In the end credits of "Shadows", after we read 'directed by John Cassavetes', some white letters on the screen can be seen: "The film you have just seen is improvised", they say. I am always pursuing the fact that words are so important in movies since filmmakers started using them because, basically, there's no film without a screenplay and many other reasons.

Cassavetes pursued the same goal, and he believed in the freedom of words; "Shadows" is the perfect example. It's a film with no real main characters, with no real main plot lines; it's mostly people in different situations, talking. Yes, some of the situations are connected but Cassavetes, apparently always in a rush to get to the talking, uses a fast forward technique when the characters are going somewhere or escaping from someone and are not speaking.

Appearances are everything in this movie. For example, there's a brilliant score, full of jazz influences and a lot of fantastic solos, and there's one character that says he's a jazz musician and plays the trumpet (Ben, all the characters' names are the same names the actors'). However, we never see him play the trumpet or jam with a band; he doesn't even talk about music and just wanders with his friends around the city. They do talk, a lot, and about anything that's in their minds; going from how intelligent each of them are to the hilarious analysis of a sculpture.

"Shadows" is funny in its intellectual references in parts like the one above, because these friends are not cultured. The only important female character in the film (Lelia), though, wants to be an intellectual. But again, she has one very interesting conversation with an older man at a party, about a book she's trying to write, and about how to confront reality; but nothing to do with being intellectual. At that same party, a woman is actually making an intellectual statement, full of complexity, and asks a guy beside her: "Do you agree?". "Yes", he says, but you can tell he doesn't know what she's talking about.

Another character, a singer (Hugh), talks about his glory days in occasions, and we see him perform only once; but no references to the musical industry there. The focus of Cassavetes is the singer's relationship with his manager (Rupert), which most of the time involves chats about trivial stuff and not real 'musical' talks. So the trumpet player's important deal in "Shadows" is the time he spends with his friends; the intellectual wannabe girl's is her way of handling romantic relationships (one of the movie's strong points) and the singer's is the bond with his managerAppearances.

The reason why performances are not important in this movie is simple. Cassavetes needed people who could master improvisation, without mattering if they were actually good. I believe some of them aren't, but they surely know how to improvise in a scene, and you can notice how well they do it. "Shadows" is not about performers; it's about a way of making cinema, based on the magic of conversation; and there you could say that performances mean something.

That's why in every conversation the camera is like a stalker, constantly on the eyes of every character, constantly looking for the expressions that come with natural speech. There's a scene where the trumpet player and his friends are trying to pick up some girls. They are three, so each of them sits beside one girl (the girls are three two) in three different tables. They all talk at the same time and the camera shoots through the table, and sometimes the friends look at each other, while they say whatever they are sayingIt's natural.


What is there to say about an anti-establishment film that was produced in a time of such colourless void, social indifference and authoritarian contentment. Cassevettes first major independent film was not an instant box office success and still has not received the critical attention it deserves. I draw comparisons to this wave of American independent projects consisting of such 'Beat' filmmakers as Robert Frank and Harry Smith with the burgeoning scene emerging in Paris in the late 1950's known as the French new wave.

They discussed poetry and philosophy and vulnerability at a time when the rest of the culture was obsessed with rediscovering American cultural supremacy; even at this stage this peculiar, highly spontaneous brand of filmmaking fought against the establishment of such political lexicons and bigots that held the development of the arts in check in the mid twentieth century.

Cassevettes film examines race relations and portrays man as weak in the face of love because we, as a culture, are blinded by our own race bias and prejudice. The great element to most of Cassevettes work is that his films have almost a reversal minimalist effect; a mental reaction is evoked through subtle character relations, not so much imagery. This is why his work seems to linger because he takes a more intimate approach to defining charcters that rely less heavily on explicit actions and more upon interpretation.

Although my favourite Cassevettes film is 'Husbands', this one is his most important.


Watching John Cassavetes debut film is a strange experience, even if you've seen improvisational films before.

The first thing you notice is it's roughness. Right off, it's obvious some of the characters are screwing up their lines. But then you step back from the situation, as you sink deeper into these people's intimate exchanges and you ask yourself: "Do I ever stumble over MY words?" The answer of course, is sure, we all do. It's unfortunate that most of the gaffes in this respect come early in the picture, because, by about twenty minutes, you've sunk so deep in you wouldn't know it if a bomb went off behind you.

The next thing you notice...or maybe you notice it hours or days after the film ends, is that you never saw any substantial plot, yet the themes and the poetry of the dialog and characters never leave you. In fact, the treatment of the role race plays in the everyday lives of these characters is always there, but it's so ephemeral that even they aren't aware of how it's informing their opinions of themselves, their self-consciousness, their perceived status, or the fate of their relationships.

The title is appropriate because you get a full spectrum of blacks, whites, and grays...and not just in the skin pigmentation of the characters. Leila Goldoni (truly remarkable here) is an afro-American/Caucasian, her two brothers are white and dark afro-American. The irony is that they exist in what is undoubtedly the "hippest" most tolerant atmosphere of the time...beat-driven upper east-west Manhatten...and there are still conflicts within and around themselves.

I don't think I've ever seen a movie with such a subtle delivery or technique. It's a lot like absorbing a really great piece of gallery art and then just nodding off in bliss as you think back to the images it evoked days later.

Great mastering and extras on the Criterion disc. Arguably the first truly experimental independent film ever made.


"Shadows" is often acclaimed as the film that was the breakthrough for American independent cinema. Whether thats true or not, it is an undeniably important film, one whose influence can be traced all the way to today's Sundance fodder. Here is a film which tackles controversial topics of the day (namely racism), and refuses to give easy answers and show them in a manipulative fashion. Also, it deals with sex in a frank manner that Hollywood wouldn't even discuss until "The Graduate".

Still, the question remains is it as powerful today as when it was originally released? The answer is yes. While many important films are hard to watch and dated nowadays, "Shadows" retains every ounce of emotional resonance when viewed now. It deals with racism as a personal issue and not a political one, so its still relevant. Plus, it works as a great time capsule, capturing the 1950s beat generation and New York art scene in a way possibly no other film has.

On a technical level, its admittedly uneven. Cassavetes had yet to gain full confidence as a director and the choppy editing reflects the film's low budget. Still, the film's story is remains powerful. Plus, the acting, considering the inexperience of the cast and improvisational nature, is phenomenal. All around, the actors create realistic characters, ones who remain sympathetic despite their often less than admirable actions. "Shadows" is absolutely mandatory viewing for film buffs. (9/10)


Shadows breathes the smell of New York's streets like no film before it. This kick off of Cassavetes' directorial work is as atmospheric as political and the initial spark for a renewal in American cinema.

Maybe it solicits for watching Cassavetes' first work in a double feature with another debut, Godard's À bout de soufflé. Both films shaped the cinematic production of their countries beyond decades and both breathe a peculiar lightness and jauntiness which was later rarely achieved by those filmmakers in their career.

Shadows tells from three Afro-American siblings, Ben (Ben Carruthers), Lelia (Lelia Goldoni) and Hugh (Hugh Hurd). The story is set in the New York jazz milieu and the driving rhythms on the soundtrack play a main part for the feverish, sometimes almost dreamlike atmosphere which draws through the entire film. There's not much happening in the plot. The everyday life of the three siblings is defined by problems in love relationship or in their jobs, but on both levels normality deceives. Without moralizing gestus, Cassavetes simply describes the mechanism of racial exclusion, in public and in private life. It was, regarding to the cinematic depiction of racism, a breakthrough film in the US.

This film owes also a lot to the performances of the three leading actors which were all almost completely unknown before. Especially Ben Carruthers established with his energetic portrayal the image of a new self-conception of young, urban blacks in America, an image which characterizes Spike Lee's films of the 80s and 90s. Revealingly, none of those three doubtlessly extremely talented actors was able to start a big career afterwards. Hollywood wasn't and isn't ready to ethnically expand its star system, and that is why Goldoni, Hurd and Carruthers only found small artistic niches in TV and independent films later on.

Perhaps Shadows is one of the less "beautiful" films ever shot, and one of the most beautiful ones at the same time; a film of shades and spaces, with a camera that merely watches the stream of life in the crowded street corners, bars, hotel lobbies, apartments, inducing an intriguing ramble through New York's vibrant streets.


Seven months since a revelatory viewing of Faces, I finally found a rentable DVD copy of Cassavetes' first feature. Shot on a shoestring in Manhattan and in his acting workshop on ad hoc sets, Shadows was the culmination of months of improvisational rehearsals, in which the (mostly amateur) actors developed bonds with one another, invented their characters, and polished their techniques to give their filmed performances just the right tenor of spontaneous familiarity. This intimate approach led to some incredibly daring work in Facesi.e., Seymour Cassel cramming his hands down Lynn Carlin's throat in an attempt to revive her from an overdosejust as the actors' utter conviction here yields blisteringly honest moments like Lelia and Tony's post-coital assessment of their relationship and Ben's revulsion at a black woman's touch as a manifestation of his racial confusion and self-loathing. A homemade production in the best sense, the out-of-sync dubbing and sound recording, and the granular cinematography and up-close camera setups, build an immersive atmosphere that perfectly suits Cassavetes' nuanced vision of human relationships as perpetual works in progress, marked by desperate emotional fluctuations and wistful attempts at communication and understanding. Charles Mingus's largely improvised jazz score is an ideal complement to the film's vision of living by the moment, a mantra by which Cassavetes worked and seemingly lived.


It should be noted that this movie was not "improvised" (as you're probably thinking of it), despite what the title at the end suggests. The movie was heavily scripted and rehearsed - Cassavetes didn't have enough money to support the inevitably high production costs of an "improvisational" sort of movie, even if he had wanted to produce such a thing. The "improvisation" of the movie is contained in the actors' performances, and the emotions that they draw out of the lines.

That said, allow me to say that this is a stunning work that I'm sure I'll come back to again and again. The depths of emotion that Cassavetes is able to draw out of the smallest gestures and interactions is incredible. I have no idea how he was able to direct such amazing performances out of the actors, especially under the conditions he worked. This is truly a magnificent landmark of film that I would recommend to anyone interested in exploring beyond the Hollywood mold.


