Well, it's safe to say that Subconscious Cruelty is one weird film! Supposedly an insight into the human mind, Subconscious Cruelty is comprises four macabre and bizarre tales of the extreme. The first segment, entitled 'Ovarian Eyeball' is really just a warm up, but it's good in that it gives the viewer an idea of what to expect from the next three segments. It simply sees a naked woman laid out on a table, while another woman cuts into her abdomen and pulls out a human eyeball! I've got no idea what the point is, but it certainly makes for visceral viewing. The following story is the best of the bunch, and takes in the "old favourite" sick movie theme of incest. The segment follows a man who lives alone with his pregnant sister. He's repulsed by her pregnancy - yet he wants to have sex with her anyway, and naturally he gets his way. This story stands out because of the monotonous and 'matter of fact' narration, as well as the ending - which doesn't fail to deliver the shocks. This segment is well acted, well filmed and easily the highlight of Subconscious Cruelty.

Naturally, the next two sections aren't as good as the second one; so the only way from there is down, but director Karim Hussain still manages to pull something out of the bag before the film ends. He doesn't do it right away, however, as the third segment is the weakest of the film, and simply sees a lot of people have sex with the ground. It's very surreal, and therefore memorable for that same reason; but there doesn't seem to be a lot of point to it, and I was in the mood for something a bit more morbid after the second section. The film ends on a high, however, as while I'm not entirely sure what the point was - the final segment features the film's best imagery. This segment focuses on religion, and certainly isn't for anyone that values it! Director Karim Hussain has achieved something here - as while this collection of four 'extreme' stories doesn't come together as a complete whole, the film almost feels tasteful as it's shot in such an eloquent and eye catching manner. The director would seem to have been imitating the highly respected surreal director Luis Buñuel, albeit with gore, rape and incest; and if you ask me, he hasn't done a bad job at all. Not for everyone, but certainly worth a look for extreme fanatics!


Going into this movie I knew two things about it. I knew that it was a real extreme flick, and I knew that it was somewhat artsy. Both appeal to me in their own right, but when placed together it can be something truly unique. And this was damn right, without a doubt, unique. Like I said above, it is an artsy film. The way they used some intense sound, it reminded me a lot of an Aronofsky film. Visually I haven't seen anything like it. The cinematography and lighting were done very well. The movie seriously uses visuals and sounds better than anything I've seen in a while. Especially when you consider the experience these young filmmakers had (couple 20 year olds), you really have to take your hat off to them.

The movie isn't easy to describe or even discuss. There isn't an actual story.you could say it revolves around the right and left side of the brain and how they control your lifeI think. It's four segments, or four ideas brought alive through visual and auditory extremes. There is some talking hear and there, but it's mostly a non-speaking film.

The first segment is the shortest and it revolves a naked body and an eyeball. Try and guess what happens.wrong. The second segment is my favorite. It involves a brother and a sister (who looks a little like Sarah Silverman, but with bigger boobs). The brother is crazy and the sister is somewhat of a whore. I would say this is the most extreme of all the segments, and the most well made. The gore effects in this one were great. The third segment revolves around a bunch of naked people sexing it up with mother earth. It's probably considered the weakest of the bunch, but still is smart and well made. The fourth segment is probably the strongest of the film and I'd also say the deepest. For myself I'll have to view this a couple times to understand what's truly being said. I know that it tackles Christianity in a way that would most likely make your mother feint or throw up.give it a try.

Subconscious Cruelty was recommended to me and I'm proud to say this is now in my movie collection. It's extreme, violent, gory, very sexual and surprisingly pretty damn thought provoking. The next line I'm about to say has been used in almost every review I've read for this film. "This movie is not for everyone." Now ain't that the truth. If you're into extreme films and/or you're just a lover of film that wants to see something different.check this out. 8 1/2 outta 10


Karim Hussain's masterpiece of art/gore--this cat is definitely a talent to look out for. We have in this several longer vignettes interspliced with some shorter segues. This is all in all a very powerful film that relies on its intense graphic imagery and symbolism and it is not for all viewers.

The film kicks off with a short called OVARIAN EYEBALL. Very short segment that has a nude woman placed on a table naked. An unseen woman's hand covers the supine woman's face with a red cloth and makes an incision in her abdomen out of which an eyeball stalk is extracted. I've got nothing too much to comment on this one due to its brevity.

HUMAN LARVAE is one of the films lynchpins and it is a totally unflinching portrayal of a perverse act committed by a disturbed man who has an incestuous love for his pregnant sister. This is one of those "must be seen to be believed" type things. I will say that this film has some of the best effects I've seen in an indie horror film but the subject matter will make this an undeniably unpleasant experience for most (not me though--I live for this!).

REBIRTH could have been cut out of this film all together. This is the film's weakest segment and it has a bunch of nude people f!cking bloody holes in a field and whatnot. Very short but this one kind of blows the film's momentum.

RIGHT BRAIN/MARTYRDOM is one of the most profane representations of religious imagery that I have ever seen and it totally kicks ass. Think "P iss Christ" or menstrual blood paintings of the Virgin Mary. Very hard sexual/sexually violent/gory imagery is presented in this piece and it is definitely not for anyone who will be offended by sacrilege.

Subconscious Cruelty is one of the best films I've seen under the banner of extreme horror it will be a very divisive film amongst horror fans and the filmgoing public in general. Some will call it trash, some will call it brilliant. I don't see much middle ground. I thought this film was pretty damn original and I will recommend it to anyone who is adventurous enough to try it. 9/10.


I finally got hold of the excellent Sazuma DVD of this film which is loaded with interesting extras. I have read quite a lot about it, and I unfortunately missed it at the Stockholm Film Festival. It doesn't quite deliver as I thought it would but it is still worth watching if you like strange and unique movies. I much rather watch this again than any of the recent so-called horror films vomited out of Hollywood these days. What detracts from the experience for me, is certain music cues which sound dated and rely too much on cheap synth sounds. For me, all these tonal/harmonic elements of the score could have been lifted out, and replaced by David Kristians excellent sound design. But that is just my opinion. Otherwise this is a daring, angry picture with welcome meditative and poetic parts, like the fading of the photograph sequence which is beautiful. I look forward to seeing Ascension, and I applaud Mitch and Karim for their efforts in producing non-mainstream cinema. They are a great inspiration as I soon embark on my own short film production.


When you have waited years to see a film that you have heard on the grape vine about obviously your expectations are high right? f**k yeah!But when this baby dropped through my door little did i know what f***ed up visuals would grace my TV and warp my fragile mind. First off Karim Hussein is a film fan like all of us growing up on a diet of Argento/Fulci/lynch etc.....and it shows in this film, but in a good way. Although i didn't really know what the hell was going on on my first watch of this gem i was just amazed by the visuals,the lighting and of course the performances from everyone who was involved Karim must have truly believed that he was going to push the boundaries in film-making(which trust me he does)and that he was going to have a hard job convincing the actors to do the same........

So what can i tell you about "subconscious cruelty"?Well without spoiling it....its a deep insight into the human psyche with images of violent and sexual madness which toils into madness.....a truly unforgettable experience.......

keep you eye on Karim Hussein he can only go onto better things.....

I viewed the full uncut print of subconscious cruelty on a double disc DVD from Infliction films which is loaded with extras.....please note there is a censored hong Kong release out there avoid this version.


The dreams of Karim Hussain are to be feared. When the right hemisphere of his characters overpowers the left, shocking images of blood, dismemberment, and various abominations are released. Religion won't save you, nor will mother nature or your own family. Hussain's dark poetry, because that's what this film really is, destabalizes all institutions of sanctuary.

`Subconcious Cruelty' is a current crowd pleaser on the horror\fantasy festival circuit. The film's opening meditation on madness is both well written and profound. The protagonist's desire to profane the birthing process which brought him into the hell he inhabits unfolds with horrific and credible illogic. From here the film continues deeper into the subconcious and tackles mother nature. Hussain offers depictions of lusty pagan fertility and writhing mushroom madness. Nature is exposed as blood-drenched and violent in Hussain's frightening enlightenment.

`Subconcious Cruelty' is disturbing to all and rewarding to those who see past the shock into the mature themes of life, lust and madness this very worthy film explores. CJ Goldman deserves kudos for his special make-up, as do David Kristian for unnerving sound design and Teruhiko Suzuki for score.


i´ve seen this piece of perfection :-) during the fantasy filmfest in berlin and when i went out of the cinema i felt like being "drugged down"! i´ve seen a lot of films but there are just a few that i´d call perfect like koyaanisqatsi or fight club-subconscious cruelty is definitely one of them!!! half of the people went out of the screening in berlin and i can understand them absolutely! this is not a movie for "normal" people with dreams and illusions! a person that is living in his/her dreams day by day not wanting to see all the horror in our life and on our planet will be very shocked by this film! if someone reads this now who has seen s.c. and also thinks it´s great: just contact me-so far i haven´t met anyone who shares my opinion-it´d be cool!!! this film earns 10 points out of 10!!! finally i´m really sorry for my bad english-i´m not a studied person!!! (und das ist auch gut so *g*)


I´ve been able to see this great movie at the Fantasyfilmfest in Berlin and when I went out of the cinema I felt like being drugged down *g*! I´ve really seen lots of movies and there are just a few I´d call perfect like Fight Club or Koyaanisqatsi! Subconscious Cruelty is now one of them! Half of the people watching it in Berlin went out of the room and I can understand this absolutely because it can be a real shock for someone living in his/her perfect world day by day dreaming his/her dreams not thinking bout the horror on our planet-in our life! I don´t think I have to describe the story of the film for you because of the people having already written on this page! It´s a movie that shows everything and more!!! Gets 10 points + from 10!!! It´d be cool if you people who have also seen it loving it would write me an e-mail!So far I haven´t met anyone as impressed and pleased by it as I am!!! Finally sorry for my bad english-I´m not a studied person (und das ist auch gut so!!! :-))))))


Chokher Bali was shown at the (Washington) DC Filmfest April 15, 2005. The director, Rituparno Ghosh, was there to give a short introduction and answer questions afterwards.

