It would appear that some previous reviewers may have had their expectations set a bit too high going into this film. I found it scanning the satellite channels for something (not knowing what) and happened upon it. I thought by the title it might be one of the myriad soft-core porn flicks appearing regularly on the movie channels but I was pleasantly surprised. Although there was some male frontal nudity (in fact, more than your typical soft-core title -- go figure!), this was not the focus of the film. It was just fun.

Don't be deceived by my tastes: my recent screenings have included Before Night Falls and Europa, Europa (both geat, IMHO). But I also enjoy total mental shutdown when watching a movie. Virtual Sexuality did this for me and that's not a bad thing!


I had the privilege of attending a regional premiere for this, this is one of the funniest British movies ever, the plot is fantastic, focusing around a young girl, who unwittingly changes into her ideal man at a computer fair, whilst also creating a copy of herself, who falls in love with him, the film is full of jokes, both visual and aural, and has a bright and fresh feel to it, and the acting is of great quality, released in U.K. on July 2nd this film is a must, go see it!!!


While I understood, that this show is too weird to please everybody, I don't get where all these bad reviews come from, and I'm most surprised over the bad reviews, that it has gotten from fans of the movies. I liked it and got hooked on it since the first episode I watched. It's a little messed up though, that Kuzco was put into school. And it seems to be High School rather than College. But I guess he's only eighteen, right, so it's not like he's too old to get educated? And haven't the royals always had to get the best education avaible to them? So the "Kuzco has to graduate, or he won't become emperor" thing doesn't sound too weird for me. And I guess his education was neglected before, so that's why he has to be educated now.


Original Movie lovers can actually love this show, if they just stop complaining all the time.

The Emperor's New School brings up some old jokes from the movie, like pulling the lever to Yzma's lab and Kuzco pausing the episode. But since it's a kids show, it's just classic and is in their right places. Even though the style is much more simple, the animation and characters keeps their personalities very well and it surprised me, actually. Eartha Kitt makes excellent voice acting for Yzma and J.P Manoux does a wonderful job for Kuzco's voice instead of David Spade, who played Kuzco in the movie. Great plots, hilarious moments and Kuzco's amazing looks makes this show worth watching. (Just stop complaining about everything!)


I've never been compelled to write a review about anything, but seeing such bad reviews about such an innovative show made me say something. First, people just have to get over the fact that the voices are different. Once you watch an episode, it never really comes to mind ever again. The humor is original and while, yes, some jokes do carry over from the movie, they are delivered fresh. Some of it is even reminiscent of Shrek--self-referential humor. A lot of these jokes seem aimed at teens or original fans of the movie as much as tweens and younger. Patrick Warburton and Eartha Kitt are both hilarious as they reprise their roles as Kronk and Yzma and their Annie Award nominations were well-warranted.

This show takes some time to love, to really get in "the groove" of things, so to speak. If you ignore the horrible theme song (which really shouldn't warrant that much in the way of how you judge a show since it's only 30 seconds of the overall product), this show is laugh-out-loud hilarity and doesn't lose any of the Emperor's New Groove spirit.


It's not as good as the movie, that said it's a cute kids show. Okay so the Emperor has back slide and become a selfish spoiled brat once more, accept it and enjoy the cartoon as something entertaining. It has plenty of jokes for the parents and still holds the attention of children. Also it boasts two of the original voice actors from the movie. Earth Kitt who has been in numerous films but I'm sure many people know as Catwoman. And Patrick Walburton (sorry if I misspelled) who also has appeared in many films and TV series but is most widely recognized as The Tick. It's really a rare and wonderful combination. If for no other reason I highly recommend comic book fans watch at least one episode just to enjoy the dynamic duo. To sum up, entertaining children's show, with plenty of inside jokes for the grown-ups to laugh along with. If your looking for educational value this isn't your show. If your just looking for something funny this is a great Saturday morning pick!


I just love this show.It's so funny and cool.Kuzco is such a hilarious and interesting character, I love him.He's the thing that makes this show what it is, although Kronk and Yzma are so funny and charming too.Everything about this show is great for me, because it always manages to make me laugh, no matter if it's only once an episode.It's just so funny and all the characters are so lovable and cool, it makes the show worth the time to watch, unlike some crap on Disney channel.Give this show a try next time it's on, if you've seen the movie, and even if you haven't seen the movie, you'll find this to be very enjoyable anyway, so go ahead.


Spin-offs, for somebody who don't know, are not usually successful because most of the original characters are absent.

Here they are and you couldn't ask for a better ensemble in what is essentially a silly little cartoon, not meant to do anything but entertain.

J. P. Manoux, replacing David Spade, does an admirable job of retaining Kuzco's ego and yet not seem as annoying as Spade's character (a character Spade has done for decades and gets on one's nerves after a while). He has a softer voice but it fits somehow.

Eartha Kitt, reprising her part as Yzma, is brilliant. She hasn't really been given much accolades since her turn as Batwoman centuries ago, except maybe for her vile part in Boomerang. It's funny how much the character looks like her, though.

And Patrick Warburton. There is no way that he can't be funny, except when he was thoroughly wasted in Men in Black 2. I have been a fan of his since Seinfeld but unlike that character, he plays a genuine likable guy who is sucked into doing not so nice things.

The animation is really beautiful as all Disney usually is but sometimes the character design is a little too sugarcoated. Oh, well. Two out of three ain't bad.


It helps that the characters this show is based on are among the best Disney has ever come up with. The writing is what really makes this show. It's a total classic. Given, you need to appreciate the type of humor to enjoy it, and this is hard to explain. The humor is akin to the old school scenarios of 40's and 50's Disney, with modern spins. It never degrades into fart jokes or anything of that type. It's not adam sandler humor either, though I have enjoyed that. It is the exact same humor of the movie, only expanded upon for the length of time a TV show permits. So if you didn't like it in the movie, you won't like it here, but IMO The emperors new groove was the best thing to come out of Disney since Gargoyles.

A+


The new voices scare me! Kuzco doesn't have to pass some frickkin' academy to become emperor again! It's the same thing over and over, isn't it? This IS a kids' show, right? Yzma turns Kuzco into something stupid, like an animal. He learns a lesson. EVERYTHING IS THE SAME!!!!! David Spade and John Goodman never returned... *sniffle*! Nothing changes 'cause Disney won't do anything 'bout it. It's probably one of the most retarded shows ever! The first movie was so damn better! Malina's probably the only person I like. Kuzco's such a crybaby! Kronk is retarded! And Yzma's retarded-ER (if that's even a word)! What I meant to say is... How could you, Disney... why?


Forever strong is one of those sports movies you can actually watch. It reminded me a lot of Remember the Titans because it included comedy, sadness, and just awesomeness. I saw it at a pre-screening and all my friends liked it and easily put it in their top 2 sport movies. The acting is great in the movie. Even though it is similar to Remember the Titans it there is something very unique about this movie. I feel this is definitely Oscar worthy and will receive many awards. Everybody should definitely go see this movie and it is worth your $10. I'm going to have to see it again when it comes out because it was that good. I cant say one bad thing about the movie.


As a former Highland Rugby(HR) player, I feel like I can possibly answer some of the questions and confusion that has been put forward. I think that I am also in a position to offer some insight into the club and back stories. Oh, and this is gonna be a long post, I can tell already.

First off, the people who said that the movie doesn't show real rugby, have a valid point. The movie is full of bad tackles, people in the wrong places, and much much more. If you want to know what a real rugby game feels like, you won't get the best idea from this movie. But the thing is, anything short of actually sitting down and watching a highlight reel or jumping into a game yourself, is not going to be satisfactory. It's Hollywood, not ESPN! Really, how many sports movies really make you feel like you are in the game? Not many that I have seen. I think it's important to keep in mind that the movie is about rugby players, much more than it is about rugby.

Next, the Haka is VERY much a part of Highland Rugby. It is not something that they just threw into the movie. To be honest, I don't know how the tradition got started, but Highland emulates the All Blacks in many ways. The uniform is based off of the All Blacks as well. The movie did not do a good job of explaining the origins of the Haka, and to be honest, I don't think that that is right. But I can tell you that every member of the team knows exactly where it comes from and what it means. As for the person from China(?) who said that only a Maori can perform a Haka, I would suggest that they take a look at the All Blacks and tell me if they think that they are all Maori. Believe it or not, Utah has a very large Polynesian community, and a good portion of them like and play rugby for the local teams. I, myself am part Hawaiian. Whenever possible, the Haka is led by a Maori. The team does not do it because they think that they are Maori, they do it because of some of the issues shown in the movie. The concept of unity and "those who have gone before" is a huge part of the HR culture, and the message behind the Haka, for any of those that are familiar with it, support those values. It's a chant by a chief who thought he would die (Ka Mate), and those around him supporting him telling him he will live (Ka Ora) and boosting him up. How appropriate it is for a bunch of white boys to do it is not for me to say, but that is the ideology behind it and why it is done. "Kia Kaha" is also a well used team motto, even if the actors had a hard time saying it.

Also, for the people who questioned Highland's Rugby playing ability, I would just remind you that you were not really watching Highland play in this movie. Many of the extras were former players from Highland and other teams, but the main characters were all actors. Believe it or not, Highland really is pretty good at what they do and pretty well respected in the international community. Granted, some years produce better teams than others (it's what you would expect with any sports team), but you don't accumulate HR's win record by just being okay. The year after I graduated, (1998) Highland was one of 12 teams to be invited to the World Schools Rugby Championship in Zimbabwe. The teams were hand picked from around the world and represented the best of High school rugby talent at the time. Highland obviously didn't win first place, (New Zealand did that), but they did manage to take third place in the tournament, beating the Tongan national champions in their last match. And while American rugby may never reach the level of talent that New Zealand or South Africa has, third in the world is also nothing to hang your head about. Highland also has a tradition of touring New Zealand every few years, and usually comes back with more wins than losses.