Hey; Belmondo! Look there's Anna Karina! Great American improvised New Wave (or Independent you want to call it that), not as good as Godard or Truffaut, and not flawless, but hey such realism, style, warmth and humor. I love that NY accent; "you don't know nothing!"; "forget about it". Just like the French New Wave, it's about young people; partying, falling in love or just hanging around. Lelia Goldoni is so cute; she's adorable; wonderful. Ben Carruthers' also good, reminds me of Belmondo. A film you won't forget.

A steady 26.5 out of 31 ;-)


Improvisation was used to a groundbreaking degree in this film, but it only functions as a novelty. No greater truth about the situation is got by asking the actors to improvise. The performances are not improved by improvisation, because the actors now have twice as much to worry about: not only whether they're delivering the line well, but whether the line itself is any good. So that's why the performances in many Robert Altman films are often really hestitant - because the actors aren't really confident saying lines which they've made up, and therefore aren't sure are any good.

And, quite honestly, often its not very good. Often the dialogue doesn't really follow from one line to another, or fit the surroundings.

It crackles with an unpredictable, youthful energy - but honestly, i found it hard to follow and concentrate on it meanders so badly.

Nevertheless, a fascinating raw piece of film, and commendable 100% for taking the power over the green light into the street.

There are some generally great things in it. This joke, for example:

I'm a dancer. What sort of a dancer, like a ballet dancer? Oh no... exotic.

And the whole party scene its in, the following trip to the park, and the scene where the boys go looking at statues.

2/5. I wouldn't say they're worth 2 hours of your time, though.


12/17/01 All I can do with this film is improvise on my impressions. I wasn't given the "changes," don't know the "score," and am not schooled in the genre. I always had problems following chord changes anyway (trumpet player, y'know), so I was pretty well limited to doing the basic "keep the tune in mind" and ad lib around that. What jammed me up about this incredibly moody black and white blues piece was the knot it gave me in my head and heart in trying to figure out whether to go with the ensemble or pick out a path along the tune (story.) I guess I went with the tune as usual; I kept getting lost on the changes--too deep, extensive, over my head, probably. Still, it was a gas to try to keep pace. I admired the actors' playing to the theme and story line. I didn't see some things or heare things others seem to: I didn't feel the light skin gal was "trying to pass" as much as she was either oblivious to the color issue or was trying to ignore it--at first: later she came back fighting. The brooding light skin young man (his trumpet noodling mas ludicrous) was ambiguous, ambivalent, and --perhaps his best feature--remote. What, I thought after the shadow-curtain closed on this provocative piece--is the foundation of a thing like this? Is it a way of finding "reality" by setting up a stage, peopling it with expressive characters and giving them a melody and theme? Is it any more real or truthful than a well-crafted script--without the benefit of editing and revising? Is improvisation heroic, "artier"?--moreso than crafted work? Where is there greater or clearer truth: in retrospective art/craft or in fabrication and reformation? Well, I am still lost in this question. I loved the film; it got me lost in a cool blue foggy evening, where I just had to go home and get out my horn. Guess what? I broke out in a twelve-bar blues riff, tried and true--couldn't make myself stray from the tune. Reality is just too scary. jaime says give them a 7 and more. I'm on break.


slow moving but smart. passes you by as if you lived it. filled with thought provoking Ideas art Race and being cool. that one thing hit me hard was the ideas about the rock n' roll lifestyles.

all the performances were improvised i will say it again ALL THE PERFORMANCES WERE IMPROVISED sounds like a gimmick but its not it makes these characters real and like some one you would hang with. this also an amazing thing when you think about how strong the character are in this film. right from the beginning in the title sequence it immediately establish Ben as an outcast by the way he moves though the crowd

Okay it breaks down like this if your a person who lives the jazz/rocker lifestyle of cool you will like it if your smart and understand great cinema from total crap you will love it and if your both then it might be you fav

but if your none of these then you will probably think its boring and say it doesn't follow "one line" and write a crap review like Ben_Cheshire


Twins Effect, starring some of HK's most popular stars provides one of the most enjoyable film experiences to come out of HK in sometime. It has something for everyone, action, comedy, horror, romance, and some drama. This film can't be taken too seriously, otherwise you'd go in dissapointed, but if you leave your brain at the door, and just watch the film for some fun, you're bound to enjoy it.

Great special effects, excellent action, cute Twins, cool HK actors, FUN film!

I'd recommend it to anyone!


A vampire prince falls for a human girl, unaware that her brother is a famous vampire hunter. That's the underlying theme of this martial arts romp which borrows ideas from "Underworld" and "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" but manages to maintain a style of its own. I was bemused by the UK and Hong Kong title "The Twins Effect" as there are no twins involved in the story. It turns out that the two main female characters are played by Hong Kong pop stars who perform as "The Twins". Don't let this put you off. These girls can act (at least well enough for this type of film) and add a lot of charm to the proceedings. Jackie Chan turns up for a couple of cameo appearances adding a dash of his own brand of slapstick mayhem to the proceedings. All in all this is great fun for those who like their vampires served up with a helping of tongue-in-cheek humour.


Lotsa action, cheesy love story, unexpected actors and overall great fun. The special effect are acceptable/decent, some of the fighting is kinda neat with some interesting acrobatic moves. The overall story moves along, and is cheesy enough to keep you wondering when the inevitable is going to happen, although there is a bit of a twist (just a small one). The overall naivety of the movie make it quite whimsical at times. Cute enough chicks too what more could you want. PS. if you're gonna review a movie like this, try to review it in terms of the category the movie would fall (not necessarily where it was intended to fall). ie don't bomb out good cheesy movies!


I'm not sure what version of the film I saw, but it was very entertaining.

I did not know who the "Twins" were (Gillian Chung and Charlene Choi) before seeing this movie and I think the English translation of the title is somewhat misleading.

The martial arts are very nicely done. I especially liked them, because there was a lot of judo/grappling that was filmed very nicely. Donnie Yen (see him in Hero, great performance) as a director is great as he knows how to shoot these scenes.

Everything seemed to flow for me, except there is one scene where the girls are on the rooftop fighting with bamboo poles. It has really nothing to do with the plot, but it's still entertaining.

Overall, this is one of the better (modern) HK action flicks I've seen in a while. Although cheesy in some respects, it still pulls it off.

Definitely a 9/10


Like a very expensive Buffy episode peppered with plenty of humor. Lots of wire and stunt kung fu. The Twins Effect goes on the list of classic must see HK films. The vampires have a cool blend of hopping ghost type and the pretty boy European style. If you get the opportunity to see this one in the theatre it is worth a 30 minute drive, otherwise buy the import DVD before someone screws it up by giving it a bad dub.


If you go into the Twins Effect looking for a pure Hong Kong movie experience you will be disappointed. This is not to say it is bad, but it is NOT a traditional Hong Kong action movie, running in a similar vein to Shaolin Soccer and Kung Fu Hustle. It's resolutely silly and juvenile, so if you want a good bit of serious Hong Kong action, look to a John Woo or Yuen Woo Ping movie. This movie's got a lot of flak for it's silliness and I thought the first thing I should do would be to explain what you're getting into, as it's disappointed a lot of purists.

For the non-purists and those with more forgiving tastes though, Twins Effect is a delightfully silly kung-fu comedy. I liked it a lot for a variety of reasons, not least it's wonderful female leads who spark off each other in a thoroughly entertaining comedy double act. I believe this is the first movie of it's type they've been in, but they hop, kick and fly about like seasoned pros.

The patently ridiculous plot is handled with a great deal of care and attention, and the movie is quite knowingly written, making a lot of the movie laugh out loud. The comedy really is the most prominent thing here, and it's a subtle, gentle comedy as reliant on words as inanimate objects going flying a la Stephen Chow. It has to be said the slapstick is immense fun too. The sequence with the disco-dancing vampires is a total classic.

The action is a blend of two genres really. It falls between the 'period drama' wire-and-sword fighting (which comes in more toward the end) and the comedy fighting style of Jackie Chan, coming out with a blend that though a little derivative at times is always exciting to watch and occasionally throws up some genuinely innovative encounters.

All this is great, and the movie is tremendous fun all the way through. Despite this, it does have a few sticking points. For instance, Twins Effect is in many ways much more westernised than kung-fu fans are perhaps used to, the inevitable comparison to the Blade series is definitely sound as an example, though Twins Effect is honestly much better than Blade ever managed, especially for fighting action. Personally, it was also a bit of a shame to see the excellent Anthony Wong (the hissable villain from John Woo's classic Hard Boiled) so underused, but the younger audience this is aimed at are unlikely to notice this or indeed know about Hard Boiled or his other movies, so this is only really a personal gripe.

If you watch this with an open mind, you'll probably enjoy it greatly like I did, but you must be firmly aware it is a COMEDY, not a balls to the wall kung-fu movie. Keep that in mind and you'll be fine.


This movie, as my Chinese girlfriend informed me, features two well-known Hong Kong pop stars. While this may make the movie a mere marketing stunt, I found the acting acceptable, and they're both cute.

The story is pretty poor overall. The vampiric traits and weaknesses are, however, used in humorous ways, and created some uniquely entertaining bits. The quarreling between the two girls made me chuckle, and this gave a fine balance together with the well-executed action scenes to create an entertaining movie.


With a film starring the Twins, Ekin Cheng and Edison Chen, nobody should expect a masterpiece of cinema. What you do get, however, is a fun film which is easy on the eye and the brain. There are loads of Hollywood-style vampires (no hopping Chinese bloodsuckers here), cute girls, handsome heroes and the occasionally very funny moment. And Jackie Chan.

Sure, the kung-fu relies heavily on wire work and CGI. Sure, the script reminds you of Blade. And sure, the whole affair is instantly forgettable.

But for a truly enjoyable piece of cinematic fluff, you would be hard pushed to find better.


