I started watching The Apprentice about 4 years ago(maybe 5) and I really really liked it. The first thing that strikes you about it is the refreshing format, which though similar to a lot of other reality shows at its core, is still very entertaining. Donald Trump is wonderful as the host and the main judge of the show as well. The casting coup with intelligent people having good looks being picked as contestants is appreciated as well. But the best part of the show is New York city. Mark Burnett may have made a lot of crap in his time but his handling of the cinematography is excellent as he makes NYC look like a character unto itself. The jazz tunes coupled with some great camera-work make New York look spectacular.

The Apprentice will easily alway make my top 3 reality shows of all time(The Amazing Race is no. 1,however).But just like the amazing race this show is always best watched in moderation. If you keep watching it for a while the originality of the show will wear off fast(the same case as with TAR).Star World, the broadcasters in this country, did a bang up job in presenting the show. The first three seasons were shown in a row, then after 2 years the next two seasons were shown, which kept the concept fresh.

In conclusion, you will love this show, especially the first 2 seasons. However if you keep watching the show continuously, thereafter its charm WILL wear off and FAST.


The interesting aspect of "The Apprentice" is it demonstrates that the traditional job interview and resume do not necessarily predict teamwork skills, task dedication, and job performance. And they certainly don't reveal any hidden agendas. In other words, a good indicator of potential may be to see a job applicant in action which is the point of "The Apprentice". People vying for a corporate position may hand over a sugar-coated resume and put on their best personality attire for the interview, but these are not necessarily the best indicator of strengths, weaknesses, and performance.

Briefly, "The Apprentice" involves 16 job candidates competing for the ultimate career opportunity: a position in real estate magnate Donald Trump's investment company. "The Apprentice" refers to the winner who will win a salaried position, learn the art of high stakes deal-making from the master himself, and, presumably, gain prime corporate connections. The position is a dream-come-true for those wanting to make more money than the GNP of some foreign countries. To entice the candidates, Trump shows off his private jet, his private luxury apartments replete with statues and artwork, his limos, his connections to celebrities, and other aspects of the life of a billionaire magnate.

The road to success is not easy. The group is divided into two teams that compete against each other. Each has a corporate-sounding name, such as Versacorps and Protégé Corporation. The teams are assigned tasks that entail an entrepreneurial venture such as creating advertising, selling merchandise, or negotiating. Teams select a project manager who provides the leadership and organizational skills to complete the task. If they win, the manager receives a lot of credit, particularly in the eyes of the final arbiter. If they lose, the manager may also become the scape-goat. Some of the tasks are monumentally difficult with only a day or two to complete. Tasks may involve creating a TV commercial, or print ad. Others may involve selling at a retail outlet or on the street.

The tasks bring out the best and worst in the participants. They often show immediately who is the most reliable, who is the most trustworthy, and who is hard working. And the tasks also expose who is not a good team player, who is inefficient, and who seems only out for themselves. The tasks invariably reveal in unexpected ways the strengths and weaknesses of the participants and in particular the project manager. How well the manager communicates with the team, delegates work, organizes time, and sets specific goals will largely determine the outcome, but it does not necessarily predict the winner.

The single-most telling aspect of someone's potential is when he or she is assigned as a project manager. Their real abilities as opposed to their self-propagated abilities immediately show through the veneer that cannot be hidden by a $100 silk tie or a beautiful makeover. Leadership qualities and/or weaknesses often become agonizingly obvious after only a few minutes. Those promoting themselves as top-notch leaders are not always as strong when put into a real-life leadership situation. It is always easier to "toot your own horn" than to actually engage in leadership. Project managers, even those on the winning teams, often do not formulate a cohesive strategy. They often believe that by diving off the deep end to complete the task at the first minute rather than taking a little time to organize and discuss how the task will be completed is more efficient. More often than not, members of an ill-strategized team are running around like headless chickens figuring it out as they go along, and in the long run they end up wasting far more time.

The winning team gets a taste of the high life, such as eating dinner at an exclusive restaurant, flying in a private jet, and/or meeting a celebrity. The losing team comes to the dreaded board room where Trump hears the lame excuses of the members and knocks off one or more of the contestants like pieces off a chess board with the now infamous "You're fired". Often, the project manager is held partially responsible for the team's loss, and may be the target of Trump's accusatory rhetoric. Every week, at least one person becomes a casualty from the losing team.

My least-favorite aspect of "The Apprentice" is the board room. While the tasks themselves bring out the strengths and weaknesses in the candidates, the board room often brings out the worst. Unfortunately, the rules of the game insist there is one winning team and one losing team, even if the competition was close. Members of the losing team start accusing each other, often ruthlessly, about who was at fault. And sometimes more than one person gets fired. I seldom see an under-performing candidate take responsibility for their actions in the board room. Kristi Frank and Kwame Jackson were possibly the only candidates who took full responsibility for her team's losses and received no recognition for this selfless act. For me, Kristi Frank and Kwame Jackson had the most integrity of all the candidates. However, Trump saw Kristi as weak and fired her, claiming she wasn't standing up for herself, which may mean he values ego more than integrity. No one should sacrifice their integrity for this. Kristi Frank may not have become the apprentice but she can live with herself knowing she did not blame others unjustly. Isn't that worth as much as "winning"?

The strength of "The Apprentice" is also its weakness. Because team performance is evaluated strictly by winners and losers, other evaluation opportunities are overlooked. Barring huge gaps between the winning and losing teams, sometimes a losing team exemplifies a high standard of teamwork and efficiency. I have seen losing teams sometimes appearing better organized than the winning team. We Americans are so often obsessed with winning and losing that we often overlook excellence.


For people interested in business and the corporate world, this show is simply the best of the best. As one of the former contestants of the show wrote in his blog about this innovative show: People in business finally had an audience. The whole idea is perfect; having a group of businesspeople competing against each other in business-related tasks, set in the best place in the world, New York City. Donald Trump is perfect as the boss, even though his ego is bigger than the whole universe times infinity. He also makes a lot of questionable decisions about whom to fire, which is one of the negatives about the show.

Season 1: Great season overall, the best season of the "normal" ones. This season was the one that was most about actual business skills. Later on the series almost drowned in marketing related tasks with way too many product placements. Great and interesting contestants overall, with the most likable character ever in this series: Troy. I know I'm not the only person who suspect that the Trump World Tower-episode where he got fired was rigged to have Amy and Nick win this particular task.

Season 2: Also a great season. The tasks were still pretty much OK, and it had many interesting contestants. Jen M was terrible and should never had made it to the final, IMO. Also, this season had the worst firing ever (Pamela).

Season 3: Terrible. Actually, I liked the concept of book smarts vs. street smarts, but the cast was so utterly terrible (it turned out that Trump hated the cast as well) that the whole season was a total disaster. Best moments was the second episode (motel renovation), with PM Brian fired, a guy who added nothing but huge amounts of comedy value.

Season 4: An excellent season, much because of the interesting and entertaining contestants this season (especially Randall, Alla, Marcus and the total disaster whose name was Toral). The "Take me out to the Boardroom" episode is one of the absolute classics of this show, ending with the well-remembered quadruple firing. Sadly, I think we got robbed for the Randall vs. Alla final. I think Trump was afraid that she could have won, and prevented that from happening.

Season 5: A boring season with really no special things to it. Brent was just an embarrassment and obviously only there to create drama. The tasks were terrible overall (how has creating a jingle anything to do with business at all?). I guess the best man won, but personally I couldn't care less.

Season 6: I can see why they wanted to try out L.A. as a new location for the show, but looking back it was a mistake. New York will always be the place for this. This season added so many new things, most of them terrible (like losing team having to sleep outside in tents, winning PM continues to be PM ,for example). The tasks were terrible and Trump also chose the wrong winner. James deserved it, no doubt.

Season 7: Celebrity edition. Best season ever. Totally different rules (like the use of rolodexes), but all fun and entertainment. The biggest problem was that many of the contestants were not real celebrities at all, especially the women where everyone were unknown to me except for Omarosa, who is a total disgrace to everything she takes part in. This looked to be Gene Simmon's season, but after he made a complete fool of himself during the Kodak task , another man emerged from the shadows: Piers Morgan. Never has anyone dominated a season like he did. He crushed his opponents and also came across as a guy with a great sense of humor (although some uptight Americans (not all Americans, of course, don't take me wrong) sadly didn't have the social skills to understand it). WAY TO GO PIERS!!

For fans of this i highly recommend the UK version starring Sir Alan Sugar as the boss. In fact, the British version is way better, and that says something since the American (and original) truly is a great show. One thing about the UK version is that the contestants normally tend to behave like decent human beings in the boardroom, unlike the constant yelling and rude behavior that takes place in the US version.


The cast is different and now they took a different approach we have the street smart team "Networth" vs . the supposed professional team "Magna" but boy if you think the street smart team would have trouble you'd be right. While the Magna team has struggled at times, the street team has simply disintegrated week after week.

First some things to reiterate as far as the "Apprentice 3" first of it continues the same absurd mentality (from Trump) and the game in this series: if your a good project manager, but you lose, the team will turn on you and you will be fired, despite the fact that your backstabbing teammates are often the ones who do half ass jobs. Simply absurd, that a game show that claims to hire the best candidate actually "weeds" out the best while the dysfunctional candidates stab each other until one is left and that person is the best . lol

Anyone this season, weve seen a total of cursing, backstabbing and even gay offensive stereotypes carried out as teams try to do campaigns.

The list of victims so far Cast Tara Dowdell , Audrey Evans , Danny Kastner those three are the only that I feel were unfairly fired by Trump, the rest really had it coming as they only incited conflict, anger and suffering. It's just amazing as one candidate Audrey Evans said as how she who did a good job was fired and how some of her worthless teammates are still in the game.

Yes its the game, it's "The Apprentice" where manipulation, backstabbing, and always popular "everyone gang up on the project manager" mentality rules.

