Based on the best-selling novel "The Dismissal", The Missing Star, the latest film by acclaimed Italian director Gianni Amelio, is the story of the growing friendship between an older Italian maintenance man and a young interpreter he hires in Shanghai to be his guide through China. Vincenzo Buonovolonta is the Maintenance Manager at a steel mill in Italy that has been shut down and the blast furnace sold to China. When Vincenzo (Sergio Castellitto) discovers that a control unit in the furnace is defective and potentially dangerous, he travels to China to find the steel mill where the part has been sold in hopes of preventing a fatal accident.

The film, of course, is about the journey not the destination to use a familiar cliché and, on that journey, we are privy to an engaging look at China with all its immense beauty and complexity, via the outstanding cinematography by Luca Bigazzi. The film takes us to Shanghai, Wuhan, Chongquing, Baotou, and a trip along the Yangstze River showing us coastal areas that are scheduled to be flooded when the Three Gorges Dam is fully operative, a Chinese mega-project that has resulted in the displacement of 1.2 million people. The trip brings the travelers face to face with poverty, overcrowded housing, and children left to fend for themselves.

The film revolves around the relationship between Vincenzo and translator Liu Hua (Tai Ling) who first meet in Italy where his impatience with her translations at a dinner meeting causes her to lose her job. When he tracks her down in Shanghai she is working at a library and resistant to Vincenzo's approach. Looking at his offer to help him in his travels in China as little more than a well paying job, she reluctantly agrees to accompany him. Their relationship, however, grows as they move from city to city, her interpretive skills much in evidence to help the bewildered Vincenzo who does not own a cell phone.

As they slowly open up to each other, they expose each other's vulnerability and the film delves into their past and present life and how they arrived at their present situation. We meet Liu's son (Lin Wang) at the home of her grandmother. In China's one child policy, he is one of the unwanted children who have been "hidden" since the father of the boy abandoned the family. Although the meeting between Vincenzo and the boy is casual, their relationship becomes central to how the story plays out.

Castellitto is an excellent actor (though one longs for a younger Enrico Lo Verso in this role). However, he is emotionally distant throughout the film, his expression rarely changing from a far away hangdog expression. Though Tai Ling brings a great deal of presence to the role, her relationship with the much older Vincenzo never seemed real to me and the ending seemed to exist only in a reality known as the movies. Though Amelio is one of my favorite directors, coming on the heels of the brilliant Keys to the House, Missing Star is a disappointment.


Based upon the novel The Dismissal by Ermanno Rea, in essence the story's about the slow friendship that develops between an Italian maintenance technician Vincenzo Buonavolonta (Sergio Castellitto, who can be seen as the villainous King in Prince Caspian, and was the lead in Bella Martha) and a Chinese translator Liu Hua (Ling Tai). They set off actually on the wrong foot, with the former chastising the latter for her inaccurate, and slow translations of what he wanted to tell a Chinese delegate who had bought equipment that is faulty. Vincenzo wants to do the right thing, which is rare in these days, and that is to tell the prospective buyers upfront the faults as well as the intricacies that their purchase would bring, and given that he's disturbed by the fact that the deal still went ahead, he takes time off to craft a component that would set things right.

But that also means to travel to China in search of the elusive machine, which proves to be well hidden, and seemingly having vanished without a trace. With the initial reluctant help of Liu Hua, they set off in this treasure hunt from city to city, which brings us to lesser seen sights of China, away from the Beijings and the Shanghais, to cities like Wuhan, with industrial like backdrops such as steel mills and nuclear plants with their smoke stacks dotting the scenery. The mighty Yangtze River also makes an appearance. Along the way, the usual trappings of such travelogue styled movies come into play, such as the learning of culture, ideals, food, and basically, the understanding that the world is without strangers, if only one makes an effort to try and connect. While hints of some romance between the two leads are suggested, it rarely made itself to be a moot point, until perhaps late in the movie (hey, opposites attract, no?)

Besides the major industrial plants and factories, We get to see various cottage industry, like seamstresses working in sweat shop like environments, and I believe Cotton too, along with noodle making. As a film, it provided me the travelling opportunity without leaving my seat to observe, and credit to it for not passing judgement from a moral high ground on exploitation and the likes. And kudos too for the movie to engage in dialogue based on the characters' native tongues, rather than (and I shall not name names here) some other movie / cross-cultural collaborations where dialogue is forced-dubbed and came off unnatural, and truly irksome. Some might deem the supporting characters to be too kind too, always opening their arms and doors to a foreigner, but I would like to imagine that maybe in the more rural areas, people in general tend to be more sincere, friendly and basically not get caught up in the rat race to trample on others, or be trampled upon.

If there's a message to take away from the movie, besides the fact that I mentioned that the world is without strangers, is a reminder to myself that some of the stuff I deem important, may not be so to others. Importance is something one places upon something else, and its basis really depends on how we define the boundaries we set. So given our finite lifetime, I think I should lighten up a bit more, live and let live, and sometimes bask in the illusion that ignorance could be bliss.


This is one of Stan Laurel's best solo comedy's, before the 1927 teaming with Oliver Hardy. Laurel is a very good actor in the film, and provides good comedy. The best scene in the film is when Stan dances with Mae Laurel (his real-life common law wife), at the Cafe Espanol. Stan does silly dances that are funny, without you hearing the music. I will recommend this to any Stan Laurel fan.


If you want to see a film starring Stan laurel from the Laurel & Hardy comedies, this is not the film for you. Stan would not begin to find the character and rhythms of those films for another two years. If, however, you want a good travesty of the Rudolph Valentino BLOOD AND SAND, which had been made the previous year, this is the movie for you. All the stops are pulled out, both in physical comedy and on the title cards and if the movie is not held together by character, the plot of Valentino's movie is used -- well sort of.


Mud and Sand is one of Stan Laurel's spoofs of the popular movies at the time, this one being of Rudolph Valentino's Blood and Sand (hence Stan being Rhubarb Vaselino). While partly inconsistent on characterization (how did he defeat those bulls in the beginning is not explained), this was mostly funny from beginning to end with one of the best sequences being a dance he does with his then common-law wife, Mae Laurel. Another funny sequence concerns his reluctance with romancing a femme fatale, Filet de Sole, while his wife, Caramel, is waiting for him that shows some glimpses of his later innocent character with Oliver Hardy. Well worth seeing for anyone interested in seeing Mr. Laurel's early work before his fateful teaming that made him popular around the world.


Seeing Laurel without Hardy in a film seems strange, yet it's entertaining all the same. It's a well done parody of what became a classic silent film and it showcases Stan's talents very well. While his pictures with Oliver Hardy were great, these early solo efforts give you an idea of how skilled he was at his craft and how great he might have been had he continued in the tradition of Keaton and Chaplin as an individual star on his own. The dance sequence with his real-life wife in the café scene is the best part of the picture, and has some pretty funny bits to go with Laurel's excellent dance steps. And the bullfight climax is a gem, as even the bull takes a pratfall. And I like the irony in the scene where he's buried in hats and comes up wearing his familiar Laurel and Hardy bowler hat. As much as I love the Laurel and Hardy team and feel that there was never a funnier comedy duo on screen during their prime, it's nice to see them on their own once in a while (check out THE FIGHTING KENTUCKIAN that Hardy made with the Duke as another fine example.) Dale Roloff


When I saw this movie for the first time I didn't believe my own eyes. In front of me there was a great -and well done- parody of Valentino... see Stan Laurel bullfight that way is like to see an excellent fencer in action! It's a very good parody, rich of ideas, with a clever and charming Stan... old and good like whiskey. (or the booze-up after that)


Stan Laurel, it's been noted, first made a real name for himself by appearing in short parodies of popular feature films in the 1920s. He certainly demonstrates himself to be an excellent comic actor and performer here in "Mud and Sand" (a parody of Rudolph Valntino's "Blood and Sand"), but I think a film like this really works not because Laurel was a great satirist but because it allows the audience to jump into the comedy already familiar with the situation and scenes. Laurel can then let loose with his inspired gags without either having to create context or to do without it. I watched this the day after watching "Blood and Sand" itself; it certainly enhanced the experience to know what was being parodied and where.

The scene where Laurel's character (Rhubarb Vaseline if you believe the title cards, or Rhubarb Vaselino if you believe how his name gets written on the chalk board) bilks his mother out of money with a two-for-you, two-for-me trick is funny on its own because it's a great gag, but it's extra funny if the viewer is aware how it is taking the air out of Valentino's extravagant and melodramatic promises to give his mother any luxuries she desires.

This is the best Stan Laurel solo work I've seen. It's just plain funny -- even more so if you have had a chance to see the source material.


Stan as a bullfighter, and a good one, is quite a surprise. Usually overshadowed by Oliver Hardy, this silent short allows him to take the lead, and the limelight.

One can only draw the conclusion that his character "Rhubarb Vaselino" was a parody of the many Rudolph Valentino movies of this era.

Be prepared to laugh yourself silly at some of the dialog, and keep an eye on the special effects.

I viewed this on DVD in a Vol.1 & 2 collection.


This Stan Laurel comedy short is a cute little parody of the Valentino film BLOOD AND SAND. If you've seen BLOOD AND SAND, then you'll probably appreciate this film and laugh at a few of the scenes that mock the Valentino film. However, if you have not see that movie and just watch this film, you'll probably not be very impressed--though I really liked the title cards, us the word "bull" was used repeatedly in very funny ways.

Stanly plays "Vaselino" a bullfighter who seems pretty dim-witted and wins only because the bulls seem to lazy and non-aggressive. Even the bull at the end of the film who has supposedly killed ten men is obviously just a domesticated bull.

Not a great film by any stretch of the imagination, but still a cute and harmless film.


This movie has all the qualities to be good, Stan -singing (?), dancing, falling- is very funny, I think he handled his character in the best way possible. it's a parody and very well done, maybe times can change, there's another audience, but if you want to laugh, come on, see it!