Well don't expect anything deep an meaningful. Most of the fight scenes are pretty decent. The two leading ladies are quite endearing but their lack of HK action background shows at times. The ending maybe lacks something but I quite enjoyed it none the less. The cheesy humour isn't probably going to appeal to anyone who hasn't watched a bunch of HK films but if your down with that sort of thing and have a couple of hours to fill with something meaningless you could do a lot worse than this. (OK so you could do better but.......)

Certainly on a par with most of the Hollywood blockbuster action drivel.

7/10


I think that there was too much action in the end? Don't you think that too? There was romance, adventure that just like told me to put 9 to this movie but action place was too long. I liked Reeve a bit. I didn't understand why did he have to die. I thought that one of the girls gonna die too but my lucky! No one else who I liked didn't die! How about you? What did you liked? I saw the movie twice actually. And after that I bought that too. It was worth it! Who did you liked best (person)?. The book was really, really, really cool. And the actresses and actors too. Everything was perfect....... What was the song name in the end? Will someone answer my questions too... PLEASE, please please?


Fun mix of vampires and martial arts is a bit of a mess plot-wise and the acting of those who dubbed the voices is almost universally bad, but the premise is engaging, the fight scenes are fast and flashy and the movie is often quite amusing. It's a shame the story is such a wreck. There are a couple of places where I had no idea what just happened, it was almost as though five minutes had just been cut out and you were suddenly at the next scene without knowing how you'd got there. The movie is poor at explaining things and some things don't make a lot of sense, but the movie moves along breezily so its flaws barely register. Not a great movie by any means, but definitely a fun one.


The Twins Effect - Chinese Action/Comedy - (Charlene Choi, Gillian Chung)

This vampire action comedy is one of my favorites for the very fact that I was thoroughly entertained throughout the entire movie. First of all, the characters are memorable, contributing a myriad of classic scenes. Charlene and Gillian are naturally cute, charismatic, and humorous. This movie was my first exposure to them, and all I wanted to do was reach through my television screen and give them a REALLY BIG HUG. The remaining cast did well in their supporting roles, including Jackie Chan, Karen Mok, "The Duke", Josie Ho, Edison Chen, Anthony Wong, and the vampire bad guys (one of which looks eerily familiar to Will Ferrell). Even the abominably horrible Ekin Cheng was good in this one. Good characters are important, of course, because they avoid the feeling of boredom by keeping things interesting between action sequences.

And speaking of action, this film has plenty of it. More importantly, there is an emphasis of quality in the fight choreography. One aspect that helped in this regard is the featured weapon of the protagonists  a sword with a retractable spear-ended rope. This weapon, in and of itself, opened up a variety of moves that would have been otherwise impossible. Josie Ho and Gillian Chung, in particular, perform some wicked aerial maneuvers using these devices.

In addition, the swordplay is superb, and is highlighted by two great sword fights  one taking place during the opening train station sequence and the other occurring in the church finale. In fact, the blade-wielding maneuvers showcased in this film put some other highly overrated fan favorites to great shame, and I truly feel sorry for those who would cite the horribly choreographed garbage seen in Ashes of Time, Storm Riders, or A Man Called Hero with the well-planned, precisely executed sequences seen in The Twins Effect. It's not even close.

I can't understand why this film gets so much criticism. I'm sure die-hard apologists for the Hong Kong "Golden Age" will hate this because it doesn't fit into their narrow-minded view of what Hong Kong action should be. We should learn from the downfall of John Woo - a one trick pony who never learned how to re-invent himself. We don't need another clone. We need something different. The Twins Effect is one good example.

This film was so good that it actually set me up for being disappointed at other Chinese movies with the same actors and actresses. This especially applies to Ekin Cheng, whose other films almost always suck  and yes, this includes the obscenely overrated and exploitative wuxia crap mentioned in the previous paragraph. Even The Twins have never been able to match the value of this movie when both were lead actresses in a film, although they have managed to hit some good films when either one or the other takes the leading role (e.g., Beyond Our Ken, Good Times Bed Times, House of Fury) or when one or both are in supporting roles (e.g., Colour of the Truth, New Police Story, Just One Look). The Twins Effect 2 should have been a direct sequel, instead of a family fantasy. I am still yearning to see Charlene and Gillian team up and kick some butt in another movie, but the fact remains that The Twins Effect hits on all cylinders, optimizing their charisma while avoiding a descent into annoyance (as in Protégé de la Rose Noire).

All in all, this film has everything one needs to be entertained. And may I remind the reader that it is precisely this  ENTERTAINMENT  that judges the greatness of a movie, more so than artsy dramatic elements or meaningless awards from established academies of critics who usually have no idea what they are talking about.

In the end, the Twins Effect is a CLASSIC not to be missed.

Rating = 5/5 stars

P.S.  The Hollywood execs decided to slaughter this film when it was released in the U.S. by renaming it The Vampire Effect and cutting out 20 minutes of footage, which includes parts of the action scenes. However, the final fight of the U.S. version does have a better soundtrack than the original version. Therefore, I purchased both versions, which allows me to first watch the original until about the 1:20 mark, and then swap discs to watch the final fight on the U.S. version.


The twins effect is a vampire martial arts movie available in Cantonese with English subtitles. It is a Jackie Chan production and he does make a special guest appearance, although it is not for those that liked Shanghai Noon/Knights and the other recent Hollywood flicks he has become known for, this film is a lot more special than that.

It was originally called The Vampire Effect but as a very popular Chinese female pop duo called The Twins (Charlene Choi and Gillian Chung) took the two leading roles the title was changed to cash in on their fame.

The film will appeal to three types of audience: those who love martial arts films, those who love vampire films and those who loath the rubbish films Hollywood generally churns out.

The premise for the film is that vampires are about and a secret society seeks to hunt them down before we all become snacks for the undead. This bloody work is carried out by some martial artists who drink a little vampire blood to give them the edge they need, well it must be thirsty work! Things are going pretty much for the course until a particularly nasty European vamp finds out that he if he obtains a set of keys held by all the vampire princes then he can walk around in sunlight etc and generally eat when ever he wants to. To say anymore on the plot would spoil the enjoyment of watching the film.

The twins consist of one assigned vampire slayer (Chung) and the sister (Choi) of another. It is the twins that really make the film; with some of the freshest and funniest acting going. The fight scenes they carry out are fast and furious and well choreographed with a mix of genuine athleticism and wire work. To add the cherry on the cake the twins are both quite lovely to watch too.

The direction is crisp and the script is sharp. There are only 3 things that let this film down: the make-up for the vampires is quite poor, Jackie Chan seems to be in the film just for the hell of it and adds nothing to its content, and some of the slapstick comedy attempted by the male vampire hunter is quite lame. Thankfully the twins save the day bringing an originality to the film normally only found in European films. The best scene for me was one of them (Choi) communicating only by screaming, her ability to convey her thoughts through this medium was a comic delight.

Their are many other touches of originality in this film - I particularly liked the coffin complete with surround sound stereo and TV screen! And it is the films' many original touches and acting that stops this from being a tired old flop and turns it into a must see movie.


I watch a lot of Vampire movies. I KNOW vampire movies. Hammer Films have always been my favorites. Christopher Lee will always be the best Dracula.

Vampire Effect is a fun movie from the beginning to the end. The dubbing is not great, but I also like Godzilla movies, so I am used to badly dubbed movies. Anyway, I liked this movie very much. The SFX are great. Even though Jackie Chans part in the movie has nothing to do with the plot and seems to be added to sell the movie, he is enjoyable in it. The Fang work is excellent. The acting is not great, but this could have something to do with the bad dubbing. Maybe the actual language would sound better with the movie if I could understand it. I am sure the movie Gone With The Wind sounds worse in another language.

I own this on DVD and would not part with. I have it sitting on my bookshelf next to my Hammer Films DVDs.


I enjoyed this movie okay, it just could have been so much better. I was expecting more action than what I got...which was more of a comedy than anything else. Granted, it was serious in parts and it had a good fight scene here and there for the most part it was more romance and comedy with some action and no horror at all. Which is hard to do with a vampire movie. A vampire hunter loses his partner and must train another, his sister is going through a difficult break up, but she is being pursued by a vampire of all things. Granted, this vampire is rather nice and not into sucking blood. So that is all there is really to it except for a plot of another vampire after certain royal vampires so he can gain ultimate power. Some of the problems with this movie is that its plot went here and there and the movie had a very uneven flow to it, that and it seemed to shift genres a bit much too. One minute action, the next pure comedy. However, the girls were cute, there is good action, the comedy was worthy of a chuckle or two and Jackie Chan makes a rather energetic appearance or two. This movie probably just needed more development in some areas such as the villain who is basically not really explored at all. So for a movie with a few good fights and a chuckle or two this is rather good...though why was it rated R? I have seen stuff we have made that is PG-13 that is a lot worse than this.


This splicing of THE SEARCHERS is one of the weirdest films I've ever seen, filmed by a Briton in a strange, unfamiliar Mexico. It's often said that the best films about America are made by foreigners, who can approach the familiar with an outsider's eye. But this crackpot film is something else. Though set ostensibly in post-Civil War America, this isn't an America recognisable from myth, cinema, TV etc. The film has an air of timeless fable about it, while dealing specifically with Western mythology.

Director Harvey uses the title horse as a focus for interconnecting stories, all dealing with the traditional Western clash of the primitive and civilisation. The former seems to have the upper hand. The vast scrub and desert of the film's landscape is unbroken, ripe for allegories of the mind. The only brief sites of civilisation are a stagecoach of missionaries and landowners, and their hacienda, from both of which derive behaviour that is anything but civilised.

The basic story intercuts three stories. In one, an aimless deserter, Pike, having lost his trading partner, steals a miraculous horse, Eagle's Wing, so-called because of its grace and speed. In the second, an Indian, White Bull, owner of this horse, waylays a stagecoach, and kidnaps one of its female occupants. In the third, the Spanish men sent to find her ignore this quest in favour of a murderous, plundering spree.

