A short review without any spoilers follows.

I saw this movie yesterday at the Cannes Film Festival. My initial reaction is one of wonder and happiness. I'm so happy films like this are being made in our age of blockbusters.

Roy Andersson's new movie "You, The Living" is nothing less than a complete masterpiece. You, The Living is composed by some 50 vignettes filmed with a static camera. I will not give away the content of the scenes here, because I hate when people spoil even the smallest details. But, yes, most of the scenes made the 1000 people in the Claude Debussy theatre absolutely baffled and amazed. When the film was over we applauded for several minutes, we had no other choice.

So what's the score with "You, The Living". Hm, Andersson isn't afraid to take on the heavy questions; History, guilt, gand The Holocaust during WW2 are big subjects (and these themes work very well together).

The images created are brilliant, the depth sometimes surpasses "Songs from the Second Floor".

Well, sorry for this ranting, praising review. Look out for the Flying House in the beginning folks!

10/10 stars - A Masterpiece (I never throw this grade out).


"With all the misery in the world, how can we not get drunk?"  Mia

A lovely aerial view of a major city turns ominous with the approach of a fleet of airplane bombers; an irate hairdresser reacting to a perceived racial slur cuts a road through a businessman's bushy hair; a man dreams of being dragged to an electric chair after a failed magic trick and a teacher breaks down in front of her grade school class because her husband called her a hag. These and about fifty other vignettes that run the gamut from the outright depressing to the wildly humorous to the joyously uplifting populate Roy Andersson's You, the Living, his first feature since his critically acclaimed if commercially unsuccessful Songs From the Second Floor.

You, the Living is filled with the same kind of imaginative set-pieces as Songs, replete with black humor, surreal situations, and strange looking characters. Though a bit overlong and less focused than his earlier work, what remains constant is Andersson's unmistakable style with its stationary camera, sterile-looking backgrounds, and precise attention to detail. If there is a theme that ties the sketches together, it is that our time on Earth is limited and "tomorrow's another day', so let's treat each other with kindness. Along the way, we are entertained by tuba and drum music from the Louisiana Brass Band, dinner guests at a banquet hall standing on their chairs singing a rousing song, and a house that turns into a moving train.

The emotions range from the gloom of a daughter attempting to communicate with an Alzheimer's patient to a young woman's ecstatic dream about marrying a handsome guitar-player named Micke to the cheers of a crowd of onlookers. While there is no continuous narrative thread, the theme of greed and desperation appears in several sketches. The first of these threads features two corpulent individuals and their tiny dog sitting on a park bench, the woman bewailing the fact that no one understands or loves her, yet she blithely ignores the man's comforting and reassuring words.

There is also a hefty admixture of irony. During what seems to be an executive luncheon, one man tells another on the phone that workers don't appreciate quality and how nice it is to appreciate money and the things that it can buy such as fine wine. When he is not looking, however, a man at an adjacent table calmly lifts his wallet from his jacket on the back of his chair. Though Andersson's cynicism is at times not very well hidden, You the Living has an underlying humanism that shows compassion for the human condition. It is a cautionary tale that looks at the mess we humans have gotten ourselves into but suggests there is still time to turn it around, if we heed the warning of the poet Goethe that opens the film, "Be pleased then, you the living, in your delightfully warmed bed, before Lethe's ice-cold wave will lick your escaping foot."


There is no plot. There are no central characters. There are no moving cameras or close-ups. In fact, this film does not follow any of the conventional storytelling techniques used by mainstream film. However, Roy Andersson's Du Levande is a remarkable piece of cinematic storytelling. It is a touching look at the human psyche.

Comprised of a series of vignettes, Roy Andersson gives us an intimate insight into what makes us all human. In perfectly framed static shots, added with the perfectly in tune, yet quirky, music, Roy introduces us to a host of characters as they undertake their daily existence. Some bordering on tragic, others hilarious, we are taken on a Nordic journey like no other.

It is a journey into the little things that make us human. Instead of over-the-top storytelling or visual techniques, everything is stripped down to the bare minimum so that our sole focus is on the characters themselves. It focuses on the insignificant points of our lives that make us who we are; our dreams, our desperation. It's through this simple observation of others that we can accept who we are as individuals.

The washed out colours and deathly-pale makeup of the characters only seems to emphasize their individual stories and remind us that unlike them, we are all alive. There is no happy ending or light at the end of the tunnel in this film, yet you walk out of the cinema with a sense of life. Much more accessible than his earlier film, Songs from the Second Floor, Du Levande, is a truly inspiring piece of cinema.


I really didn't see this one coming. Roy Andersson had me pegged out, I am the perfect sucker for a static camera (long live King Borowczyk!) and I was laughing hysterically for the first fifteen minutes of the film, he hit me straight between the eyes. You have to be a brilliant man to make self-pity hilarious. Andersson reminds me of the third mate on the Pequod in Moby Dick, Flask, a man who took the whole of life to be a practical joke that the good lord Himself is playing on us. And the web of egotism in this movie is truly hilarious.

The level of satire is at fever pitch, you have one deluded self-pitying dreamer harp on about the cruelty of the world and then totally ignore a spiritual self-reflection crying out in agony. The very depths of egotism are plumbed. I really never thought it possible to go further than Bergman's "The Silence" in this respect. However the grotesqueness of the self-love and self-regard, by every single character in this film, is staggering. We are shown an existence where the talentless and the idle rail against a world they believe has been unjust towards them, they truly are legends in their own living rooms. The human beings in this film make self-deception and self-delusion a great artform!

Only one woman in the film appears to have any sort of understanding of what is going on. An old woman who refuses to leave a chapel, knelt down praying for the forgiveness of all mankind, her speech is the most electrifying condemnation of the modern world I have ever heard. She reveals through her prayers that what is wrong with the world is not to be fixed by mere tinkering, there are not a just a few faults, there is an abyss of corruption that can only be mended by immolation, and judgement day. Watching this movie puts me in the mind of a naked monk, stood waist deep in a cold river at midnight screaming out a thousand Kyrie eleisons for the sins of humanity. Another grand jape is that it is clear that her prayers are futile, and in fact she is stopping everyone going home at closing time.

This is not a film for the smug, no-one is spared, no idols are left on the altar, no one group of humans is harangued to the glory of another group. Never has there been a greater more transcendent more astonishingly beautiful summation of our sins. It is a film for the end of the world, it is the grand jest, the great hideous practical joke of human life!

From the catalogue of images it is too difficult to pick a favourite, I slapped my thigh and almost fell off my chair in the cinema, screaming with laughter as a man attempted to pull the tablecloth from under a set service. I won't spoil what happens, but the suspense builds up, and something truly unexpected occurs. It is probably the funniest thing I have ever seen in a cinema. I am quite reserved and I just couldn't control myself: that is the measure of the greatness of this film.

The shooting of "You, the Living" is impeccably formalist. We are shown the palette of an artist, dingy browns, yellows, greys, and sky blues set alive by the shock of luminous brass textures. There is never a tone out of place, it's like an hour and a half of symphonic Whistlerian colour-meld. The obsession that must have gone into putting that colour scheme in place is extraordinary. And no shot is wasted, as with all great movies, there is not a spare inch of celluloid.

Perhaps the best film I've ever seen.


This film isn't supposed to be funny, but it made me laugh.

It isn't designed to be sad, but my heart felt heavy through a number of the vignettes.

It isn't written as action adventure, but my pulse raced more than once.

Just like life, this movie doesn't manipulate your emotions and tell you how to feel. It simply is, and you react.

If you don't find it funny or sad or moving, I suspect that says more about you than the film.

It amazing and refreshing to see a director so wholeheartedly celebrate that we are all human, and embrace that we are all trapped here, doing this "life" thing, over and over for as long as we must.

Tomorrow is another day.


Roy Anderson's film 'You, The Living' comprises a series of fifty-odd sketches, snapshots and vignettes set in a Swedish city. Some characters are on screen for just a few second, whilst others appear in numerous scenes and are sometimes seen loitering in the background while another story unfolds. Many scenes are drawn from the dreams, nightmares and fantasies of the strange but believable characters inhabiting this world. It is a fascinating approach: each of the scenes could be enjoyed in isolation, but together they contain a powerful portrait of what it is to be human.

For the first half hour or so, 'You, The Living' is gloriously funny. Much of the humour centres on the members of a brass band, whose music practice infuriates the neighbours in their apartment block. The comic highlight, however, is provided by a dinner-party track gone horribly awry. After this hilarious introduction, however, the mood of the film darkens considerably. The dinner-party dream turns grim when the hapless protagonist is put on trial for his life, setting a mixed tone of absurdity and despair for the rest of the film.

In the subsequent scenes, the unhappiness of the cast of characters becomes increasingly apparent. Theirs is a world where people are unable to connect with one another, where talk of dreams, nightmares and fantasies is widespread, but where no person can be comforted, even when others reach out to help them. The despondent woman with the 'nobody loves me' refrain and the young girl with unrequited love for the rock guitarist, Micke, are archetypal characters.

The world of 'You, The Living' is also blighted by selfishness. An elderly professor is called away the warmth of a vast banquet to answer a phone call from his impetuous money-grubbing son; a thief steals the wallet of a ruthless executive; an arrogant and impatient businessman insults a Muslim barber and receives his comeuppance. In the film's bleakest moment, a woman in church recounts the long list of human sins as her fellow parishioners shuffle out at closing time.

And yet, for all dark moments in this film, the shared refrain of 'tomorrow is another day' points to the ability of people to go on living in spite of many miseries. The soundtrack provided by Benny Anderson (of ABBA fame) seems inappropriately jovial at first but makes more and more sense as the film realises this human capacity to persevere.

