For a long time I did not know weather I liked this film or not. This is surprising, because I usually do know, but because the film did not go anywhere, I was a bit confused.

Two people move into a somewhat communal household setting. Finding their spouses constantly working or away on business trips, their attention, out of sheer loneliness, wanders to each other. After a platonic love affair, the male lead played by Tony Leung Chiu discloses that he has a mistress on the side. Su Li-Zehn, played by Maggie Cheung is hurt, even though their love affair has not been physically consummated. Chiu leaves the country, only to come back years later, when everything has changed.

For the cynic's part, the film is correct. By never actively or actually touching the part of love, but only approaching it, the film, admittedly says more than so many others have on the subject. It is also true, I think, that nothing good could have come if they did go on to have the affair. At least that's the feeling I get.

If we are to believe it, however, when Garica Marquez writes that "...love is a state of grace; not the means to anything but the alpha and the omega, an end in itself," then this film falls miserably short of this, as do all others. Or, if you are inclined to entirely incomplete minimalism, hits it right on the mark. What films in history have achieved, approached, or sustained this phrase, if for only a short while? My honest feeling in memory is that about two. When Harry Met Sally suggests effectively this romantic perfection; and the getting is all in just getting there. It is interesting that in When Harry Met Sally, this is done in the course of wooing, rather than in its attainment. Can't anyone say anything good about love after it has been achieved by two individuals? Nicholas Spark's recent film The Notebook comes closer to this perhaps than any other film; are we to believe that once love is achieved it flies of the radar only to exist in perfection in some other dimension, or, more true perhaps, becomes latent vehicle for other ends?

In the Mood for Love is an honest film,with gorgeous and generous cinematography worthy in all respects of the best that Almodovar has to offer, yet all it manages to say in the end is that "Life is sometimes like this." Now this is by no means a diffident thing to say, especially if said well, but the problem really comes at the end of the last act when Kar Wai Wong tries to round out the film by relating, only for the second time, a broader historical theme that plays in the background of the relationship which has just taken place. This is a worthy effort, and the variation on the musical motif played throughout the film is rather brilliant, but the theme's relatively spare indictment plays too little to have much more than a superficial effect on the holistically inclined audience, leaving the viewer to split the difference, a mistake in any film. A director should know where he is going, and how to get there. But in all honesty, it is only one wrong turn. However, as anyone knows, all it takes is one notable imperfection to spoil the perfect barrel of honey.

The effort, though, is definitely worth while; trying to let a historical theme broaden and round out the film and raise it beyond the micro-meaning of the couple, but without any real foreshadowing, it is the crucial mistake. In a word, and unfortunately, it is too little too late. It is also, I think, too much of a challenge for the non-Asian viewer not familiar enough with China's history to appreciate completely this sweeping stroke.


WHAT AN AWESOME FILM!!!!!!!! I came out of the theatre feeling stunned. The film that I had just seen was one of the best films I have seen in my life. I had my eyes glued to the screen. It's very symbolic, visually lush, beautifully shot, and gorgeously told. It's basically about two people who move into a flat and live next door to each other with there partners, who are assumed to be having an affair with each others partners. Assuming this, our two heroes act out what they think their partners are getting upto. There is an obvious repression of feelings for each other, with the use of vouryistic camera work, body language, and symbollic stairways. It's a visual feast, and hard not to like. Some of the story gets slightly confusing but that's nothing. The ending is one of the most beautiful (and anti-hollywood) endings I have ever seen in my life, and visually amazing. The films haunting score adds to the mood. I highly recommend this film to anyone with an open mind, and respect. What a superb film.


as with many of Wong's films, a lot of people find them to be boring and confusing. Well i like them and i like this film too. I went out and rented it on dvd and i watched it 3 times. It is a very subtle movie that provides an intoxicating experience. for those who did not enjoy it...... you just wasted 2 hours of your life.... too bad...muhahahahaha.


"In the Mood for Love" a teasing allegory of loneliness and longing. Here is a film without sex, or even kissing -- and it is no doubt one of the sexiest and definetly the most thought-provoking and psychological romance I have ever seen.

Telling the story of two people who coincidentally, live in the same apartment, and are a door away from each other. The film, like and unlike "Random Hearts," is about how two people come together via the affair of their two lovers. Only once they receive this news, they take the time to think about the consequences of an affair, and each other's feelings towards having just broken-up -- and whether or not the two people are willing enough to fall back in love.

What's terrific about the film is the way director Wong Kar-Wai, presents each character's way of dealing with loneliness. With Maggie Cheung's character, he'll show her, in a repeated montage: leaving work, going home, watching her neighbors gamble, head to the noodle shop, leave the noodle shop, and bump into her attractive age-equal, played by Tony Leung. This is a clever, if not subtle and knowing technique to present loneliness. For it is when you are alone, when you find yourself falling into a loop. This movie worked for me because I can identify with that feeling.


Having seen many of Wong Kar-Wai's other movies (Happy Together, Fallen Angels, Ashes of Time), I knew what to expect coming in to the theatre; the cinematography would be lush, the use of space and perspective would be varied, the acting would be superb, and at least one of the characters would be consumed by an ineffable loneliness. These are, after all, precisely the techniques that make Wong Kar-Wai's art what it is. What I was not expecting was the degree to which I was drawn into a film that some reviewers dismissed as "unfinished" and compelled by characters who "seemed consumed by ennui."

I find it interesting how people can be so utterly unmoved by a film that so vividly displays emotions and settings many of us take for granted or work ardently to forget: the overwhelming sense of grief stemming from being betrayed; the guilt aroused by the thought of becoming no better than the betrayer; the mundane yet profoundly intimate moments of relationships, where the need to express oneself verbally is utterly superfluous. This is what Wong Kar-Wai attempts to portray in the film and what he achieves so well.

Too many Americans are consumed by the need to have every moment of a film filled with stock dialogue; witty banter, disaffected sarcasm and overwrought confessions seem to be the pinnacle of the "best" American film has to offer. Wong Kar-Wai sees things very differently. Instead of the character needing to keep the audience apprised of her every feeling, perception or belief, Wong's characters make their feelings and understandings known clearly by facial gestures, body positioning, and, yes, silence.

If viewers merely contemplate this film from the standpoint of character development and action, then they may be disappointed by what it has to offer. If they are willing to let themselves try and intuit what the characters are feeling, then they may feel quite differently about what Wong has to offer them.


One of, if not THE most visually beautiful film I have ever seen in my life...there is so much to learn here in how to play with the camera, color, costumes and set up a shot. The work that went into the official film web sites in English and French also give you a good idea of the sheer beauty contained in the film.


Sensitive, extremely quiet paced love story between a married journalist and his young and atractive neighbor, she too also married. They lived their love for a time but the obstacles and the fear of hurting their families and children invites to a separation. A reflexive look on delicate question like love, friendship, honor and loneliness, always present in human lives, whether you are an American or a Chinese. I give this a 7 (seven)


How do you describe perfection? In-the-Mood-For-Love! Maggie Cheung and Tony Leong practically dance on the screen and give stellar performances that stay with you hours after you've left the theatre. Every scene in the film resonates with the powerful combination of superb cinematography and shot selection, top-notch acting, and the sensual soundtrack. Nat King Cole singing in French absolutely sets the tone for the whole movie. Maggie and Tony look marvelous, with Maggie slinking about in some truly glorious cheongsams and Tony always looking dapper. I've seen this movie several times already, and everytime I see it I find something new to rave about. Love it!


The Chinese film title of "In the Mood for Love" is "fa yeung nien wah." It can be interpreted as "those blossoming years (that once were)."

The whole film is a well-composed piece. A complex love story told in simple visual approach. Writer-director Wong Kar-Wai has choreographed a dancing of the hearts - it's she, it's he, it's love. I can hear Galasso's theme: dum dum-dum, dum dum-dum, and the strings - almost like heartbeats. A piece with prelude, stanzas, and epilogue.

Director optimized the use of music (Michael Galasso's score, Nat King Cole singing in Spanish, and Chinese songs/tunes). The rhythm and lyrics prompt viewers to what she and he is feeling/thinking rather than verbal dialogs. I can hear Nat King Cole giving us the clues: "Aquelloojos verde" (that thing, fling, eyes green) plays when the two meet, and "Quizas, quizas, quizas" (perhaps) when she's undecided.

Nostalgia pervades throughout the film. Design details plentiful: handbags and ties; Japanese rice-cooker novelty; the ridged pattern green glass cups & saucers and plates (I remember Dad treasured those at home); mahjong session; kitchen area; bedroom furnishings; the thermos for the take-out noodles that she swings when she walks. Maggie Cheung, slender and shapely, looks exquisite in those fashionable patterns & colors of the traditional Chinese woman clothing - 'cheung sam'. Every change of her dress denotes another day, another time in the story. Wong Kar-Wai is resourceful that way.

The scenes may be of the same place, but it's of a different mood, advanced to the next stanza. Up and down the stairs to the won-ton noodle stand. Standing by the wall around the corner to the apartments as the rain pours. Along the corridor, back and forth, to his writing corner.

Trivia: So she helps him with his writing of his martial arts novel. Maggie would be able to help as she's been in kung fu/martial arts movies. "Eastern Three Heroes" 1992 is a fun action movie with Maggie Cheung (Thief Catcher Chat), Michelle Yeoh and Anita Mui as three super heroes fighting evils.

If you appreciate Tony Leung's performance, don't miss "Chungking Express" 1994 (in the second segment - romance rhythm with a difference), and "Happy Together" 1997 (an intense, emotionally colorful painting of friendships, faith, and fate), both written and directed by Wong Kar-Wai.

