were not one of them). There were some scenes they could've done better and the score could've been a little better as well. Some of the score was actually good. The theme they used for the beginning and the end (before the credits) was a good song choice, that's my opinion. The fight scene in the end could've been a little longer and a little more violent, but what can you do? One more comment on Matt: Damn, he plays a smooth, slick con man.

I know this is a review, but I need to make a correction towards NeCRo, one of the reviewers: Valeria Golino is not a newcomer. According to this site, she has been acting since 1983. To me, and hopefully to others, she is well known as Charlie Sheen's Italian love interest in both the "Hot Shots!" movies. But good review.

Although I think it's one of the rare films I've seen and it's really good (which is why I gave it 10 stars above), I will give the grade of what I thought when I first saw it.

8/10


After reading some of the earlier nasty remarks, I had to put in my two cents. This show was NOT, despite what that goon in Essex thinks, the worst thing that ever aired on TV. I think most of today's TV is much worse (when is this stupid "reality" fad ever going to end??) and there isn't a current show I can stand to watch. Gimme the stuff I grew up with. I'm a 1965 baby and not ashamed to admit it.

This show has been my all-time favorite for almost 30 years. I was in high school when it originally aired and I think it helped me to hang on throughout those miserable days. I was such a misfit back then, and "Fantasy Island" appealed to my imagination. As I was a budding writer in those days, it provided incredible opportunities for me to practice the craft. What a wonderful premise! I won't say it didn't have its faults. Sometimes the scripts were pretty bad, and some of the problems seemed trivial; but it could be good too, and it was a blast to watch and still is. As for the cheesiness factor, well, I think it's unfair to label every single 70s product as cheesy. There was a lot of great stuff back then and this was among the ranks. (BTW, most of the seasons aired in the 80s!!) My favorite episodes came from seasons 2, 3 and 4 mostly.

To those who disparage Hervé Villechaize for his heavy French accent and his short stature: GROW UP and LEARN SOMETHING! It's so easy to make fun when you're "normal" and "perfect". That man made the best of what he was dealt in life, and if you don't like it, that's just tough. Have a little compassion. He's been dead 15 years, and how easy it is to cut down someone who can't defend himself. There's just no shame anymore.

I love this show. So it looks dated. Hate to tell you this, but we didn't have splashy special effects and Blu-Ray discs. We were lucky to have VCRs. Live with it. Accept it for what it is, and that's just plain fun. "Escapist TV" describes it perfectly, and that's what it was for me -- an escape from my rotten real life. And it's still a lot of fun to watch.


OK, if you would judge the movie to now a days it wouldn't fit in to well.If you watched FI now the stage and everything was pretty cheese ( I agree)But weren't all the movies in the 80's like that(Gilligan,Wonderwoman,aso).But too the people born in the early to mid 70's or earlier it has a cult status. Evertime the plane was on approach Tattoo would run up the tower ring the bell and with his accent would yell "Da Plane BOSS Da Plane" and you would wonder what everybody's wish would be.People who are born in the mid 80's or later wouldn't understand the hippe because if you watched it now.It don't have a Harry Potter,Jurassic Park Computer animation FX.It was just a stage where you probably could even almost see the wire attached to a guy who's wish was too be able to fly.But to us during that time it was a FANTASY ISLAND.


The Museum of the Moving Image here in New York recently put on a comprehensive retrospective of Jacques Rivette's films. Having fallen in love with his "Paris Nous Appartient", I decided this was not to be missed.

Largely through extended shots and flexibly structured scenes, the movie depicts two avant-garde theater companies preparing their renditions of Aeschylus' "Seven Against Thebes" and "Prometheus". Additionally, we are shown the directionless day-to-day lives of two individuals distantly connected to the companies: a working class woman named Frederique who finds creative ways of hustling men out of their money, and a young man named Colin who visits local cafés posing as a deaf-mute, and plays shrill harmonica at the patrons until they pay him to go away. The first four hours or so are devoted to establishing the characters and their patterns, before a somewhat loose, whimsical plot finally emerges involving a conspiracy and the decoding of clandestine secret letters.

