This is not the kind of movie that really merits critical attention. It's not going to win any Oscars - it's really not a very good movie at all. Heck, it's not even really a movie - just a string of short disgusting, gross-out skits strung together in an effort to make entertainment. And as much as every critical bone in my body cries out to give this movie a failing score, gosh darn it, I'm going to give it a much better score. The kind of people who are going to enjoy this movie are not the kind of people who really care what critics have to say, so I'm not going to give some snobby critique of Jackass's quality of surreal existentialism that permeates and commentates on how our society....oh forget it.

What's to say? There's no plot development, no character development - no real beginning - there's a semi-enjoyable end that's not nearly as funny as the skit that precedes it, and everything in between reeks of improper, bathroom humor that junior high kids laugh at. It's actually pretty funny.

Leave at the door all your preconceptions of a good movie. Jackass: Number Two is just gross-out crap. That's really all it is. I do give the filmmakers this, though: they come up with some pretty imaginative stuff. You'll probably cringe several times throughout, want to throw up a couple times, wiggle and shift uncomfortably as the people on screen do death and vomit-defying stunts. Vomit, crap, urine, semen....virtually every bodily fluid can be seen in Jackass: Number Two. There's nudity, sexual humor abounds, and so on and so forth.

It's entertaining. If you're the kind of person who finds this stuff enjoyable, then you will probably really like Jackass: Number Two. I laughed several times. Like I said, it's pretty imaginative stuff. I never once wanted to vomit - though I do have a pretty strong stomach. Just accept the movie's premise: a bunch of idiotic guys do weird crap for fun. Once you get past that, accepting it and going with it, you'll enjoy it. The only flaw in the movie is the sheer excess of all the weird and disgusting stuff. There are several very imaginative, very disturbing skits, but it drags in many places as they do ones that are less interesting. Towards the end things pick up, but in the middle of the movie the drag hurts the overall film's quality. In a half hour TV show this isn't a problem, but with film length celluloid, it's inevitable that boredom will ensue at some point. After awhile the gross crap just becomes desensitizing.

On the whole, though, Number Two is an entertaining, imaginative, and above all, disgusting comedy that will leave you with a feeling of pain, nausea, and hilarity. Go see it if you must, but hey, if you know you don't like this kind of stuff, don't bother. You'll just be disappointed.


First off I want to say most of the people who give this a poor review don't like this kind of comedy, the movie is great if you have an open mind and aren't afraid to laugh at some stupid things.

This movie is shot just like the TV show with a lot of short clips compiled into one long movie. Some of the scenes don't even have dialog someone will just come out and do something unexpected and it is funny!! The only negative I had is I felt like I wasted money on my Popcorn and Icee, there was no way I could eat or drink anything during this movie I was constantly laughing. I was honestly nervous of drinking some Icee and seeing something that caused me to laugh and shoot it everywhere.

If you don't mind some male nudity, and you enjoy Jackass the movie, jackass the TV show, and viva la bam, then for YOUR SAKE go see this movie.

And if you DON'T like the first movie, or the TV show. Don't see it, and if you do see it don't post a bad review about it. Hardcore christians who see this and bash it just doesn't seem right to me.


i would give this movie an 8.5 or a 9. I thought it was just straight up hilarious i don't know how you could not think this movie was funny but the only thing that disappointed me was that there was alittle bit too much gross stuff because personally i think when they fly off of bikes and stuff like that is much funnier but I'm sure there are people that think the other things are very funny so that is not my desicion but anyways great movie go see it and after that you should definitely go buy it also if you do not like this movie that is fine because I'm sure there are many people who think that this movie shows how downgrading our society is or whatever this is just my personal opinion and you have yours. also the jackass box set is definitely something worth downloading or buying or whatever you do to get your videos


Jackass Number Two is easily the most hilarious film of 2006, beating the also hilarious Clerks II. It is one of the best sequels in recent memory, beating Jackass The Movie in every way. Now, this film may be the funniest, but it is also the most offensive, appalling, and utterly disgusting. You will find yourself feeling sick several times throughout the film. I'm completely serious when I say don't eat anything before watching or during this film, because chances are that it will literally come back to haunt you. Keep the drinking to a minimum as well. You've been warned, because, just like the tagline says, it will make you beg for mercy.

Jackass Number Two follows the crazy men from the hit show Jackass, Johnny Knoxville, Bam Margera, Ryan Dunn, Steve-O, Chris 'Party Boy' Pontius, Preston Lacy, Ehren McGhehey, Dave England, Brandon DiCamillo, and Jason 'Wee Man' Acuna (Chris 'Raab Himself' Raab is absent) as they perform the most outrageous, life-threatening, and revolting stunts imaginable. I'm not going to tell what the stunts are, but I will warn you that any scene with an animal will be sickening or psychologically frightening, and that one cast member (once again, not telling) will flirt with death several times in the film.

What makes Jackass Number Two so entertaining is not the stunts themselves, but how the cast reacts to them and to doing them. To put it simple, if they loved doing it and had a blast, you will too (this goes for 99% of the stunts). All the stunts are very original, and 90% of them are never-before-seen. You will witness a few recycled ones, but they're amped up. You wouldn't think directing really factors into a movie like this, but it does; Jeff Tremaine's direction makes the movie so much funnier, because he provides guidance for the gang in their comedic timing, which is simply brilliant on his part. He could have just sat back and slept throughout filming (actually, you'll see in the film that he did sleep through some filming), but he went out there and helped these crazy guys make the stunts as funny as he could. I give Mr. Tremaine two thumbs up for that. Another great thing about Jackass is its bonanza of celebrity cameos, and this time they include BMX legend Mat Hoffman, skateboard god Tony Hawk, director/actor Jay Chandrasekhar (Super Troopers & Beerfest), actor Luke Wilson, Miami Dolphins star Jason Taylor, and director/actor Mike Judge (Office Space). The scenes with Hoffman, Taylor, and Chandrasekhar are among the funniest in the film, as it's even funnier to see these men as a part of the film.

Jackass Number Two is one of the most politically incorrect, morally degrading, and just plain wrong movies of all time, if not the most. Despite this, it is so original and so hilarious that you won't care about that. You'll be gasping for air, laughing so hard you'll be crying, and jumping out of your seat laughing throughout the entire film. Due to the explicit and potentially disturbing graphic content of this film, no one under 18 should watch this film. You've been warned. I hope you enjoy Jackass Number Two as much as I did.

10/10 --spy


seriously people need to lighten up and just accept that funny is funny, and this movie is f**king hilarious. Better than the first and Knoxville really grew a pair for this film and did way more crazier stunts then the first. If Ebert and Roper(not saying that I'm a huge fan of theirs) can look past the pure idiocy of this film enough to give it 2 thumbs up then i think other people can to. I wasn't sure what to expect from this but i was floored and it is rare when a sequel is better than the original. This new one I believe exceeds the first big time. so do what i did,just relax kick back try not to barf at some points and laugh your ass off.


This movies had to be the funniest movie i have ever seen in my entire life. I laughed so hard i almost puked. After the movie was done i laughed for about an hour just thinking about the very last seen in the movie. Its is definitely 100 times better than the first Jackass movie. I loved seeing all of them back together again. If you are squeamish or don't like raunchy childish humour you will not like this movie. If you can go in with an open mind and not take it so seriously then you will laugh your ass off. Its amazing no one was killed in this movie. Every seen in this movie is so original and so different from the next you will not know what to expect.

Mike Webber


If you're a fan of Jackass, Viva La Bam or the CKY videos, then you already know what you're in for. But this is one of those rare happenings when a sequel is better than the original! And man does this movie pack a mean low blow. But i mean that in a good way. It's the same type of death-defying, gut-wrenching insanity that we have all come to know and love and expect from Bam, Knoxville and Co. But this time with even more laughs than ever before! With Johnny Knoxville's insane tolerance for pain, Bam Margera's love for harassing his friends/family and Steve-O's gross-out factor, you have one hell of a funny film. The bar for the stunts, skits and general mayhem of the Jackass crew has been raised. Jackass 3? Doubtful, because it's nearly impossible to improve on perfection.


....but at the same time part of you is thinking "Am I ready for what I am about to see?"

In the end, you are happy you saw it. I was, at least. Jackass Number Two has twice the laughs and twice the action. Some stunts will leave you breathless. Besides Little Miss Sunshine, I think it was the best movie I saw this summer. Maybe even this year.

The entire cast returns, besides a few such as Chris Raab and Rake Yohn. I don't think any of the cast members had a dull moment. Each and every stunt was either funny or dangerous or a combination of both; stupid. The beginning was just as funny as the first one, and the ending was interestingly hilarious; the cast performing a musical number.

Jackass Number Two is the perfect movie to see with your friends. Stay during the credits, there are some pretty funny moments. One involves Luke Wilson.


This movie was borderline in crude humor....I utterly can not believe that these people can get away with this. Johnny Knoxville didn't cross the line...he was stomping all over it! This was better than the first...ALL THA WAY! The thing I found about the 1st movie was that the shenanigans were somewhat as if it was on the t.v. show. NOT THIS TIME!!! they completely made a 180 degree flip...the whole cast is so outstanding in what they do and not were the stunts crazy...but the music basically fit every situation...GOOD WORK!!!! When you go see this be sure to use the bathroom before going to the theater, maintain a strong stomach and rememba to not let your beverage spray out your nose....


I love everything about family guy.

My favourite characters in family are Brian and Stewie and I like the episodes when it mainly features them such as "Road to Rhode Island" (Season 2), as they interact very well. The comments they make just have me in stitches. Peter's behaviour is also very funny as some of the things he does "are just so brilliant they're retarded." The voice acting is excellent, especially Seth MacFarlane as he provides the voices for half of the Griffin family as well as their perverted neighbour Glenn Quagmire and how he manages this range (particularly with singing) I just don't know. He deserves his two Emmy's for providing the voice of evil baby genius Stewie. Adam West also steals the show with his funny and completely insane regular character the mayor of Quahog. What I like about Chris (voiced by Seth Green) is the things he says show that he takes after his father when it comes to intelligence and common sense.