Being able to understand the Cantonese and Shanghainese dialects, and having visited the official site, I realized the epilogue was not quite completely translated. Here's sharing my version of the Chinese captions:

It was kind of an unbearable encounter All along she has kept her head lowered Giving him a chance to get closer He didn't have the courage to be closer She turned around, walked away.

That time and place had come to past. All that belonged, no longer exist. _______

Those vanished years, seemingly separated by a glass gathering dust, can see, yet cannot grasp.

All along he has longed for all that's past If he can break through that dust-gathered glass He will walk back into the times long vanished. ________

Wong Kar-Wai's "In the Mood for Love" brings to mind the simple poetry and wisdom of Rumi, the Sufi philosopher - the 'inner and outer,' the 'spirit and body' of life, love and living.

[Resend. Revised. ruby_fff 2/22/01]


The notion of marital fidelity portrayed in the film seems outdated today, but it is exactly the main characters' adherence to that notion which makes the entire story so touchingly tragic. It is this notion that ennobles them and allows them to stand out, to, as they refer to their respective spouses, "not be like them".

As Tony Leung said in the film, love just happens. There doesn't need to be a rational explanation as to how it happens, it simply does. Despite their not wanting to stoop to their respective spouses' level, it happened. Fidelity, social mores, and timing all conspired against this relationship coming into fruition. Simply being in love is far from enough.

I had the misfortune of sitting beside a young couple (still in university from the snippets of conversation they kindly shared with me throughout the entire film, and uninitiated to the pains of lost love and missed opportunities). Their gross inability to digest the subtleness and the deeper emotions evoked made me realize just how much a film such as this, as well as other Wong Kar Wei's work, is wasted on the local audience.


Two hours ago I was watching this brilliant movie which overwhelmed me with its imprisoning photography. It is quite understandable how it won the prize of Best Camera in Cannes 2000. Close ups predominated it. Close ups of walls, humans and of many other things. The warm colored lighting (which is also usually by the director) gave the movie a warm atmosphere. Only two persons are principally to be seen in most of it. An interesting music and especially three songs or themes accompanied the movie nearly all the time. Each one of these themes represented a certain atmosphere during the whole movie. Silence and slow movements characterize the movie. Some scenes were extended moments or a serious of close-ups. Not only Tony Leung deserves a prize for his superb acting since Maggie Cheung was also so brilliant. I wonder how many dresses she was wearing in the different scenes. The story was also connected somehow with the history of Hong Kong and the region the 1960s. This prevented me from understanding some details of the it especially at the end. In short I would recommend the fans of artistic movies to watch it in the cinema.


For those who like their films full of exploding planets and extreme violence, this is definitely not one to see. In fact, there is very little plot at all (or, at least, very little that could not be summarised in a few seconds: A meets B. Mr A falls for Mrs B and has an affair with her. A and B then fall in love and wonder (at great length) whether to have an affair themselves).

This is Cantonese Visconti. Story there is none, but what you DO get is a succession of wonderful images and poignantly trivial music which convey the slow passage of the central characters' emotions. There is also the chance to see one of the world's most beautiful women in a succession of stunningly elegant outfits. For my money, it's worth seeing for that alone. How could this woman ever have been an action heroine? She looks as though she has stepped straight out of the pages of Vogue.


The plot of "In the Mood for Love" is simple enough: A married man and a married woman (though not to eachother) slowly develop a romantic attachment to one another. The film's pace is numbingly slow and precious little actually happens between the two. Yet the backdrop of Hong Kong in the early 1960s and director Wong Kar-Wai's keen sense for capturing the beauty of the setting as well as the principal characters make this film a joy to watch. Actors Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung are both excellent and Wong Kar-Wai has done an extraordinary job in capturing the feel and nostalgia of the past (something so many films and directors try to do but usually fail miserably). There are so many little details that add charm to the film (a trademark of the director) and the colors and cinematography are what send this otherwise simple story over the top as a marvelous cinematic achievement. 9/10.


i thought this was a beautiful film. it is not my favourite of his films - chungking express holds that spot - this one is quite different from anything else i have seen of his. it is slow (but not annoyingly so) - it takes its time and ponders the characters.. there is minimal movement in the frame - the camerawork is wonderful. the acting is great. the film feels like a long warm comforting drink.


I Feel the Niiiiiight Heat! I feel your HEEAAAAAAAAAART-beat! Something ain't right!" Theme song written by B.J. Cook from Skylark- David Foster's old band and wife. She also wrote the memorable theme from CBC's "Airwaves." OH Night Heat! What a program! Well-written, well-acted and totally classic. Crime solvers and a good team and a dash of humour at the end. I'd like to think this is really what detectives do/did. Giambone was a real favourite! On a Canadian tip, I learned EVERY Canadian actor's name and style from guest spots done on Night Heat. Everyone passed through the Night Heat set and like Law & Order, it was story-driven so you could just watch and enjoy without a lot of character melodrama.


This lasted several years despite the late hour it was on.

Like a lot of 80's crime dramas, it looked cold. Both physically and figuratively. This isn't a bad thing though. And the (obviously) low budget actually worked in it's favor. Gritty during a time when 'slick' was in.

Allan Royal's wraparound segments as the news writer gave it a slight edge.

The only actors I remembered were Scott Nylands (Earthquake) and Tony Rosato (SCTV). The cast of barely knowns was a good thing because one could see the group as a whole and not as a bunch of people supporting a 'star.' And yes, that's a young Clark Johnson (Homicide) in a recurring spot.

I hope a DVD release is in the future. Someone out there wanna get on that?


i just wanted to say that when i was young my favorite t.v show back in the day was night heat. I loved the characters and the plot of the show. I thought that it was an excellent show and still do to this day. I enjoy watching the reruns and I am a big fan.I love the way the characters played off one another.I would always stay up late to watch my favorite show with my mother who also was a big fan. Now I can enjoy watching my show again and listening to the theme song.Which I thought was a cool song for the show.My favorite characters were Scott Hylands and Jeff Wincott.I enjoyed watching these handsome guys take down the bad boys.


The BBC and HBO teamed up to create "Dirty War", a 90 minute TV movie about a terrorist "dirty bomb" attack in London. The film gets down to business quickly as it packs both the terrorist and the government anti-terrorist efforts into the film leaving little room for human interest subplots. On the terrorist side we follow the bomb from the smuggling of radioactive materials to assembly to deployment to detonation. On the government side we see PR and training exercises, intelligence gathering and analysis, interdiction, post-detonation response, and follow up. The film also imparts a sense of how Al-Qa'ida type terrorist cells are organized, the radical Islamic terrorist mentality, and terrorist strategies. A sort of anatomy of a "dirty bomb" incident, "Dirty War" will answer many questions lurking in the minds of a public becoming ever more aware of this insidious threat. (B)


Well this movie certainly was in keeping with the current times. No happy endings, super-heroes, or miracles here. Just down-to-earth fiction to stimulate our minds along the lines of terrorism, and what-ifs. Kudos to Percival and Mickery for an excellent screenplay and superb direction by Percival. Films like this are needed to keep us aware of what is out there. If every peace-loving man and woman on earth reported obviously suspicious activities I believe terrorism could not thrive. This movie showed just how hard it really is to subvert these terrorists, even with good intelligence. Even though the film is a bit propagandist against Islam (the use of a Muslim police officer as a main character) I believe it was entirely realistic. There was meant to be shock-value in the bombing incident. As a very clever tool to relay the humility and indignity of people caught up in an attack such as this, they showed full nudity of women being decontaminated post-attack. It didn't take me long to realize that this was meant to even further instill into the viewer that thought, i.e., we are not in control of everything in a situation like this. Although this took place in London, with the usual high-level British acting, it makes a statement for any part of the world. Great movies don't have to be blockbuster epic productions, and this movie is very very worthy of viewing.


Daniel Percival's "Dirty War", a BBC production made for television was shown recently on cable. The film has a documentary style in the way it goes after the people that caused the near holocaust in one of the big metropolis of the world, London. In fact, this film, produced in 2004 is almost a cautionary tale of the events of the following year, in which terrorists set explosive devices in the public transport that killed innocent people that were in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

The film impresses for the pace the director and the production team gave to the project. There are no dull moments in the movie as we watch the preparation by the terrorists and the people that are following their dirty work. Although the inevitable happens, it's amazing just to think what would be the consequences if a real 'dirty bomb' was planted in such a densely populated area.

The last images of the film have a chilling effect. The mob scenes and the way the whole area is contaminated send shivers of fear, thinking how it could possible happen anywhere.


This is a pretty good made for TV flick of the 'what if' variety. As in, what if terrorists exploded a 'dirty bomb' in a big city, in this case, London. Lots of poking at folks that say 'we're all set in the event of an emergency' that then reveal that they're not exactly telling the full story. And is anyone prepared for something like this? You can bet not. This shows the material for the bombs being smuggled into the country, the making of the bombs, the secrecy and double lives that the people behind it lead, etc. It also shows public servants (i.e., firemen) giving their all to save people when they aren't getting any help, when the government doesn't want to send anyone else into the affected area. Also shows how woefully inadequate 'preparations' are for any such occurrence, as the government talks everything up but then stands there with their mouths hanging open as the tragedy unfolds. And could this happen right here in the good old USA? Well, unless you've been living in caves for the past 20 years something already has, to an extent, and don't bet that anyone would be prepared for something of this nature. This is fairly realistic and yes, even scary. Well worth seeing but just hope nothing like this ever really happens. 8 out of 10.


I lived in London most of my adult life before I moved stateside so missed this film when it came out and only saw this now on HBO. I disagree with anyone who thinks this should have been a Hollywood production, the UK team gave it a chilling and foreboding atmosphere from day one and I was on the edge of my seat for the last 30 minutes wondering what was going to happen to my home city. And of course,nine months after the film comes out 7/7 happens. Yes, the truth is stranger than fiction. Having lived in both countries, it is also clear the likelihood of this happening in the UK is much greater than in the US, muslims live in ghettos and isolate themselves in the UK, in the US they assimilate much more readily.