The film is largely about life on the fringe of society. The theater companies are a despairing affair, using their elaborate, emotionally draining exercises (which are really something to watch) to distract themselves from the fact that their acts are unlikely ever to be staged or even seen. Colin and Frederique both have very few friends, who only briefly find any excitement or purpose after the conspiracy touches them, as they are spurred to find out more about it. The film meditates on the consequences of rejecting normal society in several memorable sequences, including a long shot of Colin as he wanders the streets of France shouting poetry to himself. As such, the film has been referred to as an analysis of 1960's counterculture.

There is not a frame of the film that is not bursting with energy and vitality. The fact that much of the dialogue and movement is improvised makes the characters much more spontaneous, much more immediate. The camera also becomes an important character in this regard; throughout the movie boom shadows are visible here and there, or other similar errors, yet they seem natural and fit with the flow of the action because the camera is so important a player therein.

More than anything for me, the film seems a great example of another way of making movies, a venue for film outside the usual pattern. For me it was a mind-opening experience, even more than "Paris Nous Appartient", though the latter bears many similarities of theme and structure. A must-see for anybody pondering the nature of art.


I think that Pierre Léaud, or his character, to be precise, is really outlandish but with grace: I also remember the chess player, and of the girl who seems to be appearing by chance in his home, something really curious...the woman acting as the lawyer, is to me one of the most beautiful actresses ever seen on the screen...but I must admit that the plot is too inconsistent to be taken seriously....The character who plays as the lead theater actor is really nice, especially when he's annoyed by the new actor, the one in purple t-shirt...also, the scene where the bearded actor - who belongs to another company - directs the stage is really fascinating and relaxing, as it often happens with this movie - for example, when they drink tea, they just make you want to have a cup...


This is the very La Nouvelle Vague.One of the best films of the New Wave and I dare say one of the first ten ever made! Why? The atmosphere, the story,the actors (actress) are all brilliant. This is the theater, a fairy tale, the life, the film.Paris. Thank you Mr.Rivette.


One has to be careful whom one tells about watching 12-hour long films. It could become easy for people to assume that this is some kind of regular occurrence - in fact, even in the world of 'arthouse' cinema, such mammoth running times are extremely rare, for obvious reasons. This is one thing that Hollywood and art cinema share in common: the generally accepted running time of 90-120 minutes, with a minority of movies that dare to approach, but rarely exceed, the three-hour mark.

For this reason, a film like Out 1 (runtime: 729 minutes) is a challenge for even the most hardened cinephile, and it goes some way in explaining why it has only ever been screened on a handful of occasions and remains extremely hard to find.

Originally devised as a TV series by maverick Nouvelle Vague director Jacques Rivette, it raised little interest from the French networks, and wound up being given a brief theatrical run instead (Peter Watkins was forced to do much the same with his brilliant nuclear war pseudo- documentary The War Game, although that had more to do with state censorship than issues with running time). Shown a couple of times in 1971, Out 1 has re-emerged at a handful of Rivette retrospectives over the last two decades, and many who have seen it, including esteemed US critic Jonathan Rosenbaum, have acclaimed it as one of the greatest films of all time.

Is it? Well, yes, if you like Rivette. That alone is a big 'if', as Jacques Rivette has never been a commercially successful director. Only two of his films were hits (Celine and Julie Go Boating (1974) and La Belle Noiseuse (1991), both superb), and many remain difficult to find on DVD today (Out 1 only recently became available over the internet after a rare videotape was uploaded). Nevertheless, he is greatly respected within the film community, and with good reason - his playfully surreal narratives, sense of pacing and use of improvisation set him apart as one of cinema's most unique and satisfying film-makers.

Out 1 deals with a theme that re-occurs throughout Rivette's work: the nature of acting, particularly in the context of theatre and improvisation. His fascination with acting make Rivette's films a far more collaborative process than many of his contemporaries, as the improvisational aspects allow actors to have a far more active role in determining how the film comes together. Out 1 is roughly divided into four major narratives, gradually intertwining and blurring as the film develops: two consisting of acting troupes, each trying to devise post-modern theatrical adaptations of Aeschylus plays; the other two individual petty thieves (played by Nouvelle Vague icons Jean-Pierre Léaud and Juliet Berto) pursuing eccentric methods of making money; and an overarching plot involving a mysterious Balzac-inspired conspiracy centred around an organisation known as 'the thirteen'.

