I saw this movie when it was broadcast on television in February of 1983. I was in the hospital, having just given birth to my first and only child. I'll refrain from telling you the extent to which I was moved. Suffice it to say that the memory of the movie has remained with me to this day, almost 23 years later. I hope I can find a copy of this movie, if such a thing was ever made. This movie should be remembered fondly by anyone who ever saw it. However, I must admit that the fact it remains somewhat obscure is just fine by me. This way, it will always be a small secret to me and those who were also moved by it. I never saw Ms. Margaret perform a better part. Nor have I ever seen her in a more convincing role. I will forever respect her just for accepting such a lovely part.


I watched this film many years ago on TV and taped it from there I could never really understand why my own mother was upset watching it! It was because I was so young at the time. I have just sat and watched this film again I now have 2 children of my own and I had to try and fight the tears back but that didn't happen I was crying through most of the film It just go's to show how different you feel when you have children of your own! Such an amazing family such a heart wrenching film truly wonderful! Someone has said about 8 still living any more news are you all still in touch I would love to know! Touched by the film all over!


"Who Will Love My Children" Saddest movie I have ever seen. Definite 10/10. Released on TV in 1983. Movie has been released on VHS. DVD release is a must, sooner rather than later. Mother dying of cancer, must find homes for all her children before she dies, because her thoughts are that her husband and father of the kids is not capable of caring for them once she has died. She manages to find homes for the children except one, a young boy whom is not wanted because he suffers from epilepsy. Very sad when your not wanted. In for a real good tear jerker, get your hands on this movie. I'm a male even I cried when I watched this movie. Not to be missed.


This has to be the ultimate chick flick ever. We taped it off the T.V. years ago and I've watched it about 30 times over the years. I hadn't seen it for about 12 years and just recently watched this movie. I'm not lying, I cried from the opening credits to the ending credits. This movie truly tears your heart out, even if you don't have children.


I was still living with my parents when they aired this on dutch TV. Usually I was the one watching movies with the other's not caring. But somehow we all sat down and watched this movie. This kinda movie used to be aired at Wednesday-evening. It is the story of a woman who'll die soon. But before she dies she wants to make sure her ( many ) kids will have the best possible foster-parents. So we were watching this and my dad ( the most emotional of the four of us) started to cry. I followed almost immediately and before long my sister and mother were teared up too. There we were, totally moved by this simple but heartbreaking story. If you want a good cry, this is the one for you!


I originally saw this on its premiere in the UK. I was mesmerised by it, and it had me in tears all throughout its duration. I taped it off the TV for safekeeping, but over the years, it's worn out. And TV never seem to show it. Therefore it was a joy to find out that True Movies own the copyright and were showing it on their channels. This time, I taped it onto a DVD, so I can enjoy it again and again.

Lucile Fray (played magnificently by Ann - Margret) discovers she has cancer, and that it is terminal. Her husband has arthritis, and, although he is loving, he is an alcoholic, and would be incapable of taking care of their children after she has gone. Therefore, she has to find new homes for each of her children before she dies.

The acting is top notch, the music beautiful, and it has stood the test of time wonderfully (it still makes me cry!) If you ever get the chance, you would be silly to miss this. It is a wonderful film! A must see for everyone!!!


This movie is based on the true story of Iowa housewife Lucille Fray, who got breast cancer after the birth of her 10th child. Realizing that the state would take the children away from her ineffectual, alcoholic husband, she devoted the last year of her life traveling around the state to find new homes for each of the children. A terrific script - which still holds up 20 years after it was first made. The grown children, many of whom had not seen each other since their mother died in the late 50's, were reunited on "That's Incredible," prior to the film's airing in 1983. Barbara Stanwyck won the Emmy for best actress in a TV movie or mini-series, but during her acceptance speech, she went out of her way to single Ann-Margret out for her moving performance.


Ann-Margret did the best job she has ever done in her history of film making. I felt as if she WAS Mrs. Frey. There might be one or two films of Ann-Margret's I have not seen since her film debut in "Pocket full of Miracles" with Betty Davis in 1961. I feel she has been totally under-rated in the industry. Though she was nominated for an Emmy Award for this role in "Who Will Love My Children," she was overlooked. Like she was nominated for an Academy Award for her roles in "Carnal Knowledge" and "Tommy," she was snubbed. Over all, I think everyone did a superb acting job including all the children in "Who Will Love My Children." Yes, it is a sad movie (as true stories can be), but well worth the time. Thank you.


I have nothing but praise for this movie and cast, especially Ann Margaret. But more importantly I have praise for my in-laws who were (are) the adoptive parents of Warren and Frank in real life. I met most of the "children" at Warren's wedding in 1989. This is an amazing story and is even more incredible to me knowing the family and what everyone went through. It is also enjoyable for me to see how my in-laws were portrayed in the movie. It was pretty accurate. My wife even enjoys seeing some little details such as a toaster that she remembered from her childhood. Yes, it is a hard movie to watch, but so amazing and heartfelt.

The beauty of this story for me is how many of the children passed through my in-laws lives and, as a result of marrying their daughter,and having Warren as a brother-in-law, how many I have met in mine. For the past 20 years this story has been a part of my life because of what my mother-in-law has shared with me. That and knowing Warren. For what it is worth, Warren lives in California with his family. He married his high school sweetheart, who he reconnected with at his 20 year high school reunion.

There was a show in the 1980's called "That's Incredible." They had a reunion of the family who also got to meet the cast of the show.

For anyone's interest, the DVD is available in Great Britain and Australia. It is a tough video to come by here in the United States and I have not been able to find a DVD here, yet.


I blubbered like a little girl during the ending of this movie and I dare anyone else to hold it together without a sob. Absolutely heart-wrenching stuff, yet uplifting at it's core.

A great effort on the part of Ann Margaret who plays a terminally ill mother of ten who, knowing her arthritic steel-working husband won't be able to support the family when she is gone, arranges the adoptions of her children before she shuffles off. The role really deserved an Oscar.

You truly feel for this poor family as the dying mother gives her all to ensure that her kids don't end up in a poorly administered state orphanage system.

If you haven't seen it - get it if you can.


Starring: Ann-Margret, Frederic Forrest, Cathryn Damon, Donald Moffat, Lonny Chapman, Patricia Smith Directed by: John Erman "12 Months to Live... So Little time to Plan a Future She Would Not Share. For the Sake of her 10 Children She Must Succeed!"

Lucile Fray (Ann-Margret), is the caring mother of 10 young children. She is the loving wife of Ivan (Frederic Forrest), a man almost crippled by arthritis. She is also dying. Stricken by a terminal illness, she has only a few months left to live. Her husband, tormented by the painful truth, turns to the bottle and, with a broken heart, Lucile is forced to accept that he will never be able to cope as a father alone.

And so, for the sake of the children she loves so much, the young mother must make an agonising decision.

Inspired by real-life events, 'Who Will Love My Children' is a tribute to one woman's courage and strength - a story of sacrifice and of a dying mother's undying love.

One of the best films that I have ever seen Cried from start to finish.


This is not a GREAT movie as tho the cast (especially the kids) admirably help to carry along this very sad yet contrived plot it is filled with cliché upon cliché. Poor family in 50's mid America, dying mother, alcoholic father, 10 children (1 of whom has epilepsy) and an awful decision to be made. Its very easy to watch and some of the kids performances are moving without being sickly or naff. And little Frank and Warrnen steal the show for me with the last scene leaving me bawling no matter how many times I see it. A great rainy afternoon movie i recommend to all. Only those with the hardest of hearts could fail to be moved by it. Not on a par to Sophies Choice but a good TV movie equivalent!!!


The War At Home is so good it's become my new favourite show.Me and my neighboors Carly and April watch this together every Sunday and laugh at how true to life it is.I love how everyone is so sarcastic and so worried and they dwell on every little issue.Once someone does something stupid they never live it down and that is soooo how family is.The father always harps on all three kids about every little thing.I love how the parents have no idea how to deal with the kids.It's so true to real family life and the fact that the parents are so overwhelmed and have no clue how to solve their teenagers problems just puts the show over the top.The War At Home is so brutally honest,and so true to the world we live in that it has become a milestone for sitcoms to come.This isn't Happy Days or The Brady Bunch this is real life.


This show is actually pretty good. Like all shows on TV, it has its good episodes and its bad ones.

I have read where people compare this show to Married with Children, and I suppose it is a similar show for the new generation. However, because of what was expected and allowed on TV in the days of Married with Children, that show was taken to great extremes to show that it was in fact, a television show, and not meant to be take seriously.

The War at Home has the luxury of being a bit more realistic. The parents talk to each other like real life parents often do, telling their children one thing, when they will turn around and do the opposite.

Sure, some of the content can be considered controversial. But I find this show really tries to maintain a sense of honesty. Like it or not, there are a lot of families out there just like this one.

Every episode does teach a 'valuable lesson'. Its just that sometimes the lesson is that you will not find a perfect solution for every problem that a family may encounter, and sometimes the solution is to pick the lesser of two evils. We all know that in some cases, as a parent, the only goal you can have is to keep your kids out of really big trouble, and hope that they learn right from wrong.

I respect the writers for attempting to keep the show true to life, instead of having some magical ending like the Cleaver family always had.


Like many situation comedies, "The War at Home" is getting better with each episode. The characters are starting to become real and I believe them as a family. I agree with many that the first few episodes were not that funny; I thought the show would be canceled for sure. But with the absences of "Malcolm in the Middle" and "Arrested Development," "War" provides much needed live action comedy for FOX on Sunday nights. And when compared with the rest of the sitcoms airing right now "War" is an even better choice.

Its appeal, at least for me, lies in its real situations. Teenagers have sex. Not every parent likes how their kids are turning out. Parents fight and call each other names. But rather than relying on being "mean" like many shows, everything is nice in the end which is the number one rule of a good sitcom.

One detraction from the show is the narration during/in between scenes. The "Arrested Development/Family Guy" style of flashbacks work well enough but the narration can be too much.

So anyone who needs something to watch on Sunday nights should check out "The War at Home," especially considering what is on the other major networks at that time.