This movie was really interesting... it also is quite shocking as the similar events of the movie occurred only 10 months after the movie premiered.

it was interesting seeing the problems that could be encountered and realistic enough to show that no matter how prepared you think you are - you aren't. if this was made for an American audience - it would be different because they would have used this as a full propaganda film and not as a wake call which the BBC did! it still is propaganda, in some extend - no film today with these themes can not be - but it dealt with the issue successfully.

a film that should be shown in all terrorism/counter-terrorism courses but will not because it shows faults which is not allowed to be acknowledged! A great film in which the BBC took a few risks and unfortunately, London does not need a fictional tale any more, due to the reality of July 7 2005.


The film is partly a thriller and partly a public-service announcement when seeing the events through the perspectives of politicians, terrorists and of course victims. In this smart drama lessons are given about contamination and surviving chaos while meantime the backstage look at the way crisis is managed prompts viewers to distrust guardians and to be scared by assailants. The film, originally aired on BBC, gets to arouse effectively doubts on official prepareparedness. Performances are proper, understated though never terrific. The flick is just a beginning, a provocative start leading to a larger discussion but it gets to work in my opinion, giving the right thrills and causing the audience to reason and to ask itself questions.


Dirty War is absolutely one of the best political, government, and well written T.V. Drama's in the 25 years.

The acting is superb, the writing is spectacular.

Diry War reveals the true side of why we are not ready to respond to a Nuclear, Biological, and Radiological Terrorist Attack here on American soil.

Dirty War should be made into a major motion picture - It's that good! I highly recommend this great drama to everyone who desire to know the truth.

This T.V. drama reveals how British Intelligence (MI5 & MI6) attempt to expose a terrorist plot and conspiracy to destroy innocent victims -because of England's involvement in the Iraq War.

The scenes of different parts of London, England are also spectacular.

Dirty War is a must see!!!


Seeing this film brought back to me memories of 9/11. The first thing I remember of that morning was seeing TV pictures of an airplane flying into a large building, and my immediate thoughts "Must be a preview for a new Tom Clancy film".

This was not a Tom Clancy film. This was certainly not a British version of "The Sum Of All Fears". The typical Tom Clancy film or novel has a relatively small cast, a linear plot, and usually some sort of resolution. This film had neither. Sure, what I saw directly on screen was a small cast, a plot, and a vague resolution, but, like 9/11, the point was that reality was so much larger and more complex.

I work in systems planning, and the reality of the disaster preparation exercise, and the disaster itself, is painfully obvious. It's impossible to prepare for a disaster like this, nor will it be any more possible to deal with this when it happens.

From the argument between the police (Not enough is being done to prepare) and the politicians (Giving everybody on the tube a gasmask would cause panic), to the constant loudspeaker announcements (You are in no danger to your health, but don't go home before we decontaminate you), and (Don't eat, drink, or smoke before we decontaminate you), I was on edge during the entire film. Not the slightest urge to channel surf.

This film was 90 minutes in length. It could have been twice that, and still not shown all the possible details. Instead, it left enough unsaid to allow each of us to imagine the details, each of us in our own way. That made it so much more real to me, than any Tom Clancy film.

I lived in London once, and just off the Edgeware Road. And I took the train from Waterloo station many times. As I watched Dirty War, I kept telling myself that this is only fiction. Right now.

Allah and Jehovah willing, this film will remain fiction, and sometime in 20 or 30 years, my nephews may watch this film and remember the early 21st Century, and the panic we felt too much. Hopefully to the same degree as I feel currently, when viewing memorabilia of the Cold War with the Evil Communist Regime of the mid-20th Century, and remember "Drop and cover" exercises in school.


Before seeing this picture I was quite skeptic, I don't like movies with an agenda nor do I appreciate being scared into thinking like the writer. I was also afraid this would be like the 2-part mini-series "10.4" which had a far-fetched concept, little relation to the real world and very poor execution. At the beginning is says: "This film is fiction, but the events portrayed and the information about UK emergency planning are based on extensive research"; and the general feeling is that you're not being sold on an idea, but that you're being taught a lesson in civil awareness. The message that is being conveyed is obvious from the start: It is coming and we're not prepared. The use of real places and a scenario which not only could happen - There are plans for when it does - all add to the disturbing effect the movie will have, on even the most cynical of viewers. The movie's perspective is that of the society and it stays away from heart-breaking personal moments, which won't convey the message, so none of the Romeo-Juliet drama we're used to.


I really liked this movie. I watched it last night on the Public Broadcasting System. The part I liked about it was the fact that they dealt with issues of today not in the future or the past. They basically had some terrorists take a van or two and rent them out to be car bombs. I think what the movie could have showed was people in different countries at the same time. It did show the fact that England, or any other country, isn't prepared for an attack on the magnitude that they showed. I have never heard of any of the actors or actresses in the movie so I can't really say if they are normally their parts. After the movie, they had this panel of experts talking about if something like that could happen here in the U.S. It was a thought-provoking discussion!


This movie was a riot, it pokes fun of "Madonna - Truth Or Dare" in all the right places. I love Madonna & I love Julie Brown. How could I ask for more..Julie's spoof of "Vogue", entitled "Vague" was hysterical.. "Kelly LeBrock thinks she's great, she's just cold boogers on a paper plate". "Brooke Shields, Dawber, Pam personality of Spam"!! I could've died! And just wait till you see what she can do with a watermelon!!


Julie Brown hilariously demolishes Madonna's attempt at a rockumentary with gut ripping humor and truly original and catchy songs that rival Madonna's own. Cinematography and sets are top notch.

Kathy Griffin and Chris Elliott offer their own injections of comedy that enhances and compliments this film. Appearances by Bobcat Goldthwait and Wink Martindale, as themselves, is an added bonus.

It's hard to tell if Brown's performance is meant to insult or playfully tease Madonna, though I hardly think the Material Girl would find humor in it.

My Favorite line: "Why don't you come here (to the Phillipines); all they eat is dog and I'm a vegetarian."


"Medusa: Dare to be Truthful" is an outrageously funny parody that is a fine companion to the original, "Madonna: Truth or Dare". Julie Brown's brilliant creation skewers Madonna's highly entertaining documentary (although it wasn't exactly daring, insightful, candid, or truthful) with a faithfulness to detail, right down to the packaging. I highly recommend this for Madonna fans, Julie Brown fans, or anyone who enjoys sharp and clever parody.


This is one of Julie's greatest tributes to music, alongside her "Trapped in the Body of a White Girl" album. To quote the great Medusa "Dare to go bare, just wear your underwear, you'll get a ride home everytime" - Wow!!! Now that is some good advice. "You can dance, at my party! Yeah, justify your dance shoes!.....You're invited to the party in my pants. Yeah come on boy let's dance, at the party in my pants" Julie Brown is hilarious!!! It is almost sad that this video is only 51 minutes long, but every minute is awesome!!!


This parody is cleverly done: from the songs (Express Yourself becomes Expose Yourself, Like a Prayer is now Party in my Pants and Vogue is now Vague) to the fake interviews of the cast of the show, this movie is hilarious. Remember Madonna saying she didn't know about the rain season in Asia? In this one, she doesn't know about the volcano season. It is a precious jewel. They got a lot of money on that spoof, and it pays off. Highly recommended!!!


After all these years, I am puzzled as to why Julie Brown (West Coast) isn't a household name or a hugely famous comedic star. She is one of the funniest females on the planet. In this spoof, she takes on Madonna who is one of her favorite targets. She is Medusa, a hugely successful singer, like Madonna who also happened to have documentary "Truth or Dare." Julie Brown spoofs Madonna as Medusa who came from Wisconsin, the land of dairy and beer. I remember the segment where she went to Wisconsin to visit her family and a grave. I don't remember if it was a parent or her pet. I remember somebody saying that Medusa did nothing original. She was just copying others. I have to say that I hope this spoof documentary is available on DVD somewhere. Julie Brown was at her best mocking and spoofing others.


Normally I try to avoid Barbie films, but this one was unmistakably awesome. Kudos to the graphics and character voice overs. It all flowed well. This enchanting tale is a great spin off of others, but is well worth buying! I don't have kids, but the kids I babysit, (including boys) find it intriguing and love the extra features on the DVD. I honestly don't know why this is rated so low, but for kids, especially your Barbie lovin' 8 year old will love this. Its not straight forward and predictive like most movies are. This "childrens" film has excellent morals and shows teamwork. It has no swearing, bits of romance (if your old enough to figure it out) and beautifully written storyline. Thats why I am giving it a ten out of ten!


My 5 year old daughter is very into the Barbie series of movies. I've had mixed feelings about that - not wanting her to buy into the whole Barbie-doll image of things, and recognizing that the movies are a marketing ploy to convince young girls to buy more dolls and make more money for Mattel. This morning though she asked me to watch this movie with her, and - it being a lazy Saturday morning and with not much else to do - I agreed. I don't know if the movies have been made to help market the dolls, which seem to be losing their appeal a bit from what I've heard or if the dolls are there to market the movies (or, more likely, a bit of both) but whichever is the case, I have to admit - somewhat to my surprise, this wasn't half bad.

It's a fun and imaginative story full of magical places and people and memorable characters (both good and evil.) Essentially, Annika ("played" by Barbie) has to find a way to build a "wand of light" to reverse the evil spells of the wizard Wenlock, who among other things has turned her sister into a flying horse and her parents into stone. The animation here was pretty good - not Disney-calibre (if one thinks of Disney as the standard to aspire to) but generally pretty good, and while the movie is obviously tailored to young girls rather than middle-aged men, I still found there were enough twists and turns to make me wonder how it was all going to turn out. It's true that there were some holes in the story, or at least some logical inconsistencies, but again one must remember the target audience, who wouldn't really think of such things. This is an all around decent family movie. 7/10


I would have to say that in general Barbie Movies have impressed me. I have a 5 year old Barbie fanatic niece and she watches them all the time so needless to say I have seen quite a lot of Barbie these holidays, but I am not sick of them.

