This movie was made only 48 years after the end of the Civil War--most likely in anticipation of the 50th anniversary of the end of the war. In the film there are recreations of battles and the people of the era that look rather impressive and realistic. It also provides a different and more balanced view than just its contemporary, BIRTH OF A NATION--a patently absurd and racist film. Because of this, this short film would be excellent for use in the classroom to discuss the war and tell the story of a very young man that runs away to enlist as a drummer. The boy makes good and is a hero, though the film ends rather melodramatically--a definite convention of the day. Not a great film, but a decent plot, decent acting and little of the over-the-top acting you often saw in other films of the day.

One annoying aspect of this film was the too frequent use of title cards to describe or set the stage for stuff that was really obvious. It got annoying from time to time.


Kahin Pyaar Na Ho Jaaye is a great family movie. Salman Khan is looking handsome and great than ever! There's even a scene where he takes off his shirt! What a surprise!!! Rani Mukherjee is great too. Pooja Batra had very few lines to say but I'm glad she has been acknowledged for her role because she definitely has potential.

It's about Prem (Salman Khan) and he is a wedding singer. He is about to marry Nisha (Raveena Tandon) but gets stood up. Prem goes to Nisha's house and asks her why he was ditched and it's because her brother is ill and she needs to marry an NRI, Rahul (Inder Kumar), to get the money to get him treated. Prem moves on and in comes Priya (Rani Mukherjee). Prem falls in

love with Priya but it's a shame she's about to get married to an NRI! Who could this NRI be?! Priya falls in love with Prem too while Rahul is there with her. Prem gives Priya an insulting comment one day and she goes off and sets off to Agra for the wedding with Rahul. Will Prem stop her? Watch KPNHJ to find out!

The film was very funny! The songs were great especially the song "O Priya O Priya" It's a shame the film flopped in India and I don't know why?! Every film in India is going flop nowadays!! This film deserved to be a hit. The only problem I found with the film is that they had an obsession about NRI's! They think ALL NRI's are rich! The film deserves a 9/10!


Having seen other Bollywood flicks with Salman Khan in them, I can say this is my favorite of the more recent ones. The songs are all quite fun, especially 'O Priya O Priya' which seems to have a nice mix of Beatles, Indian music and (dare I say this) a bit of Prince. The love stories are a bit more believable than, say, Chal Mere Bhai. The occasional focus on Prem's use of alcohol is at times troubling as it doesn't really seem to make sense to me, but it's played well by Khan--although his voice does become squeaky when he's portraying drunkenness.


A delightful story about two evacuees, has been turned into a nice little film, by the BBC. Most children who like a good story will enjoy this. The characters are played really well by a very good cast. Not sure whether our American friends will appreciate it, but they do get a mention, as Aunty Lou runs off with a gorgeous American soldier.


I saw this episode of Masterpiece Theatre and immediately came to IMDb to look it up. I was greeted by a comment from another user, who believed that it was nothing special, a 6 out of 10, and underwhelming. I would feel morally remiss if I didn't disagree.

Now, I am an avid fan of Masterpiece Theatre, but oftentimes the stories can be a bit silly on television, for example, "He Knew He Was Right" was absolutely horrendous. "Carrie's War," however, is probably the best I've seen so far. The entire cast does an excellent job, and it held my interest more than any other piece I've seen recently. The character Mr. Evans is of particular interest, and through subtle images of, for example, an untouched birthday cake or a garnet ring, my opinion of him went from bad to truly good. Truly. His ultimate demise, and the story of how everyone around him left him a cold hard man, is what brought out the bittersweet in this story for me.

The end is gratifying in every sense but one; that everyone did not get what they deserved, but overall things worked out. I absolutely recommend this to everyone.


Humphrey Bogart in his first starring role looks very young, acts well, but has a pronounced lisp only hinted at later in his career. Still, he's very good and very appealing as the idealistic young inventor of a new airplane motor.

Dorothy Mackaill is the real star here, playing a once-rich woman who's torn between her real love for Bogart (he's broke too) and the comfort and security of marrying an older man (Hale Hamilton).

Along for the ride are Astrid Allwyn as Bogart's trampy sister, Bradley Page as her would-be producer, Barbara Leonard as the cosmetologist, Jack Kennedy as Gilligan, and Halliwell Hobbes as the faithful (and wise) butler).

Both Mackaill (whi had been a star in silent films) and Bogart were trying to gain a toehold in talkies in 1932. Bogart was a slow-rising actor from the Broadway stage; Mackaill was slipping and would soon appear in skid-row production like PICTURE BRIDES. Yet they are both very good here. Mackaill wasn't even 30 when she appeared in this film!


"You were on your way up and you tripped on a skirt !" Gilligan says to Jim Leonard. That sums up the plot of this story of up and coming Leonard (a YOUNG Humphrey Bogart) when his dream gets sidetracked by the bombshell heiress Carol, played by Dorothy Mackaill. Leonard has been working on a new and improved motor, but now his love life and motor company both have their ups and downs in this 68 minute shortie. Bogart hadn't developed the quiet, brooding style yet. Good performances by most of the supporting characters - her butler, his co-workers, a sister, interlopers along the way. Some adult themes, since it was done just before they really enforced the film code, but it's still tame compared to what is on TV today. Directed by Thornton Freeland, a year before Freeland directed the incredible "Flying Down to Rio".


Christopher Nolan's first feature film wowed critics who saw it when it first came out. Shot on a micro budget of $6,000 this is a student film with real class. The film is shot in black and white, and features people who you assume are friends of Nolan's appearing in the movie. This is not to say they are bad actors because they are quite good. You could see Jeremy Theobald and Alex Haw appearing in other projects but unfortunately they haven't since this was made 6 years ago.

Nolan's thriller, much like Memento, does not play chronologically, it shifts the scenes around much like Pulp Fiction. The writing is fantastic. It is a great twisting thriller but because the temporal order of the film is shifted around it makes it even more interesting. I thought the last ten minutes in particular when everything starts to become clear were excellent.

For a film of such a small budget and with no recognizable names at all, this is so good. It is superior to most that Hollywood studios offer and Nolan after three films (this, the superior Memento and the not quite as good but still excellent Insomnia) has cemented himself as the most exciting new talent of recent times. I can't wait for Batman.

This film is short and sweet and certainly a great watch. It is very professional and the twists are fantastic and completely surprising. I also thought that the score from David Julyan was also excellent, very atmospheric and had a chilly quality to it. He has gone on to compose Nolan's other films.

Overall I would recommend this, I intend to get all of Nolan's films. This is a low budget gem. *****


Christopher Nolan's first directorial effort, a year before he did "Memento," and this is almost as brilliant as that classic. He uses time differentials in a similar manner to tell his story, and it's a very clever one.

Bill is this young writer who begins following complete strangers around just to see where they live and what they're all about. One day, he follows this man, Cobb, who turns the tables and confronts Bill, who breaks down and confesses what he's up to.

Cobb is a burglar and he takes Bill along on a few jobs to teach him the ropes. Both men are voyeurs of a sort and a bond begins to grow between the two of them.

But there's an ulterior motive for Cobb nurturing this relationship, and it all ties in very smartly at the end. No, I won't spoil it but this is a very cool movie and I'm beginning to think Christopher Nolan is a genius.

If you like suspense films with surprise endings, this one is a must see.


The debut that plucked from obscurity one of the brighter stars of contemporary noir is an assured, if limited, stab at the con game and obsession. Filmed for zero money, Nolan couldn't have chosen a better subject than the drab and seamy underside of London to ply his trade, given the lack of funds. This short (67 min) is at its best in playing with the audience's and protagonist's expectations about who is scamming whom, though the initial set-up does ring some alarm bells in the credibility dept. The muddy cinematography (he often used natural lighting due to budget) can be mostly chalked up to noir stylization, though the limitations do show at times.

One can easily see Nolan's style developing in this fledgling effort; many of the same themes of blurred identity and expectation smashing recur in MEMENTO and INSOMNIA. Not a masterpiece but good and certainly worth a look for modern noir and Nolan fans.


I just finished watching Following and I thought it was great. I rated it 8 out of 10. I plan on watching it again with the director's commentary and then again in chronological order.

I rented this movie because of my fascination of Christopher Nolan's more recent movie Memento. Following has some similarities; this movie was probably the blueprint for Memento. Even the music in some parts is very similar.

Shooting the movie in black and white gives it a mysterious feel. The story and dialogue is really good. The performance of the actors is believable.

Christopher Nolan made this movie on a really low budget. I look forward to his next release Insomnia, a big budget movie with my favourite actor Al Pacino.


Great film. No gratuitous gimmicks like in most Hollywood films. Everything supported the suspense of the plot. B&w gave it a basic, no-frills feel also. In short, it was visceral in its simplicity of cinematography and cast.

Following serves as an interesting contrast to Memento. Characters in both used manipulation and subterfuge extensively. In that sense, both reminded me somewhat of "In the Company of Men," also highly recommendable. One difference between Nolan's two films is that Memento was a little easier for me to follow, given that the b&w scenes progress in a constant chronological direction, and so do those in color. I don't think that was true of Following, where scenes seemed to be shown at random. If you have the choice between VCR and DVD, I'd highly recommend DVD, since that gives you the option of watching the movie a second time in chronological order, not just in the scrambled (albeit ingenuous) order presented by Nolan. It also makes it easier, upon a second viewing, to piece the order together for yourself, if you want to.

As another viewer noted, one of the best things about both this movie and Memento is that none of the cast were famous. They were characters, not big-name actors who brought in personas developed in other movies.

Given certain similarities in the plots, I wonder if Memento is sort of a remake of Following, but intended to reach a bigger audience, like Edward Burns made She's the One in the mold of -- and with largely the same cast as -- The Brothers McMullan.