Critics and audiences both pretty much panned this movie, but I actually didn't think it was too bad! Even the critics I normally agree with thought it was crap, and I normally despise PG-13 "horror films." So this means one of two things: either (1) I'm too easily pleased, and my taste in movies has dwindled over the years, or (2) 'When a Stranger Calls' isn't nearly as horrible as it's made out to be. Now, to be fair, some of the criticisms of the movie are true--there's not much character development, and not much happens in the story. But man alive folks, how much were you expecting from a movie about a babysitter being stalked? Cut them some slack! As a former babysitter who was watching this flick late at night with the lights out, I can safely say the stalker dude was one creepy mofo! Who knows? I guess stuff like this just gives me the willies.

Yes, I admit I had fun watching this, and I don't care how big of a minority that puts me in. ;)


With all the shoot em up, blood horror movies that have come our way in the last little while "Saw, Hostal, Saw 2, The Hills have eyes" Yes, they have their place, don't get me wrong! I went to see "When a stranger calls" with my buddy the other night! Why? Because it's a remake of the 1979 classic, which at the time was excellent and scared the you know what out of everyone! I didn't know what to expect. However I was pleasantly surprised! It was a film made of mood, atmosphere, suspense! Because remember people, what you can't see, what you think you see, what you can't hear, or what you think you hear, is far more scarier then what you do! If you love films with mood, creepiness, suspense and atmosphere!! You'll love it! It brought it back to the roots of the original Halloween. Thumbs up, a solid 8.5 out of 10 Remember folks, it's well done! not perfect! It's spooky, not bloody, It's creepy, not gory! It was nice to see a film come a long like this. Our minds have been conditioned and warped by the glitz and shock value of modern day horror movies, we forget, what's really scary.


Having seen the original when I was 13 (and, yes, I was stupid enough to watch it while babysitting!), I was excited to see this remake.

Camilla Bell did a great job as Jill Johnson. And the fact that a teen horror flick could be made in the year 2006 without tremendous vulgarity and gore, made it even that much stronger of a film. I had a great time trying not to chew my fingernails off!

This film won't win anyone an Oscar, but it is entertaining and worth the matinée price ticket I bought to see it. I think girls around the world should watch the original and the remake...and then determine to never babysit again.

All I can say is, I'm glad I'm too old to babysit! There's just something about being in a dark creepy house with sleeping kids that makes this movie classic. No blood, no gore...just good psychological fun! WINNER!


I liked this movie. I'm not a big horror movie buff so i couldn't comment on similarities between this and other movies of this genre, but i found this movie quite captivating. the story line, albeit a little obvious, had some genuinely scary/tense moments and the acting (particually of the lead female role) wasn't bad in anyway

Overall i'm a little surprised at the low rating this movie has gotten. I watch a lot of movies (working in a video store tends to help) and this really isn't as bad as people seem to think. I do have some criticism though. The final call from the cop was terrible, almost overacted, the dead girl in the bathroom looked liked she was having a little sleep (probably from the amount of tequila she mentioned she drank) and the children's reaction to what was happening instilled in me the hope that they were ultimately killed

hope this helps some people


Im a big horror fan and I quite enjoyed this remake. With all these horror remakes floating about I think this is one of the better attempts.

I watched it with my two little sisters and I think it made it even better as they were quite scared. Also with the shouting at the screen "Dont do that!", "Not that way!", etc. I thought there were some good little jumpy moments and it built the tension well.

Camilla Belle is absolutely stunning in the lead role and a very good actress - So she holds your attention well.

Overall a decent film.


While i read all of the complaints about this movie before i saw it, i still had interest from the preview. I don't know if it was because i was expecting a bomb or what, but i really enjoyed the movie. The I was not very frightened at all until the second half of the movie, but even then it wasn't very bad at all. I think that most of the scenes and false alarms were realistic, if a little too coincidental, but it was necessary to move the story along. I think that the house and surrounding area is the perfect setting for this type of movie, it is beautiful and huge, but then the same qualities that are attractive become scary. I also think that the light arrangement worked extremely well because not only did they turn on upon entry, but there was no way to keep them on, so the house stayed dark outside of the small section Jill was in.

Speaking of Jill, i thought her part was acted pretty well, at first it wasn't as believable, but after a few phone calls it was fine. In fact the scenes where she is frightened are acted perfectly. And, finally, someone got the fire poker right. I can't tell you how many times when i hear a noise at my house i grab the fire poker, and it was a nice touch for her to do the same, even though she idiotically forgets it when she needs it most.

In regards to the plot holes, the movie is not perfect but almost every hole can be explained, and part of the mystery is how he got in..exactly, how long was he watching her? how did he get out to kill her friend? and when exactly did the gardener die? overall, i enjoyed it and i was surprised how quickly it went. It kept my attention, and i wanted to see how it ended, although the ending was very brief and left a bad taste in my mouth. My only complaint, other than the ending, was the lack of character development. They could have added ten minutes with her and her friends or something to make us feel bad for her situation more, to give us a taste of her personality and to give us foreshadowing to how she will handle the situation(for example, the scene where she debates whether to go back for the kids, it looks like some scene is missing at the beginning that talked about her only caring about herself or something).


I don't watch very many 'horror' movies, but one night I sat down and watched this with my cousins. Now, we're teenagers, so we tend to make fun of a lot of things, but honestly, the acting here really wasn't very good, especially at the beginning. One line that stood out was when Scarlett says to Jill and Tiffany, "This is so... high school!" while the next scene shows Jill walking past a sign with their High School name on it... Many parts at the beginning reminded me of a corny, badly-written, badly-acted Lizzie McGuire episode. However, as the story progressed, and the cast moved on to just about only Jill most of the time, I was able to appreciate the movie more. Camilla Belle did really well in this movie, and I think that the other actors and actresses ruined the movie for her. And I must admit, this was one of the scariest movies I've ever seen. Well, no, there weren't big monsters and white faces appearing in dark corners and possessed dolls, but the thing that made this movie scarier than ones containing those things is that it really could happen. And this movie really reminded me of what really IS scary... We all know we're not likely to stumble upon the living dead any time in our lives, but the idea of having a murderer inside the house you're babysitting at could really happen. The only flaw with this movie is that it's one of the most cliché movies I've ever seen. It has everything in it that any horror movie has ever had- turning the keys and the car starts, shadows in the corner, turning the corners of the stairs with suspense, turning around and seeing a dead body, ending a fatal scene quickly with waking up from a dream, etc. At the suspenseful scenes, it was very predictable, but overall, I would give it a 7/10. It's definitely worth seeing.

By the way, This is my first review, so I don't know if any of those things were spoilers.. But just to be safe...


Don't listen to most of these people. ill give you a better review of this movie which me and my friend love! Its about Jill Johnson, played by Camilla Belle, who babysits at the Mendrakis' house and someone breaks in. if you're wondering how he got in the house, he went through the garage most likely. so anyway, don't listen to, "the worst acting". it has amazing acting. with a great story. I think that there are 2 benefits that Jill has. 1. shes a fast runner and is on the track team. 2.she got out alive! lol.

it is a cool movie and quite scary. check it out, you will be happy with this masterpiece. don't listen to the other people on the site. its very good. trust me, i am good at reviewing movies. I'm a future movie critic. i totally want to buy this movie. and you will too when you see it. it is amazingly awesome.


When A Stranger Calls is actually a pretty good movie. I had never saw the original and so when I watched this I thought it was unique. When When A Stranger Calls was advertised on the television the trailer gave away the ending. Well, I never saw the trailer so when I saw this film I was surprised at how good it turned out to be. I walked by it one day and decided I'd buy it and now I'm lucky I did, because I thought it was a very pleasing movie that is a nice little film to own. It is getting a lot of unfair treatment, and if you're interested in this movie at all, don't listen to all the negativity. Camille Belle is not as bad of an actress as everyone makes her out to be, and she did a great job in this movie, so all you haters get over yourselves, lighten up, and actually try to enjoy this movie for what it is; A fun, teeny bopper, popcorn flick. If you haven't seen it please do for it is a lot more enjoyable than a lot of the other slashers being made recently...


The movie is about a girl who's not going to a bonfire only because she's baby-sitting that night. Nothing weird about that, right? Until ... The phone rings. Until ... The phone rings again. And again ... And again. Those are not some stupid prank calls. This is for real. If you wanna see how the girl reacts, just watch the movie.

Great atmosphere filled with scary sounds. Very well performed by young Camilla Belle who got the lead role. I see in her some great potential to become a good actress. This is more than only a decent thriller, I have no idea why it's so underrated. Anyway, on my opinion this movie deserves more than only 4/10. 24% of all voters rated the movie with 1. Get serious, people. You couldn't get a better thriller for a title like this.


Simon Wests pg-13 thriller about a babysitter who gets disturbing prank calls while sitting at a mansion is neither original nor exciting enough to be called a good film. Although there are some elements of suspense, good eye candy and decent characters, the film is just another I know what you did last summer, as it falls short of being taken seriously. The performances were alright, but nothing special with this flick, i say skip it, unless you are looking for a mediocre movie, you can find better films than this on lifetime sometimes, okay maybe not lifetime but at least USA or somethin, haha....

7/10


I was recently at a sleepover birthday party with five other girls all my age (eleven.) All of us, thinking it would be some harmless little movie such as Jaws decided to rent it along with Rat Race. (We watched Rat Race after When a Stranger Calls as to ease our fear.) We put the movie on at 11:00 at night and lay together in our sleeping bags hiding behind covers for most of it. I screamed five times which is unusual for me as I get scared in movies but never scared enough to actually scream.