It has been an entertaining ride, though, the candidates are given a wide array of assignments from photo shoots to the construction of mini golf courses, to building of new apartments.

Still though it's still the "Apprentice" though so all you can do basically is laugh the whole time as the insanity and chaos insues until lucky person is the winner.


Never viewed this film and consider it a great Classic with great veteran actors. In the period that this film was made, people in America were different, there was no TV or all the modern things we have today, except the Radio and the starting out of great films being made in Hollywood. Sweet innocent tales of young romance between a young girl or guy was viewed differently than it is today. Ann Shirley,"Murder My Sweet",'44 played a young orphan gal who was called Carrot Top because of her red hair and found herself being taken into a home of two elderly folks, who were like two wise owls and watched over Ann Shirley. It was a small town and everyone knew everyone and if anything happened, the entire town found out about it within minutes. It is a down to earth film with nice decent people trying to help each other in a very very simple way of living. Today, it seems very corn ball and stupid, but believe me, this was the way people were in America during the 1920'. & 30's and they were a great generation that loved good family films.


Vivacious & irrepressible, ANNE OF GREEN GABLES brings unlooked-for happiness into the lives of a lonely old sister & brother on Prince Edward Island.

Lucy Maud Montgomery's well-loved novel comes to life in this wonderful little movie. Excellent production values, a literate script and first class performances gives the story exactly the touch of quality it deserves.

Taking her professional name from the character she portrayed, actress Anne Shirley is a joy as the red-headed fourteen-year-old orphan who completely alters the lives of her new guardians. Completely assured in her starring role, Miss Shirley is a delight, entertaining the viewer with Anne's boundless imagination, quick temper and not-so-secret sorrows.

Playing the stern spinster who gives the girl a home, Helen Westley also completely commands her role; the viewer will enjoy seeing this sharp-tongued woman slowly unbend to Anne's affection and child-like innocence. Australian character actor O. P. Heggie gives one of his finest performances as Westley's shy, gentle brother who welcomes Anne into his heart from the moment he arrives to fetch her from the railroad station.

Tom Brown most agreeably plays the schoolboy who quickly grabs Anne's attention. Sara Haden is appropriately prickly as a nosy neighbor. Charley Grapewin makes the most of his few moments as Avonlea's doctor.


In "Anne of Green Gables" (1934), Marilla Cuthbert (Helen Westley) and Matthew Cuthbert (O.P. Heggie), middle-aged siblings who live together at Green Gables, a farm in Avonlea, on Prince Edward Island, decide to adopt a boy from distant orphanage to help on their farm. But the orphan sent to them is a precocious girl of 14 named Anne Shirley (Dawn Evelyn Paris-a veteran of Disney's series of "Alice" shorts who later would adopt her character's name).

Anne was only 11 in Lucy Maude Montgomery's source novel but the same actress could not credibly go from 11 to college age during the course of the story. The movie suffers somewhat from this concession, as many of Anne's reactions and much of what she says are more entertaining coming from an eleven-year-old that from a teenager. As in the book, Anne is bright and quick, eager to please but dissatisfied with her name, her build, her freckles, and her long red hair. Being a child of imagination, however, Anne takes much joy in life, and adapts quickly to her new family and the environment of Prince Edward Island.

In fact Anne is the original "Teenage Drama Queen" and the film's screenwriter elected to focus on this aspect of her character. Which transformed the basic genre from mildly amusing family drama to comedy. A change that delighted audiences and that continues to frustrate reader purists.

Since the comedy is very much in the spirit of the Montgomery's story I can see no reason to take issue with the changes, but let this serve as fair warning to anyone expecting a totally faithful adaptation. The comedy element is the strength of the film as it is one of the earliest self-reflexive parodies of Hollywood conventions. The actress Anne Shirley was one of Hollywood's all- time beauties and the film is in black and white. So much of the amusement is in seeing the title character's endless laments about her appearance and hair color contradicted by what is appearing on the screen. Anne regularly regales her no nonsense rural companions with melodramatic lines like: "If you refuse it will be a lifelong sorrow to me". Perhaps the funniest moment is when she corrects the spelling of her name on the classroom blackboard.

Tom Brown does a nice job as Anne's love interest Gilbert Blythe and Sara Haden steals all the scenes in which she appears as the Cuthbert's pompous neighbor.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


RKO had a reputation for making folksy, homespun pieces of Americana.

Anne Shirley (as Dawn O'Day) had been in films since she was a toddler. By 1933 she was in limbo - having played Ann Dvorak as a child in "Three on a Match" (1932) and a "flower girl" in both "This Side of Heaven" and "The Key" both in 1934. George Nicholls Jnr remembered Anne's work from a previous film and that's how she got this part. She also adopted Anne Shirley as her stage name. The memorable stories are there - Lady of Shallot in a leaky boat, the "stolen" brooch, the "red hair" incident. Anne was so right for the role of the chatty, heartwarming orphan. She was heartbreaking in her intensity, her eagerness to please and also her fiery temper. O.P. Heggie was wonderful as the understanding Matthew Cuthbert and Helen Westley was fine as the firm Marilla. Tom Brown was an excellent Gilbert Blythe. Gertrude Messinger, who had also been in films as a small child was fine as Diana Barry. Sara Haden proved she could play someone other than Aunt Millie in the Andy Hardy series, was Mrs. Barry.


Thank the Lord for Martin Scorsese, and his love of the movies.

This is the perfect introduction into the mind of the most talented American artist working in cinema today, and I couldn't recommend it more. I was enthralled through the whole thing and you will be too. Just relax and let him take you on a ride through his world, you'll love it.


Huge, exhaustive and passionate summary of American cinema as seen through the eyes of Martin Scorcese. Needless to say, there is never a dull moment in all of its 4 hour running time. Many genres, periods and directors are all examined, discussed more from the perspective of cinephile rather than contemporary director. For anyone even remotely interested in American films, or cinema in general. A masterpiece, and the best of the BFI's Century of Cinema series.


As a "rebuttle" of sorts to the AFI's top 100 films, the British Film Institute worked out a documentary with Martin Scorsese.

Now. I am a huge film fan and pride myself on having seen many, many films. But, I am nowheres in comparrison with my idol. In this fantastic (though long) documentary, Scorsese walks the viewer through several stages of the American History on film. This is divided in to several sections including the Western, the Gangster film and the Noir. Full of bouncy enthusiasm, Martin Scorsese is a great tour guide as well as a fantastic professor.


When the British Film Institute asked Martin Scorcese to create the American part of its Century of the Cinema series, he grabbed the opportunity with both hands. A Personal Journey through American Movies is a fascinating, wide-ranging and, as the title says, a highly personal look at Hollywood cinema.

Scorcese's story is primarily about Hollywood's directors  actors, producers, screenwriters and other collaborators barely get a mention. He states right from the beginning that for him the primary conflict within the film industry is that between the director's vision and the distributor's profit motive, between art and commercial viability. He even opens with a clip from Vincente Minnelli's The Bad and the Beautiful, one of the earliest films to openly explore this contradiction. This dictates the structure for the documentary. Scorcese looks at how genres have darkened and clichés have become challenged, how mavericks have challenged the production code, and how certain filmmakers fell from grace when they dared to be different. However, Scorcese never falls into the auteurist trap of dismissing directors who consistently pleased the studio bosses (he lavishes praise on Cecil B. De Mille), or those who had less of a recognisable style but were master craftsmen of the cinema nonetheless.

Scorcese doesn't necessarily focus on his absolute favourite directors either (Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock, two of Scorcese's biggest influences, are only mentioned in passing). Instead, he looks at the individuals and the films that serve to tell his story. For example, he shows us a succession of John Ford films to show how the western evolved. He looks at the work of Vincente Minnelli (probably the most often referenced director of the documentary) to show how a supposedly wholesome genre like the musical could also have darker undercurrents. I can imagine that, had this assignment not been limited to America, Scorcese would have also loved to talk about, for example his Italian influences or his British hero Michael Powell. As it is, he stretches the definition of American movies to include both the Hollywood films of immigrant directors such as FW Murnau, Billy Wilder and Douglas Sirk, as well as the work of US-born filmmakers that was produced elsewhere  such as that of Stanley Kubrick.

Rather than simply tell the story of Hollywood chronologically, Scorcese compares films from various eras in order to tackle various subjects. In his section on the language and tools of cinema, he begins with DW Griffith, looks at the coming of sound, colour and widescreen and inevitably ends up going over computer generated effects which, although Scorcese is not keen on them, he is even-handed enough to include clips of George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola defending them. However, he doesn't simply finish the chapter here as if this is the end of it. Instead, he then rewinds back to the 1940s, to show how a low-budget horror like The Cat People can achieve effective results from the simplest and cheapest of elements.

A Personal Journey through American Movies has to be one of the best film documentaries made. There were a number of outstanding directors and pictures which I would never have discovered without, and even the most seasoned of film buffs would be likely to find something new in its broad scope. Scorcese has also restored the balance to forgotten or undervalued pictures. I was pleased to see that, when he talks about Kubrick in his "Iconoclasts" chapter, he looks at Lolita and Barry Lindon, for me his two most underrated films. Scorcese's respect for the medium is on display in the way he allows clips to play out fully, rather than just giving us tiny bits, and he interrupts them with talking heads (a combination of archive and new interviews) only when necessary. There is a bit of bias towards the 40s and 50s, but that is hardly surprising since it is the era in which Scorcese grew up and discovered cinema. And after all, I don't think this documentary could have been achieved had it not been a personal journey.

One word of warning though, in its in depth look at certain pictures, this documentary does contain a fair few spoilers.