'You, The Living' has an extraordinary visual style. The same washed-out, pale-green colours recur throughout, and there is nary a shadow in sight; this makes the characters appear exceptionally pallid and creates the sensation that human life is being laid bare for examination. Almost every scene is captured in a static camera frame, as if these are photographs being brought to life. The few occasions where the camera does move are all the more extraordinary; the contrast between the life and movement of the great banquet form a startling contrast with the deadness of the cloakroom scene. In the most intense moments of longing and despair, the characters transfix the viewer by directly facing the camera  they know that they are being examined and have a few moments to pour out their hearts to us, the viewers.

This is a wonderful, human film.


Minor Spoilers will follow.

This movie is even more odd and unconventional than "songs from the second floor". There is no main character we follow around. There is no "plot" in the conventional way. There is no emphasis on an happy end. There is no crowdpleasing. In other words Roy Andersson is back with a vengeance. Instead of falling back on convention and fixed formula Roy Andersson concentrates his film around an idea. I will not go into what that idea is, but even if you don't "get it" i promise that you will see the greatest visual depth ever put to film. The majestic scenes from "songs" pale in comparison here. A work of visual splendor.

So be kind to your fellow man, because after all "we are the living", and only you and I have the power to change our lives. That is at least what I thought when I saw the final scene in the movie, with the inhumane bomber planes sweeping in over the city in the film to take our lives away.

And of course don't forget to see this movie when it gets a limited release near you. This is one of those movies that actually have the power to make you a better person, like de Sica's "Bicycle Thieves". A very warm and humanistic film.


You can't really call Roy Andersson prolific, (6 films in 37 years). Nor can you accuse him of being conventional; he doesn't do 'straight-forward', at least when it comes to narrative. "You, the Living", his first film in seven years, is like a surreal documentary in which a large number of characters are observed doing nothing very much and if that sounds off-putting, let me assure you it isn't. This is a funny, accessible and surprisingly warm-hearted movie, a slice-of-life far removed from that which we normally see on the screen.

Of course, 'slice-of-life' is hardly the proper moniker to apply to this movie since most people's lives are unlikely to be anything like this. The incidents on the screen run the gamut from the almost terrifyingly ordinary to the downright wacky and while characters may flit by, sometimes never to be seen again, others to reappear as if anxious for approval, Andersson bestows on them all a kind of benign affection. That, and some rollicking music, ensure the time we spend with them is time well-spent.


The large bell in a bar intermittently rings for last orders and the inevitable rush to queue forms at the counter  do we want what we need only when it's too late? Or is the irony of the opening scene's wailing Cassandra a more resonant reflection of our perceptions on individual existence? There's an endless fascination about where writer-director Roy Andersson wants to take us in his fourth feature, "You, The Living". With fifty or so semi-related vignettes strung together by a penchant for tragicomic hyper-reality, its wistful interpretations and symbolic instances of life that bind us all in this great big cosmic Sisyphean struggle. The sheer simplicity of these vignettes act to dramatise the tenuity and immense preciousness of being apart of the symbiotic relationships we have with one another. Andersson might whittle down the complexity of the human condition through harsh and fast cynicism more than he should, but he also reminds us of the inherent, reassuring glory of waking up each morning to a new tomorrow when we're all aware of our own distinct forms of arrested development.


I laughed out loud several times during this film though give it a cursory glance and you would think it was something else altogether. I adore the pace and the way it slowly burns into you as you are presented these gobsmackingly beautiful tableaux. Andersson gives us something else here. Shows us something I had not seen since his last film. He is compositionally exceptional and via his method of fixing the camera and allowing action to take place before us, he opens the door on humanity and we peer into a place that reflects our own lives, our little lives. It is powerful stuff. It is the simplicity with which he allows the events to take place that creates the opposite feeling of complexity. Everything in front of the camera is anything but simple. Andersson's attention to detail is extraordinary. I believe most scenes, if not all, are sets built from scratch according to his designs. I cannot recommend this film highly enough. For me it took me to a place and I came out of it having witnessed a world frayed and beautiful, starched and pained, barren and splendid. At once alien and familiar. This film is brilliant and life affirming. I know because I came out smiling feeling wonderful. It has taken him seven years to make this. If he only made this one film he would still be up there with the greats.


You, the Living (2007)

Mordant. I've never written that word before but it comes to mind here. Let me look it up. Well, it's part of it--corrosive, but also funny as heck. So corrosively funny. This is a dour film, for sure, with so much dry dry dry wit and quirky humor it's impossible not to like it on some level. Filmed in a very spare style, often with a static camera and really balanced, stable compositions, like theater stages, we see a short enactment occur.

But that makes it seem ordinary--which it is not. Ordinary life is shown to be frumpy, ironic, delightful, coy, and depressing. And impossible. We, the living, must live, and since we're alive, we may as well take note. Something like that. I think it was Ebert who said you find yourself laughing and don't know why. Exactly. And the promo material somewhere said it was a cross between Bergman and Monty Python, and what they mean is it has the dry, silent, probing look of Ingmar Berman's famous Swedish films, but it has the zany, somehow touching elements of the British comedians.

I'd say, definitely, definitely watch at least half an hour of this. There is part of me that thought I was through by then--the rest continues in a similar assemblage of little skits and moments, and they do gradually evolve, but there is no great plot to follow or climax of the usual kind. There are some great moments later, even just the attention to the thunderstorm, which takes us out of the mundane human events nicely.

The filming is gorgeous in its classical control, almost like a series of Gregory Crewdson scenes (and outdoing the photographer, actually). And the acting, with all its very ordinary, non-glam folksiness, is right on. A startling, beautiful, odd experience.


Roy Anderssons "Du Levande" is not totally original as it is counter piece to Anderssons previous movie "Sånger från andra våningen". Still the movie has aura of total originality. Some conventions of movie making are still thrown away: most of the actors look nothing like what you would expect in movie and the shots take long time. Most of the time camera doesn't move but people move around it. The shots start from somewhere and many times the scenery builds up in amazing proportions. W.G. Sebald comes to mind in literature with same technique. Because of the time invested in every shot the suspension is really high in many of the scenes. There is a story and isn't - it is left for viewer to build up in his or her own mind. This movie is positive. It is determined not to see this all in negative way and at the same time will not pass the social injustices. One of the messages I got from it was that maybe all failures and accidents are not fatal after all. Great movie.


This, which was shown dubbed in Italian at a Rome cinema (not as bad as it sounds) after being presented at the Rome Film Festival, is very much an art film and a festival film, guaranteed to charm and delight such audiences for its distinctive style, droll humor; ability to draw comedy from the suffering of others; appealing, cheery music; spot-on performances; overriding sweetness and humanity--but doomed, because of its oddity and lack of a compelling story line, to leave average audiences wondering what they're watching it for and why anyone admires it, how it even got made.

Andersson gives us almost a series of dry skits. Running through them are various themes. Money: a guy at the next table (Waldemar Nowak) nicks the wallet of a rich bore talking on a cell phone in a restaurant over a glass of brandy, then goes and orders a set of posh suits made to order; a deadbeat son calls his celebrated father away from an elaborate gathering to beg him for one more loan. A shrink worries aloud about his depleted investments while his wife humps him in bed wearing only a shiny Viking helmet.

Depression: an elementary teacher (Jessica Nilsson) breaks down in class because her husband has called her a "harpy;" the rug salesman spouse (Pär Fredriksson) collapses before clients because he's called her that. Several men have depressing dreams. But hey--this is Sweden. Isn't everybody depressed? Love problems: a fat bohemian couple is perpetually breaking up; a girl groupie has fantasies about a lead guitarist, Micke (Eric Bäckman). Wives slam doors when their husbands start to practice their instruments. (Music too is obviously a unifying theme. Besides the dashing guitarist there's a tuba and a drum player who're in a Dixierland band and also play in marches and funerals. Every scene has an added lilt from the music, which niftily links one sequence with another.) A raging storm outside the window of many scenes, violent rain, people out in it, thunder so loud it sounds like a battle raging across the land. This also unifies the tone and gives the impression various scenes are happening on the same dauntingly tempestuous day.

Andersson is a master of visual composition and the static middle-distance shot and the film has a foggy gray-green look engineered by DP Gustav Danielsson that's perfect because it evokes the gloom of a Swedish winter but also twinkles with the subtle colors of the director's wit, which ends every scene with a smile. One almost never knew drabness could be so beautiful. (Or perhaps one did: Alexcanr Sokurov creates such effects sometimes in very different contexts.) Within scenes and in the film as a whole there's a kind of stillness that comes out of the visual style, the pacing of scenes, and the detached humanism of the overall outlook. There's something about a fully mastered style that's calming, reassuring.

Not everything works equally well. One may feel impatient with the succession of barely related scenes, which read too much sometimes like the work of a Saturday Night Live writer in need of Prozac. Since some scenes plainly move you or draw a laugh, it's obvious that others fall a little flat.

But some scenes are real zingers, and one obviously triumphant climax of pure magic is a dream--described and then visualized dreams being another important thread) in which the girl groupie imagines herself in a wedding dress newly married to her fey guitarist ideal, who plays a delicate series of riffs while a crowd of admirers gathers outside a big window. The viewpoint switches to outside and the window slides slowly away as if the building the dream newlyweds look out of were a train moving out of a station to take them to their honeymoon. It's a fresh, subtle, and rather sublime effect.

Eventually one may feel everything in You the Living (Du Levande) is a dream, including the recurring scene where the barman is always striking a bronze bell and announcing last order time, whereupon all the torpid customers rise from their tables and go up to get one more drink.

An Italian reviewer called this "a small, great film," and that's right. It limits itself in a dozen ways, but there is greatness in it. Roy Andersson is a little master (like some medieval miniaturist) of the inner comedies of Scandanavian gloom, and this is a film unlike any other. Shown this year as a Cannes "Un Certain Regard" selection, this is also the Swedish entry for the 2007 Best Foreign Oscar. Hard to say what Bergman would think, but Andersson worked with him; is famous for his elaborately produced TV commercials, some of which one can see on YouTube. Bergman called them "the best commercials in the world." It will be interesting to see if this director, whose craft is as subtle as his viewpoint, will start working in longer segments some time. Meanwhile, any good film buff really needs to get a look at this.