Although a revisionist Western, the treatment of the Indian is problematic. Unlike Pike, his character is never explained, forever inscrutable, denied a voice, except for an excruciating snatch of song. When he's not a strange Other, he's a symbol, whose role isn't entirely worked out - at one point a savage brute, at another he epitomises nature and freedom.

But Pike notes at the beginning that the film will attend to the period of primitivism before civilisation. In many ways the film resembles 2001 - A SPACE ODYSSEY, especially its opening sequence. Part of the film's power lies in the connections made between the three disparate characters, forcing us to view the mythic struggles and quests in a different light. Indian culture and Catholicism is linked by superstition, ritual, greed and murder. Both Pike and White Bull are musical and alcoholic. White Bull is demonised by both Pike and the abductee as a 'bastard', unwittingly revealing the tactic of illegitimacy used by colonising whites who infantilised the natives, becoming themselves 'necessary' fathers.

Unlike a traditional Western, concerned with making history, civilisation, and progress, this film is a double detective story, interrogating the past, tracks, remains.

What gives this film its remarkable uniqueness, I think, is, despite Maltin's racism, its Britishness. The climactic stand-off is more like an Arthurian joust. The film itself bravely eschews dialogue for the most part, creating the kind of visual and aural tapestry Malick missed in THE THIN RED LINE, and something few Hollywood directors would have dared. The existential doubling and quest motifs are more European myth than American (resembling another British Harvey Keitel movie, THE DUELLISTS).

Most astonishing is the use of nature. Most Westerns use landscape as an awe-inspiring backdrop: there is little sense of actually living in the West. In many ways, EAGLE'S WING is like a Powell and Pressberger film, with nature a powerful, pantheistic character in its own right - alive, dangerous, hostile, beautiful. There is a sublime scene reminiscent of A CANTERBURY TALE, when jewellery left as a trap by White Bull in the trees is suddenly blown in the wind: there is a haunting, tingling, magical, thrilling effect more reminiscent of the Arabian Nights than a horse opera. Heartstopping.


There must have been some interesting conversations on the set of Eagle's Wing, with Martin Sheen straight off Apocalypse Now co-starred with the actor he replaced on Coppola's film, Harvey Keitel. A real unloved child of a movie, dating back to the last major batch of Westerns in 1979-80, it was much reviled at the time for being made by a British studio and director (conveniently ignoring the fact that many of the classic American westerns were directed by European émigrés), which seems a bit of an over-reaction.

The plot is simplicity itself, as Martin Sheen's inexperienced trapper finds himself fighting with Sam Waterston's nonosyllabic Kiowa warrior over the possession of a beautiful white horse, the Eagle's Wing, across a harsh and primitive landscape in a time "before the legends began." Aside from Caroline Langrishe's captive Irish governess, the supporting cast have little to do (Stephane Audran never even gets to open her mouth) and it is a little slow, but Anthony Harvey's film does boast terrific Scope photography from Billy Williams and a good score from Marc Wilkinson.


An unusual, revisionist western, well worth watching. Despite a slow start, the film builds  with scarcely any dialogue and no subtitles  an increasingly involving and intense, almost existential portrait of life in the harsh environment of the Western desert. The growth of the lead characters is worth waiting for, and the strong central cast bring a real sense of desperation to the struggle for ownership of the all-important horse. How interesting that this was made by a British director. I hope he's smiling now: I get the impression the film was largely ignored by contemporaries; but time works its usual alchemy, and hidden gold shines out as it inevitably must. One note jarred for me: the revisionism is only carried so far. Sam Waterston as an Indian? - granted he plays his part with real emotion and intensity, but really, couldn't one American Indian actor be found to do the job? But his scenes with Caroline Langrishe have an intimacy which contrasts nicely with the immense landscape around them.

Forget big, bankrupt Hollywood versions of the past, men with big chins and swirling music; this one is all about a primeval struggle between protagonists who, stripped of all the trappings of 'ordinary' life, come to understand what is worth fighting for. Impressive.


On first viewing this movie seems to be some kind of fairy tale about a beautiful and significantly white horse once seen never forgotten. However viewed strictly within the context of the story the implication is that to survive in the immediate post-Civil War America, one had to have a horse, and not any old horse but a truly great one. And Eagle's Wing is such a horse. But for a man to be worthy of such a horse is another matter. Who should own it? The Native American or the AWOL soldier? The story throughout pits primitivism against civilisation. As has been said by other commentators it is ironic that it took an English director to perceive this fact, and then develop this simple theme into a western like no other you're ever likely to see again. The film is basically about this beast and the savage harshness of the environment and the people who scrape a living from it. The photography and the soundtrack are exquisite. Martin Sheen's performance is a revelation. This film, released in the same year as Sheen's other great performance as Willard in 'Apocalypse Now', hints at his abilities which somehow were never given such a free rein again. More's the pity. A comparison of the two stories throws up the surprising similarities between them - not least that both films chart a man's journey into his soul in order to find redemption. Whereas Willard is redeemed I will leave it to the viewer to decide if Pike is eventually. The ending is fabulous in the true sense of the word, and very moving; be warned. Altogether this is an extraordinary film.


8 points for take on probably what really kinda maybe more what it was like back then. American Indians probably stole more than killed. Who really knows? Nice slower odd pursuit means it has a pace and... interesting and unique. Thankfully not another mindless shoot em up. I thought this would suck at first, I wound up getting wrapped up... nice treasure... good job! I have hopes nobody dissects this film. When the entire movie unfolds you have many unique twists, impossible to determine what will be next. The characters are human and have either honor or not... passion or not... forgiveness or not. Wound up loving the White Horse, the Indian, Sheen even the damned desert. All good.


"Eagle's Wing" is a pleasant surprise of a movie, & keeps the viewer interested. I didn't know anything about it being made by the British until I read the other viewer comments. I can understand why it won an award for cinematography, for it was brilliantly presented & must have looked magnificent on a vast theatre screen.

It seemed to be a lot more realistic than most westerns, in portraying how the West was more truly won. As well as the complexities of the characters it presents. The Indian-Sam Waterson character is particularly intriguing. He seems to be brutal in the savage environment he is conditioned to, but displays remarkable respect for the frailties he witnesses in the white men & women he encounters. He is not friendly or sensitive to these intruders in his lands, but he has a limit to his sense of vengeance, even a compassion when he is in a position of power & observing the wilting white man bent on revenge, as well as the girl he kidnaps after capturing a stagecoach. As such, his character seems complex but congruous to the harsh lands he lived in & which were threatened by these intruders he is not heartless in his dealings with.

The magnificent horse he rides is a critical link & it is interesting to note how this Indian handles it, compared with the Martin Sheen-character who has it in his possession & power for a time. "Eagle's Wing" is an unusual Western, a genre I am not drawn to, but I really appreciated this excellent offering, which I would rate second only to "A Man Called Horse".


I have just read what I believe to be an analysis of this film by a lyrical Irishman. Lovely to read.

However, a concise analysis of this film is that it is a interweaving of the seven deadly sins with the four types of justice.

Envy, greed, pride, sloth, anger, etc. and justice in the forms of retributive, distributive, blind, and divine.

I could demonstrate three examples of each, one for each of the three protagonists; however, it is much more fun to note them for oneself.

This is an excellent film.

Don't miss it.


The mere presence of Sam Waterston as an Indian, is enough to put this movie in the must-see category. He is both beautiful and very subtle, with no lines whatsoever. He is tender with his kidnappee, and yet we can see he is among the proudest of all young Indian Men. Martin Sheen is just a dumb cluck who decides to challenge Waterston (White Bull) for a gorgeous white horse. Other sub-plots are really unnecessary. I don't understand the part played by Caroline Langrishe, as the poor girl who White Bull kidnaps...I don't know how she keeps her hands off this beautiful Indian man! It's a lot of fun, though; especially if you're a Waterston fan. Man, he looks GOOD in this one!!! Harvey Keitel's role isn't even worth mentioning, to tell the truth! But, rent it and enjoy! Actually, I do believe that if the music score was better, it would've been a more dramatic film...the music is so bad, it's distracting. Still - there's Mr. Waterston!


I just saw "Eagle´s wing". I do not really know why this movie was made. What is the message of this story? Nevertheless I liked it. There are some exciting scenes in it. I appreciate a strong performance by Martin Sheen. Harvey Keitel is less convincing.


I had the pleasure of seeing this short film at the Miami film festival this past Saturday and let me just say I was astounded. It was the only film out of the whole program that I loved. It is beautifully shot, composed, edited, acted and written. After the screening I saw the director at a party and asked him what he was doing next. He said that he was working on finding financing for the feature version of the short. He described some scenes to me. It sounded like the kind of first film that launches the greats into the industry. If you ever get a chance to see this short I highly recommend taking it. Hats off to star crossed.


I just watched this short at the PlanetOut Movies.

Starcrossed was a very sweet, sad, little movie about two brothers that are in love. There is some great, subtle acting from both the male leads. Often times movies with this subject matter seem to get too caught up in the controversy and shock value of the plot that they forget that there is an actual story. Luckily writer director James Burkhammer does not do this, and instead lets the story play out with honesty. The sequences of the two boys first falling in love are very sweet.


I've watched many short films in my day. Often I find them either too compressed (throwing too much information at the viewer in the short amount of time they have to run), too "artsy", or lacking a clear-cut vision. I can say none of these things about Starcrossed. In this review, I'll do my best to avoid any dramatic spoilers, but I'll also assume that the reader understands that the theme of this film is brotherly incest.

As with any short film, the story is fairly simple, straightforward and easy to digest. It's clear that the film attempts to shine a light one one of modern society's most deeply held taboos. This film succeeds in every respect. In the fifteen minutes of running time, I found myself feeling a gamut of emotions. With only a little dialog, the viewer is rapidly pulled into the most personal moments and thoughts of these star-crossed brothers.