The majority of characters portrayed in this movie are based off of real people and real stories. I watched this movie with my brothers, who also played for Highland, and between the four of us, we were fairly certain that we were able to identify ALMOST every main character. Nobody knew a white Rasta. Of course as this wasn't a documentary, Hollywood did take some liberties, but to tell you the truth, not as many as you might think. The film was actually pretty accurate in showing the 2 and a half hour daily practices, as well as the mandatory personal running and weight training. Sometimes it really was running until you threw up. It also showed the service and other team activities (like the chuck-a-rama buffet) that were very much a part of team bonding.

And finally the movie, in my (obviously very biased) opinion, it was a pretty good movie. And I think that the reason for it is that I watched it as an inspirational sports movie. I didn't think that it would be a pure rugby movie or an academy award winning drama. It was just an uplifting movie about a rugby team, complete with morals, encouragement, and a good dose of jokes thrown in for entertainment. I hope that I addressed some of the problems that people have had with the movie, and hope that you can now enjoy it for what it was.

Kia Kaha


Like most sports movies which have come out in the past, this movie is similar in respects, that it is based on fact. What sets this movie apart is that its about a rugby team, a sport that not too many Americans are familiar with. Set that aside, this movie is very rewarding piece of film noir. It reminds me of "We Are Marshall" , but with a smaller budget and an independent movie feel. Its a fine effort by director Ryan Little to bring us a story about a rebellious teen played by Sean Farris (Never Back Down), as Rick Penning that finds himself in an odd place, both on and off the field. Despite a few plot lines holes, this film has heart, rewarding each of its viewers with good characters that we can identify with. Also good performances by supporting actors Gary Cole as coach Larry Gelwix & Neal McDonough as coach Penning(Ricks dad). I felt myself go through a lot of different emotions watching movie, in the end I was left with a feeling of faith in mankind & a hope for the future for my children, especially if there are coaches out there like Gelwix.


First of all, I know almost nothing about rugby, so although I found the rugby-aspect of this movie to be interesting it could have been any sport and I think I would have enjoyed it just as much. The fact that it as about rugby didn't make it any better or worse for me.

What made this movie great is the story itself, based on actual events that have occurred over the last 30 years with the Highland Rugby club. Coach Gelwix is the kind of coach that most every parent would like their children to have, someone who cares more about the person than the sport (even though they have won 17 national championships and have only lost 9 games in over 30 years!). The more I have learned about the coach and team the more I like this movie and its message.

I have seen other sports movies that seemed great at first, but then I researched the details only to find that most of those movies were 10% fact and 90% fiction, with the 10% of facts being greatly exaggerated. Not so with Forever Strong. It may seem too good to be true, but that's what's so amazing about it. If it were fiction it would just be an enjoyable story and nothing more. Instead, the movie is inspirational and makes you want to be a better person.

Don't miss this movie because of a few negative reviews by professional critics. I have been reading some of their reviews and most of them have given the movie horrible reviews. These are generally the same critics who rave about movies that most people hate. In fact, I would be worried if some of these critics had given the movie good reviews because I almost always disagree with their opinions.

Go see this movie and post your review (positive or negative)! Currently most of the audience reviews are enthusiastically positive (here and on Rotten Tomatoes and similar sites), and I am interested to see if this trend continues. Thanks!


Now before people start having a breakdown about this movie (those who play rugby anyway) this is a film! It's been given the Hollywood treatment to entertain people and therefore those who play rugby (myself included) are naturally gonna pick holes in the choreography of the game in the film. Althogether it is a decent film and bring to the attention the morals and ideas behind the game of rugby.

The film is based on a real team, a real coach and his work helping guide kids in the right direction to be better people in the future, and also is based on real people who have played for the highland team. Its just a typical sports movie with a character who is misguided and eventually finds his way on the right track again through the rugby medium in this case. Is generally a feel good movie that is enjoyable but has flaws in terms of it's portrayal of the game. however, like i said it is a film under the Hollywood treatment.


Forever Strong is a type of film we've seen many time before,just in different types of genres. However that being said,I really thought it was a great film,Sean Faris is showing the type of potential that usually lands actors into big time stardom. Apparently this film got a limited release as I wasn't even aware of it,but I saw it in the video store and decided to take a chance with it after I remember enjoying Sean's performance in Never Back Down. I ended up making a great decision,I'm not a fan of rugby what so ever,but the film really isn't fully about rugby,it's about making a stand in you're life,challenging yourself,reaching your goals,there is a whole lot more then the simple plot suggests. At 1st we don't give a damn about what happens to Rick,he's mouthy,full of himself,and completely arrogant,we feel he's completely sealed his fate as a trouble maker. Along the way we see the changes in his character,he starts to hang around with better people,he starts to better himself,we learn how much negative impact his father has had in his life,it's just a great swerve and the film did a great job of turning Rick from cocky prick to a good hearted person.

The rugby action itself is not too bad at all,unlike the stuff I played and saw in high school,this was actually quite fun to watch and beautifully choreographed. A great young cast combined with some veteran experience helped this film immensely,it just did a fabulous job of avoiding in what could've been a run of the mill type of thing to a poignant and effective drama. I also liked the conflicting contrast between The Coach|Garry Cole| and Rick|Sean Faris|,it made for a very interesting storyline,and I loved seeing him help out Rick along the way it was emotional and heartwarming at the same time. This is a real hidden gem that i'm truly glad I discovered it made me think about my life and a lot of times I need something like that.

The Performances. Sean Faris is outstanding as Rick Penning. He reminded me an awful lot of a young Tom Cruise cocky yet very charismatic and talented. It was a tough role to turn going from a mouthy teenager,to a good hearted young man,but Sean pulled it off with pure perfection. He clearly put his heart and soul into this film,so big kudos to Sean for putting so much effort into this great film. Gary Cole is excellent as the preachy yet likable coach who wants to help out the kids. I've always found him to be likable,he always has a sort of presence he carries to his films. Neal McDonough is fantastic as the selfish yet pressured father of Rick. For the majority of the movie,the script leads you to believe he's nothing more then a selfish bitter man who wants Rick to be exactly like him,but in the end you start to see the real him come out,I felt sorry for him a bit. Julie Warner is a good character actress and she plays the good hearted,yet clueless mother well. Penn Badgley is required to play a real jerk,and boy does he ever do that well. On numerous occasions I wanted to pop him one,so I must say it's a great performance. Arielle Kebbel is the love interest not much of a part,she did OK. Nathan West plays a somewhat mysterious character,he did quite well. Sean Astin is billed as a major player for the film,but he barely does anything,he did good with what he had to do.

Bottom line-Forever Strong is a great feel good film,it will definitely make you stop and think about how your life was much better then you thought. Don't let this one slip you by,you won't regret it.

8 1/2/10


I just watched it last night and it was great.I can see why some ppl have ill feelings towards it from a rugby fan and maori culture point of view but other than that I have no idea what's so negative about it. The movie is great. It has a lot of heart. Very inspiring and encouraging to all ages. Great family movie! They did a pretty good job considering that it was a budget movie. I love movies based on true stories/events. I was raised around rugby all my life, it is a great game but I was never really taken to it because (please forgive me if I offend anyone, nothing personal this is just how I saw it) I thought, their trainings are not as ruthless or hard, the players are not as disciplined and don't seemed as serious like other sportmen and it looked like it's all just muscle and blooming tackling each other etc. But after watching Forever strong, I was like, wow! I was proud! It did good things for rugby (well it changed my view of rugby) and also the New Zealnd Haka. I actually cried. I am not even New Zealander and I was proud of their culture. Didn't even know what the chant meant until this movie. The movie is NOT about rugby techniques or rugby, it's not even about New Zealand All Blacks or the Haka or etc......Mother of pearls!!!!! hahaha SHUX!

So to all you beautiful negative ppl, You are missing the point! I am sure if they had the means, it would have been better, the haka is in there because that was part of Highland Rugby culture, tradition or what ever you want to call it.

So any new members on this site such as myself, please don't be put off by those negative comments. See it for yourself! Must see movie! There is a lot you can learn from this movie, ppl of all ages. It definitely makes you want to be a better person and be humble! This movie reminded me of a lot of things that I already know and was raised with but I kinda lost along the way! Loved it! Happy reading ppls and All the best!

Muawha!


I think a several of America's baseball movies are among the best movies ever made. When this movie was in production and heard it described as a rugby movie. I'd read about the Highland team in the newspapers, but didn't have high expectations for this film about a sport that didn't interest me.

Last night I viewed it "on-demand" and loved it almost as much as my favorite baseball movies. Ryan Little and the cast and crew did an amazing job. Neil McDonough was especially convincing. As the "bad dad" he displayed fine range and a subtle, but moving character arc.

I also enjoyed the Pacific Islander actors. I've been fortunate to know many of these fine people and this film captures their wonderful spirit and culture. A flashback showing how the Islander culture became such a key element of Highland's team would have been a excellent addition to the film.

Some pretty tacky movies have been shot in Utah recently. It's good to see a quality film like this from the Beehive State.


First, let's call this movie what it is:

1. It's a feel-good movie with a message.

2. The acting is just okay, dialog slightly better, production value pretty good.

3. Rugby scenes...just barely passable.

But here's the trick: this isn't something Hollywood contrived, and it isn't trying to be a ferociously accurate portrayal of the sport. It is instead a pretty good representation of mostly real people, in real circumstances, and a real storyline. Sure, they could have done a better job actually rep'ing the sport, but my vote: it does a pretty good job at what it sets out to do.

(And fwiw, I can't think of many football, baseball, hockey or soccer movies that are true to the sport either. C'mon...Bull Durham?)

I'm not a rugby player (I was a wrestler) but I graduated from Highland, attended '86-'90, and occasionally trained with the Rugby guys. My brother-in-law David, however, was one of the original founding members of the Highland Rugby Club in 1976. (His younger brother, Billy, played the next year, as I recall. If you're interested, there's a Highland Rugby site at highlandrugby.net that addresses the history of the team.)

