I haven't read this book, but all through the movie I was awestruck with only one thought in my head: This is so Vonnegut. I have never seen an author, all of the intelligence and life behind the workings of a novel, translated so well to film. This movie had the same complexities found in Vonnegut's novels: the jokes were often meaningful and symbolic, and the dramatic events and symbols were often also jokes.

Campbell was also a very Vonnegut character, portrayed perfectly by Nick Nolte. He had all of the earmarks of a Vonnegut "hero": lack of concern for political boundaries, ironic dark humor giving way to dumb inactivity in response to stress, and an unwillingness to push his version of reality on those around him.

Overall, I was constantly surprised and impressed as I watched this movie. It was the same feeling I had reading "Cat's Cradle," my first Vonnegut novel, as if the most perfectly oddball thing that could happen, he thought of THAT, and he made it real and important. Yes, he has nothing but army surplus "White Christmas" albums. So it goes!


This is a very chilling, and for the most part, a well thought out drama. I am very impressed at the film, not just for the plot and superb acting, but that such a unique movie was made. Most movies involving a spy or a war are filled with a slick talking Brit or a mighty battle, but not this. This isn't about this kind of war, its about the war between a man and his position in life, an American spy in Germany, posing as a supporter of an evil no one will ever forget. When the war is over, Campell thinks he will come home as a hero, but his true heroic stance must remain a government secret. Going back to America, Campell meets Nazi supporters as well as Nazi haters, providing for interesting conflicts, both internally and externally. Nolte more than pulls off the role, and fits the plot quite well for what it's asking.


I haven't yet read the Kurt Vonnegut book this was adapted from, but I am familiar with some of his other work and was interested to see how it would be translated to the screen. Overall, I think this is a very successful adaptation of one of Vonnegut's novels. It concerns the story of an American living in Germany who is recruited as a spy for the US. His job is to ingratiate himself with high ranked Nazi's and send secret messages to the American's via his weekly radio show. But when the war ends he is denounced as a war criminal but escapes to New York, where various odd plot twists await.

If Mother Night has a problem it's that it tends to get a little too sentimental at times. But for most of the film the schmaltz is kept to a minimum and the very strange plot is carried through with skill and aplomb. And there are some fabulous moments of black comedy involving three right wing Christian fundamentalists and a very highly ranked Nazi in a prison cell. Very much recommended.


At first, I hadn't read the novel so far and I hadn't hear anything about the author yet. But as I casually saw this movie, I was totally captive by the story. Already as the Jewish watchman primary said, that he knows no one, who have a bad conscience about the war except from Howard W. Campbell Junior, was such amazing objective and dissociates from simply moralizing the war. Terrific! And the fictitious story about "the most effective spy for the USA in WWII", who have lost everything, that was important for his life, is wonderful emotional transcribed. This is the best story about the duality of humanity, I've ever heard about! The questions, this movie is introducing, are in my opinion very important for our society: When does someone bear the guilt of something? What is guilt? Who is a hero and who is a felon? What is important in our life? Can you live without paying attention to the political changes? Is the protagonist guilty or not? These questions are more up to date than in the last 60 years. This is a must see for everyone, who have to think about the acception of war! This movie is a must see for everyone, who meditate, what matters in life and what doesn't...


There are numerous films relating to WW2, but Mother Night is quite distinctive among them: In this film, we are introduced to Howard Campbell (Nolte), an American living in Berlin and married to a German, Helga Noth (Lee), who decides to accept the role of a spy: More specifically, a CIA agent Major Wirtanen (Goodman) recruits Campbell who becomes a Nazi propagandist in order to enter the highest echelons of the Hitler regime. However, the deal is that the US Government will never acknowledge Campbell's role in the war for national security reasons, and so Campbell becomes a hated figure across the US. After the war, he tries to conceal his identity, but the past comes back and haunts him. His only "friend" is Wirtanen, but even he cannot do much for the avalanche of events that fall upon poor Campbell...

The story is deeply touching, as we watch the tragedy of Campbell who although a great patriot, is treated by disdain by everybody who surrounds him. Not only that, but he also gradually realizes that even the persons who are most close to him, have many secrets of their own. Vonnegut provides us with a moving atmosphere, with Campbell's despair building up and almost choking the viewer.

Nolte plays the role of his life, in my opinion; he is even better than in "Affliction", although in both roles he plays tragic figures who are destined to self-destruction. Sheryl Lee is also excellent, and the same can be said for the whole cast in general.

I haven't read the book, so I cannot appraise how the film compares to it. In any case, this is something of no importance here: My critique is upon the film per se, and the film wholeheartedly deserves a 9/10.


Hard to categorize the film - perhaps it's an avant garde spy thriller? Mother Night is a very good Vonnegut novel, and most certainly one of his easiest novels to adapt into a feature length film. The film adaptation is very faithful to the original book. The "indie" approach to how this film was produced is probably more effective than having a big Hollywood studio financing it. These days, I doubt an intelligent novel like Mother Night would ever get the green light from the big Hollywood grindhouses. And normally that is too bad, but not in this case. Mother Night has tight direction and a solid cast. Nick Nolte who seems to be getting better roles as he gets older, still has that "everyman" persona that allows him to take on a wide range of different characters. Sheryl Lee is beautiful and great as always. I always thought she deserved better than she got out of the entertainment industry. I guess making your debut as a dead girl (Twin Peaks)with little air time isn't the choicest of roles, even if the TV show becomes a minor phenomenon. Anyway this film is totally enjoyable and you don't have to read the book to understand the movie. In fact, given today's geopolitical realities, the novel's premise may appear dated, and some younger viewers with little knowledge of history will be utterly confused by the events unfolding (I am talking to you, fellow Americans who are students and scoring the lowest in the industrialized world in geography, history, and lord knows what other subjects!).


Before this, the flawed "Slaughterhouse Five" was the best. But this screen adaptation of "Mother Night" is very true to the book and keeps the comedy, mystery, and tragedy intent. Thankfully it wasn't Hollywood-ized or idiotized a la the movie of "Breakfast of Champions." Another good thing about this movie is that you don't have to be familiar with the book to follow it (as I think you do for Slaughterhouse Five). That's probably true of Breakfast of Champions also but they did such a bad job of that you're better off just reading the book and not seeing the movie! Nick Nolte did an excellent job in this film.


Mother Night is one of my favorite novels and going to see this I was expecting a huge disappointment. Instead I got a film that perfectly portrays the irony, humor, elequence, and above all else the crushing sadness of Vonnegut's novel.

This is certainly Nolte's best preformance to date. He captures the defeat and selfloathing of Howard Cambell Jr. consistently from the subtle intonations of his speech to the held back tears behind his eyes.

Alan Arkin is absolutly hilarious as George Kraft. Sherryl Lee is haunting in her detachment from reality as Cambell's young lover. John Goodman is understated and more than effective as Cambell's "Blue Fairy Godmother."

This Pinnocioesque story of Cambell trying to be his own ideal hero and unwittingly becoming his ideal tragic villian is a mature and vivid look into what we are as people. And aside from that, it is one of the most deeply romantic films I have ever come across. Cambell is the incarnation of both foolish and wise love. And at the films sastifyingly painful conclusion, he finally learns what it means to be a real boy as his Blue Fairy Godmother grants him his wish. And he realizes that...well, watch the movie and you'll see.

Mother Night is without a doubt in my mind one of the best films ever made. It is a beautiful poetic story that digs deep within our emotions and is completely faithful to its original author.


While the movie does feel a bit long at times, it is well worth it. Gordon directs in a style that reminds you of Vonneguts writing styles. Merciless, thoughtful, ironic, quirky, and dark, this is a film which will stay with you for quite a while, begging for answers to impossible questions. Nolte, Goodman, and Arkin are all incredible. Sheryl Lee is wonderful as well, in a role that will remind us Lynch fans of her Laura/Maddy days. Do not miss this one!


If you've read Mother Night and enjoyed it so much (as I did) that you just have to see the movie, understand that you have to understand a fundamental element of Vonngut's writing - that beyond his story lies Vonnegut himself, and that you can't put a human mind on the screen. His whit and humor just cannot be transcribed by a screenplay or even the best acting performance. I believe that this movie exceeds in asking the key questions that Vonnegut poses in his book, but those frequent cynical moments of satire found on the page are not found on the screen. Does this mean that the movie misses the mark? Of course not. In my opinion, the movie succeeds because it does not try to recreate the experience of reading the book (this is not a medium for those too lazy to turn a page). It succeeds because it takes the fundamental elements of a story created by one of America's true artistic treasures and presents it in a a framework without pretense. I've seen other movie versions of Vonnegut books where the director obviously tries to channel Vonnegut's genius and loses grip on his own craft. I would not place this movie as one of the best I've seen, but it stands on its own legs as one well worth watching. By taking Vonnegut's "voice" out of the movie's narration or trying to insert it however it can, Mother Night tells his story brilliantly, and preserves the story's fundamental lessons without confusion, distraction, or disappointment.