This film, visually, has a lot to offer, especially the backgrounds, and the animation of the characters has improved with each new movie. One thing I noticed in particular was a vast improvement in the animation of Barbie's hair in this film. It has a lovely range of excerpts from classical music and I think that this is great, as it exposes a new generation to the classics. This film is well worth ago, especially if you have young relievers. They will be entertained for hours!


For once a Barbie movie that is good. I'm 18 and a embarrassed to say this but I'm hooked on these movies. I hated Barbie when I was younger but the movies I love. Shiver is so cute and I've fallen in love with him. He's so cute as the polar bear and totally in love with Aiden. Oh man I'm in love with Shiver. I love Annika determination not to give up on hope and eventfully it works. I love this movie and hopefully they will be other good ones. Barbie & Swan Lake is other brilliant movie. I would recommend this movie to children of all ages (even boys) because the movie is that good and I'm hard to please. Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus is a movie that is enchanting and exciting.


For a kid's movie, this is great. As an adult and mother, I enjoyed watching the movie with my daughter. There is a lot going on in this movie. The following *might* be considered a *spoiler*... Barbie learns courage and learns not to judge others so quickly in this movie. She also learns not to give up hope and to master her anger. I loved the sense of teamwork you get from watching Barbie and her sister and friends solve the puzzle. There's nothing in the movie I found offensive or inappropriate for young viewers. In fact, I felt that the moral messages of the movie were superb and well done.

The animation was pretty good. I really enjoy the ice-skating scenes and think that they were very well done. There's a lot of action in this film, so I suspect that most kids would enjoy it... not just the ones that are really into Barbie. My daughter actually picked it out because of the Pegasus. She loves horses. But she enjoyed the movie very much. My daughter is autistic, and was able to sit through the whole movie and enjoy it. She really liked the action scenes and any parts with horses involved.

One thing that I was thinking about was that many people object to Barbie (and Ken) because they are so beautiful. Yet, I think that kids, just like adults like to look at beautiful people and things. It's natural. As adults, we enjoy watching beautiful movie stars too. It's wonderful though, that the Barbie character and her "boyfriend" have a lot of personality. While it's fun to watch pretty people, it grows old if there is no substance behind the pretty face.

Overall, I'd say this is a great movie for kids and parents will enjoy it, too. :)


I just want to comment to the woman above, that the movie DOES credit Beethoven in the begging. In the beginning credits they show it. Thank you. I think this is an amazing movie. They picked just the right music for the mood of the movie, the animation is wonderful, and they picked the voices for the characters very well. It teaches children to never give up, and to always have hope. Princess Annika doesn't give up , and it shows children that they can do the same. The movie also has humor in in for all ages, parents and children, to laugh at. The colors in this movie are great, and kids can really feel good while they are watching it. I watched this movie for the first time, now I am a huge fan, and I'm sure your child will be too. Walmart sells tons of Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus stuff, so your child can continue to enjoy the movie even when they aren't watching it. Thank You!


Heard about this film a long while ago and finally found it on ebay for five bucks. I wasn't expecting much but wow, was I ever surprised. It's a story of a boy and girl in love trying to escape an evil king who wants the girl for himself and takes place in a huge castle, reminds me of ICO for PS2 because some shots gave you a sense of vertigo.Sounds pretty standard but this movie is insane! It's hard to believe such an original animated feature was made in 1952. Also, the king was probably one of the creepiest character's I've seen in a long time, with a feminine walk, weird eyes (usually crossed), and a soft but scary voice. The only problem I had with the film was that the boy and girl had no personality and hardly even any lines except for calling for mr. wonderbird (A large talking green bird)to save them. The animation was fantastic in most areas but some cells were missing from some scenes which sucked. It's incredibly original with flying police and giant mechs and even laugh out loud funny at times, it's a real shame this is such an obscure title because it's really a good film. Check it out sometime.


(Review is of the original 1950's version not the restored 1980's one) In a land where the king likes no one and no one likes the king a shepherdess and a chimney sweep from two nearby paintings come to life and run off. A portrait of the king, who loves the shepherdess, kills the real king and takes his place. A huge bird, the wonderbird of the title, acts as a hero of sorts and helps out our two lovers.

This is a strange strange movie... no surreal, very very very surreal.

The style of the background is very European while the characters are Fliescher meet Warner but early arty Warner of the non major characters. They move in both realistic and cartoon like manners.

This is an odd movie and it takes a bit to get into it but Peter Ustinov as the bird is a riot, his kids and the puppy are wonderful. There are cops in rubber ducks and a bear design that makes you smile.

And there is deep philosophy in the film, about the existence of a world out there...out beyond a Metropolis subterranean city.

This is a really neat movie. There is something just so odd and unique about it that rewards you if you stay with it for the whole ride. Its not perfect but what the hell.

This is a movie to search out. If your local bargain DVD bin has the capcom version (paired with Alice in Paris) buy it. It should run you under ten bucks, probably around five and the price is absolutely worth it especially when you realize it comes with two full length cartoons, two short cartoons and several neat commercials and other fun things.


WONDERBIRD, certainly an unbelievably refined cartoon, drawn in a deliciously oldfashioned way, and sensationally oldfashioned in almost any respect, takes place in a kingdom ruled by a mean and heinous monarch; accordingly, the kingdom, or at least what we seethe surroundings of the king's palace, seems devoid, uninhabited.

A few inhabitants there areaway from the Sunin the withered underground city.

An advicecall it an allegory, call it a parable, only do not call it a fable.

Because IMDb encourages prolixity, and maybe for other reasons as well, I will add that this cartoon is the work of the great Paul Grimault.


One of the great tragedies of life is that Disney is so very successful at everything that they do. If they were not, we might have more unique little gems of animation such as "The Curious Adventures of Mr. Wonderbird." The story is that an evil king has usurped the throne of a place called Up-And-Down-Land (I could have the name wrong). He is hated by everyone. His favorite hobby is shooting birds, and at some point in the past, he presumably killed the wife of Mr. Wonderbird (a bird, played with typical flair by Peter Ustinov) leaving him with four young chicks to raise. Meanwhile, we see that another of the evil king's hobbies is painting. He has done three paintings in particular: a self portrait, a painting of a shepherdess (which he has fallen in love with), and a painting of chimney sweep (of whom he is jealous). One night, the shepherdess and the chimney sweep climb down out of their paintings and run away together. The self portrait of the king climbs down out of his frame as well, and does away with the real king (You think I'm making this up? Its the real plot) and sends the royal police force after the young lovers. Mr. Wonderbird then assists the lovers in attempting to escape the King's forces.

The plot is wonderfully surreal, and the setting Up-and-Down-Land is an incredibly imagined place, full of towering buildings accessible only by elevators. Its an equal mixture of the worlds of "Metropolis" and "1984" and the drawings of Dr. Seuss.

Watch it for a very unique viewing experience that doesn't fit the standard formula for most animated features.


I just picked this up in a decent if not outstanding DVD version for one dollar at Wal Mart.

Run out and buy it.

I'm fairly sure that this version is the short, incomplete version released against the animator's wishes in the late Fifties, but even so, at a buck it's an *incredible* bargain.

This film was syndicated in small chunks as a serial to local TV stations in the early 60s for the kid's shows that almost every station ran on weekday afternoons in those days - "Mr Bill and Bozo", "Monty's Gang" (Channel 4, Greenville SC) and "Captain Grady" (channel 13, Asheville NC - which is where i saw it). It made such an impression on twelve-or-so-old me that i immediately recognised it when i spotted it in Wal Mart tonight and grabbed it.

Wonderful. You should get it.


I was surfing through IMDb one day, when I stumbled across "The Curious Adventures of Mr. Wonderbird." Noticing how obscure it was, I decided to set off looking for it. Thanks to Digiview, it didn't take me long, so I bought it for a dollar, and when I got home, I watched it, although I must say, I was quite impressed.

Three of the paintings in a king's apartment, a shepherdess, a chimney sweep, and a self-portrait of the king (who is just as selfish and sadistic as the actual king himself) come to life one night while the king is sleeping. The shepherdess and the chimney sweep escape, while the painting of the king calls the police in order to capture the couple. Fortunately for the couple, Mr. Wonderbird comes in to help them, often mocking the police and the king.

The back of the DVD case describes this film as "a surreal visual delight and an underrated entry in the history of classic animation." I couldn't agree more with it, considering that much of the backgrounds look rather bizarre, and many of the characters are weird, which include the depressed citizens of an underground city and hungry lions that are calmed by the music of a blind man (who kind of looks like Andy Warhol), not to mention Mr. Wonderbird himself is somewhat eccentric. The film is very creative and mostly fun to watch, and its only flaw is that it can be slow moving. But overall, this film was very good, and it comes recommended by yours truly.

Grade: B+ (Awesome)


I saw 'Begotten' last night, and I'm of two minds on the film.

On one hand, I appreciate it for being the total invert of a Michael Bay film. No dialogue, extremely stylized grainy B&W photography, some of the most genuinely horrific imagery ever set to film, and a very compelling use of sound (which nobody else seems to have really picked up on yet). It's a reflection on a theme, and it dares go where most filmmakers do not not only in terms of images, but of production and concept. It's a movie that most people don't understand, and if you read through these comments you'll find a lot of people whose lack of ability to figure this film out results in them shrieking about 'pretentiousness' with the fervor of a gibbon rattling the bars of its cage at feeding time. It genuinely shocked and disturbed me, and the last time a film managed to do that was a while ago.