By the time I was there the club had been in existence for about a decade, and had long since built a reputation for excellence. It's a fact that they focused on "broad" training topics: devotion, honor, discipline, effort, not tactics. I thought the rugby guys I knew were a little 'off' in the head, but I think I might have just been a little jealous. They were hard-core dedicated to the belief system that Gelwix promoted.

With regard to the "cultural mixing" issues that have been brought up, it might be interesting to note that while I was there in the 80's, one of the larger schools in the city was shut down - South High School - and its students distributed among the other 3 primary SLC schools. To be honest, Highland pre-80's was pretty whitebread...I've got a picture of the team from (I think) 1977 that shows an *all* white club. South High, on the other hand, was a much more racially integrated school before it closed: I had a pair of friends from South who joined the team, one Tongan, one Samoan, and as I recall there were a bunch of Island-nation players that joined up '88-'90. I don't think anyone questioned the credibility of the team in adopting Maori (or other cultural) traditions: if there was one thing that was obvious about these guys, it's that they walked the walk.

And as to the strength of the team when compared to the best highschool-age teams in the world: yeah, it's true that US-Rugby, on average when taken as a whole, does not represent particularly well against the best elsewhere. There are exceptions, but hey - it's a simple fact that Rugby doesn't have the prominence or exposure needed to develop the multiple traditions of excellence in the US that arise in other countries.

With that said, judge Highland on its merits:

- the *only* team to qualify for the USA Rugby National Championships every year of that organizations' 25-yr history.

- a win record of 392 wins, 9 losses. Read that again...winningest coach in any US sport in history.

- regular international tours.

- some compelling wins against some legitimate international teams.

Are they the world best? Maybe some years, probably not most...but they're pretty good on a consistent basis. And it's disrespectful to the game to blow them off, when Highland Rugby may be the best ambassador to the sport in the US.


This movie has made me a rugby -- and Coach Larry Gelwix -- fan. The story's characters slipped and fell before they begin to grow as they struggled through incredibly strong conflicts. Those were understandable and completely believable. Like life, there were no easy answers for the problems facing them all. Superb actors and an excellent script brought this true story to life. I wish there were more movies like this one. These days, I watch almost exclusively, worthwhile true stories because they are typically far more interesting than fiction. Additionally, this one is inspirational and it teaches us to not to give up on anyone too quickly.


A very positive message for our youth is shown in this movie. Through the sport of rugby as a mean, a High School rugby coach leads his players in their behavior and lifestyle, ON and OFF the field.

The acting and directing are good. The rugby shots are just OK if you know some rugby or really cool if don't know much about it.

I recommend this movie, worth watching, especially at a point in time when this sport is gaining more and more adepts every day.

The plot is based on a true story taking place in Utah. The coach portrayed in this movie has been at the helm of the Highlanders for over 30 years (and loosing only game every 3 years).

Enjoy!


My family truly enjoyed this movie. As far as what this movie will do for Rugby in the USA...well I am sure that will be debatable. But as for me and others around me, I know that we were more curious about the sport after seeing the movie and I personally gained more respect for the game. You may wonder how this possible, especially since the movie does not dive in and explain Rugby. But the simple fact is it drew you into the players and emotion of the game and life. The film was inspirational as well as entertaining. It made us laugh and cry. The chemistry between Sean Astin, Big Budah and Sean Faris worked well. Some may think the movie is a little cliché, but I seriously wish Hollywood made more movies like this. I couldn't help drawing analogies of the game and life's struggles. At the end of it I found myself examining my own life to see what I needed to do better, in order to be the best person I could be. Honestly I was grateful this movie taught morals, values and teamwork, there is so much to the contrary. After watching this I really hope my kids are coached by someone who has a philosophy like Coach Gelwix.


I wanted to see this movie ever since the previews came out. I don't understand why everyone is so hard on this film. It may not all be technically true to the sport of rugby, but this film is not mainly about the sport. It's about a rugby team that is taught how to be more than the world expects of them. They are taught to become men, and not temporally vain boys. Hollywood is never 100% correct in their productions. They are there to make a product that sells. Something entertaining. The story of Coach Gelwix and what he has taught over the years is simply amazing. He teaches about service, honor, integrity, and moral cleanliness. How many other movies are teaching that to our youth these days? I was proud to see such an amazing story that taught reverence and respect.


I wonder how someone could diss on this movie. It is based on an actual story. It is not necessarily about "Rugby" itself so to the one that posted on here that they need to make a "real" rugby movie, you missed the point. This is not another typical sports movie where a team sucks, they hire Emilio Estevez and turn the team around and win the championship and give everyone the warm and fuzzies. It focuses on a STORY. It shows how someone can change his or her life for the better. The movies now days are all about sex, drugs, partying etc. That is Hollywood. I am a big fan of movies, but I have to say this was an inspirational movie with a great message. If you consider yourself a "tough guy" don't watch the movie, it won't live up to your standards. If you want to watch a good, inspirational movie, this is a good one.


I am huge movie enthusiast and also an active rugby player who believes that rugby is the greatest game ever played. Forever Strong is a mix of Coach Carter and sloppy rugby. This movie is full of great acting, well developed characters and in action shots that will have you ducking and dodging in your seat, but with more arm tackles than pee wee football and almost every shot cuts away as soon as a player touches the ground its filmed to almost seem like football. If you want to bring your kids to see a movie that will build character from within and could inspire a blind man to see again I can easily give it 9 out of 10, if you want to see a great rugby movie that truly shows the sport your going to have to wait for the next one because Forever Strong is mostly practice, running, and a one ruck film, for this I give it a 7.75 out of 10.


The movie forever strong will never be nominated for an Oscar, it will never be nominated for best acting, for best motion picture. But this movie does have things that other movies don't. In a nation with so much scandal, so many problems, movies being poured out with little thought to the morals of society, at least this movie promotes good. What is wrong with standing behind something that promotes happiness? We should support movies that tell our American teens that there is more to life than sex drugs and alcohol. As for this Haka debate as previously stated, the Hakka is not exclusive to the New Zealand All Blacks, various Utah high school football teams and colleges perform this ritual before games. Including Hawaii, BYU, etc.


Like most sports movies, it's not surprising that people who know something about the sport can find flaws in it. As a soccer referee, I have yet to see a movie or TV show get it right when depicting a match. "Forever" has good actors, but I found Sean Astin to be a bit young to be an administrator in a juvenile jail. I was very thankful that the plot did not involve the lead character turning his fellow inmates into rugby players and taking on Flagstaff as well as Highland. Which gets to credulity: a police squad car just happens to pull up at precisely the time the Flagstaff baddies are hazing Rick Penning. Even though rugby is not a sanctioned high school sport nationally, the team is a school-based club sport -- much like rodeo. That said, I find it hard to believe that high school officials would allow students to play with open wounds: That just isn't done in this day of AIDS and Hepatitis. I don't care what the tradition and macho image is. Despite that, it was a cool movie in that teens were expected to act like adults (and sometimes actually did). Sadly, far too many coaches are like Flagstaff's -- or worse.


Now, I realize that most people on here trash YOUNG WARRIORS or hail it as "so bad it's funny" type entertainment, but let me make something clear: It's actually a quality piece of low rent action, if you're willing to watch such cinema without a critical eye. In fact, it's a good deal more entertaining and thought provoking than the bulk of the action films of the 80s.

The key is in the film's subject matter. I'm always a sucker for movies that tackle the subject of vigilantism, especially when they ambitiously probe into the psyches of the characters involved. YOUNG WARRIORS may not have the intelligence or sensitivity of the first DEATH WISH film (and yes, I do think the first one had both of those elements), but it's trying to be different from the run-of-the-mill Cannon films of the period in that it's genuinely unique.

The plot is simple (don't worry, there won't be spoilers): A group of college student pranksters change their ways when one of their family members is assaulted by a tough street gang. The students take to the streets in an effort to combat general street crime, being that they don't know who the gang responsible is. They eventually acquire some heavy artillery (machine guns and grenades) and prowl the night fully armed. However, these are not Schwarzenegger types; they're vulnerable, inexperienced novices who make sizable blunders nearly each time they set out to clean up the city (usually with their frat mascot dog in tow). They finally figure out who the gang is and go after them, but by then you won't be expecting a standard climax in which the good guys walk away unscathed.

One thing about the film that struck me as strange yet effective is that the bulk of the first act offers no indication that we'll be seeing any action or violence later on as it's treated like a goofy frat comedy you'd see on USA's Up All Night (where I believe this was actually shown at one point). The comedy set-up actually lulled me into forgetting that the VHS cover showed a guy riding a motorcycle with a machine gun strapped to his back. Then, when the violence finally arrives, it's not fun or cute at all... it's shockingly disturbing. From that point on the film becomes a full blooded, uncompromising action yarn containing some startling gunfights and gore.

The acting, while nothing special, is far more impassioned than I anticipated. James Van Patten, who plays the protagonist, gives his all and his performance is surprisingly good for this type of movie. The rest of the cast is equally invested, including the always dependable Ernest Borgnine as the hero's cop father. The cinematography is also above par and the action scenes are handled with a level of severity that I personally wasn't expecting.

I can understand why some people thought this movie was worthless as much of it is extremely dated, but those facets struck me as nothing short of cool in and of themselves. Van Patten's character is studying animation and his patently early 80s style work that's on display in several scenes is a retro film lover's psychedelic wet dream. I'm sure most contemporary viewers would cite those very moments as low points in the movie, but I disagree. Also, Joe Walsh's soundtrack - which sounds like it could have only been recorded in '83 - seemed particularly fitting and enjoyable, regardless of how "old" it seems today.

YOUNG WARRIORS is one of my favorite action films of the 80s and I highly urge anyone interested in the genre to take a look. Sadly, however, it's only been released on VHS as of this writing, and it isn't being shown on TV these days. A nice DVD presentation would make me moon-walk around my living room with such intensity that I'm sure my ankles would swell. In the meantime, I implore you all to go on Ebay or Amazon and cough up the ten bucks or whatever for the old big-box tape. It really is a remarkable staple of ambitious trash cinema.