As always, I think Aishwarya did a fantastic job. I can understand those who think she should be been more aggressive or more bitchy, but would that really be realistic in 1904? Possible, maybe; realistic, I'm not so sure. I think her interpretation was valid, although there could certainly be other ways to do it.

I hate to use the word, but this was the most "inaccessible" of the Indian movies I have seen so far. I know a fair amount of Indian history, Hindu religion, etc., but the level of detail here was far beyond me. Clearly you would have a much better understanding of the movie if you were intimately familiar with Hinduism and its customs, esp. as they were c. 1904. I missed a lot of things--one of them being the fact that the mother-in-law would want Binodini in the house as sort of a counter-weight to her daughter-in-law Ashalata.

*spoilers* Ghosh had several things to say that explained the movie much better for me. First, the original Bengali version was 20+ minutes longer. So what was left out? Apparently three main things: a beginning segment where Binodini (Aishwarya) leaves E. Bengal for Calcutta. According to the director, different characters are speaking W. Bengali vs. E. Bengali--setting up some of the political comments later. Of course all of this is lost in the Hindi version, and certainly to a non-Indian like me, it wouldn't have mattered anyway--but a set-up of the Bengali situation sure would have. Next, there was a segment where Binodini was writing a poem--a sign of her independence, etc. Finally, some more business about the jewellery. So, although some people think it was too long, I think the original, longer version would have been clearer.

The women's hair was apparently another sign (Ghosh again)--the mother-in-law had short hair (short hair for Hindu widows), her sister--also a widow--had longer hair (more modern!), and of course Binodini/Aishwarya had extremely long waist-length hair (rejection of status of widowhood).

The ending really threw me--all of a sudden Binodini, who had never had a political thought, is writing a political manifesto? Whoa! Ghosh explained that he was in Locarno, at a film festival, when the subtitles were done. The subtitles use the word "country" throughout Binodini's letter. Gosh said a more appropriate word would have been (I forget his exact word) something like "self" or "independence"--she was talking about her own liberation and "finding herself"--not about Bengal, India, and the British. So why does Binodini just disappear the day after finding Behari again? Apparently because during her stay on the Ganges she realizes that she doesn't need a man--any man--to define/complete her. She can just be herself. So she rejects Behari, who she threw herself at a few months (?) before, and just goes off. Of course I'm not sure how she buys her next meal, but that's another question.

The red shawl (Ghosh again)she buys represents "revolution" as well as "passion." I'm not 100% sure why she puts the shawl on the dying woman, but perhaps she is rejecting passion/revolution? The binoculars, which Binodini uses throughout the movie (to watch Mahendra and Ashalata, the boat on the Ganges, etc.). She is being a voyeur to see a life she yearns for but can't have. At the end (I missed this!) she leaves the binoculars on the table with the letter, showing that she doesn't need them any more--she's going off to lead her own life.

Finally, the Tagore quote at the beginning saying how he apologized for the ending... Apparently Tagore wrote this as a serial, hooking his readers with the sexy widow bits. But at the end he sold out to conservatism and had Binodini kneel down at the feet of Mahendra and Behari, begging their forgiveness. One of his students (?) wrote to Tagore taking him to task for his sell-out ending...and Tagore replied with his apology for the ending. In the movie, of course, Ghosh goes in the other direction.


Chokher Bali  A passion play.

Based on Rabindranath Tagore's novel of the same name, this is a classic tale of deception, adultery and relationship exploitation. Set in 1900 Bengal, director Rituparno Ghosh transformed the Nobel Laureates' acclaimed literature into a delightful visual treat.

Tagore's story elaborately deals with the Bengali society, through his central character, the rebellious widow, who wants to live a life of her own. We are taken into the picturesque part of Bengal, where we meet our heroine, the beautiful, young widow Binodini (Aishwarya Rai).

Despite her gorgeous looks, two handsome men, the rich Mahindra (Prosenjit Chatterji) and his friend Behari (Toto Roychowdhury), denied marrying her.

Mahindra chooses a naive Ashalata (Raima Sen) over Binodini and marries her. Leaving behind the country life, the free-spirited Binodini accompanies Mahindra's mother to Calcutta as a caretaker. Soon, her friendship with Ashalata flourishes. It looks like, the two, addressing each other as 'Chokher Bali' (sand in the eyes), share an enduring bond. The English-speaking Binodini captures a special place in the house. But, soon, she unmasks her real face. Manipulating good-natured Ashlata, Binodini gets closer with Mahindra and fulfills her sexual desires.

When, she is thrown out by the enraged mother of Mahindra, Binodini seeks solace from a reluctant Behari. The remaining part of the story shows how the lives of these four characters crisscross and culminate in an unimaginable climax Aishwarya walks through the rolea manipulative, rebellious lady, still gaining the viewer's sympathywith a ballet dancer's elegance. The other lead artistesProsenjit Chatterjee, Raima Sen and Toto Roychowdhuryare equally brilliant, in enacting their characters.

While Tagore penned this 'mould-breaking' story at the turn of the 20th century, the very idea of widow marriage was a taboo, even among the upper class! Narrating the nations' freedom movement in parallel, the author asserts the importance of individual freedom from the caged life. Kudos to the art director, who gave life to the early 20th century Bengal, and applause to the cinematographer for capturing those sets with verve.

This 'passion play,' by Tagore, has been fervently converted to the screen by the ablest filmmaker without loosing its originality.


I saw 2 hour version of Choker Bali. I cannot say that is long. The movie has a certain natural pace to it and does not seem to lag at any time. The costume and the set are reminiscent of what we would see in old movies.

Aishwarya Rai has done a good job of acting. It is indeed a mature role with enough scope for acting within the story. The script also supports the story very well. Aishwarys acts as the unfortunate widow whose husband dies in the first year of marriage. The movie is about the passions and desires of such a character and the conflict she faces with the downtrodden condition of widows in those times.

Her best friend in this movie is played by Raima Sen has also been well-handled. Her innocence and her admiration of Aishwarya's capability to speak English and act educated has been done very well. These are indeed some of the prevailing mindsets of those times. We can see how far we have come from such an era!

The movie speaks of womens liberation as subtle line of the story. I found the development of the story very similar to Ghare Bahire also written by Tagore. It does rope in some action from the independence struggle and puts in contrast the struggle for Indian Independence against the silent struggle for womens rights.

A well made movie definitely worth watching. Aishwarya's acting: par excellence. Rituparna has handled the story with great care. Yet another classic from Rabindranath Tagore.


I concur with what mallicka.b has said. The movie is portrayed in a way which appears to be a kind of vilification on the original content. Emotions aren't conveyed properly. I guess a couple of not-so-good performances also contributed to its mediocrity. In my view, Tabu would have been a much better choice for such a role instead of Aishwarya Rai. In some of her scenes, she looks a bit lusty, which is not ultimately what the movie should have portrayed. I also noticed a bit of over-acting in some of her scenes. I'm a bitter critic of Aishwarya Rai :) Can't help it; sorry for that. 'Raincoat' was a good movie by Rituparno Ghosh. And I saw Choker Bali after seeing Raincoat; I was not at all impressed.


I bought the DVD a long time ago and finally got around to watching it.I really enjoyed watching this film as you don't get the chance to see many of the more serious better quality bollywood films like this. Very well done and but I would say you need to pay attention to what is going on as it is easy to get lost. When you start watching the movie, don't do anything else! I would actually advise people to read all the reviews here...including the ones with spoilers, before watching the movie. Raima Sen gave her first great performance that I have seen. Aishwarya was easily at her best. All performances were strong, directing and cinematography...go watch it!


What do you do if you're Aishwarya Rai, coming off of a blockbuster film like 'Devdas', with some skeptical critics still relentlessly unsatisfied with your astounding performance or convinced by your strong screen presence and stellar acting skills, what do you do? Go home, sit down and pout? No. If you're Aishwarya Rai, you sign yourself up for the next strong period piece that comes along and continue to prove yourself worthy of all the praise, kudos, great scripts and equally great roles. And that's just what she did with and in 'Chokher Bali - a passion play' where she stars and shines as Binodini, a young widow who causes controversy way ahead of her time. Directed by Rituparno Ghosh {who later goes on to direct her in the equally stellar 'Raincoat'}, Prasenjit Chatterjee {Devdas in Bengali} costars.


The Hindi version of the film is 121 minutes. Set in Bengal in the early 1900's, the film (based on Tagore's novel) draws an analogy between the British colonization of India and the subjugation of women. An educated and beautiful woman, Binodini becomes a widow within a year of her marriage, but she does not accept the constraints imposed on her as a widow by her society. The film has a beautiful look to it but perhaps Aishwarya Rai is out of her depth in portraying Binodini's strong character with its subtle combination of idealism and deviousness. Binodini's idealism does not come across, and as a result, the analogy between women and colonization remains somewhat buried.


Its very tough to portray a Tagore novel along cinematographic lines.And if you forget an obscure production of 1967 then its the first time that chokher bali has been done on a grand scale. Overall the sets looked fantastic with the right touches for making a successful period drama.Prasenjit,so used to doing crass commercial stuff made a good effort.I saw the Bengali version and found that Aishwariya's voice was dubbed,which made her dialog delivery a bit poor. While the director did a good job portraying each of the characters with finesse,yet there was very little in the way of meaningful plot,probably a lack of the story itself.However the development of the characters including those with minor roles seem to be the strongest point.Its tough to make some Tagore stories into films,as only the visual parts seem to get realized.


It seems a lot of Europeans and Americans see Indian movies for the wrong reason; I see some people are complaining that this movie did not have any dance sequence! A class apart from their Hindi counterparts, Bengali movies tend to be more realistic. Rituparno Ghosh is one of the best young directors in India, being widely known for his choice of subjects for the movies and the strength of his scripts. 'Chokher bali' is a perfect example. A faithful adaptation of the Nobel laureate Tagore's novel dealing with the pursuit of sexual pleasure of a Bengali widow, the director gives a new dimension to the much acclaimed and controversial work.


I saw this movie at the Locarno Film Festival in Italian-speaking part of Switzerland.

Aishwarya Rai is good-looking.