Just watched this on DVD three times - Once the 'normal' way, once with the scenes in consecutive order (in this doozy of a film noir, the beginning, middle and end of the story intertwine), and once with the director's commentary running. Quite amazing. A bare-bones tale, told with more flair, energy and substance than most big-budget overblown features being released today.

I think this is an even more accomplished film than the subsequent Memento, which turned me on to Nolan in the first place. Can't wait to see what he does with a bigger budget (and bigger box-office stars) in his next film, Insomnia.


Bill, Jeremy Theobald, is an inspiring writer who hasn't gotten anything published as of yet. Bill also has an odd and strange habit, he likes to follow people.

Bill picks out some stranger in the streets diner or on the subway, metro, and follows them as if he were their shadow. Maybe Bill does this to help him in inspiring himself to write the great novel that he's been dreaming about or get an article of his get printed in a major magazine? Maybe it's because it fills Bill's lonely life with a purpose and even makes the person of his curiosity a face in the crowd with meaning and substance by his paying attention to him or her? Or maybe it gives Bill someone to look after and care about and be responsible for besides himself? Bill has a simple rule that he follows religiously when he follows someone : after you follow him or her to their home or place of work you stop.

One day Bill follows Cobb, Alex Haw, home and instead of following his rule of stopping he still keeps following Cobb. Bill will soon realize how right he was with that rule he set for himself in following people and at the same time how wrong he was by breaking it.

Amazingly good low-budget movie made by Christopher Noland in 1998 before he hit it big in Hollywood with his ground-breaking and original motion picture classic "Momento" some two years later that has already become a major cult movie.

"Following" is actually a much better movie then "Momento" because it's a conventional and easy to follow story. Compared to "Momento's" which was at first confusing and then when you realize what the movie is telling you in it's backward storyline very complicated. Whats makes "Following" so much better is just by it being simple but at the same time brainy in it's affect on those who watch it. The movie is far more direct as well as devastating and you don't have to see it over and over to get just what it was trying to tell them like "Momento" did. "Following" is a story within a story within a story with one of the most surprising as well as simply manipulated ending, if you watch the movie again and notice the clues, that you'll ever see.

Made with an unbelievably small budget of $6,000.00, thats less then what most Hollywood movies budgets out for coffee-breaks, with a no-name cast in black and white and just over one hour, 71 minutes, long. Hollywood as well as the motion picture industry outside of Hollywood can learn a lot from Chris Noland in how someone with nothing more then talent and imagination can achieve what millions of dollars in most cases can't; make an intelligent and at the same time penetrating film with next to nothing in money and no big name stars.


Christopher Nolan had his goals set on Following in a very narrow direction, and in that direction he pulled off something that reminded me of the kind of great little 'poverty-row' movies the likes of Ullmer directed back in the 40s. Only this time, he's able to implement touches of homage- things like black and white photography (a given due to the shoe-string budget but also essential to the dark crevices these characters inhabit) and casting of the actors (the John Doe lead, the slick male counterpart, and the beautiful-in-a-gritty way femme fatale)- while keeping it in the realm of the 90s underground indie where for several thousand dollars and specific choices in locations and music and such anything could be possible. That, and as well in the film-noir mood Nolan also puts together a cunning web of a plot, maybe even more so than Memento. Where the latter was a work of a psychology unfolding by way of a plot enriched by looking to the past inch by inch, here the non-linear structure serves the purpose of showing how far someone like Bill can go through as dark a path as Cobb, only in an environment where keeping on your toes is not for someone who's not really twisted and into the deeper mind games Cobb is.

Of course, the whole act of following someone becomes the main thrust of the story, and going into it I wasn't even sure where it would lead, if it might be some kind of stream of consciousness ala Slacker where Nolan would lead his character along to one urban British person to another. But the establishment of the ties of Bill to Cobb are done in a quick and excellent way, as we see right when Cobb approaches Bill at the café to ask what he's doing following him tells almost all we need to know about both- that, and the first robbery he brings him along for. What seems to soon be a good score on the horizon is really all one big set-up by Cobb and his lady (just called 'The Blonde', maybe a too-obvious homage to noir, but why carp). But this is revealed in a way that actually truly had me guessing, as the manipulation of the narrative worked all the more to arouse questions not so much of why but of how. The density is brought out all the greater due to the actors understanding of their essential points as characters, with Alex Haw being brilliant as a true sociopath who can barely mask his 'deep' ideas about what it is to really take pleasure in a burglary, and Theobald with that demeanor of someone who can never be as smart as he is in what he really does, but is more intelligent in that naive way that stands no chance in the dank environment such as this; Russell almost makes it too easy, even with a face that would send Ana Savage shaking her head.

Meanwhile, Nolan is also on the ball with his style as a cameraman, keeping nothing in that doesn't add to ambiance and suspense, with the fade-in/fade-outs not too quick to leave a lasting impression, but enough to add to the 'this-could-lead-anywhere' logic of the script. He follows it in hand-held form as if he knows where his limitations lie, and yet is fantastic at keeping the essentials: close-ups when need be (one I loved is Russell's face in a small mirror), and a fairly simple techno track that never detracts. Sometimes, as mentioned, the line between seeing something in 'present-day' and seeing something that is as everlasting as a solid pulp story of low-level criminals with mind-games and moral ambiguity is always never totally clear, which for me is practically irresistible in its dark way. Simply put, this is one of the great calling cards I've seen from a filmmaker in recent years, and should hopefully be something that future fans of Nolan's other work can look forward to to discovering. Or even to those who think that noir has gone to the rapid-editing and big-gun-firing dogs of the mainstream (even in independent films) it's a bright little 71 minutes.


Even with only 6,000 bucks and a cast of part-time actors, Christopher Nolan was a master. Nolan is in my opinion, the next great and our first taste of Nolan doesn't contradict that.

None of the problems that constantly plaque and discredit the low budget independent picture haunt Nolan and crew. Our actors are inexperienced and young but they deliver and engage us in this story. In all honesty I think Following is Nolan's best screenplay because it is the one he had the most control over. It's a beautifully imagined film. It takes us into a world where we don't feel limited by the constraints of budget. The dialogue and atmosphere is bold and intelligent.

Nolan's trademark method of telling the story out of continuity is applied for the first time here and here it is done in a way that throws the story full out at you. With Memento and The Prestige you have to think a bit to truly get a complete grasp on the genius but Nolan doesn't try to confuse people with his prototype film. We can distinguish time by the appearance of our protagonist. This method of telling a story is both creative and engaging. I am Glad that Nolan has had so much success with it because his films become more than what they could be with this method. The pay offs in the Prestige and Memento would not have been thrilling at all if the movie was told in a conventional format. This idea has been done with moderate success before but Nolan has truly made it his own.

The script here is Nolan's finest. I had some doubts about his writing abilities, I all ways imagined that his brother Jonathon was the writing talent but he proves me wrong with Following. It is a thought provoking story which makes interesting observations of people and how they function. Cobb's assessments about burglarizing and how it can lead you to discover what makes people tick actually sounds plausible.

My only real complaint is the camera work gets shaky at times but it doesn't take away anything from the story or the acting.

Following is the first film of the man who will personify 21st century film-making at it's finest.


Christopher Nolan's directorial debut is a memorable one. The film was very well received and help land contracts for making 'Memento' and quite rightfully so.

Following is an exquisite example of how films should be made. No fancy effects or blood-dripping gore...just brilliant writing and good acting. Nolan manages to captivate us once again with his writing. The actors, all unknowns to me and I suppose most people, did a good job bringing the characters to live. They were all believable and that's all they need to be. The film is confusing because it plays with chronology a lot but it's very rewarding in the end. The film's a little short to be a full-length feature but any additional length would've ruined the style of the movie and the brilliance of the writing would've been diminished. Though short, the film has every aspect that makes a film attractive (IMO): an intriguing beginning, an exciting middle and a surprising end.

I dare say Following is almost as good as Memento, his best film by far. The scrambled chronology is equally masterful used in both films, the amazing plot twists are present and the acting is very good.

This film was made with a mere $6000 but the quality is much higher than most( almost all) million dollar box-office hits. The use of b&w may be a hard pill to swallow for the big audience, following is primarily Nolan showing off his skills to the studio bosses :-). And what skills they are...rarely have I enjoyed writing so much as in 'Following'. Even Pi doesn't even come close IMO, though it's also very good.

This is a film surely not to be missed by any self-respecting movie-lover. If you liked Memento, 'Following' is definitely for you.


It is an interesting exercise to witness the early works of great artists. Sometimes, even without the 20/20 vision that hindsight offers you can see the cogs and wheels that make these people what they are. Following is one such look into the past of Christopher Nolan, one of the great time-warping story-teller of today.

Christopher Nolan's style of film-making puts a great deal of emphasis on the delivery of the story. Although people might complain it relies too much on the back-and-forth shifting of time, I still find it fascinating to see how he uses that one technique differently each time. Memento was probably the most convoluted piece of story-telling I have ever seen. Discount the hardened cynics who say it is an old piece of meat wrapped in fancy dressing. Memento shows how even the simplest of stories can be turned into a mind-bender. The Prestige, which was considerably stripped down in comparison, still showed creativity in how its three stories were interwoven. Even in a jaded enterprise like the Batman series did Christopher Nolan sprinkle some of his outstanding yarn-weaving tricks, breathing new life into the dark knight.

Following is an intense tale of intrigue and mystery, where we see a dilettante writer, who becomes a reluctant voyeur, who becomes an unknowing accomplice to a variety of petty crimes, and finally sees an end no one could have expected. Having never heard of Following before, I had no idea what I was to expect. At every point the film kept me guessing as to where it was leading me. Since the mystery angle was clear, I was constantly trying to figure out what was going to happen next. And that is where I think the film succeeds so well. The film has many elements that led me off on many wild goose chases.