Young Warriors (1983)

While this is a deeply flawed (and in some ways idiotic) movie, the way it continually defies expectations makes it decent viewing for the adventurous sleaze fan.

Meet yuppie college student Kevin and his gang of lovable frat boy buddies. In what starts out as a particularly egregious teen sex comedy, we follow this bunch of jerk-offs and their antics, which involve, among other things, making pledges tie bricks to their genitals. The movie abruptly shifts gears when Kevin's high school freshman sister is brutally raped and beaten into a coma by a gang of bikers who apparently have nothing better to do. When she dies in the hospital, Kevin vows revenge, much to the chagrin of his detective father.

So far, we've gone from Porky's-lite, through Last House On The Left territory, into what is apparently shaping up to be your typical urban vigilante revenge flick. However, Kevin and his gang's portrayal goes from vaguely sympathetic until they become kill-crazed lunatics. It's to the film's credit that it doesn't glamorize the fascist anti-crime rhetoric that Kevin continually spouts, while still making it understandable that he would feel the way he does.

The mood goes from lighthearted to grimy and downbeat very quickly, and by the end it's so over the top and exploitative that it'll leave you incredulous. And that's the strength of this film. You never know what to expect next.

At over 100 minutes, it's a little lengthy for this kind of fare, but you won't get bored. Poorly acted for the most part, with cardboard cutouts for characters and some particularly ludicrous situations and rather stupid dialogue, this won't be topping anyone's list of forgotten classics anytime soon. I got a kick out of it though, and I'm sure anyone reading this knows if they're up for it.


This movie starts off as a college T'n'A flick, but turns pretty ugly after the main character's sister is gang raped by a biker gang driving a van. It has a pretty good pace, and James Van Patten does a pretty good job in this Cannon tax write-off movie. This was the first movie I ever saw at the Parkway Drive-in, here in Toronto. The main feature was "Alphabet City", and "Young Warriors was the added feature. Out of the 2 movies, "Young Warriors" was by far more entertaining and memorable. If you are a fan of blow 'em up, excessively violent movies, this one would make a great addition to any collection.


I caught this a few times on TV in the late 1970s. It only played late at night (past midnight).

Peter Lorre plays a kind, happy man whose face is disfigured in a fire. He is rejected by his girlfriend and left alone and filled with despair. He turns to a life of crime and eventually becomes very successful. He makes a mask to hide his disfigured features and falls in love with a beautiful girl (Evelyn Keyes)...who is blind! He tries to go straight for her...but he can't escape his life of crime or his hatred of his own scarred face.

A no budget B film. Very short (runs only a little over an hour) but well made and superbly acted by Lorre. This has a lot more depth than you would expect from a quickie B picture. Ankers especially takes the thankless "girl" role and makes her character fresh and appealing. This has sadly disappeared from TV and was never put on video or DVD (as far as I know). TCM did show it recently and it was great to see the movie still holds up.

Highly recommended.


Peter Lorre turns in one of his finest performances as a Hungarian watchmaker coming to the United Staes to make a new life for himself and someday bring his girl across the big pond to be with him. Lorre's infectious optimism and bright outlook come off very effectively which makes the performance all the better when he has his face hideously burned in a hotel fire and, when no one will give him a chance to work, turns reluctantly to a life of crime. Lorre's range as an actor is seldom as apparent as in this movie with his jovial, good-natured immigrant, to his depressing, melancholic, disfigured self searching for the truth behind what he believed America afforded him, to his suave, intelligent, better-than-your-average hood, to his sympathetic dealings with a blind woman with whom he falls in love. The story is well-paced, has some interesting twists, and gives Lorre many opportunities to shine. Director Robert Florey does a quality job behind the lens, and all of the supporting cast help aid the film with Evelyn Keyes giving a particularly good turn as the blind girl. I loved the ending - and the truth - that was shone to exist in Lorre's character despite all the negative things society had done toward him. For a little B picture, The Man Behind the Mask is good movie-making for its time.


This film stars Peter Lorre as an exceptionally nice guy who immigrates to America. Unfortunately, shortly after his arrival, he's in a horrible fire and his face is horribly burned. Because he looks so awful, no one wants to hire him and out of sheer desperation, he resorts to a life of crime in order to earn the money needed to buy a mask to hide his ugliness. Where exactly the film goes from there, you'll just need to see for yourself.

I scored this movie an 8 because, for the money spent to make it, it's a heck of a good film with a lot of good twists in the plot to keep it interesting. The film could have degenerated into a simple horror or crime film, but it goes far beyond this an offers some genuine surprises. In addition, the excellent acting by Lorre shows that he was capable of more than just supporting roles. This is an excellent film and delivers more than most "A-pictures" of the day.


This film grabs you from the opening scenes and never lets go. You watch indulgently upon viewing Janos Szaby's excitement over coming to America. He's a likable fellow. You cannot help being fond of him even when his eagerness is replaced by bitterness as his fortunes turn. You know that in his circumstances,you would be forced to make the same choices he does to survive. This movie comments on society's worship of beauty and all things superficial and is only more true in the culture of the twenty-first century. Janos himself becomes victim to this philosophy when he tells his blind girlfriend "you're young and beautiful; if you could see, you would have the world." And like many a modern gangster movie, when her safety is threatened, he extracts a powerful revenge. His innocence is not altogether lost however for he demands an equally high price of himself, knowing he deserves his fate.

Peter Lorre is in fine form in this starring role. Only a few actors could convincingly accomplish this character's transformation from innocent to embittered criminal in sixty nine minutes. Lorre is well supported by all the cast making this a real ensemble picture and not just a vehicle for one star. With a bit less preachy dialogue, this movie would be a 10. Highly recommended.


Mike Nichols in finest form. I was not a fan of "Closer", so it's refreshing to see him again right back on top with this comedy set in the darkest of circumstances. Just one slip in tone could have wrecked this compelling picture but Nichols and his very strong A-list cast never put a foot wrong in this biopic of a deeply flawed but utterly compelling Congressman.

Philip Seymour Hoffman as usual is scintillating and brilliant - here playing a damaged but ultra-smart CIA manipulator, and it is in the exchanges between Hanks and Hoffman's characters where the comedy soars. Rarely is movie humour laugh-out loud and also smart... This hits the spot time after time with a biting satirical edge that makes you both laugh and weep at the state of the world (often simultaneously).

One other major plus is the length of the picture. The film is based on George Crile's fat book of the same title. The temptation for screenwriter Aaron Sorkin (his claim to fame is "The West Wing") must have been to make a fat movie, but what we get is a breath-taking 90 odd minutes of great story with sweeping implications.

This film deserves to be seen and to be recognized for finding an extraordinary balance between the darkest of dark subject matter and the lightness of touch of it's sparkling witty script - even if it does flunk the obvious link between the help that Herring and Wilson provide and the ultimate consequences (9/11).


It doesn't happen very often, but occasionally one man can make a difference -- a big difference.

George Crile's 2003 best seller, CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR, is a fascinating and eye-opening account of the most unlikely "difference maker" imaginable. A relatively obscure Congressman from the Second District of Texas, "Good Time Charlie" was known more for his libertine lifestyle than his libertarian legislation. Likable and licentious (even for a politician), Charlie Wilson served his constituency well since the good folks of Lufkin only really wanted two things, their guns and to be left alone. It's Easy Street replete with his bevy of beltway beauties known, appropriately enough, as Charlie's Angels.

When asked why his entire office staff was composed of attractive, young aides his response is a classic, "You can teach 'em to type, but you can't teach 'em to grow tits." No argument there.

But even the most rakish rapscallion has a conscience lurking somewhere underneath, and for Charlie Wilson the unimaginable atrocities being committed in Afghanistan moved him to muster his entire political savvy toward funding the utter, humiliating defeat of the Russian military and, possibly, to even help hasten the end of the Cold War as a result. Fat chance, huh?

Under the skillful direction of Mike Nichols and a smart, snappy screenplay by Adam Sorkin, CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR is a sparkling, sophisticated satire that chronicles the behind-the- scene machinations of three colorful characters comprising "Charlie's Team."

The on-screen "Team," is composed of three marvelous actors with four (4) Academy Awards and nine (9) nominations between them. Charlie is beautifully portrayed by Tom Hanks in a solid, slightly understated fashion that is among his best work in years. He's aided, abetted and abedded by Joanne Herring, a wealthy Houston socialite played by the still-slinky Julia Roberts. Hey, why else have the bikini scene than to let the world know this? By all accounts Ms. Roberts looks good and holds her own, but the screenplay never gives us even a hint why Kabul and country is so important to her character. Maybe the two Afghan hounds usually by her side know -- but we as an audience never do. As for the third member of the "Team," Philip Seymour Hoffman steals every scene he appears in as Gust Aurakotos, a smart, street- wise (i.e. non Ivy League graduate) CIA malcontent who knows the score -- both in the Agency's boardroom and in Wilson's bedroom.

For the Mujahideen to succeed, the most important assistance the U.S. can provide is the ability to shoot down the dreaded MI-21 helicopter gunships which rule the skies. This takes money, lots of money, and eventually "Charlie's Team" covertly coerces those in Congress to fund the effort to the tune of $1 billion dollars for advanced weaponry to arm the Afghan rebels. This includes top-of-the-line, state-of-the-art anti-aircraft and anti-tank rockets as well as other highly sophisticated killing devices. Nasty, nasty stuff.

That this kind of multi-billion dollar illicit activity can and does take place behind Congressional doors is truly alarming. Every American should see this movie or read this book because it reveals a truly frightening aspect of the business-as-usual political scene rarely seen outside the walls of our very own government. Oh momma, I wish it weren't so...