From the opening scene set in their early childhood, one can see the very close relationship the brothers have. When the film progresses to the present day in the next scene, the excellent acting and honest, heartfelt performances remind the viewer that love can come in the most unexpected and harsh way. As the relationship progresses, any disgust the viewer may initially feel is quickly replaced by sympathy and emotional distress as the viewer suddenly realizes that there can be only one possible resolution. And the aftermath of that resolution is heart-rending.

Anyone with an open mind would do well to watch this film and absorb its message. If nothing else, it boldly and honestly challenges the viewer to reexamine some of our deepest beliefs on the shame-filled and secretive taboo of incest. Though the film is only fifteen minutes long, it resonates in the viewer long after the credits roll. This is perhaps my favorite short film I've ever seen. I can't recommend it highly enough.


I've just seen this movie, and it made me cry. It's a beautiful drama about two brothers falling in love, and i think it's a good idea, especially for the closed-minded, to watch this one. I have come to love the short-film genre after just having seen a couple, because they have to make an impression on you so fast, and i have to say that this one definitely sat it's mark. It described some things, that i haven't ever really thought about that way, incest for one.

I have to admit that i did not care too much for the ending. Just once i would like to watch a gay-themed movie without wanting to kill myself after wards. They seem to pretty much always end in tragedy. It was 'cute' though, how that they had to be together, even if it was in death.

I gave it eight stars, and i recommend it too everyone, cause i think it gives an 'inside-look' in the world, that this movie make you enter.

Thanks for listening, enjoy.


First and foremost I would like to say, that before i watched this film i considered myself an accepting individual. Someone that cared about others, appreciated others, found no/barely any judgment against other people, and this film has (i think) changed my life or viewpoint dramatically. When i watched it, I didn't know particularly what it was about, i knew it was about some type of forbidden relationship, but other then that I was clueless, and as I began to see what was taking place between these two wonderfully depicted characters, i was in shock, disbelief, confusion and surprise. The first time i watched it, i was blind. Blind to their love, to their intimacy, to their connection, to their pureness as human beings, to their relationship. I watched it a second time, because i finally figured out how hypocritical I was being, saying to myself and others, "Oh i accept all types of people, and try not to judge them" while still judging this wonderful and amazingly insightful story, because of my fear I suppose. The second time I watched this film, I opened those eyes of mine that had stayed closed the first time, and really looked, not at the type of taboo relationship part that I'd heard about all my life, but simply at two human beings in love. And I loved it, i loved the storyline, i loved the slightly broken yet strong individual people in the film, i loved the sharing of feelings, and i loved the strong bonds created. It is a really eye opening, beautifully done film that made me cry at times, and I hope that people who read this and are going to watch the film eventually, remember that everyone deserves love, no matter what shape or form it is presented in....


i guess if they are not brother this film will became very common. how long were they can keep this ? if we were part,what should they do?so natural feelings,so plain and barren words.But I almost cried last night blood relationship brotherhood love knot film.in another word,the elder brother is very cute.if they are not brothers,they won't have so many forbidden factors，from the family、society、friends、even hearts of their own at the very beginning.The elder brother is doubtful of whether he is coming out or not at the beginning .maybe the little brother being so long time with his brother and even can't got any praise from his father，this made him very upset and even sad,maybe this is a key blasting fuse let him feel there were no one in the world loving him except his beloved brother. and i want to say ,this is a so human-natural feeling ,there is nothing to be shamed,you may fell in love your mother、brother、sister.Just a frail heart looking for backbone to rely on


Some movies want to make us think, some want to excite us, some want to exhilarate us. But sometimes, a movie wants only to make us laugh, and "In & Out" certainly succeeds in this department.

Indiana high-school teacher Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline) is going to be married to fellow teacher Emily Montgomery (Joan Cusack) in three days, but the whole town is more excited about the Oscar nomination of former resident Cameron Drake (Matt Dillon). But when Cameron wins an Oscar for playing a gay soldier, he thanks his gay teacher, Howard, for inspiration. What follows is Howard denying it in an hilarious set of mishaps in a truly screwball fashion.

Kevin Kline is great, exuding gay stereotypes. Joan Cusack really has a knack for screwball antics. Debbie Reynolds is utterly hilarious as Howard's mother. And Bob Newhart is also a hoot as the homophobic principal.

Gay screenwriter Paul Rudnick really achieves a delicate balance here. He knows the stereotypes and exploits them in a way that's mostly tolerable to conservative Midwesterners and yet mostly inoffensive to the gay audience. It's not exactly progressive, but it's funny and inoffensive, and definitely a step up from the previous year's "The Birdcage."


Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline) is a teacher who is about to get married. Then, one of his former students wins an Oscar for a film in which he plays a gay soldier and thanks Howard in his acceptance speech, outing him as being gay too! This film follows the aftermath as reporters descend on Howard's village and he tries to convince everyone that he is straight.

I love this movie! Kevin Kline is wonderful, it has some really hilarious moments and it always leaves me feeling great with an enormous grin on my face. Consequently, it's one film that I enjoy watching as often as possible. If you haven't seen it, you're missing out!


In & Out is a comedy with a simple premise. It admirably succeeds in the mission of being funny and entertaining.

The comedy in this film ranges from the ridiculous to the sublime, physical comedy exists alongside dry humor, with a nice veteran turn by Bob Newhart. Kevin Kline is predictably in excellent form in this film, alongside Tom Selleck not playing to his expected "square jawed" leading man type. Mr. Selleck plays his humor well and displays a nice sense of comedic timing. The cast makes this film successful.

Not all films with homosexual themes are made to advance some sort of sinister, hidden Hollywood liberal agenda, in point of fact this film was simply made to entertain, and if any part of this films makes the viewer think, then it was a byproduct of the well-acted work by a terrific cast of professionals. Frequently tongue-in-cheek, I found myself laughing at the right moments. A solid "B."


In & Out was a funny comedy with good performances by Joan Cusack, Tom Selleck, Matt Dillon, and Kevin Kline. The thought of Kevin Kline being gay was very funny. If I was him, I would hate to say I'm gay at his own wedding with his family, friends, and his going to be wife there. Very seldom would that ever happen. I also loved when he was dancing around when the voice on the radio was talking to him. I'd say that In & Out was a silly comedy with a lot of laughs and giggles. This is a recommended comedy and Kevin Kline had a great performance as a gay guy. Trust me you'll like this movie.

7/10


I saw this because my cousin is an extra in one of the wedding scenes. I read somewhere that Oz and Rudnick wanted to poke fun at liberal message movies, but the climax ends up being right out of one of those movies. Also, some of the humor is a bit on the cloying side, Joan Cusack was too over-the-top for me, and someone has a strange timeline re the Oscars. Still, there were more than enough funny moments, like the kiss scene, the wedding that isn't, and the scene with the principal, to enjoy this. Kline as always is good, but for me, the real surprise was Selleck, whom I'm not a big fan of, but pokes fun at himself nicely here.


I watched this again after having not seen it since it first came out (in '97), and it still made me laugh out loud. It's skillfully written, Kevin Kline and Joan Cusack are both perfect in their roles, and if you can look at Bob Newhart in this movie and not chuckle, you're more of a man than I.

For that matter, I think the scenes where Tom Selleck kisses Kevin Kline, where Kevin Kline listens to the "How to be a Man" cassette, and the post-(almost-)wedding scenes w/ Joan Cusack are three of the funniest scenes in any movie.

Sure, the last scene is a bit of an excuse for a happy ending, but...few movies are perfect.


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** I loved the set-up and consistently laughed throughout the entire movie. The acting was great, with my favorite part being Howard's (Kevin Kline) attempts to be a "manly man". The fiance and parents did a great job as a supporting cast. Spoiler Warning: The acting of his conservative family's acceptance and attempts to be polite were heartwarming and believable. My only problem with the end was the fact that Howard was actually gay. The movie is set-up as a "be who you want to be", but the movie actually does the opposite. Howard's logic behind his "discovery" is the fact that he loves Barbra Streisand's movies and enjoys dancing to music. His mannerisms and tastes appear to be gay, and it isn't until it is pointed out to him that he realizes it. Rather than setting Howard free, it pigeon holes him. Oh, he likes to dance to music, than he must be gay. His confession at the marriage felt like a bending down to society's wishes. In the end, the movie becomes a gay rights movie, which was not the original course. It almost becomes bland with the rest. I believe the movie would had been ultimately better had Howard been straight. It would have been truer to the message.


I have seen this movie many times and i never get sick of it. it is about a man coming out of the closet, that he doesn't know he is in. Kevin Kline's character is a teacher and when one of his former students announces Kline's character is gay the people in his town start to speculate whether he is straight or gay. Kline's character starts to wonder if he is straight or gay too. The acting is absolutely fabulous and hilarious by all the cast. I found the movie very funny and heart-warming. i love this movie, it makes you laugh and makes you feel good while watching it. i recommend this movie to everyone, you will have a great time watching it.


Hollywood movies since the 1930s have treated gays as lepers. In condemning homosexuality, the film industry has reflected only what the repressive society of its day espoused as an ideology. For example, in the 1962 Otto Preminger melodrama "Advise and Consent," straight actor Don Murray was cast as a queer congressman who commits suicide rather than confess his alternative lifestyle. Gay movie characters have covered a lot of ground since "Advise and Consent." In the 1997 movie "In & Out," (**1/2 out of ****), heterosexual actor Kevin Kline is cast as a homosexual teacher who comes out of the closet on his wedding day. While the conservative Hollywood of yesteryear stipulated that the congressional queer in "Advise and Consent" had to commit suicide, the liberal Hollywood of today dictates that the gay English teacher should be embraced rather than maced.

Basically, "In & Out" preaches good citizenship in the garb of a politically correct comedy. Director Frank Oz and scenarist Scott Rudnick endorse honesty as the best policy because honesty always ensures happiness. High school teacher Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline of "The Big Chill") will be happy only after he comes out of the closet, just as his once-fat-but-now-thin fiancée Emily (Joan Cusack) will only feel happy when she can ditch her diet. Ultimately, the movie contends that straight society will accept gays when homosexuals can act with greater honesty and candor about themselves. The happily outed gay tabloid reporter played by straight actor Tom Selleck here effectively dramatizes this open-minded commentary.