All of us were terrified to even leave the bedroom as we were all positive the Stalker (Jenkins as we called him for some reason)would get us. I played a mean trick; one everyone was all dozing off once Rat Race was over I hid under my sleeping bag and said quietly and lowly "HAVE YOU CHECKED THE CHILDEN?" They all SCREAMED like nuts and were so scared. All in all I would rate this movie a 9. The only thing I didn't like was that 1. There were too many false alarms when Jill thinks the Stalker is there and 2. The kids never woke up during the whole thing until Jenkins kidnapped them and hid them in the cupboard at which time all they did was cry like babies. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who likes thriller. But one thing: I AM SO NOT BABYSITTING PAST 9:00 PM EVER AGAIN1!


A hundred miles away from the scene of a grizzly murder in small town American, Jill Johnson (Belle) settles in for a night of babysitting. With the children asleep and a beautiful home to relax in, she locks the door and sets the alarm. But when a series of eerie phone calls from a stranger says that she "check the children," Jill panics. Fear to terror when she has the calls traced. And what the police find turns the perfect babysitting job into a 16-year-old's worst nightmare. There aren't any other lead actors in this movie. Camilla Belle is the main star with a cute face. The day she arrives to babysit, she really has no idea what in the hell really awaits her.

If I were in a house like the one Jill was in. I would explore everything that is around. The fridge would be the first person I would looks at, but I'm a male and I don't babysit. But what I found funny was the size of the house. I was thinking, would the movie be the same if the house weren't so big? Anyone could get lost in that huge house, but this movie needed a house with a massive size.

Camilla Belle has a cute face, a perfect smile but it's like for a movie like this, the lead actress needs someone with experience. I found Camilla not that good. I don't know maybe she thought that this could be her breakthrough role. I do like her, she is a cute girl but someone to have a role in this movie has to be someone how is different to take it.

This movie wasn't scary. I also found this movie more like a "chick flick". I think the only reason this was released during the SuperBowl Weekend was that the guys stay home and watch the game and the girls go out to go see this. It also seems like a type of a movie when girls will enjoy more than guys. But I did like this movie but for how it is. Girls just like tog et scared or scream. This was just a pretty decent movie.

Maybe anyone could like this movie. There are many PG-13 horror films that never succeed. This was on its own level. So I kinda liked this movie. I give it a 7/10.


If you have ever babysat in a house you didn't know, or if you saw the original and enjoyed it then this will be a good choice. Ignoring the reviews and what was posted here, I went ahead and rented this movie because of the memories of how the original scared me as a teen. This movie has (of course)changed some of the original story to relate to todays teens, such as the babysitter is in trouble for going over on her cell phone minutes and has to take on a babysitting job to pay her bill. However, it sticks to the original story line pretty well. If you can relate to the babysitter, not knowing the house and it's usual pops and cracks it is quite suspenseful. When the killer is shown he is very creepy and you find yourself yelling at the girl to "GET OUT OF THE HOUSE". If you have never babysat or been in a situation like this then you probably will not be able to relate and will not like it. It's all about understanding her fear.


People say that this film is a 'typical teen horror movie'... well it's a horror movie with a teenage girl in it.. what do you expect! It's a good film, I counted 3 actual screams in the audience whilst the film was on and it was a very jumpy scary film. I wasn't bored in the film at any point and I was even on the edge of my seat at one point. The only thing that was slightly bad was that it was a tiny bit slow in getting into the actual storyline but this all led up to why she was where she was and why what happened, happened. The acting was good, the scenery was good and the storyline was good too, I hope to see a 'When A Stranger Calls 2' in a few months! Good film!


All you need is great house, a babysitter and a phone. Simon West directs this thrilling and chilling remake of the 1979 original. This version is more of a thriller than a horror flick. Emotionally tense with an escalating fear factor. Jill Johnson(Camilla Belle)needs to work off an excessive cell phone bill; she takes on the task of babysitting the two children of Dr. and Mrs. Mandrakis(Derek de Lint and Kate Jennings Grant). The house is a beautiful 1970ish wood and glass masterpiece. Secluded and peaceful. The kids are already in bed, the wind builds and is joined by down-pouring rain. The phone begins ringing, ringing, ringing. The babysitter is soon in a frantic mode of survival in fear of the creepy stranger on the other end of the phone.

Belle is great as the innocent, smart and strong teen babysitter. The voice of the stranger on the phone is that of Lance Henriksen, while the physical stranger is played by Tommy Flanagan. Also featured are: Katie Cassidy and Brian Geraghty. Kudos to James Dooley for the atmospheric original music.


I was skeptical before going to this because of the horribly assembled trailer which made it look like an equally horrible movie. I was nicely surprised by how much i did not waste my money. I believe the films success comes from how creepy it really is and how the environment of the house is. Little things like the sensor lights create a true uneasy feeling. The shadows and ominously cold feeling of the house make it easy to tell that no matter how much you know horror films, anything could happen in the film. The acting is by no means perfect, nor were they bad. The main character is convincing even given the annoying teen dramas that surround her. In the end, I was thoroughly impressed with the film in most aspects.

It is definitely a film i would recommend.


I've seen both movies and I saw without a doubt the re-make is the best, I know a lot of people would disagree those who have become fans of the original will most probably not like this re-make, but i thought it was well thought out and definitely scary, It was so good I'm going to see it again tonight, the original creeped me out because they kill the children, i mean who does that in movies anyway....but in this one the children have at least half a chance...The only bad part about this movie is when the babysitter (Jill) Walks towards the sounds she hears and runs outside into the bushes to check for someone, clearly no one in their right mind would do that whilst babysitting, so that is the only thing i found wrong with the movie, and even so they probably had to put that in there to build suspense, i don't want to give too much away for all those who have not seen it, i recommend you do instead of listening to all these people saying its crap and worse than the original, it would be a better movie for teenagers, as it displays things that most of us are scared of, but when i was in the movies there were at least 10 adults over the age of 70 in there watching it, and they enjoyed it, if they enjoyed it i think you will to! I give it a 9 out of 10!


Boogie Nights is perhaps one of the greatest examples any would-be filmmaker should take a long hard look at. Sure, you could spend loads of quality time reviewing the clasics from Hitchcock to Scorsese; but lets follow suit for the modern generation and study half-heartedly.

Where to begin, I suppose one could look at the film as simply a story, perhaps even docudrama which focuses on the late 1970's porn industry-and what an industry it was! The other half could focus on the incredible detail one brillant filmmaker can achieve simply by using polyester and *ahem* rubber. But honestly, Boogie Nights brings back the pure, no-bul!shi$, in your face kind of cinema I haven't experienced since the film greats of the 1970's...ironic...or stroke of genius. The story is full of richly detailed characters, all of which you either can relate too, love, or hate; but the impact is clear-you are feeling something for them. Among the characters the two performances which stand out are: Burt Reynolds as Director Jack Horner, and Mark Wahlberg as Eddie Adams/Dirk Diggler. Julianne Moore is also brillant, as is Heather Graham...but if I focus on any one actor it would have to be John C. Reilly. John's performance is a perfect balance of comedic timing and character driven emotion...I'm a sucker for the line "Ever see the movie Star Wars?...People say I look like Han Solo." Anyway, the look of the film is incredible, the Director of Photography and Director/Writer/Producer, have come up with a vibrant colour, and flashy style that compares to Martin Scorsese, and Stanley Kubrick(in terms of his perfection of his craft); but with creating his own unique look, and pushing the edge with the longest single shot I'ver ever seen...that being the New Year's party sequence.

The music, like in any great film, is a character of its own. At times, it consumes oneself with sorrow or grief...but mainly its all about fun, dancing, and having a good time; the spirit of the 1970's. OK, back to the performances.

Burt Reynolds plays the character of Jack Horner, a porn director who feels the burden of what the future of "film" means to his genre. The awful transition from shooting on film to recording on magnetic tape. The lose of his art, as it were...and the changes in mentality to the people he works with. Walhberg adds the perfect blend of innocense and sexual bravado needed for the character. For all those individuals who have seen Burton's Planet of the Apes, pay no attention to the performance of Wahlberg in that film...rent boogie nights and see what a difference a good script can make!

Julianne Moore plays the would-be mother to all, and with that comes the torment and anguish she feels, as life imitates art; and she loses all those close to her. Heather Graham is the eye-candy, but later holds her own, and steals some of the scenes from even the great Mr. Reynolds himself. Each character is multidimensional, rich with life, and performed by actors that seem to be picture perfect for the part.

The film itself is often funny, tragic, exciting, and provides a uncompromising look into the turblulant lifestyle of the fast-pace 1970's. It makes no excuses, and tells no lies; and offers the audience a trip back. But even more importantly, the movie gives us a grand example of how films should be made; and a new director whose bold visions bring back art in film.


Paul Thomas Anderson's stylish and compelling take on the 70s porn industry follows Eddie Adams, aka Dirk Diggler (Mark Wahlberg), through six years of sex, drugs and disco. His chance meeting with pornography director Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds) starts his career as one of the greatest adult actors of the time. Dirk's character is based on real-life porn actor John Holmes, who, like Dirk, was renowned for being extremely "well-endowed". This is where Dirk finds initial success.

The main themes in Boogie Nights are the obvious ones relating to a film of this genre; pornography, drugs, sex, betrayal, violence and music. Boogie Nights deals with the pornography theme with some control. It is not overplayed and the sex scenes are surprisingly minimal, but mentally explicit when they take place on screen.

Throughout the film cocaine is abused enormously, and the film's setting, Los Angeles 1977-1983, reflects the popularity of the drug at that time, which the film captures perfectly. However, Boogie Nights does not promote cocaine, as there are some scenes involving addiction and overdoses. For example at Jack's party, they find a girl who has recently, and graphically, overdosed; blood pours from her nose and she begins an unconscious fit. The film, before this scenes, has been fairly upbeat and comic, but from this point it foreshadows the darkness that it will occur.