Even though the initial outcome for "Team Charlie" was an unqualified success, the unimaginable, unanticipated final result is that these sophisticated weapons are now used against our troops by the Taliban and others. Since the funding was entirely "covert," the young generation in this part of the world has no idea the fall of Soviet oppression and the end to Russian barbarity was the direct result of American intervention. Yes, once the Russkies left, so did our aid -- zip for schools, zip for infrastructure, zip on maintaining meaningful relationships with the Afghan people. As a result, the overall consequence is an unmitigated disaster -- it's like the forerunner to "Mission Accomplished."

As Nichol's film so pointedly points out, "The ball you've set in motion can keep bouncing even after you've lost interest in it." Mike Krzyzewski knows this, Eva Longoria Parker knows this, little Lateesha in Lafayette knows this, but the typical American politician doesn't. So we go from good guys to bad guys because we couldn't let the world know we were the good guys. Talk about a Catch-22 (another Mike Nichols film).

Perhaps Charlie Wilson said it best, "We f&%ked up the end game."

Again.


Told in flashback, the film opens in 1989 with Charlie being given award for his role in the defeat of Communism. I must admit my heart sank as at the thought of have to endure yet another earnest, somewhat boring and overlong life story. How wrong was I, because that short scene is as close as the film ever gets to boring.

The film is full of entertaining & amusing set ups and cracking dialogue in some of the most unexpected places. The next scene after the Awards ceremony is Charlie in a Hot-Tub with some naked women and a guy trying to get him to invest in a TV programme. Another rather amusing scene is about 3 quarters into the film comprises Charlie, a group of his rather sexy Secretaries, Phillip Seymour Hoffmans CIA Man and a bottle of Whisky. As to dialogue what about this for a line, "The Senator says, He can teach us to type but can't teach us to grow Tits.". OK, School-boyish I know but the film is laced with great lines.

As to performances well Phillip Seymour Hoffman as usual steals every scene he's in. Hanks is OK but surprisingly to me anyway was Julia Roberts who is very good in the role of a rather eccentric Texas Oil Millionairess.

Charlie Wilson's War is one of the best non Musician Bio-pics in a long while as well as being that rare thing a film that entertains, amuses as well as informs all in equal measure.


I like Tom Hanks, and he is one of few actors who will draw me into the theatre regardless of any misgivings I may have concerning the film. I worried about Mr. Hanks return to "light comedy" as this is the arena where he made the transition from TV to film- remember "Big"? Well, "Charlie Wilson's War" is not light comedy. It is political satire, and extremely well-written political satire at that. The script is the star of this film, and the word-smithing by Aaron Sorkin is some of the best on offer this year.

Mike Nicols holds the entire escapade together, delivering a film that zips along in a very quick 90 minutes (timing is everything in comedy, and nothing is ever funny if it drags). Nicols' choice in sets and lighting are also very reminiscent of '70's and '80's TV, a move used deliberately to root the piece in period.

The return to the use of model work and stock photography over digital special effects also enhances the retro look and believability. Note to the production designers in your choice of stock footage: I know the difference between an F-16 and a MiG, and a Bell and a Hind. But that may have been part of the joke, too.

I saw this film in Philadelphia. It was interesting to watch and listen to the audience NOT get the historical references to their own history. History tends to repeat because the recidivists have forgotten what happened the first time around.

Kudos to both Mr. Hanks and that chameleon Phillip Seymore Hoffman. Sorkin's script is brought to life by these actors, and the entire production team is on the top of their game.

Heartily recommended.


Charlie's Wilson's War demonstrates with deft veracity just how futile wars can be, especially to the very people who spend countless hours and finances to fund them. Virtuoso performances and remarkably memorable characters teamed with a riotously sarcastic script catapult the film, helmed by the continuously unpredictable Mike Nichols, to the top of the year's best. Politics has never been so much fun.

Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) is a Texas congressman who is credited with almost single-handedly winning the Cold War. Hanging around plenty of drugs, women and scotch, he also takes an unexpected interest in the events in Afghanistan and the terrors of the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Enlisting the help of Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) a renegade CIA covert mission expert and Joanne (Julia Roberts), a wealthy socialite, he raises money to provide Afghanistan with the rocket launchers and antitank weaponry they need to cause serious damage to Russian military. Eventually by the end of the 80s the Cold War would come to an end, and the funds would immediately be cut, thereby removing all help for the fledgling country to rebuild and recoup.

The acting is exquisite, although it's to be expected from the more than accomplished cast. A large part of that however, should be attributed to the script, which allows each character to be undeniably well-developed and memorable. And a hearty helping of that credit goes to the novel of the same name, which is hilariously honest. Tom Hanks delivers yet another unequaled performance as Charlie Wilson, the man who did so much for so many and yet still remains relatively unknown. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Gust, a character that is vividly boffo in both his physicality and his wry cynicism; the inimitable Hoffman once again shows superb range in the characters he portrays. Julia Roberts is perhaps the only weak link of the film, with her generic snobbish character and not-subtle-enough accent. And then there's Wilson's "jailbait" squad of young secretaries that scamper about to keep him happy. Led by the always delightful Amy Adams, each supporting role has its mirthful moments.

Defeating the Soviet Union was not an easy task, especially considering the many conflicting goals between the various political leaders. "Why is Congress saying one thing and doing nothing?" queries a disgruntled politician. "Tradition mostly", returns Wilson. Everyone appears to want the Cold War to end, yet a blind eye is being turned to the atrocities taking place in Afghanistan. It takes a trip to the war-torn refugee camps in Pakistan to motivate Wilson, as well as with his main financial source Doc Long (Ned Beatty). Wilson uses strategic ties with committees to raise funding of weaponry in Afghanistan from $5 million to $10 million with a simple command, but the president of Pakistan scoffs at the idea of winning a war for such a trivial amount. By the end of the Wilson campaign, $1 billion is sent to the Mujahedin to shoot down Russian helicopters - the first step toward victory, as Wilson predicted. Beyond the scope of the film, the unresolved turmoil in Afghanistan led to further, less ignorable problems, which Wilson presumably foresaw.

During the course of Charlie Wilson's War, the main characters travel from the United States to Pakistan to Afghanistan to Jerusalem to Egypt, but wherever they go, sarcasm always follows. There's a surprising amount of comedy in the film, considering the political undertones are generally serious. Hoffman provides jokes with almost every exchange of dialogue, as does Hanks, with his naturally witty woman-chasing ideals. A scene early on featuring Gust being continually ushered in out of Wilson's office as he tries to straighten out a legal issue with his posse of gorgeous gals ("you can teach 'em to type, but you can't teach 'em to grow tits") reminds me of a slapstick routine from the Marx Brothers.

With the press focusing on the drug allegations against Wilson, instead of the important issues of the Cold War, and the conflicting desire of officials to budget their help, it's clear that by the end of the film, the politicians are still oblivious to what's really necessary. And since the screenplay is so quick-witted and astute, some audience members may not be able to keep up with all of the dialogue-intensive events. But, as demonstrated by the politicians who are ignorant as to the difference between Pakistan and Afghanistan, it's essentially another argument to support Charlie Wilson's point.

- Mike Massie


I quit watching "The West Wing" after Aaron Sorkin quit writing and producing. It just wasn't the same. Imagine my thrill at seeing a film that he wrote again. It has been a long time - The American President, A Few Good Men. His script was a beautiful blend of humor and tragedy. He made a compelling story believable, and made me weep at the same time.

Tom Hanks was incredible as a small-time Texas Congressman whose constituents only wanted lower taxes and to keep their guns. Not a hard job, so he had plenty of time to fool around - and that he did. His office staff looked as if he were at the Playboy Mansion. Like he reportedly said, "You can teach them to type, but you can't teach them to grow tits." Despite his sexist attitude, which fits right in with a Texas Congressman, they were fiercely loyal, especially his aide, Amy Adams (Junebug & former Hooters girl).

Now, add a rich Texas socialite who wants something done in Afghanistan, played perfectly by Julia Roberts; and a pain-in-his-boss's-ass CIA agent, superbly done by Philip Seymour Hoffman, and you have a movie well worth watching.

Outstanding writing, and superlative acting, and a story that needed to be told. What more do you want at the movies?


In one of the better movies of the year, Tom Hanks stars as Congressman Charlie Wilson in this sardonically funny and extremely relevant (given reasonably current events) historical comedy-drama surrounding the 1980s Afghan/Soviet fiasco. The Soviets were attacking Afghanistan killing hundreds of people. Why should anyone care? People are dying, right? No, the reason the United States got involved through Charlie Wilson was because the Afghans, in fear they would get blown to sh_t, started illegally coming into Pakistan which in turn p_ssed Pakistani President Mohammad Zia ul-Haq off. Charlie Wilson in an effort to fix this situation teamed up with the sixth richest woman and religious fanatic in Texas, Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts) and a amusing and robust American spy for the CIA, Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) to help supply Afghans with high-tech weapons to destroy Soviet fight air-craft that would try and attack their land.

Although certainly not a serious Oscar contender for Best Picture, 'Charlie Wilson's War' is probably one of the best of the many political films of the year. Academy Award Winner Mike Nichols provides solid directing as to be expected while Emmy Award Winner Aaron Sorkin (Sport's Night, The West Wing) provides a remarkable screenplay that near-flawlessly balances comedy and drama. The acting is great for the most part as well. Tom Hanks delivers his best and most enjoyable performance since his 2000 Oscar-nominated turn as a FedEx worker stranded on a tropical island in 'Cast Away'. Hanks takes a slimy character like Wilson and with his trademark charm turns him into a likable guy. Amy Adams and Ned Beatty are reliable as always, but the real stand-out performance of the film is from Philip Seymour Hoffman. Arguably the finest actor working in the film industry today, Hoffman takes a small supporting role and upstages everyone around him. From his first scene where he's screaming at his boss before violently breaking his window, Hoffman sucks you in. The only disappointing cast member is unsurprisingly overrated Hollywood starlet Julia Roberts. Hamming her way through yet another movie, Roberts' overbearing and over-the-top portrayal of a rich Texas oil woman hits all the wrong notes and is at most times flat-out annoying. At 97 minutes, the movie is short and sweet, and that isn't to say it doesn't drag at some points but when it does drag it's for a very brief amount of time.