The only thing I have found annoying is that in the UK Fox has decided to change the seasons to increase DVD sales, which in no way reflect the programme itself but rather the marketing.

If you enjoy Family Guy then I would thoroughly recommend Seth MacFarlane's other project American Dad which uses a different style of humour but is still extremely hilarious.


Despite the apparent structural similarity with The Simpsons - loud fat dad, housewifey mum, 3 children, a pet, typical suburban home, Family Guy is actually functionally and stylistically opposite to The Simpsons. Its avid use (and sometimes too much) of cutaway gags has been its main stay since the first season. While some hit the nail on the head (The Rhea Perlman and Danny Devito bit in Season 5 is spine-snappingly hilarious), others are less successful, coming across as contrived. And they can be annoying, especially when they don't advance the story line. (The Jesus bits are entirely unfunny and insulting)

The chemistry between Stewie and Brian Griffin lends itself to pure comedy gold, so much so that Chris and Meg only manage to fulfill the role of the obligatory teenagers in your typical dysfunctional family.

However, the feature film Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story, is MINDNUMBINGLY horrible. Thank goodness it went straight to DVD.

Contrary to tiresome comparisons with the perennial Simpsons, Seth Macfarlane's approach with Family Guy is actually very different - it's much more politically incorrect, and amazingly, a lot more brazen.

Creator of Ren and Stimpy, John Kricfalusi, famously criticized Family Guy for having "extremely low" graphic standards from a cartoonist's standpoint. I don't think it looks that bad though, the detailing and accuracy of some of the spoofs are quite successful.

All in all, a great series to go with a great big bowl of chips smothered in ranch sauce and ass jokes.


"Family Guy" is probably the most ballsy sitcom ever produced. It relentlessly skewers everything it can think of, from TV shows to family drama. Best of all, it's one of the few TV shows on today that's actually funny.

The show revolves around the Griffins: Peter, the obese father whose schemes are limited by his lack of intelligence. Lois, the mother who is more or less the head of the family, even though Peter considers himself to be that. Chris, the fat teenage son who has just as few brains as his dad. Meg, the black sheep of the family that is the but of everyone's jokes. Stewie, the baby who has plans for killing his mother and taking over the world. And Brian, the family dog, who is frequently the voice of reason, but is frequently corrupted.

"Family Guy" employs many tactics to get laughs from the audience. Most notable are the frequent cutaways that spoof what has just been said. They are effective because of the impeccable timing, and in how they play out. "Family Guy" uses spoofs to get humor as well, most commonly from 80's TV shows. What really makes the show so great is that a person doesn't have to be familiar with what it's spoofing. I'm sure it would help, but the material is funny enough in its own right. But the show doesn't stop there. Not only does it spoof just about everything, it skewers its own spoofs! The show is filled with off-color humor. The only reason why people aren't up in arms about the show is probably because it makes fun of every race, sex and other generality equally. There is nothing sacred here, and no one and nothing is immune from "Family Guy's" satirical jabs.

Putting on musical numbers in a film takes a lot of time and effort, and it's a very big risk. But "Family Guy" contains some great songs. All well-written and performed, and of course they are hilarious (perhaps the most famous one, "The Freakin' FCC" is both catchy, and hysterical because it hits the ratings board where it hurts).

The voice characterizations are right on the money. Seth McFarlane is tremendously talented. He provides the voices for Peter, Brian (which is his own natural voice), and Stewie. Not only are the voices consistent and creative, he can alter their pitch at will, so it really seems as if they are spoken by three different actors. Alex Borstein brings a nasally drawl to Lois that is perfect for the character. Seth Green is unrecognizable as Chris (had I not looked on IMDb, I would have never known that it was him). Lacey Chabert originated the character of Meg, and while she was good, Mila Kunis really elevated the character with her sharp voice. Kunis gives Meg a new, sharper edge that she didn't have with Chabert.

"Family Guy" has been compared to "The Simpsons," and that's entirely understandable (and not just because they are produced by FOX). Both are satires of blue-collar life, and while "The Simpsons" is good, "Family Guy" contains are sharper edge. The show is utterly fearless. There is no real sacred cow. The show lampoons handicaps (physical and mental), ethnicities, TV shows and movies, celebrities, politicians, religion (especially catholicism), drug use and addiction, sexual humor of all kinds (including S&M), and some that's just beyond description. Not everything "Family Guy" throws at the audience works, but as a whole, the show is consistently amusing and frequently hilarious.

If there's any flaw with "Family Guy," it's that the jokes run on far too long sometimes. Particularly with the "awkward moment" jokes, the sequences are stretched for so long that not only does it cease to become funny, it becomes so irritating (and long) that a fast-forward button is warranted. These can be effective at about 10 to 15 seconds, but the show sometimes stretches these to beyond two minutes. One could argue that the show rewrites its rules to suit the plot, and it often does (for example, Brian frequently acts like a person, but he still acts like a dog when the story requires it). But that's not a problem because the show still works.

Some people have argued that the show has stopped being funny. While I agree that it's not as edgy as it used to be, I think the blame lies with FOX, not McFarlane and his crew. The show originated with FOX, but after some lackluster ratings and viewer turnout, it was canceled. However, DVD sales were large enough for it to be picked up by Adult Swim. The show became an instant success, and it was once again bought by FOX. However, because the show is so big now, FOX is afraid to let the writers experiment and try new things. While it's still funny, the humor is not as fresh and edgy.

Definitely check this show out. It's awesome.


Family Guy has been hilarious for so long but I feel like it lost it's sharp and random humor at the start of season 6. Although I enjoyed Blue Harvest, it felt like the remaining episodes were "wrapping-up" - episodes where the producers made little attempt to fulfill Family Guy's reputation of American social satire.

I have seen all the episodes from season 7 and I was utterly surprised and happy that Family Guy has found their true colors again. Season 7 delivers a lot of fantastic episodes and with a lot of jokes about the current situations in America which is exactly what we need right now - more fun.

I feel that the Simpsons has lost its spark all together, this show, however, has made a terrific recovery from going down to proving how perfectly satirical they can be. Great job!


Being a Russian myself, sometimes it's hard for me to get the reference jokes about American TV personalities or celebrities. Apart from that, Family Guy is the smartest, funniest and most politically incorrect shows seen on earth. The voice acting is excellent and sounds clear enough even for a non-English speaker as myself to comprehend. Animations are good too, maybe even too good for a TV-show. Here we have the equivalent of the Adult Swim Channel, but nothing there simply compares to this gem. Not even Simpsons or South Park. Hope the creators will continue to entertain and amuse us. Don't want to see the whole thing spiraling down into mediocre entertainment.


If Family Guy offends you or you simply don't get the humor, unfortunately this show is making fun of you and the masses of overly religious, dull, and politically correct people in America. So put your morals aside and have fun with this show. FG is a hilarious mind opener on the reality of today's society. Whoever said this show is for a young immature audience is very mistaken. With all the references to old movies and politics 10-80 years ago, I couldn't imagine any young immature kid finding this funny. Family Guy is definitely for a mature open-minded audience who are not afraid to criticize American society. Hats off to Seth and the whole crew who were able to make this show happen.


I absolutely love this show!!!!!!!, Its basically fox's improved version of the simpsons (cau'se lets face it the simpsons are very dry if you're above the age of 9. It's political, irrational, and irresistible. Anyone who says they don't like it is lying, There is a character for every one. Peter, Stewie, & Quagmire are my favorites. Peter because he is rude, obnoxious, and just doesn't give a crap. Stewie because of his amazing intelligence and how he hits you with something an adult would say when you least expect it. And quagmire because one of guilty pleasures is dirty jokes. Also there is an episode for everybody too. If you're the political type there is Mr. Griffin goes to Washington (VOL.2 SEASON 3). If you like more of the sexual and bodily humor there is emission impossible (VOL.2 SEASON 3.). Or if you like any other kind of humor there is dammit Janet (VOL.1 SEASON2).Basicly what i'm saying is that when you watch this show there is side splitting humor for everyone. GIGGITY GIGGITY GOOOOO!


When I first saw this show, I was 9, and it caught my attention right away when Stewie was trying to call Lois on the phone in the hotel. I laughed and kept on watching. When the episode was finished, i wrote down the name of the cartoon and watched it regularly. This separates itself from the Simpsons and other shows on say, Cartoon Network because the jokes are more mature, not too much, but it's TV-14 for a reason. The quick film cuts after each punch line and cute, funny movements and behavior of the characters make it special. Talented Seth Macfarlene is the creator and the voice of quite a lot of characters in the show. A good theme song, and a crazy family that there's always something funny, makes this my favorite cartoon along Sealab 2021 and Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Check it out it's funny stuff.


Family Guy is THE best show on TV. EVER. It has achieved great things that no other animated sitcom, or any show, has even come close to achieving.

In terms of animated sitcoms, this era should be referred to as "The Era of Animated Sitcoms" because there are so many of them, and almost every one of them imaginable is being released on DVD. There are some good ones (i.e. South Park, Futurama, and The Simpsons). Every animated sitcom has its own style/technique of creating humor. For instance, Futurama is funny because it always comments or acts on what just happened with a touch of humor. The Simpsons is also a great show because it uses the same comedic technique and style that Futurama does, but The Simpsons deserves the credit for it since it was on the air way before Futurama and still remains on the air using the technique. South Park, in my mind, is the funniest show next to Family Guy, because it uses a smart blend of vulgarity and silliness as it's technique of creating humor.