The music scenes are executed brilliantly, from superbly-staged disco scenes to a down-and-out Dirk singing terribly in his new music career. The soundtrack too is excellent, featuring tunes from The Emotions, ELO, The Beach Boys and the unforgettable Sound Experience. The standout scene in the whole film comes down to the music; Dirk, Redd Rothchild (John C. Reilly) and Todd Parker (Thomas Jane) visit drug dealer Rahad Jackson's (Alfred Molina) house in order to make some quick cash from selling phoney drugs, but Night Ranger's Sister Christian, which is playing in the background, increases the intensity of the scene incredibly, proving that music can bring so much more depth to a scene. Boogie Nights is filled with those kind of scenes, which makes the film even more fantastic.

The standout performance in Boogie Nights is Burt Reynolds as the enigmatic, yet moody, film director. In the scene where he attacks a young guy for slating his movies, it is a complete shock for the audience, because before this point he has been pretty mellow and content. Other notable performances are Julianne Moore, Heather Graham as the beautiful Rollergirl, John C. Reilly, and Mark Wahlberg, who delivers the performance of his career.

Boogie Nights is also a surprisingly original film, using common themes but filmed in its own sharp and realistic way. Anderson's approach has been fully captures these characters in a time when nothing seemed to be going wrong, or at least until the 80s arrive. From then on, things turn very dark indeed, and all signs of the recognisable characters and situations from the first part of the film have gone. This does not, however, reduce the high level of engaging entertainment that this film offers.

Boogie Nights was not a box-office success, earning only £2 million at cinemas in the UK. But this is not the film's, or the director's concern. Anderson recognises quality, not popularity, which is evident in his three other films, Hard Eight, Magnolia and Punch-Drunk Love. I would recommend this film to anyone who enjoys a simple parable filled with excellent and variable situations, because at the end of this film you will realize that Boogie Nights is a simple morality tale, but one which will stay in the mind days after you watch it. Boogie Nights is at once shocking, hilarious, devastating and both visually and audibly outstanding.


This is not so much of a review as it is a testament that it has been proven, yet again, that the Academy rewards money, not artistic accomplishment. And I must say I am saddened that this usually artistic and intelligent band of imbd members have left this off the top 250. Boogie Nights is powerful, raw, and gutsy through script, direction and acting. Very few movies can claim this triple crown.


One of the things that I like about PT Anderson, is that he has the guts to take talent that most people push to the side or have pushed to the side and makes them stars. Case in point, a washed-up... Burt Reynolds delivers a great performance in this film. And if proving Adam Sander can be a great actor (Punch Drunk Love) wasn't enough... here comes Mark Whalburg... like you've never seen before.

I think many people pass up "Boogie Nights" cause they are anti-porn, or just flat out hate the adult industry and can't overlook that aspect of this film. But underneath that is a great story about characters losing everything and battle to regain themselves. There is a beautiful film... and it's too bad that enough people see that.


Boogie Nights is full of surprises, nothing quite prepares one for it its soul. Yes, it does have soul, whilst tackling the tackiest of subject matter, with both a wry smile and respect. Brillantly cast and wonderful character development, the performances somehow combine the best of stage acting with improvisation within a cinema verite style.

The plot proved richer than I expected and the underlying themes are teased out quite profoundly as each "B grade" human being is brought, through crisis, into perspective.

A sociologist's dream case study, the film resonates the raw truth of what we all know about self-esteem, parental love and lack of it, attention/love deficit and its manifestation in adulthood, the desperate need to belong. Something for everyone here.. almost camouflaged as issues of untouchables and their separate milieu but of course they are universal.

The film works on a number of levels. The ironic loop is that the milieu portrayed exists only because of the voyeur, who happens to be watching the film...

Boogie Nights is non judgmental of its subject matter and characters, a rarity. It deserves every accolade it has achieved and more.


Boogie Nights is one of the best films to come out of the 90's and I'd go so far as to say it should be in the IMDb top 250. I can actually understand why many would dislike it, due to the subject matter. I personally feel however as many do, judging from the aclaim this film's received by viewers and critics that it's topnotch film making.

The direction and acting in this film surpass good and reach the level of brilliance.There is not one scene in this movie that isn't amazing. The individual characters reach out and touch you. Given that this is a movie about the porn industry, one wouldn't imagine the sex scenes could be handled with such sensitivity but they are. The direction is among the best I've ever seen-and I've seen a lot of films.

The film isn't about one particular personal individual's story, it's about many.It's a character study about people who have many layers to them and who maybe in an industry most would find alien but who still dream the same dreams and have both bad and good to them. Boogie Nights draws you into their story from the beginning, and though the film is long(I believe almost 3 hours) you honestly don't even notice. And when it ends you kind of don't want it to....

I'm not easy to impress, meaning there aren't many movies I'd give a 10 of 10 rating to but this is one. Beyond the multiple character study, is the use of music in the film. I have never, in all my years of seeing movies seen music tell a story as well as in this movie.There was such flawlessness to it, you know it's not something your gonna see everyday.

Burt reynold's performance was perhaps the best I've ever seen him do, and Mark Wahlberg is incredible(I'm astounded there are still people saying he doesn't act well. I don't know how anyone viewing this could possibly think that)but the person who really surprised me was Heather Grahem(Rollergirl) who is absolutely fantastic in her role, in particular the one memorable scene with Burt Reynolds in the Limo, towards the end.

Again, I'll echo other IMDb reviewers in saying this movie is not for everybody. But I still think this was topnotch.10 of 10.


The brilliance of this story delivers at least one skillfully crafted message to each viewer in the audience. This story is about success, it's about failure. It's about the choices you make in life and the choices others make for you. The story deals with self realization and determination on a scale so large, no camera angle could cover it. Within the grasp of each scene is resides an element marked for depiction within your imagination. Keep this in mind as you watch the movie; it's more than eye candy. The sexually suggestive, rarely explicit scenes serve only to distract and entertain you during the tedious process of character development.


I rented Boogie Nights last week and I could tell you, when I watched the film I had a blast. If you think that when you watch the film you will get sicked by the porn. I mean yes, if your not a porn person who can't bother being by it, than this isn't the film to see. But the thing is, the whole film isn't really about porn. Well halfway through the film is about the porn industry but the other half is about the character development and the bad situations these characters go through. The actors played there roles perfect, especially Mark Wahlberg, John C. Reilly, and William H. Macy. The sex scenes, of course are terrific but mainly focus on the character's hype in porn films until there struggles. Excellent film, one of the best!

Hedeen's Outlook: 10/10 **** A+


What has to change in today's attitude towards films like Boogie Nights is the approach. The approach is awful! Comparing it to Pulp Fiction, seeing only the pornography, and all its aspects.. come on people, there is more than that in this beautiful motion picture. And to all the sceptics, hasn't Paul Thomas Anderson proved himself worthy time and time again? Magnolia is one of the main reasons I watch American films at all and still have faith in this "Industry" that film-making is today.. And what about There Will Be Blood? That is a film that will stay in film history whether u like it or not! Yeah, you! The so-called consumer.. you know something: F#*k you! you don't deserve this, you don't deserve anything. So many artists today struggle to get recognition and it has become increasingly difficult to make serious films, even mainstream, because people just wanna see celebrities doing stupid stuff.. like that sell-out Britney spears.

Anyway, this was very painful for me to say because I don't want to see this, i don't wanna believe that today all it matters is the adding up of numbers.. sales revenue and sales return.. I want to see magic, the magic that Fellini, Bergman and Kurosawa brought and created through the language of cinema.. Because thats what PTA is doing.. he is creating magic!!


Everything that you need to know about the pornography of the late 70s and early 80s is all wrapped up in Paul Thomas Anderson's BOOGIE NIGHTS. Although the film is completely fictional, it is actually supposedly based on the story of porno kingpin John Holmes.

In Southern California in 1977, Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg) is working as a busboy in a nightclub. One of the regular customers is pornographer Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds) and two of his starlets, Amber Waves (Julianne Moore) and Rollergirl (Heather Graham). Jack and Eddie meet and Jack realizes that Eddie is well...a little...gifted.

So Eddie stars in Jack's films under the pseudonym of "Dirk Diggler." He becomes a "big" porno star (no pun intended) and seems to be on top of everything. Then comes the 80s when video replaces film and Jack's porno empire begins to collapse, along with Dirk Diggler and everybody else working in the field.

BOOGIE NIGHTS is a really well-filmed drama. There is a little bit of violence, but P.T. Anderson makes it more stylized. And it kind of is a scathing approach to the degradations of pornography, especially when VHS became the standard medium for making pornos.

A lot of bizarre and unique characters are introduced. William H. Macy has an interesting role as someone working on the films, whose wife keeps having sex with everybody. I especially liked Don Cheadle's role as Buck the stereo salesman. The best performance is BOOGIE NIGHTS was definitely Burt Reynolds. A 90s classic!


'Boogie Nights' uses its protagonist, Dirk Diggler, as a metaphor for accumulated celebrities from a decade in America's shameful past, which was comprised of an unexpected rise in pornography, therefore resulting in an abundance of corrupted youth. Its lead character borrows traits from a various assortment of genuine actors, involving himself in many illegal affairs that have been dabbled in by celebrities in Hollywood, and all-too-often exploited by the press. It seems like the sort of tall tale that might appear on an E! True Hollywood Story special. Drugs, sex and violence -- the American Dream. But what goes up must come down, and the bigger it is, the harder it falls.

Dirk Diggler's dreams are huge, as is another valuable asset on his body. Dirk's real name is Eddie Adams, a Californian who dreams of becoming a star. He believes that God gives one great talent to every individual on the planet, and his gift is a rather unusual one. After falling out with his mother, Eddie leaves home and meets the sleazy Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds), an adult film director who offers him work. Eddie eventually becomes a major porn star, representing the leading "actor" in most of Horner's films. With newfound success, Eddie is told that he needs to invent a new alias for himself, and so Dirk Diggler is born.

Eddie/Dirk himself is primarily based on infamous porn star John Holmes, whose life story was adapted in 2003 with 'Wonderland', which starred Val Kilmer. 'Boogie Nights' is unarguably the better of the two, proving that movies about pornography can be made without disgusting its target audience: regular cinema-goers.