The film is entirely in black and white and told in multiple timelines, both of which are considered gimmicky these days. Following does all of this in the least formulaic or contrived way possible. There doesn't seem to be a reason why the story is told in the way it is, but you don't feel like you are being taken for a ride. The lack of pretension or self-aware arrogance is what makes this style of story-telling work. Highly recommended!


This two-character drama is extremely well-acted and has a valid message and some TRULY shocking moments (shocking not because they are graphic, but because you're not prepared for them when they come). But eventually it does become oppressive, just like the somewhat similar "A Pure Formality" did. Still, Alan Rickman should have gotten an Oscar nomination for his multi-dimensional performance, no doubt about it. (**1/2)


Even the trailer for this movie makes me cry, like the first time I saw this movie. Not for people who are easily upset by intense material! The finest performances by Alan Rickman and Madelaine Stowe, without a doubt. This dreadful tale of a society with the power to kidnap and torture it's citizens for ANY reason, whether they are anarchist's or the writer of children's books will chill you to the bone. I saw it when it first came out 1991 and I remember every frame. It still scares the hell out me today. It's happening now.

Apparently, IMDb requires ten lines to meet their criteria for a film review. IMDb might want to GET A GRIP! Some of us are a little more succinct about writing opinions.


I am profoundly grateful to have seen this movie. The acting is astonishing, the movie itself is powerful and clear, and the issues involved are handled with subtlety and depth.

This is an important movie. It could be profoundly transformative.

I would pay good money never, ever to see it again. Because it *is* so good and so complex, it is extremely difficult to watch. I admit that my taste in movies tends strongly toward light entertainment; the visual medium can be so powerful that I tend to avoid it for anything really important. Those of you with greater fortitude than I have may find it easier to handle.

But I strongly encourage people to see it at least once. Preferably with others, so you can talk to each other, and have someone around to remind you that there's more to the world than the movie.


I really love this movie. It has a very real feel to it. I believe it was never popular because of the subject matter, however, because of the subject matter, it makes the movie all that much more important.

This is an "A" movie and I recommend it highly. If you liked "1984" book or movie, I think you will like this one as well.

This is harsh, to say the least, including mental and physical acts of torture, some pretty vile. Not for the week at heart or stomach. No gore, but his movie is so great at projecting the mental anticipation it doesn't need blood and guts.

If you are not a realist or a pestimistic person I don't think you will enjoy it. It leaves you with an uneasy feeling about humans, what they're capable of, and the very real possibility that our government(s)does not necessarily have our personal best interest in it's heart.


This movie took me by surprise. I first saw it more than 10 years ago, and it stays with me still. It's got it's just plain boring points, and I, personally, would have ended it differently- this has not in the least bit discouraged me from watching it over and over and recommending it to others. The acting is _fantastic_. The cast and director do an amazing job with the script, and anyone who likes 'different' movies, who has the patience to sit and say, "What the hell is this?", and allow themselves to be drawn in should give this film a chance. If you just want Alan Rickman to be goofy or to see things explode this is not the movie for you.


What would it be like to be accused of being a subversive? This is what this film explores through the eyes of 2 characters, one being the accused subversive, the other being the interrogator. It is a frightening journey from the beginning to the end. This film is not for everybody and if you do not understand political governments thoroughly, you will never get the point of this film, as proved by 90% of the reviews here.


Rarely does a film capture such intense drama and emotion. What makes this film so unsettling is that the drama feels so real, it's almost hard to remember that it's only a movie. This is by far Madeline Stowe and Alan Rickman's performance of their careers. The film almost feels like a theatrical production the way it is staged and lit. The only bad thing about this movie is that it's very difficult to get a copy of it. I have yet to see it other than on Laserdisc. This truly powerful film deserves a digitally remastered transfer and special edition treatment on DVD. It really is that good.


Ms. Stowe is sensational in this power drama about a secret policeman who interrogates a children's author because he believes she is trying to plant ideas in her writings that are contrary to the state's. This is an incredibly powerful film. Both performances are worthy of more recognition as is the message of this movie. Put this on your must see list if you can locate it.


This is an amazing movie and is very clever at using the few actors and sets. It is also very shocking - the physical and psychological torture (both explicit and implied) is mixed with calm and even humourous stretches. So the horror is always unexpected, and brutal. I'm not soft, but this would have to be the most shocking film I have ever seen. The message of this film is definitely delivered with a sledgehammer. This is the film I will always remember both actors for.


The good news: the director is reportedly committed to the cause of Amnesty International and eager to deliver a solid message about the freedom of expression and the evil of oppression. The plot is distinctly original and the actors are two of my absolute favourites. The not-so-good news: 'original' is not everybody's buzzword when visiting the movies or video stores. Also, noted critics like Mr Maltin and Roger Ebert have dismissed the film as a genuinely failed attempt to convert a play from stage into cinematic form. If I remember correctly, the title is taken from the fairy tale Stowe's character has written and which has made her a possible subversive and suspect person in the fictitious place where the story takes place. Her dreams are dangerous to the government, represented here by Rickman as the intense, manipulative interrogator. Since those two people are virtually the only ones appearing in the film altogether, the director is in for a real challenge in keeping the viewer's attention. In the end, I found the whole thing fascinating. Not flawless and definitely not for everyone, but rewarding. It's nowhere near a masterpiece like Kieslowski's 'A short film about killing' or as explanatory as 'Dead man walking'. But if you're into those films or any of Costa-Gavras political thrillers, you may appreciate this one as well. Just don't expect any overexplicit sermons or eyefilling action sequences.


This little two-person movie is actually much bigger than it looks. It has so many layers. I've watched it over and over, and always pick up on something new. I am amazed at the depth of the acting, and I feel if this movie had gotten wider release that there would be no question that Alan Rickman is a major star


The film deals with universal themes, mentioning no specific country as its context: it could happen anywhere--and has, in substance if not form. Those concerned about 1st amendment issues, censorship, et al--but don't want to be bored with lectures--need art such as this to illustrate, dramatize, teach, inspire.

Rickman is certainly an under appreciated character actor; he shines in this film, showing off multiple acting talents that you must see (I have yet to see him give a bad performance, though, even in not-so-great films). Stowe gives perhaps her best performance (and proves that she possesses one of the most striking pair of eyes in Hollywood)--in two words: stunning, convincing.

The set design perfectly matches the situation, in function and mood. The sound editing heightens to appropriate effect. The total contrast conveyed through the animation sequences is a perfect symbolic device-and the welcome and only respite to the bulk of the story's necessary venue. The script is tight and essential, with engagingly dramatic-yet realistic-dialogue (i.e., as it might be and ought to be). Perhaps the most amazing aspect to contend with is the fact that 1) this is the director's first time out; and 2) he is the writer. In one phrase: a tour de force--with three recommendations: see it, own a copy, see it repeatedly to fathom all its secrets and grasp all it genius.


This is the most difficult movie I have ever seen...the emotional content is horrific, yet unforgetable. A woman who is accused of being a political activist is brought in for questioning. The whole movie revolves around her interrogation. Alan Rickman and Madeline Stowe have intense and powerful roles for which they deserve Oscars for their performances.


I caught this movie late one night and never knew what hit me. This was one of the most disturbing movies I have ever seen, yet had me on the edge of my seat waiting to see what would happen next. Alan Rickman is an excellent "bad guy" but this character beats all others. I've never been so affected by a movie! It's been 6 years and I still can't forget "Closet Land."


Closet Land is an amazing, terrifying piece of cinema. It features only two actors in a single set, but never loses your attention. The set design is imaginative and troubling, the staging of scenes maintains your attention, while adding to your own sense of confusion and terror. The acting is outstanding, with Alan Rickman and Madeleine Stowe having the duty of carrying every scene.

I first saw this film in 1991, soon after it came out on video. It didn't play in theaters where I lived; not surprising, given its political content. It should be seen, though. It features a brilliant staging of the torture and interrogation techniques used by repressive societies to instill fear and obedience in its citizens. The country is never named, which makes it all the more striking. It could be anywhere; East, West, 3rd World, 1st World. It illustrates what happens when a small group of people decide what is best for everyone; when government becomes the ruler of the citizens, rather than the servant.

Madeleine Stowe is a children's author who has been dragged from her bed in the night and subjected to terror and torture. She finds herself in a room with Alan Rickman, a seemingly pleasant functionary. At first it seems a horrible mistake and she is free to go; but, fear causes her to remain and the terror escalates. She is increasingly subjected to physical and mental torture. The interrogator uses sensory deprivation, temporal manipulation, confusion, auditory manipulation, role play, and twisted logic to break down the author. She is humiliated and browbeaten, forced to endure strenuous bodily positions, deprived of food and water.

Through it all, she refuses to give in; to do what the interrogator asks. She is told that it will all end if she just signs a confession. A simple little act. She refuses. Through it all, she employs defense mechanisms that have developed since childhood. It is slowly revealed that she was the victim of childhood sexual abuse. To survive, she developed fantasy worlds and characters that would take her away from the abuse. These mechanisms allow her to transcend her torture and turn the tables on her interrogator. She starts attacking his own beliefs and profession, forcing him to examine his own life and motives. In the end, she is free, because she maintains the freedom of thought. The interrogator is the one trapped by the state.

This movie was made during the height of the Cold war, Apartheid, and at a time when the crimes of many governments throughout the world made daily news. It is even more timely in a world where "enemy combatants" are held and interrogated in secret prisons, denied legal rights or counsel; where "ethnic cleansing" lays waste to whole societies, and humanitarian aid is denied. It demonstrates that the individual can stand up to the state or other oppressor by refusing to give in to fear and terror.