Rudnick's lightweight script embellishes the true life incident that occurred at the Oscars when Tom Hanks paid tribute to a high school teacher. In "In & Out," Cameron Drake (Matt Dillon), a blond, Brad Pitt style bimbo type actor, wins the Oscar for impersonating a fruity foot soldier. Drake honors his mentor Howard Brackett during his acceptance speech. Not contend to stop there, the candid Cameron reveals to a live, television audience that Howard is gay! Suspicion, paranoia, and horror set in as the media descend upon the sleepy town of Green Leaf, Indiana. (When would a no-name high school English teacher's sexual deviance spark such massive media concern?) Among those reporters lurks Peter Malloy (Tom Selleck of "High Road to China"), and he wants to do a week-long exclusive one on Howard. Howard, however, wants nothing to do with the witch-hunting media, especially the pesky Peter Malloy. Howard denies Drake's gay charges to everybody, including his fiancée and his mom. Malloy lingers because he smells a scoop. The revelation has turned Green Leaf upside down. High school principal Tom Halliwell (Bob Newhart) squirms nervously with all the media coverage. Halliwell warns Howard that were his marriage not imminent, he'd have to give him a pink slip. Meanwhile, Peter bets Howard that his marriage to Emily will fall through at the last moment and he'll be there to record the result on camera.

Howard resorts to audio tapes about macho men. He struggles to reform himself. But Howard's efforts are futile. Guilt swells up inside him. And then there is Peter Malloy, who rags him to come clean about his homosexuality. Finally, at the altar in the sight of God, Howard bursts. Of course, bride-to-be Emily Montgomery is floored by Howard's gay confession. Predictably, the school fires Howard, but he shows up for graduation. Drake shows up, too, and rushes to Brackett's defense. Not only has the school stripped Howard of his job, but they've also given his teacher-of-the-year award to somebody else. Drake appeals to the principal and wins Howard the unanimous support of the community.

The biggest defect in Rudnick's contrived script is Howard himself. Rudnick has created a character too chaste to be true, either by gray or straight standards. Howard Brackett looms as more of a saint than a sinner. He helps one student gain admission to college, and he coaches the track team. How often do you hear of an English teacher doubling as a coach, too? Everybody at his high school adores Howard. He doesn't have a mean bone in his body. Further, Rudnick and Oz ask us to believe that nobody else in Green Leaf is gay. Where are Howard's gay friends? Are they too scared to come to his defense? No, "In & Out" is not targeted strictly at homosexual audiences. Oz, whose screen credits include cute comedies like "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" and "House Sitter," as well as Rudnick teeter on a politically correct tightrope. "In & Out" is not a gay recruiting movie. The filmmakers show no interest in what prompted either Howard or Peter Malloy to prefer the gay lifestyle. Instead, Oz and Rudnick are only interested in shoring up a thin premise: Is he or isn't he gay? They flesh it out to involve the community response to the answer. Finally, when Howard admits that he is gay, the filmmakers devote the rest of the movies to showing how a conservative, Norman Rockwell-like town can accept him despite his difference.

The most shocking scenes in "In & Out" is probably when tabloid reporter Malloy does a lip lock on Howard. Straight guys kissing each other in a movie about a gay identity crisis are as hilarious as they are phony. Kline and Selleck grind their faces together in what appears as more of a head-on collision than a closed-mouth kiss. Nothing at all like the controversial 1994 British movie "Priest," "In & Out" emerges as an engaging but labored piece of social propaganda with its okay-to-be-act message. If "Ellen" weren't the TV equivalent, "In & Out" would probably be heading toward TV as a new sitcom. Watching "In & Out" is not so much about dealing with the issue of gay or straight, but how to be a decent person in the last days of the 20th century. What makes "In & Out" a tolerable comedy about sexual intolerance is its equal opportunity cheers and jeers about queers and steers.


The funniest performance was by Shalom Harlow, as Matt Dillon's supermodel girlfriend. She was more interesting to me than all the lead actors. This movie got it all wrong; even the most dependable actress of the century, Joan Cusask, was not able to rise about the ridiculousness of the plot. I did enjoy hearing "Macho Man" by the Village People over the closing credits. The rest of the movie might have been tolerable if it were to rise to that level of energy.


A beautifully constructed and brilliantly acted comedy. There is not a person in the cast who does not acquit himself (or herself) with hilarious distinction. However, the real star of the film is the unseen director, Frank Oz, who brings all the madcap sensibility and wit to this farce that he brought to Miss Piggy's encounters with Kermit the frog. This is a not -to-be-missed film.


While amiable and amusing for gay audiences, Frank Oz's film "In and Out," about a closeted gay teacher who has been outed on national television by a former student, has been sanitized and deodorized to appeal to the larger and more profitable straight viewers that patronized "The Bird Cage." Although audiences likely patted themselves on the back for being tolerant and liberal enough to see the film, the movie revolves around Kevin Kline's Howard Brackett, who is a grossly stereotyped gay man. The movie asserts that a tendency to dance to disco music, revel in Barbra Streisand movies, and dress well indicates one's sexual orientation. Like "Queer Eye," the film actually takes a backhanded slap at straight men and stereotypes them as slovenly, dim witted, and lacking in taste and culture. OK, so "In and Out" is only a comedy, but even comedies send messages that can hurt.

Unfortunately, at the center of the film's humor lies a somewhat pathetic character. Howard is middle aged, deeply closeted or in self-denial, and evidently has never had a sex life. A three-year engagement to a female teacher in the school where he works is described as a series of sunsets, long talks, and watching "Funny Lady." Fortunately, Joan Cusack plays Howard's intended, Emily Montgomery, and she steals the show throughout. Most of the film's funniest moments belong to her, although Kline's attempts to resist dancing during an instruction tape on macho behavior are hilarious. He is a gifted physical performer, but the film gives him only few moments to shine. Matt Dillon also stands out as the student turned actor, and the clip from his Oscar-nominated film about a gay soldier is hysterical. However, despite the movie's gay theme, there is no boy-meets-boy romance, and only one male-to-male kiss, and that smooch is about as erotic as the one between Michael and Fredo Corleone in "Godfather II."

Although well intentioned, "In and Out" fails to address the injustices and prejudices that it illustrates. Howard is fired from his teaching job despite his outstanding performance and credentials, yet little outrage is expressed. Most of the characters are more upset about the cancelled wedding than about Howard's self-realization, which seems to take place overnight, and his abrupt and unjust dismissal. Not surprisingly, Howard's parents, endearingly portrayed by Debbie Reynolds and Wilford Brimley, and his students rise to support him. However, the sugary finale is as embarrassing to the audience as it evidently was to Howard Brackett in the film. The movie would have been more refreshing if it had revolved around a gay man who dressed like a slob, was a rabid fan of football, drove a station wagon, listened to country music, and lived on fast food. Despite some good performances and funny situations, "In and Out" perpetuates stereotypes and, whether they be positive or negative, stereotypes should be consigned to the dustbin of social history.


Howard (Kevin Kline) teaches English at the high school in a small Indiana city. He is finally getting married to Emily (Joan Cusack), much to his parents delight. The town is abuzz, too, because one of its own, Cameron (Matt Dillon) has been nominated for an acting Oscar. Everyone, including Howard and Emily, is watching the Academy Awards on television as Cameron is declared the winner! In his acceptance speech, Cameron announces that he was able to fulfill his role as a gay military man, in part, because of lessons he learned from a gay teacher he had in high school. You guessed it, its Howard! But, Howard has never "come out"; in fact, he believes he is straight! With the whole town, and members of the media, waiting and observing the happenings, will Howard and Emily go ahead and get married? Or, is Howard truly gay and realize he can not go through with the ceremony? This is a wonderful, funny, and humane film about a gay man and his situation. As the man-who-did-not-realize-he-was-gay, Kline is excellent and touching. The rest of the cast is equally fine, with Cusack a stitch as the mixed-up fiancé and Dillon, Bob Newhart, Debbie Reynolds, Tom Selleck, and others on hand to delight the audience as well. The costumes are very nice and the setting in the lovely Indiana heartland is beautiful. Then, too, the script, the direction, and the production are very, very nice. But, the insightful, humorous, and the thoughtful look at the gay population is the film's best asset, no doubt. For those who would be offended by a gay-themed film, yes, just skip over this one. But, for everyone who wants to laugh heartily, and gain a better understanding of the gay situation at the same time, this is definitely the best film out there.


I remember seeing this a long while ago, and I knew most of the concept, but no detail, so I'm glad I watched it again, from director Frank Oz (The Muppets Take Manhattan, Bowfinger). Basically new star Cameron Drake (Matt Dillon) has just won the Academy Award for his latest, where he plays a gay soldier, and he does the usual "thank yous", he even mentions his past school English teacher Howard Brackett (Golden Globe nominated Kevin Kline), and he outs him as gay! Howard is determined to clear his name, and get out of the media spotlight as a denying gay man, especially as his marriage to Emily Montgomery (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated Joan Cusack) is on the way. So it comes to the wedding day, and when it comes to Howard saying yes or no, that is when he outs himself, and admits to himself and everyone, that he is gay. This of course gets him fired as a teacher, but everyone stands at the graduation day to out themselves (in support), and Cameron even shows up to clear things up, so that everyone, especially school head Tom Halliwell (Elf's Bob Newhart) knows it's okay to be gay. Also starring Tom Selleck as Peter Malloy, Debbie Reynolds as Berniece Brackett, Wilford Brimley as Frank Brackett, Gregory Jbara as Walter Brackett, Glenn Close, Whoopi Goldberg and Jay Leno. The highlight of the film has to be when Kline can't help dancing to Diana Ross's version of "I Will Survive", that must have been what convinced him of his sexuality. Kline is always good, Cusack is a surprise Oscar nominee, and all supporting cast members do their bit too in this very funny comedy. Very good!