On the other, this is a thirty-minute short that sprawls out to over an hour and a half. I understand that there might be artistic merit in using repetition and monolithic pacing as a bludgeon, but in this case it just doesn't help everything hang together. Imagine being approached by a ragged man on the street who grabys you by the shoulders and says something that completely confounds the core of your being... but then, instead of leaving your shattered and gibbering in his wake, he just keeps talking and talking and talking. By the end of the movie, I found myself glancing at my watch now and again.

This is not entertainment, people. This is disentertainment. This is how you deprogram people who just watched "Glitter." If you watch movies to be entertained, this will frustrate, confound, and possibly anger you. You don't approach 'Begotten' like a chocolate cake you want to eat because it tastes good. You approach it like something on the menu you have never heard of before, something you see furtive glances of through the kitchen door, something that's dark and glistens and twitches on its platter; something you order not because it will taste good, but because you just have to know what it's like.


Don't watch this film while, or soon after, eating.

Having said that, Begotten will stick with you for the rest of your life, like it or not. Based on the nihilistic philosophy that life is nothing more than man spasming above ground (to paraphrase the title sequence/introduction), this will more than likely contain the most intense and grisly imagery you'll ever see in a film.

There is no dialogue, only image after image describing the cycle of life. The film's combination of stark black and white photography compounded with some truly creepy background sounds work to drive home the maker's message.

The movie begins with God (portrayed as a bandaged and obviously insane man) slicing open his torso with a straight razor and subsequently dying in his own filth. After his death, Mother Nature emerges from his corpse to impregnate herself with his blood and semen and gives birth to Man, represented by a maggot of a human convulsing on the earth.

The landscape is a barren waste, populated by hulking shrouded humanoids who eventually happen upon Mother Nature and Man. After a slew of violent scenes depicting the rape of Nature and destruction of Man, these humanoids proceed to pound the remains of the corpses back into the ground, and the cycle of life begins anew.

I actually rented this from Blockbuster one night, based on the cover art and hype content, but this is definitely not a Blockbuster-type film. Don't expect narrative, dialogue or any pulled punches. This is intense imagery based on a dark subject.

I give this movie some high marks for the filmwork and audio, but I don't think I'll be watching it too often, if again. I like my movies dark and unique, but this one is exponentially more than I expected.


The visual effectiveness of this film is unmatched by anything I've seen. And the work required to make achieve it must have been incredibly long and tedious (you don't just stick "Kodak Grainy Film" in your camera to get this look). Don't watch this film to be entertained, watch it to be visually stimulated, watch it to be challenged and provoked in your thoughts on film and any other topic that comes to mind, religion will likely be one thought.


I first heard of Begotten when a girlfriend of mine picked it up in a "cult classics" section of my local video retailer. She knew I liked obscure artsy movies so I rented it and brought it home. It sat on my TV for a couple of days and then I put it in the VCR just before going to bed. I thought that maybe I'll see what it's like first then devote more time to it the next day. What followed was that it actually woke me up. I sat through the entire film and loved it. After I went through the closing credits I watched it again. Only after you see the closing credits do you get an idea of who is who. After you know that you can watch it again with renewed appreciation. Don't listen to the people that tear this movie apart. It's not for everyone. If you're someone that doesn't like reading subtitles than this movie isn't for you (not that there are subtitles, there's no dialog at all). If you're someone that actually owns Rush Hour 2 then this movie isn't for you.

This movie is truly original and inspiring. It does what other movies have never done. It looks like nothing else and is bolder than just about everything out there - from 1989 to the current date. You can tell that everyone involved in the making of this movie truly love the art of what they do and understand what can be captured in cinema form.

If you're looking to be "entertained" then the movie isn't for you. However, it is pure escapism in some extreme way and in film form. It's like someone attached wires to my head and taped one of my worst nightmares. But this nightmare makes sense if you really sit and watch the images, dissect the action of the actors, and don't sit there noodling your guitar passively but watch and not blink.

People compare it to Eraserhead but Begotten is so much more. I'm not joking when I say it is my favorite movie. It's an important film, visually stimulating, mechanically inspiring, and hypnotic. One review I read about it is very true though, "no one will get through Begotten without being marked."


Even though it doesn't really matter to the film, this is a Creation myth. God (a convulsing, bloody figure in a chair) cuts his organs out with a straight razor and dies in His own filth. Mother Earth rises from his corpse and impregnates herself with his seed, giving birth to Man. It is, however highly unlikely for you to figure any of this out without reading a synopsis first, and it's not especially important to the film that you do, as it's more a surrealistic art-house imagery thing, all in inky, processed black and white. A sick, bleak atmosphere is created with the stark photography and minimal sounds (mostly water dripping, groans, scrapes, etc.) but each scene goes on a bit too long and so does the film as a whole. This could've been great as a short film, and the God killing himself scene was excellent and extremely creepy, especially being the first thing you see, but it's hard to be patient when it goes on for so long and you don't even know what you're seeing for much of the time.

Still, a good film for the original style, images, atmosphere and content.


E. Elias Merhige's existentialist experiment in the enduring is definitely one hell of a boring watch. This is like something Alexander de Large was forced to watch in "A Clockwork Orange." But, despite just how unwatchable this film really is, it is a success.

If you are reading this and have not already seen the film, then it is too late. For me, at least, the payoff (after 3 separate viewings with lots of break in between mind you) was seeing the list of characters *after* the story was told. That's when the simple message hit home. But i wonder if Merhige could have told a 5 minutes story in about 30, instead of 78.

However, seeing as how the cast of credits is displayed prominently on the front page for this movie, the cat is already out of the bag and you surely will only appreciate this film if you appreciate existentialist film making from the early 20th century. Even then, you might puke.

4/10 (but i commend Merhige for crafted a piece of art, even if it is unwatchable)


I want to preface this review by saying that I have no idea what "Begotten" is truly about. All I really know is that in the beginning God kills himself, in turn birthing Mother Earth, who proceeds to impregnate herself with God's semen. She then births a son. The rest is pretty subjective, and you have to interpret it in your own way.

How I chose to interpret the film was this; God killing himself signified the start of the scientific revolution, when people started questioning the doctrines imposed by the church, like the geocentric view of the universe and etc. Mother Earth symbolized people starting to think for themselves and reject the church's "it happens like this because God says so" views. The Tribal people were the church lashing back at them, trying to force Christianity down their throats. I'm not exactly sure how Son Of Earth fits into all of this. Mother Earth and the Tribal people seemed to be fighting over him, so maybe he represents the freedom of people or something to that effect.

I have no idea what the final parts of this movie are supposed to mean. Bludgeoning, raping, then dismembering Mother Earth and Son Of Earth and grinding them into the ground like a mortar and pestle could mean anything, but that is where the fun of this film lies; You can interpret it any way you want. There doesn't have to be a definitive meaning to it, you can let your mind wander. Sometimes you don't even know what you are supposed to be looking at because it is shot in a weird angle or it is too fuzzy.

The only thing that disappointed me was that I was expecting a truly terrifying film. I was going into it thinking I was going to get a phone call immediately afterward with a foreboding "seven days" warning. What I got was pleasantly different. It was not scary at all, but it stirred my imagination. Trying to decipher the movie's cryptic message was a creative challenge. There were many scenes that were in fact beautiful. Mother Earth just after she was born and the final shot of the forest path come to mind.

So overall I would have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It is certainly the most abstract movie I've ever seen, but that's not a bad thing.


E. Elias Merhige's Begotten is a one of a kind, surreal depiction of the mankind's treatment of religion. There are a couple of different ways you can interpret things, but the plot itself is simple: A god disembowels himself, and out of his corpse springs mother earth. Mother Earth then felates the god's corpse post-mortem, and then impregnates herself with what remains of his seed. Following this, she gives birth to a messiah figure who quivers, presumably in infancy, but possibly with terror at being brought to life on earth. This all takes place in the first 15-30 minutes, and after that, the rest of the film consists of robed figures dragging the messiah (who is incessantly quivering, or seizing) across a desert landscape. The robed figures pause only to brutalize the messiah, then continue to drag him around.

There are a couple of ways to interpret this, depending on your level of optimism and your world view. It can easily be interpreted as a bleak nihilistic atheist allegory about the total lack of apparent power that Christian "deities" can be perceived as having in a modern society that only invokes their names to advance its own selfish goals. Or you can interpret it as a postmodern pro-Christian allegory, in which you view the film as being about how mankind has twisted Christ's message around so much that it's original purity and innocence can no longer have relevance in a world where that message and image are inappropriately used to endorse everything from interpersonal violence, to war, to totalitarianism.

The visuals of this film are phenomenal, and you will not see anything like it, period. If you can, watch the original VHS release, I recommend it. I'm not sure if the visuals are changed on the DVD, but I have seen clips of this streaming on you tube and the effects are seriously diminished. On the VHS version, Merhige achieved TOTAL BINARY CONTRAST. Meaning, there basically aren't any mid-tones except for some grain in some of the shots. Other than that, this film offers the rare opportunity to see PURE white and PURE black, and the result is stunning, hallucinatory, and quite unsettling. This film makes Film Noir look positively washed out and mediocre. The shots fade into each other in a surreal manner that recalls Un Chien Andalou without completely aping it, for an effect that has been called a filmic Rorschach test.

That being said, the film can certainly try a viewer's patience and commitment. There isn't any dialogue for starters. The only sound throughout the film is a fairly constant loop of crickets chirping, peppered occasionally with the gurgling and death rattles of the dying deities, and an amelodic droning synthesizer texture. Personally, I find that the film is best enjoyed listening to experimental industrial music like the instrumental NIN remixes from the Downward Spiral era, more abstract noise/experimental music like F*ck Buttons and Odd Nosdam. It also works quite well with apocalyptic black metal. Basically any music with extreme textures and/or hypnotic rhythms. That's one of the most amazing and versatile aspects of this film, it is PRIME for postmodern re-contextualization, like projecting it during a performance of avant-garde music, or composing avant-garde music to accompany it.