Prolific and highly influential filmmaker Martin Scorsese examines a selection of his favorite American films grouped according to three different types of directors: the director as an illusionist: D.W. Griffith or F. W. Murnau, who created new editing techniques among other changes that made the appearance of sound and color later step forward; the director as a smuggler: filmmakers such as Douglas Sirk, Samuel Fuller, and mostly Vincente Minnelli, directors who used to disguise rebellious messages in their films; and the director as iconoclast: those filmmakers attacking civil observations and social hang-ups like Orson Welles, Erich von Stroheim, Charles Chaplin, Nicholas Ray, Stanley Kubrick, and Arthur Penn.

He shows us how the old studio system in Hollywood was, though oppressive, the way in which film directors found themselves progressing the medium because of how they were bound by political and financial limitations. During his clips from the movies he shows us, we not only discover films we've never seen before that pique our interest but we also are made to see what he sees. He evaluate his stylistic sensibilities along with the directors of the sequences themselves.

The idea of a film canon has been reputed as snobbish, hence some movie fans and critics favor to just make "lists." However, canon merely denotes "the best" and supporters of film canon argue that it is a valuable activity to identify and experience a select compilation of the "best" films, a lot like a greatest hits tape, if just as a beginning direction for film students. All in all, one's experience has shown that all writing about film, including reviews, function to construct a film canon. Some film canons can definitely be elitist, but others can be "populist." As an example, the Internet Movie Database's Top 250 Movies list includes many films included on several "elitist" film canons but also features recent Hollywood blockbusters at which many film "elitists" scoff, like The Dark Knight, which presently mingles in the top ten amidst the first two Godfather films, Schindler's List and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and the fluctuation of similar productions further down such as Iron Man, Sin City, Die Hard, The Terminator and Kill Bill: Vol. 2. Writer Scorsese's Taxi Driver Paul Schrader has straightforwardly referred to his canon as "elitist" and contends that this is positive.

Scorsese is never particularly vocal at all about his social and political ideologies, but when we see this intense and admittedly obsessive history lesson on the birth and growth of American cinema in both ideological realms, we see that there is really no particular virtue in either elitism or populism. Elitism concentrates all attention, recognition and thus power on those deemed outstanding. That discrimination could easily lead to self-indulgence much in the vein of the condescending work of Jean-Luc Godard or the overrationalization of the production practices of a filmmaker like Michael Haneke. Yet populism invokes a belief of representative freedom as being only the assertion of the people's will. As has been previously asserted about the all-encompassing misconceptions the people have about cinema, populism could be the end of the potential power and impact of cinema. One can only continue seeing films, because it is a vital social and metaphysical practice. And that's what Martin Scorsese spends nearly four hours here trying to tell us, something which can't be told without being seen first-hand.


Thre isn't a single Scorsese movie I'd place on a list of my favorite movies. But this is the best thing I've run through my DVD player in about five years. Scorsese's patient elucidation of favorite film moments, and how Hollywood works is incredibly gracious, calm and intelligent.

It's 3 DVD-sides worth of material. It would have to be a British production, since everything about American corporate culture would have trampled the quiet, methodical, no frills, put-the-focus-on-the-content approach that is taken here. And an American production would have demanded he say he liked only movies that were popular favorites. I wish everyone took a page from his love of movies. You should love the movies you do for personal, idiosyncratic and specific reasons. Not just more "Me-too" votes for The Godfather, etc.. People have no clue what ideas are being explored in their favorite movies. If they did, movies would be more interesting than they are. Scorsese DOES know what ideas are being explored, and that makes him a compelling, involved speaker on the topic. I really appreciate his articulate, generous interviews over the last decade.

On a negative note, Scorsese is best when he's excited to show you some obscure movie, rather than when he's didactically teaching you something well-established about film history. And I do wish he pluck those three hairs out of the bridge of his nose. It's very distracting.


An enthralling, wonderful look at the films that inspired the excellent Martin Scorsese. Many of the films he speaks of are easy to relate to his works, particularly the earlier ones, the silent era. Very enjoyable despite being a bit long, I found this to be one of the best documentaries on film yet. Required viewing if you admire Martin Scorsese and his work.


I would never have thought I would almost cry viewing one minute excerpted from a 1920 black and white movie without sound. Thanks to Martin Scorsese I did (the movie was from F. Borzage). You will start to understand (if it's not already the case), what makes a good movie.


This documentary was interesting, but it was also long (so long it lasts a total of 225 minutes), like Ben-Hur long. But if your into that, this is for you. But only if you have a passion for movies, like I do. Being that Martin Scorsese is my favorite director (live and maybe even ever), this is quite fascinating, especially if you know the style of Scorsese's works. Because then you can understand where he got his inspiration for many of his films. Not the best documentary film ever made, but it is a leap for Scorsese, which is always good to watch. A


CCCC is the first good film in Bollywood of 2001. When I first saw the trailer of the film I thought It would be a nice family movie. I was right. Salman Khan has given is strongest performance ever. My family weren't too keen on him but after seeing this film my family are very impressed with him. Rani and Preity are wonderful. The film is going to be a huge hit because of the three main stars.

It's about Raj (Salman Khan) and Priya meeting and falling in love. They get married and go to Switzerland for their honeymoon. When they come back Raj and Priya find out that Priya is pregnant. Raj's family are full of joy when they find out especially Raj's dada (Amrish Puri). Raj and his family are playing cricket one day and Priya has an accident which causes Priya to have a miscarriage. Raj has a very close family friend who is a doctor, Balraj Chopra (Prem Chopra). He tells Raj and Priya that she can no longer have anymore kids. Raj and Priya keep this quiet from the family. Raj and Priya decide to go for surrogacy. Surrogacy to them is that they will find a girl and Raj and that girl will have a baby together and then hand the baby over to Raj and Priya. Raj finds a girl. Her name is Madhubala (Preity Zinta). She is a dancer and a prostitute. Raj tells her the situation and bribes her with money and she agrees. Raj changes Madhubala completley. Raj tells Priya that he has found a girl. Madhubala and Priya meet and become friends. They go to Switzerland to do this so no one finds out. Priya spends the night in a church and Raj and Madhubala are all alone and they spend the night together. The doctor confirms that Madhubala is pregnant and they are all happy. Raj tells his family that Priya is pregnant. They are happy again. Madhubala comes to love Raj and she wants him. What happens next? Watch CCCC to find out.

The one thing I didn't like about the film is their idea of surrogacy. They should have done it the proper way in the film but it didn't ruin the film. It was still excellent.

The songs of the film are great. My favourites are "Chori Chori Chupke Chupke", Dekhne Walon Ne", "Deewana Hai Yeh Mann" and "Mehndi". The song "Mehndi" is very colourful. In that song it shows the ghod bharai taking place and it is very colourful. The film deserves 10/10!


The year 2000 had been a bad year for indian films due to lack of quality and imagination from film directors. Other than Mohabbatein and Kaho Naa Pyaar Hai nothing stood out. CCCC had lot of contraversy due to the financing of the film and this with not really knowing what the film is about has generated good publicity and advanced ticket sales for the film around India and Abroad. The only information given was that it was a suspense thriller. The film is now been released in 2001 and the film was surprisingly quite good. The main plot is to do with surrogacy and is well handled. Salman And Preiti give a good performance where Salman doesn't actually take is shirt off at all..must be special effects!! Rani plays Salmans wife but it is slightly a less demanding role compared with Preiti who plays Prostitute who eventually becomes the surrogate mother. The three main leads confirm, after Har Di Jo Pyar Karega, they have a solid on screen and off screen chemistry(apparently). Salman Khan who is excellent plays a serious role in the film as a successful business man and is a pity is being exploited as a wannabe comedian in his other films as he is quite underrated in the Mumbai film industry partly due to the films he chooses. Rani's Character does not know Preiti is a prostitute until the end...this kept from her and the rest of the family...the rest you should find out as it will ruin the film if i told you. The songs are all picturised well especially dekhne walon and the main title song. The other supporting actors do a minimal but fine effort as Salmans loving family. Abbas Mastan has produced a hit and handled the film subject tactfully..I say go and watch it or rent it whatever you prefer!


......... and you get Chori Chori Chupke Chupke. Don't get me wrong, this movie is much less explicit (or not even) than Pretty Woman, but it (was) a new topic for Bollywood. The topic was accepted but it is far from Jism, Murder, and Julie. To tell you the truth, the topic is presented in a very clean manner. But the plot has it's number of clichés. The beginning of the movie is presented in a very "filmi" way. There are some very little plot holes. The movie picks up once Rani has her miscarriage where you feel that you are watching something other than a typical movie. Otherwise the whole family sequence felt overdone in the beginning. The acting couldn't have been any better. Salman Khan sometimes impresses, and sometimes lets you down. Over here he gave one of the best performances. On top of that his role is written so well, that you applaud every time he solves a problem. Rani Mukherjee was adequate. Throughout the movie, you feel for her character the most, but she is overshadowed by Preity Zinta. Preity Zinta is picture perfect. Out of the three, she gives everyone a run for their money. Its surprising how she can be just as convincing when she is innocent. And trust me, Madhubala is far from your girl next door. This role is one of the reasons why I rate her high. The supporting cast are like the family you see in HAHK, where they have no significance to the plot yet I found them tolerable here. The songs are pretty nice. The title song is my favorite of them all along with Dil Tera Mera Dil (Hearts). Mehndi Mehndi (Henna) and Dekhne Walon Ne (Look at the World's Sight) are two song that fit the film perfectly. Preity's cabaret number, Diwani Diwani (Crazy), could've been shortened while No. 1 Punjabi came across boring though it had good dancing. Otherwise the movie is definitely worth a watch.


This is a generally nice film, with good story, great actors and great songs. The cinematography was unfortunately bad. One of the film's weakest points is the annoying chain of sequences copied from Pretty Woman. Why? Does it hurt to attempt some originality, Abbas? Mustan? Anyone?