But enough about other animated shows. Let me tell you what makes Family Guy so funny. Family Guy uses a comedic style that no other show has ever used before. It uses a technique of having flashbacks occur after every joke. This not only reinforces the joke, but makes it seem funnier. It also moves at a very quick pace. These two criteria make it the funniest show on TV. You have to see the show to believe it, but once you see it, you will most likely agree. (FYI, the two funniest moments on Family Guy were: 1) The 5 minute chicken fight in "Da Boom", and 2) The Dick van Dyke spoof in "Holy Crap.") Also, in my mind Family Guy is a very modest show because while other shows create humor by getting familiar with their shticks/routines and characters, most of Family Guy's jokes are based on the silliness of current events and pop culture. This also shows that Family Guy is intelligent, in addition to being modest, because it reveals that the show has insight. And this technique is extremely effective because they relate their pop culture references to the particular plot of the episode they are found in.

Family Guy can be enjoyed by all ages, because while younger children may not understand the pop culture references, they will be amused by the hilarious, silly antics of the characters, especially Peter. The show is, however, a little bit more vulgar than The Simpsons and Futurama, but it is less vulgar than South Park. So, in terms of vulgarity, Family Guy would rank somewhere in the middle when associated with the above shows, but it would rank No. 1 in terms humor and intelligence!!

Sadly, it was cancelled last year, not because it wasn't popular, but because FOX kept changing it's time slot, so no one ever knew when it was on. Luckily, we've got the DVD box sets (which, by the way, are selling like crazy) and reruns on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim available to us.


> This show is the single greatest thing to come out of America since The > Simpsons. Not only does it have thousands of new ideas, but it's actually > controversial (see the Jewish joke, Season 1, Episode 1) and isn't scared to > "tick" people off. However, the great minds at Fox have canceled it, along > with Greg the Bunny and Futurama, so make sure you buy the Season 1 box set > while you still can. It'll be the best money you ever spend. It's > definitely a show that gets better the more you watch it, as at first the > constant flashbacks can get a little annoying and don't always seem to fit > the story properly. However after a couple of episodes you realise how > brilliant it is, and how well it compares to any other show currently on air > at the moment.


This is one great show, that it makes me wonder why it got pulled off the air so many times. But I believe its now here to stay! This show cant compare to any other, Before Simpsons was pretty "on the edge" and than came Family Guy, and they are stretching it out to go off the "edge". The things this show gets away with is incredible. Totally work the watch! If you like the Simpsons you will LOVE Family guy!


I own all family guy seasons so far and i have to say Vol. 6 has been the biggest disappoint of them all. There are still plenty of laughs to be found here but i think Vol. 6 like the last few volumes is slowly providing less and less laughs. At least for me.

The biggest annoyance i had with Vol. 6 is it seems to be VERY heavy in left wing politics. I'm a big believer in if you can laugh at other people you should be able to laugh at yourself but this Volume REALLY seems to shove their political view points down your throat and i think it takes a lot away from the show. Insinuated all conservative sates are horrible places, Insinuating we need more gun control, Insinuated school are under funded, Insinuated religious people are crazy, Bush is friends with the devil.. I could go on and this is just from the first three episodes.

Sure some of it was funny but there becomes a point when you're not making a comedy and you're really just shoving your political views on other people.


Family Guy has to be my all time favorite cartoon.It is definitely the funniest TV show ever made and is better than The Simpsons.I have never laughed so hard at a TV show in my life The things that make the show so funny is the plot,characters and themes that are dealt with in the show.There are very few themes that have not been dealt with on Family Guy.

I have seen just about every episode of Family Guy ever made and would have to say that the show was better in the first two seasons.My favorite characters are Peter because he is very funny and is the best character of the show.My second favorite character is Stewie because he is the funniest villain to be on a TV show.If you love Family Guiy you should check out American Dad because it is just so similar and is created by Seth McFarlane.I hope this show never ends because it is a comic genius! 10/10


Seth McFarlane is a true genius. He has crafted a show that is witty, culturally sharp and just downright hilarious.

For those that think its 'offensive' take on social or cultural topics makes no meaningful comment, just causes 'offence', can be pointed to this quote:

Peter (coming out of the stem cell lab): How long was I in there? // Guard: Five minutes. // Peter: Why aren't we funding this?!?

Why indeed.

Thanks family guy, for being not only the funniest show on TV (with the possible exception of the much loved, much missed futurama), but for also being pretty clever to boot.


This is the greatest show ever made next to south park. I love this show! it is so funny, and Peter's laugh is hilarious. You need to watch this show right away for the few people who have never seen this show before. One of my favorite shows of all time.

If you can, try to see some of the later episodes such as I dream of Jesus, or Tales of a third grade nothing. But there's never been an episode I didn't like. All of the episodes are absolutely hilarious. It's got a great satire to it as well. You can find a lot of clips on you tube. If you're somewhere near a computer or a TV see it right away however you can.


Ignore the comment before mine. The show is comic genius, most underrated show ever. 3 reasons why. Reason 1, the flashbacks are hilarious, who cares if they have absolutely nothing to do with the story, they make me laugh so hard it hurts and isn't that the idea of a good comedy programme? People who think this isn't funny just have no sense of humour. Who cares if they are random, its a t.v. show, you can do what ever you like with it and people say its not realistic, neither is a cartoon, its animated. Reason 2, The jokes are just generally hilarious, Seth McFarlane and the other writers are soooooooooooo funny, everything from the Star Wars references to making fun of celebrities, i love them all. And Reason 3, the story lines are just brilliant and funny, they set up all of the jokes with their crazy nature and wackiness, just all the more funnier.

I caught this one late night on BBC2 and have never gone back, i have all 7 seasons, plus the kind of movie thing (Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story), i have several t-shirts, posters and my collection is still growing. I've never got a collection of any TV show before but this was so funny i just had to get everything.

Just watch season 3 and trust me you will be hooked for life, the funniest show ever created and i hope it never ends!


This is a brilliant series along the same lines of Simpsons. Following a family as they go through life and problems etc. Slightly less realistic than Simpsons, talking baby and dog anyone? Family Guy goes where SImpsons or Futurama dares not, reaching past into the sicker jokes and more racy gags. And believe me, it works! Almost all the gags hit the mark and they'll have you in stitches(especially the random, frequent flashbacks!) When my brother first showed me this I wasn't hooked but after a few episodes I was hooked. You will be 2. 10/10 for a truly brilliant show. COngrats to Seth Macfarlane for bringing this show to life. :)


The Romanian cinema is little known out of Romania. No directors from Romania came out to the attention of the international public, as some from other countries from Eastern Europe like Hungary, Czekoslowakia, or Yugoslavia succeeded to do. One of the few great directors in Romanian cinema is Lucian Pintilie, who 35 ago directed a great movie 'Reconstituirea' - quickly taken out of the circuit by the communist censorship. After that film, still a reference for the Romanian cinema, Pintilie was not allowed to create freely in Romania until the Communist rule fell in 1989.

'Furia' reminds me Pintilie's film 35 years ago. The title means 'The Rage' and I cannot imagine why the distributors chose to translate it differently. It is about a lost generation. While in the classic of Pintilie the root of evil is in the oppression and lies of the communist regime, here the young folks need to deal with the emergence of the sub-culture, and the moral filth that filled in the void left by the totalitarian rule. The end is tragic and painfully expected.

The movie is well directed, and the acting is good. Without too much complexity, it succeeds to create an emotional link between the characters and the viewer. One would say that some situations seem similar to '8 Miles' or 'The Fast and the Furious' - but look at the date of the production! This film was made at the same time, if not before the Western peers. If this is indeed the first film of director Dan Munteanu, as IMDB says, it is an outstanding debut. In any case, a good movie, can compete and may sell well on the Western market.

There is hope for a new generation of Romanian films that with some luck and good distribution will make its place in the international cinema scene.

8/10 on my personal scale.


Looking backwards to that year 2002 when "Furia" was made, one can easily recognize the heralding sings of today's New Generation in Romania.

The main qualities of "Furia" stand in a very solid script, with a substantial dramatic core and a really professional developing, plus a cast of excellent actors. All four leading roles are admirably performed, both with depth and casualness: Dragos Bucur and Andy Vasluianu confirmed, since then, being two of our best performers today, Dorina Chiriac follows them closely, and Adrian Tuli, a non-professional (in real life, a graveyard manager!) cast as Gabonu, was a genuine revelation!

Further, Radu Muntean's directing is skilled and expressive, creating in a very compelling style that feeling of "a fateful night" and inescapable destiny. One can easily pass over the few awkward and even failed moments, since time proved them to be only the uncertainties inherent to a debut, never repeated in his subsequent movies: "Hârtia va fi albasträ" and "Boogie".


now we know radu munteans movies, the excellent PAPER WILL BE BLUE and BOOGIE, but its worth to see again (or at last) this first FURIA, which shows perfectly clear his initial qualities.

its very interesting to see how his beginners talent developed into confirming him as one of the best romanian contemporary directors.

of course, the movie itself is excellent - intelligent and professional script, sure-handed direction, stylish photography. definitely, one of the best - in the most serious and competent sense! also, munteans storytelling sense is compelling and gripping - and he actors... well, they simply rock!


is not a bad movie but the acting and the screenplay can be better. I like this movie because i have a life that is in good part like the one in the movie. is hard for a lost generation to get a life in Romania, and 90 percent of us choose something else, and that something else includes dealing with people with "bad habits" if you understand me but that comes with the territory. this movie represent me and i like it. i have a rage in me that i barley talk with people, i live in a messed up society and i can't fit in and i don't want to,and that's the story of movie also, if you r like me you can understand the true movie, if not you will find it easy and cheap.


The movie has an excellent screenplay (the situation is credible, the action has pace), first-class direction and acting (especially the 3 leading actors but the others as well -including the mobster, who does not seem to be a professional actor).

I wish the movie, the director and the actors success.


I have to say that I haven't expected that this movie to be this good. Usually, the eastern cinema presents the communist past in 90% of the films. However, this film surpasses the Romanian Cinema, being worthy of some more advertisement.