Once the messiah figure is born, there really isn't much change for the rest of the film, meaning that you are basically sitting through at least 45 minutes or more of the messiah figure being drug around the desert and beaten. It looks bleakly beautiful, but there isn't really anything new unfolding. It helps to cement the filmmakers intentions of communicating that for thousands of years now people have been using Christ's name and image for personal benefits, but can be tiresome to a casual viewer or someone with a short attention span. Basically, if you are looking for a modern horror film with suspense, look elsewhere. If you are looking for a unique film experience, and you aren't particularly fond of mainstream Hollywood cinema, this could be your quivering messiah.


Begotten is certainly an experience, and a out of the ordinary experience at that. The use of colour is fascinating and at times, frustrating. A LOT of what happens on screen is incredibly difficult to make out. Your view is either obscured by a sudden bizarre change in colour and tone, characters in the way and random cuts to the sky. The sound is very haunting and a welcome addition. It really aids the nihilistic and hopeless tone that smothers this film.

As for what Begotten is about, the "rape of the environment and rebirth" theory feels pretty accurate to me. But I wouldn't spend a lot of time focusing on the meaning, it's virtually unimportant. It's clear the director didn't want to explain anything. He simply presents it as it is, and if you want to search for a meaning that's up to you.

Watching Begotten is definitely not a walk in the park, but I was captivated from the opening. It really is like watching a person's worst nightmare. What we see is at times distressing and very unpleasant, but there is a surreal dreamlike beauty in there. If you're an art-house/experimental fan and you haven't yet seen Begotten, make it a priority. I doubt you will ever forget it. I sure know that I won't.


Begotten.The magic.The Terror.The slight boredom.

That "Begotten" is for acquired tastes goes without saying,you don't just happen to watch it unless your friends are real art-house movie buffs.You must dig the weird,the macabre,the bizarre.You must dig cool flicks.And you must dig to find diamonds.

"Begotten" is one of the most visually dazzling and mystifying films ever known to man.The visual part is something to behold,something no one can prepare you for.But since the film is devoid of any type of dialogue,the visual part is pretty much the only part...."Begotten" is a visual film.The soundscapes created for the film are magical and groundbreaking but still....the sight of it....

God commits suicide in a particularly gory scene then from his corpse rises Mother Earth who impregnates herself with God's semen and gives birth to Flesh on Bone,a retarded child.She then abandons him,and he gets tortured by heathen-like creatures.Mother comes back (to save him?) but she and her son get murdered by the horrible creatures.

The film is about the meaninglessness of life,and about the fact that we come to this planet to suffer and to die,and that when something dies something else is born etc.Nihilism.

The film's no.1 quality is of course the visuals,the setting,those haunting images,this other-worldly quality....After you're done watching,you feel like an alien.It's THAT mesmerizing.

When people say it should last 30' instead of 70' they're right.No they're not,it could last 40'.It's just that everything happens to such a slow pace.In fact,the plot summary I provided is all that happens in the film,like no kidding.Still,it's....I don't know....Glorious...

...Like a flame burning away the darkness...


A warning to potential viewers of this experimental film: the nature of the imagery and the effects are such that this is one of those types of films that should really be seen ON film, projected. The pixellation created by digital transfers sucks a lot of depth and adds a lot of noise to already abstract and grainy film. However, since this movie is pretty much unavailable in any format, I suppose you'll have to make do with what you can.

Anyway, this most excellent artistic endeavor comes courtesy of the guy who would eventually give us Shadow of the Vampire. It's a dark and dirty film of the genesis of the elements (as far as I can glean from the character names) through a process horrifying and surreal. Begotten is a very good example of what is known as abject art, a stylistic approach that seeks meaning through the visceral more than the thematic.

And visceral describes it. Not very much stuff happens in the movie technically, but the levels of emotion it'll put you through are innumerable. The very repetitiveness of some of the imagery creates a mesmerizing catch over the senses. The sound editing and score in particular are immaculate, and serve the imagery incredibly well.

Fans of this film would do well to check out the collections of short films released through Other Cinema DVD, Experiments in Terror I, II, and III. Movies such as these make me more and more certain that the realm of true horror resides in the abstract, abject, and non-narrative, rather than in spooky tales of ghosts and axe-murderers.

--PolarisDiB


There have been many (well, more than a few in any case) attempts over the past 30 years to create film that has an "otherworldly" appearance. Supposing that this is a Film Director's wish to distance himself from other movies, or simply to gloss over the low-budget and shabby look, "Begotten" is on the top echelon of this pile.

Apart from the peerless "Eraserhead", anyway.

Merhige's painstaking process of artificially degrading his film changes it's structure completely (imagine what this film would have looked like in glorious, standard Technicolour) - It can almost be envisaged as an artifact from another, unknown culture. Some images are so far removed from what we expect to see on the screen, they disturb mainly as they are dislocated. This is not "Last House On The Left" disturbance, more like leaving-your-cave-for-the-first-time-and-seeing-the-sun disturbance.

Watch this Fever-Dream if you get the chance, and relish. Remember, they make other, more standard films every day. They can wait.


This is not a story. It's a bunch of psychic needles reaching for your subconscious. If you wait for a story you'll be bored. But if you give yourself over to it you'll be inside it's dreamworld within 10 minutes. The vague but disturbing images of pain and torture in a desolate landscape leave room for your own fantasies. The strange soundtrack that gives you the feeling of isolation, the visual echoes of the crucifixion of Christ, the pulsating light and deep dark shadows, they all reach to your subconscious to fill in this mind-space. I found myself trembling and unable to escape in front of my television. It was like dreaming with eyes wide open. A strange nightmare, a bad trip, a religious experience... it touched me deep inside and marked me for live. It freed my mind and gave me one of that rare experiences of loss of personality, and merging with the world of archetypes. A little freedom for the soul. A violent freedom however.... Not a nice movie, but a very strong and unforgettable one. Literally my text has no spoilers. For me the great surprise of this film was the unbelievable intensity of it, and describing this can be understood as a spoiler. The less you know about this film as you watch it, the better.


God cuts himself with a straight razor, afterwards, he gives birth to mother earth, which then gives birth through gods semen, son of earth.

This is a one and a half-an-hour movie that sort of depicts a dark version of how god created the world. Its surreal, dark and poetic. The most important aspect of the film to me is the visuals. Its shot in a very grainy black and white film, using both slow-motion and normal shooting. Sometimes even fast film and stop-motion. The scenes are long and dragged out, that sets a very weird mood. No sounds were recorded when filming (i think), sound effects were added afterwards, such as criccets, water and other ambient sounds, repeated over and over. As you might understand this movie is certainly not for the impatient person...

I often felt it was similar to David Lynch's Eraserhead, only this one is even harder to understand, and even more dragged out, but that's okay for me, I like that kind of stuff. Its certainly not entertainment (at least not the Hollywood kind) so if your going to check it out, i recommend you set yourself up for it. Be open minded, and except something like the end of 2001: a space odyssey.


Sui generis. Folks, I'm not going to lie to you; Merhige is a one or two hit wonder, but what a film (it almost excuses SUSPECT ZERO). I'm also not going to pretend to understand it completely; half of what makes it what it is is trying to second guess what the hell they are doing on the screen because of the chiaroscuro.

Richard Corliss says, "It is as if a druidical cult had re-enacted, for real, three Bible stories -- creation, the Nativity and Jesus' torture and death on Golgotha." That's not a bad description, but there seems to be more to it than the seemingly one-to-one religious correspondences.

There's an environmental theme right up near the surface -- note that toward the end (after the barrenness of the landscape) there are large pipes not unlike those on a construction site. Oh no, he's going to say look at how people are raping mother nature. One rarely sees a dead metaphor in action, and with this much hyperbole, but to see it acted out is way grislier than language implies.

And yeah, if you just want something to sync with a death metal soundtrack, it does have the requisite atrocities. But as for myself and others like me, it's an important art film that should merit a Criterion collection release. Ranks right up there with Murnau's FAUST.

~ Ray


What this movie is not: Cool, Entertaining

What this movie is: Visually Interesting, Difficult to get through, Intentional

I feel that this movie puts the viewer (if he or she is willing) through a clip of time where they experience a world without language. Much like how animals must experience the world. You don't really watch this movie as much as you witness an awful series of events in what "feels" like real time.

Consistently, it goes on much longer than is comfortable. This movie could be edited down to a 20 minute short and it would be a totally different movie. It would be cool and entertaining, but the experience would be lost. I have seen a lot of cool movies, but I have never experienced one like this. If you can get your head in the right place for this one, you should be able to really appreciate (but likely not "enjoy") what they accomplished here. 10 out of 10.


This kind of angst can only be inside a young person who seeks very seriously his religion and his place in this world. As the text in the beginning of the movie says, these pictures are dead: They are the past already, and have been right from the moment when the product was ready. But that is only for the maker of these "products": Maybe to somebody, who is in the same frame of mind (I think very many people, at least of those who are seriously interested in religion, go through the same terrible angsts and doubts in their personal development). And that, of course, is the reason that art is made in the first place: Identification and consolation amongst fellow human beings.

This film uses very well the "classic" technics of the experimental cinema. And this is where those technics are to my opinion in the best possible use: As an instrument in telling stories and creating atmosphere to them, not just as a pure abstractions or as an end in themselfes. Those "tricks" have already been made many enough times. Some other movies that I imagine have influenced/inspired this director, are "Eraserhead" and "Nosferatu". It's interesting how these technics make this movie totally timeless: There is nothing contemporary in this movie. Or nothing from any other specific time either. It could have been made a thousand years ago.