American playwright Howard W. Campbell, Jr. (played with a musty obsolescence by Nick Nolte) lives happily in Germany with his actress wife, Helga Noth (Sheryl Lee) before the beginning of World War II. At the peak of his life, Howard is drafted by an American agent (John Goodman) to become a spy on behalf of the Allies; forewarned of the risks the job holds, Howard has everything to lose, but finds the offer irresistible. Following the death of his wife and the end of the war, Campbell camouflages himself with the anonymity of a solitary life in New York City, which muddies his neuroses even further. The central question (indeed, a question that has frustrated many critics) of the movie and Kurt Vonnegut's source novel is, "is Campbell a hero or a traitor?" Director Keith Gordon and screenwriter Robert B. Weide offer us clues, but no answer, and this ambiguitythis NOT knowingis what keeps "Mother Night" fresh and interesting throughout. At the beginning of the film, Nolte portrays Campbell as intelligent and confident; by the end, he's either scared and uncertain, or scared and COMPLETELY certain of his contribution/debt to humanity for the role he played in the war. Gordon applies a certain icy sheen to the images of the film's first half, which complement his portrait of the Nazi bourgeoisie and captures Vonnegut's dramatic side. On the flip side, when Campbell is confined to his lonely New York apartment (which he affectionately calls "purgatory") only to be discovered by a group of Nazis, the humor produced also is purely distinctive of the author, and provides a temporary respite from the dramatic tension that unfolds. The moral (even spiritual) paradox "Mother Night" presents doesn't lend itself to simple resolution, and to a degree, should be left ambiguousthe black-and-white scenes of Campbell staring wearily into space as he is imprisoned in Israel suggest an unspoken contemplation we are not made privy toas Campbell is a character whose inner workings we wind up knowing very little about; the war changes him, coming back to America changes him, and meeting up with the Nazis in New York compels him to prolong the facade of his "act" even further, to the point where he can only stare wearily at an image of himself projected on a wall, spewing anti-Semitic bile. Perhaps that's the best reaction we could hope for.


Although I like Kurt Vonnegut, I'm not particularly interested in spy stories and I didn't know this one. The only reason I watched it was Nick Nolte, who is one of my favorite actors since I saw "Breakfast of Champions" and "Hotel Rwanda". But the film brought me a pleasant surprise. Of course Nolte was great, but so was the plot. There was relatively little political intrigue, and much more focus on the moral question: by reading his anti-Semitic radio commentaries with hidden secret messages to Americans, he in fact contributed to the general attitude of Germans (and, as it later turns out, Americans) towards Jews or Hitler. Which carries more weight, his service to his country or his unconscious contribution to anti-semitism? The dilemma is even more prominent as these words are never spoken, not even as narration. Howard Campbell Jr. (Nolte) is a person who learnt to hide his feelings so perfectly that he doesn't open up, not even in his memoirs. The inner conflict of such a character is almost impossible to portray - but with the help of excellent acting and photography, this film manages.

There are other points to it, such as the humor or the ironical use of romantic clichés (like the song White Christmas), that make it real different from average American movies. I recommend it to everyone who is bored with Hollywood spy movies.


I have yet to see a film with Nolte in it that I did not like. However, this being said, he's made a lot of films and I've seen just a few. In my minds eye I am keeping the images of his performance here and the one in "The Thin Red Line". Nolte has a a full range of acting talents. When it's necessary to shout he roars like a wounded lion. His best moments are the ones I treasure in actors: when he just emotes through facial, hand and body gestures, without saying anything. Having come to the conclusion that our present generation of actors, by and large, have no appreciation of what an actor can do without speaking, having no conscious appreciation of the mastery of Keaton and Chaplin, this generation of actors relies far too much on the mechanical wizardry of computers. Of course it is also just a sign of the times we live in. Had Chaplin lived in our times....who knows, he just might as well have become an aficionado of CGI tools.

I have not read the Vonnegut novel from which this film comes to the screen. However, the plot is not so far fetched or convoluted that we cannot follow the path laid, even with all its surprises. Of course on the outset it appears preposterous. However, it is also not impossible.

Consider these for starters: A Spy at the Heart of the Third Reich: He Extraordinary Life of Fritz Kolbe, America's Most Important Spy in World War II by Delattre and Prichard (look at Amazon for more details). Consider: History Undercover: Piercing the Reich: American Spies Inside Nazi Germany DVD (I saw this here: http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=75054) seems to be a History Channel production.

So, is the story ridiculous? Far fetched yes, impossible, no. Back to the plot. Nolte's character is recruited and accepts an impossibly dangerous mission and unfortunately the script does not give us an adequate reason why he accepts. Was it a type of passivity, that he got sucked into this role as it says because it was the best story he had ever written and he got to play the part? That's a hard thing to imagine any of us would grasp. But, it was an unusual time and people did extraordinary things.

The acting throughout the film by the entire cast is excellent and as people have pointed out Alan Arkin, always fantastic, is very good in a small role.

I was really shocked by the ending of the film (no - I won't spoil it) and it made me feel terrible about the choice. Did this person feel that the road was finally over and that he had spoken all that was necessary and that any more would be chapters added to a life already filled with many burnt pages? Hard to say but it really jolts.

Nolte gives one of the finest performances you can expect....the premises of the film make you wonder about a lot of things. It's very entertaining and provoking. What great movies should be. A bit long but worth it. By the way, the movie music has selections from one of the best living composers: Arvo Part.


Nick Nolte gives an excellent performance in Kurt Vonnegut's dark tale. Notle plays Howard W. Campbell who was a double agent working in propaganda during World War II. After the war, he lives anonymously until competing factions wish to dig up his past. As with much of Vonnegut's work, this is a meditation on the absurdity of war and those who use propaganda for their own aims. Nolte is fantastic - self assured and confident as the younger Campbell, and then broken and haunted as the older man who is forced to atone for the sins of his past. (7 out of 10)


I've just finished listening to the director's commentary for this film, and I think the one big thing I got from it that I agree with is that this film, like Mann's The Insider, is completely subjective. It's from Howard's POV. So, any review or attempt at contemplating a set of comments about it, as Ebert did, is really about Nolte's character actually. If you feel, as he did, that the film "does not work", then you're saying, I think, that Howard does not work. And, to be frank, you might be right. Howard's reasoning and personality really wouldn't stand up to professional mental treatments and analysis.

But, hey, that's the nature of people.

Andrew.


The movie is a bit "thin" after reading the book, but it's still one of the greatest movies ever made. Sheryl Lee is beautiful and Nick Nolte is really "vonneguty". He makes great job expressing the feelings from the book to the film. Not many films engage the feeling of the book as well as Mother Night does.


I have just recently read the novel "mother night", I've owned the dvd for some time now, and watch it every so often. Few movies I own and have seen have made me think and question as much as Mother Night has, I am amazed at the brilliance not only of Vonnegut, but of the translation of his text to screen.

Do not rent or watch this movie on VHS, it must be done on dvd, and it must be accompanied by the director's commentary on the film. To see how they took a fairly simple story, yet complex in its substance and dialogue, and made it work so well, I think any viewer will be amazed.

The omissions in the movie are few from the text, and do not detract from it much, the movie might as well be the book, and is the best adaptation I have ever seen. I so highly recommend both the book and movie together that it does a disservice to merely say go watch it.

It will change you if you do.


I haven't yet read Kurt Vonnegut's Mother Night (though I've read other books of his, all outstanding pieces of satire and game-changing novel pieces). After seeing Keith Gordon's film adaptation of his book, it will be an immediate must-read in the near future. It's the kind of material that I'm sure if it wasn't made in 1995/96 as a film, it would be picked up right away today in the time period when many period post/present-Holocaust/WW2 movies are quite popular. Except that this is much darker, though even more resonant, about the nature of playing roles and the real underlying horror of living with life after war than say The Reader. It's about the very real danger of pretending in wartime, which is what being a spy in WW2 is really all about.

It would be one thing if Mother Night had a script with a lot of emotional depth and complexity about the moral choice and constant role- even after the war ends- for Howard W. Cambpell (Nick Nolte), which is does. But it's also just a really strong feat of cinematic technique. Keith Gordon is not someone I usually think of as a director of really strong material (more-so I think back to him as an actor, oddly enough featured briefly with Vonnegut himself in Back to School), but this is a revelation. He takes the story of Campbell as a story of a fractured life: a German propaganda master (the "only American left in Berlin"), who is actually a spy for the Americans but can never have his identity revealed, and was before a playwright who really belonged to "a nation of two", himself and his wife (Sheryl Lee). It follows him from his prison cell, awaiting trial in Israel in 1961, as he writes his memoir and tells of his disillusionment about being a 'pretend' Nazi, and then in 1960 in semi-hiding in a New York apartment, which is where the bulk of the film takes place.

Mother Night can be quite heavy, like on a level one might associate with the Pianist, but on another more emotional-cerebral level than the stark poetry of that film. Gordon, by way of Vonnegut, is trying to give us a strong look at a man who has nothing, except the memory (and then later a weird transposition) of his long lost love in a "sister" who has come back to him in NYC, so he's left to his own devices when he befriends a painter (Alan Arkin, very very good here), and then is found out as a Nazi-in-hiding by a white supremacist newsletter, leading wackos to his apartment. On the surface this should be just a straightforward spy story, but not a thing is straightforward. The 'something' of this man's life is staggering, but it's ultimately of his own choosing. Campbell is one of those characters that could be analyzed for hours on end, but the same conclusions might be reached (and, in a way, mirrors the line Goebbels said): the bigger the lie, the more people believe it. That is except for the select few who started the lie and know its secret and power.

But oh, it would be one thing if it were just a wonderful and tragic-comic tale, or another if it were featuring some really fantastic performances (which is does: Nolte is at his very best here, and Sheryl Lee, who we might remember from Twin Peaks as Laura Palmer, stuns in multiple roles, especially in the scene when she reveals she's not 'really' Helga). It's also a gorgeously shot film, with brilliant lighting and shots that reflect the state of mind of the character, or just the starkness or sickening colors of the time (watch the scene where an old Campbell watches a film of his younger self spouting out a rant, the juxtaposition of faces is great). And the music selections rise the level of tragedy. It could be argued some of the music is too much, but at other times it elevates the material past its own usual dramatic dimensions and makes it operatic, solemn about human nature.

It's not always an easy film to take emotionally, and some of the twists do have that tinge of "whoa" as in any spy story. But it's the subversion from Vonnegut that sticks through, the way of taking appearance and performance, of life imitating art imitating life imitating death, and making it into something worth remembering. I have no idea just yet if the book is better than the film (or the other way around), but at the moment it's hard for me not to recommend this to anyone looking for a masterpiece of post WW2/holocaust storytelling.