This show is verging on brilliant. It's a modern day Married...with Children. The scripts are witty, as they are sprinkled with clever sarcasm. They are also realistic, dealing with issues that face many parents of teenagers today. As well as the on going burden that you might not be the worlds greatest parent, and how is the best way to deal with this? However, at the same time, it manages to remain light hearted and fun. Which, with all the drama and action on television these days, is a very pleasant and welcome change. It is something you can sit down in front of for 30 minutes and relax, laugh and relate to. It isn't the world's most hilarious comedy. yet will make you laugh at least a handful of times an episode. Michael Rapaport is brilliant in the lead as Dave. He fills the big shoes that the heavily sarcastic script requires and then some. He and Anita Barone (Vikki) have fantastic chemistry and bounce off one another very well. This show has a strong future if it is marketed at the correct target audience, and put in the right time slot. Also, if Fox release it on DVD, the following will be stronger and larger. (As is a classic example with Scrubs.)


Hilarious show with so many great stories, that it reflects the world today as we know it, in such a funny way it literally stole my laughters for other shows. I laughed so hard that I just found any other comedy shows unfunny. The unique confessions of each characters is a great original technique that just makes the show funny and very humorous. You may think that this is an average comedy show about hard life with a family. That's what I thought at first but I found out that it holds new and unique techniques that completely sets it apart from any other average comedy show. Michael Rapaport is a star. I sure wish that this show wasn't canceled.


I'm not from USA I'm from central Europe and i think the show is amazingly good. It can be easily compared with married with..children. My title says that it isn't show for conservative public. I mean i'm not so liberal but it may be slight difference between European conservatism and us cons. Anyway, show is starting to be very popular in our area and it's very bad that it contains only two seasons. Last episode opens many continuous and funny moments. Anyway I and many peoples would be glad if that would continue playing. The last thing i'm thrilled about this is some moral education very nice packed into humorous scenes. I mean i have seen many comedies that has over two and even more minutes of very sad in tragic scenes that absolutely don't fit into comedy. War doesn't contain something like that and is made for laughing. It's like The Simpsons and married whose also don't have any sad or even unfunny moments. I'm apologizing for my awful knowledge of English but I still hope that You will understand what I meant.


The war at home is a splendid television series and I don't understand because she has been annulled. Please fairies something to continue with this very beautiful television series, with excellent and marvelous actors, good recitation and good situations, please we want the third series and even so many new episodes. I pray you!!!! I would like if possible somehow to make to reach this and mail the interested forehand, since I can tell you that here in Italy this series is very liked, as in other countries of Europe chest of drawers for example Spain. In effects as I have written above what strikes of this television series it is the good recitation of the actors and also the honest one with which numerous matters of true importance are treated. I think both one of the best American television series arrive on the Italian screens in these last years.I pray you!!!!


This was one of the few shows that my wife and I agreed on watching. I was upset to hear that it was canceled, especially because I didn't realize the ratings were so poor. As far as I knew it was doing very well with a lot of viewers. Almost all my friends and most of the people I spoke to watched the show. Now we are stuck watching either crappy shows or DVD's. How bad was the show doing? does anyone know the real results of the shows viewings? I know that when it went to Thursdays, it was more difficult for me to catch. Thank G*d for DVR's!

Anyways, this was a real surprise to know that there will be no more "The War At Home". If any other networks see this, PLEASE PICK UP THE SHOW!!!! PLEASE!


i really like this series. its funny and unique style of off the wall, sometimes controversial comedy, is a fresh take on the genre. whilst it is a sitcom, it stands out due to the what could be awkward subjects.

every aspect has a comedy turn, and the show really is very good. my favourite part of the program is the rather odd comments of the father, dave. his rants break the program up, and allow a really good flow. not perfect, because sometimes the comedy isn't laugh out loud funny, and the actors sometimes seem to be waiting for an audience response, but otherwise this program is good.

i strongly recommend this program, and am very sad that it has been cancelled. please make another series, and finish it properly


I have realized that many people have commented on the nature of this show being racist and homophobic, but I don't feel that is what this show is about.

The show is about parents who weren't ready for kids and are now not ready for teenagers. This show helps to bring humor to a very hard topic that is sometimes over looked: parenthood.

Yes we have all had shows that had families in it, for example: Family Matters, Step by Step, Family Ties, Full House....but it always would have the same old recipe to it's episodes. "Steph" cuts from school and gets caught by her father. They have a heart to heart conversation and music is played and it's over with a two week grounding that after an "aww, Dad..." gets a smile and the show is over. Where is the comedy in such a situation? Where is the realism? With The War at Home, you get real situations from a real father type figure. Most parents that watch this show hear some of the lines the parents put out and they either laugh (cause they know they've said it!) or they nod their heads (cause they know they've thought it and never had the guts to say it!) The War at Home has situations that bring out great comedy as a father thinking his son is gay. Doesn't sound funny, most think it makes the father homophobic, but the comedy comes in the bumbling father trying to talk to his son to open up. What parent knows the right thing to say, especially in a situation as this? I greatly recommend this show to anyone that I know has a sense of humor, and especially to anyone who is a young parent or was young when they had kids. You relate to a show like this when you are either.


I haven't seen this funny of a show on fox in a long time, and the wait was worth it. The kids in the show have something that i can relate to on every episode, and even my dad will sit down and watch it. It is a show not for all ages that doesn't dumb down for kids. It is like still standing but to the next level. The stuff that everyone says is stuff that everyone says and actions that everyone does. It says stuff that we all think, but in a well rounded way of presentation. The first time i saw the show i could not believe that it was on fox, and that it was allowed to stay on the air after a few episodes, from Hilary's boyfriend choices to Kenny's boyfriend choices, it is well worth the watch.


Certainly not a great show, but better than most other sitcoms out there at the moment. It reminds of shows like Married With Children and Roseanne as they go to places not traditionally dealt with in sitcoms. It's sometimes funny even if you ignore the laugh tracks, but not rip-roaring hilarious.

Some of the characters are pretty funny (the gay friend) and some of the other drop-ins. This is also one of the few shows where the characters soliloquy (sorry for the butchered spelling) actually is effective and funny.

Is this an All in the Family or Seinfeld type show? Absolutely not. However, it is certainly better than a show like 'Til Deat (probably the worst TV show of any type out at the moment).

Oh and the mom is not too bad looking and the Hilary character is a little hottie.


So many times, Bollywood has tried to remake Hollywood hits, only to produce total duds. Mercifully, Yash Chopra's interpretation of "Sleeping with the Enemy" is an extremely stylish and well-made films.

Shah Rukh Khan is obsessed with Juhi Chawla (who's looking her very best in here!). When he realizes that Juhi has a fiance in Sunny Deol, he stops at nothing to make sure she becomes his.

Every frame of this film is a delight to watch. Whether it's Shah Rukh chanting his trademark "I love you, K...k...k...kiran!" or the feel-good mushy scenes between Sunny and Juhi (who make a perfect match), you won't feel like leaving your eat in boredom.

Each and every song on the soundtrack is ear pleasing, especially Jaadu Teri Nazar and Tu Mere Samne. Like I said, Juhi looks like a Goddess in this film. Darr may not be SRK's best film (that honor goes to Baazigar), but it definitely figures as one of his most flawless performances! Sunny is OK. He's done similar roles before, but he's good.

Overall, Darr is g...g...g...great! ;)


I generally love SRK as a villain (how can you not?) and I believe that SRK and Juhi are a perfect match on screen as they both are actually more nice than pretty.

This movie is great to watch, although it has some major flaws:

1) the good guy (Sunny) - not only he's so much less attractive than Shahrukh(what in my opinion is soooooo important in Bollyfilms) but his role lacks character - it would be much better if there was a conflict between two strong personalities, instead we have a conflict between a personality and an average soldier

2) Kiran's and Sunil's reactions for Rahul's actions are unbelievably silly and naive even for a Bollywood production

But all this is not that important in comparison with the wonderful melodramatic atmosphere, great songs (really truly great)and (let's say it again) Shahrukh as a villain, I just love him when he's so pagal

A must-see (along with Anjaam, Baazigar and Duplicate)


The story of an obsessed lover (Shahrukh Khan) and the lengths he goes to get his true love (Juhi Chawla) who's already married to her husband (Sunny Deol). The film is considered one of Shahrukh Khan's best performances and won him acclaim from critics and audiences alike. Fear that your love may not be reciprocated, fear that you may lose the one you love, fear that your beloved could have a change of heart. In short, fear is the villain in every love story.

But in 'Darr' fear is the ultimate expression of passion, of obsession and of sacrifice. 'Darr' is Rahul's (Shahrukh Khan) story whose love and obsession for Kiran (Juhi Chawla) frees him from all fears of life & death. 'Darr' is Sunil's (Sunny Deol) story, whose enduring love and passion for Kiran gives him the courage to face the fear of death.

And finally 'Darr' is Kiran's story who is caught between one man's love and another man's obsession. She fears one & fears for the other. One stands for love, the other for life. In this battle between love & life, the supreme victor is love, because love always wins, in life & death. simply "Darr" is one of the best Indian films ever made.


Shah rukh khan plays an obbsessed lover who would go to any lengths to get his lady. Juhi chawla does a wonderful job of making the best of her character and sunny deol plays the hero and action man. this film is very good and i'd reecommend it to anyone.


Darr is a great movie! Shahrukh plays an obsessed lover who will do almost anything to win over his lady which in this case is Juhi Chawla. Little does Juhi know in the film that Shahrukh has a MAJOR crush on her and is constantly stalking her. I have to admit, some of the things he did in this movie were pretty creepy... like the threatening phone calls. Never in my life will I forget the line, "I love you K..k..k..Kiran!"

It's just too bad that Shahrukh and Juhi weren't exactly "together" in the film. But Juhi and Sunny do make a fairly good couple in the movie. Though Shahrukh's role was pretty psychotic, I still think he did a great job of playing it and can't possibly imagine anyone else doing that role. No wonder he got an award for Darr in 94'!

Juhi... what can I say??? She looks especially amazing in this film! It's not that she doesn't always look amazing in her other films, but Darr did give the public a wonderful image of her!

