'In The Line Of Fire' tells the story of the game between an old presidential bodyguard and a former-government assassin turned psycho. The secret service agent/bodyguard (Eastwood) is on defense and the assassin (Malkovich)is on offense. The stakes? The president's live.

I really like this movie...I've seen it numerous times on TV and have recently bought it on DVD. Yet, it's not an excellent movie. The plot is way too thin and the attempts to thicken it are downright ridiculous. The whole love-story isn't very plausible and the way they brought an extra character into the story, just to be able to kill it off is kind of insulting to the more or less intelligent viewer. Though I feel these mistakes can't be forgiven, I can easily look past them to Mr. Malkovich exquisite performance. I've always deemed him to be a great actor but in this movie he's really on fire. There's a reason why he got an Academy Award nomination. Rene Russo and Clint Eastwood were okay, but I don't deem their performance to be memorable. They're never at the best of their abilities.

If you don't expect too much, you'll certainly like this movie. It's no masterpiece but John Malkovich is really extraordinary and I don't think anyone can't enjoy his performance. Really worth the watch...


I am a huge fan of big, loud, trashy, completely stupid action movies such as The Rock, Con Air etc. All of these are great fun to watch but, when you think about it, extremely silly. IN THE LINE OF FIRE tells a story and it tells it well. With plausibility as well as excitement and suspense it also addressed several important moral questions that really make you think. The last shot of the movie is Eastwood and Russo sitting together on the steps of the White house watching the pigeons to gentle, peaceful music and I felt a deep feeling of satisfaction. This was because I cared about the characters and I was happy for them that their story had come to a happy conclusion. It felt like a true story. As the aging secret service agent tormented by the fact that he failed to protect JFK on that fateful day in Dallas, Clint Eastwood is fantastic. He brilliantly conveys his paranoia and his personal need to stop his adversary. On the other side of the spectrum is John Malkovich, as the creepy predator who tortures Eastwood about what happened in 1963 by openly telling him of his plan to kill the current president. This Oscar nominated performance really gets under your skin. Throughout the movie, Malkovich talks to Eastwood as if they are friends. He doesn't threaten him, he doesn't lie to him, he doesn't laugh at him, but he tortures him with his unbearable friendliness right up to the last moment. As well as this thrilling main plot, there is a charming love story involving Rene Russo, another agent and Eastwood. Despite the age difference, they have superb chemistry on screen and the director wisely does not let this dominate too much but keeps it as part of the backdrop which works nicely. To sum up, I love this film because it has a mind.


I just saw this movie for the first time last night. Wow! What a movie! This is the kind of movie you want everyone in the world to see because its just so cool and so interesting.

I do not want to give a single word about the plot because I think it would be better for people to go in cold. DO NOT READ THE PLOT SUMMARY before you see the movie! All I'm going to say is that Eastwood, Malkovich, Peterson, and the screenplay by Jeff Maguire are top notch. I wish all thrillers were more like this one.


"In the Line of Fire" is one of the best thrillers I have seen, it builds and builds to a great climax. This film really draws you in your heart is beating and you are out of breath from the action. The cast turns in strong peformances, particularly Clint Eastwood and John Malkovich. This film is expertly directed by suspense master Wolfgang Petersen. Thrillers don't get much better thn this, don't miss it.


Frank Horrigan (Clint Eastwood) is being harassed by Mitch Leary (John Malkovich), a bomber terrorist who literally believes he will not be caught. In the opening is everyone's favourite modern serial killer, "John Kramer" (Tobin Bell) from the Saw series. Through clever planning and influence, Frank is able to make the arrest of Mendoza (Bell).

From thereafter, its a series of cat and mouse chase. Malkovich is a tremendous actor and incredibly versatile. Once again showing a different role in this film, he astounds me with his ability to interchange his characters with the next film.

I've watch Malkovich play in Con Air as a menacing insanely smart Cyrus, in Of Mice and Men as the tragically challenged bunny lover Lenny, to name a few. He plays a very smart bomber terrorist who is very sane but is deluded into thinking he can elude his captures.

Clint Eastwood is no one special me. He's too old to really do much action in films so the only thing he can really astound you with is his ability to create dramatic scenes. The characters he plays are simplistic and one-dimensional.

Rene Russo plays Eastwood's love interest in the film and captivates me with her supporting actually being a bigger role, to me, than Eastwood's.

While this might seem like an action blockbuster, it's relatively slow paced and plays on anticipation. You have to wait for the build up and the ending and it will pay off in the end. Along the way, you'll be mesmerized by Malkovich and Eastwood's chemistry and their scenes of cat and mouse.


I really love action/adventure films and this is one of the best. Of course, we love the stars of this genre, Bruce Willis, Sly Stallone, Clint Eastwood, Kurt Russell, Arnold Schwarzenegger and the rest, but its the story that really counts. The best are somewhat feasible but we can tolerate those that are a little "over the top" as in the comic book style of action. The more twists and turns, the more dire situations the heroes are involved in and the more shocking moments in the film; the more we action/adventure fans enjoy them. "In the Line of Fire" has ALL the elements required for a rip-roaring action thriller. It has Clint Eastwood as a near-retirement Secret Service Agent whose one bad moment of failure haunts him. It has one of the most evil, despicable, maniacal villains in John Malkovich, the type in which you can't wait to see him, "get his due". It has Rene Russo as the 'love interest.' It has twists and turns, an occasional shock and even a touch of warmth and humor. It is extremely well paced by director Wolfgang Petersen and even has a score by the great Ennio Morricone. This one is a real roller coaster ride of a thriller! Don't miss it!


An assassination thriller in the mould of Day Of The Jackal, In The Line Of Fire has the added twist that Eastwood's old-timer bodyguard Frank Horrigan is troubled by past failure on the job. The chase becomes personal as John Malkovich's reptilian assassin Leary taunts him over this neurosis - with the rather clunky exception of the love of a good woman (Russo's Lilly Raines) nothing's going to set Frank's mind at rest than taking Leary down personally.

Malkovich is a volatile presence - not simply combustible on screen but often a changeable actor too. This is one of his good films, focused and playing director Petersen's game. Eastwood is too old but a) the audience don't care, cos it's him and b) his age is written into the script, not only in the narrative but also as a recurring joke. Pretty much as you'd expect but well-handled. 7/10


This is s superbly crafted top-notch Washington thriller directed by the talented Wolfgang Petersen with hotshot screenwriter Jeff Maguire (who seems to have done very little over the years, so maybe he tends his roses). The film has Clint Eastwood as an ageing secret service agent and John Malkovich as a vengeful assassin pitted against each other in a massive test of wills and ingenuity, where the President's life is at stake. Unnecessary secrecy and competition between rival security agencies almost dooms the President, which is an authentic touch. This film was made when both Eastwood and Malkovich were at their peak. Probably Eastwood has never done a better job than he does here, and it is all so effortless for the old pro. There are some wonderful sound effects of him huffing and puffing as he runs along beside the President's car as a bodyguard, for which he is too old. I wonder if anyone else noticed the humour of those noises having been added. My 'guardian angel', whose name is Vigil, enjoyed this movie even more than I did, but then bodyguard movies are very much his thing. Rene Russo was a perfect choice for the female agent who falls for Eastwood, as she is so unobvious but so talented, and she shines. The tension is taut every inch of the way in this story, and the psychological struggles of Eastwood to redeem himself from an earlier protection failure are beautifully shown by his typical understated acting. With Eastwood, if he lifts an eyebrow by a millimeter, watch out! Of course, he is the master of the super-cool. Malkovich has the opportunity to indulge all the creepiness he could wish in the paranoid character he portrays, and he captures the man's central vanity to perfection. What a good 'un.


This is a Hollywood film. The credentials of those involved are not revolutionary. This film will not change the world. However, it is well-made, well-plotted, and well-acted, which counts for a lot.

It's the cat-and-mouse story of a disgruntled former-CIA assassin who feels betrayed chasing a Secret Service agent who was protecting John F. Kennedy when Kennedy was killed in Dallas. The agent has been understandably troubled by this failure during the subsequent years of his career and when the movie picks up in 1992-or certainly in contemporary America, this would-be assassin Mitch Leary (John Malkovich in a tour-de-force of creepiness in which he gives a transformative performance) has been consumed with frustration and anger and decides that he is going to assassinate the President. He imagines he has common cause with Secret Service Agent Frank Horrigan (Clint Eastwood at his cool, calm, good-naturedly grouchy best) who he believes should hold a grudge as he does because the Warren Commission, blamed Horrigan-unfairly, Leary believes-for the assassination of President Kennedy. The tension is ratcheted up through some phone calls from Leary to Horrigan-Leary wanting to keep Horrigan close but not to betray his location and plans.

Rene Russo is excellent as Lily Raines a fellow agent with whom Horrigan develops a grown- up relationship. It is nice to see a relationship between two equally competent peers (even if Russo is a fair deal younger than Eastwood at the time of filming). Russo is a calm, capable agent who is able to go toe-to-toe with the quick-witted Horrigan in friendly banter. It is a nice part for Russo, allowing her to play the role of a capable professional woman and not just the default romantic interest of the older man. The acting by the leads, Wolfgang Peterson's competent direction, the thoughtful use of music in plot development, and excellent cinematography make this a film I can watch over and over.


This is one of the few movies of this type I have reviewed, and enjoyed. While Clint Eastwood is his usual self, the overall story works well, even in the limits of Washington D.C.

The theme: An assassin is tracking the president, and there is only one person who may save him.

It cannot be easy to make a film which audiences enjoy these days, involving this arena. This film succeeds on several levels. Eastwood is his usual underplayed hero, wanting to save the President since the Kennedy era. He does well in this role, as does his foil, Reneee Russo ( an FBI agent) Overall well-done and suspenseful with extra stars for Malkovich. 9/10.