I have not read the novel, or anything other by Kurt Vonnegut, but I am now intending to start. This grips you from the very first frame, and does not let go until the end credits start rolling. Taking you places you don't expect, the plot is interesting throughout. The pacing is spot-on, nothing lasts too long, and this does a perfect job of balancing between unexpected twists and allowing the viewer to process what we've seen. It is well-told and well-thought out. I've never watched a film that I feel I could particularly compare this to. It is intense and exciting, as well as funny and sad. The acting is excellent, Nolte absolutely shines, Goodman again proves that he doesn't have to go for laughs, and Lee and Arkin are spellbinding. I could go on, really... no role is treated to a less than stellar performance. The editing and cinematography are marvelous, and all of the visuals are great, with a couple of unforgettable and astonishing ones. I am going to go for other movies directed by Keith Gordon, as well as the other two apparently related to this, through the author of the books. There is one scene of sexuality, and a lot disturbing and unsettling content in this. I recommend this to anyone who can appreciate it; it is not pleasant. 8/10


It takes a little while to get used to Nick Nolte's Nebraskan locutions before we can easily accept him as a famous intercontinental playwright. Once you get past the bar, it turns into a fascinating story of a man who loses everything while trying to do good.

Nolte, an American, moves to Germany, marries a famous actress, and is a satisfied success in every respect until war is about to break out. He's visited by a jovial American, John Goodman, who persuades him to accept a post as an anti-Semitic radio broadcaster for the Nazis. Nolte has no politics but thinks it's a challenge to write a role that's almost impossible and then play it himself. Another American secret agent will modify Nolte's radio scripts -- inserting a cough here, a sneeze there -- that will serve as a code for the transmission of intelligence to the Allies. There's a catch, though. Nobody will know about Nolte's real role as an American agent except Goodman, Donovan, and Roosevelt himself. If he's ever uncovered, he'll be refused recognition by the Americans.

Nolte plunges ahead and his vicious broadcasts are wildly popular in Germany. His adored wife, Sheryl Lee, knows nothing of what's going on, nor does she care. Nolte and Lee live in what he repeatedly refers to as "a nation of two." The war ends and the trouble begins. He's captured by Americans who are bitter because of his betrayal. They beat him and leave him in the mud. He's rescued by Goodman, his "fairy godmother", who sends him to an anonymous existence in Greenwich Village and sends him a little cash now and then.

By 1960, he manages to cultivate a friendship with his neighbor, the painter Alan Arkin, who has also lost his family and claims the two now belong to a secret brotherhood. But his location and his identity somehow leak out and he is more or less adopted by a group of ancient Aryan racists -- led by a dentist and a priest. His house front and mailbox are painted with swastikas and accusations. He's beaten senseless by an ex-GI. But -- miraculously -- his beloved wife is returned to him by the ancient Aryans. Another catch: it turns out later that it's not his wife, but rather her younger sister who has loved him since adolescence.

The ending has him typing his memoirs in an Israeli jail in 1967 before his trial for crimes against humanity. It's not a happy ending.

Nolte can talk with, but not see, the occupant of the cell above his in jail. It's Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann seems pleasant enough. He advises Nolte that it's a bad habit to type for fifteen straight hours. "It's important to relax. You must learn to relax." Nolte laughs out loud and shouts, "That's how I GOT here." The film is filled with such ironies. At one point in their relaxed conversations, Arkin tells him that "in spite of everything I still think people are good at heart." I don't know if the movie was a commercial success but if it wasn't, that's the sort of thing that might have torpedoed it for a younger audience of theater-goers who may never have heard of Anne Frank let alone that supposedly final statement in her diary.

The fact is that it's a movie for adults, and patient adults at that. The story moves slowly, there's very little violence, no car chases, no shootings, and people don't seem subject to manic speech pressure. A lot of it will probably slip past viewers who don't open themselves to its deliberate approach. Nolte refers to the war-time relationship between him and his wife as "a nation of two." This is a pretty compact phrase. No doubt anyone could come up with a glib definition but it takes a little concentration to grasp its emotional import.

It's a story of a man who loses everything -- his ability to write, his identity, his wife (twice), his sole friend, his country, his self respect. At one point he stops walking along a crowded New York street and simply stands there until after dark, when he is moved along by a curious cop. The reason he stopped is that he simply has no place to go. What Vonnegut is describing is far more than depression. I don't mean to sound condescending but it's the sort of feeling that's hard to understand in your youth. Adolescents might like to THINK they know what's holding Nolte in that one spot, but it really requires maturity and the quickened sense of finiteness that only maturity can bring.

Remember Robert Frost's line about home being the place that when you go there they have to take you in? Well no place will take Nolte in.


I am a huge fan of Vonnegut's work and I'm very fond of this movie, but I wouldn't say that this is a film of the "Mother Night" that I read. When people say that Vonnegut is unfilmable, two things come to my mind. One is that many of his themes are very near the knuckle or even taboo, despite the accusation sometimes used against him that he chooses relatively "easy" targets for his satire. This means less every day that passes as far as filmability is concerned. Directors these days appear to revel in breaking taboos and I have high hopes for the version of "Bluebeard" now in production. Amazing to think that an innocent piece like Vonnegut's "Sirens of Titan" would probably have been the equivalent of "R" rated if filmed when it was published back in the 50s, for its violence, language and sexual and thematic content, though it's a tragedy that nobody's come up yet with a filmable script for it. And in the present economic climate, I also hope some director out there is looking closely at "Jailbird", "Galapagos" and "Hocus Pocus".

The other thing is his narrative style, heaping irony upon irony upon irony but still making it hilariously funny. It seems impossible to objectify, and that appears to be the biggest obstacle to making great films of his great novels, because the little authorial comments that colour our response as readers are just not possible in movies without resorting to too often clumsy techniques like "talkovers". Vonnegut suggested that there was a character missing from filmed versions of his work, himself as author/narrator. To its credit, "Breakfast of Champions" (the movie) tried to keep the comedy and came a bit of a cropper for its pains. As did another turkey made from a Vonnegut novel, "Slapstick" in an even more spectacular way.

Still, there's nothing wrong with a director giving us his subjective interpretation of Vonnegut, and "Mother Night" is an excellent example of how, as another reviewer put it, a good director can add a visual poetry to a source like this. But so much of the humour is lost that though it's the same plot, it's not really from the same novel I read. If it had been, I'd probably have been rolling in the aisles laughing a few times watching it. For a reader of the novel, I think a chuckle even at the end is forgivable. The end of the film, however, is truly poignant, and I think one of the film's successes is that it can genuinely leave you feeling that you've watched someone walk a razor's edge between good and evil, and the jury is still out.

Standing alone and of itself it's well worth a look. Technically there are some minor but glaring errors, notably in continuity, and it too often looks drab and theatrical, but most of the time it hits an acceptable note and occasionally shows considerable imagination and resourcefulness. The acting in general is of a high order, even if maybe the dialogue is by today's standards a little stilted.

It survives quite well watching back to back with "Slaughterhouse-5", and there is actually quite a bit more "good" filmed Vonnegut out there, mostly versions of his short stories - "Harrison Bergeron", "Who Am I This Time?" and some other things like, of course, the misfiring filmed version of his very funny but disposable play, "Happy Birthday Wanda June". Also there was an interesting piece , if it still exists, done in the 70s called "Between Time And Timbuktu" which Vonnegut apparently didn't like much, although he was involved in its production, because he felt it misinterpreted him in its generality. He said it reminded him of the bizarre surgical experiments performed in the HG Wells tale "The Island of Dr. Moreau", but it did for many people serve as an excellent introduction to his work.

But if the films don't make you want to go to the superior source material, they're not doing their job.

As the man said, more or less, the big show is inside your head.


Vonnegut's words are best experienced on paper. The tales he weaves are gossemar, silken strands of words and expressions that are not easily translated into a world of Marilyn Manson or Jerry Bruckheimer explosions. His words have been treated well once before, in the remarkable Slaughterhouse-5.

Mother night is probably one of the three novels Vonnegut has written I could take to a desert island, along with Slaughterhouse-5 and Bluebeard.

The film version deserves a 10, but the books are so permanently part of my interior landscape that I just can't do it...some of the scenes left out of the film are part of my memory...


I felt drawn into the world of the manipulation of mind and will at the heart of the story. The acting by Nolte, Lee, Arkin and the supporting cast was superb. The strange twists in the Vonnegut story are made stranger by odd details.


Although not one of Vonnegut's better known works, it is a definite "must-see". Interestingly thought out, I especially like how the director filmed the couple in love.


I saw this movie, and the play, and I have to add that this was the most touching story that I had ever seen. Until I saw this movie I was unaware of how awful life was and probably still is for the South African children and adults that were and are living in that era. It brought tears to my eyes and much sadness to my heart that any human being should have to struggle like that just to stay alive, And to bring the children right out of that area and teach them to act and preform and turn them loose to tell their own story is simply amazing. This simply surpass a five star, I rate it a ten. Thank You Mr. Mbongeni Ngema for such a astonishing story. Although it has been 12 years since this story has been told, it is still one that lays heavy in my heart.If there is a VHS, or DVD out there on the play, Please notify me ASAP.Thank You. PS There was nothing wrong with the kids wanting to bring awareness of their problems and conditions to the attention of other countries in hopes that some one would have a heart and offer assistance.


A DAMN GOOD MOVIE! One that is seriously underrated. The songs that the children sing in the movie gave me a sense of their pain, but also their hope for the future. Whoopi Goldberg puts in a good performance here, but the best performance throughout the whole movie is that of the actress who plays the title character. I wish she was in more movies.