"Schadenfreude" isn't quite the right word. That means delight in the misery of others. Andersson is teaching us to delight in the misery of all of us.


I enjoy the National Anthem. I enjoy the National Anthem if for nothing else then, just before the Midnight News, I imagine I'm playing the cymbals in the band. Not as easy as you may think! One, two, three, four; One, two three, four; but then what? So I have sympathy with the practising bass drum player in Roy Andersson's wonderful film, patiently waiting for his cue listening to a very 70s cassette player.

The 70s motif seems to continue throughout, with some classic, soulless furniture. Moreover, every scene has an eerie jade wash which emphasises the minute nuances of the subtlest of acting.

Which brings me to Jessika Lundberg's outstanding purple boots. Boots which otherwise would have inspired a Silk Cult advertising campaign.

But then the difficult bit. Someone asked me what it was about. Well there is a scene where the opening line as "I don't have that length in green" Brilliant. Straight out of a Gary Larson carton.

I can't say what it's about. Go see yourself.

Ron Plasma

Hmm. Larson! Sounds Swedish

(Viewed 15Apr08)


Roy Andersson has managed to craft something that defies nearly all conventions of what a film should be, a piece of art that is both beautiful, funny and evocative at the same time. The end result is a moving, if somewhat fractured tale about humanity in its simplest and most honest forms.

This is unlikely to appeal to everyone, in fact the humour is so finely tuned that many are unlikely to get on its wavelength. The almost absurdly long takes, awkward silences and consistent medium shots will most definitely put off even the most willing of audiences. But it is within these disjointed tales and unconventional thinking that Andersson shapes a world where every character seems to take centre stage in their own absurd way. Each scene is absorbed by the desolate environments, with the characters seemingly left alone in their own oddity Its a difficult piece to watch at times, not least because like many of its scenes, it requires patience. But whilst some may hail it upon an artistic throne, others will simply look on in confusion. Its a film that blends understated humour with own brand of heart


I saw this at the 2008 Palm Springs International Film Festival. There are some wonderful descriptions of this film from other commenter's here and they seemed to have really enjoyed it so I won't too far into giving a film synopsis but you could see a little of Woody Allen and maybe a little of Federico Fellini in this film's collection of some 50 short sketches or vignettes strung together with no real singular plot. A few of the vignettes are related to each other in their character and plot lines however and a a corner bar is used frequently as a central scene where they are always giving last call. The beginning and ending scenes have a common theme too that bookends the film. It took three years to film this and much of the time must have been spent on finding the plainest and homeliest looking people in all of Sweden to make the cast. This is Sweden's official submission for Best Foreign Language Film for the 2007 Academy Awards. It's a nice movie but hardly worthy of an official submission for best foreign film. Last year Sweden's official submission was the very weak Farväl Falkenberg and the year before it was expensive looking but dull ZoZo, so once again Sweden will have no chance in picking up the Oscar. This film has it's moments and would have made a good 20-25 minute short film but it gets a little old and cold for a full length feature film. Roy Andersson directs. Gustav Danielsson is the cinematographer. Editor Anna Märta Waern deserves a lot of credit for the work she must have put into this. Benny Andersson of ABBA fame provides an entertaining music score. It's an interesting film with a lot of dry humor and I did like it but It's nothing really special and could only give it a 7.0 out of 10.


This surrealistic, absurdist movie is the first film I have seen of cult Swedish Director Roy Andersson. He is a veteran filmmaker who has made his living filming commercials, directing only four feature films in the last forty years. This background shows: the film seems like a collection of fifty 2 minute arty commercials. There is no story interconnecting these vignettes, though some characters appear in more than one vignette (there is a theme throughout underneath them, though: the absurdity of modern life). Some of the film's mannerisms (having the actors appear in light white makeup) are more irritating than illuminating. Some of the skits amount to very little (a man unsure in which queue to stand?). Other skits are better, though. The best is the one about the rock chick dreaming that she goes on honeymoon with her rock guitarist bride on a house that turns on something akin to a train (you have to watch it to get it). A film worth seeing, even if comparisons made by some film critics with such great filmmakers as Keaton, Tati and Kaurismaki seems overwrought: Andersson lacks the vision of them and the lack of a story interconnecting the vignettes is fatal to this film's pretension of being a masterpiece.


My family (two 40-somethings, an 8 year old and my 71 yr old mother) saw this at a sneak preview on April 29th. We all enjoyed the movie very much. The story was a good one, and knowing it was based on real-life events made it that much more enjoyable. Luke Wilson was a hoot (pun intended) to watch as was Tim Blake Nelson. And seeing Neil Flynn play something other than "the mean janitor from Scrubs" was nice. The kids in movie did well and I'm sure they will all appeal to a certain demographic on the heartthrob level. The visuals were just lovely and the Jimmy Buffet music added to the "Florida feel". OK, maybe the story was a little too neat and well packaged for some adults, but hey, who cares? I can't compare it to the book, I honestly hadn't heard of it until the movie came out.

It was just a NICE movie and it had a good message. Plain and simple.


It is great to see a film starring kids whose idea of "acting adult" is not engaging in sensuality. Instead, these kids see a problem in their community and take responsibility for helping to solve it. Hoot is a film aimed squarely at families looking for a fun day at the cinema. The production values are good, especially sweeping shots of Montana and Florida. The soundtrack by Jimmy Buffet is a perfect fit. The young actors are spirited and refreshing.

The plot, about a trio of kids who work together to save some burrowing owls from death at the hands of an unscrupulous pancake house empire builder, will engage kids. So many films make children appear powerless, it is nice to see a movie that shows children working hard to make a difference. And even though parents are absent or temporarily distracted, it was pleasant to see kids who want to follow in their parents footsteps and try to right injustices.

If you are tired of all of the self-indulgent story lines about children that fill the cinema, give Hoot a shot. Then take some time to talk to your kids about the adventure of serving others and caring about the world they live in. A positive message from a positive film.


what a refreshing change from the PG movies that have teen girls jumping in and out of bed, young high school boys counting how many girls they can "hook up" with, kids drinking, doing drugs, etc., etc., etc. Carl Hiaasen has written so many books that are enjoyable but hardly classic literature. but he has finally written something that Middle School kids WANT to read. And this movie sends a message to kids that maybe they can make a difference, that maybe their voices can be heard. Filmed in South Florida, the scenery is beautiful and natural and REAL. Who cares if its predictable, and a little corny. So was FREE WILLY and look how well that did. This is a good family movie..........a rare breed.


In 'Hoot' Logan Lerman plays Roy Eberhardt, the new kid in school who has just moved from Montana. But Florida is a lot different from Montana. Despite is troubles in blending in, Roy discovers a bigger problem. A new franchise restaurant is coming to town and families of burrowing owls are in trouble. Can the new kid, a tomboy (Brie Larson) and a runaway (Cody Linley) stop big business from destroying these owls' home?

This movie was pretty good. The kids (Logan Lerman, Brie Larson and Cody Linley) are the real stars of this film. Luke Wilson (Officer Delinko) is okay, but really does not have a very big part. Neither does Robert Wagner (Mayor) or Jimmy Buffett (Mr. Ryan).

Nevertheless this was a fun film that the whole family will enjoy. For a first time producer, I thought Jimmy Buffett put together a quality piece of work. Plus the owls were really cute.


If you read the book by Carl Hiaasen, the movie follows pretty much true to form, with a few minor changes for Hollywood. In my opinion this is a great family movie. Luke Wilson (Officer Delinko)pretty well steals the show from an all-star cast that includes Robert Wagner and Jimmy Buffet. The kids in the movie do a great job led by Logan Lerman, Brie Larson, and Cody Linley.

Brie Larson is maybe a little too petite to play Beatrice. I pictured a bigger girl, maybe 6 foot, 175 lbs, in the role of Beatrice. This might have made her more believable in her role of beating up Dana. They should have developed her "tough girl" character more, and had her bite through a tire, or kick a soccer ball through a person. She is very pretty, and I understand why she was cast, she is a box office attraction.

This is about as PG as a movie gets these days, no sex, and very little violence. This movie is a parents'dream come true, a movie with a strong environmental message, with kids that have deep appreciation for the beauty of Florida and its wildlife. It shows how adults have fallen short in the stewardship of our planet, and that our children can demand better. One of my favorite lines in the movie is when Mullet Fingers says, "Florida could use some mountains like Montana. Florida is so flat there is nothing to stop developers from clearing it coast to coast". Also, the photography of Florida wildlife spoke volumes without dialog. As a family movie with kids ages 5-15, this is a great movie! As a bonus parents' will be entertained, especially if they're "parrotheads".


I took my younger niece to an early showing and she LOVED it (I enjoyed it myself as well). I don't need to explain the plot, since the movie remains completely true to the award-winning, top-selling book by famed author Carl Hiaasen. The movie takes the popular book and layers it with beautiful cinematography (I want to go to Florida now!), humor (thanks to funny-man, Luke Wilson and some new-comers), and Great music! I have to get to get a Jimmy Buffet CD now! I know a movie is good when I get goose-bumps in the end. Overall, it was great family film that I felt comfortable taking my younger niece to. I'd recommend it to any and everyone.


I took a group of young people who were the same age as the protagonists and it appealed to us all. I agree with the other post, the Wilson guy worked a thankless script into a great minor character. It is good to have a movie for a certain age demographic (too old for PG, too young for R). It also shows how they think and maneuver in junior high school. You had to love how well Jimmy Buffet did as the cool teacher. He kept us adults awake. The level of kids questioning authority was kept reasonable. Their motives were specific and not like some A.D.D. rebel. The setting and music were beautiful. Overall, if you enjoyed Holes, this is really similar.