I rate this movie 7/10 because of its nice moments.

* spoilers ahead *

It has some really nice cinematic moments in it, specially at the end.

Though my general feeling is this is too long (over 2 hours and 40 minutes) and containing too much dialogs. And nearly no dancing at all.

Clearly a Bollywood movie like Lagaan or Devdas is quite a different kind of movie compared with Chokher Bali.


When i watch this movie i too get excited when seen bed scenes of miss world. She has beautiful and charming body. When cute lady do bed scenes and show her fully nude body... i think male have hard to resist....i think its time for cute girls like hrishita bhatt also do nude scenes. At least no one wants to c nude body of ugly women like Seema biswas to c in bandit queen.I concur with what mallicka.b has said. The movie is portrayed in a way which appears to be a kind of vilification on the original content. Emotions aren't conveyed properly. I guess a couple of not-so-good performances also contributed to its mediocrity. In my view, Tabu would have been a much better choice for such a role instead of Aishwarya Rai. In some of her scenes, she looks a bit lusty, which is not ultimately what the movie should have portrayed. I also noticed a bit of over-acting in some of her scenes. I'm a bitter critic of Aishwarya Rai :) Can't help it; sorry for that. 'Raincoat' was a good movie by Rituparno Ghosh. And I saw Choker Bali after seeing Raincoat; I was not at all impressed


If you go to the cinema to be entertained, amused, so as to fill up your time, do not go out of your way to watch this film.

If you go to the cinema to appreciate the depths of human-kind, the feelings of real people, to explore the characteriology of personalities, if you go to the cinema to absorb magnificent photography, be sure to put this film very high on your list, preferably in first place. The experience is profoundly rewarding, causing the intelligent viewer to make diverse reflexions over the meaning of life itself. With 'Mar Adentro' Alejandro Amenábar has surpassed the best he has done to date, and even redeemed certain deviations in his earlier films which smacked a little of being aimed at Hollywood. This is not the case with this visual poem put to music: Hollywood could never get anywhere near the effect of this tinglingly inspired human - and humane - story.

In no way should one interpret 'Mar Adentro' as an apologia for euthanasia; this story, based on the real life of the Galician fisherman Ramón Sampedro, is a cry from the bottom of the heart for life and love, a reaching out for human compassion, for understanding emotions. Sampedro was an articulate and intelligent man who after a diving accident off the rocks of the Galician coast as a young man was condemned to live the next 27 years in bed. 'Condenado a vivir' (2001) (TV) was the first version of this man's life on which I have already commented. However, Amenábar has succeeded remarkably at portraying this man, with his permanent enigmatic smile and witty sense of humour, in an equally articulate and intelligent way.

And Javier Bardem rose to the occasion, met the challenge head-on, complete with a Galician accent, producing an electrifying, compelling, enthralling performance, such that the actor and the fisherman become fused into being the same person on screen. Here, indeed, is an occasion to doff your cap, and softly mutter 'chapeau'. Bardem is driven on in his task by a magnificent cast, especially Belén Rueda, Lola Dueñas, Mabel Rivera, Celso Bugallo (Los Lunes al Sol) (qv) and Clara Segura, Galician and Catalan accents taking prominent part.

Amenábar produces wonderful dialogues as these six rotate among themselves one-on-one, or in groups, with excellent chemistry, thus demonstrating that this young Chilean-born Spanish director is an artist who knows what he is at and how to get his results; his global concept of the film includes his own music, interspersed with pieces by Beethoven and Puccini on Sampedro's record-player.

Whilst viewing 'Mar Adentro', I found myself a couple of times comparing him and this film with Stephen Daldry and his masterpiece 'The Hours' (qv). I refer to the way in which the dialogues work with tenseness and passion and that careful sense of timing in each scene.

Javier Aguirresarobe's photography is superb as usual. As I have mentioned elsewhere on IMDb, he does not simply film the events and scenes - he captures even the feelings and the atmosphere of the moment, deftly catches that look in the eyes, light and shadows, such that his work behind the camera is at once another player in the story. A superb artist.

'Mar Adentro' is another landmark in the history of Spanish cinematography, among the best five or six works of art produced here in the last 25 years. This film places itself alongside such cinematographic art as 'El Sur' (qv), 'Los Santos Inocentes' (qv), 'El Abuelo' (qv), 'La Lengua de las Mariposas' (qv), 'Las Ratas' (qv), 'A Los Que Aman' (qv), and I think I must add 'Te Doy Mis Ojos' (qv).

Superbly orchestrated story of a real man, and those who loved him around his bedside: not to be missed.


Many more eloquent reviews than this have described the quite spectacular acting, casting and styling of this film. It appears that the only negative reviews focus on a perceived imbalance in the film's handling of the core moral question (euthanasia).

This film is, bar the final scenes, meticulous in stressing Ramon's belief that he's not making some grand point but merely that, for him, a life devoid of dignity is a life not worth living. We, as viewers, see an enormous amount of dignity in his life - we see family and friends and culture and, but for its physical limitations, a life fully lived. Central to the tragedy of this film is that there is really only one person who thinks that Ramon's life is not worth living - and that is him.

To watch this film and say that the only counter argument comes from the visit of a bumbling priest is a nonsense. The priest's visit is pure farce, a direct assault on the simplicity of the Spanish Catholic Church's response to the issue of euthanasia. However, the sister's parting words to the priest momentarily expose the powerful 'pro-life' sentiments quietly underpinning the entire film. We are constantly encouraged to see the hope and the beauty of a life lived with love. As the film progresses, we may gradually be encouraged to understand Ramon's reasoning but we are never reconciled to his decision.

I do not remember a film which moved me and provoked me as much as this.


Greetings again from the darkness. Director Alejandro Amenabar creates life against all odds in this based on a true story version of one man's struggle to control his destiny. The great Javier Bardem is fascinating to watch in his role as Ramon. His eyes and head movements leave little doubt what is going on in his mind. The dream and fantasy sequences are not overused so prove very effective in explaining why he wants what he wants. Rather than force us to answer the euthanasia question, the real question posed is , What is Love? At every turn we see people in love, looking for love or dying to be loved. The script is tight and keeps the film moving despite being filmed mostly in one room. The supporting cast is wonderful and we truly feel their pain and how each family member deals with Ramon's decision. This is a gem and deserves to be seen.


Director and co-writer Alejandro Amenabar didn't make things easy for viewers of his taut, a bit overlong but very disturbing story, accurately based on a Spanish man's struggle to obtain assisted suicide. "Mar Adentro" ("The Sea Inside") is gripping and its impact far exceeds the time spent in the theater.

With the award-winning Canadian movie, "The Barbarian Invasions," folks got to see a family along with a coterie of devoted friends address the wish of a beloved albeit irascible man to end his life. In that movie, the center of attention suffered from progressive, incurable cancer and his descent into a terminal stage was fast. Emotional as the scenes were, death was inevitable - the question was how gentle could it be made through solicited intervention.

Ramon Sampedro (brilliantly played by Javier Bardem) is a different story. For well over two decades he's been a quadriplegic because of a diving accident. (Very sharp viewers may detect a terrible irony as to why he ended in that condition because of his improvident dive.) Once a world traveler and lover of beautiful women, he now lies trapped in an immobile body, his every need attended to by a truly devoted family who willingly surrender much of their privacy and time to sustain their beloved relation.

Rosa (Lola Duenas), a single mom of two small boys, enters the Sampedro household out of what might have been mere curiosity to learn about the paralyzed man's plight but she becomes both an emotionally supportive centerpiece for Ramon as well as an amusing but occasionally aggravating presence. A nice performance by Duenas.

The problem, of course, is that Sampedro isn't sick in the normal sense. He may well live for decades more with proper care. So his softly but persistently voiced desire to end his life with "dignity" creates a moral dilemma for friends and relatives who, not surprisingly, react from different ethical and religious perspectives.

Ramon is the poster quad of a group dedicated to changing Spain's laws concerning assisted suicide. "Death with Dignity" is their watchword. Gene (Clara Segura) is a sensitive activist who enlists the aid of pro bono publico counsel, Julia (Belen Rueda). Julia has her own health issues which carry an indefinite but catastrophic prognosis. Happily married to a devoted spouse, she bonds emotionally with her client.

What follows is an acutely sensitive interplay of values and emotions. Ramon lives with his brother and wife, their technophile teenage son, not the intellectual Ramon is, and his aged dad who can't stop grieving over his son's cataclysmic descent into absolute helplessness.

The moral and legal issues are played out through excellent acting and short vignettes including a courtroom scene in which formalism triumphs over any judicial interpretation that might take into account Ramon's feelings and views. It may be Spain but the issues are alive in most countries, including the U.S.

Especially amusing is a shouted, first floor to bedroom, debate between Ramon with a drop-in, lecturing Jesuit priest, also a quadriplegic but one whose hidebound dogma casually masks the absence of a soul.

Special kudos to Mabel Rivera, Ramon's sister-in-law-Manuela, for a wrenchingly authentic portrayal of a strong woman who holds the family together. And the same compliment fulsomely extends to Belen Rueda, Julia, who segues from objective advocate to close friend to a woman hurtling towards a dark fate.

The director imposes no value judgments allowing each character full range to express his or her feelings effectively and, at times, movingly. Like "Dead Man Walking," this movie can support any view about its deadly subject.

No one can stop a person from committing suicide if he/she is determined but the universal tragedy of the world's Ramons is that without assistance, life in a body in which only the heart beats and only the head can move is a sentence no court could pronounce on the most depraved of criminals.

The cinematography is well-matched to the story and the beautiful Galician scenes are an intended contrast to the limited views the once globe-trotting Ramon experiences from his special bed.

9/10


This small, quiet, harmonious movie grows into a masterpiece on human dignity. It is intelligently structured, filled with meaningful little details and important side-plots. It tells a story of one man with great humanity without positioning itself politically, but fostering life as a precious right (not an obligation) and underlining individual's right to choose. It enjoys the richness of different landscapes (mental and physical) and languages (important detail). Outstanding acting by each of the actors, especially unbelievable Javier Bardem. His screen-presence has such a force that you forget that this is fiction. The movie has a wonderful rhythm, it is beautifully shot and outstandingly directed. It takes real talent to make a movie on such a difficult theme with understanding, humour and heart. Six stars out of five.