Closet land is not at happy movie. Neither is it connected to any kind of social realism. This is perhaps its strength. The distance from specific time and nations strengthens the message, makes it more powerful and rips away the burden of nationalism and propaganda you often sense in movies made to criticize nations in opposit of ones own (I am of course primarily speaking of the USA propaganda in some commercial film).

Bit closet land is so much more than a message. It is a film of pure, surrealistic beauty, filled with the same clean, clinical form you find in work such as 1984 and it's equals.

I am of old a big fan of Alan Rickman, the man with the golden sarcasm (and, I might add, the uncomparable sex-appeal ;-)). The outplay between him and Madeleine Stowe is brilliant. Everytime I see him, he seems to play a character even nastier than the last one...

But, enough sweettalk. The film lacks in action. I dont want any crashing cars, but I want something to happen, except pure talk. After an hour I got really tired of the interrogationroom, the predictable actions and more than anything I wanted a more complex view of it all, the world, the former lives of the characters and all the rest of the framework that was missing. For some people a nice touch. For me something less positive.

Anyway, Closet Land is a movie worth it's time if you are ready to make a trip into the abyss of the human nature.

And of course for us who really loves the Always Evil Alan Rickman.


this movie had me stuck in this endless loop of thinking about it for days afterward...granted i am not the movie snob that some folks around here appear to be, but i thought this was amazingly well-acted, and a powerful creation, if lacking a little subtlety in exectution. i happen to admire movies that can effectively recreate the sensation of watching a stage play, it creates an inharmonious eeriness that works well with this flick. i am also a great fan of alan rickman, so that might be my bias. personally i found the lack of spatial landmarks a good thing -- this could in fact be anywhere, and probably is. i say go easy on what was a powerful experience for me, and likely for anyone involved in any sort of political activity.


Simply beautiful. One of the best mind-- umm... screws--- in existence. Both Rickman and Stowe play their roles to the hilt in this tale of a childrens' book writer who-- maybe?-- has written a subversive tract. Moscow could learn a few things from the torture techniques in this film. They could also do worse than hiring Alan Rickman. Five out of five stars, and at present (1-20-2000) #2 on my top 100 films of all time list.


This film, with only two characters, takes you closer to these two people, the interrogator and the prisoner, than most films take you to any character, however well-crafted.

The sheer confusion, terror and pain which Madeleine Stowe's character undergoes is deeply disturbing, as is Alan Rickman's sadistic yet charming interrogator.

This film is all too possible, and builds to a shocking climax, the effect of the film as a whole leaving you sitting in silence at the end. It'll haunt you for a long time.


I don't know what it is exactly, but the film is happily sitting on my shelf, with no thought of ever leaving me...Fulci has crafted one of the most ridiculous, bizzare, cheez-infested and well unique movies I've ever seen. Not sure what else to say about it, but I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!! The steak tartar scene is absolutely uproarious, and the whole nazi torture orgy fiasco is strangely hilarious...I'm not sure what Fulci was trying to do, but has anyone heard that, based on this film, Fulci accused Wes Craven of ripping him off with "Scream"? "Cat in the Brain" is a must for bad movie lovers everywhere...Yes I'll definitely say it's not a "good" film, but I guarantee certain scenes will stick in your mind forever! This is an exercise in craziness, people...I guess if I were a "serious" critic I'd give it a 3, but on sheer enjoyability (again I can't really explain my affections) I'd give it a 7....Really whacked out flick...


Well, this is new...Famous Italian horror director Lucio Fulci shoots a film about a famous Italian horror director called...Lucio Fulci. After years and years of witnessing gruesome horror sequences, it becomes hard for Lucio to separate reality from fiction and he often hallucinates about committing violent murders. He quickly descends further into a seemly endless spiral of madness and unverifiable venom. Even the dedicated psychiatrist can't seem to keep Fulci on the right track... Now, when it comes to pure fun and entertainment value, Cat in the Brain certainly is one of Fulci's most pleasant films. The gore is overpowering and copious, to say the least. The amount of filthy massacres is impossible to describe, especially when you manage to get your hands on the fully uncut version (referred to with the aka:"Nightmare Concert"). Decapitations all around, victims ' intestines are spread on all sides of the screen and the chainsaws are working overtime! The film also becomes unintentionally funny quite soon (since it's so exaggerated) and a perfect experience to watch with a group of friends when there's beer in the fridge. Of course, from a more professional viewpoint, this production can't exactly be called a masterpiece! There's not the least bit of tension or atmosphere to detect and the characters are completely empty-headed. In order to make more room for the gore, characters are just being introduced for 5 seconds and subsequently die a horrible death. Especially compared with Fulci's highlights - like "The Beyond" or "Don't Torture a Duckling" - this film looks like a quickly warmed up snack. The best way to interpret "Cat in the Brain" is like a personal statement made by Fulci and a direct attack towards censorship. Perhaps after seeing so many of his films  especially the latter ones  being cut by censorship committees and bashed by pseudo-artistic critics, he wanted to avenge himself by delivering a gory mess that simply can't be cut! If you take out all the explicit violence and the truly sick make-up effects, you only got about 10 minutes of footage left! Especially because the insane killings re-occur later in the film as Fulci hallucinates about them again. You can almost hear our director think stuff like: "Let's see how you're going to censor this now!" Even the entire development of the murder investigation happens in the background. Are the victims missed by any of their friends or relatives? Are there any police officers looking for clues that'll lead them to the killer? You don't know and Lucio doesn't bother to inform you about that, because that would lead to sequences that don't require cutting. Oh, and it's pretty damn pretentious as well! The name "Mr. Fulci" or even "Lucio" is mentioned every 3 minutes (34 times throughout the entire movie, to be exact) and our director clearly enjoys being in the spotlights for a change. Hey, I certainly don't blame him...After over 30 years of delivering amusing movies; he deserved to have a little extra fun. You're a God, Mr. Fulci!


Lucio Fulci's Cat in the Brain is an inventive and somewhat egotistical tale of a director's decent into madness. The director in question is Fulci himself, who stars in the film. Fulci has become known to horror fans everywhere as 'the godfather of gore', and for good reason, as he has provided us with some of the nastiest and most gruesome films ever to grace the silver screen; from the eyeball violence in films like 'Zombi 2', to a man been hacked to death with chains in 'The Beyond', all the way to the full on gore fest known as 'The New York Ripper'; if you want gore (and let's face it, who doesn't), Fulci is your man. However, all this catering for gorehounds like you and I has taken its toll on Fulci's mental state, and he's quickly delving into madness, brought about by what he films. Fulci's problems don't end at his mental state either, as his psychiatrist that he has gone to see about his problem has took it upon himself to take up murder as a hobby, using Fulci's films as blueprints for the murders!

I've got to say, the acting in this film is absolutely atrocious. There is one scene in particular that involves a hooker, and it's only fit to be laughed at, for both it's acting and it's stupidity. Fulci takes the lead role of the film (obviously). He's not an actor, and it shows, but his performance is actually the best in the film. It's even safe to say that one the whole, the acting is bad for an Italian horror film. Of course, nobody goes into an Italian horror expecting good acting, so it's somewhat forgivable, but I do think that Fulci could have hired some better ones. Bad dubbing doesn't exactly help either. However, something that does help is the fact that the terrible acting is counterbalanced by lots of gore, and it's extreme to say the least! People get their heads cut off, a woman is slain in the shower (and unlike Psycho, here we REALLY see it), people are hacked up, fed to pigs and there's lots and lots of cinema's finest melee weapon - the chainsaw on display, which delighted me no end. The amount of gore is massively over the top a lot of the time, which gives the film something of a 'spoof' feel, but Cat in the Brain is obviously a tongue in cheek film anyway.

It would be hard to make a film about yourself and not come across as being a bit of a big head, and Fulci does indeed come across as a bit of a big head in this movie. His name is mentioned often, and he's on screen nearly all the time; it's not too much unlike 'New Nightmare' in the ego stakes, but it's obvious he had a good time making this, and I for one had fun watching it, so we can forgive him a little egotism. The film's ending lets it down - I saw it coming a mile off, but then didn't seriously think that the movie would take that route, but I was wrong; it did, unfortunately. The ending left me cold, and the film is a better watch if you turn it off just before the final two minutes. However, despite it's ending and terrible acting, Cat in the Brain is a lot of fun and will please Fulci enthusiasts no end, and it is therefore recommended.


"Un Gatto nel Cervello"/"Cat in the Brain" is one of the goriest horror movies ever made.There is a lot of blood and gore,including chainsaw butchery,bloody stabbings and numerous decapitations.The film is also interesting as "self parody" of Fulci,but the gore and violence is the key element in it.Some of the gore FX were taken from own Fulci's movies "Quando Alice Ruppe lo Specchio" and "I Fantasmi di Sodoma"(both 1988),plus gore FX taken from Fulci-supervised "The Snake House" aka "Bloody Psycho" by Leandro Lucchetti,"Massacre" by Andrea Bianchi,"Non Avere Paura Della Zia Marta" by Mario Bianchi,"Non Si Sevizia i Bambini" by Giovanni Simonelli and "Luna di Sangue" aka "Fuga dalla Morte" by Enzo Milioni(all 1989).The scene where Brett Halsey beats the woman's face to pulp is from "Quando Alice Ruppe lo Specchio",a film Fulci had made for Italian TV in 1988.The chainsawing of the female corpse at the beginning is taken from the same film,as is the head in the microwave and the guy that gets driven over and over again.Highly recommended,especially if you like extreme cinema!