The film takes place in 1977, an era of artistic pornography -- filmmakers truly believed that they could compensate for the low points of X-rated features by adding deep stories and mesmerizing atmosphere. In a way, the film's director -- Paul Thomas Anderson -- implements a very artistic approach to the project, resulting in a gratuitous and artistic movie about a period in American history when smut was indeed both gratuitous and artistic. Anderson's style is so deep, and so distinct, that we soon feel as if we are reliving the era first-hand. Not a moment goes by where we are unconvinced of the time range dealt with in the film.

All was not happy on the set of 'Boogie Nights'. Prior to filming, Anderson approached Reynolds repeatedly, asking him many separate times to play the role of Horner. Eventually, Reynolds agreed, but claimed that the film was horrible and the worst role of his career, publicly disowning it, before being nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Academy Award and suddenly shutting up. A year before, Anderson had suffered title disputes over Sydney/Hard Eight. He preferred the latter title for his film, and New Line Cinema thought the former was more marketable. He essentially lost the battle, and Anderson wisely avoided title disputes this time around by inserting the words "boogie nights" into his movie through the mouth of a character.

The casting of the film is one of its finest aspects. The Paul Thomas Anderson regulars are here, as well as a whole top-notch cast of first-timers. To name some of the more well-known stars: John C. Reilly, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Luis Guzman, William H. Macy, Heather Graham and Julianne Moore. But the entire movie essentially borders down to Mark Wahlberg, as Eddie, who is surprisingly convincing in his role. Wahlberg, previously known for his singing career and disappointing Hollywood pursuits, has all the necessary traits to portray such a character. This is his best role to date.

Anderson knows how to captivate his audience and take complete control of every scene. When Jack Horner first meets Eddie, Anderson slyly uses stars in the backdrop, a sign of things to come, and hidden symbolism as finely acute as it can be. The opening scene is three minutes, a long tracking shot that follows Jack and Amber into a night club, where most of the characters are first introduced. It reminds me of the discussions regarding tracking shots in Robert Altman's 'The Player' -- it works so brilliantly in Boogie Nights, and is the first indication that Anderson knows what he is doing behind the camera. His style is fast-paced in the vein of Martin Scorsese, where shots zip around quite quickly but never seem rushed. Incidentally, Anderson references two classic Scorsese shots -- the closing De Niro mirror speech from 'Raging Bull' and the tracking nightclub scene from 'GoodFellas'. Anderson is a young, growing director who is remarkably mature in story and direction, despite his age. Whereas his first feature film, 'Hard Eight', was noticeably wise and poignant, 'Boogie Nights' is even more so.

'Boogie Nights' began as an effort of love on Paul Thomas Anderson's account. Having filmed the extraordinary Hard Eight in 1996, Anderson's film is pragmatic to such an extreme that it almost seems genuine. Boogie Nights invigorates us with its gratuitous content, occasionally bordering on the verge of pornography, only it is far more sophisticated than such trash. It is a blazing, wonderful modern-day masterpiece that is as mind-numbingly explicit as it is wild and stylish. Arguably Anderson's best film and among the greatest -- and most important -- projects of the last decade.


Dead Man Walking, absolutely brilliant, in tears by the end! You can not watch this film and not think about the issues it raises; how can you justify killing (whether it be murder or the death penalty) and to what point is forgiveness possible (not just in a spiritual way). Don't watch this film when your down! But WATCH IT!!!


Just to clarify, Matthew Poncelet wasn't a real person, but a character combination of 2 killers who were BOTH convicted and sentenced to die for a murder of two teenagers.

I read the User Comments and they react as if Matthew was real. The character is based on a mixture of two killers, Elmo Patrick Sonnier and Robert Lee Willie (who murdered separate people) and the murder itself was based on the one Willie committed. The conflict of both Willie having someone else present and both parties swearing the other did the killing is worked into the story as well.

Prejean's approach is unique in that she not only is ministering to the convicts as they wait for their death and aiding them in taking responsibility for their actions, she also reaches out to the victims' families, to help them know that the convict did, indeed feel remorse for what they did-effectively aiding both parties.

Everyone posting here seems to have strong beliefs on the Death Sentence. It's not my place to say it's right or wrong-in theory punishing death with death makes some sort of Karmic sense, however denying a person their freedom for the rest of their days, although costly, makes more sense to me-being stuck in a small room 23/7 (with one hour of exercise)for the rest of their days to be reminded of the cruel thing they did seem a more apt punishment-they are technically alive, but denied living. Say someone killed someone so they could get out of the responsibility the person they killed required (like Susan Smith killing her poor kids by shoving her car into a lake). I find it fittingly ironic that they would not get that "freedom" they craved and would now have to spend the rest of their days imprisoned.

Prejean's point comes through the story very well. She has my respect-she manages to find that balance-she isn't supporting a killer, she is guiding them to accepting what they did. If they didn't feel some kind of remorse, they wouldn't be asking for spiritual guidance.

Ona final note, when Poncelet apologizes to Delacroix parent for killing his son, the parents of the girl who was also murdered mutters something about why he didn't apologize for her death. I think the point was that throughout the movie, Poncelet denies killing both kids. There is doubt in Prejean's mind he did both killings-there is a friend who was sentenced but not to death-my thought is that Poncelet killed the Delacroix boy and the other man murdered the girl-hence Poncelet was taking responsibility for what he did. Had he been responsible for the girl's death, he probably would have apologized for that as well.


Before seeing this film, I suggest the viewer puts away any expectations that the victims of the crimes depicted will get equal treatment and consideration as the perpetrator. There have been many films about crime victims. This one is about the murderer.

"Dead Man Walking" finds realism in simplicity of the story: there are no crack lawyers coming to save William Poncelet and no dramatic story twists. The film does not attempt to put him in a good light; he is guilty, he is repugnant, is a racist, and was responsible for heinous murders. Given all this, we are asked to do something very difficult: look at him as a human being despite his crimes. In this way, the film challenges the notion that the death penalty provides "justice". Whether you are for or against the death penalty, the film raises questions about whether the guilty can find redemption, inequity in the justice system, and the appropriateness of the death penalty.

Great performances by both Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn. In particular the last moments of the film show the true depth of Penn's ability.


I saw this movie many years ago and it has never left my list of all-time best films ever made. When I first watched it, I was just beginning what has become a life-long passion for justice. It gave an interesting perspective of the death penalty and also gave me a few things to think about.

When you have a cast like this one, you are right to assume it is going to be nothing short of fabulous. This is, by far, the best role I have ever seen Sean Penn play (along with I am Sam). He nails the role, doesn't glamourize his actions while doing so. He manages to maintain a level of debauchery throughout the movie that I think was very important. Up until the very end, he does not try to be seen as anything more than what he is. He is a sick man who regrets his past, but still makes excuses for it. He ends up able to redeem his sense of self-worth as much as a convicted (and guilty) murderer can through the aid of Susan Sarandon's character, Sister Helen Prejean. Her character taught me about good will towards others without making me forget how horrible a person's actions can be and without making excuses for them.

The supporting cast was also top-notch. I was surprised to see a small cameo of Jack Black in this film given the funny-man he has become today! I loved this movie for both personal reasons and just because it was a work of cinematic art. And, in my opinion, this is one of the rare exceptions when the movie far out-did the book.


This movie has two new features in relation to the message conveyed by other equally good movies about death penalty and executions. Those are the stress also given to the drama endured by victims' parents -- without for that reason disguising the hatred and desire of revenge they feel or lessening the horror that execution represents -- and the Christian vision of all the questions implied. We must also point out that in this movie the sentenced man is not the usual nice innocent person we see in other movies dealing with executions which doesn't lead us to abandon the idea that a penal execution is no more than a legal murder anyway. Last but not least we must mention the extraordinary emotional weight put on the last moments of the execution course with all the catharsis shown by the convicted's last words and the detail with which the act of the execution itself is viewed in a parallel cut with images of the murder scenes in the forest to stress that we are being confronted with another murder so pitiless as the latter but performed in a cold and supposed "legal" way.


I have just seen this broadcast on Channel 4. Having seen some of the earlier comments here I think I would like to state firstly that I am not in favour of the death penalty. With that out of the way, I was expecting great things of this film, but it just didn't quite deliver. Dead Man Walking is very cleanly done, with good performances all round, and a good script. In fact it's hard to fault it artistically. However, I felt that although it attempted to confront the issues surrounding capital punishment, it seemed to become sidetracked by the religious/moral stance (hardly surprising given that the main character is a nun). Although I'm not a heartless individual, I didn't really empathise with any of the characters in the story. If you don't take religion seriously then you probably won't see much in this film. I think that Peter Medak's Let Him Have It was a much more powerful and moving film, and I would strongly recommend anyone considering watching this to go and see that.


One of the more lucid statements against the death penalty ever filmed, quite a frontal attack against the most disgusting way of doing justice. The final sequence, with that parallel between the crimes that the convicted Poncelet committed and his own execution are just superb.

No, what about the work of Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon? It leaves you breathless, they're two giants and their performances achieve the highest levels of emotion.

Tim Robbins put clear that he's not only a good actor, he's a nice director as well.

*My rate: 9/10


1st watched 8/31/1996 - (Dir-Tim Robbins): Very thought provoking and very well done movie on the subject of the death penalty. Deserved more recognition and publicity than it received.


While it may not be his most laugh-packed film, MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE stands as one of Charley Chase's most satisfying farce comedies, twenty minutes of clever sight gags, nicely choreographed physical comedy, and amusing quips (rendered via title card, of course) all based on a wacky and wildly implausible premise. We're told up top that this is "a story of homely people-- a wife with a face that would stop a clock --and her husband with a face that would start it again." Soon we meet buck-toothed Charley Moose and his wife Vivien, who has an enormous nose. But there's no point in discussing plausibility when our plot hinges on such a patently unbelievable series of interconnected coincidences: i.e., first, that Charley would have his overbite corrected the very day his wife would have her nose fixed, second, that each spouse would keep their respective cosmetic surgeries secret from the other, and third, that when bumping into each other in public afterward, Charley and Vivien wouldn't recognize each other. Sounds like a bit of a stretch, doesn't it? Multiple stretches is more like it. Clearly, we're in the world of farce here and just have to roll with the silly plot twists, so as long as you can relax and forget about plausibility you're likely to enjoy this short.

MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE gets off to a leisurely start as the various complications of the story are established, but things pick up once Charley and Vivien have "met" and made a date to attend a party together at the home of Charley's dentist. They each rush home excitedly, enter separately and are at first unaware of each other's presence. (Mr. & Mrs. Moose appear to be quite wealthy, incidentally, as they live in a mansion the size of a luxury hotel.) There follows a beautifully timed sequence somewhat reminiscent of Buster Keaton's THE NAVIGATOR in which husband and wife dash about the house without ever quite meeting up face-to-face. And once they arrive at the party the comedy really kicks into high gear as Charley is forced to dance with gawky wallflower Gale Henry. Henry, an estimable player in her own right who starred in many short comedies dating back to 1914, is hilarious as the dance partner who brings great vigor but little grace to her dancing. There's also an elegant cinematic touch during this sequence, when the camera pans down to show us only the shoes of Charley, Gale, Vivien and Vivien's dance partner, yet we're able to follow precisely what's happening between the principles by watching their feet.

Unfortunately for Charley and Vivien the party they're attending is raided, and from there on the complications multiply when they manage to escape the police dragnet and return home. When Charley realizes that his newly-prettified wife was attempting to step out with another man he resolves to each her a lesson . . . while conveniently forgetting, of course, that he was attempting to do the very same thing. The last few minutes of this film offer some of Chase's funniest physical comedy, capped with a good sight gag for the punchline. MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE leaves the viewer with a warm glow, and surely ranks with the most amusing comedies produced by the prolific, sadly underrated Charley Chase.


From start to finish, this 1926 classic two reeler from the Hal Roach Studios seems to sum up what was fun about the 20's. It stars the now forgotten comic genius, Charley Chase and was directed by the legendary Leo McCarey, who was unknown then but would earn his keep with Roach and graduate to greener pastures in the 30's and 40's. Recently released onto video and disc, this is one of the ten best examples of silent screen comedy and should be seen by audiences of all ages. Although today his star has virtually diminished, Charley Chase was considered the leader in the short subject comedy field in the waning years of the silents. He helped the careers of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy before they were brought together as a team, Leo McCarey and a host of other talents. It is a shame that he is all but remembered today. Check out this little gem of a film. Once you do, you will be seeking out other films from this classic comic. He had his hand in over 300 films and many of them survive. Rediscover this lost giant of a film from a bygone era and its giant star.


(***Minor spoilers***)

If there's something in the world of silent clowns that puzzles me, it is that Charley Chase never got his well deserved "break through" in the movies. Oh well, maybe it isn't that strange, really, inasmuch as he never starred in any full-length features. But when I think of it, such an explanation makes it all only more mysterious -- because why the heck didn't Chase get any offers to play the leading lead in features? One explanation is that his character, no matter how amusing, was simply too realistic to suit a longer story; without the burlesque elements that Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, Langdon and other comedians possessed, it can be assumed that the comedy he made and which worked so well for twenty minutes would get repetitive after a few more reels. I don't quite buy this, though, as Chase's gag construction is magnificent and could, I believe, at its best maintain the interest of viewers alone for a longer period; at least I am tempted to think so when MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE runs the show.

Mr. Moose isn't extraordinary handsome, and Mrs. Moose is hardly a "classic beauty;" he possesses the truly biggest front teeth of any human being on the planet, and she has a remarkably large nose. Both of them takes plastic surgery without the other's knowledge, and when they meet by accident just a little later, he doesn't recognize his wife and she doesn't recognize her husband. A number of hilarious misunderstandings begin, with many clever gags all the way through. I don't think I'll reveal anything further, to make the viewing more enjoyable for you. Because if you're a fan of silent comedies, or even if you aren't, MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE offers so many memorable moments within such a short time that I would look upon it as a downright shame not to see it; silly indeed, but no less extremely funny.


Okay. To enjoy this silent comedy short you MUST suspend disbelief concerning the major starting point for the film. If you can't then you'll probably be more likely to score this film a lot lower. Charlie Chase has a HUGE overbite and his wife has a nose large enough to have its own area code. Unknown to each other, they have both been saving to have surgery to correct these defects. Apparently, plastic and dental surgery was better back in the 1920s because neither seemed to have any need to recuperate from these major surgeries and they looked just dandy right away!! Okay, remember I said to ignore this, right?! Okay, well you also have to then ignore the difficult to believe idea that both could then meet and have no idea the other is their spouse. Okay,...now that you allowed yourself to accept these two silly premises, the film gets really, really good.

Charlie makes a pass at her and she makes a pass at him. Both are shocked and thrilled because no one has ever really considered them attractive. So, because of this new vanity they agree to go on a date. But, they both sneak back home--not wanting their spouses to know! Anyway, they meet later and are quite attracted to each other. But what about the poor spouses supposedly at home? Well, they both learn that the other is married and both anticipate their marriages will result in divorce because they really want to be with each other! Late in the film, Charlie figures out that the woman really is his wife and he goes through a very funny sequence where he plays both the boyfriend and the old husband--by changing his clothes and putting in false teeth when he plays the hubby! It really is a laugh riot to see him bouncing in and out of the room as he appears to be fighting with another person! You really have to see it to believe it. However, the wife sees an ad with Charlie's before and after photos and knows what's happening. In the end, they both feel pretty foolish!


Mighty Like A Moose is one of many short films Director Leo McCarey did starring Charley Chase. What a dandy it is! Charlie and his wife both undergo plastic surgery to improve their hideous appearances unbeknown-est to each other. They then meet at a party and become smitten with each other. Now they can't allow each other to find out they're cheating. That's the preposterous premise of this frantic farce. Vivien Oakland, one of the few comic short leads to have a flourishing career long after the silents, is perfect as Charley's long of nose wife. Charley has an awful case of buck teeth, which are quickly dispatched at the dentist's. After a party is raided by police for no other reason then to practice raids, Charley and his wife frantically try avoiding each other at home for fear the alterations in appearances become known. Both have been photographed with their new features at the party. The hilarity back home culminates in Charley trying to teach the no-good-nick cheating with his wife a lesson. The no-good-nick of course is the new Charley, which his wife comes to realize long before Charley teaches a lesson in faithfulness. This is one of Charley Chase's better efforts. *** of 4 stars.


yes barney is nonsense now but when i was a kid it made perfect sense.

i haven't gotten any smarter but i enjoyed it. as a child i was mocked because no one could say my name so i changed it. ever since i was 4 I've gone by the name Tina from barney because i could relate to her being from a different culture. i'm 17 now and barney is a huge part of my life . ...my name came from it.... i cant dis the show i grew up with no matter how stupid it seems now.

i don't care if i get blocked i have nothing more to say. they shouldn't make the minimum 10 lines because some people just don't have much to say. OK done


I don't understand why everyone is hating on Barney. If you hate the show so much, then Don't WATCH IT! Its stupid how everyone is changing the "I love you" son to "I hate you." If you don't like it, fine. Whatever, thats your opinion. But there is no point to degrading the show, when it isn't even that bad. OK, so its corny, and yes, it has its flaws, but its a kids show. Kids don't want to be sad and miserable, they want to be happy. And Barney helps that. And even in the show, there are moments of sadness and anger and etc. And yes, Barney uses magic. But the kids see Barney as a figment of imagination. Kids need a place to escape to express themselves. The world is a miserable and hard place. We all need a place to express ourselves, and be happier. Barney does this to us. This show is great. I watched Barney when I was younger. Yes, some people find it stupid. But I watched it, and I'm top of my class. It might not necessarily make you smarter, but that's not the point. I believe that the point of Barney is to provide a place where kids can be kids and the spirit of childhood can be expressed. Where imagination lives on. So many teenagers now are unimaginative and are scared to express themselves. Barney helps encourage that. Barney helped me to not be afraid and to just show myself for who I am. I'm a sophomore at high school now, an AP student with a 4.0, a drama student with a love for theater and art, and with a new baby cousin who loves Barney. I watch it with him and enjoy it and sing along with it. Yes, its corny and silly, and whatever, but its great for kids. Who wants to be an adult who doesn't have time to have fun? Im a kid at heart and I love Barney. Its great for kids and those who are a kid at heart.

Its a great show for babies and toddlers. So stop hating. Say that you don't like it, but stop it with the "Dumbest show ever" or "Barneys a load of bull" or whatever. Keep it to yourself. Take a chill pill or whatever. Here's something: I never liked Sesame Street. But you don't see me going: "Grover is a load of bull" or "Cookie Monster should die" or whatever. I hate all of the BULLSS**T that people say about books or movies, like Barney or Twilight. If you hate it, OK, whatever. No one cares. Don't go saying hate things about it, cuz you might just offend someone.


Barney is about "IMAGINATION" what you guys do not have if my preschooler never wanted to play pretend like they do in that show then i would be worried. What 2 or 3 year old actually gets all that anyways its all about the colors and the singing. For those of you saying that all they do on Barney is eat junk food and recommend Sesame Street better well what about "cookie monster" thats all he eats but i haven't seen anyone comment that one. I do agree that sesame is a better educational show but barney is just like a show for fun don't be too serious if you didn't like your child watching TV and worried about them understanding things you don't believe then you shouldn't be propping them down in front of the TV in the first place because all of that is fake everything is fake actors are fake so why don't you take your fake brains and put it to use and think if you have a problem with a fake television show for kids then turn it off and play with them yourselves and teach them what you want them to learn not BIG BIRD or Bert & Ernie or barney someone who used to watch all those shows and turned out fine.


I was a bit surprised to see all of the hate comments on here. Sure it's not the best kid's show, but don't people stop despising Barney this much after the fifth grade?