This story about a man's 28 year struggle for a death that would liberate him from his already dead body becomes a masterpiece to be remembered,thanks to a team of artists in a state of grace. Directed, written,edited and scored by Alejandro Amenabar, it touches you from the very first images, and doesn't leave your eyes and your heart to rest until the last credits, thanks to Alejandro and a group of wonderful actors and actresses at their best. Bardem is an acting animal:One of those few comedians that can make a masterpiece from almost any character, the supporting actresses are great in their roles and the story is told with such a sensibility that one laughs and cries in the same minute, as we used to do with the great old masterpieces. The year's best film in all senses. 10 / 10


I had the privilege to watch Mar Adentro last Friday, and I am still shocked by its beauty, the powerful work of every single actor and actress and Amenabar's unbelievable ability to narrate the story of Ramón Sampedro, who was well known in Spain for asking for a legal euthanasia, lost the court cause, and eventually died in front of a camera drinking a glass with poison, freezing all our hearts with his determination not to go on living forever immobilized because of an accident.

Before watching the movie I was already mesmerized by the strong symbology in its title, which I would translate as "Into the Sea" and not as some suggest "Out to sea", and which is taken from an original poem written by the man this story is about. Then I watched the movie. Oh my friends. This is Cinema with a capital C. The narration flows to take you to the heart of every single character: Sampedro, reincarnated in a Bardem that you forget from the very beginning, is in the center as a man full of sense of humour and full of hope, and his hope is to die, because for him, the life he is living is not worthy to be lived. The rest of the characters but one dance around him and respect his decision because they see him as a human independent being (forgetting he depends on the others for everything), even though they do love him so much. And this is what the movie is about: love. You can feel it, you can breathe it in the skin of every character. You witness the growing of the feeling within three women who meet him in the movie: Gené, the member of the association that defend his right to die with dignity, his friend, her story in the movie is the hope for us the lucky ones that can live a normal life in this world; Rosa, the woman who meets a good man in the middle of her list of broken relationships and pain in the hands of all the men who used her and despised her; Julia, the woman who shares a tragic destiny with Ramón, and eventually acts in a way we cannot but only understand.

However, before meeting these women Ramón knew what was love like, because you cannot meet him without loving him, and he is deeply loved by his abnegated family: Four characters unique in their humbleness and bravery, each with their own thoughts about his decision, each thought respectable in its own way, because the terrible thing about this story is that nobody is to blame for what happened. That, sadly, life sometimes is that terrible. From this familiar quartet I specially liked Mabel Rivera's work as Ramón's sister in law, Manuela: a terrific performance.

I would like to draw attention to three episodes that are for me the best climax points I have seen in a long time, and if you haven't seen the movie don't read this, pass over this paragraph and read again from the next one starting "Mar adentro", let the movie show its secrets to you. The episodes I loved were: 3. The best love scene I have seen in a movie, when I really felt love invading the screen, is when Ramón dreams awake that he is flying to meet Julia in the beach and they kiss each other. 2. Gené speaking by phone with Ramón, the day before he is going to do it, and he tells her it is better they say goodbye at that very moment, not to put her in trouble with the authorities. And then she knows it is the last time they are going to talk, and she has fought for his right to die... but she does not want to lose him, because she loves him as a true friend, and even though she is respecting his decision at all cost. 1. The best. A young Ramón in the beach, looking at his girlfriend under the sun, jumping to the water from the rocks to a sea that is retreating. We see the crash, we hear his voice recalling what happened and claiming he should have died that very moment. The face of Bardem, face downward, shown to us from the bottom. And the hand of a friend who pulls him from the forehead and brings him back to a life that will be a hell for him in the next 30 years. There are many others, like the impressive ending, in spite of the fact that in Spain we know too well what Ramon did.

Mar adentro did not deceive me, Amenabar never does, but this time he has to thank the actors that took part in the project, and who maybe took it personally, because this is not just a movie, it is an elegy to a man who died alone when he was asking to die "legally", which meant for him, as Bardem pointed out, dying with the people he loved and who loved him around.


Alejandro Amenabar, the young and talented Spanish director, clearly shows us he is a serious film maker. Anyone doubting it, should have a look at his latest film "The Sea Inside". This is a movie that has been rewarded with numerous accolades, not only in Spain, but throughout the world, wherever this wonderful movie has been shown.

If you have not seen the film, perhaps you would like to stop here.

Ramon Sampedro is a man confined to bed. Being quadriplegic, he depends on the kindness of strangers for everything. Since his accident, Ramon only thinks in one thing alone: how to end his life! This is the moral issue at the center of the story, based on the real Ramon Sampedro's life.

Mr. Amenabar tells the story from Ramon's point of view. There is nothing here that is false or manipulative on his part. After all, he relies on facts that were well known in his country as this case became a "cause celebre" in favor of euthanasia, a theme that no one in that country wanted to deal with in Spain.

With its background of being a predominantly Roman Catholic country, Spain has evolved into one of the most democratic societies in Europe, a distinction that is more notable because of its long years dominated by a dictator. Yet, in spite of the advances in that society, the idea of taking one's own life, is something not clearly understood by the majority of its citizens, who still considered this subject as something that could not be done in their country.

Ramon Sampedro was a man that loved life. He lived an intense life as a young man when he enlisted as a sailor to discover the world. Having no money, this was the only way for him to see other lands, experience other cultures. Ramon's love affair with the sea, is something that people in Galicia learn to love from their childhood. Imagine how that same friendly sea is the one that takes away Ramon's life, as he knew it! In a second, Ramon goes from a vibrant young man into a vegetable!

Ramon's family is shattered by the experience. Suddenly they must leave everything aside to take care of him at home. His brother and sister-in-law, are stoic people that deal with the situation as a matter of fact. Their lives become something of an afterthought, because Ramon's life comes first. They tend to the sick man without protesting, or blaming Ramon for the sacrifices they must make to keep him alive.

That is why, in their minds, the Sampedros can't comprehend Ramon's wishes to end it all. Haven't they given up having a normal life to take care of him? This moral issue weighs heavily on these uncomplicated and simple people because in their minds, they are doing what came naturally.

The second subject of the movie is the legal issue of the euthanasia and the well meaning people that suddenly enter Ramon's life in their desire to help him put an end to his suffering. There's Julia, the lawyer who is herself handicapped and suffers from a rare malady. There is Rosa, the fish cannery worker who becomes infatuated with Ramon.

Javier Bardem, makes a brilliant Ramon Sampedro. His transformation is total. We don't doubt from one moment he is no one else but the paralyzed man on that bed. Mr. Bardem can only use his face in order to convey all the emotions trapped inside Ramon. Mr. Bardem makes this man real. This is perhaps Javier Bardem's best role of his career. He surpasses his own award winning performance as Reynaldo Arenas, the late Cuban poet he portrayed in "Before Night Falls".

In the supporting roles, Belen Rueda, makes an impressive appearance as Julia, the woman fighting her own physical problems. Lola Duenas is also effective as Rosa, the kindred soul that loves Ramon deeply. Celso Bugallo, as Ramon's brother shows a man at a crossroads of his own life. Mabel Rivera makes a compassionate Manuela, the sister-in-law that never asks anything of life, but tends to Ramon without questioning why she has to do it, at all.

Mr. Amenabar also has composed the haunting music score for the film. He is a man that never cease to surprise. One wonders what his next project will be, but one wishes him success in whatever he might decide to do in the future.


In Spain, the former sailor Ramón Sampedro (Javier Bardem) has been quadriplegic for twenty-eight years and is fighting in court for his right of practicing euthanasia through an association that defends the freedom of choice and leaded by his friend Géne (Clara Segura). Ramón is introduced to the lawyer that is defending his cause, Julia (Belén Rueda), who has a degenerative fatal disease; and meets Rosa (Lola Dueñas), a lonely worker that has been abused by men. Their relationship changes the behavior and viewpoint of life of Rosa and Julia.

The Chilean Alejandro Amenábar is, in my opinion, one of the best contemporary directors. His filmography released in Brazil is composed by excellent and original movies: "Abre Los Ojos", "Tesis", "The Others" and "Mar Adentro". Javier Bardem is probably the best actor in Spain in the present days. Their association produced this sensitive drama about a very polemic theme, the right of committing euthanasia. This drama is never corny or depressive, since the screenplay uses humor as a relieve valve in the most dramatic situations. The performances of the cast are perfect, with characters having and defending different positions regarding this unpleasant theme. The dialogs and lines are very solid and intelligent. I noted in IMDb plot outline that this movie is based on the real-life story of Ramón Sampedro. Unfortunately, neither the movie nor the DVD gives this important information. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Mar Adentro" ("Sea Inside")


THE SEA INSIDE a film by Alejandro Amenabar.