The first, and far better, of Kevin Kline's two gay roles. (The second is the dreary "De-Lovely" in which he played Cole Porter.) Inspired by Tom Hanks' emotional acceptance speech for "Philadelphia" in which he outed his high school drama teacher, the nominated film in this version was obviously more "Forrest Gump" than "Philadelphia". Here the Hanks character is played by Matt Dillon.

The reaction scenes in most of the film are very funny and, as has been often pointed out, are especially effective as done by Kevin himself, Debbie Reynolds, Tom Selleck (a brave move since he was himself the target of such rumors, which he denied!), Bob Newhart and Joan Cusack as the eventually jilted bride-to-be.

Tom Hanks' actual teacher criticized the graduation scene saying people don't act that way in real life. But this is a farce and not real life. That being said, it is not as effective as it might be and the misdirection of the final "wedding scene" which makes it look like Tom and Kevin are about to get hitched I found rather pointless, annoying and a cop out.

The highlight of the film for me is, of course, Kevin's scene with the how-to-be-a-real-man audio tape and it is hilarious but certainly not at all realistic when the tape reacts to Kevin's actions.

On the whole, a hoot!


This is truly a funny movie. His dance scene done with the tape is one of the funniest scenes I can recall. I thought the "I am gay" scene at the high school graduation ceremony a bit surrealistic, though it was funny. While watching it for the third time, I started to pick up on a little small segments that I had missed. One was when Matt Dillon's girl friend, a classic ditz, tried to use a dial phone which she had never used before. Kevin Klein made this film successful along Tom Selleck. This was also the first time I could appreciate Debbie Reynolds; she proved that she can be funny. She confirmed this in the TV series 'Will and Grace.' One discovery that I found after the third viewing is Lauren Ambrose of '6 Feet Under' fame. She sticks out with her red bangs, but it is obvious that this is one of her first films. Bob Newhart is also very funny at the high school principle.


Joan Cusack steals the show! The premise is good, the plot line interesting and the screenplay was OK. A tad too simplistic in that a coming-out story of a gay man was so positive when it is usually not quite-so-positive. Then again, it IS fiction. :) All in all an entertaining romp.

One thing I noticed was the "inside-joke" aspect. Since the target-audience probably was straight, they may not get the gay "stuff" in context with the story.

Kevin Kline showed a facet of his acting prowess that screenwriters sometimes don't take in consideration when suggesting Kline for a part.

This one hit the mark.


this movie is extremely funny and enjoyable,with suitable, funny and experienced casts. I find this movie enjoyable not only by the elements of humor but also the music in various scenes. Kevin Kline, a good comedian has done a good job at being funny in many parts of the film along with Tom Selleck who is amazingly different from many of his other films. The humor within this film are goofy which makes various exaggerations within many scenes, especially the beginning bits. Joan Cusack is also remarkably funny and exaggerated; and the same goes for all the other casts. This film has many elements of goofy humor and is enjoyable if you want to laugh.


Kevin Kline offers a brilliant comic turn in the 1997 comedy IN & OUT. Kline plays Howard Brackett, a small town history teacher who excitedly sits down to watch the Academy Awards this year because one of his former students (Matt Dillon) is a nominee. He is nominated for his performance in a film where he plays a gay soldier and when he wins, he thanks Howard in his speech for inspiring him because Howard is gay. Now this floors Howard because he as no clue why thus guy would say this on international television. Howard is even engaged to be married (to Joan Cusack, in an Oscar-nominated performance)so he has no idea where Dillon;s Cameron Drake got the idea that he is gay and finds he has to defend himself to everyone at school but is shocked that no one seemed terribly shocked by what Cameron said on the Oscars. Howard has a birthday party where he is given birthday presents like the soundtrack to YENTL and ends up explaining to his guests why Barbra Streisand had to make FUNNY LADY. His parents (Wilford Brimley, Debbie Reynolds) are shocked but promise to support their son, even if he is gay. He also gets a visit from an out of town reporter (Tom Selleck) who wants to do an article about him because he's gay too. The moment when Selleck plants a big kiss right on Kline's lips is a classic. But all of these little things have Howard actually questioning his sexuality and wondering if he really is gay...much to the aggravation and frustration of his fiancée, Cusack, who is beyond confused. The scene where she leaves a bar in her wedding gown and stands in the middle of street screaming about the lack of single straight men in the world is a classic. But what I like about this movie is the way Kline fully invests in the role and was not afraid to look foolish or look gay. There is a fabulous scene, probably the most famous from the film, where he buys a record, on how to be macho, and the guy on the record is talking about how real men don't dance and a disco tune comes on (I WILL SURVIVE if memory serves)and the narrator on the record says no matter what you do, don't dance, but Howard can't help himself and he ends up shaking his groove thing all over the room. It's hysterically funny and Kline plays it with sincerity and gusto. The film is not pro or anti gay...it's just a deft and amusing character study about a man trying to figure out exactly who he is. Wonderful film.


IN & OUT, in my opinion, is a very hilarious movie. I thought that Cameron (Matt Dillon) was wrong to say that Howard (Kevin Kline) was gay. The part I liked most was Howard's bachelor party. This was because they were cracking jokes about a lot of things, including Barbra Streisand films. I also thought that Emily (Joan Cusack) looked very beautiful in her wedding dress and that Howard looked good in his tuxedo. My favorite quote of IN & OUT is, "Is everybody gay? Is this 'THE TWILIGHT ZONE'?" That was absolutely hilarious! The one character I couldn't stand was Sonya (Shalom Harlow). This was because she was VERY conceited and snobby. In conclusion, I recommend this movie to all you Kevin Kline fans who have not seen it. Be prepared to laugh HARD and have a good time when you see it.


After reading the comment made about this movie, and currently watching it, I can understand how the person felt about it. The decisions made were after listening to common sense. When the movie came out, I had heard the information as to how it came about. The storyline was made from an actual event. During an award show, an actor, thanking the li'l people, attributed the award to a former school teacher, unexpectedly outing the person.

Of course, many people come 'out' of the closet most every day. Each outing is different for each person. In real life, the outcome of any individual is gonna be different as well. And a willingness to accept who they are is the most important thing in life to reach personal happiness. For those around them, the joy and honest acceptance can make life much more fuller. For the movie, the outcome of how Howard is out'ed is a lot more comical than real life. And the acceptance of the community showed the others that Howard was himself and nothing else.

Overall, the performances were crazy. The memorable quotes and use of music add to the stereo-types out there in the world, but taken with tongue and cheek humour. It's a movie. Sit down, watch with an open mind, and laugh your head off.


Paul Rudnick (Jeffrey, Addams Family Values) wrote this frothy tale of a mild mannered school teacher (Kevin Kline) who is outted on the Academy Awards by a former student-turned-actor (Matt Dillon). The rest of the film deals with the absurdities revolving around this setup -the effect on the town, his fiancee (Joan Cusack), himself- and climaxes with an everybody-loves-everybody finale.

 If you're an angry gay rights activist or a naive youth looking for an accurate portrayal of a man's struggle to come out or a 'true' depiction of gay life, then save yourself the trouble and rent something else (maybe Beautiful Thing) or read a book (Giovanni's Room). If you are able to understand that this film was inspired by the piousness of Tom Hanks's speech on the Academy Awards when he won for Philadelphia and pokes fun at Hollywood culture and small town ignorance and you have a fondness for '30's screwball comedy (Bringing Up Baby, Holiday, The Palm Beach Story) then enjoy! Far from being a biting satire, the film tries for the exuberance of a Preston Sturges farce and comes damn close. No, it's not 'deep' or 'powerful' -neither were Romy & Michelle, 9 to 5, or Young Frankenstein- and it doesn't pretend to be; it keeps it's tongue-firmly-in-cheek. It gets too preachy and maudlin for its own good toward the end and sure some of the jokes are a bit stale (there's also a locker room scene that could have been cut) but after sitting through countless comedies that misfire, it's like a breath of fresh air.

 Kevin Kline and Tom Selleck are wonderfully game while Debbie Reynolds and Wilford Brimley add fine support. The excellent Joan Cusack's award winning performance is stellar and the great Bob Newhart is, well, Bob Newhart.

 The fact that many have been offended by In & Out is as absurd as the mentality of the townsfolk it pokes fun at; personally, I was more offended by Philadelphia. I'll take harmless fluff over sanctimoniousness anytime.


This is halfway to being a top movie. The opening section, which spoofs Hollywood "social message" films is absolutely brilliant. It is a riot from start to finish.

The second section, which introduces us to the main characters of the story is really great too. We get a lot of great comic setups, top notch performances, and the dialog is really dynamic.

(Spoiler warning!)

The one think that really annoyed me about this film though is the ending, which I think contradicts everything that went before. My interpretation was that this film was taking the mickey out all the silly prejudices and innuendo of small town gossip and national tabloid sensationalism. I loved that the film was championing the cause that a person's sexuality is NOT determined by their hobbies, idiosyncrasies, fashion sense or whatever. And then the ending goes and re-enforces all the gossip and stereotypes that the movie successfully lampooned in the first place. It turns out everyone was 100% right!!! (godamit!) This was very disappointing to what was actually a great story.


"Lonely among us" definitely is one of the best first season episodes. The storyline, although somewhat confusing, creates a lot of suspense, supported by the creepy synthesizer-driven soundtrack. This is a typically "alien body invasion" scenario but finally turning out to no evil purpose (the death of assistant chief engineer Singh to me was an accident). The two delegate species deliver an entertaining frame (best make-up so far) finally adding a little black humor to the series (the final scene). Patrick Stewart obviously enjoys stepping out a bit of his Picard character and exploring some new terrain as does Data by posing as Sherlock Holmes (another all time classic). The special effects are also convincing and director Cliff Bole did his job well. He is the first one trying to compensate Trois lack in acting ability by improving her looks. She does look beautiful in some scenes and the neck of her dress improves her appearance a lot. Picard's "lightning-scene" on the bridge gives him a slight air of the emperor of Star Wars "Return of the Jedi" (which is a personal impression but made me smile).