As for the music... it was excellent! Especially "Jaadu Teri Nazar," one of my all time favorite songs. I also thought "Tu Mere Samne" was quite nice also.

A must see for everyone! Overall Darr deserves a 9/10!


I've never seen a Bollywood film before but I caught the first ten minutes of this, laughed myself silly and hit the R button on Sky+. I'm glad I did!! I hope I don't insult anybody (because basically, the BF and I loved it!) but we couldn't take it half as seriously as the actors did - especially the obsessed one (who, I understand, is a huge Bollywood star because we've seen him on the cover of lots of dvds since and i even saw a doll of him today in Hamleys!! The BF keeps on about this bloke - I am beginning to think HE'S obsessed! He keeps saying that it's strange for the traditionally good looking one to be the anti-hero of a film! But then we do like films that aren't your stock predictable Hollywood fare).

It was completely over the top but really good fun. If all Bollywood films are like this then we're watching more. I have had that bloomin' song in my head all week and I can't speak a word of Hindi! PS any recommendations would be appreciated!


The movie is a very good movie.one of the best from Yash raj films.The direction is incredible.The screenplay is brilliant.The story is excellent.It tells about Rahul who is obssed of Kiran his college friend.He is a full blown psycho doing things like talking to his mother on a phone(anyway she died 15 years back) etc.Kiran is engaged to Sunil.Rahul does everything so he can get her.He even trys to kill Sunil but he survives it.He even goes to the place where they are going to their honeymoon.The movie is every nes delight.Shahrukh is superb,Juhi is fairly good,Sunny is average,Anupham is okay and so is Tanvi,Dalip did good.The movie belongs to Srk.The dialogues are brilliant(Shahrukh ones and a lot if not the overacting and comedy)."Jaadu Teri Nazar" and "Tu Mere Samne" are absolutely melodious tracks.


Pertty Kiran comes back to home after completing her college. She has got a nice charisma which always drawn men to her. Sunil Malhotra a dare devil navy employee is one such guy. He loves her deeply and even engaged to marry her. Rahul is another person who is insane and he also loves Kirrrran.

Sunil is very close to her family and is adored by everyone in his home. Kiran has never met Rahul, but then Rahul would kill anyone who comes between him and Kiran. So when Rahul comes to know that Kiran is in love with Sunil, what will he do ? Will he kill him or he himself will be punished for his devil acts.


Shahrukh Khan and Yash Chopra films have never disappointed. Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge is a romantic classic. Dil To Pagal Hai was fresh and perfect to watch. Mohabbatein remains as one of my favorite movies ever. And Veer-Zaara was magical. Darr, though not the best, is a romantic thriller that is different from the aforementioned movies, but definitely worth a watch. And SRK, who blew me away with an excellent performance in Baazigar, repeats a villain act. And this time he gets an experienced Juhi Chawla and Sunny Deol to support him.

Before I comment on the acting, it is not just the acting, but the wonderful script that makes it worth a watch. It is the writing that compliments the great acting. The story is gripping, but the characterization is what stands out. The comedy track goes along well. But the movie has the tendency of shifting at romance too much. The viewer is bound to lose interest and you will make a couple of yawns. But the movie is still good.

Shahrukh Khan is brilliant in his author backed role. Shahrukh Khan once again is sympathetic and cruel. You are bound to cry at the end. Juhi Chawla is decent. Her screams are bound to become annoying after a while. But in facial expression she is excellent. But her ending scene she is brilliant (though she was overshadowed by SRK). She has an author backed role that makes her very likable. Sunny Deol is adequate. His character was very likable, but too perfect. And it gets boring after a while. He does a good job though. Anupam Kher is really funny, but his role felt a little out of place. Tanvi Azmi supports well.

The songs are enjoyable and come at the right time. Jadoo Teri Nazar (Magic At Your Sight) is my favorite song, and presentation is very 90's film like. Tu Mere Saamne (You are in Front of Me) and Likha Hai (Written Here) are nice love songs. Darwaza Band Kar Lo (Close the Door) is a decent love song also. The instrumental song is danced to perfection as well as the naughty wedding song Solah Button. The movie may not be perfect, but it is well worth your time especially if your favorite actor is in it.


I have seen many of Shahrukh's movies and this is a very good role for him. He has such versatility, but he mainly stays in positive roles. As Rahul, he is very dark and disturbing, yet I found myself sympathizing with him much of the movie. If for nothing else, watch this movie for Shahrukh. He plays a very complex and real character very convincingly. The story is very typical and has been done before, but the character development is very strong and entertaining. The opening is a little confusing, but by the end, it doesn't matter. The songs I found very likable and give insight to what characters are thinking. Very clever. I think this movie was very good and recommend it to all Shahrukh Khan fans. It is a must see!


This was Bollywood's answer to Fatal attraction and this is a classic film in its own right. Juhi Chawla was good and so was Sunny Deol but it was Shah Rukh Khan who shot to fame as the stalker. Since then he has become a favourite of the Chopra's (Dilwale Dulhaniya le Jayenge, Mohhabatein, Dil to pagal hai, Veer Zaara and Chak De India). Shah Rukh at first appears to be a villain but then towards the end you start to sympathize with him. The scripting was superb and the songs were chartbusters. My favourites are Too mere samne and Jaadu teri nazar.

After the dismal failure of the underrated Lamhe Yash Chopra fought back with Darr. The dialogues were memorable, the k..k..Kiran dialogue is often repeated. Since Darr Yash Chopra has slipped bit. Dil to pagal hai was bad but he redeemed himself slightly with Veer Zaara, which was far far better. This was Yash Chopra's last masterpiece.


this movie is such a good movie shah ruck khan does a great job as the crazy mad villain who is totally obsessed with

the girl the story is fantastic the acting by all

characters like the girl and shah ruck and Sunny are all fabulous and i really love the first song especially how it comes back at the end oh and its so emotional if your a true shah ruck khan fan you have gotta watch this movie because its the best shah ruck khan movie ever he plays an excellent role and i wish he done more crazy man roles but u have to watch this what so ever this is a really good movie this is a really good movie you have to watch it it is truly amazing you have to watch it it is fabulous i can go on and on about this movie because it is a fun funny scary cool and totally fantastic movie in the world


Watch this movie just to see Shahrukh Khan say "I love you,K-k-Kiran..." It's both heartbreaking and frightening at the same time when he says this, from the beginning to the end. This movie made him famous, and I totally recommend it :D It's highly entertaining, the music's wicked and you will laugh right along with Shahrukh here...You'll genuinely feel scared for the hero and heroine and oddly enough you will identify with at least one of the characters. You will feel sad and happy and relieved and afraid at the same time. Go see this classic Bollywood movie with your good buddies and some lovely food and have a day in. And after you see the movie, have the songs and scenery playing in your mind...forever.


This movie is just brilliant, SRK's acting is just amazing, the end is so incredibly sad, I cry every time I see this film, it's the kind you never get sick of, and can see again and again, an absolutely amazingly brilliant movie.


Darr (1993) was an incredible movie. In my opinion, it is one of Bollywood's finest. The movie itself triggers feelings of sympathy, fear, confusion, happiness, and sadness. Shahrukh's role was unbelievable, in fact he gave obsession a new face. Juhi Chawla's innocent and girlie character contrasted greatly with Shahrukh's fiery and passionate character. Sunny Deol's role made the "good guy" role seem like the "bad guy" one. The fact that Shahrukh, not Sunny, captivated the audience's attention proves that everyone has that helpless inner drive to pursue something that's not really in their hands. Even though the movie is several years old, it surpasses any recent one. The song "Tu Mere Samne" was full of passion and meaning. His personality fit the role perfectly. He should seriously consider re-starring in a similar film.


Darr is an brilliant movie..It is 1 of my favourite films..SRK has done a mind blowing job in the movie....

this role couldn't have been played by anyone else because this type of role only suits SRK...

SRK plays a mental villain in the film..

SRK's performance in this movie is the best performance ever in boll wood...

SRK deserves an honour and an encouraging appeal for his fantastic performance...

Juhi also delivers an excellent performance..

Sunny Deol looked strong and physically fit in the film..


Darr was a Super Hit film, which was loved by many peoples. It tells the story of Shahrukh Khans innocent obsession for Juhi, who loves Sunny Deol. Honestly it was a entertaining movie, but if you look carefully its not too realistic. Shahrukh Khan keeps phoning Juhi and tells her that he loves her too bits. He gives an announcement in college that he Loves her, and gives her some nice surprises like beautiful photos of her. Unfortunately, instead of being flattered that a guy loves her too bits, she gets very very scared. I personally know 100s of people that get pranked by someone, and these people enjoy it, cos they play a long. Yash Chopra gives us a good film that does entertain, widely because of Shah Rukh Khan's character. Sunny Deol is suppose to be the main actor, but Darr belongs to Shah Rukh Khan delivering a Superb performance. Shah rukh Khan is literally the villain of the movie, but i would of been happy if he got the girl, because he loves her so dearly. Sunny Deol gives a decent performance, but he beats up all those guys on his own, and survives a brutal knife attack. Juhi Chawla is cute as ever in a fairly good performance. Some good songs including Tu mere samne being the best.


Darr, although a copy of some Hollywood flick, is one of the best films I have seen. It is not only beautifully portrayed but also has great songs and beautiful scenery. Shahrukh is his usual self. His expressions and voice matches his character. I was pleasantly surprised by Sunny Deol's portrayal in the film. He is a bit romantic and lovable in the film, unlike his other characters in his other films.At times you feel like Justice hasn't been done to his character. Sunny was intended to be portrayed as the good guy in the film but ends up looking like the villain at the end. Juhi Chawla is beautiful and bubbly. She is her usual self. In short, A great love story with passion.


This isn't far away from the trash that Bollywood normally makes but there's just something really good about it.

The title song is one of Bollywoods best and is haunting throughout. This is one of the films (along with Baazigar - a must see Bollywood film) that made Shah Rukh Khan and it's for this you have to check it out.

Other reviews give away the story - it is a fairly basic idea - ShaRukh definitely stands out and one of his final expressions right at the end made me give this film an extra star.

