First of all, I have to start this comment by saying I'm a huge Nightmare on Elm Street fan. I think it's the greatest horror series ever. For me, Freddy is the boogeyman! Of course, Freddy's Dead, which tried to be the last chapter back then, is a weird movie. It doesn't have the same atmosphere than the previous films. Freddy has a lot of screen time. Some think it makes him less scary, which I do agree. And that's, in my opinion, exactly the point. This movie exists so we can know Freddy a little better, who he is, who he were, how he became the man haunting our dreams. For some people, it's a bad thing, it's better if we never know because it's scarier not to know why evil is evil. Obviously those people won't like Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween. To truly enjoy this one, you have to see things differently. It's not about a strange guy hiding in the bush of your dreamland waiting to scare the hell out of you. This was the first one, and it was awesome. As the years passed by, Freddy killed more and more people, and nobody could ever get rid of him for good. Now it's time to learn about the nature of this evil, the psychological aspects of Freddy's realm of terror. Beside the story of Freddy's past, I also really liked the atmosphere of the movie. No more kids in Springwood, only crazy grown-ups. The nightmare scenes are all great. The soundtrack is awesome, especially the opening song called ''I'm Awake Now'' performed by Goo Goo Dolls. In my opinion, The Final Nightmare is a horror masterpiece and I can't believe it's so underrated. Maybe it is misunderstood, or I have different tastes! Anyway, all Freddy fans should watch it. It has a lot of scary moments as well as funny moments too, and a lot of cameos! Get yourself ready for something different and you might not be disappointed.


WARNING!!! TONS OF DEAD GIVEAWAYS!!! DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THIS SERIES! OR YOU CAN, WHATEVER.

They're are few words to describe a movie that claims to be the last and comes out with another; Liars, Cheats, maybe even some words that can't be uttered. But When Elm Street 6: Freddy's Dead shows everyone who thought the series got old, and wanted to stop seeing him, or people who wanted their hero (or Villian) just stops for his final breath, This film was it.

This film starts with a parody of Wizard of Oz, Then you see a kid who is named only as John Doe, Who is the last child in Springwood, Ohio, leaves and gets out of Freddy territory. A woman who resides at a hospital/ place to get kids off their feet kind of place meets this boy, and at the same time, has a dream about a man, a water tower, and a promise of a secret floating in her mind, goes back to Springwood to figure out this frightening vision, and soon finds out that she is Freddy's child, And we soon find out that Freddy can only leave Springwood if his daughter can be a sort of host for him. And beyond that, fright ensues. This film seems to hit the nail on the head of everything you wanted to know.

This film has tons of humor, and cameo appearences, like Rosanne Barr and Tom Arnold, Alice Cooper, Johnny Depp, and a very young Breckin Meyer playing a teenage stoner who sees psychadelic vision of flowers and Iron Butterfly's "In-a-gadda-da-vida", then gets stuck in a super Mario parody of sorts. This film will either make you hate this movie, or like Krueger even more. The best of the best.


I saw this movie with my friend and we couldnt stop laughing! i mean there was nothing scary about this movie! It was funny all the lines Freddy said were hilarious! I think they shoudln't have even made a new nightmare and just gone to Freddy Vs. jason. Although some parts were gross (like the head blowing up). and any elm street film from 1- 5 sucked. this was the best besides Number 1. I wouldnt recomend this movie if you want a good horror. But if you have nothing else to do rent this and you'll laugh alot.I want to see the texas chainsaw massacre I think it would be scary. Freddy's Dead The Final Nightmare overall grade: B-


"Ship Ahoy" was probably made in order to showcase MGM talent. The film is a fun trip on an ocean liner on its way to San Juan, Puerto Rico, at the time in which the country was involved in WWII. This was typical fare for the studios, which gave the movie going public light weight entertainment as a distraction during those difficult times the country was living.