As with any Rivette film featuring a 'conspiracy' narrative, the mysteries and secret organisations are little more than a red herring. As the characters are slowly explored and revealed and their plans and interpersonal connections break down, the film becomes increasingly symbolic of post-1968 ennui and the decline of the ideals of that era. For a film made in 1971, these were remarkably prescient themes; another French director in Jean Eustache would tackle this topic equally satisfyingly in his 1973 masterpiece The Mother and the Whore. But this is not the limit of Out 1's scope.

Comprised of eight episodes of roughly 90 minutes each (the beginning of each episode has a brief, abstract black-and-white still montage of the events of the previous chapter), Out 1 is no less watchable than any quality TV series, and may even be better experienced on a one-episode- at-a-time basis. This is not to say that it doesn't remain challenging even when viewed in segments. Like most Rivette films, it uses the first few hours to simply establish the characters before embarking on the plot, of sorts, and some of those early scenes (particularly the sequences depicting the actors' heavily abstracted 'exercises') seem interminably long. These scenes are important, however, not just as an exploration of the improvisational acting methods that play both a literal and a metaphorical role in the film, but as a method of adjusting the viewer to the somewhat languorous pace of the film. Paradoxically, long takes make long films far more tolerable for an audience, and this understanding of pacing has led Rivette, along with more modern directors like Michael Haneke and Béla Tarr, to create films with less commercial running-times that nevertheless retain the capacity to leave viewers enthralled.

In a film that is in many ways about acting, the acting is fantastic. Many famous Nouvelle Vague faces appear, including the aforementioned Léaud and Berto, the outstanding Michel Lonsdale and Rivette regular Bulle Ogier. Even another legendary director in Eric Rohmer has a great cameo as a Balzac professor who appears in a pivotal scene. The people and architecture of Paris c. 1971, though, seem to have an equally significant role - the city landscapes, crowd scenes and interested onlookers freeze Out 1 in time, a document of a place at a point in history.

After a little more than 720 minutes, the film ends on an impossibly brief, enigmatic note; yet, the exhausting journey that the viewer has taken is so full of possibilities, intricacy and spontaneity, that one would be forgiven for wanting to start all over again from the beginning, or see the next twelve hours in the lives of these characters. For those who have watched many kinds of cinema and think they have seen everything the art form has to offer, Out 1 is a reminder that cinema has the potential to be so many more things and diverge in so many more directions than current conventions allow. For film-makers, film critics and artists of all disciplines, this is something to be cherished.


I loved this movie! So worth the long running time. I need help with the ending though....

*SPOILER*

The final shot of Marie at the end - Is this to suggest that she is still searching for Renaud? or possibly that she was the one who wanted to reinvigorate the 13? (she seemed to be the one who delivered the initial letter to Colin in the first place) I don't quite understand it, but I know I really liked it. So if anyone has seen this and remembers it or has just seen it, please elaborate on the ending.

Thanks


The recent history of Hollywood remakes of ghost/horror films from the East has been dismal. This film will inevitably suffer the same fate, so get a copy on e-bay or similar.

It is well photographed and the sound is superb. Viewing on a good screen and with a good 5.1 or DTS enabled sound system is recommended. Obviously it is subtitled, so if that puts you off, then I wouldn't bother with this. Dubbing rarely works and simply would not do here.

It is also genuinely frightening, with excellent performances from a cast who will be unfamiliar to Western audiences. I would particularly single out the stepmother character, who was utterly brilliant. The ending will have you wanting to watch it again, if you can cope. The plot is relentless, and offers no comforting moments of release along the way.

If I do have a small criticism, there is perhaps a detectable influence in certain scenes from the Japanese version of The Ring. We have, however, accepted straight copies of other peoples' ideas for Western films for years, and so my point is a limited one which did not prevent me from giving it 10/10. I believe most fans of this genre will derive huge "pleasure" from this film which I for one hope goes down as a classic.