What I've seen of Wolfgang Petersen's films has been pretty good. He knows how to direct action, create suspense and get you interested. Eastwood tends to be great, sometimes excellent. This goes for both his acting and his directing. They both hand in solid work here. The concept isn't bad, and the cat-and-mouse game works well. Malkovich performs rather well, and his and Eastwood's playing off each other adds to the film. I suppose this won't introduce anything new, really... but it never really claims to, nor needs to. It's two great actors, each playing a basic type of role that they have proved at other points in their careers that they can manage remarkably well, and with a magnificent director at the helm. Really, it's entertaining, well-done, and it just plain delivers. Editing and cinematography are good. Acting and character writing is, as well. The film manages to be suspenseful and intense, and if you let yourself, you will probably be entertained and engaged, even if there are superior films out there. The pacing is pretty much spot-on. I recommend this to any fan of the principal actors, the director and/or this type of film. 7/10


Wolfgang Peterson directs this thriller that has Clint Eastwood playing Secrect Service Agent Frank Horrigan, who matches wits with a clever psycho(John Malkovich) in a cat-and-mouse game involving the the protection of the President. Mitch Leary(Malkovich)keeps in touch with Horrigan teasing the agent with discouraging remarks about his abilities, as well as the Secret Service's protection of the presidents in the past. Agent Lilly Raines(Rene Russo)tries to keep Horrigan grounded; but he is head strong in stopping Leary from carrying out his threats of assassination. Very good FX and fast pace sustains the plot. Eastwood and Malkovich are superb. Russo has a way of getting your attention. Rounding out this strong cast are: Dylan McDermott, Fred Dalton Thompson, John Mahoney and Gary Cole.


Wolfgang Petersen (Das Boot, Air Force One) gives us an exciting film where the accolades go to the supporting actor, John Malkovich. His criminal attempting to assassinate the President was first-rate and credible.

That is not to diminish the efforts of Clint Eastwood and Rene Russo, or even Fred Dalton Thompson, who plays a real jerk of a White House Chief of Staff. Eastwood was great, and I love any film that Russo is in.

The movie feature original music by five time Oscar winner (Malèna, Bugsy, The Untouchables, The Mission, Days of Heaven) Ennio Morricone. That alone makes it worth your time.


Seriously any film with John Malkovich is usually very good. And this includes Clint Eastwood, Rene Russo, John Mahoney (Frasier), Dylan McDermott (The Practice), and many more great actors.

Clint is getting old now but thanks he is also an awesome director (in his own right).

We are used to Wolfgang "water films" like Das Boot, Poseidon and Perfect Storm - this was really different but just as sublimely directed.

The premise of the assassin is as serious as it comes, the film is well paced, some of the violence is a bit... But altogether recommended (but not for kids).


To those of you who've made comments on this film earlier and hoped to see it again, I hope you did. It was broadcast today (Nov. 28th,'04) on Lifetime movie network. I subscribe to Dish.

Karen Arthur directed William Petersen and Barbara Hershey in this southwestern Gothic-like tale, expertly. The lighting, editing and dialog contributed greatly to the film and Hershey and Peterson were perfectly cast for the roles, both playing sensitive, bold and intuitive characters. The screen play was excellent, as well the supporting cast.

Not having known ahead-of-time, I guessed correctly the story was based on truth, and now that I know it I must make the sojourn, as Santa Fe is a hop, skip and a jump from Tucson.

As an engineer, I was fascinated with the theme of the unique construction of the staircase and the man who designed and built it (who was he? an angel?). But the storyline, and it's several plots, of how it came to be is what most captivates you. You certainly get a strong sense that God in His heaven was in every detail of this entire drama in history. For you who have seen the film, you know what I'm talking about. For those of you who haven't, I won't spoil a minute of it...

Bon holiday,

Bob Shank Jr, Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, AZ


I am from Texas and my family vacationed a couple of years ago to Sante Fe with my brother. He suggested we go to see the church with the staircase. I was absolutely blown away by the miracles that took place there. The movie is great - Barbara Hershey and William Petersen were perfect for the parts they played. It is amazing, absolutely amazing. If you have not seen the staircase in person, it is worth the trip to go see it. The wood is beautiful and the architecture is astounding. Just being in the chapel gives me goose bumps! To read about the history of the chapel, and then to see its beauty is breathtaking. See the movie - it is GREAT! Then see the staircase in person!


And I would have rated it higher than a 7 out of 10 if it wasn't for the seriously uneven Irish accent of Barbara Hershey in the leading role of Mother Madalyn. The accent came and went unfortunately which I found more than a little distracting.

However, the performance of William L Petersen in the role of Joad was outstanding, he brought a warmth and depth to the character in spite of some periodic hokey dialogue. Captivating and genuine, I found him quite astonishing in the way he captured the character.

The premise of the film is fairly simple, the building of a forgotten staircase in a church. It is based, rather loosely I believe, on a true story and I had heard of this staircase prior to seeing the movie.

It was a phenomenal engineering feat for its time - a floating double helix made without nails or screws. It exists to this day although it is now in private ownership.

**Minor Spoiler**Good supporting cast and Barbara does dying so well in all her movies and here she doesn't disappoint. Lots of special moments.

7/10


Almost no information is available about this movie, or its air dates. After an ongoing and exhaustive search I found the DVD to be available for 3.99!-release date February 28, 2006. Try yahoo/DVD and video. In order to get this information posted I will continue to state that this is a well made film with a true and fascinating story about a mysterious carpenter who builds a very unusual staircase in a church. It is a chance to see William L. Peterson before C.S.I. turned him into a star. Equally featured in the story is the venerable Barbara Hershey - does anyone remember when she was Barbara Hershey Seagull? I have to keep writing to get this posted. Thank you to the previous commentators for taking the time to recommend this somewhat obscure TV film which obviously leaves a lasting impression on many.


I have not seen it since 1998 and yet I STILL can't get it out of my head or stop recommending people to find it so that shows what an impression it made.

Just a wonderful story.

I just hope to see the stair at least once in person...

I didn't know much about Mr. Petersen before this movie as I hadn't seen any of his previous works but his subtle acting in this impressed me and I think his portrayal of Grissom on CSI just shows more of the same. He knows enough to let the character shine through instead of the actor shining through which makes him just that much better of an actor.

I can't remember enough about the "poor accents" to comment but I must say I have always enjoyed Barbara Hershey in all of her roles as well and I thought she also did a phenomenal job in this movie.


I saw this movie when it aired on Lifetime back in 2004. I have never seen it since then, but have thought of it often. It left such an impression on me I've been searching for it lately. I found it finally and realized it was made just for television. The movie is fabulous- filled with great writing and acting. William Petersen is perfect, as always. This movie left me speechless and in tears. It's a wonderful story of faith, love, and compassion. Does anybody know how I can obtain a copy of this movie for my home? Is that possible with television movies?? I really would love to see it again. This is a must-have among my collection!!


Excellent story with supperb acting by all of the cast. The warmth and insight into who Joad represents moved off of the screen and into the heart of this viewer. The frustration's and tenacity of Mother Madalyn in her quest to do HIS work till her last breath was also done with excellance by Barbara Hershey. The intertwining of the personalities of Joad and Mother Madalyn grew throughout the story line with a breath taking crescendo in the final scene.


I have just returned from Santa Fe. NM. I visited Loretto Chapel. As I looked around this building, which has been acquired by a private owner, I relived the movie version of the staircase. It is an overwhelming mystique that occupies this building. It is about what can happen if you really have faith. The bookstore there has a narrative on the subject, which is the story of the staircase. I read the narrative in its entirety. I was absorbed by the ambiance surrounding the people therein. It was like we were totally enclosed in a time warp, all with the same thoughts and awe. When we departed, the hush was overwhelming. Everyone should visit Loretto Chapel in Santa Fe. NM.


Captivating tale of backstabbing behind the curtains. The movie follows the plight of David Letterman and Jay Leno as they struggle for the elusive Tonight Show spot. Letterman led by his desire for the coveted time slot and Leno led by his agent and little-devil-on-the-shoulder, Helen Kushnick.

Kathy Bates (Kushnick) is excellent in this movie, alienating herself from such top dogs as Bob Wright, Warren Littlefield, and Howard Stringer. Towards the end of the film you are so entranced with how she handles every situation from guest bookings to delayed taping, that you find yourself wanting more.

John Michael Higgins (Letterman) plays his part to the tee. At times I found myself wondering if he was any relation to the real Letterman.

I highly recommend this movie to anyone interested in entertainment or the world of corporate negotiations.


as a former TV editor, I can say this is as authentic as it gets. It even led to Letterman's producer (thought to be a source) resigning (eventually) in real life. Letterman was outraged (OK, so one goofy thing is it has him throwing softballs at a tire swing on his estate; total fabrication) but the main information is hilariously true, from the silly bidding war for Letterman once he decided to leave NBC to Leno's problems with an agent who was not ready for big time, but who he let run the show (almost to a disastrous exit) out of his famed loyalty. If any of you kids don't grasp the idea of why Letterman is jealous to this day, see this tape.


Alright, so maybe the impersonations of Jay Leno and David Letterman are not spot on, but you still get a sense of who these people are and how they operate behind the screen. Bob Balaban and Treat Williams are excellant as Warren Littlefield and Micheal Ovitz.

The movie doesn't go for joke and punchline but it is still funny. Kathy Bates in particular is amazing as Leno's manager.

Funny, amazing, interesting, very watchable, this is a good TV movie.