The film is about a newly married couple, Raj and Priya (Salman - Rani). Priya cannot conceive after an accident she had during the previous pregnancy, and they finally decide to use a surrogate mother, who will carry their child. They pick Madhubala, a vulgar prostitute played by Preity Zinta. The film is not really realistic, I mean, isn't it easier to adopt? And even if they pick a girl, does it mean the man has to sleep with her? Have you heard of insemination? Anyway, I guess if the writers had heard of all this, the film wouldn't have been made, so the concept is apparently intentional.

Salman acts very well. It's nice to see him playing a serious character. But his character suffers from unnecessary and cheap dialogues about his great love to his wife and how hard he finds it to sleep with another woman. Come on, it's cheesy and unrealistic. Rani is just about OK; she is generally effective and does try to do something with the role but gets completely overshadowed by Preity Zinta.

The film belongs to Preity, who steals the show in a big way with her flawless performance. She makes the transformation from a loud prostitute to a sensitive woman easily and naturally. She lives the film, emotes and makes you love her and admire her at the same time, partly because of her role, partly because of her magnetic and positive personality. This is one of her career-best performances. There is no doubt she is more talented than her industry contemporaries. She just should do more such roles.

The film's ending only highlights what I said above. It is tear-jerking, exciting and very well-acted. Watch it for Preity.

7/10 for the film! 10/10 - for Preity!


After a love triangle story in Har Dil Jo Pyaar Karega these 3 stars were again chosen in this controversial flick. The film would have been considered as hit if there was not a controversy with the production values from Bharat Shah. Here director duo Abbas-Mustan did a very different and unique job as compared with their previous and after directorial ventures. They are considered as thriller makers of Bollywood. But in this CCCC they proved that they can equally handle to make a romantic family drama. Hardly there is a single action scene when Preity was being raped by Salman's colleague in her apartment, Salman slapped him.

The movie has almost all the standards and ingredients like song, story, casting, performances etc. which are required to make a movie hit. But of course for Salman's fan this was something a surprise gift from him. Why? Because for so long he has been doing roles where he has a scene to show his open body and dance la-la-la all around. His role as a rich young businessman who has no-nonsense nature and of normal attitude is really impressive. After all Madhubala, a prostitute role performed by Preity is amazing. Later when she too turns out thoughtful about her life she deserve proper attention. Her facial expressions and body language become more attractive, and focus mainly goes to her. Her previous role as a pregnant woman in Kya Kehna was not that heart-touching as it is here. Of course, this can be termed as improvement. Then Priya, a very innocent and helpless wife of Raj who only depends on him for a better result. She has nothing powerful influence in the story as the main ingredients are in the hands of Preity.

Finally, the main point of the story which is something rare and unique in itself. In real world of this age it is not totally impossible to happen such step of searching for a surrogate mother. Perhaps, many are happening in this large world where these are kept secret. And in this way the scriptwriter of CCCC has uncovered a hidden truth which is taking place in others daily lives. But still then it is a doubt.


This film is a very good movie.The way how the everybody portrayed their roles was great.The story is nice.It tells us about Raj who is in love with Priya.They get married.She later becomes pregnant.But shortly their is a problem.Sadly they wont get the child.Raj later meets Madhu.He bribes her.She later becomes pregnant but she is not married to him.The movie is very good.The dialogues are wonderful.The songs are melodious to listen.The picturisations are good.The wedding song is very colourful.Salman,Rani,Preity were excellent. .The cinematography is excellent.The film is beautifully pictured in Swiztertland.The cast makes the movie great to watch.Worth the money and time.. Rating-8/10


I love this movie very much i watched it over and over. I don't see why anyone would think this movie wasn't good. Maybe you have seen better or whatever it is i personally love it. It is one of my favorite movies and I am not Hindi at all but i do love it. It might be a little like "Pretty Woman" but i haven't seen that and I don't think it's any better than this. I don't know why you are all trashing about it but maybe you have a good reason but I think i have said it enough but i absolutely love this movie, and to those who say it's not good at all well then I wonder why you watched it and what movies you consider good. As for everyone else that i watched it with they enjoyed it too so it surprises me that this many people don't like it. As for Rani Mukherjee ( i think thats how you spell her last name) she is very beautiful and my favorite actress ever!


In 1594 in Brazil, the Tupinambas Indians are friends of the Frenches and their enemies are the Tupiniquins, friends of the Portugueses. A Frenchman (Arduíno Colassanti) is captured by the Tupinambás, and in spite of his trial to convince them that he is French, they believe he is Portuguese. The Frenchman becomes their slave, and maritally lives with Seboipepe (Ana Maria Magalhães). Later, he uses powder in the cannons that the Portuguese left behind to defeat the Tupiniquins in a battle. In order to celebrate the victory, the Indians decide to eat him.

"Como Era Gostoso o Meu Francês" is another great low budget movie of the great Brazilian director Nélson Pereira dos Santos. The screenplay is very original and the story is spoken in Tupi. The film is shot using natural light most of the time and is very realistic. The actors and actresses perform naked and Ana Maria Magalhães is magnificent, showing a wonderful body and giving a stunning performance. The sound is produced by the Brazilian musician Zé Rodrix. This movie shows the beginning of the exploitation of my country by Europeans, focusing in the Portuguese and French at that time, trading with the Indians and exchanging combs and mirrors by our natural resources. This movie was awarded in the national festivals, such as the 1971 Brazilian Cinema Festival of Brasília (Festival de Brazília do Cinema Brasileiro) with Best Screenplay (Nelson Pereira dos Santos), Best Dialog (Nelson Pereira dos Santos and Humberto Mauro) and Best Cenograph (Régis Monteiro); Art Critics Association of São Paulo (Associação Paulista dos Críticos de Arte), with best Revelation of the Year (Ana Maria Magalhães) and some other prizes. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Como Era Gostoso o Meu Francês" ("How Tasty Was My Frenchman")


I was hardly aware of the time in history depicted in this 1971 Brazilian black comedy, however that is not to say it wasn't accessible to me because the movie makes it very clear. It's set in 16th century Brazil, where rival French and Portuguese settlers are exploiting the indigineous people as confederates in their battle to assert dominance. What is particularly interesting about the movie is that it is made by the Portuguese from the point of view of the French. The hero is a likable Frenchman, the Portuguese are barbarians, and the rest of the French are oppressive and greedy. The film's Portuguese makers are objective because when all is said and done, we see that it makes no difference whose side one takes. It's about heredity overpowered by environment in a time starkly defined by tribes. Enemies are made and perpetuated, and like so, the environmental integration never progresses.

A Frenchman is captured by the Portuguese is then captured by an indigenous tribe, the Tupinambas, after they massacre a group of Portuguese. The tribe's shaman predicted they would find a strong Portuguese man to cannibalize as revenge for the chief's brother being killed by a Portugeuse musket ball. Thinking the Frenchman is Portuguese, they believe they now have one. Nevertheless, the Frenchman is granted unrestrained course of the village, is sooner or later given a wife, and assumes their accustomed appearance rather than his Western clothes, or any clothes. Another Frenchman comes to the village and tells the tribe that their prisoner is indeed Portuguese, then assures the incensed Frenchman that he will tell them the truth when the Frenchman finds a secret treasure trove that another European has hidden nearby.

I found the opening scene funny, because its narration apposed with its contradictions on- screen serve as great satire, even if the movie didn't seem to want to maintain that tone very much more often. It's actually not a terribly riveting film. The bountiful, essential locale, fierce way of life and ripened native women make not only the Frenchman, but us, too, forget any threat, and we have the feeling of him as a free man. It should not be that terribly hard to escape. The cannibalism is as scarce of desire as the full-frontal nudity of the cast, suggested in lieu as the representative core of Pereira dos Santos's dry political cartoon of New World mythology and undeveloped social coherence. At any rate, this 1500s-era social commentary, shot on location at a bay with 365 islands, played almost entirely nude and almost entirely written in Tupi, encourages effective breakdown of established ways which are topical because they've repeated themselves for centuries.


How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman tells a story that is alternately sad, scary and life-affirming. It ends with a brutal finale that you knew had to happen, even though you were hoping--maybe even beleiving--it wouldn't.

Utlimately, this is the film's greatest strength: it expertly plays with your emotions and expectations, then drops a bomb on you.

I saw this in a film theory class at USC back in the mid-'90s. It is not easy to find, but is definitely worth hunting for.


I grew up in Brazil and I used to visit and marvel at the beautiful coast where the movie was filmed. The area is called "Parati" and is part of the "Green Coast" of the Rio de Janeiro state. It is some 150 miles from the Rio de Janeiro city.

This movie brings back to life the world of 16th century Brazil, where Europeans were barely starting to explore the coastline, which was still in pristine state and sparsely populated by various native tribes. French and Portuguese fought each other for territory and for the upper hand on the Brazil wood trade, all the while negotiating with the natives, who also fought each other for whatever reasons.

One French misfit ("a mercenary") is left to die by his own compatriots but manages to escape and is kept prisoner by an all-naked native tribe. While he is a "slave" of the chief, according to the customs of the tribe, he is allowed to live in relative comfort for months until the time is right for him to be killed and eaten in a ritual of revenge.

What I love about this film is that it recreates in loving detail the natives' villages and their way-of-life (they walked naked and were cannibals) and asks us to recognize and accept the life in those times as it was: in a gorgeous garden-of-eden, life was messy, violent, full of pathetic superstition and bizarre customs. The Europeans arrive and bring their own problems, including more violence with better weapons and greed. There is no romanticized "noble savages" or "heroic explorers" here, it is just people trying to survive in a tough world.

The movie is neither unduly sympathetic nor dismissive of the natives. From what I know of the subject, the depiction is fairly accurate which adds an air of uniqueness to the project: how many movies have you seen regarding the lives of Brazilian natives and their early affairs with Europeans?