The beautiful Eleanor Powell is seen at her best in some musical numbers where she clearly shows us she was a dancer to be reckoned with. Red Skelton is also seen in a straight part with not too much clowning, as he pursues the beautiful Ms. Powell on the ship that is bringing them to Puerto Rico. The irresistible Bert Lahr has good opportunities in the film to show he was a funny man. Also Virginia Grey is seen as a fun girl who is not fooled by anyone.

There are good musical numbers featuring Tommy Dorsey and his orchestra, in which one sees, among others, the amazing Buddy Rich, who has a few solos with Mr. Dorsey and Ms. Powell. A young Frank Sinatra appears also as the lead singer of the band, backed by the Pied Pipers.

This is a nostalgic trip that should be savored by fans of this genre, which MGM totally controlled.


What fun! Bucketfuls of good humor, terrific cast chemistry (Skelton/Powell/Lahr/O'Brien), dynamite Dorsey-driven soundtrack! Miss Powell's dance numbers have exceptional individual character and pizzazz. Her most winning film appearance.


The plot of this enjoyable MGM musical is contrived and only occasionally amusing, dealing with espionage and romance but the focus of the film is properly pointed upon the tuneful interludes showcasing the enormously talented and athletic tap dancing Eleanor Powell, abetted by Tommy Dorsey and his orchestra, featuring Ziggy Elman, Buddy Rich and Frank Sinatra. Red Skelton shares top billing with Powell, and he and sidekick Bert Lahr are given most of the comedic minutes, although Skelton is more effective when he, if it can be believed, performs as Powell's love interest, with Virginia O'Brien actually providing most of the film's humor as the dancer's companion. The technical brilliance of Powell is evidenced during one incredible scene within which Buddy Rich contributes his drumming skills, and which must be viewed several times in order to permit one's breathing to catch up with her precision. Director Edward Buzzell utilizes his large cast well to move the action nicely along despite the rather disjointed script with which he must deal, and permits Powell's cotangent impossibilities to rule the affair, as is appropriate.


As with most of Eleanor Powell's films, this one plays out along the flimsiest of plots. For some reason -- oh it is explained! -- she's selected to transport a magnetic mine to Cuba. Good guys and bad guys compete for the mine and who is who gets confusing. But, as always, Powell's dancing is superb and worth the price of admission. And in this one Lahr plays his cowardly lion, evoking warm memories of that Technicolor film of 1939. A fringe benefit is hearing a young Frank, with that wonderful voice and skinny vulnerability that he abandoned for his wise-guy persona later on. In addition, the great drummer, Buddy Rich, has a wonderful time displaying his virtuosity. Watch particularly for his unique duet with Dorsey's trumpet man, Ziggy Elman. I say "unique" perhaps in ignorance, but I know of no other drum/trumpet sequence like this one on film or records. This film is fun. Even Skelton's goofy persona is relatively restrained. Powell shows again that she is the greatest film dancer ever.


As the story in my family goes, my dad, Milton Raskin, played the piano for the Dorsey band. After Sinatra joined the band, my dad practiced with him for hours on end. Then, at a point in time, my dad told Sinatra that he was actually to good to be tied up with such a small group (band), and that he should venture off on his own. By that time Sinatra had enough credits 'under his belt' to do just that! Dorsey never forgave my dad, and the rest, as they say, is history.

I have some pictures and records to that effect, and so does Berkley University in California.

I have seen just about every Sinatra movie more times than I wish to say, and his movies never get old . . . Thank you Frank


The Write Word

What you see is what you get. Not really! What Madhur Bhandarkar's brave and brilliant 'Page 3' does is destroy the myth attached to the glam and glitterati that colour the pages of our newspapers and whose lives(read party habits) we follow with such maniacal fervour which only our intrinsic voyeuristic streak can explain.