THE LATE SHIFT was an interesting made for HBO movie that took a detailed look at the power struggle that ensued between David Letterman and Jay Leno when Johnny Carson announced his retirement and both wanted to replace him. This struggle is now part of Hollywood folklore, but for those who don't know the story and are aware of where Letterman is now, it might be interesting to learn that David Letterman wanted to replace Johnny Carson as host of THE TONIGHT SHOW more than anything in the world, but Letterman found his dreams being derailed as frequent guest host Leno had one of Hollywood's most powerful agents, Helen Kushnick, in his corner and working tirelessly to get her client the job. It's not often that we get to see behind the scenes Hollywood machinations recreated for entertainment value, but for fans of these two late night superstars, this movie provided a fascinating look at a very turbulent period in late night television. According to this movie, Letterman was practically promised the job by Carson himself while NBC had promised the job to Leno and that's where Helen Kushnick came in. The movie presents Leno as sort of a milquetoast who allowed his career to be manipulated by Kushnick and feigned ignorance to some of Helen's strong-willed manipulations of some of NBC's biggest power players and it presents Letterman as this smart and savvy businessman who, despite having Carson's support, was railroaded by NBC and Kushnick. John Michael Higgins and Daniel Roebuck credibly recreate Letterman and Leno, respectively, but it is the razor-sharp performance of Oscar winner Kathy Bates as Helen Kushnick that keeps this movie bubbling. Bates commands the screen in one of her best, if not so well-known performances as the venomous Hollywood agent who eats television studio executives for breakfast. There is also a wonderful turn by impressionist Rich Little as Johnny Carson, but it is primarily a fascinating story and the powerhouse performance by Bates that make this one worth checking out.


Although a made for cable film by HBO, it is an enjoyable movie and a fascinating look at the back-stabbing and double-dealing world of television. Allowing the viewer to peek behind the scenes of the so-called late night talk show wars in the early 90s, as Jay Leno and David Letterman competed for the coveted position as host of the Tonight Show. Kathy Bates gives a bravo performance as Leno's mercurial manager Helen Kushnick and one can feel empathy for what Leno/Letterman endured at the hands of tv executives. It is just as timely now, considering the recent events involving the failed attempt by ABC to replace Nightline with Letterman. No matter how many times I have seen this film, I still find it as much a pleasure to watch as I did when it first aired. If this should ever be released on DVD, I would certainly add it to my collection.


The Late Shift is a great book, I read the book several years ago, and I was transfixed at the cutthroat debauchery that went on when Johnny Carson retired and Jay Leno and Johnny Carson tried to grab his spot. When the movie came out, I snagged a VHS copy of the movie, and having reread the book recently, it's hard to say which I enjoy more, because they're quite equal in the amount of information conveyed. The two lead actors, John Michael Higgins, and Daniel Roebuck, two actors I never heard of before, and haven't heard of since, play Leno and Letterman convincingly, despite Letterman's dismissal of his portrayal as being poor. They play the parts quite well, despite a lot of people looking for an imitation of the two. I wasn't as interested in that. The story is what counts. And that brings me to Kathy Bates. Kathy Bates, playing Helen Kushnick, IS this movie. She plays this evil bitch of a character so menacingly you realize how on earth can this woman control herself, much less a national TV show. Yikes! There should be a sequel!!


Over the years I've watched this movie many times from seeing it on "HBO" and I now own a copy on DVD. I must say it's very memorable and entertaining in the meantime it's interesting and educational too. As any TV fan can relate to the time of the early 90's when the time came up to replace Johhny Carson the TV living legend of "The Tonight Show" who's it gonna be Jay or Dave? This original film from HBO "The Late Shift" stays true to form and depicts the real events very well showing the behind the scenes battle between networks heads of NBC and CBS and even ABC they were all fighting for the services of Jay and Dave. The acting makes it seem real as very little actual TV footage is shown with real life people as the actors portraying Leno and Letterman make it seem so real. I haven't read the Bill Carter book so I don't know if it stayed true to the pages, but I have highly enjoyed this film over the years. From the moment when it starts showing CBS entertainment heads watching Leno sub for Johhny and they decide they want to get in on the late night game. Yet when Carson announces his unexpected retirement NBC wants to stay loyal with Leno yet conflict arrives when Letterman wants a crack at the slot at 11:30 too. It was fun to watch the wacky meeting with Michael Ovitz(Treat Williams)who makes all networks want to consider Letterman for a show. It was interesting to see the scene of Johhny telling Letterman by phone in a direct way to walk from NBC and consider CBS. And by the way Rich Little was terrific as Johhny Carson his portrayal couldn't be matched. And plenty of tense moments were provided by showing the bickering and firing of Leno's talent manager Helen which NBC heads pressured him to do. Overall great film that showed what TV is really like and it proves that networks are power and money hungry while showing that's it's a cutthroat business. Clearly there's no business like show business. Great work from HBO very memorable and a watch anytime it showed the true story of the late night wars.


I think this movie actually has a lot of nice things to say about a lot of people (Johnny Carson, Ted Koppel), and it shows that Letterman and Leno actually liked and respected each other a lot. Treat Williams as the half-Kung Fu Master, half-Godfather-like Mike Ovitz is terrific.


The directing is brilliant, the casting is remarkable (though I would've loved to have seen a little more of Aaron Lustig (from Y & R fame), who played Paul Shaffer). I only have two minor quips about the film, as subtle as they are. One- Roebuck's Leno is excellent, but his stage presence (i.e. during what appears the taping of one of his late show episodes) is a tad underwhelming. Two- the distribution of the foul language. I am willing to tolerate foul language, so long as it is not used gratuitously, and to a degree, the film was gratuitous. The language seemed to be used as a tool to reduce the pathos of Bates' otherwise well-portrayed Kushnick by her frequent use of it, and served to make Roebuck's Leno a goody-goody by his lack of use of it (of course, if the characters really did behave this way, kudos to everybody). Nonetheless, the piece is an excellent one, as far as television and video are concerned. The film, I feel, had potential for the big screen, but would've required re-casting for the bit parts, and probably a different director, as well (the aesthetic feel is that of the Larry Sanders show, good for HBO, mediocre for cinematic purposes).


***SPOILERS*** This film depicts the brutal bloodbath caused by the retirement of Johnny Carson to determine who would succeed him. The impersonations of David Letterman and Jay Leno are performed in a satisfactory way by John Michael Higgins and Daniel Roebuck, though the performances weren't great. Reni Santoni is the best-performing of the "execs" (he plays John Agoglia of NBC), and Warren Littlefield (played by Bob Baliban) is a close second. I was shocked at the way in which Littlefield eagerly discussed dumping Johnny Carson. This was Johnny Carson! This scene evinces the cut-throat, what-have-you-done-for-me-lately world of television. Kathy Bates delivered the best performance of the film as Jay's agent, Helen Kushnick. Another commenter asserted that Leno was portrayed as a simpleton in the film. I respectfully disagree. The relationship with Kushnick bordered on something akin to domestic violence. She orders him around, and, when he rebels against her at the end, she tries to play the sympathy card (mentioning her dead husband and son); however, when Jay terminates their relationship, she turns violent again, screaming "Don't you leave me, you two-faced bastard!" before smashing a picture on the floor. Overall, the movie is hilarious, and I wish that it were shown more often.


I read the book written by Bill Carter on which this movie is based many years ago. The book is certainly stronger than the movie. It provides more detail than a movie can possibly provide, the end result being that I thought the movie seemed a wee bit sketchy on a handful of items. All things considered, though, and given the limitations of the medium, the movie provides a wholly entertaining and informative account of the battle between Jay Leno and David Letterman in the early 90's to host "The Tonight Show" after the retirement of Johnny Carson.

The highlight is clearly the performances. I can think of no more difficult performance for an actor than to play a character who is still alive and well-known and on TV on a regular basis. John Michael Higgins nailed the part of Letterman perfectly. Watching him really was like watching Letterman. Daniel Roebuck tried valiantly to be Jay Leno, but somehow didn't pull it off as effectively. His whole "look" seemed fake, and he just didn't seem natural in the role. In a less central role, Rich Little not surprisingly nailed the voice of Carson, although the look was a bit off. In the book, the most interesting of the central figures was probably Leno's agent, Helen Kushnick. In the movie, Kathy Bates was perfect in the role, although not quite as out of control as Carter's portrayal of the woman in writing.

In the end, this is light and entertaining viewing. The subject matter isn't especially important in the overall scheme of things, but it's a fun behind the scenes look at a memorable time in the entertainment industry. 7/10


I don't even like watching those late night talk shows, but I found this one really interesting. I imagine it's probably close to the truth---it "feels" like an honest account, if that means anything. Kinda feel for the people somewhat when you watch it. A nice movie for a Saturday night.


TV movies generally do not receive as much recognition or credit as great films - and it is usually for good reason but the 1996 HBO movie The Late Shift is easily one of the best TV movies ever. Based on Bill Carter's revealing book, The Late Shift is about NBC's handling of late night talk show hosts David Letterman and Jay Leno when it came to filling the vacant Tonight Show seat once held by Johnny Carson. We see what happens in front of the camera - author Bill Carter, director Betty Thomas, and HBO show us what happened when the cameras were turned off.

Unfortunately we can never really know for sure what really happened when it came time for Johnny Carson to be replaced by either Letterman or Leno - but The Late Shift gives us an interesting possible reality. While simply being a very well made film, The Late Shift also does a really good job of portraying all the sides fairly equally - although you wonder if the film makes Letterman and Leno out to be too nice of guys; especially Leno, who seems a bit too saintly.

The performances are also very good. In a very deserving Golden Globe-winning performance, Kathy Bates plays Leno's extremely pushy manager Helen Kushnick who, according to Carter and the book/film was very problematic for the studio and Leno (the real Kushnick actually suited Bill Carter for libel over this portrayal!). John Michael Higgins breaks out of his usual gigs of getting small quirky comedy parts and gives an excellent performance as David Letterman - giving an excellent impression of Letterman but also creating a dimensional and relatable character. Daniel Roebuck gives a good performance as Leno but does not quite measure up to some of the other talent in the film - Roebuck probably did the best anyone could have done, it is just looks hammy whenever anyone tries to do an impression or portrayal of Leno. Bob Balaban (a squirrelly Warren Littlefield), Treat Williams (a magician-like Michael Ovitz), and Ed Begley Jr.(a pompous Rod Perth) also give memorable supporting performances.

The Late Shift certainly is one of the best made-for-TV movies I have ever seen. I suppose if one has not watched David Letterman or Jay Leno, The Late Shift might not be for them but it is an interesting film for those who get into the late night politics - something that has recently reared its ugly head yet again with the 2009-10 Conan/Leno/NBC debacle.