"A Tale of Two Sisters" is a brilliant South Korean psychological horror that left me speechless.The film offers some delicious moments of ghastly horror and is extremely creepy.The small cast of actors is truly excellent,with lead Im Soo-jung being especially memorable in the lead role.The direction by Kim Ji-woon is well-handled and the cinematography is absolutely gorgeous.The plot is slightly confusing,but some scenes are wonderfully eerie.The action is rather slow,but I was not bored in the slightest;I was extremely curious and intrigued.The house,where the film takes place looks incredibly menacing and isolated."A Tale of Two Sisters" is along with "Ringu" and "Kairo" one of the most original Asian horror films I have ever seen.Watch this masterpiece as soon as possible.My rating:10 out of 10.


The Beauty. The Terror. The Poetry. The Horror. The Innocence. The Guilt.

Maybe that's just about all I should write in this comment for A TALE OF TWO SISTERS. The best thing is to just watch this movie without knowing anything about it. I myself didn't even know one single thing about the history of the two girls when I went into this movie. I just took a look at the nice cover-art, didn't even read the synopsis on the back and popped it into DVD-player. I only knew that it won several prices on festivals around the world and that it came highly recommended.

The DVD-cover read "The Most Frightening Film since THE RING, THE GRUDGE and DARK WATER". Though the frightening-part might be right, you can forget about the rest, because the only thing A TALE OF TWO SISTERS has in common with those movie is... a ghostly apparition with long black hair. It's even a bit unfair to compare it with those famous Japanese movies, because this Korean movie has a lot more to offer and is in fact a bit more complicated and intelligent than those others.

This movie simply is a small masterpiece, and here are some reasons (without telling anything about the plot): The movie itself caught me off guard at least two times with clever surprise-twists. And just when you think you've had the conclusion (whether you get it or not, that's irrelevant for the moment) and you think the movie will end... this movie goes on a bit longer. The cinematography is amazing, using bright colors during the day and dark shades at night. The camera-work is excellent with the director sometimes choosing impressive, if not, innovating angles. Some shots are pure poetry (e.g. the top-shot with the two sisters at the lake). It all looks very stylish. There are only four main characters, but the intrigue surrounding them is intense. The story itself starts a bit slow, but there's a lot of variety in tone and emotions to keep it interesting. There was even one scene (when the girls took off towards the lake) that suddenly had me remembering Peter Jackson's HEAVENLY CREATURES. But when the horror kicks in, it's quite effective. There are also a few successful surprise-scares in it. Damn, I jumped right up from my sofa. The musical score is great, and at times when it's not supposed to be scary, I couldn't help but noticing that it had sort of an Italian feeling to it. A bit strange for a Korean movie. But nevertheless, a great score. So much care went into every detail of this film, including a perfectly balanced surround sound.

I also think that calling A TALE OF TWO SISTERS just a horror movie is giving it not enough credit. It's more a mysterious horror-drama that works both on a psychological and supernatural level. No matter how you look at it, this is Asian horror that ranks way up there amongst the finest. It might not be gory, but it gets pretty scary at times and the subject matter is pretty disturbed. So if you haven't seen it yet, then find a copy, pop it into your DVD-player, go with the flow and make sure you give this movie your full attention for it's 110 minutes running time.

There, I hope I did a good job praising it without spoiling anything.


Perhaps I'm one of the only avid horror fans who thinks that the recent overload of Asian shockers is so over-hyped! Films like "Ringu" or the "The Eye"  which are praised all over the world  simply didn't convince me and they looked more boring than frightening. Well, this blunt opinion doesn't go for the South Korean gem "A Tale of Two Sisters". This is a stylish and utterly complex psychological terror-tale that REALLY gets under your skin! The plot, based on a local folklore tale, might be a little too confusing to get this film listed among the all-time greatest genre achievements, but the atmosphere and tension-building surely provokes feelings of great respect. This is one of those few films that are impossible to label: the events in "Two Sisters" qualify as mind-bending horror as well as intense family drama and a deeply psychological portrait. Besides a mesmerizing story, "A tale of Two Sisters" also has all the great elements that I feel are usually missing in Asian horror films like compelling music, good acting and innovative camera-work. The mansion were the family events take place is brilliantly illustrated like a truly creepy place where secrets and danger lurk behind every door. Several sequences (like the dinner with relatives or the nightly appearance in the girls' room) are pretty much the ultimate in eeriness. They really made me feel uncomfortable and I do like to believe that I've seen my share of spooky horror. "A Tale of Two Sisters" is a terrific movie-adventure and a definite must see for Asian film fanatics. A little warning for people with a short attention-span, though: this movie forces you to have your eyes and ears focused at at all time. It's also a film that requires repeated viewing, even though no one will never really "get it" for a full 100%.