The acting is truthfully and not exaggerated, the plot is simple yet complex as it presents the life in the Romanian suburbia, the sound amazed me, the directing was good and what more can I say...

This "Crash" of Eastern Europe was drawn me into the film living each moment of it. I have even felt a desire coming out of me, a desire for adventure after seeing it.

Watch it! You will definitely enjoy it!

7/10


My teacher did this movie. It's a new beginning. Watch it, and you won't notice that it is a Romanian movie. The old boring style has gone. Now it's something else. A post-revolutionary movie. It is using the latest imaging technology and mostly unknown artists. They are unique. You won't even know that you're watching, you will be simply transferred beyond the screen and you'll feel every frame. Don't miss it, pay attention to the plot but don't ignore the details. They make the difference between this movie and the others Romanian movies. You will hear some music at some point. It's representative for a part of us, but it does not represent us. Please, just keep your head straight and leave your body free.


This is probably the best movie of 2002 regarding Romanian cinema. I do recommend it being an intense drama with no lack of action and thrills. The movie concentrates upon teen life in the Bucharest suburbs trough the main character, not focusing so much on the character's shape or definition but more on the anger that he and other characters feel. The title "Furia" means rage rather than anger, but could be regarded in the movie in both senses from the behavior of actors. The rather odd love story (not a typical romantic one, but rather a modern suburban conception) is well shaped towards the end. It is a captivating picture, and cinematography is pretty good in catching the suburban night life thus making it a nice movie to watch and.

You won't get bored for a minute, i promise!


It is movie about love,violence,illegal affairs and romanian tycoons. A romanian story combined with an occidental adaption resulting in a modern international film that can be understood both by western audiences but as well by eastern European audiences that HAVE LONG forgotten about the conservative comunist regim over film-making.

A film full of violent fight scenes that are very numerous and create more and more tensed situations as the movie goes on .

A story that impresses because of its view over the hard life from the neighbourhood. Two young men do illegal car races. They work together as a team and prosper from their occupation ,but when they are asked by a local tycoon to lose one race things start to get messy and the fuse from the bomb lights up creating a very tensionated movie that will keep you close to the screen until the ending of it when you will still be asking yourself a lot of questions long after that.

Brilliant acting both by Dragos Bucur and Dorina Chiriac along with high quality directing and screen writing by the young but talented director Radu Muntean also give a unique charm to Furia. All this and many other elements that can be noticed while watching have created a must see movie by all the filmlovers around the world and its message is clear to all not depending of race ,language we speak or country. It is a real hope for the Romanian cinema as it tries to keep up with the more advanced occidental cinema.

I hope you enjoy watching it as I'm sure that all the people that have seen it liked it and understood it.


Satisfying fantasy with ships sailing thru clouds with cannons, evil plotters, strange landscapes, manipulations of time, great sets, void of reality, maybe like Never Ending Story or some Merlin stuff. If you like that, you'll love it. Christine Taylor is beautiful. Sword fighting is phoney. Music is delightful. Good wins out, they kiss, all is well, and the cook is pleased.


I watched this movie for the first time ever on the Sci Fi channel and I must say.. it was simply awesome. For those of you whom loves 'The Never Ending Story' this is one that would bring back memories of that movie. Even though it is a 1996 movie it has a hazy like setting and look which makes it feel like it is, a fantasy. The acting was brilliant and the music was great especially the beginning battle song and end song. To those of you who have yet to see it, WATCH IT! I recommended completely!


This a lovely and charming epic fantasy with lots of heart. I got lost in this sweet film watching it at the Mann's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood. It's truly romantic with a touching message.The artwork and the effects are visually striking and the fact that the director is an amazing artist is so apparent. The frames are like watching moving art. It also has a strong and talented cast of actors. What a wonderful surprise to see Joss Ackland, he is just a fairy-tale perfect King. Sarah Douglas is terrific as the villain and Christine Taylor and Tom Schultz make a lovely romantic pair. The fact that the movie was made on a ridiculously tiny indie film budget just blows me away. It may not be the slick Hollywood stuff we're inundated by but it's a really nice movie to rent and enjoy curled up on your sofa on a rainy Saturday. Don't forget the microwave popcorn. That's my advice. Just enjoy it.


This is a great movie, a must own. I really liked every aspect of it, from the sword fighting, the romance, the costumes were really well done and put together. The scenery is absolutely beautiful. I also loved the mystery and magic. Also the message of the power of love, that love is the greatest power there is. I really like the heart of the king in the sense that he desires peace instead of the bloodshed and hate. I wish that I could live in a world like that with flying ships, to castles in the sky. I also think that it was really nice how they brought the animals into the movie. I also thought that the cook was really funny. I have watched it many times in one day and still never tire of it. Just wish they would bring it onto a DVD.


Philippe Garrel makes us breathe the forgotten atmosphere of the Nouvelle Vague, almost lost among the vestiges of its ancient splendor but ready to rise again from its ashes if recalled from the past. They who are a little acquainted with the director's subjects, on the other hand, may know very well how he's obsessed by a lingering sense of loss as far as fickleness of reality is concerned. "Les amants réguliers", therefore, show us the parallel stories of an "amour fou" and of a tempted revolution gone to ruin under the direction of young French students.

The first part of the story is about the dramatic events of May '68 in France evoked in a series of astonishing plan-sequences, a sort of cinema verité style, that place the student insurrection in anything but an enviable light against a pitch-black background.

There's much that can be said about the peculiarities of black-and-white photography used to describe the battle between students and police, where the high contrasts confer an unrealistic atmosphere to the sequences and darkness closes in upon the excited bodies wrapping them in mystery. The images, completely deprived of words, show the real consistence of the myth, made of crude violence, more and more emphasized by the exasperated reality of the movie shootings. The individual doesn't count anything at all here: he tends to disappear in the mass. What really matters in these fight scenes are the significance of the mass-suggestion, the blind fury of the juvenile assault, sinister eulogies of the power of the mob, even if conceived like separate entities apart from any kind of emotion, with the cold and distant look of an entomologist intent to catalog his insect collection.

The second part of the story is described in a quieter and most intimate way. Stands out on the horizon the distressing portrait of a self-centered generation in search of its lost time, completely disenchanted about the individual values of men, inclined to rotate on its own axis between opium fumes and making a funeral oration in the praise of its recent defeat.

"Les amants réguliers" seems to evoke from time to time the shadow of the great Robert Bresson, revised and corrected by Garrel's particular sensibility without drifting away from the main argument, trying to expand overall perspectives on the subject of human disillusions that though painful may bring us to the truth. In my opinion, trying to penetrate deeply into the substrate of the story, if a man lets himself go and play things by ear, he probably will find that he can bring out the dark side of his self with dire and irretrievable consequences.


This film is probably the best new French film I've seen in this century so far. There have been some great ones including Noe's Irreversible, Green's Le Pont des Arts and Hadzihalilovic's Innocencebut none of them come close to Les Amants Reguliers' timeless glory.

The movie is a description of the events of May 68 and what followed in the wake of it and furthermore it is and update of, and a homage to, the Nouvelle Vague-movies of those days. Concerning the depiction of the riots in Paris the movie is meticulously accurate (I'm only 19 and I wasn't there myself but you know what I mean)and the almost real-time and very long riot scenes set the stage perfectly for the aftermath of the events in the streets of Paris. The riots are not glorified or beautifully photographed like the ones in Bertolucci's The Dreamers (to which the movie is comparable in many ways) instead they are filmed in grimy black and white shots courtesy of the excellent William Lubtchansky. The love story that is the movie's main concern after the riots in 68 is filmed in stunning and far less blurred shots and manages to evoke true feelings of love and adolescent confusion in the midst of the otherwise politically concerned and seemingly cold environment.

This film is a beautiful love story and it radiates through it that the director wants to depict his own experiences of those mythical late 60's which makes the film all the more compelling. But the film is also a homage to the whole Nouvelle Vague canon. Much of the dialogue evokes early Truffaut, and the length and non-action and plot less structure is reminiscent of Eustache or Rivette. There are even Godard-like verfremdung-effects with the persons looking directly into the camera and even addressing Bernardo Bertolucci directly. This film is no doubt an answer song to Bertolucci's The Dreamers and it is also a Nouvelle Vague homage but still it stands by itself as a beautiful and radiant love story.

Bottom line: This movie is incredible and if you love French cinema you shouldn't sleep on it. It may be the finest french film since Eustache's La Mamain et la Putain.


This is the best French movie of the year ! I saw it twice and I found it great both times. I didn't think it boring at all even though it is very long (3 hours). I'm seventeen so I obviously didn't get to live the events of may 1968 that marked an extremely important turn in French history, but it doesn't really matter since I still really enjoyed the film. It's actually quite universal : people of my parents' age can identify to the characters and so can people my age. Garrel seems to perfectly understand young people, the way they think and the complications of love as well as the loss of illusions concerning the possibility of changing the world. Maybe that's because the character played by Louis Garrel (his son)is actually meant to represent Philippe Garrel himself. Well anyway, great movie, no action (have to be honest on that point) but so strong feelings that you can't possibly stay indifferent to it. If you're looking for a relaxing Sunday-evening movie, don't waste your time on this, you'll be disappointed. But if you like cinema, you'll like Les Amants Réguliers which is a bewitching movie close to those made in the 50's and 60's by the Nouvelle Vague artists.


The reason I am reviewing this is that the previous review, was written by someone who walked out of this film, not even half way through. Unfortunately for him, he missed out on a film of tremendous beauty. Agreed the film was very slow to start, in fact the friend I was with fell asleep briefly,I woke him before his snoring disturbed the rest of the audience. Thankfully the film developed from there into a story of love, drugs and what it was like to be young and free in the experimental 60s. Fantastic performances from the two leads and a great look to the film that gave it a real authentic feel. Be patient, like many great films its well worth the wait, and is certainly a film that I will look forward to revisiting! 8/10


Seeing Les Amants Reguliers calls immediately for comparison with Bertolucci's movie 'The Dreamers', in my opinion the best film made about the 1968 revolt of students in Paris. Actually director Philippe Garrel does not seem to avoid comparing with his much more famous colleague, sharing the principal actor and even including a direct replica eye-in-viewer-eye about an older film of Bertolucci. And yet, LAR is a different film, and an interesting one.