The page 3 phenomenon is as deplorable as it is enigmatic. How exactly did it gain such control over the printed word and when did it start to encroach into the front page is subject for another debate. Bhandarkar cleverly avoids that. He is concerned only with the mechanisms of this grotesque existence. And in doing that, he pieces together the various elements of this way of life. Like Robert Altman(although I'm not comparing Bhandarkar to Altman's genius), Bhandarkar uses myriad characters to further his motive. Whether it is a page 3 wannabe NRI, the gate-crashers, the newly-rich, an upcoming model, a socialite politician or an erotic novella authoress; all the characters are introduced with an objective and each of them has a separate character-sketch, even if their parts may be miniscule. And therein lays the film's appeal.

Konkona Sen Sharma plays Madhavi Sharma, a young and talented journalist who covers page 3 for Nation Today. Initially content with her job, she soon begins to see the ugliness of this underbelly that is covered by its fake and cosmetic profligacy. But Bhandarkar resists the temptation to make this subject into a moral-policing movie and avoids concentrating on one character alone. Hence the movie is not only about Madhavi, but also equally about Deepak Suri(Boman Irani)- Madhavi's editor who passively accepts his role as a cog of a larger machinery, Anjali Thapar(Soni Razdan)- a socialite suffocating from the social pollution, Abhijeet(Rehan Engineer)- a homosexual make-up artist and Madhavi's roommates Pearl(Sandhya Mridul)- the sassy airhostess and Gayatri(Tara Sharma)-an aspiring actress. It seems like an impossible task to assimilate so many characters(and more) in one story, but full credit to Nina Arora and Manoj Tyagi for penning a tight screenplay. The dialogues by Sanjeev Datta and Bhandarkar have been written with great attention to detail.

Any narrative, no matter how good, can fall flat with the lack of genuine performances. Thankfully, 'Page 3' brims with actors and not stars. Konkona goes through her author-backed role with effortless ease. Ditto Boman. Sandhya Mridul gets the best written part, but almost overdoes it. Atul Kulkarni is wasted though with an underwritten character. At times, the director seems too keen to incorporate as much as possible(paedophilia, homosexuality, etc.). But the contexts in which they are used do not make them look rushed.

Ultimately, Bhandarkar's attempt is to satiate our voyeurism, but he takes it a step further. He takes us inside the photographs and exposes us to the gruesome realities of this sect of humanity that strangely seems to be living in a different and remote world. These are the same people that indulged in new-year's revelry while a few hundred kilometers away their fellow countrymen had been ravaged by nature's ferocity! Clever writing, skillfully incorporated songs, able performances and a genuine feeling of sincerity are what make this film worthy in spite of its lack of finesse and poor production values. 'Page 3' is an optimum way to enter a new year of cinema.

- Abhishek Bandekar

Rating- ****

* Poor ** Average *** Good **** Very Good ***** Excellent

29th January, 2005


I did not like Chandni Bar from the same director.

I did not watch his other movies. They came and went.

But Page-3 is nicely made. Seems real. Like Satya from RGV did.

The mental sickness of the so called high society is the summary of the movie. In the midst of all the sickness, its difficult to lead a normal life which the protagonist, Konkana Sen, does. Serious movie, not to be watched with children or expecting wives. Page-3 of newspapers is the usual place for reporting the activities going on in the parties of the rich and elite who indulge in much more filth then what is reported. How this Page-3 is also a business prospect is shown in the movie. Event management firms get paid to arrange parties and make a rich but not famous people famous overnight by clicking photographs with the celebrities invited to the party.

The western culture has crept into the high society of Mumabi quite deeply. The movie shows it boldly, no holds barred.

Madhur Bhandarkar starts a new journey from here.