Hoot is a nice young person's film about a group of middle school kids that try and keep a pancake house chain from bulldozing a plot of land that is home to some endangered burrowing owls. The acting is pretty good and the fresh faces are nice to see. Many well known comedians are in this film and keep the humor going almost nonstop. It is a film for the young crowd, perhaps 5 to 11 years of age. I thought it was a nice change of pace from the adult films that pervade the screen these days. There is no realism here or accuracy about life in general for adults or kids. It's just a bunch of fun with a constant message about saving the beautiful places in this country from becoming over developed. If you can remember back to the day when you weren't fight for a buck you may remember that money isn't everything. Not many people over 12 are going to enjoy it unless they really have a soft spot for the old after school special series.


I read the book in a summer book club, and all of us there loved it. My friends from that club agreed not to watch the movie, lest the book be ruined. I didn't agree, and watched it recently with my younger brother and my parents.

I was pleasantly surprised. The movie was very true to the book, without losing it's own spirit. The 'new kid' theme was shown just enough so that we get a feel of it, but that's not what the story's about.

The acting wasn't the best I've ever seen, but it was still good, and the kids especially had a lot of energy. The characters were interesting, and the plot was cute and not too overstated. It was a kids movie that works just fine for adults or teenagers, too.

I wish there had been a bit more tough-girl attitude from Beatrice, but she was still a great character. Mullet Fingers was quite a bit like I had imagined him, except his hair was a little obviously dyed, with blonde hair and dark eyebrows. Roy worked very well as the little guy and the new kid, especially interactions with his parents and friends.

The message and the ending (which I won't discuss other than I liked it) teamed up to make a great cheer-up movie for a rainy day. All in all, this was a great film that you can watch again and again whenever you need reminding that the world isn't a horrible place after all.


HOOT is about these three teenage kids who try to save a bunch of burrowing owls. now to me i thinks that right they stand up to whats right and whats wrong. in this film a kid name Roy Eberhardt ( Logan lerman)moved from Montana to Florida. and once he gets on the bus a bully name Dana Matherson starts bullying him finally the next day Roy punches the bully and runs off the bus chasing the mysterious running boy. after all that Roy finally meets the Running boy who's name is Mullet Fingers ( Cody linley) well actually his nickname his step-sister Beatrice ( Brie Larson) gave it to him because he can catch Mullets with his bare hands. anyway Mullet Fingers and Roy becomes friends and they join together with Beatrice to stop the construction of a new pancake restaurant. Mullet Fingers is the one behind all the vandalism's that happened there and also later he gets bit by one of the dogs that put there to guard the construction site. so they stood up to the muckle that was driving the bulldozer and everybody got to see the owls it turned out to be a great movie because it showed where kids can make a difference in life by standing up to whats right and whats wrong. thats what is great about this movie. it teaches a lot to everyone about wildlife and how important it is.


I highly recommend this movie to everyone. My son and I read the book first and then saw the movie. While the book was better (in my opinion) the movie was still great. My son and I agree that while we like the book version the best, we liked the ending of the movie better than the book ending. The scenery is just tremendous and the soundtrack is a must have. The fact that Jimmy Buffett has a small role and provides music is an added plus. Luke Wilson does a decent job in his role of Officer Delinko and is pretty much what I had mentally imagined Delinko would look like when I read the book. I'm surprised that this didn't do better in the theaters, and I'll be waiting for the DVD to come out.


This is a delightful gem of a movie, unfortunately pigeon-holed as "just for kids." The plot revolves around a young man, Roy Eberhardt, newly arrived in southwest Florida from the Montana mountains. Trying to fit in with the other kids at his middle school, Roy discovers a brother-sister team trying to protect endangered burrowing owls at an illegal construction site. Look for Carl Hiassen, the author of the book upon which this movie is based, as the male secretary to the evil boss at corporate headquarters. Writer/director Wil Shriner is also the clerk at the Public Records Office where the intrepid teen-detectives discover that the incriminating Environmental Impact Report is missing. Luke Wilson nearly steals all the crucial scenes from the charming teen actors who have most of the best lines. Wilson is the bumbling police officer, in his three-wheeled electric police cart complete with blue light and funky siren. As Officer Dave, he tries so hard to do well, but usually ends up falling in the muck, literally! Several times! Jimmy Buffet is pretty low key as the tacitly supportive science teacher. But, young actors Logan Lerman (Roy), Brie Larson (Beatrice the Bear), and Cody Linley (Mullet Fingers) are superb as the teens who finally put Officer Dave on the right track, following the paper trail left by the evil corporate boss. I hope you come away from this movie feeling as good as I did. Just plain fun! One small complaint, though. I hope all non-Floridians realize that not everyone from Florida is as surly to newcomers as depicted in this film. We're really a friendly bunch! Just ask Carl Hiassen and Jimmy Buffet!!


In "Hoot", Mullet Fingers is engaging in sabotage to stop the pancake house. The problem is that the builders just start over again, and he has to take more drastic measures. When he is confronted with the dogs, he scares them off with snakes, not before he is bitten by a dog and has to go to hospital.

Roy at bedtime asks his father, who works with the Department of Justice, how he deals with crooks. His father says it involves the tedious steps of looking through papers, because sooner or later, they all slip up. You can see this with Enron and WorldCom. Roy looks at documents relating to the pancake house, and finds a suppressed document (he does have to break in to the company trailer), so when the police see it, he has the law on his side. Unlike when he evaded the police.

Mind you, as mentioned before, Roy is not always law-abiding, and when the company man is killing owls (illegally), Mullet Fingers takes direct action. He can't wait for the law (Mullet Fingers is in hiding). The movie does suggest that one should work in the system.


I must confess, I was surprised at how good this movie was when I first watched it. I had planned to see it in theaters during the summer but found out unpleasantly that it had already been and gone. Therefore, I expected it to have been removed from theaters because it was bad. Then, today, I rented it and watched it and really enjoyed it. The speed that events were occurring was questionable, it could have been a little longer. I found it was very true to the book, however it left out some crucial parts: Mullet Finger's real name, etc. I felt as if I hadn't read the book I wouldn't have really understand what was going on. The acting was quite good, another thing I had expected to be poor, however the cop, sorry I can't remember the actor's name, could have done a little better. All in all, I found this to be a very entertaining movie and would recommend it to all audiences!


Hoot was terrific. The owls are adorable and the movie highlights an interesting environmental issue I didn't know existed. Florida is full of so many fun characters and the film does a great job of bringing that to the screen. My kids particularly loved all the different animals, from snakes, to owls to alligators. It's really a simple story, but also one that they need to hear at this age. When kids are young that's when they really develop their sense of values, and yes one of those must be caring for our environment and all the creatures that live in it. I think it was great that the film even sparked a conversation with them on the ride home about animals and how to help them. It was just truly sweet and enduring to hear my little girl talk about how she wanted to save the baby birds. Anyway, overall it was really a great time and I'd recommend the movie to anyone looking for something entertaining AND meaningful.


Saw the movie today and thought it was a good effort, good messages for kids. A bit predictable. The book was better, gave more plot details, ore about the environment and how the kids uncovered the conspiracy. I think Hiassen's warped humor comes across better in the book than the movie, but there were lots of funny moments in the movie as well. It is probably a bit too slow paced for kids under 6 yrs of age. Loved the casting of Jimmy Buffet as the science teacher. And those baby owls were adorable. I wonder how they managed to film them. The movie showed a lot of Florida at it's best, made it look very appealing. Am I imagining it, or did the author Carl Hiassen make a brief appearance?


Hoot is a nice plain movie with a simple message. It seemed like that this film was for young children, but I know that adults will like this film. The storyline is pretty simple. A kid who moved to Florida must help a soccer jock and an outcast save burrowing owls from construction of a pancake house. The message in this film is big especially for animal activists and lovers. The message is about doing all you can to save endangered animals. The acting in this film is decent. All the three kids looked like they had good chemistry. The music is not too shabby. I liked Jimmy Buffet's songs in this film. Overall this is a good family film. I rate this film a 9/10.


I thought this was a really great movie especially since it was jut filler for me. I was bored, I got it from the library and I really enjoyed myself! I've watched it twice in the two days and the more I watch it the more I like it.I thought that the plot was going to be really corny but in the end it really could be said that it would be true. I liked the main characters and I thought that they were well cast and you could see true friendship. I thought they all did an excellent job. The ending was good.And you really hate the bad guys and you really like the good guys. Which is what a movie is supposed to be like.


This is a good family movie with a few laughs. I wish it didn't have too much of the school stuff like the bully in it to fill the movie up. Also, it seems a little too easy to save a piece of land from being built. I mean, the it just flowed too easily. It does make you aware of the wildlife. It had a cute way of introducing the piece of land which the fast runner but a little too slow for me. A little too hokey for me and it reminded me of going back to school. Oh, the DVD is chock full of goodies so don't miss out. 7 out of 10 for the movie 10 out 10 for the DVD with the extras that is well worth to watch. Well worth your time to see this!


I saw the movie "Hoot" and then I immediately decided to comment it. The truth is that NATURE needs protection from us because we are the dominant specie of this planet. Some people think that if they have money, they can do whatever they want to, which probably is like, but if they think about the future more then they think about themselves they would do something useful! This movie is not just about kids, this movie is showing us that the kids are usually the ones that care more about it then the adults do. When I was twelve, I saw some waterlilies and I knew they are protected by law and didn't even dare to touch them not fearing of the law, but fearing that I might harm them actually. (I am currently 15) What so ever, the acting was great, the 3 main characters are well interpreted and we all have to learn from them. I hope you all think about what you saw in that movie!!! and Enjoy!


In "Hoot", a new kid arrives to Florida from Montana. He first faces the usual problems of blending in and dealing with the local bully. Soon, though, he becomes aware of a bigger problem: a franchise restaurant chain is trying to build a site in the town, right where a number of burrowing owls live. This movie has the look of a family film, but it is pretty more radical than it seems, as it shows sympathetically how Roy and a couple of friends do not shy away from lawbreaking (including vandalism of private property and briefly kidnapping the manager of the chain of restaurants) in the name of environmentalism (to save owls, no less). Now, one might agree or not with those actions, but at least the movie has the courage from not shying away from its convictions. A good, solid film, all in all.