The story line seems also familiar. The movie starts with long scenes of the 1968 'emeutes', maybe among the best done until now. The film is made in black-and-white, and the perspective of the static camera on one side or the other of the barricade reminds Eisenstein. Then, as in The Dreamers, the action moves in the Parisian flat where the heroes of the defeated revolt make art, smoke drugs, dream, and fall for one other. There is no direct social comment, no real explanation of the background of the revolt. The movie focuses on the psychology of the characters and on the love story between the main characters. It's like a premonition of the process of transition to the establishment that the generation of the 1968 went through, it's just that not all the participants may adapt or survive.

The film is more about the characters than about the events. And it is merely for the style it will be remembered about. The black-and-white cinema is memorable not only in the revolution scenes, but also when looking at the characters evolution. Many sequences are enhanced by a technique that is derived from the silent films movies, with long takes accompanied by a off piano tune. The effect is exquisite. Yet the length of the film is hardly justified, it lasts more than three hours and I doubt that cutting it to only two hours would have been a miss - actually I am convinced it's quite a contrary.

Without raising at the depth and subtlety of Bertolucci's movie LAR is another perspective to remember about one of the more important years in the history of France and of the world in the 20th century.


This is a very long movie, indeed. But it is quite beautiful, and a good example to show why cinema can be considered art. A story easily told cannot be expected in Les Amants Réguliers, but every scene, every silence here tells much more than a hundred dialogs. Touching, different, perfect in its pictures and soundtrack, showing why the close brought by the cinema as one of its main features became the greatest innovation in any dramatic representation. Someone who is used to that kind of movies where everything is told, and action takes place all the time, will find this tiring. But it is worth watching, to find out other possibilities of feeling a story.


It's not like an historical movie, it's not a movie with unforgettable love stories, it's not a movie with a spectacular scenario, but i can surely say it's a movie with a great atmosphere...

It had that 60's kind of bohemian and rebellious spirit: a group of friends living in a poor apartment in Paris, each one making art, dreaming of changing the world, doing drugs and loving in his very own way.

It takes a lot of patience to watch, and a special mood, that if you're not in, you might find it extremely boring and dull.

I liked a lot the very realistic approach of the events that took place and their immediate effect on student's lives: the fear for their future, the difficulty of earning their living, the obstacles in following their dreams.

What i absolutely loved was the black & white image. The still camera angles were amazing, they were like freezing moments. It left me the impression of a long slide show of old and very emotive and suggestive photographs. I actually had to see the movie again, just to take those amazing screen-shots.

In one word: beautiful...


I don't have a really solid thesis here, so I'm just going to toss out some observations.

First of all, the film is absolutely gorgeous. It's shot in high contrast black and white, and some of the scenes are so well composed that they're almost distracting.

There's a sequence early on of some intense protests, and some of the shots were amazing -- three guys launching tear gas at the protesters, etc.

Second of all, I think that one of the biggest signs that this is a recent film looking back on the 60's is that it's really about how the idealism of the revolution morphed and shifted into something different. The take on this shift is really interesting -- I think that both the political phase of things as well as the artistic and more self-indulgent phase have strong points and weak points. The film doesn't necessarily take the position that things decayed.

Third, I think the romance works very well.

Finally, I really, really, really hated the ending. It was way too melodramatic. You could even say that the ending is unworthy of the film that preceded it.


I felt compelled to give some feedback on this movie that I rented from Blockbuster. This movie has it all - comedy, drama, crime, suspense and "realism".

This movie also had a lot of action with just the right amount of humor! I will definitely watch it again! There were some funny parts as well as action-packed drama. I enjoy movies that keep you wondering what's going to happen next.

The writer/director, Travis Milloy, should make more movies!!! In my overall opinion, this movie was great! I'm looking forward to his next one! Travis Milloy has real talent as a writer and director.


You can tell that this is the first offering by the Director (who also wrote it), but you can also see the potential this guy has. This is an obviously low budget film in the spirit of Boondock Saints. Of course, Boondock Saints came out a few years after this, so you could look at this as a diamond in need of some polish. The acting was good - if you're looking for DeNiro or Michael Madsen in a crime drama, remember that these are young guys, playing young guys trying to be criminals. They're not going to be "supercool" (tm) like some of the veterans. I would have love to have seen Justin Pagel (Joe - the main character) go on to make more movies - he was great in this. Good movie - 3 stars out of 5.


The crew of an American submarine discover it's HELL BELOW while fighting in the Adriatic in 1918.

Although nearly forgotten, this excellent war film still delivers solid entertainment, thanks to a literate script, superior performances and highly believable action scenes.

Robert Montgomery & Walter Huston play submarine officers under the stress of war who quickly are at odds with each other, with dramatic and tragic results. Since Montgomery is in love with Huston's daughter, Madge Evans in a well-played role, the situation becomes even more complicated, both on shore and beneath the waves. The viewer is torn between the two strong characters, one of whom is governed by his heart and the other by the rules.

Robert Young makes an effective appearance as Montgomery's buddy. Sterling Holloway creates a brief, vivid, portrait of a doomed seaman.

Eugene Pallette as the torpedo master & Jimmy Durante as the sub's cook make for a very funny comedy team and provide the story with plenty of laughs. Durante's nose comes in for lots of ribbing and his obsession with amateur dentistry leads to some chaotic encounters with British tars.

Movie mavens will recognize Babe London as an obese Italian miss; Maude Eburne as the wife of a British admiral & Paul Porcasi as an Italian admiral - all uncredited.

MGM has given the film absolutely first-class production values, with the undersea sequences especially well produced. Both the claustrophobic compactness of the ship and the inevitable tension associated with submarine warfare are accurately portrayed. Other moments of unexpected drama (Montgomery & Miss Evans caught on top of a stalled Ferris wheel during an air raid) and hilarity (Durante boxing a kangaroo) are expertly threaded into the fabric of the movie to provide a totally satisfying viewing experience.


As I type these comments I'm watching a DVD of this movie that I just got from a mail-order dealer, and I'm finding that it holds up extremely well, with strong characterizations, believable situations, and well-staged action scenes.

It's been a good 45 years, maybe 50, since I saw HELL BELOW, but the one scene that made an extremely deep impression on me was Sterling Holloway's death scene, which several other commenters have mentioned here. I haven't gotten to that scene yet on this viewing, but I can vouch for what other comments have said: once you see Sterling Holloway's death scene in this movie, you will absolutely never, ever forget it. Judging from how strong the film so far is holding up, I fully expect that scene to live up to the memory of it -- as unquestionably one of the greatest death scenes in movie history. The movie's worth seeing for that moment alone, but even without it, it would be a first-rate early submarine drama.


I recommend that movie viewers if in the New York City area go to the Intrepid museum and get some idea of how closed in and cramped the living was for the crews of World War II vintage submarines. How much more so that must have been for the seamen during World War I. It must have truly been hell below.

Walter Huston and Robert Montgomery head the cast of Hell Below, Huston as the by the book captain and Montgomery as his free wheeling number two. They're both quite believable as Naval officers and the rest of the cast like Robert Young, Eugene Palette, Jimmy Durante, Madge Evans, Sterling Holloway, etc. fill their roles quite nicely.

The silent service got more popular during World War II and after. It's amazing, but I could name a whole slew of submarine pictures like Torpedo Run, Operation Pacific, Hellcats of the Navy, Run Silent, Run Deep and many more and you'll see the same plot situations in all of them. I guess there truly is a limit on situations as well.

Jimmy Durante's performance is interesting. He's pretty funny and his scene with the boxing kangaroo while on shore leave is very funny indeed. But I'd have to say a character like him in those cramped quarters is probably very necessary for morale. If you don't have someone like that to break the tension on board a submarine, you ought to get one transferred to your ship immediately.

The highlight for me however is Sterling Holloway's death scene. Very similar to Sean McClory's in Island in the Sky. It will haunt you long after you've seen this film.


Robert Montgomery and Robert Young are outstanding as a duo of young submarine officers stationed in Italy during World War I. The dialog is highly entertaining, and Jimmy Durante is hilarious as the ship's cook, "Ptomaine". Walter Huston's character is inspiring as the captain of the submarine, a stellar example of an officer and a gentleman. One of the most interesting aspects of this movie was the level of technology displayed in the battle scenes. I was surprised at how similar the technology of World War I was to the technology displayed 25 years later in World War II. Basic human nature was portrayed as very similar to modern times, and far from the conservativism I thought existed in the so-called "innocent" past. All in all I felt that the cast, characters, action scenes, and view of history depicted in this movie were first-rate.


Exciting, action-packed, and interesting film telling the tale of a group of men stationed at a naval base in Italy and their adventures aboard a Navy submarine during WWI. Tommy and Brick (played by Robert Montgomery and Robert Young) are two pals, and make for a couple of very handsome officers, I must say. A new Captain arrives on-board, already known by a few as "Dead Pan" Toler (Walter Huston) and he's a real stickler for following the rule book and a "code of honor". Soon Tommy and Brick are chasing after an attractive blonde at an officer's dance, Tommy insults the Captain - and, of course, the blonde is actually the Captain's daughter. But Tommy wins out anyway as he and the daughter sneak away from the dance to a street carnival outside, and soon bond during an air raid - unfortunately for him, she reveals she is married. Later Tommy gets himself into some real trouble when he disobeys orders in an effort save his buddy.