This movie should have a higher rating. I give it a 10/10.


I bought this cheap from the rental remnant at our local store. It was in almost mint condition, and I'd never heard of it before. Clearly nobody else had either.

I can't believe my luck. You go through the whole realm of emotions and it attempts to get over a complex message - the very moral and non-triumphalist stance of the Mandela Party, undoubtedly. Despite its enormous length (I had to watch it in two sittings) - it was like a book one couldn't put down. Perhaps the songs are not all that memorable, but the spirit of the thing glows on forever. I cannot understand comments that a musical (clearly designed for stage) is not realistic! I've seen "South Pacific" and read the book too, and can guarantee that musical is not realistic compared to the book. I'll treasure this little find until it wears out. One day they'll make this again on a better budget.


I believe Sarafina is a tremendous effort of Whoopi Goldberg. Besides her, there are no other stars in the film and her role is smaller than the title character, Sarafina. Since I work in a high school with urban children, I think this is an important film to show South African history of apartheid. Sarafina is a movie about education and a teacher's relationship with her student, Sarafina. I bought the video for practically nothing at a videostore. I watched it and fast forwarded through the musical numbers. But I strongly recommend this film to educators and their students to understand. Now while I don't know the other actors and actresses in the film, I assume that they are very popular in South Africa and I am glad that they filmed with a South African cast and crew with the exception of Goldberg in a small role but if it gets people to see this movie, than Whoopi reaches worldwide appeal.


Sarafina was a fun movie, and some of the songs were really great. Sarafina was very entertaining. I don't normally like music things like this, but the singing was not lame like it looked like on the box. The movie was useful for learning about history because it was an interesting perspective of the Soweto rioting of 1976. It showed you things from the perspective of the students in the rioting and showed you that they were real characters. Because you got to see them as real characters this makes you like them more as an audience, and makes you more sympathetic to them as totally the victims of the white government, who you can not sympathise with. The singing of the students is correct because we know from accounts that the students in the riot were singing and dancing before it became violent. The clothing of the students in Sarafina is very similar to the clothing shown in photos from Soweto. They made the movie actually in Soweto, which is why it looks very accurate in many parts. All these things make the film more accurate for someone using it to learn about aparthied. As viewers we must be critical of the way the history of Apartheid was presented. As I said before, you become sympathetic to the students - this makes it potentially less reliable and objective. Also, it changes some of the details from other accounts. In Sarafina it turns to chaos when the policeman comes into their classroom and shoots the students. The police and army were very aggressive at Soweto, but this is probably an exaggerated event. The police and army did shoot students, but there is not evidence of them going into schools and executing people like this. The fighting was more in the streets and had looting and crime. This is done in the movie probably to make you feel more sorry for the school students. The movie would have been more useful if it had some different information about aparthied. The teacher was arrested for being against the government, and the mum goes to work in a white persons house. But there is not any information about the government and why they were doing it or any details about the racist policies and laws. -By George S, Chris and Finlay


Did not know what to expect from from Van Damme's partner & friend /trainer/and his fight choreographer for most of his films. It was nice to see him act as "TONG PO" in "Kickboxer and other Van Damme's films. Now he's on his own. He and his wife make a great team. In this one Qissi is the action director and lead bad guy and he's good. Really meanacing. His wife was the writer, producer and directed most of the scenes which didn't require action. She also did good job editing the film. Together they did a great job. The story made sense, the fight scenes were edited well, the leads were real fighters and looked good together - the story came together well, and if you can beleive it...no bad language, no sex, just action. A new one on me. Check it out!!!


Not a bad martial arts film. Fight scenes were good. Michel Qissi did a good job directing his first film without Van Damme. Story worked without foul language and too much blood. Screenwriter Jeanette Francessca has a good line to the story that works. IT would be great to see something else from her in the same genre. She likes the art and having strong women promenant. IT was definitely worth watching. I recommend the film to all drama and martial arts lovers.


Fox's epic telling of one a America's greatest pioneering efforts comes to DVD with some truly outstanding "Extras". BRIGHAM YOUNG (The "Frontiersman" was added for the European release), telling the story the great pioneer leader, who under inspiration brought members of the Mormon faith (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)out to the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, after mobs murdered their prophet/leader, Joseph Smith (played by Vincent Price), was brought to the screen in 1940, just as America was about to enter World War II. It was a daring move on Fox chief, Darryl F. Zanuck and it was a breath of fresh air to the Mormon people, as this was the first film attempt to favorably show their faith on the screen. Now Fox, working with James D'Arc, curator of the excellent Motion Picture Archives at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, has brought this film to the DVD format in an outstading edition. Mr. D'Arc, who some years ago did his doctoral dissertation on the film, has provided one of the most in depth commentary tracks ever done for a DVD. He seperates the fact from the fiction and lets listeners understand why this films was so much appreciated by Church Leaders even though embellishments to the truth run throughout the film. One of the fun bits of information deals with Dean Jagger, the actor who plays the title role. Many years after the film he married a Latter-saint woman and was eventually converted to the LDS faith. There is much to be learned from D'Arc's knowledge and it is great to have this as part of the DVD! There are over 100 pictures from the Fox & BYU Archives included on the disc, plus newsreel footage of the incredible premiere at seven theatres in Salt Lake City. Thanks FOX for another outstanding DVD -- and thank you, James D'Arc for your great commentary!


I rented this film because of my interest in American history, and especially the somewhat weird story of the Mormons. This movie attempts to make some sense out of how Joseph Smith could turn his "vision" into a major world religion. It first focuses on the troubles the Mormons had in their settlement at Navuoo, Illinois. It portrays the trial of Joseph Smith. Within the course of that trial, Brigham Young stands up to tell of his conversion to Mormonism, and of his belief in the spiritual message of Smith. Then Smith is assassinated, and Young must deal with his own doubts about whether he has been chosen to lead the Mormons to a new land. Despite his grave doubts, he perseveres, and finally has a vision (that Utah is the place for his colony) that gives him confidence in the rightness of his leadership. Later, as crops are destroyed by crickets, he again doubts that he has truly been chosen--however, a miracle occurs, which cements his place in history.

I found the performances to be moving, and the story to be convincing and interesting. I would love to know whether Mormons believe that this is an accurate portrayal. Polygamy is a part of the story, but the reasons why this is central to LDS are not raised. The issue is not emphasized.

I'm sure people stay away from this movie because of its religious subject-matter, but it has a great cast and will hold your interest throughout.


Henry Hathaway was daring, as well as enthusiastic, for his love of the people of the early days in US history. However, to critique historical inaccuracies of his film about Brigham Young and the Mormon people are not necessary or useful in commenting for this film. In my opinion, Hathaway did superb direction that conveys what a Mormon people were in the early history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints during the time period beginning with the martyrdom of Joseph Smith to the date of film release. In often subtle filming and dialog delivery, he covered Mormon philosophies and teachings in many of the segments and scenes.

I remember watching this movie on many Saturday mornings during my youth in the early 1950's. That was just over 10 years after the films release and before the Los Angeles Temple was completed, which I watched being constructed and instilled more curious wonder of who Mormons were. I recently purchased this film and will enjoy the following messages that Hathaway interpreted in his film.

1. Love for all people, regardless of their personal beliefs, 2. Charity to those in need or not, 3. Family is high in importance, 4. Listen respectfully and carefully, because even opposing messages have important points to consider and adopt, 5. Work hard, both individually and in community, 6. Prepare and store for future days of need, 7. Hope is a binding link to a higher being, and for our daily lives, 8. And, that there is a unique quality to any group, and appreciate those that are identified as beneficial.


I find Alan Jacobs review very accurate concerning the movie;however I had the opportunity to rent the DVD from blockbuster with a commentary from BYU's Curator, Motion Picture Archives James D'Arc. The then LDS Prophet Heber J. Grant approved of the movie understanding the deviations from historic content for dramatic expression and telescoping events. For example the movie showed Joseph Smith on trial. despite Brigham Young's great oratory in defense of Joseph Smith he was convicted anyway. Then Joseph was killed. Historically Joseph Smith was never convicted of anything. Brigham Young was in Boston when Joseph Smith was arrested for this particular trial. Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum where both killed before the trial took place.


This is a wonderful movie about the struggle of the Mormons and their final settlement in Salt Lake, Utah. The beginning and the ending are especially powerful, and the message is one we all have to be reminded of - God doesn't talk, but he communicates, if we would only listen. As I am writing this in the midst of the horrors going on in New Orleans and the surrounding area due to Katrina, I was especially moved by the Mormons having to leave everything behind and move on after Joseph Smith was assassinated. People came to this country to escape religious persecution, and yet they could not. The struggle of the Mormons to cross the country, the cost in lives, the hardship they suffered was truly awe-inspiring, demonstrating their tremendous strength. As far as the actual beliefs of Mormons, this is not heavily gone into, and polygamy is mentioned but is not a centerpiece of the film at all.

The cast is top-notch, though others who have commented know more about the actual characters and can talk about how true the portrayals were. But as actors, Dean Jagger, Mary Astor, Brian Donlevy, John Carradine, Jane Darwell all do excellently with the script they were given.

Though the film could have easily stood on its own (and certainly does today) Tyrone Power and Linda Darnell were added to the cast to get the crowds into the movie theaters to see a film about the Mormons. Power is magnificently handsome as a young Mormon, and Darnell, as Zina, is not a Mormon but stays on with the family after her father is killed. Power does not have much to do until the end of the film, when he has a big scene, and Darnell (still a teenager at the time of the filming) has even less, though they make a lovely couple. Their fate is left unclear regarding her conversion, and one does wonder about the polygamy in their case. You can't beat either one for eye candy, however.