The story is incredible, it begins with a new kid in town named Roy, while on the bus to school, he notices a kid running with no shoes, and on that same day he breaks the big bullies nose who is trying to fight with him. Roy soon discovers that kid is a runaway, and he and his step sister are trying to mess a construction sight, that could kill all the beautiful owls that live there. Roy decides to help them him there fight, Can they win this fight before the smart but bumbling cop Dave Delinko(Luke Wilson) Stumbles on to them. An enjoyable film, funny and adventurous. I do admire Luke Wilson for taking this role. I don't think his brother Owen would even take this role.


i read the book before i saw the movie i knew the movie was going to be good because the book was great i seriously recommend you see this amazing fantastic movie. i know you will like it. when i went to see it i was there with my sister and there was nobody that was with us i was a little disappointed but nobody that i know has gone in to that movie and came out saying that was a horrible movie. nobody can it is so great i think everyone will like it (to bad nobody wants to see it) anyway i hope from what you have heard about this movie from me will make you want to see this movie i guarantee you'll like it as much as i do (im obsessed) literlly i am


Hoot is the best movie. go and see it if you haven't about these 3 kids that stand up to the right and the wrong. a perfect family film. the characters Mullet Fingers ( Cody Linley) Beatrice Leep (Brie Larson) and Roy Eberhardt ( Logan Lerman) are the three main characters. great movie the best!!!!!!!!!!! i love this movie and you guys should too, its a great movie i mean it a great movie. go and see it if you haven't. i like it because they stand up to the right and wrong, and it has cut owls and the hot Cody Linley.

Cody Linley is so HOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I LOVE HIM SO MUCH!!!!!!


Logan Lerman & Dean Collins III of Jack & Bobby Fame provide a nice touch of familiarity as friends in this even if not maybe as close as they may be on Jack & Bobby but the expressions of young students taking their stand for a good cause is very well expressed in this movie.Logan Lerman may be seemingly typecast in roles of being "different" as thusly seen from here as is seen in this as well as in Jack and Bobby.The Movie also opens up with a very nice tune coined as a lost 45 "And I'm Wondering where the lions are?"A song which I'd Always heard on the speaker @ my old Job of ChristmasTreeShops and got it played on my local radio show of The Lost45s hosted by Barry Scott but the last time of which I suggested this with this movie as it's dedication but the dedication was left out.Environmentalist demonstration is well expressed in this movie too for the protection of the ground owls as seen in this movie too.What a hoot too this movie is.Hoot,Sogive a hoot in the tradition of the Woodsey Owl Commercials of the 1970s too. Truthfully, Stephen "Steve" G. Baer a.k.a."Ste".


This film was not great cinema, but definitely a good film to see with your family, especially children from 10-15. There are good topics of discussion brought up in this movie, such as bullies, the environment, and working to make things right. Jimmy Buffet's music was a plus, and the scenery was wonderful... The young actors were excellent, and this is a movie I would expect to see on the Family Channel or the Hallmark Channel. Except for a few words in the dialog, a middle school could show this film to start discussions in the classroom. Hopefully it will be shown in Drive-ins this summer so that more people get to see it. It did follow Carl Hiassen's book well, and it was fun to see him in a cameo performance.


I watched this movie only because I didn't want to leave my 9 yo and her friend in the theater by themselves. Honestly, I went in expecting to enjoy a good nap -- but found myself entranced by the movie. I'd recommend it to anyone who asks! Roy's mom was on one of my all-time favorite TV shows years ago, playing a mermaid (Maximum Bob). She was really cute in this movie. The three main characters were all excellent young actors. Also enjoyed seeing and hearing Jimmy Buffet. The movie itself was quite beautiful - showcasing some of what makes Florida so great. I'm glad I ended up going to this movie. And to think, I was disappointed that I couldn't take them to see "Stick It" -- I think this was MUCH better!


This totally odd-ball feature is a typical and prime example of satanically shocking 70's horror. The events are thoroughly confusing and it takes up quite a while before you figure out what the hell is going on, but the brooding atmosphere sucks you in immediately. Right from the indescribably bizarre intro, showing a couple of eerie children turning toys into real-life war machinery, you just know this become an uncompromising and gritty shocker. "Brotherhood of Satan" soon appears to be another installment in the alleged & unofficial "creepy little town hiding a dark secret" sub genre. A young widower, traveling with his new yummy girlfriend and 8-year-old daughter, stops in a remote little town to report a car accident they witnessed on a nearby highway. The villagers behave very hostile and insist the visitors on leaving right away. The town clearly bathes in an ambiance of fear and panic, as local children vanish inexplicably vanished and unnatural forces maintain everyone within the boundaries of town. Hillsboro is in the grip of a satanic cult, apparently ruled by the elderly members of the community. I really liked "Brotherhood of Satan" a lot. The story reminded me of a novel written by John Saul, but I can't remember the title. It also dealt with a cult of elderly people abusing youthful villagers for their own greedy merits. The film mainly relies on creepy scenery (like dolls and witchcraft relics) but a slightly more involving and coherent screenplay would have been nice. The subject matter often raises a lot of issues and questions, and director Bernard McEveety can't always provide us with answers. The climax is terrific, very seventies (meaning shocking) and unforgettable. Beautifully shot film, too.


The '70s were a great time for horror movies. The Brotherhood of Satan is yet another overlooked gem. It's full to the brim with great surreal, unsettling scenes. It's also great to see Stother Martin and L.Q. Jones (who also produced) in decent roles.

Some of it is a little dated and cheesy, but The Brotherhood of Satan kicks butt over Race the Devil and many other '70s Satanism flicks.


A family is traveling through the mid West. There's widower Ben (Charles Bateman), his girlfriend Nicky (Ahna Capri) and Ben's little daughter K.T. (Geri Reischl). Then hit a town named Hillsboro where everyone acts more than a little strangely. Their car breaks down and they're forced to stay. They soon find out a witches coven has a spell over the town and is up to incredible evil.

The story is not that good. People just figure things out of nothing and they just happen to find out where the witches are at the end. Also there are a lot of loopholes left dangling at the end. The acting is pretty poor too. Bateman and Capri are bland and everybody else is about the same. Only old pros Strother Martin and L.Q. Jones give good performances. Still this movie does work. It forgoes blood and gore (there's some but this is PG) and manges to work with some very creepy visuals and atmosphere. The acting hampers a lot of it but it still works. Martin especially chews the scenery in his role. I can't explain exactly why I (sort of) like this movie but it did work on me. It's a quiet kind of horror that isn't made anymore. Hardly a masterwork but this deserves to be rediscovered. A 7.


Ben (a fine Charles Bateman), his young daughter K.T. (a cute Geri Reischl), and his new girlfriend Nicky (the extremely attractive Ahna Capri) are on their way to a birthday party for K.T. They unexpectedly get waylaid in a remote Southern town where no-one is able to leave, and with the exception of Ben, K.T., and Nicky, no-one can get in either. To top that off, children are disappearing and adults are being murdered at an alarming rate. Ben helps some of the locals - Sheriff Pete (L.Q. Jones), Tobey (Alvy Moore), and Jack (Charles Robinson), the local priest, try to solve the mystery.

This early 70's devil-themed horror movie actually predates "The Exorcist", and combines a "Bad Day at Black Rock" type plot of a rural town with a great big skeleton in its closet with horror elements, for interesting results. It actually sent a few chills down my spine this viewing, as it inexorably moves along its ominous path. The moody and solemn atmosphere is established quickly and holds for the duration; the ever-growing sense of panic gives it a real kick. Some memorable set pieces include the bizarre opening of a toy tank turning into a real one and squashing a car flat, not to mention Nickys' twisted nightmare, vividly and stylishly realized by director Bernard McEveety and crew. Jaime Mendoza-Navas' music is subtly sinister and gives it that extra sense of eeriness.

The steadfast and professional cast does some fine work, especially the ever engaging Strother Martin as the affable Doc Duncan, and producers / actors L.Q. Jones and Alvy Moore.

Just the fact that the whole plot is right under the noses of our heroes makes it that much more scary. Jack the priest starts leading them in the right direction, but will they be in time to put a stop to things? It's an enjoyable little chiller worth re-visiting; just speaking for myself, I was able to appreciate it a lot more after giving it a second chance. I can say now that yes, it is indeed under-rated, telling a good story in an interesting, unconventional, and effective way.

8/10


Not everyone likes this movie. It is still one of the best "you have to be thinking" movies about Satanism ever made. The fact that it doesn't have MTV-era jump cuts or gore every seven minutes is irrelevant. Also, speaking as someone who actually KNOWS Satanists, the (spoiler warning!) portion of the film where the Brotherhood exchange their old bodies for those of preadolescent children, it has some genuinely scary scenes. The section where (second spoiler alert) Strother Martin orchestrates the changeover is almost hyper-real in that it uses very few special effects, a hallmark of this film. McEveety was seldom given a big budget but was often effective. It worked in this case, too.


One of the best lesser known occult oriented horror movies of the seventies. It's gritty, exciting, scary, surrealistic here and there and at moments even very smart, which can't be said about many of the movies this kind. I can't help seeing some stinging symbolic and metaphoric points at the seventies society and generation stuff of the time this movie was done. The scriptwriter has obviously been cooking while delivering also some good old "from the crypt" kind of scenes. With a job well done from a creative director the result is entertaining and thought provoking. The simple, yet effective ending specially shows how these things are treated right by those who can.

The excellent cast were mostly unknown to me, except L. Q. Jones as the moody but funny sheriff and Strother Martin as the town doctor. Martin, not surprisingly, always ends up stealing the movie. With that voice and skill he is one of the greatest loonies in movies, for me anyway. What an actor!

So, it is a little bit of mystery to me why this movie has not gathered far greater recognition. I think it would deserve almost equal place in the occult horror canon alongside Rosemary's Baby and The Exorcist. One helluva movie!