Good movie, great story, great characters, I enjoyed it immensely, enough to buy the DVD when it came out.

The real life story it purports to tell is more fascinating and engrossing than anything the fictionalizers could ever come up with. My friend who is in the media business said they shouldn't show insider dealings like this, it gives the business a bad name. As if.

There are a few problems with the DVD though: First, the sound volume is awfully low so you have to run up the TV volume to watch it. I notice that its also like that when HBO runs it so its in the original production copy. Second, for about the first five minutes the left side of the video is cut off, that is the picture is cut off about one inch short of the left side. After the five minutes it fills the screen properly, left to right. Sloppy technical production like that is very amateurish and I don't know why the director and producer let such sloppiness slide by.

Still, even with the technical flaws, its an enjoyable story, one of HBO's best I think.


This is a clever and entertaining film about the backroom battling that went on to choose a successor to Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show. However, the movie's ultimate thesis, that David Letterman's superior comedic talents were overlooked because of his controversial nature, and the show diminished by the enthronement of an inferior Jay Leno in the leading comedy program on television is simply untrue, as anyone who has watched both Leno and Letterman perform can see for themselves. The hard and simple truth is exactly as one NBC exec stated in the film "Jay Leno is the funniest man in America." And David Letterman is not. Once you realize this, then much of the machinations in the film become irrelevant. Ultimately, the whole film amounts to little more than sour grapes by Letterman fans, who just cannot accept that the better comic was chosen by people whose business it is to know these kind of things. The final proof is that despite Letterman's early lead, possibly because of the hype that emerged from the battle for Tonight Show succession, Leno's show has consistently proved to be the more popular, thus, in my mind at least, refuting Letterman's claims to be unfairly robbed of his rightful inheritance.


I remember this movie getting a lot of flak from reviewers when it was new. Letterman and Leno themselves had objections. Letterman called it (paraphrasing) the biggest waste of film he'd ever seen, and Leno objected to the simpleton portrayal of himself. But Letterman had John Michael Higgins as a guest on his show so it seems he didn't take anything too personally. A DVD re-release, with opinions and such from those involved, could be interesting, though I suspect the days when late night talkshow wars captivated the nation are gone and not returning soon.

I preferred the Letterman impersonation to the Leno, but could never buy in to either. They never rose above caricature, and I never simply accepted them as actors. For comparison: Paul Sorvino as Kissinger in Oliver Stone's "Nixon" comes to mind as an impersonation which may have seemed laughable in the first few moments but which seemed at least plausible after the first moments of amusement wore off.

The highlight of the show for me was Treat Williams as Michael Ovitz. Williams' speech to Letterman was not as great as but reminiscent of Alec Baldwin's entrance (and quick exit) as Blake in Glengerry Glen Ross.

They could have done more with Johnny's role in all this. I know he was mostly uninvolved in the events portrayed in this movie, and most audiences will be familiar with his reputation such that Johnny Carson needs no introduction. But more context about why Dave and Jay and all comedians revere Johnny would have given this flick the substance it lacks in being a gossip film.

Guess I should read the book...

Rich Little imitating Johnny Carson, unfortunately, came across as nothing more than Rich Little imitating Johnny Carson.

I tell you what, after watching this movie, then watching either the Letterman or Leno show, all I want to do is crack open my Johnny Carson DVDs and see the real thing.


Now, I'm a bit biased, since I'm a big fan of late night television. I've been a loyal fan of Jay Leno for about 6 or 7 years, and think he's one of the funniest, most talented comedians out there. And David Letterman is one hell of a comedian as well, though I only watch his show (unless Jay's a repeat) during commercials or when he has a better guest than Jay on the show. Daniel Roebuck and John Michael Higgins are both fine actors and they very much resembled Jay and Dave, but did they disappear into the characters? Nope. Roebuck barely nails down Jay's voice and expression, mumbling at a high pitch, sounding like a castrati Marlon Brando. Higgins nails down David's facial expressions (for example, his trademark squirm) but he doesn't nail down Dave's voice. Those who aren't big fans of late night TV might be a lot less biased. There's a couple comedians who can do dead-on impersonations of Jay. Why couldn't they have selected one of them for the part? And the same goes with Dave. I'd rather they had Norm McDonald play the part. Norm doesn't look a hell of a lot like Dave, but he did a great impersonation of him on SNL. "Hey...you got any gum?" That was so hilarious!

However, I learned a lot about the late night wars which I had very little knowledge of at first. I never watched "The Tonight Show" prior to when Jay Leno was host, so I didn't know about the struggle to finally replace Johnny Carson and the countless negotiations that finally convinced Dave to move to CBS. I knew very little about what happened behind the scenes and found the film very enlightening. And Kathy Bates gives a knockout performance as the foul-mouthed former executive producer of "The Tonight Show." She basically steals the film.

My score: 7 (out of 10)


Leno talks through his punch lines. This spoils the joke, for those of you who haven't figured it out. His show is held in a micro sized studio for a reason, or two reasons -- the small amount of laughter will be amplified, and few want to see him. Letterman's set is the polar opposite -- Ed Sullivan would be proud and the balcony is always full.

NBC, tacky NBC, will never get it. Founder David Sarnoff's megalomaniacal enterprise continues to be all about the money. At least CBS has a bit of a family feel to it.

Leno collects cars, or is it stamps, while Letterman races cars. The difference is informative.

When I chatted I used to ask other chatters to email me if Leno _ever_ said something that was funny. I never got a single email. Letterman has superb timing. He also can re-use the most unfunny joke in such a way that it becomes one of the funniest things in that night's show.

Letterman has built other careers. Paul is now well known and respected in his own musical right. Even Paul's other band members get recognition and career boosting. Biff Henderson has become a name America knows of. Even the businesses in the same block as the Ed Sullivan theater get a boost. What has Leno ever done for anyone else? Personally, I am glad that Dave moved and Leno got the Carson gig. I never watched NBC shows before and had no reason to after.

The Top Ten list is an American icon. So is Letterman. Leno is a caricaturist's dream, nothing more.


"Man of the Year" tells the story of Tom Dobbs (Robin Williams) a political comedian (like Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert) who has his own television show. On his show he talks about all sorts of things but his main focus are political issues which he is very opinionated about. One day on his show, a fan from the audience raises the idea that Dobbs should run for President of the United States. After that episode aired, millions flocked to the web to create various petitions and voice their opinions on why Dobbs would make a great candidate for the President for the United States. A few weeks later, Dobbs decides to run for President and low and behold wins the election. Everything seems to be going as planned until a woman by the name of Eleanor Green (Laura Linney) shows up and starts some controversy regarding his position. A funny yet serious political thriller ensues

Man anyone walking into this film expecting to see a brainless comedy will surely be disappointed. I always wonder how some people are film marketers when I see how misleading their marketing campaigns. "Man of the Year" is a great example of bad and misleading marketing, because everything from the poster, to the trailer, to the online advertisements makes this movie look and feel like a comedy. I would honestly have to say about 1/3 of the film is funny while the rest of it plays off as a political thriller that makes good arguments and allows its audience to think. I kind of wonder in this case if the marketing was done on purpose since this film addresses pretty serious issues in-between its comedy routine.

But enough about marketing, lets get down to the film itself.

I really liked "Man of the Year" even though I was expecting to see a comedy instead of a serious film. One of the many things I will give this film credit for is that the film does a decent job switching between comedy and drama even though at first it seems a little awkward. I really think that after you figure this out that the movie is going to be more of a political thriller than a comedy you get comfortable with it. Some may not because they are lead to believe that they are seeing a comedy and don't understand what this film is trying to say in the end but for those people they can blame the marketers for not advertising this film right.

"Man of the Year" talks about a lot of things and seems to have a very strong opinion. As Tom Dobbs speaks he is saying things that need to be said and isn't about candy coating them. I also think the whole political subplot, while most critics say hurt the film probably again because of the misleading marketing, was very good. The idea of computerize voting has been tossed around the last few years and with all the problems computers have the issue being addressed in this film could surely be realistic. Also the control big businesses have over voting also gets addressed.

As far as acting goes, I think everyone involved did a good job. Robin Williams had a chance to be funny yet serious at the same time by playing Tom Dobbs. Some say that Williams has overstayed his welcome as a comedian but I personally still think he is funny and he's a good serious actor as well. This is probably one of the few occasions though that we get to see him go back and forth from serious to funny and I think it works well. Also it's nice to see Lewis Black co-star in a decent film. Again I like Black when he appears on "The Daily Show" and does stand up however most of the films he has been in were awful. This was a good movie for him because I think his political views fit in with the story that director Barry Levinson was trying to convey. Laura Linney is a fine addition to the cast and proves once again that she is a very good actress and lastly Christopher Walken and Jeff Goldblum both do a very good job as always with this roles handed to them.

"Man of the Year" was written and directed by Barry Levinson, the man who has brought us such films as "Rain Man," "Good Morning Vietnam," and "Wag the Dog." Levinson does a fine job writing the film and directing it. Like I said I know a lot of critics didn't like the whole political thriller aspect of the film but I thought it fit in nicely. It was actually nice to watch a mainstream movie that allowed me to both think and laugh at the same time. Barry Levinson did a fine job with this film.

In the end, don't go into this film expecting to see the movie that the commercials are selling you. It does have laughs but at the same time it plays off more as a political drama. It's not as stupid or silly as the marketing campaign leads you to believe. I really liked the fact that this film that this film wasn't a typical Hollywood film. It tried to be a comedy and a serious drama at the same time and worked at least for me. I like the fact that the film didn't really tone down any of the issues it addressed nor did it have a typical Hollywood ending. I was trying to call the ending from the get go but surprisingly it didn't end the way I thought which made me happy. It's a movie that will make you laugh but then a few minutes later allow you to think and wonder what's going to happen next. I think its a good movie that will be hurt by its bad marketing.