I love horror films, but I think they work way better when they hide a dramatic impact behind (The Devil's Backbone, The Exorcist, for example). This is that kind of film, and it's not only eerie and terrifying when it has to be, it is also really beautiful. A Tale of Two Sisters starts really slow, so if you're in a hurry to see ghosts in the first 20 minutes you will be disappointed. Actually this is not a ghost story though there are some. It's something more complex, and it's done in such a way that it beats Ringu and The Grudge out of the ring no sweat. A Tale is a way more clever film than those huge cultural hits, because it really cares for its characters, and the direction is flawless. Every detail in this film will leave you breathless if you're the kind of person who loves to pay attention to details while watching a movie. The acting is superb, specially from the stepmother and the main girl. Those two are worth the price of the ticket alone. Do yourself a favor and watch this awesome film.


This review is long overdue, since I consider A Tale of Two Sisters to be the single greatest film ever made. I'll put this gem up against any movie in terms of screenplay, cinematography, acting, post-production, editing, directing, or any other aspect of film-making. It's practically perfect in all of them  a true masterpiece in a sea of faux "masterpieces."

The structure of this film is easily the most tightly constructed in the history of cinema. I can think of no other film where something vitally important occurs every other minute. Quite literally, Ji-woon Kim seems to have made a movie that practically taunts the viewer to dissect it on the most detailed of levels. A seemingly insignificant object may be shown  a rack of dresses, two diaries, a drop of blood emanating from a floor crack, a bottle of pills, etc.  but upon meticulous inspection turns out to be so much more  a clue that helps to make sense of that particular scene (or perhaps the movie in total), which almost always contributes a stirring reflection upon the psychological concepts that lurk in the background until the viewer's intelligence prompts them to spring to the forefront. Such an event might occur a handful of times during any other movie, but in A Tale of Two Sisters such events occur in such a rapid-fire, relentless fashion that the viewer must watch the film in a perpetual state of alertness, lest they miss something important. In other words, the content level of this film is enough to easily fill a dozen other films. How can anyone in their right mind ask for anything more from a movie than this? It's quite simply the highest, most superlative form of cinema imaginable.

The most commonly cited criticism of A Tale of Two Sisters is nicely summarized by Zaphod B Goode, who falsely claims that the story is an incoherent, unresolved mess that uses confusion to instill a false sense of intelligence because it does not provide a final set of facts underlying the intriguing questions. He posits that Ji-woon Kim tossed up a dozen possible explanations and left it at that. In reality, however, nothing could be further from the truth. A Tale of Two Sisters provides a series of unassailably objective facts that help the viewer to identify the EXACT occurrences of each and every scene of the film. If our good friend Zaphod had been paying attention, he would have noticed  for example  the series of obvious flashbacks which provide enough factual information to make sense of the film. These flashbacks convincingly contradict Zaphod's assertion of complete subjectivity. The objective elements of A Tale of Two Sisters are so obvious to anyone willing to see them that the mere assertion of a lack of objectivity can only call into question the patience of a viewer who apparently does not want to put forth even the slightest effort whatsoever to see them. Can Ji-woon Kim really be faulted for the impatience of viewers who lack the desire to understand his film? I think not.

Please note that I will not insult the intelligence of critics such as Zaphod that cannot "get" A Tale of Two Sisters, because it really has nothing to do with a lack of intelligence as much as a lack of persistence. The movie spells itself out so effectively that the only possible explanation for confusion is a lack of effort on the part of the viewer. Yes, this film does require a rather significant amount of puzzle-solving, but the pieces fit together to create a beautiful picture. You need only put them together. Remember, the screenplay was written by someone with the picture already in mind  he simply separated the pieces and placed them skillfully throughout for the purpose of providing a magnificent cerebral exercise that  when completed  bestows an ultimate form of satisfaction and state of awe.