It is interesting in this story how these people treat this new born holy child: They use it selfishly in their own purposes, and don't even try to listen to him. They beat him, rip off his intestines and castrate him. They drag his (living) body forcibly from place to place. And they do the same kind of violence to his mother. The story also reminds me of the Borges' short story "El informe de Brodie". Also the critique towards the practices of the Christian institutions reminds me of the great "El Topo".

Unpleasant watch at times, but beautiful. Very simple, thought and concentrated. Very strong movie, almost too strong. The whole human energy has been concentrated to this. Also this movie shows that when you have the passion and ideas, you can make a movie with a round zero budget.

But I have to admit, it was a bit hard to watch for a "contemporary" viewer like myself, because of the experimentality. It was so slow and demanding. But after all, worth the suffering. I have to give ten points just for the effort that somebody makes this kind of movie.


I absolutely like this film a lot. It is not very entertaining, but it's a feast of bizarre and stunning images! There's no dialog ,only some background sounds and noises. If you are into something completely different and original, and enjoy the obscure and bizarre...then you might like this work of art. Ik looks like a film made with the very first camera ever made ,in a time where strange human-like beings live and perform their bizarre habits. God has killed himself with a razor and gave birth to Mother earth. Mother earth impregnated herself with God's semen after an act of fellatio, and gives birth to a son "Flesh on Bone". What follows are inhuman acts of ritualistic torture, rape and murder for purposes we do not know....or do we?


not really sure what to make of this movie. very weird, very artsy. not the kind of movie you watch because it has a compelling plot or characters. more like the kind of movie that you can't stop watching because of the horrifically fascinating things happening on screen. although, the first time my wife watched this she couldn't make it all the way through... too disturbing for her. runs a bit long, but nonetheless a worthwhile viewing for those interested in very dark movies.


First of all, this is an art film and a good one at that. I loved the presentation and way it was shot. Very cool. Certain scenes were some of the more graphic horror sequences I've ever seen. This film did scare me, not because of suspense or shock, but because I was deathly afraid that I'd soon see something REALLY appalling. That did happen in a few places, but mostly at the beginning. This film also dragged and the 74 minutes seemed long. However, if you're into film you have to see this. To date, I've seen nothing like it. 8/10


Anyone who correctly identifies the opening images as God killing himself without reading the end credits certainly deserves a free ticket to a rest home in Transylvania. I would imagine this as being a favorite movie at "Twin Peaks" dark lodge on movie night if time existed there. I would think that a better title might have been, "How much fun can you have with someone who's almost dead in the forest with only neolithic technology?" The answer, it would seem, is quite a bit. So, despite the silly "God Killing Himself," the uber-pretentiousness (an apt phrase taken from a previous letter), the more clearly "Alistair Crowley - Hi, I'm the Beast, deal with it!" than Christian cosmology (I can't believe another viewer had the thick-headedness to see the Judeo-Christian Bible in this)... despite all of that... this is a daring, important work that most people should not see. I am both impressed and creeped out that it was made at all.


I loved it, it was really gruesome and disgusting. I thought that the tearing of the human flesh was thoroughly provacative. the way that it was depicting the human crucifix about Jesus Christ was really interesting. The tearing about limbs and jaws was awesome brutally gruesome. Don't watch this if you have a weak heart, you wouldn't be able to stand it.


Begotten is one of the most unique films I've ever seen. It is more, to me, a study of sound, light and dark, and movement than a real story. The type of thing you see as a video instillation at the museum of modern art than a film enjoyed at the local theater. I'm not going to try to interpret the images of the mother nature, the beasts in cloaks, the twisted and tortured body of her "child". Some things just defy interpretation.


Begotten is black and white distorted images. It looks like it could have come from the nineteenth century. However, the sound is crystal clear, minus the sync and the addition of calm nature sounds.

This movie was very critical of the struggles of life. It shows a single mother and child in a violent world that thrives on the innocent. The mother is very oblivious to her surroundings. This leads to lots of torture, pain, and death. You may watch it many times and see different symbolisms, plot devices, and basically "what does it mean?".

If you appreciate art in movies then you will love it. Otherwise, don't bother.


Thank God for the Internet Movie Database!!! When I first got this movie I watched it every night just before before bed and was getting something different out of it every time. But no matter how I sliced it, it came up disturbing. The black and white and all the twitching really freaked me. You stare at the screen unsure of what you are looking at, and just when you think you got it, it becomes clear and it's something completely different. The imagery is VERY disturbing, twitching and straight razors do not sit well with me in any movie. Still everytime I watched it, I was interpreting it somewhat differently (there is no dialogue, ya know), so I decided to check the IMdB for the plot summary. Boy that throws me for a loop, I had no idea that was supposed to be God. Now I'm going to watch it with this in mind and see what happens....


if you are dating a girl that is into wicca!

many parts of this movie were killer and the feeling you get from this movie while watching it and immediately after is enough alone to sit through it all but some things really bothered me about this film that i cant really put my finger on...

i definitely think that this movie is one that any art student or photography student should see b/c of the camera style and graininess that ive never seen but that is just it...it looks like an art student made it and the plot if there is any is so jumpy that you really need to be on a lot of drugs to get just what is going on


This has to be one of the most beautifully morbid films I have ever seen. Merhige has created a living painting that unfolds with horrific violence, sex, and a minimalist retelling of the life of Jesus Christ. The high contrast and thick layer of grain make you question yourself as to what you are really seeing at times, but the use of texture, combined with the extreme contrast, create an incredible viewing experience. This film is not for everyone. I think you have to keep an open mind and not be so quick to condemn this film for its content, which if extremely rough, but does make a fairly important statement about creation, god and humanity. Whether this film is a work of art, or shock value trash is open to discussion.


I had the pleasure of seeing Saltimbanco live before seeing the video version of the show. While nothing can compare to actually being there, the people behind the video did an amazing job of capturing the flavor, the feel, the sensation and so much more. The wonderful performances of Saltimbanco's stunningly amazing troupe are beautifully captured throughout. The video flows as smoothly and artfully as the production itself. A wonderful experience.


I purchased this video on VCR tape in a good-will store for US 50 cents. I have taken quite a few videos I purchased back for them to sell to others after I viewed them considering the 50 cent cost as a rental. This is the only one that will never go back. It is an explosion of artistic talent, color and sound. I don't know if I should calls it circus, dance, or both. It is bigger than life itself. They will only be able to do this well for just a few brief years in their life. These are the performers for the performers. If Gene Kelly and Burt Lancaster were alive today and saw them live they would be awe-struck. I would lend it to others to watch but I know if I do that I will never get it back.


This performance leaves you with no wishes. We saw it in Offenbach, Germany, and it is breathtaking. We only got the cheap tickets at the far back but still had a view over everything that happened. If you ever get the chance to see this live then GO! It is worth the trip and if I were you I would wait a good half an hour after the show to 'cool down'. The performances are breathtaking and all around the tent there are colourfully dressed performers that are there to distract, help, smile and generally make the whole tent come alive. The music - live music!! - is as good as the CD-version: perfect! I bought a DVD later but the show that was filmed had less colourful costumes. It's the atmosphere in the tent that sweeps you from your feet. A great trip for old and young, and a great film, too


Wow, don't watch this thinking it's going to be a relaxing circus evening! It will keep you on the edge of your seat all the way through. Circus has never been more colourful, more exciting and more breathtaking! The whole concept is truely amazing. You're taken into the world of Cirque Du Soleil and are left with a thousand thoughts when you leave. There's only one thing left to do: get the CD and/or DVD and live through it again and again and again. Get addicted! It's well worth it! Must be next to the most beautiful thing on earth and one of Cirque Du Soleil's best programmes.


Fascinating and amusingly bad, Lights of New York is the first all talkie feature and one that almost never saw the light of day.

Two naive barbers (Eddie and Gene) from out of town get involved with bootleggers and end up fronting a speak. When a cop is shot by one of the bootleggers the police start to close in, and the Hawk (who shot the officer) decides to pin the murder on Eddie instructing his henchman to "take him for a ride". But it's the Hawk himself who takes the bullet in a twist that will surprise few.

Shot in one week at a cost of $23,000, "Lights" was originally meant as a two reeler but Foy took advantage of Jack Warner's absence to extend it to six. When Warner discovered this he ordered Foy to cut it back to the original short. Only when an independent exhibitor offered $25k for the film, did Warners actually look at the film, which went on to make a staggering $1.3 million.

Seen now this is an extremely hokey piece, with acting that ranges from the passable (Eugene Pallette) to trance like (Eddie's Granny in a particularly risible scene) and much of the playing is at the level of vaudeville. Since it's an early talkie (4 part-talkies preceded it) that's about all the characters do, and very slowly at that. The script feels improvised, visual style is non existent (apart from the shooting scene done in silhouette) and scenes grind on interminably. Title cards are intercut which redundantly announce characters and locales.

Despite all this "Lights" is a compelling experience, as we watch actors and crew struggling with the alien technology, and changing cinema for ever.

Catch it if you can


LIGHTS OF NEW YORK was the first "all-taking" feature film, coming in at a brisk 57 minutes and directed by Bryan Foy (of the famous vaudeville family).

The story has two dopey barbers (Cullen Landis, Eugene Palette) yearning for a chance at "big city life" and getting involved with gangsters and bootleg booze. One of the guys gets framed for the murder of a cop but is saved at the last minute by a gun moll (Gladys Brockwell).

Much of the story takes place in a night club called The Night Hawk, which is run by a crook named Hawk (Wheeler Oakman) who has his eye on a pretty chorine (Helene Costello) who is the girl friend of Landis. Costello gets to do a brief dance, and we hear Harry Downing (made up to resemble Ted Lewis) sing "At Dawning) in his best Al Jolson style.