Almodovar has always single handed the flag for Spanish cinema for years now, out of nowhere came Amenabar reinventing genres and injecting some new blood to the otherwise malfunctioning Spanish industry, now in a big gamble he switches from psychological terror to social drama, well the big ones would be, are audiences ready to embrace the swing and more important can he hold the flag? This is the story of Ramon Sampedro, a sailor that in his twenties was paralyzed from the neck down in an accident at the sea and his fight with the Spanish government for the right to end his life. The story has the traces of an afternoon made for TV melodrama and the only way this is going to work is through words and honest performances and they both come in spades. Mateo Gil and Amenabar co-write in a way where the audience is not meant to be lead blind to a death end but they are encouraged to make up their own minds in the process and that is a brilliant stroke, this is not a movie pro death but a movie in favour of the ultimate illusions of our time LIBERTY. There is a few laughs spare a long the way, like when the church comes home in a wheel chair to deconstruct Sampedro beliefs but is mostly a valley of tears through out, punches coming from all fronts even when you think you are safe his father that to that point didn't make any sense comes up with the most moving line of the entire movie. It is a heartbreaking experience specially when Sampedro seems more full of life than most the people wandering the streets and everyone around him tries to convince him of the wonders of life even those who are helping him to die but when you strip a man of his dreams The film is almost exclusively built on close ups bringing a claustrophobic feeling that makes the audience more sympathetic with Sampedro. That's for the actors a huge challenge that must construct their whole performances with their eyes and the eyes don't lie. Bardem was not granted his second Oscar nomination, probably in favour of Eastwood, but in my opinion he was the only one who could have shadowed Jammie Fox. This role reminds me of the great Gregory Peck in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD where the acting looked effortless and I reckon Bardem has reached that status where the line of what is acting and what is real has become completely blur. I was never fond of his early work but since Almodovar's LIVE FLESH he is on a roll, LOS LUNES AL SOL, THE DANCER UPSTAIRS and the Oscar nominated BEFORE THE NIGHT FALLS made him an international star and although he and Banderas come from the same Almodovar background is fascinating to see how different paths they took and how Bardem has now become a real reference for Spanish cinema in the whole world. A golden globe, 14 Goyas, jury prize at Venice and probably an Oscar with permission from THE CHORUS BOYS, Amenabar directs, co-write, edits and puts music to a high caliber drama, he has pull it off what about some Science Fiction now? Whose life is it anyway?****.


The true story of a Spanish paraplegic, Ramón Sampedro, who fought for decades for the right to be euthenized. This film, along with the Best Picture winner of the same year, Million Dollar Baby, caused a stir that year with their depictions of disabled persons desiring death. Both advocates for the disabled and (unfortunately for the disability advocates) conservative pro-life groups protested both films, and their Oscar nominations. The nominations also came during the entire Terry Schiavo debacle, just to put it all in some historical perspective. The protests, especially from the disability groups, against Million Dollar Baby make some sense  the film clearly depicted, without wavering, the life of a paraplegic as worthless. The film's central character, Maggie Fitzgerald, becomes a paraplegic, doesn't seem to get any counseling whatsoever, no help whatsoever, and immediately wants to die. The film is, honestly, pretty dumb and uncomplex. The Sea Inside, based on the true story, is certainly a lot more thoughtful on the subject. It most likely got railroaded into the same category as Million Dollar Baby without its protesters having even seen it, an incredibly common phenomenon. The film does give time to many different sides of the argument. And it immediately declares that the wish to die is that of the protagonist and the protagonist alone. It is guilty of a couple of crimes, though, and I'd still understand why disability groups could have a problem with it. First and foremost, there's the protagonist's meeting with a paraplegic bishop. I don't look kindly on the way he's depicted. His orally operated wheelchair is depicted as absurd, and there's almost a comic sequence where his effeminate, boy-toy servants are dragging him, in his chair, up the stairs. He can't even reach the room in which Ramón is located, and one of the boy-toys is forced to carry the conversation between them. I had to think, gee, maybe if Ramón lived in a slightly more wheelchair-accessible household, he wouldn't spend his entire life in bed, and might find life more fulfilling (who knows how closely the film depicts the reality). Director Amenábar (The Others) also includes some laughable scenes that try to make this film about suicide more life-affirming, like a cross-cut sequence where Ramón looks thoughtful and his lawyer's baby is born. But besides a few ugly moments, the film is very good. It hurts that someone may want to die when they have the ability to bring so much joy and insight into the lives of others. However, in the end, our lives do belong to us. Shouldn't we have the right to choose? The film's strongest asset is its supporting characters, and the actors who play them. It depicts how Ramón's fight and decisions affect those around him with a beautiful precision. The family members in particular are great, and Ramón's final departure from them is absolutely heartbreaking, and had me in tears. My favorite performance in the film comes from Lola Dueñas, whom I also felt gave the best, or at least certainly most undervalued, performance in Almodóvar's Volver last year.


This movie tells about the real life story of Ramon Sampedro, who lived for 27 years lying in bed after having broken his neck, and fights a battle to get legal permission for someone that can assists with his death.

Javier Bardem is one of best actors of his generation. Consider this: he has to carry this movie with only his face! Unbelievable that he didn't even got an Oscar-nomination. Now we can all see that the Academy is a joke! The supporting cast was terrific! The optimistic Rosa, his lawyer Julia, the rest of the family...Each and everyone has his/her own opinion about the fact that Ramon wants to die.

Whether your for or against euthanasia, put your opinions aside, because this movie deserves to be seen by people all over the world! Half way through the movie I started crying and it didn't stop until the credits rolled. This movie is so heartbreaking but also wonderful to watch and I can't wait to see it again. I give it a 9/10, and in my opinion it is by far the Best Film of the year so far.


-Facts (I): "Mar Adentro" relates the well-known (at least in Spain) story of Ramón Sampedro, a Galician quadriplegic who killed himself (helped by some friends) after 28 years prostrated by his condition. Judges had denied several times his petitions of active euthanasia.

-Facts (II): "Mar adentro" becomes THE MOVIE OF THE YEAR in Spain. Everyone talks about it: politicians, singers, ordinary people... Everyone likes it, even the critics' opinions are unanimous. The film wins a lot of prizes (Golden Globe, Oscar, Goya...) and annoys catholic community and life-lovers quadriplegics. A star is born.

-Facts (III): The intensity and the quality of the actors in "Mar Adentro" are just amazing, and this makes mi wonder how come we have to watch the same bad young actors in the most of Spanish latest movies. I don't know if Javier Bardem is a great actor or a great imitator (there's quite a difference between one thing or the other); anyway, his job is just impressive, as well as Lola Dueñas', Belén Rueda's, or the job of all the guest starrings. This is (the actors selection) the strong point in Amenábar's movie.

-Facts (IV): Alejandro Amenábar learned his lesson there at the Cinema School, there's no doubt about it: he's got a privileged brain. He takes good control of each and every one of the technical aspects, he knows what the audiences want, he knows how to touch the right chord, even if that turns him into such a demagogue (just like Spielberg is -one of Amenábar's idols-).

-Facts (and V): If you criticize a movie such as "Mar Adentro" it will seem like you have any kind of trouble with the moral issue the story tells about. There's a trap in this kind of pictures: you have to differentiate between the movie itself and the moral concepts. If you don't like "Schindler's List" that does not mean that you agree with Hitler's philosophy (or do you?). So, for me, it is a good film and an extraordinary story (since it is a real story that makes it much more extraordinary). Grandiloquent, self-kind, and everything but neutral (no matter what Amenábar or Bardem have said about it: those characters that are not in favor of euthanasia come to no good at all!!). 50 % Hard / 50% way too sentimental.

-Epilogue: "Mar Adentro" wouldn't be by no mean in my ranking of the best 50's Spanish movies of all time. Nobody has special merits in the story but Ramon Sampedro himself. He IS the movie. Now, Alejandro Amenábar is gonna become the more international Spanish director ever, maybe he'll go to live to Hollywood; but some of us would like to watch him filming a simple story, without bit final twists, without living dead nor dying alive... "The Others" is still his best movie.

*My rate: 7/10


As I expected would happen, too many reviews of this film (from professionals and amateurs alike) have focused as much if not more on the film's ideology. That's because The Sea Inside (aka Mar adentro) is a film about euthanasia. Specifically, it's a true story about an infamous Galician named Ramón Sampedro, who fought for many years for the right to assisted suicide, who was denied that right by the Spanish constitutional court, and who--well, I don't want to ruin the ending of the film for you.

The real life Sampedro catalyzed a national debate on euthanasia in Spain. Now with producer/director/writer/composer/editor Alejandro Amenábar's (Abre Los Ojos, 1997, and The Others, 2001) "biopic", The Sea Inside, another rhetorical aid has been provided in the international debate on this hot button issue.

But as I keep saying (to deaf ears?), your opinion, pro or con, on the film's ideology shouldn't affect your rating of the film. You're not supposed to be rating the philosophical or political messages that Amenábar wants to make. You're supposed to be rating the film, as a film. Maybe that's a bit too idealistic, as none of us can likely completely divorce our evaluations from our ideological biases, but idealistic or not, that's the goal.

So forget about the philosophical and political issues for a moment. As a film, Amenábar has turned in one of his most elegant and mature works to date. He does not focus on societal debates. He does not focus on Sampedro's legal/political struggles. He focuses on Sampedro as a man, living out his days confined to a bed in his brother's home.

Sampedro, played here in an amazing performance by Javier Bardem, was a quadriplegic. As the film begins, he has been a quadriplegic for 26 years. That condition was brought about, as Amenábar shows us through marvelously shot flashbacks, by a diving accident--Sampedro was distracted by a beautiful woman, miscalculated the water, dove in, snapped his neck, and almost drowned. As a quadriplegic he eventually began writing poetry, some of which was published in a book entitled Cartas Desde El Infierno ("Letters from Hell"); in real life Sampedro's book became a best seller in Spain. Perhaps taking Sampedro's artistic work as a cue, Amenábar has created an elegantly poetic film.

Most of The Sea Inside is set inside Sampedro's bedroom. The focus in these scenes is Bardem's complex and sublime performance. As a quadriplegic, Bardem is limited to moving his head and talking. He has mastered subtle changes of expression and inflection to convey a deep character with a multifaceted, intellectual approach to life. Bardem and Amenábar have Sampedro often waxing philosophical in understated speech, but there's always a combination of a wicked sense of humor, passion for the aesthetic--including music and women, and a sadness and even occasionally bitterness not far below the surface. Different underlying emotions occasionally break through like waves on the skin of the ocean.

The people Sampedro interacts with most frequently facilitate this in complex ways. These others include his sister-in-law, Manuela (Mabel Rivera), who has been his chief caretaker since Sampedro's accident; his brother, José (Celso Bugallo), who is one of the vocal objectors to Sampedro's wish to die, and with whom there is an underlying unresolved issue (it seems like maybe José was the one to save Sampedro from drowning?); his nephew, Javier (Tamar Novas), who is perhaps the most understanding towards him; a right-to-die advocate, Gené (Clara Segura); a pro bono lawyer, Julia (Belén Rueda), whom he wanted because she had a degenerative disease, CADASIL (Cerebral Autosomal Dominant Arteriopathy with Subcortical Infarcts and Leukoencephalopathy), and would thus by more empathic, and who he falls in love with; and Rosa (Lola Dueñas), a local woman who works at a cannery and moonlights as a DJ, who heard about him from the media, who wants to convince him to desire to live, and who falls in love with him.