Don't misunderstand me. There are films that seem to start with an incomplete picture and try to create a puzzle that is insoluble by design. Spider Forest (2004), Perfect Blue (1998) and Donnie Darko (2001) are perfect examples of this. A Tale of Two Sisters is not. It's ironic that Zaphod claims Darko to be more masterfully constructed than A Tale of Two Sisters, especially considering that Darko not only provides almost NO objective facts but also a twist ending that is the quintessential deus ex machina cliché that could be dropped at the end of any movie ever made in order to provide the ultimate in faux intelligence. I'm ashamed of myself for mentioning the two films in the same sentence, but the contrast is an important one. Although it does perplex me that Zaphod would cite a movie that crumbles when exposed to even the slightest intellectual effort as a way of criticizing a film that only becomes discernible thru a significant application of intellectual effort. He apparently likes his "intelligent" films in the most superficial form possible. This is evident when he makes 17 consecutive questions in his review that are answered quite convincingly by the film itself. Just read the threads by Opiemar within the IMDb A Tale of Two Sisters Discussion Forum. Anyone who carefully reads those threads and still asserts a lack of an objective solution to this film may as well stop watching intelligent films altogether because the answers are so damned OBVIOUS.

I'd like to say more, but I've come to my 1,000 word limit. All that has been said here needed to be said. So be it now said!


I just saw "A Tale of Two Sisters" last night and really enjoyed it. I've been a big fan of Asian horror films recently and think that this is a strong entry from South Korea. There aren't many jump out at you scares as in the usual American horror film, but the director does maintain the off-kilter and foreboding mood very well, especially in the awkward character interactions with each other. Most of the scares are more conceptual and plays on everyone's "there's something under the bed" fears from when they were a child, but in this case, it's the closet and the sink. I also liked how the director was able to capture just how dysfunctional this household is through scenes such as the first dinner that the characters have together. He's also good at revealing people's inner life and fragility through simple scenes such as the stepmother wiping off her make-up in the mirror or her sitting in front of the flickering TV. I think this film is mainly an exploration of guilt and the consequences of living with that guilt hanging over you.

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD (DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU DO NOT WANT THE TWISTS OF THE MOVIE REVEALED) I was following the story pretty well, but did start getting confused during the bag dragging part. However, I think the flashback at the end definitely tied everything together. The film is very much like "The Machinist" in the way two of the character's joint guilt eventually leads to mental breakdowns and delusions.

Here's my interpretation of the film. The Su-Yeon that we see after the girls supposed return to the house is either the delusion of Su-Mi or the actual ghost of Su-Yeon that only Su-Mi can see and interact with. The initial stepmother that we see is, in my opinion a delusion of Su-Mi. There is a real stepmother, however, and she first appears in the film when she's wearing the gray pantsuit. I believe it's the real stepmother that the father is talking to on the phone throughout the first part of the movie and she doesn't appear until he pick her up and brings her to the house. The stepmother before that point is imagined by Su-Mi (perhaps part of her split personality?) That explains the bizarre dinner party sequence when the stepmother's brother looks at her like she's crazy and doesn't remember anything that she recounts. I think it was Su-Mi acting out her stepmother part of her split personality. The film shows this later in the bag dragging scene and scenes such as the stepmother wiping her make-up in the mirror, which is revealed later to actually be Su-Mi wiping her make-up in the mirror.

I think the ghosts in the house aren't entirely imagined by Su-Mi, and are either of Su-Yeon or the mother or both. In the final flashback, it is revealed the Su-Yeon was wearing the green dress and had the hairpin in her hair when she died. This is the green dress that they showed before on the ghost sitting at the dining room table while the stepmother was looking under the sink. Also, it's the hairpin that Su-Yeon was wearing in the flashback that appears on the floor when the stepmother is looking under the sink.

The real stepmother, in the end, gets punished by the ghost of Su-Yeon who comes for in a scene a little bit like The Ring. After that, the flashback scene ties it all together in terms of how both the stepmother was mainly responsible for her death, while Su-Mi unintentionally played a supporting role.

I wonder if the "mother" that Su-Yeon sees when she goes up to her room to cry, in the flashback, is a ghost already. Perhaps by that point the mother had already killed herself in the closet. That's left ambiguous.