I completely disagree with the other comments! I too saw this film at an early screening and found it quite enjoyable. Robin Williams is in top form. True, the tone is familiar, but it is Williams of Good Morning Vietnam: smart, funny, on point. After too many dark turns, Williams is finally back to what he does best. The supporting actors give great performances, especially Laura Linney and Chris Walken. Chris plays himself, as usual, but as the "agent" to the next president he was a delight each time on screen. Lewis Black plays only himself basically, but he is wonderfully well used here. There is also a fun turn by Jeff Goldblum. The movie is more than what the trailer suggests, as well. The movie is funny, but it is not a pure comedy as suggested. It has a bit of a thriller line, which everyone should seriously consider, especially if you pay attention to the newspaper.


When taken as a whole for its ideas and dissection of the current 2-party system and political process, I think this is a great film. Granted the movie was not the comedy I expected, but once I got over that this film really made me think. So much of what we see and hear in regards to any election is such a joke. There is in particular a debate scene in this movie that I felt was a masterful critique of our political debates and how policies are "discussed" at them. I encourage anyone who thinks our process is fine to go see this film. If you want something to laugh at however, Robin Williams and Christopher Walken are not their usual selves. In this movie they show us that the truth hurts, not that the truth is funny.


This movie was advertised as a comedy but was far more serious than the trailers made it out to be. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie, but was expecting more laughs. Great performances from Robin Williams and Laura Linney. Worth seeing, but don't go expecting to be rolling on the floor. The movie left me wondering what it would be like if Robin Williams character was a real person that was running for president. Would we elect a comedian? I doubt it, unfortunately. That kind of stark honesty is something greatly lacking today. This is a movie that I will be adding to my DVD library as soon as it comes out on DVD. The movie has heart.


A political satire of a comedian (Williams) who after dissing the political campaigns and presidents is forced into the running. But shockingly we wins and makes a mockery of the office. "Man of the Year" is not the funniest movie nor the best but in small doses it does work. Williams again teaming with Levinson after a hit with "Good Morning, Vietnam". The two seem to have a great chemistry and work off each other. I am not comparing them to Scorsese and DeNiro but you can get the picture. Although I wouldn't quite say to rush out there and see the movie in theaters I would recommend renting it. This movie is a comedy but also has a great satire, please if you like movies like "Scary Movie 4" this is not for you, take your brain with you to see it. - ***


Robin Williams is a genius. One of the best comedians in the world. He really shows off in this one, cracking jokes left and right as the talk show comedian Tom Dobbs. From the previous this looked like it would be a side-splitting laugh fest. And it was funny. But there were a lot of serious parts in the movie that I was not expecting. I would describe it as a drama/comedy. But it's still worth the money to see, and I still found it to be almost everything that I expected. Robin Williams is at his best, along with the famous Christopher Walken. They play a very good team in this movie and I was actually shocked to see how well the two were able to work together. I recommend it to anyone who is looking for a light-hearted movie.


The movie is more of a mockumentary of corruption in the whole American system. The correlations of those who vote who do not matter is so proved in the machines that end of voting a comedian to the oval office. Politicians are such a joke that we almost need a comic to represent us as we have been laughed at for years around the world. Bushism's have become a way of life for Americans and will be the only thing left after he leaves office none to soon. Oddly the only person of honesty is someone not even elected to the position and tells the truth in the end. The story is very subtle and if you go to it for laughs, it ain't happening. Leaves a lot for thought. Overall I enjoyed it.


Over the years, I've come to be a fan of director/writer Barry Levinson and he didn't let me down with this very funny look at politics. Popular TV comedian Tom Dobbs(Robin Williams)has enlightened the nation with his scathing jokes about the state of the country and elected politicians responsible. Night after night, he has his fans rolling in the isles; then the question is proposed that Dobbs run for president himself. His manager Jack Menken(Christopher Walken)says go for it. Dobb's flippant truisms flames a grass-root movement that puts him on the ballot. Comedian to President-Elect. Meanwhile, a young woman(Laura Linney)finds a flaw in the computer system that will count the ballots coast to coast. My favorite sequence is Linney's meltdown in the coffee shop.Williams is absolutely hysterical with his rapid quips. Others of note in the cast: Jeff Goldblum, Lewis Black and Rick Roberts.


This film was really different from what I had imagined but exceeded my expectations nevertheless. This film has the exactly right mixture of comedy, drama, political criticism and satire (not necessarily in that order). Without being patronizing or wisenheimer it reveals the open and subtle problems of our capitalist democratic high technology society. It makes you laugh instantly and remain in thought afterwards. For those of you who liked "wag the dog" and wished to have humane and manlike politicians this film should definitely be the choice!

"politicians are a lot like diapers: they should be changed frequently and for the same reasons."


Actually I'll admit I'm a political junkie, so this resonated with me, but the erratic nature of Ms. Green (yes I know what they did to her), but the ending was such a copout and totally inconsistent with the film itself.

Why can't Barry L and crew just left us wondering what he was going to do? Let us debate it.

Instead they have this "oh I'm not worthy" bullshit ending and it just shows that when the chips were down it's better to leave the table instead of doubling down. Stop the Disney ending and putting a bow on it. Life isn't easy, they should have had the courage to give the main character some backbone.

We had to listen to the rhetoric the entire movie... and then it turned sniveling and the stupid, inane behavior by Ms. Green (when the crap was out of her system) just made for a ridiculous near end of the movie that was icing on the cake.


This film is a great comedy drama. Christopher Walken is tremendous in his supporting role as manager, and his commentary will keep you laughing. Robin Williams plays a great role as a quick wit "Jon Stewart" and will amuse you if you are fans of Comedy Central. The show is good, because if the viewer has half-a-brain, they will see it as a very needed sub-cultural attack on the policies of the current Republican Government and a criticism on the American Democratic Process..., not to mention the means by which most politicians get elected.

I was amused at the sub-plots and found the film to be very fast paced and entertaining, without any of the usual "oh-brother's" I would agree the film is less comedy than marketed, however, without question better than 90% of the garbage in theatres at present. Just my thoughts...Don


Robin Williams shows his stand-up talents and boosts up his status as a comedian in this movie of "what's wrong-in American politics and how can Hollywood try to make an influence without boring people". Of course Hollywood uses movies with hidden or not-so-hidden agendas. I think this movie is for people who likes stand-up and political discussion. And the trailers of this movie were for everybody just to make sure as many people as possible will see this. Everybody knows Hollywood is more liberal/democrat than the bush&co so they have to make these movies every now and then...but this one was perhaps too obvious, at least I thought so, for making any real change.

Still, great stand-up and fresh political issues and talks...I enjoyed it and thanks to IMDb.com ratings I was positively surprised when I walked out from the movie theater, and yes, I laughed many times. Sometimes you just have to let it go and forget all the seriousness....see this movie if you like good and clever stand-up or politics and you will not be offended by the several references of how things are not good right now. Rent it if that doesn't match you.


Not every line in a comedy is funny. This movie takes a serious subject, the disenfranchisement of voters and holds it up to the light while telling jokes about it. It's the movie The Daily Show would have made if they wanted to turn it into a movie. I found Robin Williams to be much funnier in this movie than he was in RV. And while my wife and I share a few opposing political views, we were both doubled over in laughter for several parts of this movie. The script writers here could give Fox News some lessons in fair and balanced. Lewis Black was okay for his part, but never really seemed to be able to bring out his particular brand of comedy for his role. Christopher Walken was also good, playing his fairly common subdued supporting role, pushing a story along.


I went to see this thinking it would be a great comedy and a comeback for Robin Williams, but when I saw it I realized I had bee lied to by advertisers as this is more drama than comedy, although it has a few really good laughs in it. It felt like I was watching two movies. One was a funny romp with Robin Williams that should have been the whole basin for the movie anyway, but you also get a techno thriller movie with political angst in the middle. I really don't know how to classify this film. But I can tell you it was good and I did laugh, not as much as I had hoped, but at least Williams is back in the right direction. See this but know before going it is not all comedy and is a little intense.


This movie reminds me of great movies that temporarily wake me up with the realization that the Emperor is indeed naked. Our election process is unclothed and dismal. My awareness is heightened and I want to see the world change. After a short while I am lulled back to my little complacency and "bubble life." In the best sense of film this work will ferment into an edible stew for me and like in "Network" I want to be convicted to say'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!' But to whom? My vigorous youthful idealism has been slowly reduced to concerned parent with quiet convictions or rather "beliefs." "Man of the year" reveals how much I yearn for honest and sometimes humorous takes on our current political situation. Dobbs' line " I did inhale because I thought 'What the hell,it's lit, it's in my hand, I'll inhale it.'" was refreshing or would've been when Clinton was President. Why can't politicians be honest and set that tone for debates? We people must realize how much veneer is being put forth as real? I am sick of this election process already,anyone else? Let take off the veils and set an agenda for our elected officials and take them to task (not re-elect) when they continue with evasion and non-representation of citizenry. This movie can inspire us to increase our expectations of politicians that spew rhetoric. Great Film!


This was an interesting movie...half-comedy, half-political thriller. It had a lot of good elements, although it was a little predictable.

Robin Williams stars as Tom Dobbs, a popular comedian with a hit show in which he gives political commentary. Think Daily Show With John Stuart. During the taping of one of his shows, a female in the audience tells him he should run for president. That, followed by a few jokes taken seriously, were all that was needed to get the ball rolling and start Dobbs' political career.

He runs independently, and opposes democrats and republicans equally. He is straightforward and honest, and becomes increasingly popular--but maybe not popular enough to actually win. He's clearly the underdog in this election.

Meanwhile, a corrupt software company has created a program to make voting much quicker and easier for the common people--but there is a glitch. The glitch is discovered by a young lady named Elanor (Linnley) who is appeased by the software developer with a lie that he fixed the glitch before the upcoming election.

Election day comes around, and lo and behold Dobbs is declared the winner. (Big Surprise!) Elanor knows that he is not really the president--he didn't win legitimately--She decides to tell the president...but complications arise. Her company went as far as poisoning her in order to silence her. In addition to that, she quickly takes a liking to Dobbs.