I was 10 or eleven years old when this movie came out, and it has stayed with me for 35 years since. When the movie came out, all of the theaters in the St. Louis area distributed, as a 'lure', a pack of flower seeds that had the movie name, etc. on the front. On the back of the pack it read, in so many words....plant these seeds at midnight. If a white flower grows, you are saved.....but if a red flower grows, you are doomed!!! Suffice it to say, that for an eleven year old kid, I did not plant the seeds for fear of what may pop up. Here is the spoiler: As the movie starts out, you see a small toy tank moving about in the dirt. On a small road a family is leaving town, and suddenly the camera turns to the tank again, and it is full size. It rolls over the car, and you see bloody limbs protruding from the wreckage, then, just as sudden, the tank is small again.

The reason this movie stuck with me for that long, was because I had a exact toy tank as the one in the movie!!!! Unfortunately I don't know what happened to it, but I did keep a wary eye on that thing ever since!!!

Turn out the lights, put in the DVD, make a sandwich, and watch this movie. It is very good!!!


A young couple -- father Ben (solid Charles Bateman), wife Nicky (the lovely Ahna Capri) and their daughter KT (the cute Geri Reischl of "I Dismember Mama" fame) -- find themselves trapped in a small California desert town populated by hysterical lunatics. Worse yet, there's a pernicious Satanic cult that's been abducting little children for their own diabolical purposes. Director Bernard McEveety, working from an offbeat and inspired script by William Welch and L.Q. Jones ("Devil Times Five" director Sean MacGregor came up with the bizarre story), relates the compellingly oddball plot at a slow, yet steady pace and ably creates a creepy, edgy, mysterious ooga-booga atmosphere. Strother Martin delivers a wonderfully wicked and robust performance as Doc Duncan, who's the gleefully sinister leader of the evil sect. The top-rate cast of excellent character actors qualifies as a substantial asset: Jones as gruff, no-nonsense Sheriff Hillsboro, Alvy Moore as friendly local Toby, and Charles Robinson as a shrewd, fiercely devout priest Jack. John Arthur Morrill's bright, polished widescreen cinematography, Jamie Mendoza-Nava's spooky score, and the wild, rousing climactic black mass ritual are all likewise up to speed. The idea of having toys come to murderous life is simply ingenious (the opening scene with a toy tank coming real and crushing a family in their car is truly jolting). Nice eerily ambiguous ending, too. A pleasingly idiosyncratic and under-appreciated winner.


The first time I saw Brotherhood of Satan I was 12 yrs old I saw it in a little town in central Washington state it played before Tales from the crypt which we left early because my sisters were already scared from the Brotherhood of Satan. All in all I thought it was a pretty good movie. The beginning was good we had just sat down and that tank did a number on that station wagon.

What struck me about the movie was the scenery around the town in which it was filmed it looked almost like the area around Chelan WA where I saw the movie especially when they were driving towards the town of Hillsboro which is the location of the movie a small town in SW New Mexico. I have always liked LQ Jones and Strother Martin and also Charles Bateman who was on Get Smart another show I like. I gave the movie a 7 and later on when I did get to see Tales from the crypt I thought Brotherhood of Satan was better.


A wonderfully thoughtful and involving movie that leaves an imprint well beyond it's initial liftoff. Based on a true story , one of the many "small" stories prior to WW II , that lend an understanding to the mindsets of the majority of common man cultures, impacted by others perceived as former enemies and perhaps future foes, with the darkening of war clouds on the horizon. Viewed at the Stony Brook Film festival, the film was enthusiastically received . Well written and expertly cast. The characters were most believable and drew one in to experience their trials and tribulations.


I saw this at the 2004 Stony Brook Film Festival in NY and it was very warmly received. In this pre-WW2 film, a pair of German rocket scientists are working on the Scottish Isle of Scarp as war looms on the horizon. The characters encountered on the island are priceless in their creation and their portrayal. Shauna MacDonald is particularly memorable

After getting up to speed on the "Scootish" accents, the viewer feel right at home with these folk who watch with amusement as the Germans work to link their isle with the mainland via a rocket-based mail delivery. As implausible as it seems, this film was based on an actual story.

All in all, a memorable film that will stay with you for some time thanks to its casting, its story or its scenery.


An excellent film for those who simply need to switch off and enjoy the beautiful scenery of Scotland. Based on fact, the film takes you on a journey of love amidst spectacular scenery. The cast are 'dressed down' for the parts they play, so no glamorous costumes or coiffured hair in this film where acting is superb, gritty and down to earth.Each character is believable giving a convincing portrayal of island life, beliefs and culture of the time A definite for those who have even the tiniest drop of Scottish blood..... as it will tug at the heart strings and stir the soul. Something that can be shared with the family and watched time and time again..................a real classic, one that I am sure will walk alongside some of the great films that never die.


Set just before the Second World War, this is a touching and understated romantic story that is loosely based on a real event.

It concerns a German rocket scientist Gerhart Zucher (Ulrich Thomsen) working in Britain in the advent of the Second World War. Fearing Hitler may recall him to Germany to assist him preparing for war, Zucher and his slippery assistant Heinz (Eddie Marsan) are evacuated by the British authorities to a remote Scottish island. They are given the task of building a rocket post box that will enable the islanders to communicate with the mainland.

Mocked and bullied by the islanders, they set up home with local girl Catherine Mackay (the stunning Shauna MacDonald), with whom Thomsen begins an affair but complications arise when Germany comes calling...

The central romance between Zucher and Catherine is subtle and sincerely played and the supporting cast is a colourful bunch with an array of respected Scottish character actors including Gary Lewis and Clive Russell.

Fine cinematography and a brilliant central theme song sung in the local dialect round out this movie.

Intelligent but undemanding, it is good for a quiet evening in.


This is the kind of film they used to make, amusing, heart-warming, troubling, authentic, with convincing performances by people without nose jobs, boob jobs, eye jobs, in other words real people. Shauna Macdonald plays the female love interest, and she is so real you want to give her a cuddle at the very least. Imagine that, a real girl in a movie, whatever next? Hollywood would hate her, because her freshness is a sharp rebuke to every false starlet in Tinseltown. This story has the same hilarious feel as Sandy Mackendrick's classic 'Whisky Galore', with the gnomic humour of remote Scottish islanders puncturing the pretensions of intruders from outside and enjoying a wee dram from time to time (the actual intervals between those times often being rather short). Director Stephen Whittaker displays a rare skill in pulling this off just right, and it is shocking to discover that he died before his film's release, aged only 56, which was clearly a substantial loss to the screen. Ulrich Thomsen does very well at playing a German rocket scientist who in the late 1930s goes to Scarp in the Isle of Harris to build a small rocket to carry postal packets between the islands. There he falls in love with the alluring Macdonald lass, and she reciprocates the affection. Some wonderfully colourful local characters decorate the tale, and the film is pure delight. There is of course the threat of imminent war with Hitler, and we learn that Hitler executed 1000 rocket scientists who refused to build weapons of war, which is a shocking statistic. Tragic love is never far from view, but lips must remain sealed in a review as to what happens in the end. This film is a magnificent example of just the kind of films which people in Britain should be making. But are they being properly released? In a nation whose tastes have been so corrupted by reality TV shows, where repulsive nonentities have become the national heroes, is there even a market anymore for a film like this? After all, there is no grunting sex, there are no close-ups of suppurating wounds or of anyone's genitals, there are no drugs taken, there are no mindless celebrities prancing around wanting to be looked at, and so one wonders whether there is anything to interest a public which has become so decadent and jaded that only the most extreme sensations can briefly alleviate the tedium of their pointless existence. Anyone who is looking for an antidote to the vacuity of contemporary Britain can take refuge in this refreshing and honest film.


I saw it at a German press screening. Without giving too much away: Most critics really seemed to like it very much. There was even applause afterwards, which is quite unusual for that species. From my point of view and until now, it was the funniest movie of the year. It keeps the charm and wit of the three W+G shorts and it is enlarged with many references to these and other movies. Of course, there are obvious allusions to monster- and werewolf-movies, especially to "An American Werewolf in London", "Jaws", "King Kong" and even to Peter Jackson's "Braindead"/"Dead Alive", but also to other genres.

Characterization was better done in "Chicken Run", but that movie had a complete new "cast" where introduction was necessary. Here, you are already able to know the two main characters. So, the new "Wallace and Gromit"-movie is enjoyed best if you watched (and liked) the shorts already, yet it also works on its own. "Chicken Run" had the more convenient, but also more "storytelling" plot. Instead, this new Aardman masterpiece keeps that crazier and somehow more "isolated" feeling of the W+G shorts. Children should also enjoy it very much, especially because of the sweet rabbits (if you love cute bunnies, this is a must-see for you!!!) and because Gromit has a lot do to and really steals the show (children also love dogs... :-) ). But many jokes are thought for a more adult audience (there are even soft sexual allusions in it). The movie manages, like "Shrek 1+2" and "The Incredibles", to fulfil high level entertainment for the whole family, with adding a British and at least a little bit darker edge to the humour of American animated movies.

The animation is  as expected  superb, and they kept true to the Aardman style because they didn't put in too many digital effects - I realized just a few when it came to Wallace's inventions.

Finally, the score works fine in the movie, although one of the main themes definitely is "borrowed" by Randy Edelman's "Dragonheart" score.

The bad thing is: It will probably take another six years from now until we can see a new animated gem from Nick Park & Co.


Being a "Wallace and Gromit-fan", I was looking forward for this full-length movie. Surprisingly I saw it at THE world-premiere in Vlissingen (NL), at the Film by the Sea festival. A wonderful feeling to be one of the first to see this very amusing and merry movie. It's about Wallace and Gromit (whom I believe don't need an introduction) having their own pest-control company in the city which is hosting a giant-vegetable contest in a few days. Everyone, including an eccentric baroness, is hoping his or her giant carrot or melon will win the Golden carrot. Unfortunately the town is plagued by lots of hungry rabbits. This is where W&G come in. The have their own cracking contraptions to control these cute creatures in a human way.