Other things that are suggested, but not clearly explained in the film is that it seems like the stepmother, at some point, was a nurse, perhaps taking care of the mother and somehow may have contributed to her death too. It's not clear when her relationship with the father began and whether it caused the mother to kill herself. It's also suggested that the mother had mental issues too, requiring a nurse. The stepmother alludes to this when she tells Su-Mi, you're beginning to take after your mother. I don't think she meant just physically.

Also, if we accept that the initial stepmother that we see is actually Su-Mi, then there's the suggestion of incest too, since the father sleeps with her. Is that why Su-Mi freaks out and shouts, "Don't touch me" each time the father reaches for her in a later scenes? Is that the "filthy things that you've done" that she alludes to in a later conversation with the father? This film is interesting in it's capacity for different interpretations. A few of the scenes, however, were kind of derivative, such as the woman in the black crawling around scene, which reminded me of the herky-jerky movements of Kayako in the Ju-On/The Grudge films. Also, the final scene where the stepmother finally gets her just desserts is reminiscent of The Ring. Furthermore, just the idea that some characters may be ghosts is taken from "The Sixth Sense" or "The Others".

Overall, I enjoyed it, however, and it will be interesting to see how the Hollywood remake (that's already in production) turns out. I have to be honest, I liked both "The Ring" and "The Grudge", so I'm not one of those snooty types who insist that remakes can't be good too. One remake that I'm really excited about is "Dark Water" coming out this summer. I haven't seen the original Japanese version yet, but both films are definitely on my to-see list.


I first saw this film two years ago in the cinema, and fell in love with this dark tale of two brooding teenage sisters coping at home in their large country house with their father and step-mother. Their relationship with their step-mother is strained to say the least, with the step-mother appearing to be increasingly becoming unstable in her battles with the younger girls. The film though slants with Oriental style ghost effects and horror, which adds a strange and unsettling aspect to the story that on first viewing is not clear, but is all the more intriguing.

The direction is incredibly good, and the acting is stunning, with the step-mother in particular incredibly good swinging from one mood style to another in the film. The large house adds eeriness, and there are enough points in the film where you will jump out of your seat. This film to me clearly shows why Korean cinema is possibly the best most original in the world at the moment. You simply don't get anything like this in the Western World, sadly,and really i can see it being influential on film makers around the world in the next decade.

Highly recommended viewing in my opinion, a real joy and scare...


Two sisters, Su-mi (IM Soo-jung) and Su-yeon (MOON Geun-young) return home with their father (Kim Gap-soo). Eun-joo (YEOM Jeong-ah) welcomes them but Su-mi's manner is bitter to her. Su-mi hates Eun-joo because the father let her act like the house wife after the sisters' mother died. Seeing her attitude, Eun-joo is getting to treat the sisters coldly and there grows a tense atmosphere among them.

As if called in by the atmosphere, series of mysterious things occur in the house. When Su-mi is hanging her dress in her wardrobe, there have been already hung a lot of dresses of the same design. When she put her diary into a drawer, she finds another diary of the same kind there. When she is sleeping in her bed with scared Su-yeon, a nightmare awakes her and she finds a woman standing on her -- and a hand dangles out of the woman's skirt!

Mysterious things occur to the other people, too. On the evening of next weekend, Eun-joo's brother and his wife visit the family and they have a dinner together. Eun-joo cheerfully talks about a crazy man she met when she was a child, but nobody is interested in her talk. She says the crazy man annoyed the brother, but he says he doesn't know anything about the man.

Listening to their talk, the brother's wife has a panic.

After the dinner, the conflict between Eun-joo and the sisters becomes at its worst. Eun-joo pulls Su-yeon into a wardrobe and locks her in it. Su-mi saves the crying-out sister and complains to their father what Eun-joo has done to his daughter. But his response is unexpected. "Give me a break." says he angrily, "Su-mi, please. Don't make me tired any more."

And the following words out of the father's mouth are more shocking than what they have seen in the house.

To tell the truth, I hate horror movies. Although I seated myself at a theater because my intuition told me the movie was something different, I was regretting what my curiosity had made me act when it started showing. The regret, however, had changed into joy for expectation ten minutes later.