In conclusion, 'Charlie Wilson's War' is not a perfect film by any means, but it's certainly worth a look. Grade: B+


Aaron Sorking raises the same questions as Shakespeare did or does. How could they possibly know so much about the inner workings of palace life. Here like in The West Wing, Sorkin opens surprising doors that are hardly a shock but seem ton confirm our worst fears. Everything is so casual and at the same time so directly responsible for so many people's lives. A puffy Tom Hanks tells us one way or another that things can be manipulated with semi pure intentions but without weighing the consequences and Julia Roberts in a blond southern hairdo reminds us of the powers harbored in the sidelines. The subject is serious but the treatment is light, intelligent but light. Philip Seymour Hoffman, as the invisible middle man, steals every scene he is in, just like Charles Laughton did in every movie he was in.The dialogue is fast but not fast enough for us not to catch up and discover that this is not an ordinary comedy. The seemingly casual pace filled with strokes of wit and provocation grants another badge of honor in the Mike Nichol's collection.


Nice to see a comedy for grown ups. Masterfully structured by Aaron Sorkin via Mike Nichols's own mastery. Mr Nichol's mastery is to present characters in all their shocking truth, from the sad and riveting Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor in "Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf" to the sad and riveting Julia Roberts, Clive Owen, Jude Law and Natalie Portman in "Closer". In "Charlie Wilson's War" the shocking truth is outside the characters and the sad and riveting Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams are at the service of something else, it's personal only to a point. Hanks has to bury his brilliance in single malts and Julia Roberts throws parties and introduces characters with blatant straightforwardness. Amy Adams witnesses and exist as a character, witnessing. An insurmountable task that Miss Adams manages to surmount, beautifully. It is Philip Seymour Hoffman's Gus with a t, however, that monopolized my attention. His character may not be a first but it is a first the way that Hoffman presented him to us. Someone who survives the disregard with which he's treated by the absolute conviction that he's smarter than all of them put together. Hoffman is superb. The pacing of the tale helps enormously not to fall in a myriad of useless questions. A sharp, short, smart, sad comedy and when was the last time I was able to say that?


Well we definitely did see and I and many other people were actually expecting worse. It did have some good parts too it that I was not expecting it still did fail in other areas though.

First off the acting was above average. I love Phillip Seymour Hoffman in this movie and I liked Tom Hanks. Hoffman was the glue to this movie. If it were not for him this movie would have crumbled and hit rock bottom. His performance was by no means stunning but absolutely necessary. He gave a good witty, cynical performance in what most other actors could have easily made his character into a cliché. Tom Hanks really gave a nice loose performance and did not disappoint but he certainly did not impress. What I could not stand was that Julia Roberts was involved in this movie. She was as big of a miscast as I have ever seen. For one she is a bad actress, at least to me, she was to young for her character and was to phony even for the character she was playing.

The directing was average to me. I'm not really a big fan of the recent Mike Nichols movies and I'm not exactly impressed by this one either. It was made with such a Hollywoodish, cartoonish touch hat I could not stand. The worst part about it was that he tried make it be a really meaningful movie at the end. I love meaningful movies but not when a movie tries to rush a scene or two at the end and show something that tries to justify the rest of the garbage spread throughout the whole movie. That is something that Mike Nichols has seemed to have done a lot in his recent track record.

The one impressive part of this movie was the writing. The dialog was put together very well and was able to let the story play out. The writing was what was able to really able to take this movie to an above average level. In so many scenes I found myself laughing in part by the writing.

Well that is some of what we saw at least. A lot of the scenery was good in the movie if you get what I mean but not a lot other than that. I did like that this movie did not glorify everything America had done. It is obvious that during this whole war in Afghanistan the U.S. gave weapons to the people who are now against us. This movie kind of show we are too blame for that. It shows that what may seem good in the short term may turn into something horribly wrong in the future. This movie did have a good original message but it just did not deliver it right. Overall though it was entertaining.


It's possible to have a good time with this film while, at the same time, regretting all that it isn't. In the 1980s, a raffish U.S. congressman (Tom Hanks) engineers support for Afghan partisans resisting the Soviet Union.

Hanks is in breezy, hail-fellow-well-met form as roguish, politically incorrect Charlie Wilson, first glimpsed sharing a hot tub with three deeply available looking women. If only the film had the same air of insouciance; but apart from Philip Seymour Hoffman's turn as a cynical CIA agent, it tries to be perceived as patriotic too. Aaron Sorkin's trademark staccato dialogue serves its purpose, but the story is no more plausible than one of Wilson's tall tales. And there's an oddly unspoken subtext: Wilson's Afghan pals later mutated into the Taliban and other anti-western groups, leaving the world worse off than it was when these events occurred.


Charlie Wilson's war is an excellent example of how films should be made. This movie is of the highest quality and is cast perfectly. Tom Hanks play the lead and delivers an exceptional performance. Furthermore, Tom Hanks is complimented by the unparalleled acting ability of the incredible Philip Seymour Hoffman. I have never seen him in a role that suits him so perfectly.

The film is witty, intelligent and well written. Julia Roberts also stars in this film but is easily over-shadowed by the other two leads.

I rated this film 10/10 and am pleased to recommend this film to anyone that is interested in quality cinema.


Here is a movie that almost gets it all right, with good performances from everyone, and three strong leading performances from Hanks, Seymour Hoffman, and a fine turn up from Julia Roberts that had me spell bound from the first few seconds, these are performances that lift the production to the stars, and keep it there for the duration.

Apart from one or two very minor factual problems with the script, the only thing that lets this movie down, is the technical direction, there are far too many bad cuts (fudged continuity)and a number of camera "cheats" that simply do not work. This is surprising for a movie of this stature, and is a little annoying to watch, but it does not destroy an otherwise beautifully crafted film.


Charlie Wilson's War, based on a true story, tells the tale of a Texas congressman and a CIA agent working to secure funding for covert support of the Mujaheddin in 1980s Afghanistan following the USSR invasion of the country. This conflict played a major role in the final years of the Cold War between the US and the USSR.

In terms of film making, Charlie Wilson's War is a definite winner. It well-written, well-acted, and well-shot. While most of the attention has gone to Tom Hanks for yet another fine performance, I was even more impressed with Philip Seymour Hoffman's turn as CIA operative Gust Avrakotos. Scenes of Soviet attacks on under-armed villages and of the refugee camp effectively tug at the heart. The film also gives a good behind-the-scenes look at the wheeling and dealing that Congressman Wilson must go through to secure the desired funding.

There are, however, two complaints I have about the film. The first is that there is a subplot involving an scandal investigation that is not well-developed and as such only serves as a minor distraction to the story line. The second complaint is that the film lacks some of the context of the war. The film makes the Mujaheddin look like innocent victims, and while they did suffer large civilian casualties, the Mujaheddin were in fact rebels trying to topple the government of Afghanistan. This government, ignored entirely in the film, not surprisingly fought to suppress the rebellion, later calling on the Soviet Union for support in their effort. The film also ignores that the US was aiding the Mujaheddin prior to the Soviet deployment in Afghanistan. The film did hint at the unintended consequences of our covert actions -- consequences we are still feeling today -- but it seems as if screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and director Mike Nichols were willing to sacrifice some historical context to provide a cohesive narrative. (Not having read the book, I do not know if George Crile made the same compromise.) Those complaints notwithstanding, I did enjoy watching Charlie Wilson's War and do recommend it. I would have preferred a film that more accurately depicted the complexities of the situation, as Stephen Gaghan did in Syriana, but the audiences connected better with cohesive narrative of Charlie Wilson's War than with the ambiguities present in Syriana.


Consistency is perhaps this movie its biggest problem. The movie starts of as a fast, stylish and just plain fun political satire but in its second halve the movie gets more serious of tone, in an almost Oliver Stone kind of way. It's of course also a very serious subject but I would say that the movie would had been way better and also more effective if it had been completely done in the same style as the first halve of the movie got shot in.

For a biography and a movie concerning the subject of this movie, the movie is also quite short with its mere 102 minutes of running time. The movie because of this feels like it isn't telling the whole story. Of course the following up of the events after the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan gets hinted at in the movie but the movie doesn't go deeper into it and it doesn't explain much about it, which feels like a cheap way to just glorify Charlie Wilson, without showing the other side of the medal. Also the actual events in the movie itself gets rather simplified, even though the story still gets told (needlessly) complex at times.

Yes, the movie would just had been way better if it was not trying to be so serious at times and overall more light with its style and atmosphere. The movie should had been for instance more like "Wag the Dog", that achieved to find a right combination of satire and sensitive political issues.

Because of this incoherent style and way of storytelling, the acting performances are also mixed. When Tom Hanks is playing his character more playfully and in a more comical kind of way he's just excellent. But this just makes it sort of hard to take his character serious in the more serious and sensitive/shocking moments of the movie. Philip Seymour Hoffman is always excellent though, as he is in any movie that he plays in. He also received an Oscar nomination for his role in this movie. Most of the other actors just seem to walk around in this movie, just to be in the movie. This goes mostly for Julia Roberts, whose character I found just too mysterious to seem to have a clear enough purpose for the movie. She made a redundant impression on me and is therefor also really forgettable in this movie.

It's not that the movie is a bad watch, it actually is quite good and also enjoyable but if the movie would had dared to be a bit more edgier the movie would had been a better and foremost also more effective one at what it tried to obviously achieve.

7/10


Mike Nichols' film "Charlie Wilson's War", set in the 1980's, tells the story of how the title character (played by Tom Hanks) managed to wage a covert war with the Russkies by way of aiding the Afghan forces. Of course, we know how well that turned out in the long run but, thankfully, the film does not gloss over the unpleasant after-effects.