The plot takes a few twists and turns, before reaching it's slightly predictable conclusion. But, it never got boring. Robin was great as usual, and Christopher Walken often stole the show as Dobbs' manager-turned-political-adviser and best friend.

It's an entertaining film, and it has a good message. I recommend it if you're in the mood for dark satire, or something that makes you think. Overall I give it a 7/10.


Robin Williams is a national treasure, specially when he cuts loose and puts aside his maudlin approach to drama. He manages to liven up the usual restrained pacing of Barry Levinson, and there are moments in this film when he truly shines.

As the funny elected American president in "Man of The Year" Williams recaptures the hilarity and outrageousness that used to be associated with him. What makes him so appealing is his humanity and likability. Here is a man who can lash at his audience but truly loves them, too. His humour is like barbed wire, and yet it is cathartic. It is what makes him very appealing to the people in the film and in real life.

Laura Linney is once again portraying an intelligent woman in distress. She is a fabulous and very talented performer, but I think she has boxed into a stereotype and unfortunately, it would have been more interesting to have a less recognizable performer in this case. Walken pretty much walks through his thankless role, and the climatic scene in the SNL skit barely floats above water.

Go in for a few hilarious moments, and those are priceless. Enjoy Williams and forget some of the deep moments that slow down this otherwise entertaining movie.


if you are going to see this movie, by all means don't go into this movie with the expectation of this movie will be absolutely hilarious because you will be let down. yeah sure its funny at times but i would consider it a political thriller masqueraded as a comedy. the performances are very good especially by jeff goldblum as the head of the election company. even though he has limited screen time he makes a lasting impression. of course robin williams is excellent.laura linney is very good too what a surprise. she is one of the finest actresses in Hollywood and one scene in particular shows this. this film makes you think. what if a comedian ran for president and actually won? would the country be better off or would the country shatter into a million pieces?


This is a masterpiece. 'The Big Snit' is a crazy, weird, hilarious and eventually touching look at an old married couple and their quiet life, who argue over sawing and scrabble while a nuclear war rages on outside. Everything in this great animated short stands out as memorable: The eye shaking of the wife, the vacuuming binge, the husband's saw fetish (keep an eye on those backgrounds!), the very verbal cat, the demented game show, the "informative" news anchor, the "beautiful" accordion serenade and the moving and memorable ending. I am so glad I found 'The Big Snit', which is hands down one of the greatest works of film ever produced.


'The Big Snit' came into my life complete by accident and has left an indelible mark on my soul. A scar of love, destruction and pointlessness that will forever be a part of my life. This is tale of beautiful futility. We are helpless without each other. We are helpless against governmental wrong-doings. We are helpless as to the choices we all try to make when in love. Deaf to the mutterings and goings on of an world outside the window. Blind to an inevitable apocalypse. Dumb of the hatred and greedy opinions of an over-indulgent society. This is a tale of personal commitment and triumphant love defeating the ideologies of war. Their petty bickering is a sublime observation of human nature and of how love comes with it's pains and darkness Everyone has some irritating aspect to their personality and this is observed by the makers in the most simplistic and fantastic way. We travel only a short distance with the two main characters but are left wanting to complete our own journeys with a some of their simple,loving, honest philosophy in tow. I am so very glad that i exist in this 'our time'. Another 20 years either side of my birth date, and i would not have seen and felt.... ....The Big Snit. William White. Sheffield.


This film is all about humans. This film stayed as my all time favorite short cartoon for years.

Isn't it the simplest things that make life so much more interesting?! We humans are so soft, compassionate, funny, caring to each other one moment -- we invent the most beautiful and amazing machines to kill as many people as possible with the least effort the next. In our short lives, we destroy our world, each other and often, our own lives, than spend the rest of our lives trying to fix what we've destroyed. Sometimes, there is nothing left to fix!

This film can entertain, educate and even help us realize what is wrong in our lives! Life is short and can be even shorter! The ending is way too optimistic I am afraid.

I love Richard Condie's mind and what he makes happen with it!

Enjoy

H.K.


Richard Condie is a Canadian marvel, and one that should be shared with the world. Be it for gut-busting early work such as "Getting Started" and the Oscar-nominated "Snit" through "The Apprentice" and the digitally made "La Salla", Condie is a treasured local hero. But no singular piece of work puts a stamp on his career quite like "The Big Snit". And did I mention it was nominated for an Academy Award? Darn tootin'.

"The Big Snit", although clearly a dated message-bearer from the 1980s (the short revolves around Cold War-esquire nuclear annihilation, but don't worry  it's hilarious as hell), carries with it a larger meaning, as is most of Condie's work in an understated sort of way. While the planet scurries for cover from Armageddon, a couple bickers over each others' annoying habits (in true Condie fashion, he hacksaws the furniture while she shakes her eyes  literally). And don't forget to watch it again and again, 'cuz there's always something to look at. Condie loads this fella up with countless visual gags and memorable catch-phrases.

I strongly encourage this incredible piece of animation be tracked down. In Canada it's usually spotted in a National Film Board video that includes other stellar shorts (including fellow Winnipegger Cordell Barker's equally funny "The Cat Came Back"). Americans will just have to dig a little deeper, but keep at it  the reward is worth the toil.


Richard Condie's utter maddness insanity cartoon 'The Big Snit', is a trip through qwerkyness, madness, hillarity, enjoyable backgrounds, melting characters, and a conclusion that nearly brings me to happy tears everytime I see it.

This short I have seen over and over AND OVER and I NEVER TIRE of it (luckily having it on tape from a broadcast on TV)!! It never stops to make me burst out in laughter uncontrollably, and then reach down into the depths of my spirit, highlighting the greatness of the human condition.

Cause when someone says, 'Come on, let's finish the game' everything is alright in the world and the troubles that we face everyday we suddenly realise are all petty fleeting things not to fight or worry about anymore. This film at first seems just like a simple exercise in cartoon slapstick humour, but it is far more than that. This film hits a greater sense of spiritual meaning with mankind in the wake when everything seems to be so bad and trivial.

It is flawless... in every way. AND DAMN FUNNY TOO ;)

Rating 10 out of 10.


...the world may never know. (The film that did take the "best animated short" Oscar that year, "Anna and Bella", is very good, but it's no "Big Snit". Both are available on Expanded Entertainment's "World's Greatest Animation" compilation, in case you'd like to compare.)

"Snit" and its director, Richard Condie, have attracted so much attention that there's little for me to add. I'd like to note, however, that the film contains one of my very favorite single "shots" in an animated short, the one where the man opens the door to let the cat out. I don't want to give away the actual events depicted here, but the first time I saw the shot I was whipsawed from one mood to another, then seconds later to still another. That shot has never failed to affect me that way since. For this shot, and for the way Condie builds up to that set of moments, "The Big Snit" deserves the tag of "masterpiece".


I have only seen this once--in 1986, at an "artsy" theater in Minneapolis...but I remember it like I saw it a thousand times this morning. Hilarious ("Sawing for Teens", playing Scrabble with all "e" tiles), beautifully animated (taking off her eyes, shaking them back into position, then putting them back on), and poignant (the end of the world, the pettiness of a snit)...

Required viewing for the human race. Calling this simply a cartoon is like calling THE GREAT GATSBY nifty typing.


This is a very strange little short film that initially didn't impress me. From a purely aesthetic point of view, the animation here certainly ain't pretty--though after a while you notice that the simple and silly drawings do possess a certain odd charm. That's probably because with the script as screwy as this one, the animation works.

The film shows an older couple sitting at the table playing Scrabble. At the same time they are fixated on this game or other bizarre pursuits (such as the husband's compulsion to saw things--even the chair and table)! And all of this stuff occurs as the television warns of pending atomic annihilation--Armageddon is definitely here! Naturally, the neighbors are screaming and running amok--during which time the couple obliviously continues with this idiotic game. Heck, even their cat knows the end is coming as the couple begin bickering about who may or may not have cheated--leading to a very surreal ending indeed!! The film deserves kudos for both being unique as well as very funny. While it did not win the Oscar, it was nominated for Best Animated Short--which it richly deserved.


This hugely entertaining short is considered one of the best shorts ever, and I certainly won't argue with that. Even in a country where top-notch animated shorts are created with regularity, this film still manages to stand out. If you ever get the chance to view this film, please do so. It's only ten minutes long, and yet it contains a man who is obsessed with saws, a woman who vacuums the bathtub, and a nuclear war. What more could you want in a film?


Just went on YouTube and finally watched this Oscar-nominated animated short directed by Richard Condie. I had previously watched his funny Getting Started there. In this one, a couple are playing Scrabble. The wife keeps shaking her eyes while her husband has nothing but E's on his side. The wife leaves for a while to vacuum her bed and bathtub(!) before catching her husband looking at her side. Briefly before this, the husband catches a TV show called "Sawing for Teens" with the stars sawing something and the husband getting his own saw. That program gets interrupted by a special report of a nuclear war happening (the newsman is a skeleton here) as everyone panics outside though the husband fell asleep during this time and thinks a parade is going on as he and his wife continue arguing about the game...There's plenty of other bizarre things going on before the touching ending comes on. Quite hilarious and well worth seeing for any animation buff out there. Can't wait to see any more animated shorts from Mr. Condie...


Man am I stoked I can leave feedback for this 10 minutes romp. I love it.

After not seeing it in years, I happened upon it the other day and watched it over and over.

'Stop shaking your eyes' and 'shake a rock and roll band' and 'stop sawing the table' are freaking classic lines.

The art is delightfully raw. The dialog sparse and wonderful. Just find it and love it. Cannot recommend this enough.

Thank you high school art teacher Mrs. Kogan for showing us this over and over. Thank you NFB for letting it be made. Thank you MTS for showing it (for free at the moment at least).

I want a Big Snit t-shirt now. I'd love an animation cell, but at 440.00 a pop, that won't happen.