The bulk of the film consists of these characters interacting with Sampedro in his room. There are also a few other ancillary characters, including Sampedro's father, who remains oddly distant, and a notorious and media-conscious priest, Padre Francisco (José María Pou), who does his best to change Sampedro's mind via philosophy/theology (in a scene often mistakenly characterized as "comic"--it has an attendant comic element, but the scene is primarily very serious).

That most of the film takes place in Sampedro's room ingeniously gives the couple significant changes in setting greater impact. Sampedro's room has a nice, big window, which he says he is satisfied with as an observation point on the world. Maybe even more importantly, he regularly imagines the window as a launching pad through which he flies across the hillsides to the ocean, which he always loved, and which has been the most influential force in his life--it provided his living when he was younger and took his mobility away. Amenábar gives us a fantastical sequence of Sampedro imagining one of his flights to the sea. It is beautifully shot, with low angles (presumably from a helicopter) of the hills rushing by, until we follow a stream to the wide-open ocean, which in this film represents freedom, the infinite, and natural forces.

The other significant change of setting arrives with Sampedro finally taking to a wheelchair (he otherwise refused them, saying they "mocked his immobility") to make an appearance in court to help plead his case. Amenábar gives us a poignant, melancholy travelogue, shot subjectively, of Sampedro viewing life and the world in action from the car window.

Whether you agree with legalizing euthanasia or not, it's difficult to deny that this is a well-acted, well-scripted and well-constructed film. You may not believe that it's a ten (and that's even more unlikely if you disagree with legalizing euthanasia), but it's still worth watching as a fine example of artistic, sophisticated film-making.


THE SEA INSIDE (2004) **** Javier Bardem, Belen Rueda, Lola Duenas, Mabel Rivera, Celso Bugallo, Joan Dalmau, Alberto Jimenez, Tamar Novas, Francesc Garrido, Jose Maria Pou, Alberto Amarilla, Nicolas Fernandez Luna.(Dir: Alejandro Amenabar)

An inspiring tale of a living death; Bardem is superb

The true life account of Spanish quadriplegic Ramon Sampedro and his petition to fulfill his desire for euthanasia by the right to die may not be considered a likely source of inspiration but this film is just that.

Sampedro (played superbly by Bardem) was a virile, energetic young man when he lost the function to his limbs after a tragic diving accident (recounted horrifically in flashback with a visceral jolt to the senses) and for nearly thirty years lay paralyzed in bed while his loving family cared to his every need. Although his abilities to move were nil his mind was very much active and proved skillful as an inventor, poet, author and artist that kept his mind busy until he could no longer bear the thought of living longer in his stunted condition.

Enter beautiful yet also afflicted with a crippling disease attorney Julia (the ethereal Rueda who matches Bardem beautifully as if they were indeed soul mates) is hired to see through Sampedro's final wish to end his life and in turn becomes an aide de camp when he begins to open up to her like to no one ever before. Not too long has time passed and Julia begins to investigate her charge's past discovering many letters hidden away by his family. When Julia confronts Ramon with this he at first is reluctant to discuss any thing with her but eventually he agrees with her that this may help his case and the project becomes a book in the making  a memoir/biography by way of free-style poetry and prose.

The film is a heartbreaking tale of the human spirit and how love eventually triumphs over heart ache in many forms including for Ramon the unlikely love he shares with a complete stranger named Rosa (Duenas) a single mother who sees him on TV one day inspiring her to bicycle to his remote farmhouse in Spain to get to know him and possibly change his mind about ending his life.

Filmmaker Amenabar, who co-wrote with Mateo Gil the fascinating screenplay, allows some fantasy into the mix when Ramon envisions himself magically leaving his bed and flying across the bucolic landscapes to the eventual sea where he suffered so many years ago the cruel twist of fate that has imprisoned him for three decades. The film is not a complete downer with a sly wit and occasionally humorous tone throughout that doesn't dilute the impact of the story's final act. Kudos also to the remarkable make-up job by James and Jo Allen do a tremendous job in aging the vibrant Bardem to an aging man to full effect that should get them an Acadamy Award nod.

Bardem and Rueda deserve Oscar nominations as two people with so much in common and despite Rueda's Julia being married to a loving, doting husband, that a pair of people so made for one another it is down right impossible they were never together to begin with. That's just one of the cruelties that rings true but it is not by definition of the film as its whole; it is a must-see and one of the year's best.


I just saw Mar Ardentro and felt that I had to comment on this film. Euthanasia is a difficult topic in any field and unfortunately is can sometimes distort the true value of a movie. Many people have raved about the excellent cast and it's beautiful imagery/camera-work. Certainly Javier Bardem is an actor that brings something extra to each film he makes. To say that he encompasses the real Sampredo is a little silly since I don't think that any of the reviewers have known Sampredo personally. To lie still and use a certain charm is a acting skill that although well performed doesn't constitute a 'perfect' performance. Bardem just does what he does well...and that's it. The camera-work is beautiful and evokes feelings and perspectives that the movie itself lacks to deliver. Sampredo here is shown as a man that is bend on dying so much that he leaves his loving family behind and marries a woman that he only seeks out when the other will not help him in his quest for a dignified death. Now I'm not here to say anything about the right for or against euthanasia. The problem is that when commenting movies like this you can hardly escape it. The movie's subject is so strong that you're almost compelled to discuss the movie in that strong subject matter. I find it a weakness for the movie -unintentionally- portrays Sampredo as a unsymphatetic character. Someone who is much smarter then his family as portrayed in the simple cousin that doesn't "get" the double layered poem directed towards him. Someone who will leave a loving and caring family because HE thinks his life is undignified. A scene that is juxtaposed to the female lawyer who according to the movie makes the "wrong" choice ending up in a far state of dementia thus indicating that Sampredo's choice was the right one. The woman that constantly seeks him out is almost disregarded for the beautiful lawyer but suddenly is married by Sampredo when she agrees to help him die. These choices make Sampredo into a calculated figure no matter how charming Bardem portrays him. Argumentive I would say it doesn't convince fully and I kinda think that Amenabar didn't intend on adding this unbalanced element in his film. For a young director it's still an impressive film and it certainly has it's strong moments (the discussion between the priest and Sampredo for instance). The camera-work IS impressive and the film is well acted. But 10 out of 10...no the movie doesn't reach that excellence.


I suppose it's quite an achievement to be able to present to an audience a true tail about a frail man; a tail in which the protagonist will spend the majority of the film on his back, in a bed and totally unable to move. And yet the achievement is in the film's effectiveness as a dramatic piece; as a recollection of a true story and I guess as an argument as to why people should have the right to die if they so wish to. But the film isn't a political statement and perhaps thankfully it shies away from too many scenes of debate although it does include one for the sake of argument anyway. More-so, this is one of those foreign language films that presents its lead character as a cripple whom can do nothing but talk to the people around him and yet is able to come across as engaging and compelling anyway.

So rather than be an out and out argument, the film is more a sweet yet timely dramatic piece about another person wanting something or in search of something; the only difference is that by attaining this 'goal', it would mean the termination of a someone's life and it would be achieved by not physically going anywhere. Javier Bardem plays real life Galician Ramón Sampedro, an individual who at a much earlier age dived into a clearing of water that was too shallow for such activity. This rendered him bedridden for the rest of his life and his wish to die is the focus of Chilean director Alejandro Amenábar's film. We've seen so many films in our lives in which characters have certain 'goals' or targets one must meet before the film is over to provide a satisfactory experience for the audience, but the change of pace in The Sea Inside is gentle; it does not involve young, energetic, attractive heroes going off to do battle in far off places but a real person after something that means so much to them.

Even if you do have a strong policy, either pro or anti-euthanasia, you may find yourself hoping Ramón gets what he wants at the end of it all anyway. The film sets its tone very early on with Ramón giving a speech on why he wants to die to watching family members, immediately introducing the situation and subject to the watching audience who may not know what the film is about. Interestingly, some of the family members are 'anti' what he wishes which might place any audience member that feels strongly about the subject in their respective shoes. But the purpose of this set up is to tell the audience 'No, this isn't one man after something who incidentally has the whole of his family backing him to the end'. Quite easily, the film could've gone down a route in which it is the Sampedro family vs. everybody else but some are anti-Ramón's idea; some are too young to acknowledge what's really going on and others are seemingly too distraught to even have an opinion other than they just want Ramón to stick around a bit longer, they love him after all.

The Sea Inside is a following of a story revolving around a victim of sorts. Ramón is a quadriplegic and it is his perspective we see things from. This is something that may disjoint viewers or have the film come across as quite odd given we are being presented with a film from the point of view of a victim rather than an instigator or a lead character in a film that is always inducing the cause in the cause and effect drive. But this is no criticism and it's a credit to the director for delivering such an approach in the effective manner in which it is. The film asks questions; it offers a scenario to its audience. If you were in Ramón's position: what would you do, or think about or dream of or talk about? Consequently, dreams about lawyer Juila (Rueda) are not so much shot for the audience's pleasure as much as they are an ever so slight window into one man's escapist fantasies from his predicament.

The study of Julia intensifies somewhat later on when a she begins to share certain similarities with Ramón and that is when she begins to have strokes that are a result of a disease of her own. This trait seems timely in the progression of their relationship and adds a further ingredient of connection on top of an already engaging friendship. This is because Julia feels the physical pain and restriction, not in a sense that she isn't able to get up and walk, but I think she realises the value of life given how emotionally bad she felt beforehand. While the film is based on a true story and covers the subject of euthanasia, it feels like more of a down to Earth drama about a man in a situation in which he is prepared to fight for what he wants but must do so verbally. It's refreshing to see films like The Sea Inside as it not only references history and gives us an insight into that but as a stand alone film, delivers on an emotional and engaging level.