Its fairly cheesy but definitely worth watching if you are new to Bollywood or not! 8/10


This is a hard movie to come by in the US, but if you can find it -- and you're interested in the life and music of Percy Aldridge Grainger, you're in for a treat. It's quite historically accurate. Richard Roxborough's Grainger looks astoundingly like Grainger at this period in time. Emily Woof's Karen Holten is quite a bit prettier than the real Karen, but that was an inaccuracy I was happy to discover (!). I think what really struck me though, was how well Roxborough captured Grainger's outrageous personality. Barbara Hershey's Rose was also a treasure. If she looks considerably younger than Rose did at that period, it is more than made up for in how well she captured Rose's obsession with Percy. It's an easy film to recommend. (I should note that when she saw "Passion" my wife had no particular affinity for (or knowledge of) Grainger and his music, but she was totally captivated by the film.


The Turner Classic Movie Channel has spent the month of January doing the films of one of my favorite actors, Robert Montgomery. His films are mostly rarely watched these days, except for those that were atypical for most of his career - meaning that the roles that frequently reappear on television are THEY WERE EXPENDABLE, THE LADY IN THE LAKE, JUNE BRIDE, NIGHT MUST FALL, THE SAXON CHARM, RIDE THE PINK HORSE, RAGE IN HEAVEN, THE EARL OF CHICAGO (in short the films he fought to get the roles in because they were not the usual comic fluff he usually appeared in). It's ironic that nowadays when one thinks of Montgomery's career it is the films that were mostly made after 1937 that are pushed - the ones that broke the original image that MGM and Louis B. Mayer pushed. The pity of this is that Montgomery was a gifted comedian, and saved many films from being routine.

PETTICOAT FEVER is one such film. Made in 1936 with PICADILLY JIM and TROUBLE FOR TWO it was a banner year of good performances by Montgomery, and helped lead to his being able to convince the powers that be at MGM to allow him to play "Danny" in NIGHT MUST FALL the next year.

PETTICOAT FEVER is set in Labrador, and Montgomery is a weather station operator there named Dascom Dinsmore. He has been living there for five years, and has not been in the company of a woman (except for Inuit women) for most of that time. He has a girlfriend of sorts named Clara (Winifred Shotter) who he sort of proposed to, but it's been two years since he has heard from her, so that he believes she has given up on him.

Dinsmore's world is rocked when Sir James Felton and Irene Campton (Reginald Owen and Myrna Loy) show up. They were flying to Toronto for a business meeting that Felton was to address. Felton is engaged to Campton, but Dinsmore finds her enchanting...and gradually she finds him equally attractive. Certainly the pompous, self-important, and hopelessly inept Felton is no competition (it is a measure of Owen's acting that he keeps the character entertaining even if one finds it hard to believe such a boob is a Canadian captain of industry).

There is something surreal about this film - probably due to the original play. While the "Labrador" scenery is quite phony looking it does serve it's purpose for the comedy (witness th polar bear sequence). But the height of the surrealism is the dinner Dinsmore serves his guests, a dinner of "pemmican steaks", which Owen eats with real gusto. Owen (a minor noble as a baronet) is dressed in normal clothing - a winter suit for the climate). But Montgomery is dressed in his suit of evening dress (as though attending a ball at the embassy). Loy, seeing him dress up, likewise puts on a gown. They are being served by Dinsmore's servant - assistant, the Inuit Kimo (Otto Yamaoka), who is wearing a suit of evening dress too - it turns out that it is Owen's! Owen, who earlier insisted that Dinsmore change into clothing more suitable to his station, is the only person who is improperly dressed for this dinner!! Montgomery was MGM's most elegant actor in a tuxedo or evening dress (Franchot Tone was the his closest rival). It is a toss-up in movie if Montgomery or Fred Astaire was the more elegant figure in such suits. Hard to decide.

The course of love does not move smoothly in comedy or drama. Clara shows up (we are tipped off too early about this at the start of the film when we see her on an icebound ship). Will Dinsmore break with Clara? Will Irene break with Felton? The film is funny, and Loy and Montgomery make a nice couple. They had appeared together in one other film, and both were in separate scenes in a second, before this movie. But this would be their last film together.

One last interesting point - at the start of the film when the credits are shown, you see illustrations of men and women in comic situations. They are based on the art work of John Held Jr., the great cartoonist/illustrator of the 1920s and 1930s - who was the recorder of the flapper and "Jazz Age". It's an unusual choice - as it has absolutely nothing to do with the film's plot or Labrador.


Okay, when it comes to plots, this film is far from believable and also a bit silly. Yet despite its many deficiencies, the film manages to work--provided you turn off your brain and just let yourself enjoy the zaniness of it all. If you can't, then you probably won't like this film very much at all.

In one of the oddest plots of the 1930s, Robert Montgomery plays a guy living near the Arctic Circle at a wireless station. How exactly he came to such a remote outpost is uncertain but into this very, very lonely and isolated existence come a steady string of guests--even though it had been years since he'd seen anyone but Eskimos.

First, Reginald Owen and Myrna Loy arrive when their plane crashes. They are supposedly on their way to Montreal--how they got THAT far off course is beyond belief! Reginald is a stuffy and dull fellow who is really worried about Montgomery, since Robert hasn't seen a woman in a very long time and Owen seems in constant dread that Montgomery is out to steal Loy for himself. As for Montgomery, that's EXACTLY what his plans are! For the longest time, you never really understand why Loy is engaged to Owen--since he is about as appealing as soggy bread.

Soon, Loy and Montgomery fall in love but this is all for naught when, out of the blue AGAIN, Montgomery's old fiancée arrives to announce she's there to marry him!! Considering that for over two years she never wrote and refused to follow him, Montgomery naturally assumed the relationship was over--but the chipper and annoying fiancée's sudden arrival is enough to destroy the plans Loy and Montgomery were making.

How all this is resolved is something you can just see for yourself. As for the film, that the plot is very silly and contrived--I can't defend this. BUT, it also is pretty funny and charming and I see this film as a kooky comedy that is just a step or two below contemporary films like BRINGING UP BABY. Silly, slight but also very charming. It's worth seeing despite not being especially believable.


Very well done acting and directing. This is a cross between "The Last Don" and " Godfather 2".One large plus for this production is that it is claimed to be a true story of Joseph Bonanno. With a better music score to create mood, it could have been a rival for both Godfather movies.


This movie have 4 parts and every is around 170 minutes long. Its based on true story of life of Joe Bonanno and it is telling all how he did see. So in some events we can notice that we heard different about it. Movie make you tied up for chair till the end, i think it is possible to watch all 4 in a row, and not notice i watched 2 in a row and 2 next day in a row. Acting in movie is OK in some scenes awesome but in general could be bather, but this movie is not about acting or special effects and glamor, this one show real thing and story is key to this movie. So the one who look for same spectacular Rambo/matrix/titanic movie you can skip this one. Good thing in movie is that follow the main story so you will not have long and boring love scenes or any different interrupt with something not important to crime business of Bonanno.


I found parts of this movie rather slow, especially the first part; the second part seemed to go a lot faster, but it's not totally clear to me as to why one part was faster than the other. I somehow managed to find it enjoyable. The acting was good, the writing was good (yet vulgar). There was also another good side to it: it was easier to understand than say, the Godfather movies. You knew who was on whose side, etc. All in all, the movie wasn't half-bad.


Hollywood has turned the Mafia in to a production line of output ranging from the banal to the excellent and despite some good acting and a reasonable script (much of which is - for a change - true!) this "home entertainment" effort has to fall slap bang in the middle.

The script is not only obvious (all of the checklist boxes end up being ticked), but spends a lot of time trying to create a pastiche of the best of other people's work. The Godfather being the most obvious, but there are other references too. I won't bother naming them. Nevertheless it is a good taste borrower! The producer seems to set a quota for gunshots and murder (one at least every twenty minutes?) and the ending is weak and "so what?" I am told there are various versions of this production so that maybe that is just the version I have seen.

Gangsters don't make money they take money. Usually by fear. Some seem more in to the murder and mayhem side of the business than making money. They were the ones that were the first to go (in real life and here). "You can't make money with a gun in your hand" says Charlie 'Lucky' Luciano at one stage. One of the smarter gangsters, although all things are relative. He was a skilled white slave trader and a drug dealer before being bundled home to Italy.

The old school "moustached Pete's" were picked off by the new bloods who wanted the power and the money for themselves and to break free of the straight jacket of Italian/Sicilian power (rarely doing business outside themselves). The young Turk knew they needed to be allied with other groups (most notably "the Jews" who knew how to launder money) and this is at least referenced and acknowledged. What isn't made so clear is that most immigrant groups had their own Mafia's - but most of them made their money and went legit. And why not? Who wants to die in jail?

Joseph Bonanno was a ruthless man prepared to kill if needs be , but not an unfair or stupid one. His story was tragic in that he could have made money in the over ground world and he showed a special skill in avoiding getting killed. With a little bit of luck attached, naturally.

Despite the range of respectable names and three actors in the title role (Bruce Ramsay, Martin Landau and Tony Nardi) there isn't the charisma or the talent to bring us in and feel anything. We are - merely - passive observers in a life we are glad not to have lead. The people shown here were born in to a cruel world but their only mark was to make it crueler.

If you can't get enough of the gangster genre that will be better than watching Godfather 1 & 2 for the tenth time and it is even better -- as basic entertainment -- than the horrible misfire that was Godfather 3.


I don't want to spoil the movie for anyone, but, this mimics life's reality in so many ways, and, if you are really honest with yourself, you will resonate with it in agreement in at least a few of the scenes.

The acting is not only believable, but convincing in a way that endears one to the characters. Moreover, it's funny, without trying too hard at it.

And, yes, I truly believe a sequel is warranted, here. See the movie, you'll understand why.

Highly recommended, especially if you like movies that have a real message.