I enjoyed watching Brigham Young and found it to be a positive and largely true portrayal of the LDS faith. I think that a remake of this epic journey across the plains would be beneficial, since many people today are not familiar with the trials and persecutions faced by the early Mormon church. It is an incredible story of a strong and devoted people.

As a member of the church, the single most disturbing aspect of the film (most of the historical inaccuracies did not bother me much) was the portrayal of Brigham Young as one that had "knowingly deceived" church members into believing he had been called to be Joseph's successor as the prophet. Although I understand the dramatic reasons for this plot line, it creates the impression that his doubts in this regard are historical fact, when in reality, both Brigham and the bulk of the church members understood and believed firmly that he had been called to lead the church. Brigham did not knowingly deceive the saints; rather he led them confidently by inspiration. The point is important for Mormons because on it hinges an important aspect of our faith: that God truly speaks to prophets today, and that Brigham Young, like Joseph Smith, was an inspired prophet of God.

Whether or not you believe this statement or not, just know that the film does not accurately portray what Brigham himself believed.


A surprising rent at a local video store, I was pleased to find a media satire worthy enough to challenge Oliver Stone's "Natural Born Killers." And almost as disturbing. I think it went well with my viewing to be in late 2004 watching the Republican Machine do it's magic on the majority of America's television viewing populous. It brings up the question "Are we really that manipulative?"

It definitely skewed my view. There was also a larger theological question being provoked- the story of Christ. Could word of mouth and overwhelming dependence on something exploitive as television produce a messiah? Could the story of Christ been exaggerated? Could it have been completely fabricated? It's something the movie puts in a extremely perceptive light.


I'm disappointed at the lack of posts on this surprising and effective little film. Jordi Mollà, probably best known for his role as Diego in Ted Demme's "Blow" Writes, directs, and stars.

I won't give away any plot points, as the movie (at least for me) was very exciting having not known anything about it.. If you have a netflix account, or have access to a video store that would carry it...I highly recommend it. It's a crazy, fun, and sometimes very thought provoking creation.

Mollà's direction is *quite* impressive and shows a lot of promise.

Unpredictable, with amazing imagery and a great lead performance spoken in beautiful Spanish "No somos nadie" (God is on Air) is an amazing film you can show off to your friends.

SEE IT.


A wonderful surprise of the Spanish cinema. I never thought Jordi Molla could be such a great director, after all, I really don't care much for his choice in movies. However this film was absolutely fantastic and not predictable at all... something I ALWAYS enjoy! It hasn't enjoyed much good press and I really don't think it'll ever be released in the US market. We'll have to content ourselves with the DVD or VHS if even that... I don't want to say much about the story because I don't want to spoil it for you but basically the movie is about a homeless drunk who becomes the new messiah just for kicks and to get some money out of it (like sooooooooooo many), before he knows it he is immerse in a life he was not counting on.


Salva and his pal Bigardo have been at the margin of the law during most of their lives. We see them panhandling in a car of the underground, where their pitch to get donations is so lame, no one gives them anything! Salva, who is a hardened petty criminal doesn't even have any redeeming qualities, that is, until he discovers a reality show on television that gives him the idea of what to do next. Religion and show business prove to be a winning combination, something that Salva capitalizes on.

He and Bigardo have been in jail after the accidental death of a priest that was critical of the duo. Salva shows he is a natural for the reality show. He transforms himself into a Christ-like figure who is an instant success in the program. Espe, who is a no-nonsense woman who is show's producer, can't escape from the way Salva pays her unusual attention. Ultimately, Salva is the victim of his own success in the end.

Jordi Molla, whose first directorial job this movie is, had some success in the way the film satirizes the role of television. Spain, which was vulnerable to these types of programs, has seen its share of the bizarre, which is what the director felt is an assault on the viewing public and wanted to set his story from the point of view of the people that are making a fortune out of the naive audience.

The ensemble cast has some good moments in the film. Mr. Molla, like any actor who decides to direct his first feature, would have been more effective concentrating on the picture in front of the camera. Candela Pena, a good actress, is one of the best reasons for watching the movie. Juan Carlos Villedo, David Gimenez Cacho, Franco Francescoantonio, Florinda Chico and the rest responded well to the new director.


The only explanation I can muster as to why this film isn't widely distributed is because it hits too close to home for some. This movie was a genuine happy surprise, the satire is genius. This film turns the lights on in the dark that is organized religion and big media, and the roaches scurry for cover. Rent the DVD and watch it for yourself if you haven't yet, this film succeeds where many have failed (Dogma comes to mind) to poke it's nose under the tent, both by using humor and very clever analogies coupled with telling backdrops and locations. Can't comment in depth without revealing some significant spoilers, there are some surprises in this film which even the seasoned film buff will be caught off guard by.


I thought the whole movie played out beautifully with fresh images and interesting cinematography the whole way through it. The actors were on top of their character's backs in nearly perfect timing and looked great. The music was lush and well-thought-out. It even had a decent twist of an ending. So what's with everyone voting it down? The story wasn't entirely fresh (felt like a remnant of "Running Man" with the whole television show idea), but the attitude towards Christianity and Judaism about how the public picks their Messiah certainly sounded true enough. It made sense to follow this one man who was put before a modern crowd and to put him on a pedestal because of his opportunity.

It's possible that Christians or other religious people pick this up because the movie has the word "God" in it, but that shows what the filmmakers were trying to do is to teach a possibility to people who maybe never saw the world like this, especially in the modern world where Christianity has been more and more accepted and forgotten about by some.

I gave it a 7/10 stars here on IMDb. I thought every ounce of the movie was entertaining and original, for the most-part. Check it out if you're not too offended to see an entertaining film from Madrid, Spain, about possibilities of the coming modern Messiah to a TV near you.


Partially from the perceived need, one feels, to include a conventional love story in the plot to make the film more marketable to a 1950's movie-going public.

The film starts with some wickedly funny characterizations of the upper-class bureaucrats running the Foreign Office --- the British are pilloried in the way that only the British can pillory themselves. But after that, the film loses its way in a conventional farcical plot. Terry-Thomas watchable as always, but the great talent in the cast (Peter Sellers, et al) is largely wasted.

A diverting, but not great film.


Another comedy about a plucky little country struggling through the jungle of the modern (for the forties) global world with only native wit and pluck to guide them, this is a fine entry in the Ealing cannon. Terry-Thomas sparkles as usual in the lead, as a feckless ministry man led to the brink of disaster when a nation he is supposedly in charge of starts attracting the interest of the world, Ian Bannen makes a great romantic lead, Peter Sellers puts in one of his quieter performances as a corrupt politico and the uber-suave John Le Mesurier plays against type as a rugged revolutionary leader. Lots of fun is had by all, especially the viewer; perhaps not in the very top echelon of Ealing classics, but pretty high up.


My abiding love of Italian actress Lucianna Paluzzi, who helped jump-start my puberty with her performance in 1965's "Thunderball," has led me to some fairly unusual places. Case in point, this British curiosity from 1959, "Carlton-Browne of the F.O.," which features Lucianna in one of her earlier roles. She plays a princess in this one, although the picture is actually a showcase for the talents of Terry-Thomas and Peter Sellers, both of whose stars were certainly on the rise at this point. In this cute, often very funny film, we learn of the Madeira-like island nation of Gaillardia, which had been a British colony until 1916 and then universally forgotten. Forty-three years later, however, it becomes the center of worldwide attention and international espionage when valuable cobalt deposits are discovered there, and Her Majesty sends the bumbling Carlton-Browne of the Foreign Office to take charge. Terry-Thomas underplays this part nicely, as does Sellers in his role as Prime Minister Amphibulos of the tiny country. (This was Sellers' second film of 1959 concerning a tiny country matching wits with the world, the other being "The Mouse That Roared," of course.) Ian Bannen almost steals the show here as Gaillardia's suave king, and my girl Lucianna is as appealing as can be in her minor role. The film exhibits much in the way of very dry humor, although there ARE some belly laughs to be had (the reception at the Gaillardian airport, for example, and especially that May Day-style parade of Gaillardian strength). And Sellers' seedy prime minister, with his cracked English and seemingly perpetual sweat stains, is yet another memorable character in this great actor's pantheon. Despite the occasional instance or two of indecipherable, stiff-upper-lip British gibberish, I found this picture to be a winningly modest entertainment, and well presented on this crisp-looking Anchor Bay DVD.


I guess this movie will only work on people who were all turned off by the giant hype of Lord of the Rings. Well, so I was. And so I really love this movie. Especially I like all those flawless superheroes from LotR being so perfectly and disrespectfully parodied. Most brilliantly is the counterpart of Gandalf (the brave and wise and completely humorless know-it-all wizard): Almghandi, the cowardice and brain dead transvestite. Sauron's counterpart ("Sauraus" from East Germany, of course) is wearing a simply bucket with eye holes as a helmet. Aragorns alter ego is yet another accident prone idiot who tries to fix his broken sword ("Ulrike" the legend) with scotch tape. And "Strunzdumm" (the counterpart of Wormtong) indeed has some strong resemblance with Brad Dourif! And don't forget Grmpfli and Heidi... huh-huh


As this movie is completely in Swiss dialect, it's probably hard for most German speakers to really follow this movie. I'm not from Switzerland, but I worked there for some years, so I had the chance to understand this great spoof of the Lord of the Rings. I've seen a lot of movies of this kind (eg. Scary Movie, loads of Scifi spoofs etc.) but this one is the best one of that kind, I've seen so far. I give a 9 of 10. The only reason I can't give a 10 is, because there are some little details which could have been done better and because they supplied no subtitles in any language on the DVD, so there's almost no chance for non-Swiss to understand.


It was considered to be the "Swiss answer to the Lord of the Rings", but it is much more than that. It isn't an answer to anything, it's in itself something new, something funny and sometimes it's downright stupid and silly - but was Monty Python any different than silly?