Without "mental anachronism", this film which I would like to find in DVD offer an extraordinary diving in the vital and mental context of thought of the people before the "disenchantment of the world". That, there is thirty years, a director and a scenario writer could test one such empathy and such a romantic truth to do it of them masterpiece leaves me astounding. It would be necessary to be able to see and re-examine it film for better seizing than the temporal and cultural distance us to make lose of capacity to be included/understood, analyze and finally to accept of such or such example of "primitive thought". Because this thought maintaining almost impossible to feel in the secularized world however contain certain keys of our behavior, that only them future generations will be able to analyze with sufficient relevance. If somebody knows where I then to get a numerical copy or VHS to me or DVD thank you in advance.


How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman tells a story that is alternately sad, scary and life-affirming. It ends with a brutal finale that you knew had to happen, even though you were hoping--maybe even beleiving--it wouldn't.

 Utlimately, this is the film's greatest strength: it expertly plays with your emotions and expectations, then drops a bomb on you.

 I saw this in a film theory class at USC back in the mid-'90s. It is not easy to find, but is definitely worth hunting for.


I saw this movie at a college film festival back in the 70's - I have been waiting FOREVER for this movie to come out on video (finally it's out). It was made in Brazil, so I assumed that was why it hadn't made it to video yet. I have been checking video stores for the past 15 years waiting for this outstanding movie to come out! It is one of my all-time favorites - but be warned, it is weird, like Werner Herzog weird - its weirdness stems from its super-realism.

The movie is based on a true incident back a few centuries ago, in pre-colonial times, when Europeans were first encountering the tribes in the Amazon. A white man is mistaken by a savage tribe of cannibals as their enemy, so they intend to kill him. Before they dispatch him, though, they make him part of their tribe (their custom). The entire movie is like watching a National Geographic documentary as he becomes an accepted member of their tribe. That's it. Cosmic plotline? No. Intense insight into the variety of human life? Definitely.

Oh yeah... be warned... this film has definite nudity - this is not some Hollywood schlock flick about noble savages... this film tells it like it was (re-read above: National Geographic, super-realism)


I saw this film at the Adelaide Film Festival '07 and was thoroughly intrigued for all 106 minutes. I like documentaries, but often find them dragging with about 25 minutes to go. Forbidden Lie$ powered on though, never losing my interest.

The film's subject is Norma Khoury, a Jordanian woman who found fame and fortune in 2001 with the publication of her book Forbidden Love, a biographical story of sorts concerning a Muslim friend of hers who was murdered by her family for having a relationship with a Christian man. A few years later though, a few journalists started poking holes in the story, leading the public to believe it was fraud. The film covers this quickly but thoroughly in the beginning, and from there we spend most of our time in the company of Norma as she tries to convince us that her novel is more than fiction.

Director Anna Broinowski has found a truly fascinating woman to study, and she conducts endless interviews with Khoury as she seeks the truth. As always in life, the truth is not so easy to find. Norma fears for her life, worried about violent backlash over the unsavoury portrait her novel paints of Jordanian Muslims. She refuses to return to Jordan and show us the facts. Broinowski is not deterred however, and slowly puts the pieces together in front of us.

The result is an incredible look inside the mind of a con artist. Naturally, what we find there makes little sense and is extremely difficult to follow, and ultimately we don't know whether to believe Norma or not. She's either a rather unfairly put-upon woman trying to survive, or a fantastic spinster. The web of lies, truths and half-truths she turns through the film is brilliant.

The film uses much interview footage, as well as dramatisations to tell it's story, and Broinowski uses these dramatisations to show us why people like Norma are able to exist: we want to be conned. We go to the cinema every day and allow ourselves to believe what's happening on the screen is real. That might just be me reading into things a bit too much, it didn't come up in the Q&A with Brionowski after the film, but that's what I took away from it.

This is a great Australian film, and must receive an international release, and a swag of awards if you ask me. Certainly the best film I saw at AFF07.

Go see it, if you get the chance.


You sit there for a half an hour and watch a story, believing it all, then watch another half an hour of the same story utterly unraveling... and then put back together again. Brilliant.

One of the most exciting feature films at the San Francisco International Film Festival is a documentary. I don't know if - other than Andrew Jarecki's "Capturing the Friedmans" - there has ever been anything like Anna Broinowski's "Forbidden Lie$." It features, exposes, defends, reveals, and questions everything about Norma Khouri, author of "Honor Lost," the acclaimed and lambasted 2001 bestseller about honor killings in Jordan.

What is quite incredible and what makes the film so exceptional is that this "exposure" of Khouri is made with Khouri's full participation.

For the initial portion of the film, Khouri presents her story about the supposed honor killing of a friend of hers in Amman, the story of the book. She sounds completely believable, convincing.

Then her story is taken apart, exposed, by eminently believable and convincing people, such as women's rights activists in Jordan, investigative reporters there and in Australia, where Khouri lived for a while.

Khouri comes back and denies the accusations, taking a successful lie-detector test in the process. There comes another segment of devastating exposures - not to be specified here because that would lessen the shock value... and then Khouri comes back and faces the accusations (not all, but the essential ones in the matter of the book).

And the Houdini act continues, with round after round in this heavy-weight, seesaw prize fight, surprise after surprise - and there is no "happy ending" in the sense of resolution. Brilliant.


A best-selling book about honour killings in Jordan is withdrawn by its publishers after allegations surface that the story has been fabricated; associated with other allegations of its author's past as a con-woman. A few years later, she resurfaces, conceding that she took a certain amount of dramatic licence but willing to cooperate with a film-maker to prove the substance of her allegations. What follows is a fascinating insight into a pathological personality, someone who's behaviour on one had makes no sense unless what she is saying is true, yet who is seemingly incapable of saying anything that is not astonishingly dramatic but unproven at best and most often, verifiably false. It's almost impossible to imagine what Ms. Khouri hoped to gain by appearing in this film: vindication? celebrity? - all she does achieve is to project a certain image of herself as a deeply damaged individual, and even that cannot be taken at face value. Director Anna Broinowski appears increasingly on camera as her film progresses, and increasingly exasperated to boot; but she is finally rewarded with a remarkable, although scary and disturbing, tale to tell - and one of those films that reminds us what a thoroughly weird world it is we live in.


What a fascinating film. Even if it wasn't based on real life, Forbidden Lies was a fascinating portrait of a con artist in her element. And it is the kind of film psychology students could study to learn about compulsive liars.

The author of Forbidden Love, Norma, was revealed as a fraud in the media but this move really does give her ample opportunity to clear her name.

But the twists and turns she takes the documentary maker through are amazing. What a patient woman! I loved this movie. I have not read the book but simply heard good reviews and went to see it on boring rainy afternoon. The journey this film takes you on is clever, interesting and totally engrossing.


Beat a path to this important documentary that looks like an attractive feature. Forbidden Lie$(2007) is simply a better (cinematic) version of Norma Khouri's book Forbidden Love, and THAT was a best-seller. An onion-peeling of literary fraud and of a pretty woman, Lie$ is the very best in editorialised reality TV.

Cleverly edited and colourful, Broinowski's storytelling is chaptered by moving silhouettes of Norma Khouri meaningfully blowing smoke. I disagree (with Variety) that it's overlong; instead my one slight problem was with the episodic nature of its key players commenting on others' just-recorded testimonials. On a single watching your sense of narrative becomes mired.....so I watched it twice.

This Oscar-worthy effort is at once genuinely funny, upsetting, and totally engrossing as it documents one lie after another. The apparent con unfolded in the Australian State of Queensland via very personal swindles of Khouri's friends and fans(!). Clearly these friends are now "turned", the funniest on-camera line belonging to Khouri's QLD neighbour Rachel Richardson who speaks her disillusionment in flat, no-nonsense colloquialisms: "I think it's a load of sh!t. Personally".

We need to learn from their experience, hence my belief in spoilers. Any perennial lie-spinner caught out in a lie will just say anything to buy time to tell another lie.

There's some breathtaking footage of Khouri cackling derisively at duping this very documentarian, who instead presses her (con)"Artist" repeatedly for corroboration.

Since being busted by Sydney Morning Herald journalists Caroline Overington and David Knox a year after publication, Khouri has been on the run, but was tempted back to the director to supposedly clear her name. She absconded supposedly because a) she's either terrified of her sly, more-Italian-sounding-than-Greek husband, or b) because she needed her passport/visas to clear her name.

Unlikely.

A more plausible reason was that the FBI regained her trail in Queensland before she again skipped overseas (one guess: No, not Jordan). According to a closing card, Khouri is "still under investigation by the FBI" in 2007.

I guessed audiences might just give Khouri the benefit of the doubt once she invoked the need for utmost secrecy and subterfuge. Instead, the audiences I sat with slowly became just as disillusioned as the duped people on the screen. Once they caught on, there was plenty counter-derision and catcalls; earlier, stressed sighs had emanated from audiencemembers who just didn't know how to take Khouri's evolving contradictions.

The filmmaker gets props for so beautifully spanning this convoluted tale from beginning to end, not leaving anything out--not even her own self-sacrifice.

Anna opens her film with a sympathetic book narration by Khouri herself. The putated reason for authoring it is retold very believably at first--key to how a lifelong liar operates: in half-truths. Khouri is nevertheless a very pretty and smart 35yr-old with rather disarming charm, and surprisingly, worked-out biceps.

Gradually we're introduced to less-and-less-adulating Aussie journos, publishers and fans who at first bought the extent of Khouri's honour-killing accusations hook, line and sinker. Later we see their more rueful reactions, quite self-controlled and matter-of-fact, if some perhaps a little bitter.

It was Jordanian (anti-)honour-killing activists who took deepest umbrage at Khouri's fallacies because its pot-stirring forced them to reduce the pace of change. Honour-killings do happen in Jordan; it's just their prevalence that's at odds with Khouri's book--plus 72 other "facts". In 2003 these activists faxed (Australian) Random House with 73 painstakingly-checked objections.