'This Is Not a Film' works because it is so true in what it is trying to say. If you ignore the dynamics of the plot and focus in on the message, you will see a little bit of yourself in the main character, Michael. Whether male or female, all of us have come to a point in our lives where we want to look back and reexamine a situation or a relationship. Did it really occur like we remembered? What went wrong? Michael's desire to find Grace is completely selfish. More than anything, he wants to make himself feel better about how things turned out. But even so, he is a sympathetic character because everyone is selfish when it comes to relationships. We would not be in them otherwise. As the film ends, I am not sure if Michael has learned anything new about himself or not. Our best gauge on the relationship is through his friend, Nadia. She is the soul of the movie and reminds us of how there are always two sides to every story. I found Michael to be pompous, arrogant, and just plain clueless. Which is exactly why I liked him. He is a real character. If you've ever wanted to go back and analyze a previous relationship, then this is a film for you. In closing, it is a film for everyone.


It is clear this film's value far supersedes the cost with which the format (mini-dv) implies. In fact, the filmmaker embraces the format and incorporates it so craftily into the storyline that I forgot the fact that I was not seeing the typical 35 millimeter film. It has the core appeal of indie movies like Clerks & the work of Robert Rodriguez combined with a fantastic "new take" on the romantic comedy genre. "This Is Not A Film" is an honest film with honest portrayals and, it is a superbly paced narrative. There is not one point in this film where I felt a scene could have (or should have) been omitted. On the contrary, the director pulls amazing performances out of truly gifted actors and does so in extremely confining circumstances. From page to screen, this film is a worthy and relevant story that hits on so many levels (creative, technical or otherwise). I highly recommend it for all who enjoy cinema or those looking for a little charm in an otherwise devoid of charm medium.


Most movies from Hollywood seem to follow one of a few pre-formulated and very predictable plots. This film does not and is a perfect example of what I watch IFC for.

There's a guy, Michael, and his girlfriend left him with out a word. He wants to know what happened. Is she OK ? Can he say goodbye ? Perhaps get some closure. He hasn't been able to contact Grace and in an effort to find her he has made a film asking for your help.

Michael figures we might need a reason to help him, so he tells us his story by reliving his relationship with the help of a friend ( Nadia ) to play the role of Grace ( the girlfriend who left)

Hind sight is 20/20 and it is no different for Michael. By telling his story, and getting feedback from his friends, he realizes his mistakes and just how much he values what he has lost. This is unfortunately a lesson we all have had to learn ( or need to learn ) and is easy to identify with. That is what makes you want to hear more of Michael's story and wanting to know if he finds Grace.


This is an enjoyable project, that is not a film as the title suggests. Good performance by Nadia Dajani who re-enacts the role of Grace. I follows the re-enactment of what happens to Mike and Grace in New York City. She leaves, but he wants to get in contact with her. This project is his way of trying to getting in touch with her.

I saw it on IFC. I have heard that it will be released on DVD as well. I do like this trend of more independent projects. This is an example of a good project.

I hope that he finds her.

Take a look and be entertained.

KirbyEF


loved the story of a guy that tries to get his girl back....been there, done that, so i can relate...any way, i love the camera work, how occasionally the camera gets "left on", and they are just sitting there talking about the scene, or other stuff...or how the camera follows him around to find the cast and what not...i watched this on IFC sometime last year and i loved it, so i told a few of my friends about it, and some of them watched it, and they too loved it...check it out if you can, kinda girly, but its still a good film...I gave it a 10/10 because of two reasons...one: i can relate...but anyone that has ever fallen in love and made a mistake can relate... two: its a really creative way to make a film, its like you are constantly there, right in the middle of filming...like i said, great film


The whole town of Blackstone is afraid, because they lynched Bret Dixon's brother - and he is coming back for revenge! At least that's what they think.

A great Johnny Hallyday and a very interesting, early Mario Adorf star in this Italo-Western, obviously filmed in the Alps.

Bret Dixon is coming back to Blackstone to investigate why his brother was lynched. He is a loner and gunslinger par excellance, everybody is afraid of him - the Mexican bandits (fighting the Gringos that took their land!) as well as the "decent" citizens that lynched Bret's brother. They lynched him, because they thought he stole their money instead of bringing it to Dallas to the safety of the bank there. But this is is only half the truth, as we find out in the course of this psychologically interesting western.

But beware, it's kind of a depressing movie as everybody turns out to be guilty somehow and definitely everybody is bad to the bone...

Still, I enjoyed it very much and gave it an 8/10. Strange, that only less than 5 people voted for this movie as of January 12th 2002....


The copy of this movie that I have seen is not very good. It's grainy and has almost no color in some parts. It switches back and forth between English and French, often in mid sentence, and sometimes even in the middle of a word! To make matters much worse, there are no English subtitles during the French language parts, which I think make up at least one quarter of the film. But, amazingly, the movie is still very understandable and enjoyable, even in this condition, and I think that says a lot about how well-made this film is.

This is a top notch spaghetti western with great acting, an interesting storyline, and an excellent music score. It also has a cool protagonist, a beautiful dark-haired girl, some strange characters and events, and an overall feeling of melancholy. This film has "Euro" written all over it.

I hope there is a pristine negative or print of this film out there somewhere, because it deserves a quality DVD release, and when it comes out I will be one of the first in line to get it!


In the late sixties director Sergio Corbucci made four spaghetti westerns in a row--the classics THE MERCENARY, THE GREAT SILENCE, THE SPECIALISTS, and COMPANEROS. Three of these, all except THE SPECIALISTS, are constantly turning up on ten best lists when spaghetti westerns are rated. Until recently all I had seen was a very poor quality compilation with some English, some Italian, a fuzzy picture, and it was nearly incomprehensible. Now, having seen a beautiful widescreen version with subtitles (still in two languages, however), I can safely include THE SPECIALISTS in that group of four classics. Johnny Halliday is very good as the charismatic Hud, a notorious hand with the gun returning to Blackstone to investigate the death of his brother, who was lynched by the townspeople for losing their savings. It involves a voluptuous beauty who owns the bank, a Mexican bandit leader, El Diablo, who was once friends with Hud, an honest sheriff who dreams of better days, and a small band of hippies--well, it was the late sixties, and hippies were everywhere, even apparently in our westerns. It's not a desert western, shot in the alps somewhere, and is lovely to look at. There is a bit more nudity than I expect in a western, but that's not a bad thing. Sylvie Fennec is lovely as Sheba, who may be Hud's niece, or dead brother's girlfriend...that's never made clear. This film deserves to be seen, and once again, we plea for a nice DVD with all the trimmings--I think THE SPECIALISTS would be as well known as any of Corbucci's other westerns, and that's high praise indeed.


Cult film-maker Corbucci's rarest of his thirteen Spaghetti Westerns (of which I'm only left with WHAT AM I DOING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE REVOLUTION [1972] to catch) is one I only became aware of fairly recently via Marco Giusti's "Stracult" guide; it's an atypically bleak genre gem in the style of the director's own masterpiece, THE GREAT SILENCE (1968), complete with desolate snowy landscapes.

Johnny Hallyday, the French Elvis Presley, whom I first saw in Jean-Luc Godard's DETECTIVE (1985) is a curious but highly effective choice to play the loner anti-hero Hud (who, like Clint Eastwood's The Man With No Name from Sergio Leone's celebrated "Dollars Trilogy", is fitted with a steel-plate armor for protection); incidentally, I had 'met' Hallyday's stunning daughter Laura Smet at the 2004 Venice Film Festival but was distracted by the presence of her esteemed director, Claude Chabrol! Gastone Moschin is another curious addition to the fold (serving pretty much the same function that Frank Wolff did in THE GREAT SILENCE) but acquits himself well and is amusingly clumsy in the presence of a bathing Francoise Fabian; the latter, then, plays a greedy nymphomaniac of a banker's widow who seduces all and sundry in the pursuit of her goals. Sylvie Fennec has the other major female role as a farm girl looked after by Hallyday and who, at one point, is entreated into Free Love by 'hippie' Apache Gabriella Tavernese (with this is mind, it's worth noting that the movie features surprising but welcome bouts of nudity from both Fabian and Tavernese)! Incidentally, the anachronistic addition of a bunch of long-haired youths (who also engage in dope-smoking and revolutionary talk) is a somewhat half-baked attempt at contemporary relevance  but it all eventually adds to the fun (besides, even the black barmaid sports an Afro hairdo!).

Mario Adorf, too, enjoys himself tremendously with the smallish role of a larger-than-life Mexican bandit nicknamed "El Diablo"  who keeps a youthful biographer constantly by his side (an element which may have influenced Clint Eastwood's UNFORGIVEN [1992]) and, at one point, challenges the captive Moschin to a head-butting duel! Having mentioned this, the film also contains one very unusual 'weapon of death'  as Hallyday disposes of an adversary by kicking the cash-register of the saloon into his face! As always, the enjoyably fake fistfights are accompanied by over-emphatic sound effects; equally typically for the genre, however, the wistful score by Angelo Francesco Lavagnino emerges a most significant asset. Actually, the ambiguous ending is entirely in keeping with the film's generally somber tone  after Fabian's comeuppance at the hands of the locals, the hippies (who had previously idolized Hud) suddenly turn against him when wounded and terrorize the town (forcing everyone on the street and unclothed)but the unflappable gunman manages to lift himself up to meet their challenge (they, however, scurry away at the prospect of facing him!) and then rides out of town, leaving Fennec behind.

In conclusion, I acquired this via a good-quality Widescreen print in Italian albeit with French credits and the occasional lapse  about one minute of screen-time in all  into the French language (where, apparently, the original soundtrack wasn't available).


You gotta love the spaghetti western universe. The vision of a west where good guys get shot point blank with no warning, cartoonish villains chew the scenery in extreme close-ups, and the anti-hero walks away from the girl in the end. A lot of people call Corbucci's films 'depressing'. I find that a bit dodgy as far as descriptions go. I think bleak and unforgiving are more apt mostly because 'depressing' suggests a level of sentimentality almost every Eurowestern director ignored in favour of painting characters in broad strokes.

GLI SPECIALISTI must be seen in all its widescreen glory before it can take its proper place in the Sergio Corbucci canon. It's a beautiful movie. And it makes sense that Corbucci wanted to blow off some steam with COMPANEROS after the unremitting one two punch of THE GREAT SILENCE and this (although he would later revert back to his usual tricks with the foulmouthed SONNY AND JED). There's still a certain amount of caricature that detracts from the overall grimness of the movie, imo it hurts more than does any good to have a needless inclusion of three kids dressed like hippies skulking around town in search of gold and trouble. And it hurts to have Mario Adorf playing Mexican one-handed bandit El Diablo as over the top as he always plays his characters.