The beginning immediately makes the statement that this film is low budget and not meant to be taken entirely seriously. Cardboard clouds on strings knock into the airplane in which the main character is seated. But, to compensate the missing special effects, the landscape does the trick. It is absolutely beautiful and stunning - who needs New Zealand, Switzerland has it all.

What I liked about the film was the simple approach and the obvious passion and energy that went into it. It isn't brilliant; yet it's got some good humorous parts. Edward Piccin as Friedo is absolutely convincing, it would be enough to go and see the film because of him!There are some good jokes, some of them are very lame, some of them won't be understood by people outside of Switzerland. I liked the idea of having "Urucows" instead of Uruk Hai; I loved the scene where Friedo decides to take "Pupsi", a telehobbie, with him on the journey. Also very funny is the scene when Rackaroll, the sword-fighting knight, decides to show off with his sword - and subsequently smashes it into a wall, breaking it. And there is this one scene where the "nazgul-ish" characters do a wonderfully comic scene that includes a toilet brush... I didn't approve of the idea of the Ring being used by Schleimli, the "Gollum" character, in order to "seduce" the ladies. That was a bit far fetched. The idea of Lord Sauraus wanting to cover the lands with fondue wasn't that brilliant either. Original, certainly, but not brilliant. But most of all did I dislike the idea of a gay dragon, that really wasn't necessary. All in all I recommend to see the film simply because it is so crazy and totally trashy. Don't expect a LotR parody like "Spaceballs" was for Star Wars. But if you go to the flicks thinking that this is going to be an amusing evening out, with absolutely no ambitions, then you'll enjoy. I am not sure if it works in other languages, because it does live from the Swiss dialects as well as from the jokes and actors.

All in all: hat off to the courage of the Swiss crew who did that!


The thing I remember most about this film is that it used to air on local KTLA TV (Ch. 5) during every Christmas season during the mid to late 70s, mainly due to the fact that the true story took place on or near Christmas Eve. It was always a bit disturbing to see the hell that this girl goes through, being the lone survivor of a plane crash in the Peruvian jungle. The graphic scene of this young girl pulling leeches out of her infected leg made quite an impression on this young viewer. Not quite the kind of Christmas cheer I was used to seeing at the time. Definitely not a Rankin-Bass production.


I liked this movie very much because it is a true story set in the Amazon, a part of the world that always has intrigued me. I believe a condensed form of the book was published in "Reader's Digest" soon after the actual event occurred.

Because I am a "baby boomer," the character and the actress are my contemporaries, and for this reason I related to the film. I also believe the movie is valuable for teaching survival skills if the viewer observes the character's following the streams that lead to the river and to the coastal settlements where she can get help, as well as other survival techniques. Most important was her will to survive and to maintain a positive attitude. In conclusion, I hope viewers learn something from it, in addition seeing it for entertainment.

I do wish the movie would be released in VHS and DVD soon as I should like to add it to my video collection. It also should be shown more often on the satellite movie channels.


While the 'special effects' and technical attributes of this movie may in fact be laughable to some, I have never been able to erase the images this movie etched on my young and impressionable mind when I first saw it at around 8 years of age. The story of this girl's survival and of the trials she endured have stayed with me all these years, and I have thought back on more than one occasion about how the girl made it out of situations far beyond anything I have seen.

The fact that this is a true story, and the fact that I was only a child when I first saw this may be the reason behind my high rating of this movie. Each time this movie aired on television in the 70s and 80s I would be riveted to the television, drinking in each scene with an interest I cannot explain. I suppose watching this for the first time as an adult (and with a jaded view of the world) it may not be as enjoyable to some. I actually went out of my way to obtain a copy so I could show this movie to my son.

This, like many other movies, is not for everyone. If you are impressed by remarkable human survival stories, are partial to Peru/Macchu Picchu and/or the Amazon, then I believe you might enjoy this movie as much as I have been enjoying it for the past 30 years.


I first saw this movie back in the 1980's and now in 2006 this movie still is one of the best movies I have ever seen! I would recommend anyone to look at this movie. You will not be sorry. It is well acted out, so real and never a dull moment. The acting is superb and the location makes the movie seem like you are there. From the beginning right up to the end, this movie is the type that makes you lose your attention. The actress does an excellent job of portraying the girl who survived this horrific plane crash in the Amazon and it shows how she managed to survive in the Amazon all alone. It is unbelievable that anyone could survive under such conditions. This is why this movie is so appealing. The fact that this is a true story makes the movie even more interesting and to think that a young girl could survive from this ordeal is overwhelming. I find this movie one that I can watch over and over again and one that I never get tired of. This is indeed quite a compliment as I have hundreds of movies! I would say this is probably my favorite movie and the best I have ever seen!


I saw this when I was 17 and haven't seen it since. The 'CBS Late Movie' used to show it on a regular basis at one point. I remember how sad and upsetting it was, it truly made me sick to my stomach. Effects then weren't what they are today, but nevertheless, it conveyed the feeling of being alone in the Amazon, after losing both parents and searching for a way out, very well. I remember the bugs and maggots the most, so realistic they were, eating her flesh. It's a dark film which was controversial subject matter at the time, even though likely it was strongly edited for TV. I wish I remembered more details, and if I ever get the chance to see it again, I can comment more. I have been looking for this for years. I believe it may have been shown on CBS under yet another title. I have no idea whether it was ever released on video.


I have seen "Miracles Still Happen" now at least four times. I never tire of this fantastic movie. From the very beginning, it holds a person's interest. As the movie progresses and the plane crashes the story becomes very intense as we watch this young girl trying to survive alone and frightened in the Amazon, following a plane crash in which she was the only survivor. Losing her mother in this plane crash as well makes this movie even more dramatic as we see the perils this young girl had to endure during her ten days in the Amazon. To think this really did happen is just unreal and to think that anyone could actualy survive this is unspeakable as we see the wild animals, snakes and other reptiles, the enormous forests and wildlife as well as countless insects. As the movie progresses we see the many dangers this girl has to face as she tries to follow the river in hopes of it leading her to a town. Remembering what her father told her about how a stream will always lead to a river and then into an even larger river and this means it will eventually lead to a community, this young girl keep track of the tiny stream which eventually lead into a huge river all throughout the movie. At times having to swim in dangerous waters, alone, frightened, injured, she always managed to keep going. Towards the end of this movie it was obvious she would not have been able to continue much longer as she had not eaten in ten days and only had water to drink and was very sick and tired from her perils. Eventually as she sees a canoe, she realizes there has to be a village and men find her and they take care of her and then take her to a hospital where her father comes to see her, after fearing she was dead along with the many other passengers. Such a dramatic movie and so heartwarming to see her father's face when he sees his daughter is actually still alive after all this time in the Amazon! Movies like this aren't made much those days. I will still see it again and I know I will never tire of it! To think this girl was the only one single survivor of this airplane is just unspeakable! Also the fact she only maintained a few very slight injuries was even more remarkable, whereas everyone else on this airplane perished in the horrific crash into the wilds of the Amazon. A brilliant movie, superbly acted out indeed and one I will treasure forever and love to continue watching! Strongly recommended by me for sure!


I've been looking for the name of this film for years. I was 14 when I believe it was aired on TV in 1983. All I can remember was it was about a teenaged girl, alone, having survived a plane crash AND surviving the Amazon. I remember people were looking for her(family) and that she knew how to take care of herself---she narrates the story and I vividly remember about her knowing that bugs were under her skin. I don't remember much else about this movie, and want to see it again--if this IS the same one--and if any of you have a copy, could you email me at horsecoach4hire@hotmail.com? I'd be curious to attain a copy to see if it is in fact the same film I remember. It was aired on Thanksgiving(US) in 1983, and I was going through problems of my own and this film really impacted heavily on me. Thanks in advance!


I've read some terrible things about this film, so I was prepared for the worst. "Confusing. Muddled. Horribly structured." While there may be merit to some of these accusations, this film was nowhere near as horrific as your average DVD programmer. In fact, it actually had aspirations. It attempted something beyond the typical monster/slasher nonsense. And by god, there are some interesting things going on.

Ms. Barbeau is a miracle to behold. She carries the film squarely on her shoulders.

This is not to say that it's a masterpiece. UNHOLY ultimately collapses under the weight of its own ambition. There are just too many (unexplained) subplots trying to coexist. And the plot loopholes created by time travel are never really addressed: for example, if Hope knows that her mother is evil and that she will ultimately kill her brother, then why doesn't she just kill Ma in the film's very first sequence? Seems like it would have beat the hell out of traveling into the future to do it.

Still, I give UNHOLY points for trying. A little ambition is not a bad thing.


The main problem I see with this film is its score, which screams with every note, "This is a cheap-ass movie." There's not much more to say here. The score just plain sucked.

The second problem, which I see as quite severe as well as it involves the unwinding of the plot near the end of the film (one of the the money shots, if you will), is the dialogue between Martha (Adrienne Barbeau) and the sunflower man (Richard Ziman), in which Martha is revealed to be the leader of the experiment. At all times during this dialogue, the viewer is very much aware that s/he is listening to a movie dialogue. In other words, suspension of disbelief breaks down here. The integrity of a believable dialogue between two people is sacrificed for a willy-nilly stuffing of information the movie makers wish to impart to the audience.

The third problem was the casting of Adrienne Barbeau. While I honestly believe her to be a fabulous actress within her oeuvre, I feel that this part may have been too much of a stretch. The main point of her performance that didn't seem to mesh was the spectrum across which the character moves through the film from a loving mother of a troubled family to an almost Rambo-like woman on a mission. This aspect of the script would obviously have been a stretch for any actress, and one cannot place too much blame, therefore, upon Barbeau. To the degree that she fairly competently acted her part, however, I would only call this a moderately severe problem to the film as a whole.