Fulci is one of my all time favorite Italian splatter directors. He is also a very good story teller mixing horror, the supernatural, and psychedelic themes altogether very well. This film was truly his last great story before he directed such disappointments as "Voices From Beyond". The story is simple as Fulci plays himself, a horror director. After years of filming splatter and gore films it seems that Fulci starts to suffer a breakdown in which he starts hallucinating about people being slaughtered. He decides to see a psychiatrist who only makes matters worse when he convinces Fulci that he is killing people.

Fulci used gore scenes from several pictures around the same time. These films I don't believe he directed but certainly produced. Some of those films are "Massacre" directed by Andrea Bianchi (Burial Ground), "Touch of Death" directed by Fulci, "The Murders Secret" and I can't remember the rest of the films.

Nightmare Concert is a very underrated film, even by Fulci fans. But I loved this movie and have watched it many times already. It is sad that Fulci didn't get a chance to direct anything worth while after this but nonetheless this is a great film and I do recommend it to any Fulci fan, whether you like it or not. 9/10 stars


"Cat In The Brain" is a series of extremely violent sequences knitted together by a plot that feels more like an overview, describing director Lucio Fulci's most notorious years of film-making. The movie could also be seen as a dark comedy of sorts, effectively spoofing the various claims that violent cinema causes violence in real life. Fulci goes further than that, he casts himself as the star, the central figure of the film thus showing the audience who is the man behind all the cinematic gore. "Cat in The Brain" is not about presenting a clear story and following it. Instead it pokes fun at some of the clichés that have been surrounding the horror genre for years.

Lucio Fulci plays himself as a horror director struggling to keep his humanity intact. Years of violent film making have finally began to reach him. It starts slowly, steaks and meat in general begin to disgust him, his colleagues assure Fulci that all he needs is some rest. But that doesn't help and soon the grotesque ideas for his movies begin to overwhelm his daily thoughts. In an attempt to find a cure for his dangerously maddening mental state Lucio starts going to the local psychiatrist. Unfortunately that does more wrong than good and Fulci is thrown into an even bigger mess, as the psychiatrist turns out to be a psychopath, who mimics the murders from Fulci's films in real life.

The film retains all the trademarks of Italian splatter cinema, good or bad they are all here. So any comments about the acting or the technical aspects and budget constrains are quite irrelevant as to the quality of the film. It is a visual experience, no doubts about it. Fulci throws in an incredible amount of violence easily surpassing pretty much everything he's made. Amputated by chainsaw limbs, cannibalism, child murder, decapitation, these are just some of the many grotesque acts witnessed in "Cat In The Brain". Some of them are obviously recycled from a few the director's less profile movies but they don't stand out of the context, and actually feel quite at home here. As I noted before the movie exists much better as a satire of the genre rather than a serious piece. The way some of the violence is presented does help establish that idea. Such sequences shortly after climax are rejected by the reality in the film, as they are revealed to be actually scenes inside a movie that Fulci's character is directing. This sort of "film in film" presentation lessens somewhat the impact of the gore. But in no way does it make it an easy to watch film. Oh no this is far beyond and above the levels of gore found in mainstream horror, and gorehounds will in no doubt be satisfied with that fact.

Lucio Fulci was a very polarized figure. People either hate his work or love it. "Cat in the Brain" won't convince any of Fulci's detractors in the opposite but it is nevertheless an interesting part of his filmography. One that fans should really check out.


Un Gatto nel Cervello, or Nightmare Concert as it's more commonly know amongst English speaking audiences, starts as horror film director Lucio Fulci (played by the man himself Lucio Fulci) goes to lunch after filming a very gory & violent scene, however he orders steak & has a horrible vision relating to cannibalism. The grotesque visions, hallucinations & dreams continue & begin to affect his mental state, Fulci decides to seek help & contacts Professor Egon Schwarz (Dvid L. Thompson) for psychiatric help. Schwarz claims that Fulci cannot separate fantasy from reality & agrees to help him, however Schwarz has a more sinister ulterior motive as a serial killer starts to brutally kill prostitutes & Fulci thinks he might be responsible....

This Italian production was co-written & directed by Lucio Fulci who also stars in the film as a horror film director named Lucio Fulci which doesn't really feel like a lot of effort went into it, anyway Un Gatto nel Cervello is gory if nothing else & for that alone I rather liked it. The script by Fulci, John Fitzsimmons, Giovanni Simonelli & Antonio Tentori is nothing more than a threadbare excuse to edit together lots of gory footage from other Italian films. It serves it's purpose well enough I suppose & to see Fulci on screen has a certain fascination if your a fan of his or are familiar with his films, the ending is very rushed almost as if they ran out of money as it just has a policeman telling Fulci they killed the killer & that's it. Another thing about that ending when the two cops put the white sheet over the dead killer in the field & then they walk away leaving it there without any other police presence, I mean would the police in Italy just leave a dead body in the middle of a field on it's own? It moves along at a good pace & if you like your gore then you have to see this although if you don't like gore then you'll hate it with a passion, it all depends on your disposition so the choice folks is yours.

Director Fulci was never the most artistically adept filmmaker & it shows here as his footage is bland, flat & looks like it was shot for TV, the footage from the other films (7 in total) doesn't match the stuff Fulci shot & it is obvious that this has been pieced together from different films. If your looking for gore you've hit the jackpot, people are dismembered with chainsaws, put through meat grinders, faces are melted, there are a few decapitations, there are some slit throats, someones body is gorily crushed under a car, a tongue is ripped out, someone has their throat crushed as a wheelchair runs over it, there are loads of stabbings, someone has their guts removed with a hook, there's a rotten corpse complete with maggots, someone hand is cut off, someone has their head bashed in & their eye falls out, a gory death by piano wire as it slices through someones throat, there are loads of severed limbs, gallons of blood splashed around & a scene of some cats eating brains & there's more as well. Having said that some of the special effects are a bit fake & look cheesy.

With a supposed budget of around $100,000 it shows, this is pretty cheap looking, it has no visual style or artistic merit but then again why would you want those when you can see a Nazi orgy sequence & wall-to-wall gore? The acting in this is terrible including Fulci.

Un Gatto nel Cervello is a top film if your a gore-hound like me, however if your looking for something with a little bit more substance or indeed any substance then this ones not for you. This is the sort of film which divides people straight down the middle, you'll either love what it does or hate it.


I couldn't help but relish the entire premise of CAT IN THE BRAIN because it dutifully explains a director's steadily going mad, seeing people murdered from past movies he has made. Even mundane activities such as cooking a meal in the microwave or running a faucet of water yield some horrific butchery from a film in the past. Director Fulci playing himself, is directing GHOSTS OF SODOM(?)and can not seem to deprive his mental well being from constant murder. He seeks help from a psychiatrist who, instead, uses Fulci's work as a method to execute a series of innocent people, hypnotizing the director into thinking that perhaps he's responsible.

This is obviously a film playfully poking fun at Fulci's image, while exploring the themes of how such a profession, which produces so much death and destruction, rarely untamed, could mold and shape a legacy. The film features pretty much a wrap-around story surrounding non-stop graphic violence with every possible way to kill a woman expressed in grisly detail. This has a shower murder Hitchcock never could direct, or probably want to. The film's savagery compliments the mental state of Fulci's Fulci(..I know)during the running time. Reality and cinematic fiction have fused and Fulci can find no escape. The ending(..explaining the old cliché:"It's only a movie")couldn't work any better than it does here. Fulci's boat says Perversion(..excellent touch)and he sails off..I can only wish this was his final film because that's a perfect close if there ever was one. David L Thompson is the deranged psychiatrist planning to kill his adulterous wife. Jeoffrey Kennedy is a cop Fulci fears had a family murdered by the fiend.

The ultra-violence in the film features plenty of unique ways to take a head off such as the door to a chest, a scythe, a chainsaw, and hatchet. The most brutal violence derives from nasty chainsaw activity as a dead body is hacked to pieces(..how a gardener's chainsaw work on a log fits beautifully in one nightmarish hallucination sequence)..the most shocking use of a chainsaw is when a little boy gets decapitated! The opening scene with the puppet cat tearing away, feasting on Fulci's brain, is a howler. The scenes which are spliced within the film, featuring a horrified Fulci looking on, are obvious, but I couldn't help but enjoy this anyway.


The one who says that Lucio Fulci is not one of the most important names in the history of splatter is probably mad.The Italian director is a legend among hardcore-horror fans,and his work exceeds the barriers of the genre(who can forgot his western,crime or fantasy flicks).This is probably his goriest film,and unfortunately one the last.A horror director(Fulci as himself) starts hallucinating about gruesome murders.He goes to a psychiatrist,who makes him believe he is the criminal.In this time,the doctor begins a long chain of serial crimes.With such a plot,the movie should have been filled with something.And there are roting corpses,crashed or melted heads,stabbings,decapitations,chainsaw dismemberment and many others.Kind of boring sometimes,the film is saved by the excessive violence that will definitely please the gore addicts.


In the late eighties and early nineties the decline and death of independent video companies like Vestron and Media effectively shut off Italian horror films for much of it's American audience. Coincidently(?) Italian genre films also declined in quality and profitability.

Occasionally movies like Primal Rage, "sequels" like Beyond The Door III, Troll 2, and a few Dario Argento films limped out onto video but most remained unreleased (until DVD) in the US for nearly a decade or longer. Movies from these lost years became very sought after and talked about among horror fans.

Of these films, Cat In The Brain is probably one of the most hyped of all due to the legions of Lucio Fulci fans and the fact that it was not only directed by but also starred their idol, Fulci himself.