The publishing houses across 4 continents who'd jumped at the chance to publish first-time author Khouri never tried to check any facts. Leaving any corroborration to a disclaimer in their author contract, they too were fair game. So a massive hot-topic fraud was as easy to perpetrate upon the world as typing it up in Internet cafes.

Later still we're shocked to discover that the "factual errors" extend to Khouri's bio as well. For one thing, she's not only not a 35yr-old virgin (her defence is that she merely didn't disabuse people of their assumptions), but she has a slickster husband and 2 teenagers! Sometimes she's just too fast-talking in her American accent. She also seems too-comfortable with cellphone technology and Western clothes. I realise observations like these might sound prejudicial to the very Jordanian women who don't need any Western paternalism from me, but when even cultural cues don't jibe in addition to Khouri's "facts", you've got to start questioning your source.

At some point the filmmaker came to the same conclusion. She makes an admirable effort to hold Khouri to account, in person, in Jordan. The last third is consumed with a fact-finding trip back to Amman, where one "fact" after another falls. Eventually Broinowski forces her (con)"Artist" to admit the decade-discrepancy in her story, and it's after this that Khouri records her derisive secret confession into her own digital camera. Secret, because in it Khouri's "American security guard" Jeremy is heard to have an Australian accent: he's an actor! (We never find out how Anna uncovered it.)

So this becomes the filmmaker's triumph, as she never flags in her tone or commitment. Her on-camera revelations lead her audience to learn from the mistakes of others given such a litany of reasonable doubt, FBI documents--and Khouri's most shocking initial crime.

Anna Broinowski (watch-list her now) is even clever enough to use the one artistic device (key players cross-commenting on footage) to kill two birds--making her audiences want to drink from the same well again.

In fact, despite her deceptively demure approach, she made me re-confirm that Overington and Knox really DID win their 2004 Walkleys in Investigate Journalism for their "Norma Khouri Investigation".

Broinowski MADE ME LOOK.(10/10)


In the early to mid 1970's, Clifford Irving proposed to write the ultimate biography of Howard Hughes,claiming to have spent months preparing for the book,engaged in interviews with the reclusive millionaire. When all of this turned out to be false,Irving was accused of perjury & spent several years behind bars (although always admitting his findings were accurate). Flash forward to 20001,several months prior to September 11th, a book,entitled 'Forbidden Love' (published in the U.S. as 'Honor Lost:Love And Death In Modern Day Jordan') by a previously unknown author by the name of Norma Khouri,a woman from Jordan,who reported on the death by mercy killing of her best friend Dalia,due to the fact that Dalia,being from a devout Muslim background,was dating a Christian man. It,like Irving's biography on Hughes was revealed as a potential hoax. Australian film maker,Anna Broinowski attempts to delve into the quagmire that was Khouri's attempts to clear herself of the lie(s). Over the time frame of 104 minutes,the film attempts to reveal is Norma Khouri telling the truth,or is she just a compulsive liar,with an agenda/vendetta of her own?. Interview footage with those who know/knew her (including an ex husband,her publisher,and others) tell their side of the story. This is a toothsome,well produced documentary that manages to point many fingers at just as many potential guilty parties. Not rated,but contains pervasive bad language & a re-enactment of the grisly murder scene,played over a few times (but nothing nearly as graphic & disturbing as what one would see in the latest torture porn epic,such as Saw:Part 84). Not a good choice for the little ones.


This film is a great fun. I recommend you watch it yourself and then watch it again with your friends. I did last night and it was fascinating how well Norma Khouri could pull everybody into her world! I did feel a little bit strange watching my friends go through the same roller coaster as I did the first time. But they all thanked me and loved the movie. You know it is a great film if you spend 2 hours after the film talking about the movie!

I once saw a con man almost up toNorma Khouri's level, but no where near the same size ring. He fooledtons of very gullible and rich folks at my old Berkeley CA A.A. group where everyone trusts everyone else. He would "sponsor" only people who seemed very well to do. Who knew he would have stolen in excess of 100k(in 1987 when that was real money) after being in town for only 1 month. His victims were very fragile as they were in their first month or week of being sober. He was evil with a great laugh and a great smile on his face.

The above crime is nothing compared to what Norma Khouri did to her old neighbor. But I don't want to give anything away.

I just found this one night on a late night movie channel,"Showtim" I think. This is always a movie fans greatest experience to be totally tricked into seeing something and having your mind blown. Just drag your friends over to see this and don't tell them a thing. It is a very entertaining film, it moves quickly and never bores you.

This should be a international classic for all time. I believe all great movies eventually rise to the top. Time will be very good to this film. I am just sorry no one has heard of it yet,in some ways that makes the surprises even better.

The director and editor were fantastic. They deserved winning the best documentary.

JUST WATCH THIS FILM!


I felt compelled to write a review for Space Cobra as it has received a good score of 7.3 stars but only a few of the reviews at the time of me writing this were particularly positive. A strange situation and hopefully my positive review will point people towards this old and mostly forgotten Anime movie. Space cobra is the funky tale of a smuggler and rogue who becomes involved with the three sisters of an ancient and dead planet and an evil force who wants to harness the planets powers. This is an old movie and the animation shows, but what it lacks in modern sophistication it makes up with an abundance of charm. Space Cobra is very much geared to a western audience and very easy to watch. There are few if any references to specific Japanese culture and great for Anime novices to watch and enjoy. Space Cobra himself is witty and likable. I cannot say how much of this is due to the English dub or the intentions of the maker, but this is one of the few Japanese comedy characters that I find truly funny. The style is very sixties Barbarellish with a fantastic soundtrack by Yello. The style is colourful and imaginative and there is constant action to move the story along. The strangest aspect of this movie is how it begins as a comedy and ends on a very downbeat dramatic note. I cannot think of another Anime or general movie that has been able to do this so seamlessly and convincingly. You barely realise that it is happening, but it is done so subtly and seems perfectly natural. You also really feel the characters went on a journey and they're lives were changed by the whole experience. Check out if you can.


This anime was underrated and still is. Hardly the dorky kids movie as noted, i still come back to this 10 years after i first saw it. One of the better movies released.

The animation while not perfect is good, camera tricks give it a 3D feel and the story is still as good today even after i grew up and saw ground-breakers like Neon Genesis Evangelion and RahXephon. It has nowhere near the depth obviously but try to see it from a lighthearted view. It's a story to entertain, not to question.

Still one of my favourites I come back too when i feel like a giggle on over more lighthearted animes. Not to say its a childish movies, there are surprisingly sad moments in this and you need a sense of humour to see it all.


I just finished viewing this finely conceived, and beautifully acted/directed movie. It was nip and tuck as to whether I was going to waste my time viewing a movie on the Lifetime Movie Network because of the horribly distracting commercials. Reading the earlier comments persuaded me to give it a shot. After all the worst that could happen would be that I might fall asleep during one of the boring yet lengthy bug spray ads. So why did I watch it? mainly because when IMDB gives a movie a "WEIGHTED AVERAGE" OF 5.8 WHO'S STATISTICAL AVERAGE was 7.3 It must be a sure hit.

I was totally delighted to have taken the time to view this movie, commercial pox and all. Helen Hunt continues to amaze me with her ability to take on tough roles adapting her core persona to fit each role.

The portrait she painted in this film of the tough yet perceptively human police officer was beautifully executed. When the scene calls for quick witted, timely delivered verbal intercourse, she can stand toe to toe with any actor. Yet she is adept at the delivery of volumes of emotional response without uttering a word relying only on facial expression and body language. Without the commercials, which by design kill the continuity of any good film, This would have been a real edge-of-the-seat nail-biter. I gave it a 9.0


I have seen this movie more than several times, on TV. I ALWAYS watch it again...NEVER turning the channel. This movie is full of chilling surprises, and absolutely edge-of-your-seat suspenseful, without being overbearing or stupid. Helen Hunt's talent is magnificently shown in this movie! I recommend this movie to anyone!!!


When a small town is threatened by a child killer, a lady police officer goes after him by pretending to be his friend. As she becomes more and more emotionally involved with the murderer her psyche begins to take a beating causing her to lose focus on the job of catching the criminal. Not a film of high voltage excitement, but solid police work and a good depiction of the faulty mind of a psychotic loser.


More TV movies ought to be made like this one. I saw it way back in '93 when it was first on TV. Helen Hunt and Steven Weber were both terrific, giving very gritty and realistic performances. Weber was especially good, turning in an exceptionally creepy and understated performance as the child molester/killer. This film really increased my respect for Hunt as an actress. The director also directed "Hoosiers," which was somehow both formulaic and exciting. But the direction in both of these works has the same stark, simple realism that is so appealing. If you like TV movies that aren't predictable and filled with overacting, see it if you can. The side story about Hunt and Fahey's affair is also appealing without detracting from the main story.


Chalk this one up in the win column, this was a superb movie. The acting performances were great and the script was equally great.

Helen Hunt was magnificent as the Riverside police officer Gina Pulasky. Gina was a complex character. She was a rookie cop with the Riverside Police Dept. She ended up in an affair with a coworker that she knew had a wife and kids, all the while she took on the dangerous task of going undercover to catch a serial killer.

Jeff Fahey (the Ray Liotta look alike) did a bang up job as the confused, often stammering, police officer that had an affair with Gina. He was stoic as an officer, but he was quite the opposite when it came to dealing with his feelings and his extra-marital affair.

Steven Weber, most notably from the sitcom "Wings", did a nice job as the quiet, meek, underachieving sociopath. On the surface, he was an innocent loser, but beneath the surface lied a cold hearted killer. Weber really took on the persona of a childlike young adult with an insatiable thirst to kill young boys.

The entire movie was spectacular. Each scene, each verbal exchange let us know more and more about the characters. The production team did a phenomenal job with condensing days, if not weeks worth of events into a 90 minute movie. This movie was a good example of doing a lot with little.