This film is quite entertaining with an absorbing plot line that held my interest and top-notch performances by all. A climactic death scene featuring Sterling Holloway is haunting indeed - the most memorable scene in this film, I thought. Eugene Palette and Jimmy Durante add some humor here playing a couple of goofballs - Durante's character is actually studying to be a dentist via mail-order and continually has onshore run-ins with a British man who makes fun of his nose. Okay - if you're looking for a movie showing a man boxing a kangaroo, this would be the one.


Good footage of World War I-era ships and planes supplement this excellent war drama set in the Adriatic. Walter Huston is excellent as the commanding officer who knows his place and his place has no room for personal feelings. The safety of the ship and the mission must always come first. Robert Montgomery is the Lieutenant who has not yet mastered the role that a leader must play in combat. He makes bad decisions, endangering the submarine and its crew but finally becomes a "real man" after he is court martialed and dismissed from the Navy. Robert Young plays a lieutenant junior grade and Jimmy Durante as a cook. Paralleling the war drama is an equally important wartime love triangle between Montgomery and Madge Evans who plays Huston's daughter and the wife of a tragically injured aviator. Recommended.


In my personal opinion - «The Patriot» is one of the best Steven Seagal movies.

I've heard people say it's the worst one ever, it's not like SS etc. I disagree. As a highly spiritual person, a great master Seagal established a good tradition in action movies. He always has a good background, great action, high professionalism and a clever message. This movie has it all. You have good shooting scenes, great aikido. Although there isn't a lot of it, it shows us its peaceful side. This change in his film making only proves his spiritual growth (he doesn't kill Chisolm's buddy in the end).

«The Patriot» is definitely one of the best films from the «filmmaker's» point of view which I have seen lately. You have great panoramic shots of Montana, we see real American nature and beautiful wildlife(among others - horses and flowers). The soundtrack also deserves a few words. During the film I had a great opportunity to listen to classical American-cowboy-western music(not Country though). Similar music was heard in «Back to the Future Prt.3». SS's acting has greatly improved since his last films. His role is unfamiliar to him(unlike cops & commandos), but he does a good job playing the-retired-doctor-from-the-government. His acting is convincing and his lines are good.

I was really pleased with the cast. LQ Jones proves that life & death walk the Earth together, Whitney Yellow Robe plays a beautiful and clever scientist, Camilla Belle makes a great appearance as McClaren's daughter.

Mr.Seagal discusses the much debated «Real American» tradition and the militia squads, providing his own point of view(he likes the Constitution just fine, but chubby bearded men have nothing to do with it). Also good points are raised regarding the Eastern-Western Medicine system and nature.

Seagal's best. And opening new horizons in his film career.


I think this is one hell of a movie...........We can see Steven fighting around with his martial art stuff again and like in all Segal movies there's a message in it, without the message it would be one of many action/fighting movies but the message is what makes segal movies great and special.


This is another classic Seagal movie. He walks, no, cruises through the patriot just all the other Mega Seagal movies. Nothing even comes close to challenging Seagal in this movie except maybe the part where he has to find a cure for this so called 'plague' and he starts throwing things about the lab but it all works out, i mean lets face it, its Master Seagal, he's got to win. What about his outfit in the film, masterpiece, he must have picked it himself. Its great that everyone in the film is dying after being exposed to the virus but Seagal doesn't even get a cough. The incident at the end when he kills the fat guy with the broken glass, genius, i bet Seagal thought of that one as well. This film is class pure and simple. great plot, great characters, and Seagal.


OK...ths film (like Segal's last few films) once again goes beyond the "knock 'em down, kick 'em in the groin, shoot 'em in the face, get revenge against the bad guys for hurting my sister's niece's cousin" stuff Seagal was into for a while. Geepers, Steven started thinking, and using his bucks to make movies with actual ideas in them. SURE....there is plenty of action in this flick, but also some thought and heart. It's not an Oscar flick, but well worth the effort, unless the viewer is so into brain dead violence that it hurts to have to think for longer than a second. It's worth a rental..or two!!


Many people are making fun out of Steven Seagals acting abilities. And I really see why if I remember Fire Down Below. Well...ok his other films are acceptable (regarding to his acting!).

After reading reviews about The Patriot I didn't expect anything from this film. I barely came through Fire Down Below and I read a lot that The Patriot was even worse. So I was really surprised about this one. In my opinion it is one of his very best movies. If it had have more action sequences and a couple more fighting scenes it would be THE best. I liked the story the directing and the actors. Cammilla Belle was just incredible. She will have a great movie-career in the future. The few action scenes were very well made. And Steven Seagal was very believable in his unusual role.


Basically, this is a very good film. It is very different from Seagal's other films though, which unfortunately may turn off some of his fans. Unlike some of the other films, this does not feel like a 'Seagal vehicle'. You get to see plenty of the other characters as well and all of Mr. Seagal's actions are not the same as we've seen before. The concept of him being an 'intellectual' in something other than bombs and other weaponry is a nice change. Although there are some unrealistic parts to the film (some more obvious than others), in general you can let them slide since the film is fun to watch.

It boils down to this: If you are looking for a classic Seagal action film, sorry, but you're going to be disappointed. Watch it anyway for the fun of it. If you're open to seeing Seagal without the action, it's well worth a look. I personally believe it is some of the best work he's done in quite a while.


Man, I think people have forgotten how to watch a movie. Everyone thinks they're a critic. They comment on things that the average movie goer doesn't even know or think about.

I enjoyed the film. It was what I was expecting therefore was not disappointed. Steven gets a bad rap for putting his views into his films but that's also a reason to watch. What's even more funny is the people that complain about his films, say he's the worst and that we shouldn't watch his films, yet watch his movies anyway. All so they can comment on how bad they are. Who's the dummy? If you don't like his work, don't watch it. Then you won't have to subject yourself to this supposedly painful event.

Stop comparing movies to other movies and watch a movie on an individual basis and you may begin to enjoy films again.


It seems that all people didn't like Steven Seagal: Just take a look at his nomination list, there are only razzie awards nominations (with one win) for him, but I think he didn't earn anything of it. I saw good movies with Steven Seagal, I saw bad movies with Steven Seagal. And THE PATRIOT (1998) is one of his best movies, nearly as good as UNDER SIEGE (1992) or HARD TO KILL (1990). THE PATRIOT shows his activities to protect nature. Surely, this movie is not a great one, and I must say that there is more violence than I like, and why must Seagal's best friend L. Q. Jones die the death of a victim? The role of Dr. McClaren is one of Seagal's best performances. He has, as always, a very good charisma. And in summary, THE PATRIOT is good entertainment-and with an average rating of only 4 points the most underrated movie of all time.

Regards, Hans-Dieter


I really enjoyed The Patriot. This movie had less violence and was based on a real life threat that could inevitably destroy our civilization. One line in the movie from wesley mclaren (seagal) stuck out in my mind to be very true of our society, "western medicine is in the practice of prolonging illness and I am in the business of curing it."


The Patriot is a well thought out, well produced film, that will draw the viewer into the story directly, and keep them involved to the very end. Granted, it is not in the same vein as Under Siege, et. al., but this is definitely the trademark film of what might be described as Seagal's second era of films. Not so much Action movies with a nod to a story thrown in for good measure, but a good story, matched with a point, and injected with some of Seagal's unimitable action sequences. Is this the kind of film that hardcore action junkies will enjoy? Probably not. But for those of us who not only like our action, but also can appreciate a well told story, this is a big step forward for Seagal. It's almost like the transformation Clint Eastwood made as he tried to step out from underneath the shadow of his "Dirty Harry" series. Either man, had he continued in the singular direction they were headed, would have forever been keyholed in in specific role and guaranteed the brevity of their careers...


"Five Fingers of Death" started the American kung-fu movie craze but I remember seeing it for the first time as "King Boxer" in Chinatown, NYC, without the bad dubbing and few Americans. I also was fortunate enough to see the American premiere of "Five Fingers Of Death" on Times Square, NYC. What a contrast this turned out to be...same film but different audiences.

In Chinatown, this film took on a more serious tone to the viewers. It was because of hearing the real voices of the actors(In Chinese) that made this movie more believable. Chinatown theaters were showing violent kung fu films for years(1972's "Boxer From Shantung" beat them all in gore), so the action choreography & story were the main attraction. Rival school plots were not overused yet so the storyline seemed fresh. Every great kung fu film had wonderful, dastardly villains you wanted to see get their comeuppance and FFoD had them too. The star, Lieh Lo, was a known actor in Chinese theaters. The mostly Chinese audience enjoyed this film immensely. The audience buzz while leaving this film gives the final satisfaction to me.

On Times Square, this film was an action comedy...probably unintentionally. I enjoyed it here too but for different reasons. The crowd was ethnic and quite energetic. From the start, the movie made you laugh. As soon as the audience heard those strange British accents come from those Chinese actors the movie turned into a violent and gory cartoon. Most American audiences saw this kind of gore in a horror film not in an action film. The action sequences blew the audience away. Unfortunately, the movie studios saw that they enjoyed it so much that, bad dubbing and unnecessary violence became a kung fu flick formula.

I had fun seeing this movie with an American audience but enjoyed it much more in Chinatown. Some films can pass the test of time but the dubbed version of FFoD can't. The original "King Boxer" is still enjoyable...a CLASSIC!


This is truly a kung fu classic. This film appears to have influenced martial arts films for decades. The Spanish guitar background music, the competing schools, the impossibly high leaps onto the edges of rooftops, catching thrown spears, cheating in tournaments, the secret training for an exotic karate technique, themes of patience and perseverance, and more were copied by many later films such as "The Karate Kid" (1984), "Hero" (2002), "Kill Bill Volume 2" (2004), and "Kung Fu Hustle" (2004).

I feel lucky to have first seen this film in 1972, shortly after it was released, just before kung fu films became mainstream and before Bruce Lee became a household name. I saw it with two buddies of mine in a downtown San Diego theater frequented by sailors, and although the scenes of the glowing red hands and gouged eyeballs got some laughs, clearly the audience was getting into it, as was our little group. It was a very memorable movie for me. Decades later I could still recall several specific scenes, even after I had forgotten the film title. This film is extra special to me now because one of those two buddies with whom I first saw it (sailor Kenneth Lee Hines of the Kitty Hawk) has since passed away, so this film serves as a memento of that day together before we took judo and karate lessons in subsequent years.