Though not quite Fulci's best, it's still better than most of his later efforts. His rabid fan-base will probably love it. Italian horror and giallo aficionados might also enjoy it, depending on their tastes but I'm not sure about anyone else. People who only watch Hollywood stuff might not want to take the word of the many glowing reviews here.

One thing I personally found fascinating were the scenes featuring probably Benito Mussolini's only lasting contribution to Italy, Cinecitta Studios. The name is instantly recognizable to any fan of Italian movies. Until I saw it here, I could only imagine what it looked like.


Fulci... Does this man brings one of the goriest and weirdest movies ever made? Answer: yes! Cat in the Brain, also known as Nightmare Concert is Fulci's last masterpiece. Yes it is, no matter what some people will say about it. There are few facts why this movie is one of the best Fulci's movies.

Fulci make a fun of himself and his movies with this one. Lead roll in this movie is no other then Fulci himself, who plays... well horror-splatter-gore director, who thinks he is slowly going insane. It's filled with black humor which unlike in the most of the modern horror movies works here. Being Fulci flick, you need to know it's gory. How much? Well pretty much. I always loved gore in the movies and I never get enough of it, but Cat in the Brain actually stopped my thirst for gore, and believe me, it's a hard to archive. Even the Braindead didn't stop it. CITB is all about gore. Almost every scene revolves about Fulci, who after being hypnotized by *khmmm* evil psychiatrists is seeing all kinds of horrors for everything that happens to him or everything he sees. Some of the scenes involves him accidentally dropping the whiskey, and instead of that he sees rotten corpse lying on the floor, which starts to spit some ooze from it's wounds. Forget the Beyond or Zombie 2, this IS the goriest Fulci movie! Now I like how Fulci manage to apply all those comic parts in the gorefest movie. He is such a brilliant director. Some funny moments and lines happens from time to time, like one where Fulci says "making gore movies is kind of a sickness" Ending is very good considering that Fulci (and most of the Italian horror masters) is know for making ending with no sense or many plot holes. If you are fun of the Fulci, make sure you check it out. If you have a weak stomach, avoid this and repeat "Its only a movie" ps. some of the gore scenes within this movie: Chainsaw dismemberment (full), tongue torn out, eyeballs torn out, maggot infested corpses, zombies, decapitations, face being putted in boiling water, stabs in the shower (to head), throat slit, many parts of the body and organs being toast aside, hammer smashed face...


Lucio Fulci was one of the most prolific Italian directors by the time of his death in 1996, yet his career had long since descended into a downward spiral of increasingly futile genre entries that could barely stand in the shadow of his earlier work. For much of the '70s into the mid-'80s, he cranked out such stylistically distinctive horrors as "City of the Living Dead," "The Beyond," and the brutal giallo "The New York Ripper," fondly remembered by fans like myself. And while "Cat in the Brain" falls in with the era of Fulci's decline as a filmmaker, it is a shocking, darkly hilarious headtrip that, while a clearly inferior work (the framing, effects, and acting are below par), proves an interesting, open-ended meditation on pop psychology and film's ability to desensitize. Make no mistake: "Cat in the Brain" is a total gorefest, and as disjointed as Fulci's previous films, but it deserves credit for trying to be something more. In a deliciously tongue-in-cheek touch, Fulci plays himself: a director in the midst of filming yet another violent horror flick who comes down with perverse/murderous hallucinations; after visiting a shrink who puts him under hypnosis, his dreams and reality begin to intersect, to the point where the viewer cannot discern the two. The recent DVD from Grindhouse Releasing mentions "Cat" as an heir apparent to the likes of "Eraserhead," and it does carry a similarly disquieting, awkwardly funny quality associated with the best surrealist art.


This is an interesting movie. I think it's very humorous, although the humor is very black. Fulci is good and funny acting himself, it's a really funny and truly crazy "self-portrait" of an artist ("I make horror films. If I would make love films, no-one would buy tickets..."). And it's really SEXY movie also: Almost all the time there is some "action" or tension going on; and many sexy girls/women... Maybe it goes to the core of why anyone starts to do movies/art in the first place... It's a real psychedelic trip, maybe best seen a little drunk or some similar state of mind. There is some really nasty gore scenes also, of course, because it's Lucio Fulci. As a matter of fact some of those scenes are quite disgusting. Anyway it's one of the three best and most complete Fulci films I've seen (the others are House By The Cemetery & Zombi.Haven't seen The Beyond). Actually, the script is overally, to my opinion, quite ingenious. You could see this movie as a portrait of an extreme neurotic, or a person who suffers from obsessive-compulsive disorder (fashionable words): The character has a compulsive need to confess "crimes" or bad thoughts; Especially crimes he hasn't even DONE. And he questions himself all the time: What if I HAVE done it? What if I want to do it? Have I done it? Do I want to do it? He overreacts and exaggerates his thoughts. I'm sure Fulci has been interested of psychology, and maybe even read something of the area; in his "House By The Cemetery"-movie for example there is a character named Freudstein. This is maybe the most concentrated and straightly personal movie Fulci did. I also like the simplicity of the photography/pictures in this film. Only thing that disturbs me a little bit is the sadism, especially towards women; I don't quite understand why? Is it entertainment? Is it art? Is it horror? Anyways and overall, this is really interesting and well made movie, definitely recommended classic film at least for fans or anyone interested of this genre. For the others it may be too much.


I honestly have to say that A CAT IN THE BRAIN is one of the most fun and unintentionally hilarious films I've ever seen. This film is packed with stupid dialog, ridiculous scenes, and a self-involving plot, starring legendary horror director Lucio Fulci himself.

The threadbare story-line is about an aging director (Fulci, who is also named Lucio Fulci in the film...)who is starting to go nuts and hallucinate because of all the vicious things he's put down in film over the past many years. He goes to a shrink who hypnotizes Fulci, and tells him that he will believe himself to be a killer, but that the shrink will actually be the one doing the killing. The rest of the film is made up of shots from the "film" that Fulci is directing during all this action, scenes of the shrink killing people all-the-while grinning like a f!cking moron, and some of Fulci's hallucination sequences. Oh, and a few tits thrown in for good measure as well...

A CAT IN THE BRAIN is completely over-top-and ridiculous in every sense. The gore is classic Fulci - nasty and strong with some really decent scenes. The chainsaw sectioning of a female corpse is pretty cool, as is the chainsaw beheading of a small boy. Lots of stabbings, gougings and other cool kill-scenes make this one a pretty non-stop bloodbath. The ridiculous dialog (LICK IT!!!!LICK IT!!!), as well as some of the insanely goofy scenes (the Nazi orgy, the opera singing slap-fest and the running down of an innocent hippy come easily to mind...) make this one fun as hell. Not nearly as dark as some of Fulci's other films - CAT is more of a self-indulgent horror/comedy that if it wasn't meant to be funny, is actually kind of sad. I say to grab a fifth of cheap bourbon and settle in to this one. I watched CAT with a few friends and we laughed the entire time. THIS is the feel-good movie of the summer...Recommended 8/10


this movie gets a 10 because there is a lot of gore in it.who cares about the plot or the acting.this is an Italian horror movie people so you know you can't expect much from the acting or the plot.everybody knows fulci took footage from other movies and added it to this one.since i never seen any of the movies that he took footage from it didn't matter to me.the Italian godfather of gore out done himself with this movie.this is one of the goriest Italian movies you will ever see.no gore hound should be without this movie in their horror movie collection.buy this movie no matter what it is a horehounds dream come true.


In the late 1940s there was a short film series entitled "Flicker Flashbacks" in which excerpts from silent dramas featuring the likes of Mary Pickford and Blanche Sweet were played for laughs. Scratchy clips from antiquated old movies were rearranged, projected too fast, and given an overlay of jangly music and lame quips. The attitude expressed through this brutal treatment pretty much summed up mid-century Hollywood's view of its early days: silent cinema was considered hokey, florid, a little embarrassing, and only good for a chuckle. During the 1950s this attitude gradually began to change for a number of reasons. James Agee's famous 1949 essay on the silent clowns for Life Magazine was a factor, but television played a major role in reacquainting viewers with silent movies. Admittedly, the TV networks sometimes handled the material as crudely as the "Flicker Flashbacks" people, but higher-toned series such as "Silents, Please" treated the films with respect. Another milestone was Robert Youngson's compilation feature THE GOLDEN AGE OF COMEDY, which proved to be something of a surprise hit when it was released to theaters late in 1957.

I don't know if Charles Chaplin was aware of Youngson's film or its success at the box office, but it was around this time that he decided to launch a theatrical re-release of three of his best short comedies, A DOG'S LIFE, SHOULDER ARMS (both made in 1918), and THE PILGRIM (made in 1922 and released the following year). These three movies happened to work well as a trio since they contrast nicely in plot, theme, and setting. In addition, all three feature familiar faces from Chaplin's stock company, some of whom play multiple roles in each short. At the time of the re-release the films hadn't been publicly screened in over thirty years, so perhaps Chaplin was concerned about maintaining his reputation with a new generation of movie-goers, especially since his best work was seldom shown on television in the new medium's early days.

Unfortunately, Chaplin apparently concluded that the films moved too quickly at the old silent projection speed, so the decision was made to "stretch-print" them, which meant that every other frame was printed twice. Maybe he wanted to avoid the 'Flicker Flashbacks' look, but this wasn't the best way to go about it. Aesthetically speaking, the results were awful and practically destroyed the movies' flow of action, but nonetheless that's how THE CHAPLIN REVUE was released to theaters in 1959, and that's the version that was transferred to video and made commercially available by Playhouse Video in the 1980s. I purchased a VHS copy of the movie at the time and was terribly disappointed with the jerky, stop-and-start rhythm of the films.