This is one of the best movies out there and that's saying a lot being that it was for television. I really wish it was on d.v.d.

Helen Hunt gave such a raw performance. She played a rookie cop thrown into serial killer case perfectly. When she falls apart because he kills another kid it was amazing. She is so alone, so he gets to her. When she talks about her mother! WOW!

Steven Weber as the serial killer was so shocking! He really brought her into his dark world. It was Oscar-worthy. When he talks about killing the kids, scary! When he realizes who she really is! What a scene!!

They really don't make them like that anymore. It was a real thriller without being gory.


**SPOILERS** Highly charge police drama about a serial killer loose in and around the small town of Riverside Wisconsin. Who's being tracked down by the local police using policewoman Gina Pulasky, Helen Hunt,as an undercover decoy to catch him.

Nothing new in this made for TV movie that you haven't seen before but the depth of the acting and screenplay is unusually good and brings out a lot about not only the killer but the policewoman's, as well as her fellow policeman lover, state of mind.

Having been put under psychiatric care after shooting an armed and unstable assailant, who attacked her partner with a rifle. Officer Palusky is given the task to go undercover to get close to murder suspect Kayle Timler, Steven Webber. After he was positively identified by the little girl Sahsa, Kim Kluznick,who saw him not far from where little Timmy Curtis was found stabbed, 18 times, to death the next day.

Getting a job at the Mr. "C" Diner where Tim works Gina gets to become very friendly with him and later tells him, in order to get Tim to open up, about him possibly being the serial murderer that she once killed in a hit-and-run accident a 79 year old woman.

Tim who is said to have a genius IQ doesn't seem to pick up on Gina's attempt to trap him even when he later sees her at a bowling alley with her fellow cops spending a night out. Playing some weird cat and mouse game with her Tim at one point get's Gina, at knife point, to admit that she's wired. But Gina tells him that she was forced to do it by the police to get a break and an early release from prison. Besides Tim's instability and criminal actions we find out that Gina isn't all there as well.She seems to be suffering from her being rejected by her father who left her, with a drunk and abusing mother, as a young girl that's effecting her work as an undercover policewoman.

There's also the fact that Gina's lover policeman Will McCaid (Jeff Fahey), who's estranged from his wife and two kids, who's also on the serial murder case is too overprotective of her. That causes Gina to almost blow her cover and that has her later being taken off her assignment.

Put back on undercover duty by her boss Capt. Cheney (Dan Conway), over the objections of Officer McCaid, after another young boy, 12 year-old Davy Marish,was found murdered Gina finally get's herself together and gets Tim to admit that he's the person who's responsible for the string of murders in the area. Gina does it by having a hidden tape recorder that she replaced the one that she gave to him to show how honest she is, hidden on her.

The movie "In the Company of Darkness" wasn't really that exceptional but the acting by Helen Hunt Jeff Fahey and especially Steven Webber was. It was these high caliber performances that lifted the film well above the average made for TV movie were used to seeing.


I Enjoyed Watching This Well Acted Movie Very Much!It Was Well Acted,Particularly By Actress Helen Hunt And Actors Steven Weber And Jeff Fahey.It Was A Very Interesting Movie,Filled With Drama And Suspense,From The Beginning To The Very End.I Reccomend That Everyone Take The Time To Watch This Made For Television Movie,It Is Excellent And Has Great Acting!!


I must say that I really had no idea that I was going to sit down and watch this movie. I guess it was the fact that I had nothing better to do between class. But, for once a TV movie caught my interest. More importantly Helen Hunt caught my eye. I really wasn't a big fan of hers prior to this film. Sure I liked Twister and As Good As It Gets. But, something about this movie really did it for me. I would now see myself as a huge fan. This movie comes with high marks from...me. Give it a chance, it won't let you down.


An unusually straight-faced actioner played by a cast and filmed by a director who obviously took the material seriously. Imperfect, as is to be expected from a film clearly shot on a tight budget, but the drama is involving-- it's one of those films that when it gets repeated ad nauseum on Cinemax 2 or More Max or whatever they call it, you end up watching 40 minute blocks when you're supposed to be going to work. Along W/ "Deathstalker 2", "Chopping Mall", and "The Assault", a reminder that Wynorski is a much more talented director than many of his fellow low-budget brethern, who has a real ability to pace a genre film, when he actually's interested in the material (i.e., don't bother watching any of his Shannon Tweed flicks with a 3 or a 4 after the title!) Actors who've had too little to do recently (Mancuso, Ford, even Gary Sandy for chrissakes) really put their all into some of their best roles in years -- as for Grieco, he has the right look, although his acting is a bit one-note -- it's clear his character is supposed to be self-destructing throughout the film, but Grieco doesn't quite convey it. I checked IMDB and I see the writer also wrote "Sorority House Massacre 2" & "Dinosaur Island" for the director -- both minor classics in their own rights, but obviously "silly" Roger Cormon-like Cinema -- this one's more like some of the better Jonathan Demme and Jonathan Kaplan B-pictures of the 70's -- giving you the exploitation element but offering involving drama at the same time -- a real step forward. Not "Citizen Kane," and the comic final moments are a bit disruptive, but a well-written, character-driven above-average straight-to-video actioner. Small achievements like this should not be overlooked when they come along, which is rare enough (as I was reminded as I tried to sit through an Albert Pyun monstrosity called "Heatseeker" the other night -- this low-budget stuff isn't as easy as it looks -- but that's another story!)


This film caught me off guard when it started out in a Cafe located in Arizona and a Richard Grieco,(Rex),"Dead Easy",'04, decides to have something to eat and gets all hot and bothered over a very hot, sexy waitress. While Rex steps out of the Cafe, he sees a State Trooper and asks him,"ARE YOU FAST?" and then all hell breaks loose in more ways than one. Nancy Allen (Maggie Hewitt),"Dressed to Kill,",'80, is a TV reporter and is always looking for a news scoop to broadcast. Maggie winds up in a hot tub and Rex comes a calling on her to tell her he wants a show down, Western style, with the local top cop in town. This is a different film, however, Nancy Allen and Richard Grieco are the only two actors who help this picture TOGETHER!


Okay. Yes, this was a very-tight-budget movie with continuity errors (like single scenes obviously filmed in sunshine and then in shadow and then mixed together), and as much as I love Nick Mancuso he was often a little too good at the burnt-out part, and some of the minor supporting cast was really bad (plus at least one actor was used for two different but conspicuous roles). But come on. Richard Grieco was hysterical (his hair alone is worth the trip). Steven Ford was very likable. Mancuso had some great lines, while Nancy Allen, ironically, was completely bland and uninteresting. Classic? No. Bad parts? Yes. Entertaining? Big yes. I would have loved to have been on-set the day they decided what kind of hairstyle Grieco would have. "Are you fast?" ... "Y'ain't THAT fast."


Eric Clapton, Jack Bruce and Ginger Baker re-unite to play all their songs from 35 years ago when they formed a trio called "Cream." Those were the psychedelic days of England and America and these guys looked it: all skinny, very long hair, wild clothes and loud music. They played a combination of rock and blues and it was, for the most part, good stuff.

Well, these guys are now 60-something years old and they can still sing and play at a high level as this wonderful DVD concert disc shows us. I was always extremely familiar with Clapton, of course, who has never been out of the limelight, but I didn't know what to expect from Bruce and Baker, neither of whom I hadn't seen in decades. They surprised me. When he was young, Baker was so gaunt he looked like a speed freak near death. Now he looks healthy, in shape and his drum playing was solid. Bruce looked a bit haggard but his voice is great, as good as ever and a pleasure to hear on these old songs. This is just excellent material and performing from guys who know what they're doing.

Some people criticized this show for being low-key. I don't agree with that. I have no complaints. The concert sounded very good. The second song, "Spoonful," was outstanding, the highlight of the concert for me.

Highly recommended.


So often a band will get together for a re-union concert only to find that they just can't get it together. Not so here. This concert is just shear brilliance from start to finish. These three musicians obviously got together beforehand and plotted and planned what was needed to ensure this was not just a nostalgic bash to satisfy someone's ego. This is obvious from the start, before they even step on stage. Many faces in the crowd weren't even born when these guys first performed. From the first song they capture that old magic that was Cream, 3 men, 3 instruments, no fuss. Clapton, by his own admission, said he had to stretch himself for this concert because there were no keyboards, synthesizers etc so we get to see him at his best. Ginger Baker demonstrates why so many drummers today, speak of him as some sort of drumming guru. Jack Bruce just great. They really managed to put together a piece of magic that will stand the test of time for many years to come. This one's a 10 for me.


I've loved all of Cream's work, even as there is such a small and precious catalog of work to take hold. Even when they go for as long as twenty minutes with some of their songs (Spoonful and Toad off of Wheels of Fire are prime examples) still rock the socks off of more than half of any given rock act working today. This power to gel on stage is given one of the most anticipate rock band reunions ever with their Royal Albert Hall shows last year. They may have gotten older, as have their fans, but the energy is still there, with the great arrangements of classic blues songs as well as their own. The renditions of White Room, Badge, Politician, Spoonful, Sunshine of Your Love, not one seems to miss a beat. Clapton's solos have a formation that he sometimes doesn't have when on stage with his solo band. Ginger Baker, enough said. Jack Bruce is sturdy enough with his vocals still with a kind of power that Clapton could never get on his own. Bottom line, if you want to see what were the best shows you wish you had seen last year (well, some may have seen them), it's all on this DVD, with cool special features.


I first saw a track from this DVD at a hifi show Nov 2006 in London ( i was not really into cream until now!!).It was through a high end Arcam system,it sounded great with dts.I had to get this DVD and i'll tell you this is by far the most exciting music DVD i have ever watched.The performance of Cream at their age was just mind blowing and sound quality is the best i have heard on a music DVD.It does not matter what type of music you like,this one will definitely grow on you.It's the sheer brilliance of their performance that will make you watch it again and again.Even new musicians don't cut the mustard these days, as these old rockers do.