Those minor gripes aside there's more than enough here to wet the palate of the spaghetti aficionado. Shootouts galore, the population of an entire town reduced to crawling naked in the dirt, the typical iconic badassitude of the laconic antihero (played by Johnny Halliday), the moral bankruptcy of almost every character in the movie. Corbucci might never receive the acclaim of the more famous Sergio or the American patriarchs of the genre but you and I know that's a gross injustice for a very talented director. His dynamic shot selection, in depth staging with objects sticking close to the camera and receding in the background, his flair for quick pacing and feverish energy in moving a story that wasn't always all that along, the way he photographs open spaces, everything in his work makes me sure that if Corbucci was American and had emerged 15 years later along with Mann and Hawks, the Cahiers du Cinema critics would have lauded him as an auteur worthy of serious critical consideration.


Great little short film that aired a while ago on SBS here in Aus. Get a copy if you can - probably only good for a few viewings, as you'll end up remembering the script - and it's the twists that make this film so funny. Well directed, and intriguingly scripted, it's an example of just how good low-budget short films can be.


When Jean seduces the young gardener for the sole purpose of annoying her husband little does she realise the explosive drama that is to follow.

The short scenario does not waste a word or a frame in this brief interlude in the day of a dysfunctional family. The lives of the father, mother and son are all linked in some way with the gardener. It's this fact that makes the script so intriguing.

For such a short film the production is every bit as professional as any major work and the casting is ideal.

A wonderful little film that can guarantee a few laughs from beginning to end.


Screening as part of a series of funny shorts at the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras film festival, this film was definitely a highlight. The script is great and the direction and acting was terrific. As another posting said, the actors' comedic timing really made this film. Lots of fun.


"Zen and the Art of Lanscaping", written and directed by David Kartch is a short film about a young man named David (his friends call him Zen) and what transpires in one strange day of his life. Zen works as a lanscaper for an upper-middle class family. The lady of the house tries to get Zen to help her cheat on her husband. Unfortunately, her son walks in on them instead of her husband. From this point on the movie starts to speed through many revelations between the characters along with the eventual involvement of the man of the house. "Zen and the Art of Landscaping" is witty, smart and overall very well written. The comedic timing of the actors is also very strong. It's a fun, light movie that I would strongly recommend.


This film is good,but not Schaffner`s best. My favourite is Papillon and Patton,but this is a sad and very nice film. Kris Kristoffersen is good in this movie and really makes a difference. I am going to miss Schaffner and this is his last film.

A good film by a great director! 7,5/10


Hi I have been looking 4 the soundtrack or a song from the film, does anyone know who sung the title song? I think it was called welcome home or coming home.

It is played throughout the film and for the end credits please can anyone help either the artist and/or title of song thanks mike this is for all you movie buffs lets see if you know your stuff

Hi I have been looking 4 the soundtrack or a song from the film, does anyone know who sung the title song? I think it was called welcome home or coming home.

It is played throughout the film and for the end credits please can anyone help either the artist and/or title of song thanks mike this is for all you movie buffs lets see if you know your stuff


This was a really nice surprise. I was up late last night and couldn't fall asleep. Not really thinking twice, I turned on my TV and HBO was on, and this film was just beginning. Luckily I saw the whole thing, and I am very happy I did. Because this film was very good. The actors were well-cast, and they did a surprisingly good job. Kris Kristofferson delivered a solid performance, there was a lot of substance behind his lines. This film made me realize he's a good actor. Brian Keith was great as his father, as was Trey Wilson playing the Colonel (this was Trey Wilson's final role before his untimely death. Too bad, he was a quality actor and seemed like a nice guy). Jobeth Williams also did a nice job as Kristofferson's American wife. As far as the direction, I had no idea Franklin J. Schaffner was the director until I read the review in Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide(this was the last film he ever made). Now I understand why this movie was so good. Schaffner also directed Patton, a truly great movie(I haven't seen his other great film, Papillon). While I was watching "Welcome Home", I said to myself, "this director really knows what he's doing," not knowing that Schaffner had directed it. There's one really beautiful scene in a Thai orphan refuge, enough to bring tears to my eyes. Not only was this sensitively directed, but it was also directed in a very economical and taut way. There is nothing wasted in Schaffner's effort. The script was one reason this film is so good. The writer doesn't weigh the actors down with too many lines. It was written very simply but very effectively. It just shows you that a lot can be said with few words. This film also made me proud to be an American, at the same time that it showed you how beautiful ALL people are.


For me this wonderful rollercoaster of a film bears repeated pleasurable viewings. Its about the tangled lives of three very different people. Holly Hunter is the obsessive workaholic producer. Albert Brookes plays the unprepossessing but brilliant journalist. William Hurt is the affable but dumb new kid on the block, news anchor.

The classical love triangle emerges with the stunningly witty and self deprecating Brookes in love with Hunter but she of course is attracted to Hurt.

This film works on many levels. At the very least it is a brilliant comedy with the one liners flying so thick and fast that each viewing bears a new harvest of ones that you may have missed last time. Its also a film about attraction and unfulfilled romance.

But perhaps most importantly the film examines the modern obsession with physical appearance and its ultimate triumph over intellect as a valued human attribute. This is personified by the meteoric career success of the Hurt character in contrast to Brookes relative decline.

Despite being fifteen years old the film has some startingly relevant messages about modern news values and the continuing decline in journalistic standards.

This film is a classic in every sense and it is difficult to understand why it has been so neglected


This movie is one of my favorite comedies of all time. The dialog is crisp, the pace is fast. Not only is this a clever comedy, this is an interesting look at what goes on behind the scenes in the television news business.

There are so many funny lines...a couple of my favorites:

Ernie Merriman: (sarcastically) It must be nice to always believe you know better, to always think you're the smartest person in the room. Jane: (seriously) NO, it's not, it's awful!!

Aaron: He must be good looking Jane: How do you know that? Aaron: No one invites a bad looking idiot to their room!

The performances of Holly Hunter, Albert Brooks, and William Hurt were absolutely brilliant! Even years later, I remember this movie well. Often forgotten is the wonderfully funny Joan Cusack! I love the scene where the newsroom personnel are racing to beat a deadline. There are so many funny scenes that it's hard to pick a favorite. I highly recommend this film.


Excellent movie about a big media firm and the goings on both on and off camera. Covering several years, the film centers on 3 upwardly mobile, young hopefuls, all striving for their place within the corporation. Well written dialogue, flawless acting, and a riveting story made for 2 hours of solid entertainment.


Essential viewing for anyone who watches TV news as it may help to become a little more sceptical, or even cynical. On a personal note I recall taking a course some years ago about being interviewed for TV - what to do, what not to do. The course instructors impressed on us that TV news was a "branch of show-biz". That depressing view, which is probably even more valid today than when it was made, is reinforced by this film. Never mind journalistic integrity, what counts is the ability to look good and smile nicely. And make sure you don't sweat on camera.

The interactions between the three main characters form the centre-piece, each with his or her own ambitions, capabilities and beliefs. Brooks takes these differences and sets them into the volatile setting of a TV news studio, and adds more than a pinch of love interest to the mixture. The result is a complex, if somewhat overlong, portrayal of how we compromise every day in order to meet our ambitions and take others with us. It is always entertaining, although the final scene was, perhaps, unnecessary given everything that had gone before.


I'm sitting around going through movie listings and not really seeing anything I want to see. My appetite keeps saying, "Something like BROADCAST NEWS." That's what I want. Something smart and funny, with adult ideas and great acting and writing, and a directorial style that doesn't call attention to itself. This may well be Hurt's best performance (is this or THE BIG CHILL, to my mind): however eccentric, Hurt is smart, and to play an unintelligent person without making sure -- wink wink -- the audience knows -- wink wink -- hey, I'M not stupid... well, that's fine acting right there. Hunter is note-perfect, and Albert Brooks is a revelation. (And he can read and sing at the same time!) Great, great work.


James L. Brook is one of those directors who always seems to take a quirky look at life. He isn't only the producer for "The Simpsons," he has some classic comedies under his belt -- "Broadcast News" is one of them.

Although it doesn't match his later effort "As Good As It Gets," "Broadcast News" is still a very clever, funny and witty movie about a television broadcasting station and all the problems they suffer. There's a great comedic sequence of physical humor where Joan Cusack is running around the building trying to rush a news tape to the editing room in a matter of mere minutes before it is to be broadcast live on TV.

This isn't only very truthful in terms of how hectic broadcasting stations are operated, but also a skillful and honest portrayal of human beings.

A low-key, subtle movie with good acting (especially from Hurt, who I don't always like so much) and apt direction.


I say sadly because if you see this movie now, you realize how low our media has sunk- all the warning signs are in this movie.

It's a great film, I think the last great James Brooks film, but others may disagree. It has rich characters (who are believable as well), great acting, great writing, and although the music got a little cheesy, I even liked that.

William Hurt has never been better. Holly Hunter is stunning. And Albert Brooks walks away with every scene he's in- this triangle of people is beautifully drawn and compelling and made the whole movie soar above it's vital and important topic of the News, and how it's slowly being compromised in our nation.

Watch this with NETWORK for a truly fun and frightening evening.


"Broadcast News" is directed by James L. Brooks (Terms of Endearment, As Good As It Gets) and has a great cast, including William Hurt, Albert Brooks, and Holly Hunter. Everyone gives a good performance, but they're all too unlikable to really care about them.

Some parts of the film are really brilliant, such as the prologue, and the short scenes with Jack Nicholson. The main reason it doesn't entirely work, is it's a film that relies on the characters being amusing rather than amusing things happening to them.

You could consider it nothing more than a drama, but it's often too silly to be successful there as well. Still, the script makes it worth a watch. Certainly not for everyone.