Relative to kung fu films, I'd rate this film as 10/10. But since I have to keep the larger film audience in mind, I'll more objectively rate it as 8/10, due to obvious technical flaws. I just recommend that neophyte viewers consider those technical flaws to be proof of its vintage nature and of its authenticity, and then merrily proceed to enjoy its testosterone-charged mayhem.


I saw Five Fingers at the Drive-In in...what, 1973, '74? It was the the first Kung-Fu movie I'd ever seen and I was greatly entertained. I recently bought it on DVD and watched it again. I was greatly entertained the second time, too. I believe this is probably the one most Kung-Fu movies are modeled after. Rival Schools, different styles, revenge, "white hat" good guys and "black hat" bad guys. They even threw in the Japanese (VERY bad guys) styles of Karate and Judo. I remember being amused by the dubbing dialog, along the lines of "Hey You! You are a very bad guy!" and "They should not get away with this! I will have a go at this bad crowd!" This time it wasn't so distracting, I guess I'm used to it. If you have even the slightest appreciation of this genre, this is one you should see.


This is my favourite kung fu movie. It has a very authentic flavour, seasoned by an eerie music score (of tradition chinese instruments, I think), and some wonderfully over-acted melodramatic moments contrasted by heavily affected comedy. Indeed, while attempting to create their own "Western" (i.e. Cowboy film) genre, the Chinese concocted a whole new animal, marked by kung fu fighting and its associated sound effects.

The story of Five Fingers of death is simple, a story of revenge (for killing a loved one) and the pursuit of the main character to master the "iron-fist-technique" that will enable him to wreak holy vengeance on his enemies. There is even a love interest, though the awkward, polite kind (found in most Chinese films of the period). The end result however is great and much more authentic than any Bruce Lee movie.


This was the very first kung fu movie that I have ever seen. The dubbing is not the greatest but alot better than some that I had seen. The plot is much better than some that are made today. It is gory at times but that is what gives it that special push. Academy award material is it not. But if you like to watch fights and a decent story backround, this is for you!


"Five Fingers of Death" is a classic of 70's kung fu cinema. As the film that "broke out" HK cinema to the west, this is a must see for any serious fan of the genre. It's also a damn entertaining film, with hard-hitting, non-stop action, solid and mostly believable fight choreography and great over-the-top 70's era dubbing ("Oh I see ... so you want it THE HARD WAY!! HWAA!!").

"Five Fingers" is an eye-for-an-eye revenge tale ... and I mean literally, eye for an eye! It's great to see Lo Lieh portraying a hero. He played so many great villains later in his career - including Pai Mei in the classic FIST OF THE WHITE LOTUS, which was one of the characters Tarantino used in creating the Pai Mei of KILL BILL.

My only complaint is that I wish there was a better quality DVD - mine looks like it was a VHS transfer. Overall this is a great film - don't miss it!

Bart Blackstone Film Club - Hollywood, CA


While it's generally acknowledged one of the first martial arts movies to play here in the West, it's real impact comes in retrospect. Lo Lieh is VERY low key throughout and many of the fight scenes, while often hailed as innovative (which they were at the time of the movie's initial release), are a tad tame compared to what came after (particularly after Bruce Lee, who became the instant standard by which all others will forevermore be judged). That's not to say that FIVE FINGERS OF DEATH/KING BOXER is anything less than a classic in its own right, because it is. Like many of the leading characters in many martial arts movies, the character Lieh plays lays low through most of the movie for a reason- but, when he cuts loose, he effectively cleans house. You can't ask for more than that.


The martial arts movies got huge in the 60's in parts of Asia but with the growing popularity of the infamous Shaw Brothers films, America was bound to catch on. This movie was the first to be presented in America under the Warner Bros. label and it did in fact start a craze here that flooded the 70's with martial arts films. Many of the films to follow would pale in comparison but some were great and many like Enter The Dragon (which came out shortly after this one) became huge success stories and made superstars out of these fighters.

Fast forward almost 40 years later and this movie still holds up. Most Shaw brothers films are as good today as they were back then and truth be told no films have been made in this genre to compete with those made by The Shaw Bros back in the day.

I like to think Martial arts are like porn and nobody watches porn for the plot just the action, well same goes with M.A. films and most of them are just a bunch of great fights with little story, this one is an exception. It doesn't have an amazing story but there is one there.

The main guy played by Lo Lieh actually stands out amongst karate film heroes. He never brags and he never fights just because he can, he is often seen as weak and less of a fighter than most, but when he must fight, he is damn well the greatest alive. I really loved this character. Many of the bad guys were memorable and the fight scenes were just presented so amazingly. Even a small role with Bolo Yeung can be seen as the huge Mongolian, and Bolo is in my top 5 as greatest martial artist film stars ever, he was also in the above mentioned Enter The Dragon.

The production as I've said over and over is wonderful, you can't beat the Shaws, the direction was something unlike I have seen much in films of the 70's, the use of color was well placed and made this movie stand alone and rise above the others. When the light shines on Chi Hao's hands as he does the Iron Fist, its pure beauty.

The music was superb as well. Martial arts films were to Asia what westerns were to Italy, two separate art forms with so much in common. The countries making these films had all genres but the Japanese films were what was making waves there as the spaghetti westerns were in Italy. With their many differences the styles of these two genres were neck and neck. As seen in movies like 5 Fingers Of Death, the fights were easily compared to Sergia Leoni cowboy stand offs, and the music tied the genres together so well. The music here borrowed a little from Ironside, but it was still very original.

Many films were inspired by this one and when I watch it I can see everything from The Master Killer to Bloodsport having been influenced. The most obvious movie to have been influenced was Kill Bill, which to me is the greatest of all time. Many of the sets Quentin used are complete replicas of ones seen here and he used the music from this film, even though the music he used was the music borrowed from Ironside. And the fight scene at the end of Kill Bill vol. 1 with The Bride and O-Ren is at times exact in comparison to the fight with Chi Hao and the Japanese thug at the end of this movie.

I have seen many martial arts films, a few even better, but this is a MUST-SEE for fans of the genre. You can't go wrong here. The movie starts off slow but 15-20 minutes into it it picks up and doesn't slow down.


Hong Kong filmmaker Chang Chang Ho's 1972 martial arts movie epic "Five Fingers of Death" is widely considered by a great many film experts and kung-fu movie fanatics to be the martial arts movie that started it all.

Being released in 1972, it was phase-two of the three-step process that would lead to the explosion of martial arts movies in the West - "Billy Jack" (1971), with its famous Hapkido showdown in the park, was released the year before, and Bruce Lee starred in "Enter the Dragon" (1973) two years later, thereby solidifying martial arts movies' place in Western cinema.

But what is all the hoopla about regarding "Five Fingers of Death"? The movie, with its terrible dubbing, explosive (if not highly improbable) action sequences and technical flaws and all, has a plot, albeit a very thin one. Chih-Hao (the late Lo Lieh) is a young and dedicated student of Chinese gong-fu who is selected to represent his school in an upcoming martial arts tournament. His teacher offers to allow him to self-train in the "Iron Fist" style of fighting, a style so deadly that it could very easily kill a man with only one blow.

Additionally, Chih-Hao's arrival at the school coincides with a violent conflict with a rival school, its students, and a trio of murderous heavy hitters from Japan. Before you know it, a major setback threatens Chih-Hao's training, and his ability to represent his beloved school in the upcoming tournament.

Let me just say that "Five Fingers of Death" is in fact the movie that started it all. As another viewer mentioned, "Five Fingers of Death" helped to set a lot of standards in martial arts movies over the next three decades - Asian, European, and North American martial arts movies. Such standards include the dedicated student, the learning of patience and endurance, conflicts between rival schools, the intense ethnic animosity between the Chinese and Japanese, and learning a system of fighting for that good old-fashioned action movie motive: revenge. "Five Fingers of Death" would also serve as a major influence on American filmmaker Quentin Tarantino's "Kill Bill" movies (Tarantino borrows quite liberally from this project, among many others, just so you know).

The acting is pretty good, considering the fact that this is a martial arts movie from the early 1970s, the best of which is Lo Lieh. As the atypical student of the martial arts, his performance is quite groundbreaking, though upon first glance at this movie you wouldn't really know it because of how that particular character arc has been done to death so many times over the years. He's quite humble in his acting, doing anything he can to persevere over his enemies and not fight them in anger or stoop to their level of stupidity or arrogance. Also, when he suffers his major setback, it does make your heart sink a little bit because it's so brutal and you wonder if he's going to recover enough to realize his life-long ambition.

"Five Fingers of Death" is a classic in every sense. It's by no means perfect, and viewers would be crazy to expect something on the caliber of the "Godfather" of martial arts movies. What it does offer you is the ultimate example of Eastern hand-to-hand combat from the time before Eastern cinema was a major fixture in the West.

7/10

P.S.: "Enter the Dragon" Bolo Yeung also appears as the Mongolian street fighter near the beginning of the film.


Having recently seen Grindhouse, I was browsing in Video USA looking for some movies that might have played in real grindhouse theatres in downtown areas during the '70s. The Hong Kong action flick Five Fingers of Death seemed just such a picture. The cartoon-like sound effects and the quick jump cuts seemed a little distracting at first but after a while I was so involved in the story and the characters I didn't care. Parts of the music score sounded like the "Ironside" TV theme song that was subsequently used in Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill movies. Some scenes involving the hero's fiancé seemed to border on parody but they were so brief that they didn't ruin the film. The most exciting parts involve the tournament and some revenge segments after that. Well worth seeing for kung fu fans!