It's a particular pleasure to find that David Shepard's restoration of Chaplin's compilation (originally produced for the laser-disc format) is a vast improvement over the Playhouse Video version. For the most part, the projection speed has been corrected. The "stretch-printing" is gone at any rate, though the action seems to drag a bit at times. For example: in A DOG'S LIFE during Edna & Charlie's awkward dance in the Green Lantern Cafe, Edna's bare arms appear visibly blurred; at another point, during the trench scene in SHOULDER ARMS when Charlie is relieved from sentry duty, the action appears oddly slowed-down for a few moments, but this may be the result of a maneuver by the film restorers to cover a bit of decomposition. Over all, picture quality is fantastic considering the age of the movies themselves.

Other bonuses: the REVUE begins with rare behind-the-scenes footage taken at the Chaplin studio. This includes shots of an obviously staged, jokey rehearsal session where Chaplin throttles diminutive actor Loyal Underwood, as well as scenes of Charlie at his dressing table putting on his makeup and trimming the famous mustache. These scenes are accompanied by Chaplin's narration, delivered at a rapid clip. Chaplin also composed a new musical score for the compilation, and in my opinion his themes for the REVUE rank with his best compositions, especially the pieces used during the café sequence in A DOG'S LIFE. The only exception is the song written for THE PILGRIM, a pseudo-Singin' Cowboy number called "Bound for Texas" sung 'Fifties-style by Matt Monro (sounding rather like Gene Autry), which is distractingly anachronistic and out of place. Otherwise, throughout the rest of the REVUE, the music is perfectly suited to the action and the atmosphere.

It feels as though the Image release of THE CHAPLIN REVUE is, in a sense, its long-postponed debut, presenting these classic comedies the way they were meant to be seen all along. In this form, the REVUE ranks with Chaplin's most durable and enjoyable works.


The three shorts included on this compilation issued in 1959 are timeless Chaplin classics, nothing wrong with them and nothing to criticize either. Chaplin's score for these films and the framework added as bridging sections between the shorts are also well done. The problem with this compilation is a minor one, yet annoying. The shorts have been stretch-printed to fit the 24 frame p.s. speed of contemporary films whereas the shorts themselves where shot at 20 frames p.s. This results is jerky motion that doesn't look very attractive, and yet this was an excusable solution given the limitations of optical printing technology at the time, it's just not excusable that the current DVD version is unrestored, the films look dirty as they did in 1959 and are still stretch printed. There are separate restored versions of these classics available, even on DVD, and it would not be a problem to restore the image, but alas this has not been done.

A minor quibble has taken up a lot of space in my article, but I say again a minor quibble, it should not detract all that much from the experience although it detracted one point from my rating. The shorts are still worth '10'.


Most of Chaplin's most famous films are his full-length features. And, I assume most people have at most seen only a few clips of him from his pre-feature days when he starred in dozens and dozens of comedy shorts. This is really a shame, as some wonderful shorts are pretty much waiting to be discovered by the world in the 21st century.

If someone watches this film they have an excellent chance to see some of Chaplin's better shorts because Chaplin himself chose these three shorts and strung them together with a bit of narration to make this 1959 feature film. This is great for several reasons. First, in Chaplin's earliest films from 1914-1915, his character of the Little Tramp is still in its earliest incarnations or is absent altogether. Plus, even when he is there, he was often mean-spirited and self-centered--something very alien from the Little Tramp we have grown to love. Second, because the shorts that were chosen were in great condition, if you watch this film you won't need to worry about watching scratchy film with gaps and lousy musical accompaniment that doesn't fit the action (a common problem).

So, for a great look at Chaplin's shorts at their finest, give this film a chance. It's sure to provide you some excellent laughs.


Hearkening back to those "Good Old Days" of 1971, we can vividly recall when we were treated with a whole Season of Charles Chaplin at the Cinema. That's what the promotional guy called it when we saw him on somebody's old talk show. (We can't recall just whose it was; either MERV GRIFFIN or WOODY WOODBURY, one or the other!) The guest talked about Sir Charles' career and how his films had been out of circulation ever since the 1952 exclusion of the former "Little Tramp' from Los Estados Unidos on the grounds of his being an "undesirable Alien". (No Schultz, he's NOT from another Planet!)

CHARLIE had been deemed to be a 'subversive' due to his interest and open inquiry into various Political and Economic Systems. Everything from the Anarchist movement from the '20s (and before), the Technocracy craze to Socialism in its various forms were fair game for discussion at Chaplin's Hollywood parties; which of course meant the inclusion of the Soviet style, which we commonly call Communism.

COMPOUNDING Mr. Chaplin's predicament was both confounded by one little detail. He had never become an American Citizen.

ANYHOW, enough of this background already!

SUFFICE it to say that he had become 'Persona Non Gratis' in the United States of America. .It was high time to get the old films out of the mothballs and back out to the Movie Houses. It'd sure be a great gesture by us easily forgiving and quickly forgetting Americanos.

IT would be a fine gesture to the great film making artist; besides, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences was planning to honor Chaplin with a special tribute at the 1972 Oscar Show. This would surely be a tearful yet joyous packaging of pathos a plenty for having America invite Charlie back and have him come and receive a special Academy Lifetime Achievement Award in front of a World-wide Television Audience numbering in the Millions.

BESIDES, that would be a natural for promoting the Chaplin Season at the Theatre! (Remember, the Little Tramp was as astute as a Bu$ine$$ Man as he was as a Film Maker!) THE program consisted of showings of MODERN TIMES, CITY LIGHTS, THE GREAT DICTATOR, MONSEUR VERDOUX, A KING IN NEW YORK and finally THE CHAPLIN REVUE. We remember being very excited in the anticipation of the multi date film fest.

IN our fair city of Chicago, it was booked for the Carnegie Theatre on Rush Street. The festivities lead off with MODERN TIMES and all of the others would be shown one at a time, each staying for whatever period was necessary in order to satisfy the public's desire to view each picture. As we recall, the very last on the schedule was THE CHAPLIN REVUE.

IN RETROSPECT, we look back and wish that they had begun the run with REVUE; as there were undoubtedly legions of moviegoers (much like ourselves) who knew very little about his accomplishments in motion pictures, except for those Keystone, Essanay and Mutual Silent Shorts that were being shown as regular feature on so, so many Kiddy Shows all over the country. Oh well, once again, no one consulted me!

CONCENTRATING on today's honored guest film, THE CHAPLIN REVUE, we found that it was actually three separate pictures; carefully bound together by the use of narration by Chaplin (Himself), some lively Themes and Incidental Music (once again written by Chaplin) and some happy talk and serious narration (Ditto, by Chaplin.) He opens up the proceedings by making use of some home movie-type of film depicting the construction of the Chaplin Studio in Hollywood, as well as some film taken of some rehearsal time, showing Director Chaplin demonstrating just what he wants to a group of actors.

THIS segment was well done and well received by the audience. Both the building humor and the rehearsal were amplified by making them seem accelerated. (The rehearsal naturally, the building by use of speeding up the camera's photographic process. The old trick makes it appear that the buildings were almost building themselves.

THIS amalgam of shorts incorporated three of Chaplin's short comedies from his stint with First National Pictures.; roughly that being 1917 to 1923. The choice was well thought out and gave us a wide variety of subject matter and mood.

FIRST up was SHOULDER ARMS (Charles Chaplin Productions/First National Pictures, 1918). As the title suggests, it is a tale of World War I. Released in October of 1918 with about a month to go before the Armistice Day of November 11, it was a comedy of comical Army gags and a romance between Private Chaplin and a French Girl (Miss Edna Purviance). The levity is fast, physical and in the grand old tradition of ridiculing the Enemy, the German Army.

DISPLAYING an excellent example of the old adage about Children and Dogs bringing folks together, the next film A DOG'S LIFE (Chaplin Productions/First National, 1918) traces the parallel lives of Chaplin's Tramp and a newly adopted stray, Scraps. The movie story involves families, two of them. One Homo Sapiens, one Canine and both supplying us with some big surprises.

AS the finale, we have THE PILGRIM (Chaplin/First National, 1923) was a good choice to have as the finale. It was bright, light and tight. It was an excursion into the area of the Western Spoof, Comedies of such type having been done since by every comedian and team. The "Pilgrim" in the story is not of your standard Thanksgiving Variety; but rather a "dude" or "Tenderfoot", who has ventured out West. The Tramp is not only that guy; but his character is an escaped Convict who is mistakenly thought to be the new Clergyman of a Western town's Church!

OUR Rating (that is Schultz and Me) is ****. (That's Four Derbies)

POODLE SCHNITZ!!


STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Mr Bean (Rowan Atkinson) is in this world, but not of this world. His mind simply doesn't seem to comprehend things the way an average person would and his life is one long disaster because of this, getting himself into constant mishaps and far out, zany situations, which he is left to sort out on his own as he doesn't seem to mix with anyone and he rarely speaks. But he never gives up and, despite the simplest of tasks being a constant struggle for him, applying his own zany methods of solving the problem always pays off for him in the end.

To look at the sorry state of modern British humour, with all it's focus of sex and general vulgarity, you'd be forgiven for forgetting that a show like Mr Bean was made at one time. There's nothing unsuitable going on here, just good, clean U rated humour of the type Tommy Cooper and the like made in the 50s. And I find it just as laugh out loud funny now in my early 20s as I did when I was a young boy in the early 90s.

Although I can look at it a little deeper now and see there must be more to this character than than meets the eye. There must be a reason why he does things the way he does and things seem to keep going wrong for him. As others have noted, it looks like he may have a type of autism. In fact I'm so convinced about it that I really think were a professional psychologist to analyse him, I think Mr Bean could be the first famous, fictional character to be diagnosed with something like Asperger's Syndrome.