It's a very funny and colorful story. Anyone who liked the three proceeding short movies of W&G (which are more than great!), will love this full-length movie. Nick Park really delivered a wonderful and original result with a great sense for humor. Like in Chicken Run, it truly amazes me how he can capture so much story and emotions in just a few frames. "Job well done, lad" ;-) Oh yeah: The music was fantastic! It really completes the ride. Enjoy!


This first (and hopefully not last) Wallace & Gromit feature lives up to expectations. There are plenty of jokes (some a bit cheeky) as well as some great tributes to past Science Fiction movies. With the barrage of awful and formulaic movies being spewed forth from Hollywood it's great to see such a great film like this that's enjoyable for almost everyone. If there is any justice it will be top of the box-office and be at least nominated for best animation at the next Oscars. The animation is wonderful; the characters are remarkably expressive and their adventures are great fun. This is one of those films that the whole family can enjoy. Charming, clever, fun and well made, what's not to enjoy?


Wallace and Gromit are the main characters in some of the best cartoons ever crafted. The excellent mix of visual humor and claymation makes "A Grand Day Out," "The Wrong Trousers," and also "A Close Shave" some of the best animated footage ever put on television. Winning several Oscars and also countless other awards, Nick Park became quite the popular man in the U.K., yet his impact on the United States has not been big. After the third Wallace and Gromit short, there was all this speculation about a full-length Wallace and Gromit movie, yet for years nothing had happened. Then in 2000 instead of a full-length Wallace and Gromit film, we get another brilliant claymation film from Nick Park, which was Chicken Run, which almost got nominated for best picture in the Academy Awards. Perhaps it was the success of this film that ultimately drove Park to finally work on a Wallace and Gromit project.

5 years later (these kinds of films do take long you know) and a lot of anticipation, Wallace and Gromit finally hits the big screen. Despite the rather weak trailers and marketing campaign, this movie delivers in so many ways. This film will be a delight for both kids and parents. With tons of adult humor hidden beneath the brilliant animation, Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit is one of the few films that perfectly manages to equally appeal to both kids and adults. This rather difficult technique is one that only Pixar has already perfected and DreamWorks has had a lot of trouble doing lately. Despite the DreamWorks logo slapped onto the poster, this film is mainly from the very creative staff of Aardman Animations.

Wallace and Gromit are first seen running a business that protects the townspeople's crops from being ruined by rabbits, which apparently had been running around wild and in great numbers lately. Their business has gotten them plenty of respect from the others living in the town because a gigantic vegetable contest was rapidly approaching and the crops needed protection. Complications arise when Wallace attempts to manipulate the rabbits into not liking vegetables and then a great eating machine is unleashed on the area. It is up to Wallace and Gromit to find the gigantic animal and stop it from eating away through gardens and also their approval from the townspeople. To add to that, Wallace wants to impress Lady Tottington, which also captured the attention of a snobby suitor by the name of Victor. Simple plot yes, but there is more than meets the eye, be prepared for a few fun surprises along the way, kind of like in the other Wallace and Gromit cartoons.

In animated films with little dialogue, it is the animation that has to set the pacing and the mood of the film. Despite requiring 5 years to produce only 85 minutes of footage, the payoff is fantastic. There is a massive amount of detail that requires more than one viewing to truly notice. Even more incredible than the detailed and nearly flawless animation is the truly unspeakable amount of visual humor put into the film. Whether it is a creatively placed shot or normal labels put into the funniest position possible, or it is the oh-so-adorable rabbits that is constantly shown in the film, most Curse of the Were-Rabbit's humor comes strictly from just watching the movie itself and catching all the references before it is too late. Just picture the movie Madagascar, except funnier much fewer pop culture references, and better animation.

Casting was great, even though in a film with not much dialogue, it was not that important. Peter Sallis yet again does a wonderful job as Wallace, even though in this movie there was no stand-out quote that can be used anytime (The Wrong Trousers: "It's the wrong trousers Gromit, and they've gone wrong!"). Ralph Fiennes does a superb job as the lead villain Victor and also Helena Bonham Carter (known as the crazy female lead in the cult hit "Fight Club") lends her lovely voice as she plays Wallace's love interest. Even though nothing could top the final chase in "The Wrong Trousers," Curse of the Ware-Rabbit did have plenty of action scenes, including one fantastically done chase scene between Gromit and Victor's evil dog. Last but not least, the rabbits really steal the show at some moments. Whether it is their cute expressions, their funny movements, or their howling, the rabbits in the film even take some of the glory from the main stars. The funniest rabbit in the movie is the "cursed" rabbit himself, to the very end of the movie he had the audience rolling in laughter.

Bottom Line: Despite not being as memorable as "The Wrong Trousers", this film is just as good and entertaining as Chicken Run. Unlike almost every movie to come out this year, the movie does not drag at all, clocking in at a short 85 minutes yet containing so much joy and fun, it will leave everyone watching it asking for more. There is very little wrong with the film; it was a pure delight to watch. This film is a total contrast of the decent yet vulgar, uncut, raw movies that have made a surprising amount of money earlier this year (40-Year-Old Virgin, Wedding Crashers, and Sin City) and for families and those who want harmless entertainment; that is a good thing. Highly recommend, this is the top animated movie to come out this year and among the best we have seen this decade. Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit: totally harmless fun from second 1 to second 5,100.


When Wallace and Gromit burst onto the scene in their academy award winning short, "A Grand Day Out," they created a fresh new look at claymation. After two more shorts, Aardman's dynamic duo returned for this thoroughly enjoyable and entertaining movie. It has an excellent Voice cast, humorous jokes and good animation as only Aardman could do!

In this movie, Wallace and Gromit run "Anti-Pesto," a rabbit removal company. When word gets out about a "Were-Rabbit" eating all the vegetables in town, a frenzy ensues. Of course, Victor Quartermaine, the town's handsome, toupee-brandishing huntsman, wants to get his hands on the rabbit to impress the lovely Lady Tottington...but can our favorite Aardman duo save the day before chaos ensues?

The jokes, I should say, were hilarious. One point, the villain, Victor Quartermaine's, booty-crack was showing, prompting a character to cry out: "BEWARE...THE MOON!!!" Vintage Aardman!

The characters are crisp and hilarious. Our favorite Aardman team of Man and Dog entertains us as only they could do, earning them their second Oscar (remember "A Grand Day Out?"). Helena Bonham Carter was terrific as the lovely Lady Tottington, Wallace's love interest. Ralph Fiennes was especially funny and foreboding as the cunning, toupee wearing hunter Victor Quartermaine. But the one who really stole the show was the priest, whose antics proved to be some hilarious comic relief.

Hats off to Aardman for creating another Wallace and Gromit masterpiece!


What-ho! This one is jolly good. I say jolly good, ol' chap. Or should I say "ol' bean"? My mastery of British terminology is a little dusty. Anyway, my biker boots and I walked into this screening with no prior viewing experience of Wallace and Gromit. I'm happy to say that my boots and I walked out pleased to have made their acquaintance.

While not as adult-accessible as Toy Story, W & G still manages to be clever enough to provide the grown ups with a little humor that will most definitely soar over the heads of the young 'uns who are too busy guffawing at the Were-rabbit's belches to have any clue that something is amiss. I highly suggest that you pay close attention any time you see books or words on the screen because there are quick glimpses of puns that you'll miss if you aren't paying attention. My favorite is a book of monsters that refers to the Loch Ness Monster as "tourist trappus." If you've ever been known to say, "I can really relate to Kevin Federline," or if you're just illiterate then not only will you miss out on these jokes, but you probably should be spending your time learning to read instead of going to movies. Consider this a public service announcement.

The most impressive aspect about W & G is its clay animation. Thanks to the tedious process, it took FIVE YEARS to finish the film! According to the press notes, there were some days when the optimum goal was to merely accomplish 10 seconds of completed film. Folks, I sometimes have trouble finding the motivation to finish responding to a handful of emails or adding captions to pictures for my reviews (a point that is proved by a lack of pictures in this review); so I can't even imagine having the required patience for that.

I really like the rough, hands-on quality of the claymation figures. The fact that you can see fingerprints in the clay is a nice, personal touch. How can you not be impressed with clay characters that show more expression and emotion than Paul Walker and Keanu Reeves combined? The Curse of the Were-rabbit is, as director Nick Park calls it, the world's first vegetarian horror movie that should entertain both kids and adults alike. Relying on (and as a male who prides himself in his shaggy-haired, cool-bearded masculinity I hesitate to use this word) cute and (oh man, I probably shouldn't use this word either) lovable characters rather than outdated M.C. Hammer references, W & G is proof that DreamWorks can create entertaining animation when it chooses cleverness over the cheap joke.


I really refused to see this movie. I refused to go with the school and I refused to go with my parents. Just by looking at the trailer it looked stupid, to me anyway. One of my friends wanted to take me to the movies that day and he offered me 2 choices, "The Dukes Of Hazzard" or "Wallace And Gromit: The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit." It took me 17 minutes to decide. Time was running out. I had to choose. It came up on the screen "Few" as in a few tickets left. By the time we had to line up and get our ticket, only one of us could go in. I desperately wanted Nicholas to go in to see it. But he forced me. I crossed my arms and was very moody and disappointed that I was going in to see this childishness. I walked in, sat in the only seat that was available and prepared for the movie! must say I was very surprised that I sat through that MASTERPIECE! It was amazing. I don't know what I was complaining about. The Clay Animation was by far the most best i've ever seen in my life. The story was brilliant. About a rabbit disrupting and crashing a carnival that had been planned for over 500 years. Basically Anti Pest Control are protecting the people who are competing in the Vegetable Competition. Anti Pesto known as Wallace And Gromit (Who are in charge of this business) try to keep all the rabbits away from the Vegetable carnival. I wont say anymore. It's just too good to tell. I'll admit that the whole idea of a Were-Rabbit is ab-it unbelievable and ab-it childish, but Nick Park adds substance to it which what makes everyone love it. I mean, there wont be a 10 foot rabbit on the loose and there definitely wont be 8 foot werewolves as said in " Dog Soldiers." Then again, Were-Rabbits and WereWolves aren't actual creatures. But either way, it worked out very well.