Five fingers of death: Although previous Shaw Martial Arts epics had shown the influence of the American cowboy genre, none had paid such open tribute to it as this one, especially in the saloon fight scene. And though Shaw Bros. films had borrowed from the Japanese chambara (swordfight) genre before, none had done so with such success as this one. i suppose some of this had to do with the fact that the director originated from Korea, and thus brought a non-Chinese perspective to such borrowings, which certainly raises some interesting questions about culture; but in any event, this film presented real innovations in technology and technique in Hong Kong action films. for the first time in Hong Kong, the camera was given access to the whole of any given set, which meant shots from many different angles, such as the low-angle interior shot showing the ceiling of a room (the original American innovation of which usually credited to John Ford), or the high angle long shot that allowed visualization of a large ground area, or the frontal tracking shot.

It is true that this was not the first hand-to-hand combat film of real cinematic substance - that remains Wang Yu's 'Chinese Boxer'; but on a commercial level, Shaw Bros. were right to choose 'Five Fingers' as their first major release to the West because, one might say, it was the 'least Chinese' of their action films, that is, the least dependent on purely Chinese theater traditions. Although this made no impression on the American critics at the time (who universally trashed the picture), it wasn't lost on American audiences, especially among African Americans, whose culture had always been - by necessity - an eclectic patchwork of borrowed elements and innovation. In 'Five Fingers' they were given the opportunity to discover the core of the story, in the earnest young man forced to make the extra effort to overcome social barriers and betrayal in order to have his merit recognized. This seems to be an issue universal to Modernity, but each culture has its own way of expressing and resolving it; 'Five Fingers' presented it in a way many Americans could relate to as well as Chinese.

So is the film now only of historical value? Certainly not. For one thing this issue hasn't gone away. Secondly, some of the innovations leave much of the film looking as fresh today as it did on first release. Also the action is well-staged, and the performances, though a little too earnest, are crisp. The film is a might over-long, but the story does cover a lot of ground. And there are marvelous set-pieces through-out, such as the saloon confrontation, the fight on the road to the contest, the odd double finale.

definitely looks better on a theater screen, but still impressive for home viewing: recommended.


I was first introduced to this movie while in San Antonio, Tx. This movie was the 2nd. in a double feature. Unfortunately, the theater where I saw this was torn down. Anyways, Five Fingers of Death (aka: King Boxer), was released in 1972 and introduced in the U.S. the following year. Like a lot of "other" Kung-Fu movies released while riding on the "coat-tails" of Enter the Dragon, this particular movie actually was pretty good. It's the story of a country boy who is sent to a martial arts institute to better himself & his fighting skills. Meanwhile, the "opponent" martial arts school plans & scheme to thwart our hero, utilizing dirty tactics to try to throw him off track & try to prevent him from participating in the tournament. By surprise, I had thought since Warner Bros. distributed this movie in the U.S., Warner Bros. was going to issue a DVD. It never happened. As far as I know, this movie has been released in both English & Cantonise, w/sub-titles.....the latter a more "cleaner & clearer" version. Although the fighting sequences are a bit funny to watch (i.e.: flying in air & hitting, jumping on buildings, a fighter using his head....literally....to hit his opponent, etc.), nonetheless, it's classic kung-fu action wonderfully planned & executed. If you like Enter the Dragon, Five Fingers of Death would be an excellent addition to any Movie collection.....if you can find it.


Well as a life long fan of Kung Fu films I have to say this is one of the best I have ever seen. Sure there is nothing special about the plot but man does it entertain. As does most movies of the genre. This film is packed with action and does not boar its viewers. It's so damn fun when I watch I have a smile on my face the whole time. This also has an impact on future films like Kill Bill. (Many of Kill Bill's Sound effects come from this film for example.) This is essential viewing for all knew viewers in Kung Fu. Form open to close this film is filled with fights that really are some of the better I have seen in the genre. There are few Kung Fu films out there that measure up to the sheer magic and entertainment of this film. So if in search of a Great Kung Fu movie check this one out for sure.


The skeleton of the story is that the main character needs to win a public kung fu tournament with high stakes. The flesh of the story consists of LOTs of fighting, a love triangle, betrayals, rivalries, and revenge.

There is a lot to this story. The main character is very likeable as an even tempered, mild mannered, and very tough country boy. A good versus bad movie is only as good as the villains and the main villains are tough and smart, not to mention ugly, devious and tricky.

If there is one weakness, it's the scene where the fiance of the main character is imagining her and the protagonist running towards each other in a flowery field and hugging when they meet. I thought I was watching The Sound of Music for a second and nearly lost hope for the movie. Luckily, the movie recovered quickly with a fight scene.


Released as KING BOXER in the U.K.

This film was essentially the FIRST kung fu film to go on general release in the U.K. Many of us had ratcheted through Kurosawa's astonishingly gritty and involving dramas and were used to oriental film being beautifully shot and lit, with somewhat restrained pacing, all in all like leafing through an album of very fine still photographs that just happened to be moving.

Along come Run Run Shaw and co. with their widescreen "home movie" production values, and astonishing ripe-for-parody dubbing and all the rules have changed. KIng Boxer was the first in through the door, leaving a clearly marked trail for others to follow with their feet planted firmly on top of the blazed footsteps.

In spite of hokey plots, pantomime acting, cheesy jump-cuts and spaghetti western style snap-stepped zooms, this film was marvellous. Gorgeous without being opulent and with the most brilliant fight choreography ever to grace a screen. We loved the sickening violence, the anguish, the testosterone. The martial artists among us found some of the techniques fascinating, if flamboyant and oftentimes silly. It was so very different from the Japanese stuff we all knew, and it had lovely acrobatic grace that perfectly complemented the sickening violence and bloodstained floors. Delightful.

The "KIng Lear" scene was, at the time, quite a milestone in schlock "You cruel bastards.. My **** !!" Now it's rather less shocking, but still a bit of a gut-churner

We didn't notice that any females in sight were absolutely one-dimensional. After seeing more films of the genre, it now stands out like a sore thumb, but at the time it didn't matter

This film defined what would rapidly become the kung-fu movie clichés. All of them. Watch it and remember that until this burst onto the western screens, there was no genre for it to slot into. It was unique and awesome. It was the first kung fu movie and it still is, for me and many others, the best.


I saw this movie on the base movie theater while in the Air Force so my affection for it might be influenced by the reaction of the raucous audience in attendance at the theater that night. But I do think that this movie was one of the first popular kung-fu movies and helped to begin the trend in the early 70's. It's worth seeing.


This film is the best kung fu film of all time. Although there is not wire-work and special effects like those used in Crouching Tiger, this movie uses ingenuity and creative camera-work to create memorable fighting moments, and the fight scenes are well choreographed and tight. There is a ton of action in this film with lots of great fight scenes, but the story is very good too,with lots of twists and turns. The characters are well rounded and have real depth to them, as the motivations for their actions and personality are revealed in a much greater detail than most kung fu films. There is some really great camera-work in the film, with my favorite shot starting as a close up on our hero's face showing his reaction, then pulls back quickly to reveal the scene before him that is the cause of his look. Originally, I bought the movie to hoping see some great fight scenes, but upon multiple viewings I learned how terrific the acting and story were as well. Overall, a great film.


Crimson begins with some cool jazzy music so I liked it immediately, but as the film wore on I began to wonder if the music wasn't the best part. We have some thieves pulling a jewel heist and when one does something wrong the alarm is triggered and the cops chase them and when the car turns around at a road block one of the thieves (Paul Nash, Jacinto Molina, whoever he is here) gets shot. Now, it seems like he might die but with the help of a drunken doctor and his mad-scientist friend (and wife) he is saved, with a part of the brain of some nightclub owner called "The Sadist". The Sadist is unfortunate in that the gentlemen that kidnapped him lost their knife to remove is head, so to add insult to injury (or, in this case, death), they remove his head using a train, leaving the body for the authorities to find, oops. Once the brain transplant is complete Naschy wants to ravage any woman that comes near him, because he now has the mindset of his donor. Well, of course this is all pretty improbable and features medical equipment that looks to have been purchased at Radio Shack, and overall it's pretty cheesy and sleazy. But, it has a good early 70's look and feel to it and the music is cool. This isn't so much a horror movie but more a thriller with lots of thugs battling it out over turf and babes and other thug-type things, but it's strangely entertaining in ways I can't begin to describe. 7 out of 10.


The undoubted highlight of this movie is Peter O'Toole's performance. In turn wildly comical and terribly terribly tragic. Does anybody do it better than O'Toole? I don't think so. What a great face that man has!

The story is an odd one and quite disturbing and emotionally intense in parts (especially toward the end) but it is also oddly touching and does succeed on many levels. However, I felt the film basically revolved around Peter O'Toole's luminous performance and I'm sure I wouldn't have enjoyed it even half as much if he hadn't been in it.


Peter O'Toole is a treat to watch in roles where the lines he speaks are good and offer a chance for him to swagger in drunken stupor. The lovely Susannah York provides a good foil for O'Toole's dramatic presence.

The film alludes to incest--without a single explicit scene--but it is able to entertain the viewer in its raucous social commentary. Though this is not major film by any reckoning, it will be remembered for its entertaining performances.

Even York, signing the papers at the end, is a treat to watch, exuding tragedy silently. The possible weakness here is Thompson's laid-back direction. But the film floats because of the actors and the script.

I saw the film twice over a period of 20 years--on both occasions with the name "Brotherly love". "Country dance" is a rather farcical and inappropriate title for this movie, wherever it was released as such.


A somewhat typical bit of filmmaking from this era. Obviously, It was first conceived into this world for the stage, but nonetheless a very good film from beginning to end. Peter O'Toole and Susannah York get to do their stage performance act for the silver screen and both do it effectively. There is very little in the way of story and anyone not familiar with this type of off beat character study may be a little put off by it. All in all, though, A good film in which Peter O'Toole and Susannah York get to overact.