Finally, the film did a wonderful job in the first half building a creep factor, most notably during its horror flashes. I feel that the film would have benefited by more of a commitment to these flashes as a mechanism for preventing a fizzling of the creep factor in the second half of the movie.

So what's my holistic grading of this piece? I'd give it a solid C+ to B-, depending upon how much credit you're inclined to give the makers for producing this film on a limited budget. Even with two severe and two moderately severe problems, the film is premised on the solid plot of the Jungian side of Nazi mysticism. I see no problems with plot development or coherence; the dialogue, with the noted exception above, is downright brilliant in places, especially the all important keystone scene between mother and daughter at the beginning of the movie; as mentioned, the creep factor was well crafted, if a bit fizzly in the second half; and Nicholas Brendan, who also associated produced, delivered a wonderful performance.

All in all, this film is definitely worth the view---see it with a Nazi you love. :)


This one will get reviews all over the map because it doesn't comfortably fit any mold. It's horror-- but not a splatterfest. It's equal part Suspense as well as Horror-- yet without the usual Hollywood screams and jerky camera.

The feel of the movie is spare and lean with next to no special effects because I think you should listen and watch the faces of the characters.

Forget that Brendan is a graduate of the Buffy universe. That's a red herring. He IS acting here. 'Camp' is a misreading of the tone of this story. Adrienne Barbeau is giving a rock solid performance-- so she must believe the script has something to say. We all know the sorry excuses where the actors plainly don't care anymore and are just waiting for the director to snap "Cut" and get their paychecks. This is Not the case, here.

Forgive the fact that the bodies begin to fall with almost mondo-funny regularity. I don't think the intent was humorous-- but to keep you off balance.

Think of it less of a Horror 'Movie' and more of a Horror 'Play' on a stage-- that decrepit whitewashed house. Then you might see it's really about paranoia, fear, and spiralling madness set in an isolated someplace, USA.

And it is twisty. Time travel, Mind Control, secret experiments and Nazi's who may NOT be dead. . .yet.

I say rent it and give it a try if you're in the mood for something a little cerebral. This would be a good choice for a Saturday Midnight sit down.


I am surprised at IMDb's low rating of this movie. With all due respect, its low rating is representative of the IQ level of those who rated it so poor. They would rather see a movie with cheap thrills, a bigger budget, and more gore.

The first misconception by people is that this is a horror film. It is not, nor does the film mislead you into believing it is one. It is a psychological thriller. It is for people who actually want an intellectual experience when watching a movie. Reel.com's review is the perfect example of how I feel about this movie. All the other negative reviews doesn't make much sense. It's almost as if trying to make an original movie for a change- very rare these days- is something bad and not worth it.

I will reveal some spoilers for the morons who said it was boring and didn't make sense. Martha was brainwashing herself and performing experiments on herself to be a caring mother while she really was an evil Nazi who would kill without warning. The evidence is all in the pudding and the fact that at first viewing, we sympathize with this cold-blooded monster for the duration of the movie is a testament to the film's direction and writing.

I definitely feel that this movie should at least be rated in the 6's range on originality alone. I recommend this movie for the people on the other end of the IQ scale- aka smart people- since this movie is obviously being butchered by those who would rather watch Scream or Freddy's Nightmare.

Kudos to the acting as well. For such a low budget film, you are amazed that this movie didn't hit your local cinema with the great direction, writing, and acting. Please don't be fooled by the rating by IMDb. This movie is worth it. I actually recommend buying the film since a first viewing on a rent will not do this justice.


I am completely shocked that this show had been cancelled.Ity only lasted one year.I just recently started watching it and I love it.Its a show that could of gone as far as Friends went.It had the humour and was extremely enjoyable.

It is about 2 brothers and 2 sisters living under one roof without their parents.Kurt(Joey Lawrence) plays the part of the oldest sibling and takes on the more fatherly role.

This should of lasted much more than year as it was fantastic. Amazing show with all the best actors.

10/10


A female executioner (played by the sexy Jennifer Thomas II) has the fun job of fulfilling all the fantasies of all the men on death row before they meet their maker. And what a way to go. Lucky this film is not real, or we would have a lot more people in this world on death row.

It starts out real slow. Low light and bad acting, like most (B) films. It gets better as it moves along. And ends with a bang.

I would rate it very high on the low cost, very sexy movies of the 90's. It's a must see once the kids are away or in bed.


A movie you start watching as a late night cable porn..... It is hot in that department but it has even a lot more.... It has a sense of humor... some action in and out of the "bed" and it has reasonable acting as well as a story worth watching...A definite adult only movie but well worth watching...


i loved this movie it was one of the years best pornos i remember watching it on starz or some god damn thing but it was great. i only saw like half of it and i taped it and all i can say is i loved every minute of what i saw. i didnt sleep for weeks after i saw this movie (although i was very tired.)


One night I stumbled upon this on the satellite station Bravo.Initially out of curiosity i decided to watch it.To be perfectly honest i wasn't disappointed.The main character is beautiful and her body is shown off well.You would think her talents would be wasted as a executioner but apparently not after watching the whole film!My only real gripe is the acting of the supporting cast particularly the actor who plays Melnik.Christ its bad!The prison guard Hank is woeful too.All he ever does is get drunk and make ill attempted passes at his co-guard Wanda though fortunately for us the viewer and for Hank he gets down and dirty with Wanda near the end. The music used is pretty tense and creates the perfect atmosphere for the executions. This movie is well watching alone for the beautiful,talented and very sexy Jennifer Thomas


We tend to forget that the master/slave context of the past centuries lead to more than well-tended estates, powered by large groups of enslaved people, and a lot of money for the white owners. It lead to a group of people caught in the middle - the offspring resulting from slave owners interferring with their female slaves.

Some of these children just became more slaves, and others were free...but free and coloured, which back then meant anything but, relative to the lot of their sires.

A class formed around these offspring - the gens de couleur libre or free people of colour - and that class was able, to a certain extent, to own property, raise themselves from downtrodden to educated, and to attain a comparative dignity. That is to say, they weren't slaves, but they were still exploited to a certain extent.

Often, the women lived as mistresses to the white plantation masters and men of wealth, set up in their own houses, with allowances, schooling paid for for their children, and a kind of gentility, dependent on the respectability they chose to impose on their families. In essence, they were prostituting themselves to ensure their own prosperity, and relative independence from labour - an arrangement called plaçage.

Feast of All Saints is a beautifully written story about the children of one such woman, the result of just such an arrangement with a local gentleman, and the people who touched on their lives, in both a negative and a positive way. The tale was an eye-opener for me, a New Zealander, with no real conception of the black/white lines, let alone that grey area in the middle where the gens de couleur libre trod gingerly.

The characters are very three dimensional, and have been well-rendered in this adaption of the novel, by Anne Rice. The parts are well-cast, the costumes are wonderful, and the brutal way the lines are drawn out, with the blurred areas made all the more distinct by the conflicts the protagonists go through. The gens de couleur libre could not marry the whites, the slaves could not help themselves, and the whites, even the sympathetic ones, couldn't bear to face the economic reality of doing right by the people they depended on.

I recommend this story, both the novel and the miniseries, to everyone, unreservedly. If you can't handle the truth you'll cringe and cower through some parts, as one injustice after another is meted out on those of colour, both by their white oppressors, and by their own people. Bear in mind though that this is nothing more than reality, and this tale is an absorbing way to learn about it.

I know it may sound callous, but this miniseries both entertained me and enthralled me, despite the sour taste I found in my mouth at what went on, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Watch it. If not read up on the period, because there's a lesson to be learned from it all.


This movie was a fascinating look at creole culture and society that few African Americans are aware. My own two children are by products of a paternal grandmother whose father was a member of the gens de couleur libre and a black skin woman whose parents were ex-slaves. He married outside of and against his culture and was cut off from all of his family except for one sister who took pity on her brothers plight; raising 8 children during the great depression of 1929; providing the family with food whenever she could. Of course she clandestinely aided this family fearing for her own ex-communication. My daughter was fascinated by the movie. We have made it a part of our library.


I know that originally, this film was NOT a box office hit, but in light of recent Hollywood releases (most of which have been decidedly formula-ridden, plot less, pointless, "save-the-blonde-chick-no-matter-what" drivel), Feast of All Saints, certainly in this sorry context deserves a second opinion. The film--like the book--loses anchoring in some of the historical background, but it depicts a uniquely American dilemma set against the uniquely horrific American institution of human enslavement, and some of its tragic (and funny, and touching) consequences.

And worthy of singling out is the youthful Robert Ri'chard, cast as the leading figure, Marcel, whose idealistic enthusiasm is truly universal as he sets out in the beginning of his 'coming of age,' only to be cruelly disappointed at what turns out to become his true education in the ways of the Southern plantation world of Louisiana, at the apex of the antebellum period. When I saw the previews featuring the (dreaded) blond-haired Ri'chard, I expected a buffoon, a fop, a caricature--I was pleasantly surprised.

Ossie Davis, Ruby Dee, the late Ben Vereen, Pam Grier, Victoria Rowell and even Jasmine Guy lend vivid imagery and formidable skill as actors in the backdrop tapestry of placage, voodoo, Creole "aristocracy," and Haitian revolt woven into this tale of human passion, hate, love, family, and racial perplexity in a society which is supposedly gone and yet somehow is still with us.


I am normally skeptical about watching films or mini-series based on novels because the screenplay is always different from the novel. Fortunately, I was wrong! The screenplay was very close to the novel (I guess it helps that the author was an executive producer and writer, huh?)

The cast is outstanding. I can't describe how much I enjoyed seeing such a wide range of actors (from Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee to Robert Ri'chard and Bianca Lawson).