The acting ranges from good (Palette and Brockwell) to awful (Oakman). A couple of the actors muff their lines but then keep right on with the scene. As noted elsewhere this was intended to be a short 2-reeler and was made on a shoestring budget. Yet the sound quality is surprisingly good, the voices all register clearly, and there is a neat cinematic touch in the silhouette death.

The film was a box-office smash even though it was shown as a silent film where theaters were not wired for the new sound technology. No one expected this little film to gross an amazing $1.3 million. It briefly made stars of Costello and Landis and certainly launched Palette on his long career as a star character actor.

Co-stars include Mary Carr as the mother, Robert Elliott as the detective, Eddie Kane as the street cop, and Tom Dugan as a thug.


Lights of New York was the first all-talking feature film. There had been, of course, The Jazz Singer, released in Oct. 1927 as the first feature film incorporating synchronized dialog. However, this film released in July 1928 is virtually unremembered for its place in film history. It had started out as a short, but gradually more was tacked on until - clocking in at 58 minutes - it accidentally became the first all-talking feature film. It opened to a grind house run and to Warner Bros. surprise, made over a million dollars. That was good money back in 1928.

The plot is quite simple. Two country barbers naively buy into a barber shop on Broadway that fronts as a speak-easy for "The Hawk", a gangster. When they learn the truth they can't afford to get out, because the younger barber, Eddie, has all of his mother's money tied up in the place. Kitty is the younger barber's girlfriend, and gangster Hawk (Wheeler Oakman) has an eye for turning in his older girlfriend (Gladys Brockwell) for a newer model - chorus girl Kitty(Helene Costello). A cop is killed while trying to stop the Hawk's men from unloading a shipment of bootleg liquor, and the Hawk sees it as an opportunity to frame Eddie, thus getting Kitty for himself.

This early talkie is loads of fun for the enthusiast of these pioneering works. Sure, the plot is elementary and the dialog stilted, but there is something you don't see much of in early talkies - background musical scoring. Vitaphone had originally been used for this very purpose, and here they are still using it for musical accompaniment along with the dialog. And there are singing and dancing numbers! The scenes in Hawk's nightclub are used as an opportunity to show off what films could never do before - musical numbers. There is even a wild-eyed emcee with some heavy makeup left over from the silent era that is a hoot to watch.

Vitaphone could not go outdoors at this point due to the static camera booths, so the scene in the park between the two lovers Eddie and Kitty is simulated - and cheaply. The greenery looks like something out of an Ed Wood movie or perhaps a high school production of "Our Town".

Gladys Brockwell, as the Hawk's castoff girlfriend, delivers her lines with punch. She's a real trooper considering what lines she has to deliver. To the Hawk - "So you think you can have any chicken you want and throw me back in the deck!". Huh? mixed metaphors anyone? And then there are her final lines "I've lived, and I've loved, and I've lost!" Did someone get paid to write this dialog? Brockwell was making a good success of her talkie career after scoring some triumphs in silent films (the evil sister in "Seventh Heaven"), when a fatal car accident cut her career short.

Then there is Eugene Palette - the older of the two barbers in our story. His frog voice, natural delivery of lines, and cuddly appearance gave him a long career as a character actor usually appearing as a put-upon family man/businessman with a gruff exterior and heart of gold. In fact, Mr. Palette is the only member of this cast who still has a notable career in films just three years after this movie is released.

Finally there is the question of "where is that microphone hidden?" Microphones were still stationary at this point, and it's fun to figure out where they've hidden it. There is one famous scene, though, where everybody can pretty much figure it out. Hawk is in his office talking to his two henchman - who seem to comprehend as slowly as they talk - about "taking Eddie for a ride". If you watch this scene you'd swear the phone on the desk is a character in this film. It's front and center during the whole conversation. The microphone is likely planted in the phone.

There is something heroic about these pioneers flying blind in the face of the new technology of sound. You have silent actors who are accustomed to using pantomime for expression, vaudevillians who know how to play to a live audience but don't know how to make the same impression on a Vitaphone camera booth, and you have dialog writers either trying to write conversation as compactly as they did title cards or filling up films with endless chatter.

Check this one out. It is not boring, moves fast, and is loads of fun if you know what to look for. And no, I don't expect this one to ever be out on Blu-Ray, but I hope that the folks at Warner Brothers add it to the Warner Archive soon so everyone can see it.


"Lights of New York" originally started out as an experimental two reel Vitaphone short that eventually snowballed into the first all talkie feature film. Helene Costelle was supposedly one of the most beautiful actresses in Hollywood and sister to (in my opinion the real beauty) Dolores Costello, who seemed to get all the breaks. Poor Helene is best known for appearing in this pretty dreary film that bought a revolution to Hollywood!!

Two bootleggers on the lam in "Main Street" convince a couple of small town barbers to try their luck on Broadway. The barbers Eddie (Cullen Landis) and Gene (Eugene Palette) don't realise that their barber shop is soon a cover for illegal bootlegging activities. They soon do realise it and regret the day they left their small town. The only thing keeping them going is the loan that Eddie's mother gave them and that they desperately want to pay back. Eddie becomes re-acquainted with Kitty Lewis (Helene Costello) a girl from his home town who has made good on Broadway. Kitty is worried about "Hawk" Miller (Wheeler Oakman) who is always hanging around her but Eddie, innocently, thinks she is exaggerating as "Hawk" already has a girlfriend Molly (Gladys Brockwell) but to reassure her he gives her a little handgun to frighten unwanted admirers away. "Hawk", who has killed a police officer and has the "Feds" closing in, decides to frame Eddie. Meanwhile Molly is getting pretty fed up with "Hawks" treatment of her and after a showdown where he tells her he is after a chicken and not an old hen the stage is set for - Murder!!!

The fact is it isn't completely awful, apart from gangsters and showgirls alike speaking in their best elocution voices and that was still happening in films in 1930. Gladys Brockwell (if a trifle melodramatic) and Eugene Palette (quite natural) were okay and were the most seasoned actors in the cast. There was no John or Ethel Barrymore to be seen - Cullen Landis and Helene Costello soon returned to the obscurity from which they had come. I also didn't notice much of the "hidden mike" - where people had to be grouped around different objects ie a telephone or sitting on a couch before they could engage in conversation. People who saw it at the cinema probably started to think that all policeman talked in that flat monotone as that trend continued in many early talkies ie "Little Caesar" (1930). In any case they were probably intrigued by the novelty of a completely all talkie - with some singing and dancing - film in 1928.

Recommended.


This is an important historical film since it was the the first all-talking feature film.

The film was made for a mere 23,000 dollars.

It grossed over a million dollars upon its release.

This film all so helped define the gangster melodramas that were to become the bread and butter of the Warner's studio in the 1930's.

The popularity of this film ended the silent era more so than its more famous part-talkie predecessor, the Jazz Singer. The film deserves its place in history and not as a mere footnote.

The only actor who might be remember today that is in it was Eugene Palette.


As far as I know this was my first experience with Icelandic movies. It's such a relief to see something else than your regular Hollywood motion picture. Too bad that movies like this one have a small chance of succeeding in the big world. I can only hope that people watch this by accident, by recommendation or other...

Because it's really worth while. I left the cinema feeling really sad. I couldn't get the tragic destiny's of the characters out of my head. And it impressed me even more when I thought of the complexity of the film. Not only was it a tragic story, it had excellent comic reliefs and a very good soundtrack.

If you have the opportunity, watch it! It's really thought provoking and made me ponder a lot.


It is the best film i have seen in the last 5 years. Surely, it will be in the same row with such masterpieces as The Platoon, Apocalypse Now, The Doors, The Dog's Heart (Russian film). Really, the play of the boy and his parents is so good that you can't even say that they "play". No, they LIVE as if it was happening to them. Notice the smile on there faces when the main hero agrees to go for a walk with them. The hate and love in one piece. And the final scene!

Really, i'm still under impression of that film. It's very hard, even impossible to combine the humor and the tragedy, but if you succeed (and Frederikson did) the impact would be twice strong.

I compared it with "ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST". I like this film either (and the novel itself is good, too), but after Frederikson's movie it seems simple. (the same difference I noticed after i watched the film "American history X" and "ROMPER STOMPER" - the latter is deeper). I mean Milos Forman only showed the material point of view of the problem. You watch it, then you say Yes, it's a good film, i like him, i don't like her, and that's it. But "Angels" leave you a wide base to think. There are no bad and good boys in the film. Cause each of them have the right to behave in the way they do. Like the girlfriend of one of the patient. Of course she's young and is pregnant and that is a problem for her that his husband is in the clinic, but the feelings and emotional experience of her exfriend are even stronger (the result is his suicide). Why ask him what have he done? Aren't you insane yourself to ask? Why do not support him, help him, understand him? Finally, it is even funny when those people talk to each other. They say genius things! There are a lot of things I would like to say about this film, but i'm not so good in english. But i'm sure, those of you, who have watched the movie, understand me.

Good luck!


Reading the other comments here at the IMDB, I had very high expectations before seeing 'Angels of the universe'. I wasn't disappointed, and giving the movie an 8, I would say that I can justify that grade.

The movie has some incredible acting, especially by the main-person, Pall. The supporting actors are also doing a very good job like the patients in the mental institution, the parents and the siblings of Pall. The music is also worth mentioning, supporting the movie throughout, giving depth and feeling.

Although the movie is very scandinavian, it doesn't leave out some humour and has a sort of objective authorship about Pall's life. Still, if you want to see a cheesy comedy or something light-weight, this is not for you. It is a story about people with mental problems, about the way they are being dealt with in society - but most of all, a story about Pall.

I recommend this movie to all movie connoisseurs. It is one of the best movies that has ever come out of Iceland, if not out of Scandinavia.