It's a soap-opera drawing upon an applied ethics idea. A movie about human suffering and death is not necessarily a good movie. I didn't get any emotion from it, the ideas are not at all new, the tension lacks, it becomes tedious towards the second half but towards the end I think it becomes quite interesting in a burlesque way. I mean you have this middle-aged, paralyzed bald guy who gets more women than Don Juan. He doesn't seem to suffer as much as you would expect from someone completely paralyzed for over 28 years, he has no issues with God (and one would probably expect that too), the people around him seem to be the perfect slaves (I can't get out of my mind Bergman's Cries and Whispers, similar to this one in many respects, which simply bursts with emotions, and not all of them humane) etc. This movie is the perfect recipe for housewives who look for some emotional thrill but don't expect to be blown away. The movie is worth seeing among all the cynicism we get today for its sincere intention to present a modern ethical issue without any desire to arouse the viewer. Amenabar doesn't rub your face in it and he doesn't take sides, he doesn't want to make us fanatics for a particular idea. Still I have no clue as to why this movie was so highly regarded.


A friend of mine asked: "Doesn't one have to be pro-euthanasia in order to like this movie? Is it a mistake of the movie to infer most quadriplegics want to end their lives?" Interesting questions.

As far as I can see (correct me if I'm wrong), there is only one quadriplegic who wanted to end his life in The Sea Inside. Think Ramón Sampedro addressed this in the movie as well. It is he who wants to die. It is he who is fighting for his right to decide his death. He is speaking for himself and not other quadriplegics. Though his pioneering work, depending on one's perspective, may prove beneficial or damaging to quadriplegics down the road, his primary objective is a personal one. But one thing this movie does (my opinion anyway), is that it forces us the viewers to ask ourselves the inferring questions my friend so succinctly put forth.

After my first viewing of The Sea Inside, I walked home in a conflicted blur. I struggled to reconcile with this exasperating notion; why would Ramón want to die? Given the love, care and sacrifices so unconditionally showered on Ramón by the people surrounding him, why would he doggedly cling on to his hurtful decision? Then, on my second viewing, a shared thought between Ramón and the lawyer lady entered my consciousness. It threw up a telling observation: "...total dependency comes at the expense of intimacy." Most human beings crave for such an intimacy. Of course, how much we value such "needs", depends largely on the individual.

As a person with a familial-biased sensibility, I empathised strongly with the caregivers in this movie. Why can't Javier consider the sacrifice and the love from his family and friends? Is he blind to it all? I would think not. The miracle of The Sea Inside therefore, is its insightful depiction of a very humanistic tug of war. When we are faced with the guardianship of a sane but incapacitated loved one, whom has expressed a calm, conscious and rational intent to die, what then is the right thing to do? Is caring for and keeping this loved one alive, against his or her will, a pious gesture? Does it show up the worth of our love? Or does it merely soothe our "selfish" fears of irreplaceable loss? With so much understanding accorded to caregivers, wouldn't their invalid charges, by submitting themselves to the total dependency of others for survival, also be an overlooked act of sacrifice? Rhetorical or not, how much is "dignity" worth to an individual? Is living (or dying) with dignity a privilege or a right? If we really care and love a person, should we also respect their eventual decisions in life (as in death)? A torrent of questions the movie might have asked, answers to which, I'm in no position to provide.

In our eagerness to intellectually demarcate the merits of pro-life or pro-choice, we run the risk of ignoring a sea of grey that's engulfing the people most intimately affected, the caregivers and the ones they care for. The Sea Inside hence attempted to present the delicate yet complex relationship dynamics between them. Intuitively, this film understands one thing; that the nature of "sacrifice" is never one-sided. In this tug of war, we should endeavour not to win arguments, but to intently observe and hopefully determine, who is the "stronger" party to make that sacrifice.

The Sea Inside is a sobering film. It opened my eyes to things I don't wanna see. And for that, I am grateful.


I have seen 'The Sea Within' today and I loved it. The actors of the movie are wonderful (specially Javier Bardem, of course), but I thought that Belén Rueda would have a better role. Lola Dueñas, Clara Segura and, specially, Mabel Rivera perform excellent interpretations. And I cannot forget Celso Bugallo and Joan Dalmau (brother and father of the protagonist).

There are two technical aspects I loved very much: Aguirresarobe's photography and the score by Amenábar himself. I liked the song, 'Negra sombra' ('Dark Shadow'), by Luz Casal with music of Carlos Núñez.

In short, I think that the Spanish Academy should choose 'The Sea Within' in order to compete in the Oscar Awards. I liked other Spanish productions, such as Almodóvar's 'Bad Education', but Amenábar's film is much better than them. 'The Sea Within' deserves all the awards.


Since many other users have already explained and commented the storyline, I won't do it.

However, I'd like to restate that Bardem's interpretation is terrific, as also are those of the other actors and actresses in this film.

Reading the previous comments I've noticed that some people criticize the fact that the film doesn't show points of view opposed to euthanasia and that those little present are ridiculed. In my honest opinion this is far from true.

There are many characters that move in a gray zone between loving Ramón Sampedro and wanting him to stay, and understanding his desire to die. Most obvious of those are the family. For instance, Ramón's sister-in-law never talks for or against euthanasia. Another such character is Gené (the social rights activist) who, in the last moment, tells Ramón to re-think it all. The scene clearly shows that she doesn't want him to die.

Then there are characters who are clearly against euthanasia. Ramón's brother is clearly against it, as is his father ("There's only one thing worse than the death of son, and it's having a son that wants to die.") Other users have commented that the discussion between Ramón and the priest is ridiculed and filmed to make us think that Ramón is GOOD and the priest is BAD. Well, no doubt the scene is comic, but that doesn't mean the priest is caricatured or ridiculed. From my point of view, the comedy in this scene comes from the fact that the priest is trying to convince Ramón to keep on living using arguments totally alien to Ramón's thinking. The priest's speech goes on the line of "God gives and God takes", "We aren't the owners of our own lives, they belong to God"... and so on. The comedy arises from the fact that Ramón is atheist and all the priest is saying to him is therefore nonsense.

This film is the antithesis of manicheism, it leaves the spectator the chance to think on the subject and make up his/her own opinion. And above anything else is a chant of FREEDOM.


Once again Almenábar has provided us with a top quality film. This director is amazing, and he's proven that he's equally talented and effective when crossing genres.

The excellent character development of the movie, through dialogue and personality quirks, but with more subtle details as well (Ramon's father's gaze), allows the audience to identify with the protagonists very closely, making the importance and emotional impact of the events which take place all the more profound. The visuals are at times, simple, at times stunning (the dream to the beach), and I think Almenábar's films really benefit from the fact that he also composes the music - it matched the film's varying moods flawlessly.

More than just a film about euthanasia, which in itself is an important issue, this film tackles the duality of a man who at times genuinely seems to enjoy life (albeit in a quite limited way), and yet one who is unswerving in his desire to die. The overwhelming sadness of the film is punctuated by well-timed quips of humor, which seem all the funnier because they provide a welcome respite from the melancholy you will certainly feel.

Although clearly in favor of euthanasia, this film does an excellent job representing the myriad points of view of Ramon's friends and family. Most poignant was Ramon's father, when he said, despondent, "There's only one thing worse than losing a child. That the child wants to die."

Excellent writing, acting, directing, cinematography, music - 10/10.


" I have wrestled with death. It is the most unexciting contest you can imagine. It takes place in an impalpable grayness, with nothing underfoot, with nothing around, without spectators, without clamor, without glory, without the great desire of victory, without the great fear of defeat, in a sickly atmosphere of tepid skepticism, without much belief in your own right, and still less in that of your adversary. If such is the form of ultimate wisdom, then life is a greater riddle than some of us think it to be." Marlow in Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness"

It's difficult to make lyrical the subject of death in any work of art. Yet movies have recently made bold attempts to humanize it to the extent that it is embraced as a part of the cycle of all living things, and it can be chosen rather than legislated. "Chosen" is the operative word for Alejandro Amenabar's Sea Inside, based loosely on the true story of the Galician sailor Ramon Sampedro. It is a drama about euthanasia without prejudice clothed in love, poetry, and friendship. If it sounds like Barbarian Invasions (2003), in which a cancerous professor says farewell to lifelong friends and loves before he takes his life, then you are right. In fact, Sea is better because it spends more intimate time with the protagonist before he goes, a remarkable feat with not one of those moments in the least dull or uninteresting.

Javier Bardem as Ramon has expressive eyes and commanding voice for the romantic quadriplegic, a combination of tough realist and poetic sufferer. Belen Rueda plays the disabled lawyer Julia, who becomes an imaginary lover for Ramon, increasing in radiance as her life degenerates with disease. Added to the already almost soap opera circumstance is Lola Duenas as Rosa, a blue collar visitor who initially tries to dissuade Ramon from seeking death but quickly falls in love with him. Talk about romanticizing disabilityThis guy has unbelievable luck attracting substantial women, and he can't move a finger. But talk he can, proving the ultimate argument about what women want: love that speaks, not just makes.

I will refrain from mentioning the major motion picture now up for an Oscar that features euthanasia as its climax in order not to spoil the experience for first timers. Sufficient it is just to say both films are successful in opening up both sides of a contentious subject without forcing a specific point of view. The religious right has a right to complain that the former film and Barbarian Invasions celebrate suicide; it has no right to accuse the beautifully balanced Sea Inside of the same.

"A life in this condition has no dignity," Ramon says. The irony is he conducts himself with supreme dignity that makes anyone question his determination to end his life. "The Sea Inside" is a formidable entry in 2004's Oscar nominations for best foreign language film.


When I first saw "Before Night Falls", Javier Bardem had just been nominated for an Academy Award. I thought "he's got it!". He didn't. I watched "Mar Adentro" last night. Please give it to him this time... This is an actor. Convincing, touching, emotional, brilliant. See also "Los Lunes al Sol" and you will understand what I am talking about. He is an absolute chameleon and I swear it's not only the result of make-up work. This movie is so beautiful, so well done, the characters are so real. Congratulations to Alejandro Amenábar (how about a Best Director nomination?). I also have to mention the make-up artists. I can't think of another word but magnificent. I really hope this movie gets the recognition it deserves. As far as I am concerned, it already has...