The location setting... I was expecting to see the homes and cottages I imagined in my mind: what I saw on screen was slightly different. However, it wasn't enough to make me dislike the mini-series.

I recommend this for anyone who has read the novel: you will not be disappointed if you have. 8 out of 10 stars!


Historical drama and coming of age story involving free people of color in pre civil war New Orleans. Starts off slow but picks up steam once you have learned about the main characters and the real action can begin. This is not just a story about the exploitation of black women, because these were free people. They may not have had all the rights of whites but they certainly had more control over their destinies than their slave ancestors. The young men and women in this story must each make their own choice about how to live their lives, whether to give into the depravity of the system or live with optimism and contribute to their community. I enjoyed all of the characters but my favorites were Christophe, Anna Bella, and Marcel.


I've bought, " The Feast of All Saints," and it's not truly a horrible movie, but a lot of things could have been better. It had a lot of historical value, played out by very talented actress/actors, and it's not an everyday occurrence that actors can play out such a role and have it be somewhat believable. There were some parts that were a little mediocre and confusing, but I wouldn't say that the entire movie was horrible. Once you think about that, capturing 1800's New Orleans, and making something out of it, it pretty hard, and much harder to get actors who can strongly signify those parts. But the only big problem I had with the movie was that most of the actors who did play the free people of color, were mostly light skinned Africans, not very universal in casting others who weren't light skinned; one of the old Creole stereotypes that still exists. Whomever did the casting could have picked a wider variety when it came to hue, despite many Creoles are color conscious.Rather picking actors that looked near white in a sense, could have been more thought out.The actors did a great job, the script could have better written, and overall I found the performances were very believable.


My family goes back to New Orleans late 1600's early 1700's and in watching the movie I knew it was a history my grand-parents never talked about, but we knew it existed. I have cousins obviously black aka African Americans and others who can "pass" as white and chose not to. It's a hard history to watch when you realize that it's your family they're talking about and that Cane River is all a part of that history. It makes me want to cry and it makes me want to kick the 'arse' of my great grandfathers who owned those plantations and wonder in awe of how my great grandmothers of African heritage lived under that oppressive and yet aristocratic existence...And at the same time had I not come out of that history, I probably wouldn't be the successful business woman I am today living successfully in a fairly integrated world. The acting was both excellent and fair depending upon the actor, but it is a movie that NEEDED to be made. Anne Rice is incredible and I ask myself, why is she 'symbolically' writing about my family and I'm not. I recommend this movie to everyone. Leza


Wow this was a movie was completely captivating I could not believe that I started awake so late to watch it but it came on late ounce I started watching I couldn't stop it had a full range of very good cast members wow even Eartha Kitt and Ruby Dee Forrest Whittaker and James Earl Jones and many more well known actors and actresses this was more than a glimpse into history it was eye opening into another part of society that people don't know of and may even be embarrassed to talk about . I've never heard of a book or movie about this before and this is something that black history never addresses only looks down on because they were privleged and mixed race , I highly recommend this movie


E! TV is a great channel and Talk Soup is so funny,in a flash you can view the episodes change. We want more funny writings by the best writer ever Stan Evans.. The patron Saint of the mindless masses... He is a truly talented, gifted writer, actor, comic, producer,director, and creative consultant.Anna Nicole loved him , but he was not a $$$$Billionaire so he left him for a Billionaire. Many super stars wanted to make films with the actor Stan Evans, who has a "Humphrey Bogart" {Clark Gable}acting style. He should make many more movies. Maybe with Stephen Spielberg, or perhaps many other talented producers.We wish him a moment of FAME with a great fortune to gain. Has he produced any mock-U-dramas? or perhaps any docudrama??? A project about Bernie Madhoff would be a great TV movie written by STAN EVANS. How many screenplays has he written?? Is he under $$$$$$$$$$$$billion contract with Disney?? He should earn more than $50 Million... He could also write a TV movie about the late KING OF POP.. Michael Jackson. We want to view a lot more of and by Stan Evans in the movies and on TV. Thank you so very much. Elvis has left the building!!!!!


I don't watch a lot of TV, except for The Office, Weeds, Entourage and E!'s Soup. I think I hold this show in good company.

I love the scathing review of pop culture that this show gives. Soup also helps me stay on top of what people in the office are referring to when talking about a Sanjaya or Heidi Montag (sp?).

The best part is that Soup shows clips of the highlights of these shows, which are usually the funniest or most controversial moments (c'mon, most people get hooked into watching American Idol because of the freak show that are the auditions), which is why most people claim to watch. And that means, I don't have to suffer through the other 98% of these mind numbing talk shows or "reality" shows, for one nugget of "funny" or "shock." The only reason why Soup doesn't get a 10 in my opinion are sometime the sketches are not that funny, and on an even rarer occasion, the commentary isn't always up to par. But they can't all be home runs either, if so, Soup wouldn't be on E!.

Joel's quick wit and Soup's writing team (which includes McHale) make for a great show. I happen to enjoy the laughing and comments from the crew who are off-camera. Even when they're being blatantly obvious by giving occasional courtesy laughs, it's hilarious because it IS forced. They're obviously being ironic. And that's part of what makes this show funny.


I can't believe how many people hate Hal Sparks! He was my favorite host of the show, hands down. I hate celebrity gossip and generally dislike talk shows, but when Hal Sparks hosted Talk Soup, it was must see TV for me. I rarely missed an episode during his run, and was saddened when the guest hosts started pouring in (although most of the guests still did a fine job).

Anyway, for all the people who dislike Hal Sparks, I imagine they must have never seen the weekend specials. They were hour long episodes of Talk Soup that comprised the best clips from the entire week, and were padded out by sketch comedy bits. The original bits that Hal Sparks did were hilarious. In one he got possessed by a bad comedy demon, and in an exorcist like scene his head spun as he told dated jokes about airline food. One episode was dedicated to making fun of Multiplicity, as a bunch of cloned Hal Sparks kept multiplying through out the episode, over-running the studio.

OK, maybe these don't sound as funny when I describe them, but all I know is that besides Talk Soup, the only other two shows I watched consistently during those years was The Simpsons and Late Night with Conan O'Brian. So if you like the comedy stylings of those shows, then you'd probably like Talk Soup during the Sparks years.

That said, Henson and Tyler were both great hosts as well. All three hosts brought something different to the table but they were all fine comedians in my opinion. Of course, throughout the Tyler and guest star years, my interest in this show began to wane, but every now and then I catch The Soup, the show's spiritual successor, and sure enough, the new host can bring some pretty unexpected laughs from time to time.

OK, I've wasted enough time talking about a TV show that isn't on the air anymore and on a channel that I generally despise. Go watch something else!


In my opinion, this is a pretty good celebrity skit show. I enjoyed seeing Greg Kinnear as the host. There are many reasons why I said that. Even though Hal Sparks was an okay host, I sometimes wish that Greg Kinnear hadn't left. If you ask me, it seems that nobody stays with a TV show throughout its entire run anymore. Still, I enjoyed seeing the various hosts and other people spoofing celebrities. If you ask me, that was pretty darn funny. Before I wrap this up, I must say that I kind of miss this show. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this show to all you die-hard sketch show fans. You will really enjoy it.


College girl Joanne Murray takes on the unenviable job of readying the student housing building to become apartments,which includes selling the unneeded furniture This takes place during a break,so a mysterious psycho is stalking the nearly-empty premises on campus."Dorm that Dripped Blood" is a low-budget slasher flick that is quite entertaining.The acting is pretty bad,the plot is predictable,but the gore effects are quite good.The film was made by UCLA film students Stephen Carpenter and Jeffrey Obrow for next to nothing.Soon a dreamy ambiance kicks in,very similar to the enveloping forests of Jeff Leiberman's fantastic "Just Before Dawn".7 out of 10.It's great to see Daphne Zuniga of "The Initiation" fame run over few times by a car.


Not a bad word to say about this film really. I wasn't initially impressed by it but it grew on me quickly. I like it a lot and I think its a shame that many people can't see past the fact that it was banned in some territories, mine being one of them. The film delivers in the shock, gore and atmosphere department. The score is a beautiful piece of suspense delivering apparatus. It only seems fair that Chris Young went on to be one of the best composers in the business. The acting in this film is of a somewhat high standard, if a little wooden in some spots, and the effects are very real and gritty. All of this is high praise for a good slasher film in my book. I've noted in some reviews that the film has gotten serious flack having the famous killer's P.O.V shot. And I ask: WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT??? It is a classic shot that evokes dread into any good fan of the genre and is a great to keep the killer's identity a secret. The only thing that stops this film getting top marks in my book is that the surprise twist(killer revealed) is not handled with more care, I mean it just happens kind of quickly, though the great performances make it just about credible. Aside from that PRANKS is a great movie (though I prefer the original title) and its a shame that so many people knock it off as just a cheap piece of crap. Its more than that, but only few know that as it seems to have gotten lost in the haze of early 80s slasher. What a shame.... Its a really good movie people! Believe me!


Don't believe all of the negative reviews this movie receives. Yes, it is cheaply made. Yes, the gore is laughable. And, yes, the acting is sub-par. However, this is a textbook example of an early slasher flick, and if that is your "thing" (its mine!) then you will enjoy this one. There are enough good aspects to this movie to more than compensate for the drawbacks. For one, the score by a then unknown Christopher Young is very creepy and accents the violence perfectly. The ending is a welcomed break from the predictable upbeat endings of most movies. And last, but not least, the setting is what made the film for me. The makers of this film could have done a much better job "dressing" the set to make it more believable as a college dorm. However, if you can overlook this flaw, the setting is great. Four collegiates all alone in a huge, abandoned, condemned building just waiting to be torn down.... it reaks of possibility. When watching, allow your imagination to do some of the work and you may enjoy this film as much as I did.