The jokes also were more grown up. The kids wont get some of the jokes. It goes way above their heads. It had a lot of British jokes in there. If you love British humor, this is the movie for you.

I also loved the cast and the voices. Everything about the movie is so incredibly well done. The direction and pacing was absolutely...FANTASTIC! I recommend this to fans of the old Wallace And Gromit shorts (And no, I haven't seen them yet), and I recommend it to fans who liked "Shrek" and "Shrek 2 and most importantly, I recommend it to the people who love Clay Animation. Cracking good movie! 10/10


There are a few aspects to Park's movies, and in particular Wallace & Gromit, that I would say make them so great. The first is subtlety and observation, the flagship of which is the character of Gromit. He doesn't speak, he doesn't make any noise, all he has are his eyes, brow, and body posture, and with these he commands the film. Park manages to give us everything we need from this silent character through his expression. The comedy and the emotion is conveyed through the subtlest of movements and it works superbly well.

Watching the movie you have to be aware of the entire screen. Normally you'll be guided to things in the movies, the screen won't be cluttered too much, there won't be many things to take your eyes away from the main clue or action. Park seems to need to look the other way with his movies. He throws extra content at his audience, there's action in the background, to the side of the screen, even off screen, and there's just about always something in the foreground to catch your eye. His movies are about multiple viewing and discovery, they're layered with jokes and ancillary action.

Throughout this film there are layers of things happening on screen, jokes in the foreground maybe on a jar label and background shadows that give away action. You can imagine that for Park the movies has always been an event, and the movies he loves are ones which he wants to watch again and again. This is what shows in his movies, and in through his most beloved characters.

Then there are the bizarre and wacky inventions which Wallace make, something which is reflected in the storyline and the twists and turns of the plot, everything is bizarre and off the wall, yet it seems so perfectly normal in this world. You can imagine that inside Park is the mind of Wallace.

There's also one more thing that make these movies so unique, and that's the modelling and precise hand animation. I must admit I was concerned when I knew Dreamworks was involved in the making of this movie, and I thought that they would bring their computer animation experience to the forefront. What I was scared of was Wallace & Gromit becoming CGI entities, or at the smallest, CGI being used to clean up the feel that the modelling brought to the movie.

Not so. You can still see thumbprints and toolmarks on the characters, and far from distracting from the movie, this just adds so much real feeling to it and a feeling of physical depth to the characters and the scene on screen.

So what of the movie? Well I must say that the plot twist was something I had thought about well before the film was in the cinema and it came as no surprise, but that did not affect my enjoyment one little bit. Actually watching the twist unfold and the comic timing of the discovery and reactions was everything, and it had me just as sucked in as if it was a thriller, yet all the time I was laughing.

Watching the movie was fascinating in various ways. To see the animation completed, how wild the inventions are, how Wallace is going to get into trouble and Gromit get him out, where all the cross references are in the movie, and where all the jokes are! I must admit afterwards talking with my friends I couldn't believe how much I had missed.

There's something different in this movie than with the others, there's a new level of adult humour in here, and I don't mean rude jokes (although there are a couple that are just so British you can't help laughing), I mean jokes that simply fly over kids heads but slap adults in the face. The kind you are used to seeing come out of somewhere like Pixar. This just adds even more appeal to the movie.

Okay though, let me try and be a bit negative here. I didn't notice the voices in this movie, you know how you usually listen to the actors and see if you can recognise them? Well I was just too wrapped up in the movie to care or to notice who they were...okay, that's not negative. Let me try again. The main plot wasn't as strong and gripping as I'd expected, and I found myself being caught up in the side stories and the characters themselves...again...that's not a bad thing, the film was just so much rich entertainment.

I honestly can't think of a bad thing to say about this movie, probably the worst thing I could say is that the title sequence at the end is quite repetitive...until the final title! Really, that's the worst I can say.

The story is a lot of fun, well set-up, well written, well executed. There's lot's of fantastic characters in here, not just Wallace & Gromit. There's so much happening on screen, so many references and jokes (check out the dresses of Lady Tottingham), cheese jokes everywhere, jokes for all the family. The characters are superbly absorbing and you'll find that you've taken to them before you realise. There's just so much in this movie for everyone.

There's so much I could say and write about, but I know it will quickly turn into a backslapping exercise for Park and Aardman, it would also just turn into a series of "this bit was really funny" and "there's a bit when...", and what I would rather do is tell you that this is a superb movie, to go see it, and to experience the whole thing for yourselves. I will say though that the bunnies are excellent!


WALLACE & GROMIT: THE CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT (2005) **** (Voices: Peter Salis, Ralph Fiennes Helena Bonham Carter)

Fantastic Feats of Clay: Wallace & Gromit Save the Day! Crackin' Good Entertainment!

Nick Park, the creator of the animated team of Wallace & Gromit, is a genius. His painstaking art in the form of Plasitcine claymation is a unique process involving literally thousands of hours (it takes roughly an 8 hour work day to contribute 3 minutes of action to a film; this foray into feature length storytelling took 5 years!) in making his lovable master & loyal dog team take form is finally on the big screen in the duo's first full-length motion picture and it's cracklin' good (to coin a phrase from Wallace's usual reply to all things good!)

Park, who co-directed with Steve Box and co-wrote with Mark Burton and Bob Baker, sends up the horror genre in this rollickingly funny and swift paced action comedy with the geeky inventive Wallace (voiced by British vet thespian Salis) and his mute yet loyal (and sharper-minded) mutt Gromit (all furrowing eyebrows and mouth-less insouciance) have devised a service to their community: pest control ("Anti-Pesto" as they are known) for the upcoming Giant Vegetable Festival that has the entire town in the mood for all things vegetative a gigante and the biggest pesk are troublesome rabbits eating the crunchy goods. Wallace's inventive mind has created a vacuum container that is quick, efficient, and more importantly harmless to the cute vermin that plague the estate of Lady Campanula Tottington (voiced by Bonham Carter, making a fast-break to be the first lady of stop-motion animation what with her earlier turn in "Corpse Bride" a few weeks ago), who is housing the competition and is a love interest for the nerdy Wallace.

The only fly-in-the-ointment is vainglorious, bombastic loud-mouth and jerk Victor Quartermaine (voiced by Fiennes, his first attempt in the animated arts coming across as a Patrick Stewart lunged braggard with hilarious results), a badly toupeed wearing macho moron who is plotting to marry Lady Tottington for her riches while he is a chief competitor to W&G's humane attempts by resorting to his trusty guns and nasty bulldog.

To add insult to injury the duo are facing a terrible plight in the form of a huge were-rabbit (the titular monster a nice nod to both Universal and Hammer horror flicks) that is terrorizing the village and devouring every veggie in sight. The two set out to trap and dispose of the creature but there is more than meets the eye as things progress.

Relentlessly funny and with such amazing elastic, and kinetic energy to his wonderful clay counterparts, Park and Box have created a truly magical and highly entertaining film with so much amazingly detailed production design to their little world that it may take more than one screening to absorb just how much effort in their blood, sweat and tears have gone into making this instant classic for children of all ages.

Wallace, the cheese loving balding inventor, could easily be Homer Simpson's UK cousin with his rotund body and constant knack for getting things wrong while attempting to do the right thing; his heart is in the right place but his head is in the clouds. His sweet crush for Lady Tottington (resembling a pre-plastic surgery Carol Burnett) who is a head taller than our hero will perhaps remind those of their first unrequited love with a smile of awkward admission. His Rube Goldberg-like gift for making the complicated into ease is inspired lunacy that fans will recall from the earlier shorter films "The Wrong Trousers", "A Close Shave" and "A Grand Day Out".

But it is in my opinion the wise, silent and long-suffering Gromit, his poached egg eyes of slow-burns and disbelief at what is transpiring, is one of the best animated characters ever created with such an amazing arsenal of exasperated, mouthless expressions and subtle nuances that most live-action actors would kill to accomplish in the attempt of conveying dismay, concern, grief, genuine surprise and relief. His final chase  a signature of the immensely popular comic team  is ingeniously set and quickly improvised especially his literal dog-fight with the equally soundless bulldog with tenacity, wit and a Chuck Jones fueled smartness that would have Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger green with envy.

Wallace and Gromit match the best of Laurel & Hardy, Abbott & Costello and any other classic comedy team that comes to mind; here's hoping their longevity continues on screen for just as long as their predecessors. The waiting is most eager.


Having just come home from my third viewing of The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit, I decided to jump on IMDb and see what others thought. I noticed a lot of Brits loved it, while those in America just didn't get it. That really doesn't come as any shock, as America doesn't get what "English" is.

Wallace and Gromit are very English. Middle class English, in fact, with a hint of eccentricity throw in for good measure. The film is a lot like our two heroes; simple and unassuming. It has a nice and gentle plot so the children don't get lost, yet there's enough beef there to keep the adults amused too. There's some light innuendo (which seems have to have offended the evangelic - oh noes, drama!) but there is nothing more rude than a bottom for a brief moment. When people get offended by a plasticine anus, you know the world's messed up...

One quick note to those (all American so far that I have seen) who think Chicken Run is a better film: Chicken Run was made to pander to your sense of humour, and I think it suffered because of it. Curse of the Were Rabbit is witty, English, and intelligent. Thomas The Tank Engine's film was ruined because it was made to please the Americans and I'm glad Nick Park did not let that happen to another Great British institution.

To sum up: You can keep your Chicken Runs, your Shreks, your Madagasga's - that kind of crude, crass, slapstick comedy just doesn't compare to the wit and grace that is Wallace and Gromit in Curse of the Were-Rabbit. English to the core, and long may Wallace and Gromit stay that way.