This film is a tragic mystery more than a horror -- painful more than horrible; beautiful more than sensational. That may have a hard core horror fan disappointed, but for a mystery fan like me, this film is a must see. (9 out of 10)


I watch many movies, but presently my genre number one is Asian horror. I have just bought this DVD and I initially found "Janghwa, Hongryeon" an intriguing but confused film, since I had not understood many parts of the story. But I saw in IMDb Board a message titled "Explanation of a Masterpiece (all your questions answered) Faster load", written by opiemar, and I was really impressed with the high quality of the explanations this user provided to viewers like me that missed points of the story. I would like to congratulate opiemar for his excellent work and suggest him to write a correct summary of this movie in IMDb to help and guide other viewers.

In the end, I agree that "Janghwa, Hongryeon" is a great Korean film, but I do not give ten in my vote because very few people can afford to see the same movie more than once, like this film demands, and without the great support of opiemar, I would not be able to understand the story as a whole. I intend to see this movie again in a near future. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Medo" ("Fear")


This isn't so much a review of A Tale Of Two Sisters as it is a discussion of some of the smaller plot details, so I advise you NOT to read this review if you haven't seen the film, because doing so will absolutely ruin a few surprises for you.

In a way A Tale Of Two Sisters is far from original, at least from a purely superficial aspect - some of its iconography is taken straight from Ring or Dark Water, while the storyline itself (especially what Brendt Sponseller calls the "rubber reality" aspect of the narrative) is reminiscent of films like Fight Club (lead character interacts with someone created in their mind), Mulholland Drive (character creates alternate reality in a psychogenic fugue), as well as other minor aspects of Lost Highway, Jacob's Ladder, and basically every film under the sun dealing with mental illness, plus Amenabar's films (The Others, Abre Los Ojos), Memento (particularly with regards to the torturous nature of memory), et al. Thankfully all these similarities do not detract from the film's overall emotional impact, and I personally found A Tale Of Two Sisters an extremely moving and rewarding experience.

Many people have commented on the "confusing" nature of the narrative, but I personally found the storyline to be fairly self-explanatory, even if it is in part portrayed in a non-sequential manner. The narrative only becomes confusing for some because, midway through the final third, the story switches from a purely subjective setting (ie. Soo-Mi's warped perception of reality) to an objective one, with a flashback at the end explaining the origins of Soo-Mi's nervous breakdown and subsequent mental illness. The shift in emphasis is bound to throw some people off guard, but structurally I found it somewhat reminiscent of aforementioned Mulholland Drive (even though we're not dealing with a character's perception of reality via a dream but instead their own schizophrenic tendencies - something which, in turn, reminded me of another Lynch movie, Lost Highway). To be honest, I don't really regard A Tale Of Two Sisters as a Horror movie as such, but rather a tragic story of a family's breakdown as well as an honest look at a character's mental illness (and I hasten to add that fans of psychoanalytical cinema are going to love this film).

That aside, the cinematography in A Tale Of Two Sisters is incredible and visually this is one of the most beautiful films I've seen this side of Wong Kar Wai's 2046. The performances are also fantastic without exception, and I expect to see more of the four lead actors in the future; not to mention the music, but then east Asian films without a great soundtrack seem to be few and far between these days.

It's very likely that some people will look past the finer artistic points of A Tale Of Two Sisters and simply dismiss it as "yet another Asian horror film", oblivious to its aesthetic beauty and honest psychoanalytical approach. But then each to their own. If you can ignore some of the film's platitudinous aspects and simply take it for what it is at heart, ie. an extremely tragic, heart-breaking story, then I see no reason not to recommend it.


Many horror fans complain that horror has scarcely progressed in the last twenty years. I was inclined to agree with this until the influx of Asian horror films, a trend which has admittedly grown dull. However, it has produced some true classics, and A Tale Of Two Sisters, for me at least, stands out as an exceptional piece of cinema, and perhaps the best horror film in a very long time.

Based vaguely on a Korean folktale, it tells the sad story of two mentally-troubled sisters residing with their father and stepmother. After experiencing a few problems on their first night back at home, they determine to stick together and deny their stepmother access to their close relationship. The tension rises and there is the inevitable snap. But what happens after this requires more than a pair of eyes, as the story takes several twists, and the scares become more emotional and quite real. By the end, you may need a few moments to absorb it all and piece it together in your own mind, but it is exactly this pairing of horror and mystery that pushes it beyond the definitions of these genres and makes it an instant classic. One to watch again and again, if only to work it all out.