The cast is star-studded, with Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts being among the most bankable stars in Hollywood. As a bonus, you've got the versatile Philip Seymour Hoffman in a characteristically memorable supporting role, one for which he received a not unwarranted Oscar nomination. I'm not much of a fan of Roberts but Hanks is always dependable. Nevertheless, I can't quite buy into him as a drug-using womanizer, although the real Charlie Wilson seems just as eminently likable as Hanks. Apart from the big three, though, there's not much worth remarking on, even from a recognizable name like Amy Adams.

The story is engaging and is bolstered by a fine script from Aaron Sorkin. The verbal interplay between the main characters is excellent and is chock full of memorable lines. The later events set into motion by the war are not ignored though the bookending scenes honoring Wilson seem to me to be too earnest to achieve the bittersweet feel which was likely intended. On the whole, Nichols' direction is workmanlike and follows the action of the script admirably.

This is a film that, like Charlie Wilson himself, has flaws but is nevertheless disarmingly likable. Certainly recommended for fans of the three stars and for those looking for an engaging political drama with a light-hearted feel.


Charlie Wilson (Two time Oscar-Winner:Tom Hanks) is a easy-going Congressman... Who loves to party, enjoys the company of woman and especially drinking his booze. When Charlie's old friend and ex-girlfriend Joanne Herring (Oscar-Winner:Julia Roberts) wants Charlie to visit Afghanistan, which that country certainly need of help. Charlie is shocked of what he seen, especially from all different ages are killed or hurt from this war with the Russians. He decides to help the people and the rebels to fight the Russians, who started the war. Charlie, Joanne and one renegade CIA Agent by the name of Gust Avrakotos (Oscar-Winner:Philip Seymour Hoffman) will start a good fight to bring the largest covert operation in history.

Directed by Oscar-Winner:Mike Nichols (The Birdcage, Regarding Henry, Wolf) made an lively, entertaining sharp satire war comedy that is based on a true story. Hanks, Roberts, Hoffman in a Oscar nominated performance and Amy Adams as Charlie's loyal assistant are very good in their roles. Despite the excellent true-life premise, "Charlie Wilson's War" never really catches fire and it is not as wickedly funny as you liked it to be. Director Nichols and Screenwriter:Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men) keeps things moving and the characters are well liked throughout.

DVD has an sharp Pan & Scan (1.33:1) transfer and an good Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD's only special features are the behind the scenes featurette with the cast & crew and a real-life featurette with Charlie Wilson and Others. "Charlie Wilson's War" is a good movie that could have been really great but it's not. But this movie is smart enough to please for those, who enjoyed well written or well acted adult comedies. (*** 1/2 out of *****).


... with a single act.

Charlie Wilson, congressman, a real character. During the 90s, when the communism on USSR, the Wall of Berlin and the war on Afhganistan (with the Soviets) broke over. He did it, a single denial for money, and everything went down. He should be remembered, so here it is. His memorial.

Back to the movie. Funny, dramatic, snob, politic or just boring. Anyways, it's a smart movie about politic life, about ruling the world and about, above all, a lesson to the world. A lesson to every politic out there, a critical point of view referring to countries who support wars with money, guns and words.

Lesson Learned - World isn't a nice place to live in


Great film, a very worthy 7/10.

Tom Hanks was at his usual best, the heavy drinking congressman who saved Afghanistan from its communist oppressors! Based upon a true story tells us how the West throws money and arms at a problem and expect it to go away. Well, it did go away, albeit temporarily. Look who we (the British, amongst others) are now fighting the very same people who the US gave arms, training and money to in the 80s.

This film was always going to provoke political thoughts by the people who watch it, but it does portray a very nice story. However, once the main objective is achieved, i.e. ridding the communists from Afghanistan, it is seen how quickly the plight of people is forgotten about.

This film was good, it was a well deserved 7/10. It told the story of the Communist invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent covert operation by the US to some detail and was dramatised well. Although being a good film, I will recommend it to people but some people will not enjoy it particularly is a serious film about good (US) v evil (Russia) isn't your thing!


Recap: Based on the true story of Charlie Wilson, an American Congressman, who (according to this movie) was instrumental in USA's covert war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union.

Comments: A rather funny movie about not so funny things, especially since they were real. But focusing on the movie, Hanks performs very well as a mischievous womanizing Congressman with a good heart that becomes the champion for the covert war in Afghanistan. Hanks, and the entire movie, Philip Seymor Hoffman especially, has a rather humorous tone. So much that adding comedy to the genre would be appropriate. But, the story that it tell, and maybe the ending the most, are serious indeed.

A story of what happened with some questions about what might have been. So the movie works as a comedy if you want one, and a much more serious one if you want that. Something for everybody? 7/10


Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) is a hard-partying, womanizing Texas Congressman with no discernible legislative record. In 1980, he finds himself becoming interested in the plight of Afghanistan, which is in the midst of a brutal war with the USSR. On the auspices of his old flame, arch-conservative Texas socialite Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts), he travels to Afghanistan to assess the situation, and is stunned by what he sees. He returns to the US determined to help the Afghans, only to find his colleagues extremely indifferent to the situation - and himself under investigation for allegations of drug use. Undeterred, Wilson recruits Herring and the vulgar, outcast CIA Agent Gust Avrakotos (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) to begin a convoluted arms deal involving Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and a mostly unknowing US Congress. Ultimately, the Afghans defeat the Soviets, but while America celebrates their victory, Wilson and Avrakotos find their warnings about the instability of post-war Afghanistan falling on deaf ears.

Charlie Wilson's War is slick brain candy, a really neat film for the more intellectual viewer and fun entertainment for the average film-goer. The movie assembles an astonishing array of talent, both in front of and behind the camera, and delivers on its promise of being one hell of a good time. The film's has only one flaw, which we'll arrive at later. As an examination of the improbable way in which the 20th Century's largest covert war was waged - and, perhaps, the way that things get done by the CIA and other intelligence agencies - it's fascinating.

The movie is interesting on a number of levels. The story portrayed in the movie - with all of its outrageous double-dealings, sneaky covert operations, and, perhaps most of all, its success - would be so outrageous as a work of fiction, that it could easily be dismissed as a satire. But things really did work out this way, at least within reasonable bounds. The film portrays our three protagonists in an interesting way that highlights their virtues without obscuring their flaws. Wilson as a person who is unapologetic about his vices (even embracing them) - yet willing to embrace a righteous cause. Herring is something of an elitist, and her born-again attitude of righteousness is off-putting - yet she's deeply committed to the cause of the Afghan people. Avrakotos is a CIA outsider with an attitude problem, looked down upon because of his "street" background - yet his love of country and hatred of Communism are unwavering. The fact that this odd trio could play a major role in the downfall of the USSR is not only proof that anyone can make a difference, but also that truth is stranger than fiction. It's also very interesting that all of this is played as a comedy - not too surprising, given that our writer is Aaron Sorkin, but it's an interesting way to approach this story.

The movie does, however, have one drawback, which is a bit surprising. The film seems to unabashedly celebrate Wilson and Co.'s achievement. This is fine - nothing wrong with defeating the Soviet Union, is there? - until one considers that out of the ashes of the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan came the Taliban and eventually al-Qaeda. Regardless of the US's level of responsibility, it happened, and the movie's portrayal of Wilson's success is almost unmitigated. To be fair, the movie does address this issue towards the end, with a rather topical speech by Wilson about the US's inability to clean up after themselves, but it's done in such a tertiary manner that the average viewer will probably not take much from it. The overall impression will be that these three remarkable people helped the Afghans defeat the Soviets. This isn't a fatal drawback, mind you, but it's one troubling aspect of an otherwise brilliant movie.

The film's talent is remarkable. The legendary Mike Nichols delivers a slick, gorgeous-looking production; the material is perfectly suited to his understated, wry directorial style. Sorkin delivers yet another brilliant screenplay; the film has dozens of quotable lines and classic Sorkin exchanges (the best being the "Scotch bottle" discussion between Wilson and Avrakotos), and keeps something of a political and historical perspective behind it. The film's cast is a marvel: Tom Hanks gives a fine performance as the lovable rogue with a cause, Julia Roberts is alternately charming and repulsive as the obnoxious but committed Joanne, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman steals every scene (par usual) as the abrasive Gus. The always-lovely Amy Adams takes another step on her road to stardom as Wilson's long suffering assistant, and Ned Beatty, Om Puri, Emily Blunt, Christopher Denham, and Ken Stott flesh out the supporting cast.

Charlie Wilson's War is an intelligent and fun movie, a wonderful bit of a-bit-more-than-light entertainment. The fact that it decides not to be more than that shouldn't be held against it; it's brilliant at what it does.

8/10


i am not exactly how sure the accuracy is with this movie, but i can tell you that i was thoroughly entertained by this movie. the character of gust,played perfectly by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, was one of the most unique, yet entertaining characters in recent memory. this movie informed,yet managed to avoid preaching to the audience. it made me laugh, made me sad, made me feel alive, and glad to be spending the time to watch the movie. it takes no time to understand what is going on, and takes you on a roller coaster ride of genuine, human emotion. i thought i knew my history, apparently i didn't know it at all! i give this move 9 out of 10, and recommend it for all adults, and young adults, and the young at heart, just not the young. but as soon as they are allowed to see "r" rated movies, make it a priority.


Yes, this film has many gay characters. It also has straight characters, characters who are not sure about their sexuality, people who are searching for some truth about their existence.

This is not a film about sexual orientation. It's about loneliness and the difficulty human beings often experience in connecting to one another. Filmically, Denys Arcand cleverly balances the various dimensions of the relationships and the contrasting, constantly shifting relationships. The serial killer element is a bit less successful (it feels more like a way to wrap up various plot points and, unlike the rest of the film, is thematically heavy-handed).