There's also some playing with the lighting of the corridors (simulating night aboard) and the first moving camera, pulling back from Picard when he's entering the transporter room to beam into the cloud... Nice work. The clever cutting, creating continuing dialog through different scenes (Troi's hypnosis report) rounds up the impression of a really well crafted TNG episode. The first one, where even Wesley Crusher seemed almost tolerable...

The ending however is a bit confusing, just as if the producers were running out of time. "P for Picard" is a little far fetched and his return far too easy but that can be left aside regarding the many strong moments this episode has to offer...


This episode introduces us to the formal dress uniforms worn here by Captain Picard, Commander Riker, and Lieutenant Tasha Yar. The plot of this episode deals with 2 groups of separate alien delegates, The Anticans and the Selae who try to capture and eat each other at every turn. The 2 sides really hate each other, and it is up to Riker and Tasha to contain them and keep them out of trouble.

Meanwhile a mysterious spacial anomaly goes around the ship injuring and killing a few of the crew members. But at the end of the episode this same spacial anomaly possesses a valuable member of the crowd. Will they be able to rescue him so that they maybe able to continue on with their on going mission of space exploration?

Note: This episode marks Irish actor Colm Meaney's second appearance on TNG after "Encounter at Farpoint." He portrays one of Tasha's "yellow-shirted" security guards.


GoldenEye is a masterpiece. The storyline is amazingly depicted, the characters beautifully animated and the weapons are tyte. The storyline is so interesting, even when you complete every single mission, to get more levels you have to beat them on a higher difficulty. And the multiplayer mode is so tyte. You pick the weapons you want to play with, then play. Me and the three of my friends, along with my brother, always play Goldeneye. If you don't have this game, I suggest you buy it.


Ever since I've been allowed to play Goldeneye once again, it's been impossible to get my mind off it. I'm surprised I could have gone without it. It is, without a doubt, one of the greatest games of all time. I have never played any other shooting games, but I know that this one rules above all. Most people blame it for too much violence, but I find that ridiculous. There may be a few graphic antics, but there's far worse out there.

Most importantly, it's fun. With an awesome arsenal of weapons such as the RC-P90 and the classic Golden Gun, you'll go through several challenging levels from the movie, completing crucial objectives and fending off swarms of guards. There are tons of awesome cheats to get and even two secret levels that you will only earn if you have the true skill. Goldeneye is also one of the greatest multiplayer games ever as well. You can choose several characters from the movie, classic villains from old 007 movies (Baron Samedi, Oddjob, May Day, and Jaws), and guards in the game. Chances are you and your partner(s) will be laughing so hard as you blow each other away that you'll look like Bart and Lisa Simpson watching an episode of the Itchy and Scratchy show.

So if you don't have the game, don't rent it: Just buy it. It's too good to be true. For cool Goldeneye stuff, check out Detstar.com's Goldeneye website. Every James Bond lover will dig this game big time.


Quite simply, Goldeneye is the single greatest N64 game to date. The learning curve is just about perfect, and you'll still be playing it with your friends months on, as the multiplayer mode is nothing short of exceptional.

The system for acquiring cheats for once requires some degree of skill, rather than simply knowing which buttons to press, and the challenge of Aztec on 00 agent level is astonishing.

All in all - it's the best game I've ever played on the N64


007's Goldeneye is one of the best N64 releases ever.

Better than this game? Well...Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, Star Wars: Episode I-Racer and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time are far better and superior games. But I still love Goldeneye.

This is the best adaptation from a movie second only to Star Wars adaptations. The story is perfect. It's like you are in the movie itself.

The graphics are excellent. The movements are extremely realistic. The enemies' artificial intelligence are the best part in this game. I loved playing the stage in which James and Natalya break from the Janus base as the Goldeneye prepares to burn it. Escaping without sounding an alarm was very difficult. Eluding cameras and controlling your fire are great aspects in the gameplay.

It's also the toughest game I've ever played. N64 games are usually very, very easy. Goldeneye is the one exception. I'm still trying to beat the 00 Agent difficult level, but winning the easier levels was already a great victory. I loved when Alec Trevelyan asked: "For England James?". I answered: "No, for ME!" It happened just in the moment I blasted him to death. Just like in the movie. I love accomplishing every objective.

The multiplayer gaming is even better. At first I got killed every holy second. Now, I know how to win. I love forcing my playmates by playing at License to Kill.

The music and sound are astounding. Super Mario 64 looks like an Atari next to this. The only thing I still wanted to hear was the Goldeneye theme song, that plays at the end of the movie.

After Zelda was released, I nearly forgot I still had this game. It's still excellent, even if it's already surpassed. I hope other 007 games are produced.

Fantastic job Rareware! Nintendo was very smart to release this game on the N64 exclusively. Magnificent job Nintendo!


This is one of my favorite James bond in games because: The missions are fun to play they have lots of action in them they can be hard that makes them fun to do the weapons you use are good. The way James bond look in this James bond games is pretty you can see pierce brosnan in him which is cool and all the other characters in this game look like the actors that played them in the movie. There is no way that you can't have a good time playing this game i loved it.Also the game follows the movie pretty much maybe a few added thing but it pretty much follows the movie. Also the this James bond game has pretty good graphics for Nintendo 64 and to bad there was no voice over actors in this game but who care as long as the game is fun to play.

Overall score ******** out of **********


There isn't much that comes close to the perfect-paced storytelling and suspenseful action-packed levels as "GoldenEye". When it came out, it was the greatest game of all-time, and even today, it stays strong.

I will admit that this game did get boring after a few months of playing, and by not playing it again until two years later, I was thrust back into its greatest, almost as if I was playing it for the first time again.

There are 20 action-packed levels, which is probably the most of any James Bond game to date. Probably the most unforgettable one is the Tank level, which was likely the most explosive video game sequence at that time. And the first-person shooting as well as usage of Q gadgets is what James Bond fans are always dying to use.

Frankly, as a James Bond fan, I look for aspects of a true James Bond experience, which are now showing up in the PS2 games. So this game, while it has some great action and usable gadgets, I was somewhat expecting a little more, even back in 1997. I also disliked that this game didn't have Q or M or Moneypenny, or anyone from MI6. While watching the movies, Bond interacts with these characters at least a few times throughout each movie, but they are nowhere to be seen in this game. And vocal dialogue would have made the game more lively rather than the text dialogue they wound up using. They had the technology. They just didn't use it.

Probably the most annoying feature of this game is that in some ways it follows the story of the movie precisely, and other ways it's incoherent. For example, there are two many levels where you have to protect or save Natalya, even though in the movie she can take care of herself. There are also some unnecessary levels, like the Boat level where you have to disarm some bombs (which is not in the movie), which adds nothing to the storyline whatsoever. There are even some levels where you rescue Natalya, but at the beginning of the next level, she's captured again. How?

Oh well. Even those little things can't really put this game down. And while I do prefer the newer games, this Bond experience is definitely one you won't forget.

8 out of 10


GoldenEye 007 is not only the best movie tie-in game of all time, but it is perhaps the most influential first-person shooter ever to hit the gaming-console market. If you aren't aware of the plot of this game that's not a problem, because essential it is the same as the popular James Bond movie, GoldenEye, which was released in 1995- two years prior to this game's release.

This is a game that is filled with techniques and styles that would be mimicked in many future games to come, and it gives the player a wide variety of objectives, and difficult challenges. The A.I. is smart (especially on higher difficulty settings) and the environments are complex enough to provide entertainment, as well as difficulty to any gamer.

The introduction of logical hit-points on your enemies is a great feature. Even bosses in this game can be taken down with a well-aimed shot to the head. It is this type of realism that really makes you feel like your James Bond and that you can sneak in, sneak out, covertly taking out henchmen as you go, or springing alarms and having to go through massive shootouts. Because of this there are many ways to beat the game, and limitless possibilities for how you accomplish your tasks. AKA: You can take easy ways or hard ways of beating levels...and if you don't have a strategy guide you'll have to find out those paths by yourself (which, I might add, is incredibly fun if you want to waste a day away).

This is one of those games that the more you play it the more you're able to value its contributions to the gaming industry. Each time I play it I notice aspects that have been replicated in many following FPS games. So if you have a Nintendo 64 go ahead and dust that sucker and order a used copy of GoldenEye 007, because trust me, as a Bond fan, and a casual gamer I can say that this game is highly recommended for all those who want to step into the shoes of James Bond, or just have an awesome, intense gaming experience.

(Also make sure to look out for its sister game, Perfect Dark, which is also on the N64, following the same controls, and very similar weapon uses.)


We've all played Halo and Socom and GTA and Resi etc. but none of them can stand up to GE007. The game itself is great. I have literally burned out my N64 playing this great game, along with Zelda OOT. This game along alone built the mold that is essential for all modern shooters. on top of that the multi-player is great. The Story mode itself is worth playing a hundred times over and more. Its a great game for when your board and you want to just shoot up some people and there are endless unlock ables. (cheats, Aztec, Egyptian, god knows how many Multiplayer charries, and the three difficulties as well as the famous '007' difficulty Our modern games are great but when you sit down and play this game you get a certain feeling that few other games can give you. And with the Online capabilities of newer shooting games we rarely see this old two on two death match style. and when we do its no where near as good as this games. And when you get bored of the story, there are endless mysteries, glitches and easter eggs to be found and taken advantage of.

This is definitely one of the greatest shooting games of all time.


I first played this around 98' or 99' when I was with my friends.I thought the game was really great,and loved it.

The game is simple.On one player mode,you go around as James Bond and complete missions in different places like an Arctic wasteland or a city.My favorite was one with a tank.On two player mode,you and a friend choose from any character you wish and go all out with a fight.Through out the area you are in,you will find ammo and weapons to help.From hand guns to rifles to lasers and even your fists work.

Again with player two mode,there are lots of places to go,and some to unlock.I find this game really fun,but also very suspenseful.Because,you never really know where your opponent is,and it's surprising to see them behind a door where you are going.

This game gets ****(1/2) stars or of ***** Very good!Go play it sometime!