7.0 out of 10


From producer/writer/Golden Globe nominated director James L. Brooks (Terms of Endearment, As Good as It Gets) this is a really good satirical comedy film showing behind the scenes in the life of a news reporter/anchor/journalist or producer might be like. Basically Jane Craig (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated Holly Hunter) falls for new reporter Tom Grunick (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated William Hurt), but correspondent Aaron Altman (Oscar nominated Albert Brooks) also has strong feelings for her. The network prepares for big changes, and sparks will fly with all members of the studio. Also starring Jack Nicholson as anchor Bill Rorich, Moonraker's Lois Chiles as Jennifer Mack, Mrs. Doubtfire's Robert Prosky as Ernie Merriman, School of Rock's Joan Cusack as Blair Litton, Peter Hackes as Paul Moore, Christian Clemenson as Bobby, Robert Katims as Martin Klein, Ed Wheeler as George Wein and Stephen Mendillo as Gerald Grunick. The comedy is subtle but strong, the romance has it's moments, and it is certainly a believable situation film. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen and Best Picture, and it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical and Best Screenplay - Motion Picture. It was number 64 on 100 Years, 100 Laughs. Very good!


BROADCAST NEWS opens with a series of brief vignettes that are a clever way of starting a story about TV anchors who have no clue as to what they're reporting about.

At a speech before a group of would-be reporters, all of whom are bored by her presentation, most of them leave. When the last one exits, the co-host of the event says quietly to HOLLY HUNTER: "I don't think there will be any Q&A." Subtle line in a brilliantly written low-key comedy, a farce about the show biz aspect of TV anchoring.

WILLIAM HURT is the inept news anchor who finds himself working with HOLLY HUNTER as the network anchorman. Hurt badly needs help in remedial reporting and Holly refuses to take the bait--at first. He knows he's only capable of looking good, but is not a reporter. He proves to be a quick study as long as his earpiece is working and he's getting all the straight info from executive producer Hunter.

Holly's other anchor friend (ALBERT BROOKS) helps by feeding her information she passes on to Hurt. Of course she becomes conflicted about her feelings for ace reporter Brooks and equally strong attraction to the pretty-boy anchorman Hurt, who's having his own dalliance with a pretty staff member.

You have to wait until twenty minutes before the film ends to find out which man she'll end up with. Brooks tells her that Hurt is the wrong one because he represents everything she's against. In this unpredictable comedy, there's no telling who Hunter (the neurotic heroine) will end up with.

Fittingly, HOLLY HUNTER, WILLIAM HURT and ALBERT BROOKS were all nominated for Oscars (Brooks in supporting role), as was the film itself and director/writer James L. Brooks. All in all, seven well deserved Oscar nominations.

The script doesn't opt for a conventional happy ending--and, in this case, that's the only flaw for the brilliant screenplay. I felt cheated and somewhat let down by the wistful conclusion.


Spunky journalist Holly Hunter produces investigative news reports for a major news network. She's a motor-mouthed maverick, dazzlingly good at her job and with little time for romantic relationships. Enter William Hurt and Albert Brooks, two men who vie for her love.

Brooks is an old school journalist who adores Holly because she represents everything good about journalism. They both believe that the media exists to test the Gods, educate the public and fight for truth. Children of the sixties, they embody hippie values. They're defenders of the public good. Knights who fight valiantly with pen and camera.

William Hurt, in contrast, is a far more complex character. Initially awkward, clumsy and self-depreciating, he gradually reveals himself to be a sexy and manipulative high achiever, skilled at climbing the corporate ladder. Unlike Holly and Brooks, he's symbolic of modern media values: news as spectacle, journalism as entertainment, news anchor as celebrity, truth as subject to editing board. We want to despise him and his blip-time junk food journalism, but we just can't quite manage it. He's playing the game by its own rules. Do we condemn him for lacking a moral backbone? Do we condemn the game? Can the game exist if its rules are disobeyed? How have these rules evolved?

This isn't Lumet's and Chayefsky's "Network", and so the film never bothers to answer or raise these questions. Content to keep things on the level of light comedy, it ends with Hurt being promoted to London Division and Brooks being booted to a tiny community network. Holly, having rejected both men, remains caught between them. The last bastion of media integrity, this spunky reporter remembers her roots, mourns the loss of Brooks and warns herself to be on the guard of future William Hurts.

It's a cute ending, but compared to "Network" the film seems positively trite. Chayefsky's vision is one in which global media, despite its ubiquity, offers less meaningful information. He foresees a world in which globalisation has homogenized cultures, information has become subject to corporatisation and a handful of media monopolies control all international news. This is a world in which the truth is subject to shareholder meetings and economic interests. A world in which viewer ratings determine content and opinion polls dictate top stories.

Perhaps this is why "Broadcast News", which longs for the glory days of journalism, ends on such a bittersweet note. It knows what the future holds. Made in 1987, its been living it for at least a decade.

But today, in the digital age, things are even worse. Mergers and acquisitions have left a very small number of massive firms dominating the communication landscape. With this has come the hyper-commercialism of content, the barrier between the creative/editorial side and the commercial side all but collapsed. Today everyone might be able to start their own blog or website, but these are grass roots affairs. As the communication reach of the individual increases (due to technological progress - email, internet, electricity, air mail etc) the size of the individual's world increases likewise. He must project his voice both further and louder, futilely battling that deafening white noise, the incessant verbal static that is the global community.

So ultimately you need two things according to democratic theory. Firstly, you need a rigorous coming of people in power and people who want to be in power, both in the private and public sector. Secondly, you need a wide range of informed opinions on all important issues of the day. In a democratic society the media system as a whole should produce this sort of culture. Unfortunately, the structure we currently have in the global system works directly against the needs of democratic journalism and a democratic society.

8/10  This is lightweight stuff, but a witty script, some funny moments and a brief cameo by Jack Nicholson, elevate it above most other films about journalism. Interestingly, unlike most films about the media, it never dips into satire, and instead plays things as a straight love triangle.

Worth one viewing.


Broadcast News {dir. James L. Brooks, 1987}

****/****

Although it lacks the emotional punch of Brooks's debut feature, (Terms of Endearment) Broadcast News is a superlative film, with exceptional performances from each of the three leads and a script that feels as genuine and well-researched as a hard-hitting news report. Let it be known, this is a character film first and foremost and a satire second. In my mind it succeeds on both levels on its own terms. The film's characters are given surprising depth and dimension , while the satire remains sly and never bitter. Comparisons to Network are unnecessary because the films have two completely separate goals and attitudes. While also a great film, Network is a cynical and weary work; in other words, its mad as hell and fed up with the state of television. Network's style of satire feels more extreme and guerrilla. In contrast, the characters populating the news rooms of Broadcast News love and live for their jobs (sometimes to the detriment of their love lives.) They derive pleasure from the stresses and satisfactions of news reporting, just as the audience derives pleasure from watching this sweet and romantically realistic masterpiece.


Good drama/comedy, with two good performances from Hunter & Hurt, but Albert Brooks steals every scene he is in. With a great script, this movie soars and gives everyone a chance to show their acting talent. And although Joan Cusack is not in this much, but she has one if not the funniest scene in the movie. The highlight of the movie for me, was Albert Brooks speech on the devil. Only one draw back is the fact it goes little slow in places. And I only got totally interested in Brooks role, not so much in Hunter's or Hurt's. I give this a 7 out of 10.


...there was "Broadcast News," and what a good thing it was. This one just plain stands up and sounds its barbaric yawp in a manner that resonates two decades later.

There are moments -- especially with respect to the cutesy score -- when this film becomes a bit too eighties, or a bit too "Sleepless in Seattle." Fortunately, they're few and far between.

One-third social satire, one-third romantic comedy, one-third drama, with three flawed but endearing people at its core, it's smart and moving and almost impossibly funny. Holly Hunter in particular may never have been more fun to watch in a comedic role. (And yes, I'm including "Raising Arizona," her other star turn from that era, in this assessment.)

A legitimate classic.


If you have not seen this late 80s film about the the Washington Bureau of a Network News station than I highly recommend it. It is a sad commentary on the direction of news reporting in this country but tells the story with wit. The characters are well developed and Albert Brooks performance is fabulous. He delivers all his lines with entertaining understated comedy. I am not an Albert Brooks fan at all so this was a welcome surprise. I have a friend who works as a producer for a local news station and he advised that this is close to reality so kudos to the films writer and director for doing their research.

Fun movie with a lot of insight into the World of Network News. It is not nearly as dark as another movie I also recommend in the same genre 'Network'.


I don't really know when it was that TV stations began preferring to have handsome men as their reporters - regardless of the mens' IQs - but it was clearly a problem by the time that "Broadcast News" came out, and the movie does a really good job looking at it. Portraying a love triangle between pretty boy air-head reporter Tom Grunick (William Hurt), intelligent but nervous reporter Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks) and producer Jane Craig (Holly Hunter), the movie pulls no punches. Probably the best line in the movie is when Tom says something like: "I don't really understand any of what I'm reporting." And in the era of FOX News and such things, a movie like this becomes even more important.

All in all, definitely a movie that I recommend. Also starring Robert Prosky, Lois Chiles, Joan Cusack, and Jack Nicholson in a supporting role as the anchorman.


TV News producer, Jane Craig (Hunter) meets Tom Grunick (Hurt), an up-and-coming news presenter, at a seminar, and their mutual attraction takes them back to her room. Romance, however, is cut short, when it emerges that Tom is, in his own words, "no good at what I'm being a success at", and Jane realises he personifies everything she hates about where TV news is going. The rub comes when Tom reveals he is about to join her news bureau in Washington.

Jane and Tom's initial attraction is therefore given a second chance, but will Jane be able to put aside her professional opinion of the man she finds herself attracted to - and should she? Aaron Altman (Brooks) is Jane's highly intelligent reporter colleague and confidante. Despite his obvious talent, Aaron's career is stalling as he lacks the confidence and people skills - and the classic good looks - to be the success that his new, less qualified and less intelligent colleague - Tom - is becoming. He is also concerned that his good friend Jane maybe falling in love with Tom, despite her better judgement, as it becomes increasingly clear that Aaron has his own romantic feelings for her.