Find this flick, and watch it.


This short was nominated for an Academy Award, losing to Anna and Bella. Not since Doctor Strangelove has nuclear war been so hilarious! Condie takes a situation and turns it on its ear and then gives it a spin for good measure. Visual gags abound in Condie's work and I always see something I missed before every time I watch this. On The World's Greatest Animation, well worth seeing for thisand many other shorts. Recommended.


It's a shame that by garnering a restricted rating, perhaps the audience that would find this film the most useful won't likely see it.

Imaginary Heroes follows the life of a teenager after his brothers' suicide. Not, of course, the most original story in the world, however it does spend a great deal of time humanizing their parents, the 'imaginary heroes' that failed in their sons' eyes.

For teenagers, who tend to put responsibility for their failures on their parents but yet refuse to accept any real responsibility on their own, the movie sends a powerful message, that in the end we all have our own troubles we need to deal with, and that we all make our own paths.

But, unlike other movies that tend to urge youth independence, this one resolves the issues between parents and child, and they become a stronger unit for it. That the eldest child committed suicide is regrettable, but not overlooked later in the film, and the responsibility by all parties for the tragedy is thoroughly explained.

Although the subject matter has been covered before, it hasn't been covered quite this way -- the film pulls very little punches. Now, why this earned it an R rating is confusing -- you're unlikely to get across to a teenager in this era without being realistic, but yet providing realism restricts that very audience.

Were my junior high-school class have been shown this film, two suicides may have been prevented. In this case, the censors seem to have exercised extremely poor judgment.

8/10


Saw this film when it was an entry in Santa Fe Film Festival. Heavy film! Depiction of a completely dysfunctional family taken to another level of the extreme, might have left me depressed to the extreme, had it not been for very funny sight gags and dialogue along the way which lightened the film's overall tone. The relatively "uplifting" ending gave hope for those affected by the initial tragedy. Still, I did not walk out of the theatre ready to go to a fun party. The film stayed with me for several days.

Brought back memories of "Ordinary People", but with humor mixed in with the tragedy. I thought the acting was excellent, especially by Sigourney Weaver and Emile Hirsh. How each character dealt with the tragedy was at times sad, self-defeating, but also at times hilarious. Clever dialogue, and situations.


This film is chock-full of little surprises, many of them funny. The fact that it's written and directed by a 24-year old blows my mind. Some of the scenes where the high school kids are using ecstasy made me very uncomfortable because I have a kid that age and I could picture her using it. As parent of a teen, I found the depictions of the parent-child interactions to be dead-on accurate.

I enjoyed the film's many little jokes, and I enjoyed the fact that not everything made perfect sense and not all the issues were resolved by the end. To paraphrase Mark Twain, truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction is required to stick to that which is possible, while truth is not.

This is a film which plays with the viewer, allowing us believe that people are what other people think they are, only to allow us later to realize that the folks we assumed were right were completely ignorant of the real situation. One of the film's strongest scenes, a scene about which we feel very relieved and sympathetic about what the character is doing, turns out to be based on a completely wrong assumption, and the character, while admirable, is totally wrong. It's very subtly done, I think. Very realistic.

I liked the score a lot -- I thought it really aided the film, really helped set the mood -- the film has a couple of screwball moments, and the background music helps establish that.

The valedictorian speech is a hoot and a half -- got a big laugh! The movie is really in my head right now -- saw it this morning. Will try to see it again, time allowing. Tens are hard to come by, but a solid nine in my book.


This film is a powerful commentary on family life in North America today. The story is so well constructed, it almost feels like its happening across the street, right now! If you are connected with your family and community in any way, this film will grab you and transport you to the Travis' home and not allow you to leave until the credits are done.

Our imaginary heroes, through a myriad of innocent circumstances, often unwittingly, lead us down a path of sorrow, confusion and isolation. The Travis family, after a terrible tragedy, invite each of us; father, mother, brother and sister, into their respective lives to share their experience in a dynamic set of circumstances that just doesn't quit. We see all of the above and eventually the joy, in powerful performances by the major players and the rest of the cast, making this film a movie-goers absolute treasure.

In a film so well done as this, it is usually difficult to to find something special, but Sigourney Weaver's portrayal of Sandy Travis was outstanding. I would be surprised if others didn't recognize it as such.

Clearly a 10. Well done!


Wow. When I went to this film at the Toronto film festival I had no idea what I was in for. This movie takes you on an emotional roller-coaster in the best sense of the term. Sigourney Weaver was better than I've seen from her in years; Emile Hirsch was great and Jeff Daniels broke my heart. I can see how this won't be every person's cup of tea, as at times it deals with some pretty harsh things that can happen to a family. Don't get me wrong -- it's really funny too -- at my screening the audience burst out in applause after laughing over and over again. I just think if you're open to examining your own life, Imaginary Heroes will sincerely touch you. I can't wait until it comes out in theaters.


Imaginary Heroes is clearly the best film of the year. It was a complete and utter joy to watch. I was riveted. The whole audience up at the Sunset Five was riveted, when the film ended no one moved, spoke, nothing. I think this film is a perfect example of the of the power that drama has. Especially in so much as it sets an example of the quality of drama/ work of this younger generation.

There were moments in your film, many, like at least seven, where I was struck by such a great amount of beauty, emotional beauty, that I actually couldn't breathe for a while. And for a catharsis junkie like me, that's about the best censorial experience I could ask for. It is the result of powerful, masterful storytelling and direction. Like heavyweight stuff, like Burtolucci and those guys.

Each element of the film fit tightly together. There were no missteps at all. The cast was amazing. I have been a huge fan of Emile's and Ryan's for a long time, and I thought they have never been better. I was/am/will be continuously stunned by this film. And I promise I will drag every person I know to see it. It should be seen. It should win awards.


It is hard to judge 'Imaginary Heroes' without referring to the fact that director and script writer Dan Harris is only 25. You can hardly believe seeing this film, which is not only a mature piece of work, professional and deep, but also with some of the defects of routine specific to older directors.

The setting is the American suburb, too familiar from 'American Beauty' or 'Desperate Housewives'. As in 'American Beauty'the film turns around a suicide, but here it happens at the beginning of the movie, and we are left watching a mid-class family coping with the death of the gifted sportsman brother and son. Emile Hirsch plays the younger brother, Sigourney Weaver is the mother, both are excellent trying to cope with the loss, to find the reason and motivation to survive. Harris drives his actors with a sure hand, and the first two sections of the film (there are four in total, as the seasons of the year) build a wonderful tension, with credible dilemmas and real questions. It is the second part of the film that disappoints slightly, it looks too tired and conventional, and I suspect that the producers may have interfered in the work of the young script-writer and director, trying to bring him closer to the Hollywood convention. That's how this film fails to be a somber version of 'American Beauty', with a different focus. I am sure however that we will hear a lot about Dan Harris in the coming years.


The Kinks warned about media heroes. Outside the movies, most heroes are also "Ordinary People." Society demands some role playing, but what happens when that extends to the parent-child relationship? Do some parents try to improve themselves through their children rather than vice versa? How do you provide a role-model but not a role? A brilliant swimmer who hates to swim; a brilliant musician who won't play. Offbeat, funny (despite depiction of "serious" problems), very good multi-dimensional acting by everyone. Lots of plot twists complement the emotional tension. Celluloid heroes never feel any pain. I don't recall ever being disappointed in a Sigourney Weaver film (I even liked "The Village"!).


It occurred to me while watching "Imaginary Heroes" that any screenwriter attempting to make a drama about family relationships should seriously consider killing off a kid or two in the opening reel as a way of getting his characters to open up and reveal themselves. There must be something to this storyline, for it seems as if every other family drama that comes down the pike uses this device in one form or another ("Paradise" and "Moonlight Mile" are just two of the more recent examples that spring immediately to mind, although one could reach back to a golden oldie like "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" to make the point as well). It's not that the death of a child is an illegitimate subject for serious films to explore. Far from it. It's just that, like any topic, it can be so overused that it becomes just another movie cliché, a convenient bit of narrative shorthand to get the ball rolling and to give the characters something to grapple with for the remainder of the time we get to spend with them.

The latest such work is "Imaginary Heroes," a film that borrows heavily from what is one of the earliest and, perhaps, best known examples of the "family coping with the death of a child" genre, the Academy Award winning "Ordinary People." Like the characters in that earlier film, the Travises seem, on the surface, to be the ideal suburban family, until, one fateful day, their oldest son, Matt, who is the "golden boy" athlete and, thus, the apple of his father's eye, kills himself with no explanation (one minor difference is that the son in "Ordinary People" dies as a result of an accident, not a suicide). It is Matt's younger brother, Tim, who winds up finding the body, and who assumes the role of protagonist in the film. Each of the remaining family members copes with the tragedy in his or her own way. Matt, who has always lived in the shadow of his older brother, becomes more and more estranged from the father who has virtually ignored him all his life and begins to turn to drugs for surcease. Ben, the father, becomes swallowed up in feelings of remorse and guilt, turning away from both his job and his family. His wife, Sandy, is the most complex character in the film, a free-spirited child of the '60's who feels oddly adrift in the role of mother and wife as she endures a basically loveless marriage in sterile suburbia. She spends most of her time after the tragedy trying to reconnect with her pot-smoking past.

As written and directed by Dan Harris, "Imaginary Heroes" emerges as a wildly uneven film. For every scene that feels real and authentic, there is another that comes across as arbitrary and inauthentic. One sometimes has the sense that Harris would like to cram every possible life situation he can think of into his screenplay, an admirable goal, perhaps, but one that makes the film unnecessarily melodramatic in the process. Instead of identifying with the characters and being caught up in their plight, we often find ourselves thinking, "Oh, come nowwhat next?" For teen suicide is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the hot-button topics covered in this film; the screenplay also touches on drug and alcohol abuse, physical abuse, sexual identity conflict, life-threatening illness, even inadvertent gay incest. It is this "everything but the kitchen sink" mentality in the writing that robs the movie of much of the credibility it needs to really make us care.