Okay, everyone hates Barney. Okay, I think his voice and songs are annoying. Okay, he's kinda creepy and strange. I'm fourteen years old, so I know well enough. But here's the thing. Kids? They LOVE this show.

When I was a little kiddie of two or three, my parents spent more time chasing me around the house than they did anything else. Nothing could hold my attention for more than ten minutes. Face it, that's how toddlers are. Even the most patient ones can't sit still long enough to give their parents a break. There's too much to do and see and explore, too much trouble to get into.

And then came Barney. I don't know exactly what it is about the purple dinosaur that's so amusing to children, but they sure do love it. I know I did. I was hooked on the show, and wanted to watch it over and over. Yes, the songs kind of drove my parents nuts, but to be able to watch their kids learning, and being excited over something that can really hold their attention span, it's worth it. I learned my ABCs and 123's, the magic words and brushing your teeth. I'd grown out of it by five or six, of course, but by that point at least I was a little more patient, and gave my parents a break.

My nieces and nephew all went through the Barney stage growing up, much to their mother's delight. I know what keeps Barney on the air. He entertains. Of course there's Big Bird, Ernie, and Oscar, and they're great, too. But at the toddler stage, it seems that more kids prefer the big singing dinosaur. And that's enough for me.


OK. Is Barney the best children's show of all time? Of course not. But in some of the comments left by other members of IMDb you would think it was a multi million dollar production with high class actors and a ridiculous budget for special effects. Well guess what? It's Barney for God's sake. He shows children good behavior, good manors and that it's OK to be who you are. For those of you who find him annoying that is because you are not five years old and the show was not meant for you. To the IMDb member who wrote the review on the first page I think you may have gone a little too far. Did you actually describe a Sesame Street character as "down to Earth"? Grow up everyone, this is a great show for preschoolers and actually does help children learn in a fun and creative way.


I can understand how Barney can be annoying to some, but the hatred he gets is very ridiculous. Barney was made simply right from the beginning and simplicity isn't bad, especially for the young ones he entertains. I personally find this show to be very underrated period. Barney & Friends is a very educational show in my opinion and even 17 years after its debut (and nearly 21 years after the character's debut on home video), he proves time and time again that he still appeals to young children. Maybe less so than in the early 90's where Barney was the Hannah Montana of the time, but he's still a classic. As a fan of Barney myself, I feel that I should defend him in a way that doesn't seem like spam. The way the purple guy teaches things may be very simplistic and unrealistic, but would you rather have them hearing about war? Be thankful some one (a costumed dinosaur, but still) is there to comfort kids and let them be kids simply. In this day and age, I feel that we rush our kids to grow up and Barney is there to say you can still be a child at heart. In addition, many of Barney's lessons on current episodes about plagiarism, being honest, and yes... even death, could appeal to everyone, not just his target audience. Besides, our children need to learn to be kind and respect others for who they are, and he helps them do that. In short, Barney may be annoying to some people and I completely understand why, but cut him some slack. All he and his friends (along with HIT Entertainment, his production company) are trying to do is help kids not only learn necessary skills, but to have fun and to also look at the positive parts of life. If more people listened to their children's favorite character and viewed him through their eyes, maybe we wouldn't be so negative about him and possibly life itself.


I have seen this show when I was younger. It is a really good show to watch. It is very educational for children 1 to 8 years old. Barney is definitely super DE duper. B.J. is pretty funny. Babie Bop is very cute. The kids are very cool too. This show is about learning about numbers kinda like sesame street but different type of show and characters like Barney the purple dinosaur, B.J. the yellow dinosaur with a baseball hat on his head, and Baby Bop the cute green dinosaur with a pink bow. The first one that started was very old Barney and Friends show. But then the second one was different to be new episodes. Also the last one in the 2000 was new scene of Barney's park. They also have a show of Barney at Universal Studios in Florida where you see Barney, B.J., and Baby Bop and then when the show is done you get to go play, shop and meet Barney. It's a very good show watch this show when you learn about many things you will like it the movie, and the live show at Universal Studios Florida.


I have to hold Barney drilling my head every day; well.. I guess there must be reasons. First, I'm convinced that our kids are not stupids, they are just kids, but they know (my 1 and a half years old son "selects" what to see) what's nice or disgusting. Did you see the news? Do you think your kids HAVE TO KNOW the reality as it is? Maybe..or maybe not; we (the adults) have the responsibility about what we want for our kids, and what to teach them. A film of drug dealers? news about massacres in Middle East? Of course, the kids must know there is a Real Life, but... they are kids; let's give them some mercy. What do you want for them? If you wanna have kids trained on weapons or the best way to kill a neighbor, go ahead, impose them Lethal Weapon, Kill Bill, any manga's anime, tell them Santa's a depraved who enters through the chimney directly to violate them. I want illusions for my son (don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Barney and Friends is the best; in fact, the show have a lot of defects, I read other comments and I agree with most); maybe the happiness is made of dreams, or illusions. At least, I want to teach him to grow WITHOUT FEAR BUT CAUTIOUS, that learns to think and believe that everything is not serial killers or hijackers, whom they're reasons to worth to grow. That, at least, he can be a little happy with his own dreams. So, parents, don't underestimate your kids; they know what they want.


Sigrid Thornton (SeaChange) was seemingly born to fill the role of Cato's Philadelphia Gordon, in this story that is often compared with Margaret Mitchell's American Civil War classic Gone With the Wind. Waters (Heaven Tonight) is in arguably his best role also as her larrakin love interest, and the two leads head a wonderful Australian cast in this, arguably the most well-known and best-loved of Australian miniseries. It's

 an outstanding production all round, though don't try watching all of it in one hit, and it deserves to be remembered as a magnificent portrayal of life in pre-Federation Australia. Rating: 8/10


As an adventure mini-series, this is about as good as it gets. I viewed it when it was originally shown on HBO. Sigrid is totally believable in her role as Philadelphia, and the whole production was first rate! See all 400 minutes of it if you can. I highly recommend this mini-series. Amazing that I can't rate it officially, but for you readers/users I will let you know it's a solid 10!


I first saw All the Rivers Run on TV when I was a kid and loved it. It was great seeing a mini-series that was set and filmed in a place so close to home. Living fairly close to Echuca, I loved going to the historic port to see the paddle steamers. The first one I ever had a ride on was the Pevensy(Philadelphia in the movie). I love how it takes its time to let the events unfold. Nothing feels rushed as most movies are today. The acting was fantastic. All the Rivers Run was perfectly cast and I just love the crew of the Philadelphia. Mac is always amusing to watch with his trademark raw onion sandwich after a big night out. Easily deserves a 10 out of 10 and is one of my favorites mini-series of all time along with the Dirtwater Dynasty.


Recently finally available in DVD (11/11/08), Severo Pérez' film...and the Earth Did Not Swallow Him (1994) is based on one of the most highly regarded and discussed novels in Chicano literature. Tomás Rivera's ...y no se lo tragó la tierra/ ...and the Earth Did Not Devour Him (1972) is still generally acknowledged by many critics and serious readers as the classic Chicano novel. Originally written in the Spanish characteristic of South Texas and also translated into English, Rivera's novel continues as an indispensable presence within the Chicano literary landscape.

Perez' film, originally made as a highly-rated American Playhouse PBS production has taken some time to be released in DVD. One can only wonder about this matter because its high quality is not an issue. The film, and now DVD, however, remains, so far as I know, the only cinematic adaptation of any Chicano novel and clearly is a tribute to Earth's incredible staying power. This cinematic version also strikes an exceptionally deep-rooted nerve that is, I maintain, both specifically ethnic, yet also generally universal. Doubts about Earth perhaps might have arisen because it is too "ethnic," too alien from a basic American mainstream, too much a "foreign" art indie, too limited in economic resources. Yet, Perez in his version of art, in my opinion connects very effectively, artistically, and creates a sharply-etched portrayal of a Chicano migrant collectivity that focuses on daily family life. As far as a production done with relatively limited economic resources, its lovely cinematographic work and haunting music go much beyond its available funding. Simply viewing the film makes manifest this film's (or DVD) artistic value.

Briefly, .and the Earth did not Swallow Him portrays in a neo-naturalistic way the plight, the suffering, and the despair of Chicano migrant laborers as they follow the crops northward from South Texas to Minnesota in 1952. The local priests bless the beat-up, overstuffed vehicles of these Chicano laborers who can no longer find work in the area and must follow the agricultural trail of the migrant worker northward. This Chicano collectivity, like the depression-era Joads in Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, forms an epic tide, driven by economic need, a survival instinct, and anguished despair, and ultimately a barely flickering faith. A tribute to these people of the earth, a collective hero, the DVD is centered on a focal family, and most especially emblematic is a young protagonist within the family, a boy, perhaps twelve or so. This work then, also, functions as a bildungsroman. Ultimately, the viewer's sense of identification is generated through the experiences, subjectivity, and the struggles of the protagonist. Poverty, alienation, child labor, illness (sunstroke and a pregnancy death), discrimination, school absenteeism (the boy's escapism from the bullies of discrimination is spent lying down in a lovely, peaceful cemetery) are laid bare as matter of factyet, also symbolically. Worse still, the problematic conflict between the youngster and his mother goes beyond socio-economics and political conflict, into deeper realms of psychology and metaphysics. In a desperate but artistically rendered struggle, the youth battles his mother, an archetypical Mexican-American traditionalist, a representative of god's will, content with prayer, resignation, consolation, and acceptance. The rebellious youth cannot believe in a god that would permit such evil and suffering to be visited upon them. How can God be so cruel, he asks, since his little sister is certainly purely innocent, as to come down with serious illness in the fields? At this point, the boy must overcome obstacles even more daunting than poverty and discrimination. The issues now include death, doubt, and despair, and lack of meaning. And he has few resources available to himstrength of character, his own will power, his intelligence, and a powerful survival instinct. In this desperate, but artistically rendered struggle, the unnamed youngster, the central figure, feels the necessity of his enduring, of his achieving a heightened sense of meaning, and, the viewer hopes, a renewed and strengthened Life Force that can serve as an inspiration to Chicanos and others.