I caught a bit of this concert on public television and knew I had to have it. The boys give everyone at the Royal Albert an excellent, often thrilling performance complete in every way. Pure, too - no synth, no smoke-shrouded lasers and strobes, no grandiose entrance (and an unstoned, serious, and appreciative audience, all of whom left their bottle rockets at home).

If you're a Cream fan (or if you've only heard of them); if you're a blues fan; if you're a rock 'n' roll fan; you will not be disappointed when you view and listen to this DVD. You also will never lose this DVD because you'll never lend it to anyone. (This DVD justifies selfishness! Tell them to get their own!) It's too good and too replayable; you'll want to keep it within easy reach.


A true anomaly in the French cinema ,this despairing work has no equivalent in the contemporary production.One would rather have to look on the side of Louis Malle's "le feu follet" (1963)(the fire within) to find something not completely unlike Harel's effort.Wry and cynical,having lost all his illusions,the hero ,a computer scientist,has got no more reason to live.Absolutely none.Estranged from the human race,he seems to live his life as some kind of entomologist,studying his colleagues.One of them catches his attention:Tisserand-José Garcia plays the most demeaning part of the decade-.Then Tisserand will become some kind of prey:all his pessimism will rub off on this poor man.The scene is the night-club climaxes the strange relationship:the hero tells his victim that his life will always be unfulfilled unless he.... Well now the movie takes a more conventional turn so to speak (Clouzot's misanthropy maybe)but just for a while.

The form is weird beyond comment There are two voices-over,one for the narrator who always refers to the main character as "our hero",one for the aforementioned hero.The story takes place,now in Paris,now in Rouen ,Guy de Maupassant's town.In a scene with his shrink ,the hero says the writer's madness was only the expression of his disgust for Man and he draws a parallel between his despair and Maupassant's one.

This depressing movie is only suitable for an informed audience.Not for the very short excerpts of X-rated movies,but because after watching it,you may be feeling down in the dumps.


Faithful adaptation of witty and interesting French novel about a cynical and depressed middle-aged software engineer (or something), relying heavily on first-person narration but none the worse for that. Downbeat (in a petit-bourgeois sort of way), philosophical and blackly humorous, the best way I could describe both the film and the novel is that it is something like a more intellectual Charles Bukowski (no disrespect to CB intended). Mordantly funny, but also a bleak analysis of social and sexual relations, the film's great achievement is that it reflects real life in such a recognisable way as to make you ask: why aren't other films like this? One of the rare examples of a good book making an equally good film.


It is an extremely difficult film to watch, particularly as it targets the innermost core of all of our lives. But ultimately it is a very beautiful and deeply moving film. Any person who finds it cynical I have to say that they must have greatly missed the point of the film's entire message. For those who actually watch the film, they will see that the way the issues are dealt with is absolutely necessary, and the outcome is ultimately uplifting. Sure, it's very hard to watch, a difficult subject matter and even brutal. Yet it's extremely relevant to society and everybody. It shows the peak of what world cinema is doing at the moment (I will not restrict that term to just France) and everyone should try to see it. I will say that it is best to go in with a clear head without being swayed by conflicting views, and just let the film work for you.


The book on which this movie is based was excellent; it took a while to come to grips with Houellebecq's unconventional style but once I understood the mood behind the writing I was completely drawn into the author's world of sadness. In fact, no other book has affected me so much. This is not necessarily a good thing - it elucidated my own personal struggle and has made the futility of my own struggle harder to accept. Houellebecq's insights are masterfully captured by Harel and the hero's apathy and indifference to a world which has rejected him is perfectly portrayed. This is a movie which reveals today's society for the lowly male in all its horror. Hopefully, things will change in the future but for the present we have to accept the rat-race as shown in this movie. It's probably best that Harel or Houellebecq do not create a work of genius like this again. One is enough for any man.


Unremittingly bleak and depressing, the film evokes as well as could be desired the legendary misery and emptiness that characterised Houellebecq's controversial novel of the same name. Like many French films, its manner is one of wistful profundity but it is painfully slow - or should that be, slowly painful? While this is an excellent and challenging film, it is not an enjoyable one and its difficult to think of any time when one might be in the 'right' mood to see it.


This is an excellent little film about the loneliness of the single man. Phillipe Harel as Notre Heros is a bit like an amalgam of Robert de Niro in Taxi Driver, Inspector Clouseau (in his stoicism) and Chauncey Gardiner in Being There (also Peter Sellers). He is single yet doesn't have a clue how to attract the opposite sex - in fact, he really makes no effort at all!

He has a stoicism and fatalism that defies any hope of ever achieving coupledom - his friend Jose Garcia as Tisserand is in the same plight yet at least makes a brave effort to transcend his extended virginhood (he's 28 and admits he's never had sex).

Very good outdoor shots of Paris and Rouen, where the two software people travel on business. They try various nightclubs and places but all to no avail. My theory is that they're trying the wrong places - they go to more-or-less 'youth' nightclubs; they should try the type that has older people, more their own age.

Harel increasingly becomes isolated and does a little de Niro effort, as in Taxi Driver, urging his friend/colleague to go and stab some bloke who's pulled a nice-looking girl in the nightclub.

Worth watching.


Preston Waters, a 11 years old boy,has problems with his parents and brothers specially because of money issues. He is crazy to have his own house and his own rules,since his brothers always stole his saved money and his parents neglect his wishes. One awful day, Preston was riding his bicycle; It was the same day that the villain of the story,Quigley, was trying to scape from the Police and accidentally ran the car over Preston's bike. Needing to be far away from the police, Quigley gives in a hurry, a check to cover the damages of Preston's bike. The problem was: It was a blank check! Preston is a clever boy and decides to have a high price on that check: 1 million dollars! All that money gives Preston things that he always wished for, like a mansion with pool,lots of toys, and even a limousine! The problems start to begin when the FBI and Quigley wants to know where the money is, making Preston in a hard situation and facing many problems.

This movie was one of my favorites during my childhood. :)


This is a good movie. Something fun about watching money be blown at a super rate, especially from a kid's point of view. Take it for what it is, a fun little movie about a kid's dream coming true, and what a kid might do with $1 million dollars. Don't like it, don't watch it. They make movies for the watchers, not the people that have nothing better to do then complain in their lives.


Yeah, I remember this one! Many years since I actually watched it. The story was entirely surreal, but nonetheless great! What anyone who rates and reviews movies ought to bear in mind is what the respective movie aims at. It's the same with "First Kid", which follows a similar pattern. Certain movies - like this one here - just aim at plain and comical nonsense. Such movies can't be rated from the point of view of a hypercritical reviewer. Of course these movies lack quality, lack a sophisticated storyline, very often lack first-class acting, but if they do fulfil their primary premise - that's okay. I don't have this movie here on my list of all-time favorites, but I still thought it was funny, had some very enjoyable sequences and made a good story. Brian Bonsall is a smart actor anyway.


First of all the movie, is an ingenious work of art(movie). The plot was filled with surprises, a little kid pretends to be a grown up inherits one million dollars and how he spends it. I mean how whacked out is this. Walt Disney really outdid themselves this time. The comedy is most of the times expected but the other times unexpected. I mean was this movie OK or was this movie OK. It also teaches a lot about wise youths and I this kid is really wise and a bit time smart pants. But also it sucks. How the heck could a guy like that kid get a hot police babe and his dad let him go free. That's like let a killer get bailed free for ten years. If I were to do that I'd get beaten with a 'suble jack'(a huge stick that stings when used to bench your butts really hard). That kid is really lucky. Back to the story. The movie makers really knew what they were doing when they made this movie but still it's not perfect. The acting was good and bad. The kid and woman had no chemistry neither did the father but the bros were excellent'. The special effects on the other hand was lame. Plus this movie isn't based on reality. I hated and loved it at the same time.


Preston Waters is off to a bad summer. Besides his birthday coming up, nothing else looks promising.

First he has to share his own room with his brothers who are going to run a business. They can't do it in their rooms because they don't have enough space. Off to a birthday party he only gets $6 tokens while others get $32, $35, and even $50. When one of his birthday cards comes early, he only gets a check made out for $11.

Going to the bank he learns he needs $200 at least to start an account. Leaving the bank, a bully steals the check. Pursuing after the kid nearly gets him run over (definately his bike gets ruined) by a criminal named Quigley (played by Miguel Ferrer). Quigley's just come from the bank too from giving the owner $1,000,000 to give to this guy tomorrow. Quigley starts to write a check for the damage, but only succeeds in writing his name before a police car circles the area. Afraid, he gives Preston the check, informs him to give it to his dad to finish out.

That evening though, Preston tells his dad that he doesn't want a new bike, he wants his own room back, better yet his own house. His father confines him to his room for the rest of the evening. Moping in his room Preston figures things can't get any worse he realizes that he forgot about the check as it's still in his shirt pocket. It's blank.

Using the computer and after careful consideration, he makes it out for $1,000,000. The next day, while trying to cash it at the bank he's taken to the owner who thinks he's the person he's supposed to give the $1,000,000 and does. He's not though as the real person named Juice comes in a moment later.

Now the three have to track Preston down.

Meanwhile, Preston has fun buying all sorts of stuff including his own house and even going on dates with a disguised bank lady who's really and FBI agent (who's trying to track the 3 bad guys down). He makes this person up named Mr. Macintosh who he works for and even plans a party for him on his birthday.

But eventually things catch up (the money runs out, the bad guys get him).

Overall, a pretty funny flick. Miguel Ferrer plays his role very good. If you enjoyed him in Another Stakeout, you'll love him here. He does all sorts of wicked crazy things.

Rick Ducommun (the stressed out boss from Ghost in the Machine) plays a wonderful friendly chauffeur in this movie.