That is not to say that "Imaginary Heroes" is a bad or unrewarding film. Much of what it has to say about familial relationships and values in the 21st Century is insightful, original, pointed and profound. Prime credit for its success goes to the actors, Emile Hirsch, Sigourney Weaver and Jeff Daniels, who deliver incisive, sensitive performances in their respective roles. It is they who triumph over the narrative excesses to stimulate our brains and touch our hearts. Moreover, Harris, in his direction, achieves an effectively melancholic tone throughout, but one that is frequently augmented by some badly-needed flashes of daring dark comedy.

"Imaginary Heroes" may appear unfocused and derivative at times, but its fine performances and subtle mood shifts make it a film worth watching.


As Salinger's "A Perfect Day for Bananafish" ends with the suicide of a prodigy, this movie opens with the death of the star high school swimmer legend, Matt, who shoots himself in the head with a revolver after in the opening scene. But the death of Matt Travis serves as a key to unlock the door of another prodigy, his brother, Tim who never in his life seriously bothered with the question, "What am I going to do?"

When he finds his brother dead, his head broken like a dropped watermelon, the Travis family starts vomiting out its secrets one by one. The film focuses on Tim. He is a victim of bullying, domestic abuse, family alienation, heartbreak, issues of sexuality and friendship.

Tim reveals his wounds by physical bruises, but these are not the only injuries to his person, as we slowly come to realize, as the script painfully unveils the origins and outcome of Tim scars. Everyone who loves him hurts him. Hirsch plays out the character quite well, revealing frame after frame in the visual expression of his body, a host of conflicting emotions inside the soul of a kid whom no one seems to listen to or know very well, unknowing and unaware of his depth of soul and prodigious talent.

Two siblings sharing a doobie, curled up on a red, spinnable playground saucer, Tim asks Penny, "What am I going to do with the rest of my life?" The scene is framed in a familiar, recurring image of the film: the comfortable playground where Tim obviously feels at home, filmed from a bird's eye view, because with every character Tim feels comfortable to share a part of himself, and we view these intimate moments he shares in the red, spinnable playground saucer, complete with childish graffiti carved in pencil, from above. After advising him curtly to pass the joint, Penny tells him, "Tim, well, the secret to the success of life is to find something you love. And you have to do that for the rest of your life  And you better hope to hell that you're good at it because if you're not then you'll probably fail." This simple line of advice from Penny serves as the movie's central theme, the responsibility of talent and the possibility of failure. Why does one person have a talent he cannot stand, like Matt, who hated the attention his swimming fame brought, but no one notices Tim's talent  no one  because no one bothers to ask him? Not even us. The film makes us aware that we ourselves do not know Tim as well as we thought we did when we first meet this handsome, sad, guy; in our intimate understanding of Tim, as it progresses, we are reminded that not everyone is as they seem to be. This is the other side of the film, the failure of those who should  parents, friends, teachers  whoever  to notice and see the gifts of the people they claim to love. Not even his mother Sandy, played by Sigourney Weaver, sees Tim's gift, despite her love for her son. Weaver does a deft job of a middle-aged woman grappling with her own inner demons as she haphazardly tries to play the roles of domesticity and support. When Tim is found to be bullied at school, she storms the boy's trailer, threatening his life, "You can tease, torture, punch, drive drunk with me, I can forgive you. Hell I can understand it, I'm a good Christian, you know, I can forgive and forget, but you mess with my kid and may God himself descend from heaven to protect you because as long as I live  and I will outlive you all  I will wake up and go to sleep at night just dreaming of ways to make your petty insignificant lives into hell on earth." After flicking a paper cup into the mother's face, she looks around the trailer, and looking at them both, the kid and his stunned mother, comments, "nice trailer" and leaves as quickly as she came. Weaver scores in her ability to match gusto with visceral wit that is acid and witty. And Tim's father, played by Jeff Daniels, is blind to who his son is, treating him like a stranger, not telling his family that he took time off from the office, spending his days in the city park, listless, a carved out soul, and sleeping in Matt's bed, tucked in with his high school letter jacket. Jeff Daniels does a superb job of making us believe that he can be both a bastard and lovable because, we grow to see that even an inept father can show his love for his son. In an emotional scene, Tim confronts his father. Just when you think his dad is going to hit him, he grabs for him to embrace him. Not letting him go, he tells Tim, "I am your father and you're are my son and I'm here okay but you've gotta talk to me. I don't know how to do this by myself". It is here at this moment in the film that a father tells his son, you have to tell me what's going on inside of you, you have to tell me who you are; I want to know who you are. It is in this scene that the film reaches a cathartic moment, the visual movement from Tim, angry and alone, to his father embracing him as he breaks downs and weeps, revealing the emotions hidden beneath his shell. Tim experiences this moment of cleansing with his dad as a catharsis, especially when you consider the mistreatment, manipulation, disregard, violence and betrayal he has been dealt in the long year the film encompasses. I recommend this film.


Another slice of darkness and denial hiding beneath the surface of American suburbia, Imaginary Heroes chronicles the lives of the Travis family, all recovering following the suicide of their eldest son.

The pair at the center of the film is mother and son Sandy (Sigourney Weaver) and Tim (Emile Hirsch), both acting out in different ways as a result of the death. While Tim experiments with prescription medication and his own sexuality, Sandy regresses to her former self, smoking marijuana and coming to terms with an old act of infidelity.

The relationship between Sandy and Tim is explored well, especially when references are made to both of them being outcast from their own family: Sandy due to her affair and Tim, initially, due to always being in the shadow of his more successful older brother. Considerably less time is allowed for Sandy's husband Ben (Jeff Daniels) who, in a devastating depiction of denial, orders Sandy to make an additional plate of food for his dead son and place it in his old spot at the dinner table. Michelle Williams' older sister Penny is underwritten and could easily be taken out of the film.

Despite its long runtime, Imaginary Heroes doesn't explore its many subplots as much as the individual stories deserve, while some of the movie's black comedy doesn't translate as well as writer/director Dan Harris may have liked. And the depiction of a disturbed family dynamic isn't depicted as strongly as the many other films out there with similar ideas. But despite some issues, the central performances from Weaver and Hirsch are stunning, and easily carry the film to its successfully subdued conclusion.

Rating: B-


"Imaginary Heroes" is a 2004 film starring Sigourney Weaver, Jeff Daniels, Emile Hirsch, Michelle Williams, and Kip Pardue.

The story concerns a dysfunctional family that becomes even more dysfunctional when the oldest child (Pardue) commits suicide.

"Ordinary People" has been mentioned often in relation to this film; it's sort of "Ordinary People" with a role reversal. The mother in this case, Sandy Travis (Weaver) is more accessible than the father, Ben (Daniels) who is clearly devastated and unable to cope. Like "Ordinary People," the younger son Tim (Hirsch) is the focus of the film.

For me, the film was absorbing enough to keep watching but has a curious detachment about it. There were some wonderful interactions - mother and son, mother and neighbor, brother and sister (Williams) and some good offbeat moments. What never clicked was Ben being any part of that family or having any chemistry with Sandy. This seems to have been the goal of director/writer Dan Harris. In one scene in a grocery store, the checkout kid assumes Sandy is "about 30" and gives her his phone number. In almost the next scene, Daniels asks Sandy if she wants plastic surgery for her birthday. Weaver was 55 when this film was made, actually probably 54, and looks phenomenal. So what is Ben looking at? However, there's something askew about Ben's complete detachment because the viewer doesn't really see how Daniels ever WAS attached to that family.

The end has a couple of twists and also some very touching scenes. Everyone is very good, with Weaver and Hirsch being the standouts.

There's not a tremendous amount of dialogue in this movie and lots of stares. The script could have been sharper. But "Imaginary Heroes" is a good effort.


This film does not have the outstanding visuals that American Beauty or The Ice Storm offered and because it was made after those films, it cannot be marked as very original either: the music, though subtly brilliant, sounds very much like that of American Beauty.

The story has some similarities with The Ice Storm in particular (as well as Sigourney Weaver). Without intent perhaps, the film seems to try to recreate the success of the two aforementioned movies too much. At times, the story tends to stay a bit more shallow than it's bigger, more successful "brothers" by having too much going on, or by not delivering the most effective dialogs. Here, the writing cannot measure with that of American Beauty. But that can be said about most movies ever made, even the best and there is still a lot to like: said music score and (expectable, given the cast) effective performances. Of note is Emile Hirsch who would shine a couple of years later in the outstanding "Into The Wild".

Overall I can recommend this film if you like suburban dramas though it's not the first one on a list of must-sees, which would be topped by: 1 American beauty 2 The Ice Storm 3 Little Children.

After you've seen and liked those, check out this one.


Have just seen this film, in Australia on satellite. As i have been avoiding the news more so than usual over the last week coming from the US of A regarding gunmen, well to be absolutely blunt, this film is a prescient gem. A big bravo to all involved. i had only a small idea of what the film entailed as is most often the case for good effect and this certainly came up with cinematic goods. the setting of the scene is effective in the truest sense of the word, with all the hairy confronting subjects of today's world in relation to one's own faltering family, albeit suburb. The first forty minutes sets such a professional theater i was not ready for the out loud laughs when they came. Although the cathartic moment built via comedy and character as the family and neighbors came together in an extraordinary way.

All in all a foreseeing of who and what we are. A most meaningful film and a must see.

please note the date of this review.


so. i was completely in love with this movie. gaga for it, even with all its plot twists...but the one thing i found really disturbing was the connection between the two best friends in Tim and Kyle. While the writer of the film gave us such a poignant moment between the two, and their sexual experimentation/confusion, he then gives us a plot twist that makes them half brothers?!?! (Although the subject isn't brought up in the film....and left unexplained and unaccounted for) I just thought that it was in bad taste, and the fact that it wasn't even discussed is even worse. (Oops we've created a taboo...now let's not address the situation, because that wouldn't really be P.C.) Otherwise a spectacular film