This is probably the best movie filmed in at least the last five years. I've always believed that making people cry is far more difficult than making them laugh. If you want to see 400 adults crying out loud in the same room, go see this movie. It's breathtaking. Javier Bardem performs the role of his life. You will cry, you will laugh, you will smile... The most deserving fact is that in Spain everybody knows about Ramon Sampedro. Personally I knew the full story and even the end of it. So, the excellence of the movie is in the way that the story is told. And in this field, Amenabar is a THE master.

This movie is a MUST.


"Tesis", "Open your eyes" and "The Others" were proof of Amenabar's talent and skill as a filmmaker, but (in my humble opinion) were also flawed films in their attempt to outsmart the audience, always offering one turn of the screw too many, favoring cheap thrills, twists and turns over depth and resonance. Lucky for everyone Amenabar chose a subject for his new film that would not allow a surprise ending, focusing on characters and the emotional ties that bind them.

The result is a little miracle of a film, beautifully written, photographed, scored, acted and directed. Everyone involved in this film delivers a carrer-high performance,behind and in front of the cameras, from the wonderful cast (Bardem shines, but Mabel Rivera, Celso Bugallo, Clara Segura and Lola Dueñas give the film an amazing authenticity) to Aguirresarobe's exquisite lensing.

The film taps on many relevant issues and emotions effectively , it addresses heart and mind with equal power and delivers a final punch that stays with you long after the credits roll. This is a brilliantly executed film that not only will stand as a landmark in Spanish cinema, but will surely become a pleasant surprise when it opens in the abroad (Sony Classics has paid a record 6 million dollars to distribute it) Don't be surprised it it manages to get in the Oscar race... There's no stopping Amenabar...

Buen trabajo, Alejandro!


It's now 2005 and 15+ years since this cartoon first aired. I haven't actually watched it seriously or closely in about 10 years. Now that I'm an adult in my 30s I can look back with a serious eye as I watch the episodes again.

In concept, the cartoon is partly an homage to the classic Looney Tunes but also its own original show. There are a few episodes that are structured like the old cartoons. For example, there is a singer that attacks Buster and so he exacts revenge on this singer's concert -exactly like the old Bugs Bunny cartoon. The ensuing cartoon is similar to Looney Tunes, just in a different era. If you look at the old Looney Tunes, they did an awful lot of stuff exactly like Tiny Toons did. The old Looney Tunes made a lot of social commentary and parody. There were celebrity impersonations. There were a lot of corny period jokes, slang, and dialog. The comedy was surreal and wacky. You can say this exactly for Tiny Toons as well. The comedy styling is 'spiritually' the same. Most definitely a throwback to the classics which hadn't been done well (if at all) in cartoons in the decades prior to this show. We recognize the cultural references in Tiny Toons and we can roll our eyes when something we don't like comes up. But the reason we don't think Looney Tunes are corny is because we weren't alive back in the 40s. Also, Looney Tunes was original back in those days but today cartoons are rehashed over and over. So it's easy to perceive Tiny Toons in an unfair light due to our exposure to current events and our overexposure to cartoons in general.

There certainly are differences in many respects - the timing, the delivery, and obviously the duration of the shows. They are two different styles from two different periods, being done under two very different circumstances - Looney Tunes being made for adults in theaters and Tiny Toons being made for kids watching TV. Even so, they did a good job making an original show with original gags AND still paying homage to and patterning after the comedy stylings of the old Looney Tunes.

Since Tiny Toons had a lot more time to play with, they had some genuine moments of great animated inspiration. You only have to look at episodes like 1 minute to 3, the baby Plucky toilet episode.. there are so many more. For example, one of the best comedy dialog exchanges ever animated is in ThirteenSomething when Babs and Buster are on the phone in a split screen, hoping each misses the other. The miscommunication is spectacular. Notably, the character development in this episode and in several others (usually the ones penned by Deanna Oliver or Sherri Stoner) is rather good. The female characters were taken seriously as personalities and developed, unusual considering the opposite is usually true for cartoons of that period.

This was the first modern cartoon that had lots of both pop culture-referential and self-referential humor. This was way ahead of its time. Tiny Toons really opened up a door for writers to take comic liberties that are so common in the cartoons today, instead of doing the boring old crap we endured as 80s kids. Yes, I loved Transformers and Thundercats, but Tiny Toons totally jumped away from all that. It was a breath of fresh air. Bakshi's New Adventures of Mighty Mouse may have been a precursor, but Tiny Toons made this surreal style of comedy cartoon writing a real success.

As a kid I totally overlooked some jokes. For example, one episode is an homage to the Marx Brothers that I completely ignored as a teen. Now I have a newfound respect for it. There are so many inspired gags that I never noticed that are genuinely brilliant. It's that kind of comedy that makes me think of Looney Tunes and Family Guy. I NEVER noticed that kind of comedy as a kid. I've been thinking this for most episodes I watched recently.

You'd notice these kinds of things if you actually WATCHED the show. Unlike some other reviewers here who I know are unfairly judging it, I've seen all the episodes and have thought about them thoroughly, exposed both as a kid and as an adult.

You can tell there was an awful lot of care taken with the voice acting too. I'm not talking about just the main characters, but the side characters were done really well and creatively too. But back to the main characters, some of the main characters were brilliant. Tress MacNeille had, in my opinion, her best performances in this cartoon. She hasn't been the same since. Rob Paulsen also did some incredible stuff here, too.

This is all not to say the show didn't have some bad episodes. It had plenty. It had a lot of mediocre ones, too. But by far it certainly had a lot of genuinely funny episodes. Especially back when it first aired it was actually funny to watch.

Out of 10 I give the show an 8.5 - and kudos for pushing the envelope and breaking down the doors leading to a new era of cartoons.


They just don't make cartoons like they used to. This one had wit, great characters, and the greatest ensemble of voice over artists ever assembled for a daytime cartoon show. This still remains as one of the highest rated daytime cartoon shows, and one of the most honored, winning several Emmy Awards.


OK, the show was a little uneven, but I still loved it. I found the main two bunnies annoying, but Hamton & Plucky were always amusing.

I really want the Baby Plucky episodes on DVD (or even VHS). Please release those!

Specifically the "Potty years" episode aired on 11/22/91; the "Going up" episode aired on 9/17/92 and the "Minister golf" episode in 11/92.

They are the funniest bits of the whole series and even over a decade later we still reference these bits!

(I have nothing more to say, please reduce the minimum to something like 5 lines and rewards us for brevity!)


After the success of "Muppet Babies" Warner Brothers chalked up "Tiny Toons". But instead of making Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and all the rest of the Looney Toon gang kids, they created new animal characters who were kids with their own distinct personalities but personalities that nonetheless mirrored their predecessors. The leads included Buster & Babs Bunny (no relation, which became their running gag or catch phrase), Plucky Duck, Hampton Pig, Dizzy Devil, Shirley 'the' Loon, Elmira, Montana Max, Furball, Sweety, the rats and assorted animals of Perfecto Prep, and the original Looney Toons cast themselves. The "Tiny Toons" lived in Acme Acres and attended Acme Looniversity, where the Looney Toon gang worked as teachers who served as mentors to the younger generation the ins and out of comedy.

During the show's run, various pot shots were taken at the Bush SR. administration, pop culture, and coupled with various other gags and spoofs.

Buster & Babs, arguably the show's main characters, as mentioned above, were similar to Bugs Bunny in some respects, but they also had their own differing personality ticks and comic styles, namely, Babs' tendency to impersonate anyone and everyone, while Buster, capable of being a great goof himself, usually played straight man (or straight rabbit) to Babs' antics. Plucky Duck was a virtual copy of Daffy Duck (not screwball Daffy but egomaniac Daffy), with nearly as big an ego as Daffy and just as much of an obsession with upstaging the Buster & Babs as Daffy had with upstaging Bugs, though he usually fell flat on his face in his attempts, yet he remained strangely endearing through out. Hampton was an even more shy version of Porky Pig, and he had the thankless job of playing Porky to Plucky's Daffy. Shirley, the blond duck gal, was a new age valley girl type whom Plucky would go in and out of phases of mocking or vying for her affections. Dizzy was the purple version of the Tasmanian Devil. Furball was the silent Sylvester and Sweety was the pink Tweetie bird. There was also the purple female skunk who longed for a boyfriend and the pint sized versions of Wile Coyote and the Road Runner. Evil was defined in the form of Montana Max, a rich kid who was always out to make a buck or make people's lives miserable. There was also Elmira, a deranged animal lover whom everyone feared. And then there was Godo Dodo, an odd thing-a-ma-gig creature who had no clearly designated species except that he was from "Wacky Land" or something like that.

Pop culture references included Batman (quite frequently actually), Michael Jackson, Vanilla Ice, Dances With Wolves, Indiana Jones, Star Trek, Supergirl, fast food joints, the Ten Commandments, the Twilight Zones, Saturday Night Live and even the Simpsons, among others.

Not only funny, but it also managed to be warm and touching, something it's successor "Animaniacs" never quite attained. Also followed by "Taz-Mania".


Being a 90's child, I truly enjoyed this show and I can proudly say that I enjoyed it big time and even more than the classical WB cartoons.

I don't know why; early 90's cartoons had something special; I don't know if it was the uncertainty atmosphere, a generational change, whatever. But "Tiny Toons" kept the 90's vibe and delivered one of the most popular, funny, and underrated cartoons ever created.

The memories are murky but I can only say that I enjoyed every single episode and product related to the show. Easily, none other cartoon made me laugh in a tender way (before getting into dark sitcoms oriented for teenagers).

The characters were all funny and had the peculiarity of not having a true lead character. Every single character was hilarious and deserved to be called a lead.


I used to watch this show when I was growing up. When I think about it, I remember it very well. If you ask me, it was a good show. Two things I remember very well are the opening sequence and theme song. In addition to that, everyone was ideally cast. The writing was also very strong. The performances were top-grade, too. I hope some network brings it back so I can see every episode. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even though I haven't seen every episode. Now, in conclusion, if some network ever brings it back, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for good.