This central romantic plot is set within the trials and tribulations of a TV news network office, where moral dilemmas and ethics are wrestled with quickly and where appearances and dramatic effect are becoming more prevalent and important.

This is where most of the bite comes from with well-observed comment and scenes. One of many moments is a scene where Tom meets the Network's top anchorman, Bill Rorich (a cameo role for Jack Nicholson), for the first time, and the camera focuses on their handshake. In a film full of great lines and dialogue, long and short, you realise a lot about these two men's character from this one quick shot of two hands.

The dialogue between characters is amongst the most intelligent and witty you are ever likely to find anywhere on film and in such abundance. Brooks gets the best portion of them, in line with his character, but even the briefest conversations that are incidental and perhaps over-heard by one or more of the characters as they move through a crowded room, should be listened to.

Hunter is a tour-de-force in this role for which she was rightly (and not alone) nominated for an Oscar, and for which she probably would have got if it was for a role in a film that didn't mock part of what had become a closely related industry - and against a strong performance from another actress in a more traditional feel-good, rom-com.

Brooks is also excellent as the constantly frustrated and occasionally too-smug-for-his-own-good, Aaron Altman.

Hurt, whilst possessing the looks and providing the personality required of his character, does not always convince that he is quite as dim-witted the character says he is or is supposed to be. He displays a latent intelligence that enables him to make the most of his apparent limitations, which may be plausible, but I don't think Hurt quite pulls it off. Apart from when he tells us he "stinks" or "doesn't get it", Hurt comes across as a bit smarter than that. Otherwise it is an effective performance, in a role where his character is compromised by its intellectual limitations, but Brooks and Hunter slightly overshadow Hurt's performance. It is the only negative thing I can say about the whole film, and who is to say that anyone else would have done it better, or come off any better, when next to Hunter and Brooks and their performances in this movie.

Support is ably provided by, amongst others, Robert Prosky, Lois Chiles and Joan Cusack, and there is also a bit-part role for Christian Clemenson of subsequent Boston Legal fame, and the briefest of bit-parts for Joan's brother, John Cusack, whose face you don't even see.

James L Brooks has provided us with many great TV shows and movies, and this film should rank up there with the very best of them. It may not have won any Oscars, despite seven nominations, but it did win plenty of other awards, and turned Holly Hunter into a star.


i thought it was terrific! very realistic and funny dialogue, and realistic action in a newsroom. i didn't like how the jennifer storyline is not really concluded or how the ending doesn't give us closure. holly hunter fit the part perfectly...she's one crazy actress. this movie is well worth seeing.


This is a love story set against the back drop of television news. The three main stars, William Hurt,Holly Hunter and Albert Brooks create a love triangle whilst working at the Washington bureau of a TV network.

Tom Grunick(Hurt)is the handsome reporter who is being groomed to be a star.Jane (Hunter)is the producer who recognises that Tom lacks the intellectual gravitas to be a real journalist, but falls for him anyway.Aaron Altman(Brooks)is the man who shares her beliefs in journalistic standards is also the man who truly loves her.

Holly Hunter was nominated for a Best Actress Academy Award ,but lost out to Cher(Moonstruck!).She was robbed! This is Hunter's film.Her character Jane is smart,ruthless and totally driven. She is also hilariously neurotic. Her performance is perfect.Just watch her face when she watches the tape of Tom's interview of a rape victim. The scales literally fall from her eyes.

Wiliam Hurt's performance is less showy.He plays a man who is well aware that he is a himbo and a fraud,but is smart enough to know that his rise will be facilitated by people like Jane.He gives little hints of a man who is extremely calculating.

The film comments on celebrity, journalism,integrity and the commercial pressures on news in a medium that is focused on the bottom line. It predicted that news would be dumbed down, that standards would slowly be lowered due to commercial pressures.

Think about this:this film was released before the end of the Cold War and before rise of reality TV.Yet, it predicted the dumbing down of the news.Paris Hilton's release from jail was treated like a major news story! To see how prophetic this film is,just watch your evening news and note the set, the graphics and the presenters.Tom Grunick and his clones are well and truly alive!


Not only do I think this was the best film of 1987, it's probably in my own amorphous list as one of the 10-20 best films I've ever seen. For whatever reason, I really connected with this movie, and it is one of the most personal films I had seen at that point in my life (I was 26). For better or worse, I strongly identified with the Holly Hunter character (and I'm a guy!). She plays an extremely bright, loyal and intense woman who couldn't figure out romantic relationships. There were so many things that she said in this movie that were things that I would say or have said to others in similar circumstances. And the ending of the movie I find to be so very, very sad.

Obviously, this role was the big break for Holly Hunter. Clearly, I was not the only one to think so highly of it.


I haven't actually seen a lot of movies with Holly Hunter, but seeing her in Broadcast News was a pleasant surprise. She is a hard-nosed journalist, Jane Craig, who has devoted all of her time to TV news show. Her colleague Aaron Altman has carried her torch for a long time without saying anything. The love triangle is completed by Tom Grunnick. He is the slightly aloof ex-sportscaster who is the new reporter. To Jane, he symbolizes everything she doesn't like about news reporting - turning it into edutainment, not serious business. Much to her surprise, Jane finds herself attracted to Tom.

Holly Hunter is doing a great performance as the perky journalist. But I don't quite see what she finds so charming about her new colleague, Tom. It's something with them that prevents us from getting up close and personal with him. Almost as impressive is Albert Brooks, who gives his all in the role of a professional who gives more than 100 percent for his job but doesn't get quite as much in return. Actually, for a while I thought he was Steve Guttenberg from Police Academy (1984). He has a few funny lines and if this was a Meg Ryan-picture, they'd call it a romantic comedy.

Running over two hours, a few scenes could have been edited or left out completely, eg. Jane's and Aaron's trip to Central America. Also, I'm a sucker for happy endings and had preferred a different ending than just a reunion between the three of them seven years later.


I didn't like "As Good as it Gets" very much, but I am a big fan of William Hurt and Holly Hunter's work, so I decided to watch this movie. And the most surprising thing for me was the superb work of Albert Brooks. Here, in Spain, he's little-known, and only as a 2nd division version of Woody Allen in the West Coast. He played a great part, but Hunter and Hurt were good too, specially Hurt, in an relatively unusual role for him. Hunter played the role that reminds me a bit of her part in "Once Around" (Lasse Hallstrom, 1991).

Finally, the rest of the cast is great, too. Robert Prosky, one of these familiar faces of the american cinema, the ex-bond girl Lois Chiles, pretty good placed on that role, I think, the always perfect Joan Cusack in her early years; and specially the brief appereance of Jack Nicholson. Maybe he doesn't have any good scene, but it's Jack Nicholson, anyway... The Best movie by James L.Brooks, great story (well resolved), and superb cast for one of the, surely, best movies of the 80's


Typically, I'm a comedy guy. I rented this at the video store under comedy, and thought "Albert Brooks! Awesome!" and rented it. It seemed like the romantic comedy, and I remembered I hated those, and had the full mindset of hating this movie.

Boy, was I wrong.

While this is a romantic comedy, it's acted by an amazing lead & supporting cast (Brooks, Hunter, Cusack, and Nicholson), and everything works well within itself. The script sounds real and not forced, like this could be happening in the news station you're watching at night. It takes your emotions and makes you enjoy Hunter and Brooks and loathe Hurt, which makes the ending a bit unenjoyable and fruitless, but it shows how you don't need a happy ending to end a movie, you just need a truthful ending, which is what everyone got. Not everybody's life ends well, and it shows in Broadcast News. Maybe people don't like the ending because it's not your typical happy ending associated with romantic comedies... but it works, it's real, and it's genius. Broadcast News is a classic in it's time, and a fine romance movie up there with "Casablanca". Well, maybe not that high, but it's the only other romance I can think of that I like.

Broadcast News: 9/10.


Movie watchers often say great movies must have 3 memorable

scenes to be considered truly great. Broadcast news doesn't have

three, it has twice that. This movie is extremely well written by

James Brooks. Holly Hunter and Albert Brooks have never been

better. I love this movie for many reasons. It is great because it

makes you laugh and it makes you cry. Albert Brooks has several

great lines and many unforgettable scenes: # 1(laughed) "I can

sing and read, I am singing while I read," with Midnight Train to

Georgia playing in the background. # 2(laughed) Telling the

William Hurt character that "You really blew the lid off of nookie,"

after watching Hurt's report on date-rape. #3 (Cried) When Aaron

(A. Brooks) finally tells Jayne (Hunter) that he loves her and she

can't end up with Hurt's character because he represents

everything about journalism Jayne finds dispicable. Finally, #4 (laughed) who can forget the scene where Aaron

anchors the weekend news....hilarious. This movie should have won an Oscar! It has everything I love in

movies, great acting, intelligent script, and even a Jack Nicholson

cameo!


A truly terrific, touching film. Female melodrama at its finest, with a lot of comedy: great dialogue, characters and writing. Any woman can relate to the story because it's a classic: you're in love with "Mr. Right" but he has no interest in you until some guy who seems completely wrong comes along and you fall head-over-heels in love. But of course, it's not that simplistic. The characters are real and all of the performances are perfect. The movie is hilarious as well, every scene skewers society. I'd recommend this film to anyone who loves a well-written screenplay of humor and melodrama. You can relate to every character and the plot moves in unexpected directions. A great, underrated movie.


I loved this movie the first time I saw it. It gives such detail of what executives involved in the news industry will do just to get a story on the air: notably Jane Craig rushing Kenny to finish editing the piece to get it off, and then Joan Cusack struggling to get it in, and William Hurt, who according to Jane commits an incredible breach of ethics, fakes his tears during his date rape interview, a flaw that is pointed out by Aaron. Another high point is when Tom uses Jane for his own benefits, and then turns around and sleeps with Jennifer. The script is brilliant, and the directing is almost as good. All three main actors were great in the portrayals of their characters, Especially Holly Hunter, and Albert Brooks, whom is the funniest in the film. William Hurt is also very good. This deserved at least three Oscars, best actress(holly hunter), best supporting actor (Albert Brooks), and best picture. I liked the last parts of the film where it shows them reuniting 7 years later.

8/10