Thomas Gibson centers and grounds the film; it's a quiet performance but behind the handsome, arrogant exterior he slowly reveals a terrified soul afraid of showing or accepting love from those around him. The supporting cast is strong, especially Mia Kirshner as Gibson's friend, a dom-for-hire with precognitive powers. Her role is more metaphor than a literal conceit---strangely innocent and depraved at the same time, she represents the light and dark of the characters' sexual consciousness.

The film's involving and often surprises in its character development. The effect is somewhat like Robert Altman directing a David Mamet script---the dialogue doesn't shrink from some searing observations aside from a few contrived moments in the beginning. Often, in our search for love and a conventional "relationship", we ignore the love that already exists around us---in our friends, family, those who are able to see us as we are. Arcand and the writer, Brad Fraser, make some canny observations on the different ways human beings try to escape and deny their loneliness and how that denial returns to haunt us in so many unexpected ways.

This film is a rewarding experience. It may not be for bigots who can't get past the sexual orientation of some of the characters to see the greater, transcendental message of hope and redemption. Loneliness is a universal experience. A film like this, that dares to explore the darker side of our lives with a clever and perceptive eye, deserves applause and an open-minded approach.


The worst movie ever?? HARDLY!!! This is one of the BEST animated movies i have ever seen! It has appearances from all the great characters from the animated tv series Rainbow Brite. Very safe for small children and the colors capture their attention like no other! There is an evil Princess trying to steal the diamond planet Spectra, which would in turn cause all life on Earth to cease. This tells the tale of how Rainbow Brite and her new friend Krys are able to stop the Princess' evil plot and restore life and color back to Earth. It's proof that kids can make a difference! Rainbow Brite will live on forever.


I must admit that I am a fan of cheesy '80's cartoons, but this is among the best. Rainbow Brite and the Star Stealer is one of the most watchable and entertaining of the Rainbow Brite cartoons, and is much better than the TV series. I especially like the relationship between Rainbow and Darian and find it very amusing. My favorite character, though, is Starlite who is definitely the most "magnificent horse in the universe"!

I also recommend Rainbow Brite: New Beginnings, which tells the story of how Rainbowland came to be. Have a Rainbow-Day!


wow! this was a great movie! i just got it from the u.s. and it was worth all the money i gave for it! this movie is one of the best movies for children i have ever seen, maybe the best!!! all you who like rainbow brite, must see this 1 ! the first 7 minutes, you can not believe what you see! it's so great!!!

scooter.


All right guys, here's the deal with this movie. it's not the best but for all of you 80s kids out there it'll bring back fond memories of your childhood. Personally, i love this movie. i still love rainbow brite and the care bears. so, in my opinion, if you aren't a kid now or were a kid that loved and/or loves rainbow brite you won't like this movie at all.


Just got into viewing program for the first time recently - the 2-hour "kidnapping" program. Don't know why I didn't sooner?? James Caan is outstanding and wholly-believable in the role as the chief honcho at the featured 5* Vegas complex.

So often, programs like this have one or more in the ensemble who are either outright annoying, or seem to have been picked because they must be related to the producer or director.

That is certainly not the case with this program. Along with Caan, all of the primary and supporting cast are engaging attractive, and believable. The guest actors are well-chosen.

The stories I've seen are interesting, and the show presents a good view of the city as well.

This is an entertaining program, and one I hope will remain. I don't know how I managed to miss it for so long, but plan to TIVO it from now on.


Very reliable entertainment, as Las Vegas amuses as well as intrigues, very light hearted and very much bolstered by Josh Duhanel!! I like this television show and I think that many people watch it as a form of escapist voyeurism...Voyeurism in this case is very positive, and many females in this series are very nice to look at...This show incorporates Las Vegas legends such as Wayne Newton as intermittent characters to authenticate the Las Vegas genre!! There have been copious depictions of sin city, this is one of the better efforts...The producers and directors are lucky to have James Caan in the show, as he is very much a totally accomplished actor!!! By and large, I like the T.V. Show Las Vegas and I watch it on Fridays, I watched it on Mondays as well, but with Monday Night Football, I could see why NBC switched it to Fridays...Nonetheless, I like Las Vegas a lot!!


I think that Vanessa Marcil is the best actor in the cast. She makes Sam one of the best character on the show. James Cann is also pretty good. I love it when he worried about Delinda. One of my favorite scenes in when Ed and Delinda are beating the crap out of some guy. That was funny. Nikki Cox is also good and she has great chemistry with Josh Duhamel. Lara Flynn Boyle was awesome in her guest role. I wish they hadn't killed her off. The show has a great cast with no bad actors which isn't something you often see on TV. I still think Vanessa Marcil is the best though. She should have got an Emmy in my opinion. It's a shame the show was cancelled


I would like to vent my displeasure at NBC Canceling Las Vegas. The show had been Top Notch for the past 5years. Tom Sellecks addition was great. He really brought a nice fresh addition to the show. What does NBC have now? Lame reality and night time game shows. I mean come on Keep the Old and Tired Law and Order? Not even putting Jack McCoy as DA can keep the show interesting. Gee let's keep quality program like Deal or No Deal or ED? ER should be put out to pasture to. NBC is worse now than it was in Pre Seinfeld Cheers days. With cable and internet, NBC cannot afford to fall flat on its face.PLEASE BRING BACK VEGAS! i remember when Homicide Life on the Street ended the way it did. At least they had a two hour series final. Hey CBS are you listening? Please pick up Vegas it is a great show.


I think Josh Duhamel is so great!! The rest of the show is fun to watch, but, I think it is the handsome and sexy Josh Duhamel that makes the show "Las Vegas" really fun to see!! In the days of "Magnum" I loved Tom Selleck, I thought he was the sexiest man on the face of the earth!! A hunk on a television show is a must in order for women to enjoy watching something, especially just for purposes of innocuous entertainment!! I would have done anything to "Win A Date With Tad Hamilton"!! Josh Duhamel is incredible and I will always have a super crush on him!! Josh is definitely a HUNK!! and I will watch "Las Vegas" all the time, Josh Duhamel is a big reason why too!!


Las Vegas is one of the most brilliant shows of our time, its combines hard-hitting action with light drama and heavy doses of comedy. It features fantastic characters lead by the charismatic tough-guy Ed Deline (James Caan). The show uses cool high-tech surveillance equipment to bring down the cheats and schemers. The characters are joyful to watch especially as their different departments within the hotel/casino cross paths.

The show is mainly centred around the surveillance and security part of the hotel/casino. The two leading characters are Ed Deline, president of operations and Danny McCoy (Josh Duhamel), former US Marine who served in Iraq but is now head of security. The shows five other main characters are former valet now security personnel MIT graduate Mike Cannon (James Lesure); the feisty, sexy casino host Samanthat Marquez (Vanessa Marcil); Danny's childhood sweetheart hotel manager Mary O'Connell (Nikki Cox); Danny's current sweetheart also Big Ed's daughter and manager of Mystique Delinda Deline (Molly Sims) and Ed's adopted daughter from his CIA past casino floor manager Nessa Holt (Marsha Thomason) who left the show after the second season. Each character is unique in their own quirky way, giving the show its energy and charisma that keeps its audience entertained for the entire duration of an episode.

Every episode features a special quest star either a singer, actor or band who perform at the hotel's nightclub Mystique. These cameo appearances by big names is a specialty that is popular among the shows audience.

Las Vegas is a show that can appeal to both male and female audiences. For the guys the show features sexy women, classy sports cars, high stakes gambling, adrenaline pumping action and overall a pool for topless women. For the ladies there is the young and handsome leading man (Duhamel) and the tough edgy Deline, romance and tanned topless guys around the same pool.

The plot of each episode combines action with light drama and comedy to break the ice. Each episodes also features 2 even 3 secondary stories which revolve mainly around the female characters. Every season also ends with a bang which leaves the audience hanging until the airing of the next season. An excellent way to end a season! With a mix of genre's driving the show and a cast of colourful, charismatic characters and of course lets not forget the topless pool makes Las Vegas one of the greatest TV shows ever aired.

9/10


I've read the comments on Las Vegas and do agree with some of them, it's not brain surgery TV, but then again I was under the impression that TV was mainly for escapism, especially with what is going on in today's world. Let's face it, a show about Vegas (that isn't a reality based programme) isn't going to one based on reality because to me Vegas is pure fantasy! It's the sort of place where we can go and pretty much do what we want when we want (subject to funds obviously!).

Therefore the fact that Las Vegas is pretty, sexy and cliched with characters that reflect all this seems to be on the money in my eyes. If you don't like it, don't watch it, that what we have a million channels for!

We're coming up to the third episode here in the UK and I know that I will be making a beeline to watch it again. I just hope it's not cancelled, something that seems to be happening a lot with most of the shows that come to the UK that are half decent! (Firefly and Jake 2.0 anyone?!!).

It's harmless, great looking fun and everytime I watch it, I want to go back to the real thing :)


Las Vegas is very funny and focuses on the substance.....

The sets are amazing and the scenes outside are breathtaking; the characters are all very fun and cool.

The women are a plus....

Holly Sims is lovable as the daughter of James Caan who heads the security of the casino. While Josh Duhamel is very funny and lets face it, he looks like he can take down anyone.

Vanessa Marcil and Nikki Cox add that special touch.

The story lines are very fun and weird at times.

You can easily just relax into this show and doesn't bring the heavy story lines like the other shows that rule the ratings...


I was shocked to learn that Jimmy Caan has left this show, does anyone know why? I regard James as one of the all-time greats and wasn't surprised he ended up on TV, which can be better than the crap you see on the big screen. The stories are slick and the camera faster than a speeding bullet! Mustn't forget the rest of the cast: James, Vanessa(yum!)Nikki, Molly, Josh, Mitch.. Also,can anyone tell me why on earth there's a crap theme tune on the DVD sets, but Elvis's JXL remix of A Little Less Conversation is used on the initial NBC broadcasts?? Does it not make sense to use a tune that you would associate with the gambling mecca of America for DVD releases??