If you'd like to see some truly hilarious British humour at it's very best before it all became obsessed with sex and vulgarity, then this would come highly recommended. Shows like Little Britain do work because it's well realised but it's really just as vulgar as the rest. Shows like this show we were more restrained and civilised once, and hopefully we might start putting out this type of humour more again sometime soon. *****


Mr Bean was great fun, i loved it, every episode was really funny, Rowan Atkinson was perfect for this role, he's a funny looking bloke and his facial expressions were hilarious!!!

The series was so successful that they even made a Mr Bean movie in 1997, which was also pretty funny by the way!!

It's funny seeing all the adventures and situations he gets himself into, this series was a classic for sure, and i still watch an episode from time to time.

Mr Bean is well worth a 10/10 in my book, fans of offbeat comedy must check this out.


"Mr. Bean", starring the legendary Rowan Atkinson, was a huge hit during its run in the 1990s, and I probably first saw it when I was around ten, shortly after it ended, so I was seeing reruns. I certainly wasn't much of a fan at the time, and didn't see too many episodes. I didn't really get into the show until my late teens, just a few years ago, which was when I finally watched every episode. Unlike before, it made me laugh many times, and since then, that has always been the case during repeat viewings of episodes!

Mr. Bean is a mysterious, self-centred, antisocial, extremely naive buffoon whose best friend is his Teddy! He is pretty much isolated from society, and life is not easy for him, as he constantly struggles with very simple things! This is because he lacks some fairly basic knowledge, and has the mind of a child. He finds himself in various kinds of trouble wherever he goes, and comes up with very bizarre ways to try and solve the problems he faces! Not only does he often cause trouble for himself, but sometimes for other people as well, which he often doesn't tend to realize! In other words, Mr. Bean is a walking disaster!

The humour in this show is very visual, and there is very little dialogue. The gags are almost always sight gags, which is mostly what the show is about. While there may be an occasional lacklustre gag, I would say the vast majority of them are funny, often hilarious, (there are so many highlights)! While "Mr. Bean" is certainly not the most sophisticated comedy ever made, it's still great for many of those who like visual humour, and due to the very limited dialogue, you don't even have to speak fluent English to enjoy the show, which is why it has received such a world-wide reputation! The show ran for a few years, but the episodes were made very gradually, so only fourteen were made in total. Nonetheless, it is a classic series, and deserves its wide appeal!


...the last time I laughed this much. It's a testament to the talent of Rowan Atkinson that he has managed to create a comic character with several layers and a clearly defined personality - without hardly ever speaking a word. The whole success of the program rests on Atkinson's shoulders, but he carries it with ease. Despite the fact that the show only ran for one season, anyone even vaguely in touch with pop culture recognizes the rubber-faced social 'tard, so great is the talent and effort put into the performance. At times exasperating, at times lovable, Mr Bean is an innocent, unlucky chap who also happens to be evil incarnate. The brilliance of this character cannot be put into words, you have to see for yourself.

The show gets almost too depressing at times, like in the infamous New Year's Eve sketch, or when Bean celebrates his birthday by going alone to a restaurant, offering himself a congratulatory card signed by himself, and being served a stake he doesn't quite fancy. Still, there are times when you can't help but feel impressed by the inventive methods by which Bean gets himself out of trouble, like when he disposes of said stake in numerous clever-ish ways, or when he changes into swimming trunks without taking his trousers off first! Whatever your reaction to Bean and his unorthodox lifestyle, you're bound to throw fits of laughter while watching.

Finally, I'd like to point out that although "Bean" is classified as a program for children, it is just as enjoyable for any grown-up with a sense of humour. Because the more "adult" jokes will go over the heads of the little ones and the intelligent slapstick (yes, there is such a thing) is funny no matter what age you are, "Bean" is the truest definition of a family show. This is justly a classic and it always brightens up my day.


This is a wonderful family sitcom. Rowan Atkinson has appeared in to other excellent sitcoms, The Thin Blue Line (Better than this) and Blackadder (Not better than this).

Mr Bean is a no talking, human disaster. He goes to places and gets himself in absolute mayhem, the mayhem includes: Climbing up to the top diving board and is too frightened to jump off, taking about 20 minutes, until some kids eventually throw him off, ending up inside a washing machine and driving his car while sat on a roof. Bean drives a Mini and has a teddy.

This was quite similar to The Baldy Man, a series staring Gregor Fisher who says very little, but gets himself in mayhem Best Episode: Do it Yourself Mr Bean, Episode 9: Bean hosts a New Years Eve party, then gets some stuff for decorating his flat, but has too much stuff and has to drive his car on the roof.


Rowan Atkinson's creation Mr.Bean has stood the test of time and will be forever etched upon the memory of those who viewed it.

Living alone and appearing not to have a job of any description Mr.Bean goes around doing day to day activities in a rather comedic fashion.The mistake prone Mr.Bean induces heartfelt laughter when put even in the most simplest situations.Though he barely spoke any coherent words his jovial actions more than made up for this.

Even when driving in his beloved Mini Mr.Bean still manages to cause inadvertent chaos.Not very much is known about his background but his ability to draw tears of laughter from the audience at his funny shenanigans is well known.

Before he found fame Nick Hancock can be seen in a couple of the episodes


Rowan Atkinson's Mr. Bean ranks right up there with Laurel & Hardy, Buster Keaton, the Marx Brothers and other comedy greats. I have never seen people laugh out loud so heartily and literally fall out of their chairs as when I introduced them to Mr. Bean via my videos and now DVDs. I'll never forget the first time my brother saw him. He was over for a visit and I asked him if he'd ever seen Mr. Bean? "Who?" he said. So I got out my video and showed him the one where Mr. Bean is in church and starts to nod off. My brother laughed so hard he fell out of the chair and was holding his stomach from laughing so hard. He became an instant fan of Mr. Bean. We all know how hilarious these episodes are, but the fun is in sharing them with others. I have seen so many people laugh 'til it hurts! Favorite episodes are: the visit of the Queen, the Hotel room stay, late for the Dentist appointment, the Christmas episode (a classic...plus kids love it!) and the New Year Party. Rowan Atkinson is a comic genius!


Rowan Atkinson delivers an unforgettable performance as the clueless Mr. Bean who never goes far without his Teddy Bear. The appeal of Mr. Bean is largely his childish behavior and innocence. We don't know if he came from the sky or another planet. He is the kind of strange character that you can't make up quite easily. He is often alone and used to it. He has a hard time communicating through speech which might be why we only hear his grunts at times. There are other characters who speak to him and he responds. The character of Mr. Bean is a mystery and still is. He lives alone and does the unthinkable when he can do the sensible thing. Mr. Bean is rather an odd man out who does not mind it much. He rather live a simple life with his yellow car and teddy bear and hopes to get to work on time.


Mr. Bean has always been my favorite. No matte how many times you watch the same thing, the show never gets monotonous or repetitive. Mr. Bean is one of the greatest comedians in the world who doesn't need to even speak to make people laugh. His gestures, his facial expressions and his face itself is so funny to watch. The situations which he faces on the show is simply hilarious and the way he handles them is even greater. There is simply no reason why this show shouldn't receive a 10 because it is fabulous. Its something that would even make the most serious or sad person in the universe laugh. Some of my all time favorites episodes from the show are: 1) When Mr. Bean lodges at a hotel 2) The one where he watches the scary film 3) Mind the baby ( The diaper scene especially). In fact, all the episodes are so good that it is really difficult to criticize the show. Mr.Bean can go to any heights to prove that he is funny, including completely stripping himself in one of the episodes. the way he handled that situation was simply mind blowing. 10 out of 10.


Mr. Bean has shaped the face of British TV comedy. He has proved that you do not need wicked words or wit, a massive budget, a great deal of intelligence or even any intelligence to make something brilliant. And Mr. Bean is one of those characters who you just can't forget. Some of these episodes had me in stitches - yes, they're not realistic at all and they're all pretty stupid, but to be honest, realism is one of the barriers Bean has broken on its way to greatness. Rowan Atkinson and co. always manage to cook up interesting new ideas - and hilarious new gags - remember when Mr. Bean drove his green Mini whilst sitting on a sofa on the roof? Mr. Bean is one of those things that never gets weak - the movie wasn't as good as this, but Bean has introduced a distinct new sense of humour to the world, and kids and adults alike will marvel at its immense fun factor. "Extras" and "Little Britain" can be damned - this is British comedy at its best and most original. These escapades never get old! 10/10


This TV series is about a foolish and unconventional English gentleman who gets up to all sorts of merry mishaps.

I remember watching Mr Bean with my family back in 1990, when I was still a child. My family laughed so hard at every episode, and the contents of which still come up in our daily conversations twenty years later. The memorable scenes which are still in my head include Mr Bean attempting to get out of his car park, shooting out the lights, counting sheep, and him in the swimming pool. We bought all the Mr Bean videos on VHS, no mater how expensive they were. It was worth it because we watched them over and over again! It is so rare to see a very funny TV series that is suitable for all ages.


Because Mr. Bean almost never speaks, I heartily recommend using a DVD player with the teacher holding his finger over the pause/play button. At the end of any age group's lesson, simply devote 5 minutes to pausing and playing the DVD, encouraging students to shout out the answers to "What's this?", "What will happen?", "What's happening?", "What's wrong?", or any other question that elicits responses from that lesson's new vocabulary and grammar.

Because everyone's looking at the TV, normally shy students become vocal. Because the DVD can be started or stopped at any point, it's a perfect "filler" for the awkward "between" times while students are leaving and arriving.

I tried other DVDs, notably "Tom & Jerry" cartoons and Red Skelton DVDs, but no others were as good as "Mister Bean" at holding students' constant attention.