This stark battle makes use of a plot device just touched on by the original work to tie the episodic work together: missing immigrant laborers from Mexico who leave no trace upon their death, although this DVD deals not with Mexican but Mexican-American migrant laborers A highly existential work: anguish and despair; a quest; a focus on a Project; and redemptionall under the auspices of free will in spite of the deterministic socio-economic and religious circumstances.

Perez has a long list of credits basically as a documentary filmmaker. His many awards are confirmatory. The producer Paul Espinosa is also well-known and has been likewise honored for his work. The 1994 film, in fact, won and deserved a number of awards: first place, audience favorite at the Santa Barbara Film Festival in 1995; first place at the Cairo Film Festival; and a number of other well-deserved awards.

In my opinion this film and DVD, Earth, by Perez is the best Chicano film that has been made.


I was very moved by the young life experiences of a man who rose so high in the academic world. A hard life surrounded by the love of a close family and extended family of companion workers created a person able to succeed in the world. For the most part the Hispanic culture is shown as I have always observed and admired - hardworking, optimistic, and truly family oriented. The points of religious superstition were quite authentic to the Catholic church. Without a doubt,the actress who played the mother deserves an Academy Award. Her prayers for her missing son moved me to tears. I will recommend this stunningly thoughtful film to my friends and family.


The movie ". . . And The Earth Did not Swallow Him," based on the book by Tomas Rivera, is an eye-opening movie for most people. It talks about the exploitation that migrant farmworkers go through in order to survive.

Sergio Perez uses impressionistic techniques to depict Rivera's story. He uses sienna and gray-scale effects to depict some of the scenes, and he uses specific photographic techniques to make the scenes look like they took place in the 1950s.

Perez also gives life to the film by using time-appropriate music, including balladeering and guitar playing.

I feel that it is a good film to view because it shows in detail how migrant farmworkers live, what they do for entertainment, and their beliefs.


"Subconscious Cruelty" has to be one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen.Still it's extremely grim and gory at times,so fans of politically correct mainstream horror garbage shouldn't bother.The film mixes many wonderful visuals with plenty of sleaze and gore.It is extremely odd,vicious and disturbing,so fans of bizarre cinema won't be disappointed. My favourite segment from "Subconscious Cruelty" is "Human Larvae" which shows us a twisted relationship between a young man and his pregnant sister.The birthing scene is particularly nasty and not easily forgotten.The last segment "Right Brain/Martyrdom" has to be seen to be believed.It's incredibly harsh and blasphemous with scenes of genital mutilation and grisly torture.We see Jesus Christ captured by three naked females who mutilate him,ripping flesh from his chest,licking a wound on his knee and pissing on him.There is also a Jesus statue with a projection of a swastika on it."Subconscious Cruelty" is a truly memorable film that should be seen by fans of extreme cinema.Check it out.


First off - this film will not be for everybody. There are scenes of extreme graphic violence and "disturbing" images that by their nature alone will turn off many possible potential viewers. Obviously from the reviews on this board - SUBCONSCIOUS CRUELTY has divided those that have seen it. I'm among the ones who liked it very much for several different reasons. I feel this was a very ambitious (and quite competently pulled off...) undertaking for a bunch of 18/19 year olds with no budget and little experience. I think that each aspect of the film - the direction, the acting (though the character's performances are more likened to stage or free-form performance because of the nature of the film...) the production, the FX, the score/sound design - all are far superior to many films I've seen that exceed these kids budget and experience ten-fold. I honestly haven't been this impressed with an "art-house" style horror film since Nacho Cerda's GENESIS...

First off - I'm not going to pretend to understand and/or grasp all of the graphical content in this film - but knowing that this wasn't a straight-narrative type of film when I went into it, I wasn't disappointed with how it played out. SUBCONSCIOUS CRUELTY is 4 relatively short vignettes that all sort of revolve around the theory of right brain/left brain lust/anger/psychosis vs. restraint/compassion/"normalcy". To very briefly give a synopsis of each "chapter":

OVARIAN EYEBALL basically just has a naked girl who has an eyeball cut out of her abdomen. I'm sure it's symbolic of something - I don't think I was paying that much attention at that point and this one blows by pretty quick.

The next "episode" - HUMAN LARVAE - is a nihilistic, horrific, genuinely creepy story of a guy who's both in love with and repulsed by his pregnant sister, who gives into his growing psychosis which leads up to the shocking conclusion of that particular chapter. HUMAN LARVAE is the best of the bunch in my book, and will probably get under your skin. The dead-pan narrative dialog accentuates the growing tension as you know something horrible is going to happen - but you're not quite sure what it is. Do yourself a favor and if you are interested in seeing this film - don't do too much research on it. Come into it with an open mind and an iron stomach and I think you be pleasantly surprised, especially with this particular episode.

REBIRTH has a bunch of people in a field screwing the ground and blowing trees and stuff. Apparently an "arty" interpretation of the rape of the earth or something to that effect. Not bad, but this one is pretty short too and I sorta missed the point on it...

And RIGHT BRAIN/MARTYRDOM seems to be about religion and religious hypocrisy and also along with HUMAN LARVAE, has some of the "hardest" images/messages of the whole feature...

OVARIAN EYEBALL isn't anything to write home about, mainly because of it's very short running time but does make a decent segue into the insanity to come...and REBIRTH is also kind of short and not quite as thought provoking, but HUMAN LARVAE (especially) and RIGHT BRAIN/MARTYRDOM are so off-the-wall and well done that they more than make up for the other parts. I think the main reason that I liked this one so much is that as "shocking", "repulsive", "violent" and "excessive" as it is, it is also done very beautifully and you can tell this was a real labor-of-love from those involved. Nothing about the film feels cheap or rushed, and even if the content isn't completely decipherable, it's undeniably original - and that alone up's the points some in my book. Not that every "weird art-house" film that has an unintelligible plot should be praised for it's "originality", but SUBCONSCIOUS CRUELTY is the type of film that I do think I'll watch a few more times in the near future to see what other interpretations I may gain from it. Again, this film is ABSOLUTELY not for everyone - with some VERY extreme scenes of gore, murder, rape, incest, sacrilegious imagery, etc...that is definitely there to shock the viewer into taking a harder look at this film. I have to say it worked for me, and I'm anxiously awaiting the Hussain/Cerda collaboration that is rumored to come next. Check this one out if you have the stomach for it - 9.5/10


Finally watched this shocking movie last night, and what a disturbing mindf**ker it is, and unbelievably bloody and some unforgettable scenes, and a total assault on the senses. Looks like a movie from the minds of Lynch (specifically ERASERHEAD), Buttgereit, and even a little of "Begotten". What this guy does to his pregnant sister is beyond belief, but then again, did it really happen or is it his brain's left and right sides doing battle. That's the main theme of this piece of art, to draw a fine line between fantasy and reality, and what would happen if the right side of the brain that dreams and fantasizes overtakes the reasoning and logical left side. And the music in this movie is unbelievable, a kind of electronic score that is absolutely perfect. Even though this movie is totally shocking and pretty disgusting in some of the most extreme scenes (including hard core sex) you will ever see in any movie, I viewed it as a work of art, and loved it. And that music still amazes me, I have to try and find the soundtrack if is available. Watching "Subconscious Cruelty" is a real event, and not something the viewer will easily forget. And a note to gorehounds, this is a must-have.

Warning... Be careful buying this movie, because some prints have fogging on the graphic sex scenes and extreme gore, especially the copies from the Japanese release.


"Subconscious Cruelty" has to be one of the most disturbing films I've ever seen. "Salo" and "Cannibal Holocaust" didn't bother me that much, but there's a strange psychological element to "Subconscious Cruelty". This film invades your subconscious mind with shocking taboos, surrealist visuals and one of the most unsettling film scores and sound designs. Repulsive at times; yes, but its visual flair can be compared to Avant Gard directors such as Alejandro Jodorowsky, Dario Argento, Dusan Makavejev and David Lynch. Take the most extreme elements of those 4 directors and throw in the graphic violence of a film by Luico Fulci, and you might be able to guess what you're in for.

The film is divided into 4 parts. The first part "the Ovarian Eye" is real short. A narrator tells us about the the parts of the brain and its functions. Then a nude woman gets her stomach cut open and an eyeball is pulled out. The second part "Human Larvae" is kind of like the film "Eraserhead" but with incest. It deals with a man's sexual obsession with his pregnant sister. Where's Frued when you need him? The third part is my absolute favorite. It reminds me of "Begotten" and Jame's Broughton's 1972 short film "Dreamwood". In this segment people have sex with the earth. Men hump bloody holes in the ground, girls masturbate with tree branches. The branches bleed when broken. Watch in horror as a man gives fellatio to a knife sticking out of a woman's vagina. These people really know how to get in touch with nature.

The last part of the film is the most disturbing and at times it borders on hardcore pornography. This part of the film made me think of Jodorowsky's "the Holy Mountain", "Sweet Movie" and "Cannibal Holocaust". I've never been more disturbed in my life by what I witnessed. A business man gets his privates pulled apart by fishhooks. Yuck and Ouch! Two women urinate on a Christ figure and proceed to cannibalistically eat him like communion bread and sodomize him with a tree branch. Poor guy. The last part was so extreme that if I ever watch the film again, I'll have close my eyes or slightly fast forward. Karim Hussien and Mitch Davis are obviously very talented, To think they did this project in there early 20's. Hussein went on to direct the Tarkovsky influenced "Ascension" (2002) which is a much better film and he co-write the screenplay for Nacho Cerda's after dark horror masterpiece "the Abandoned". "Subconscious Cruelty" is a fascinating and unsettling journey; with images that come from the unthinkable realm of everyday human minds. Well, sort of.