Page 3 is one of those films Madhur Bhandarkar makes to expose societal filth. The film is compelling, but, like most of Bhandarkar's films, it is one-sided and overly pessimistic. This film is all about tabloid journalism, gossip, celebrities. The film exposes the lives of socialites, whose lifestyle is disastrously boastful, peculiar and repulsive. They party, they care for nothing but fame, they plan parties at funerals, they are craving for more money and a higher reputation, they will do anything to get due exposure in the media, to get their names boldly printed on the daily newspaper's social column known as "Page 3" with huge photographs which will be the center of people's discussions. They are attention seeking, salacious and hypocrite. The film industry is shown as sleazy, with casting couch being a common phenomenon among filmmakers. That's where our lovely heroine, a young social column reporter Madhvi Sharma, is thrown. All these people from Mumbai's elite depend on her articles and she is the right person to befriend at these parties if you want her to mention you in her article. Later in the film we learn that even those who are Madhvi's friends are no different from these high-society people. This was tough viewing for me, although the film is unquestionably brave and the issues it deals with are interesting.

The film's music is average. The only passable songs are "Kitne Ajeeb" and "Huzoor-E-Ala", sung by the two melody queens Lata Mangeshkar and Asha Bhosle, respectively. Otherwise the soundtrack is bad. One song which was particularly horrendous is "Filmy Very Filmy". The film's writing is quite good. The second half is far better than the first, as it turns more matter-of-fact and exposes much more important issues such as terrorism and child abuse. That's where the film has to be applauded. It was sad to know that people prefer to ignore such crimes out of fear and Konkona Sen Sharma's character's disappointment was very easy to relate to. She was excellent throughout the film and her acting in the last few scenes was particularly impressive. Atul Kulkarni's part was very small but he did full justice to it. Boman Irani is solid as the newspaper's editor. Sandhya Mridul is lovable as Madhvi's sassy roommate Pearl who marries an older man for money and is honest enough to admit it. The film's ending is really well-done, and provides a certain sigh of relief after the unimaginably tough proceedings. Page 3 is a good film, it is interesting and at times moving, but the level of its interest and its general quality are marred by its exaggerated, overly messy and negative portrayal of the rich and famous.


Madhur Bhandarkar directs this film that is supposed to expose the lifestyle of the rich and famous while also providing a commentary on the integrity of journalism today.

Celebrities party endlessly, they like to be seen at these parties, and to get due exposure in the media. In fact the film would have us believe that this exposure MAKES celebrities out of socialites and the newspapers have a huge hand in this. IMO there is much more synergy between the celebrities and media and it is a "I need you, you need me" kind of relationship. However, the media needs celebrities more and not vice versa. Anyhow, in this milieu of constant partying is thrown the social column (page 3 of the newspaper) reporter Konkana Sen Sharma. She is shown as this celebrity maker, very popular at the social gatherings. She has a good friend in the gay Abhijeet and in the struggling model Rohit (Bikram Saluja). She rooms with an air-hostess  the sassy Pearl (Sandhya Mridul), and a struggling actress - Gayatri (Tara Sharma). The editor of the newspaper is Boman Irani and a firebrand crime beat reporter is played by Atul Kulkarni. The movie has almost too many plot diversions and characters but does work at a certain level. The rich are shown to be rotten to the core for the most part, the movie biz shown to be sleazy to the max with casting couch scenarios, exploitation of power, hunger for media exposure. Into all this is layered in homosexuality, a homosexual encounter that seems to not have much to do with the story or plot, rampant drug use, pedophilia, police "encounter" deaths. In light of all this Pearl's desire to have a super rich husband, a socialite daughter indulging in a sexual encounter in a car, the bitching women, all seem benign ills.

The film has absolutely excellent acting by Konkana Sen Sharma, Atul Kulkarni has almost no role  a pity in my opinion. But the supporting cast is more than competent (Boman Irani is very good). This is what saves the film for me. Mr. Bhandarkar bites off way more than he can chew or process onto celluloid and turns the film into a free for all bash. I wish he had focused on one or two aspects of societal ills and explored them more effectively. He berates societal exploitation yet himself exploits all the masala ingredients needed for a film to be successful. We have an item number in the framework of a Bollywood theme party, the drugged out kids dance a perfectly choreographed dance to a Western beat. I hope the next one from Madhur Bhandarkar dares to ditch even more of the Hindi film stereotyped ingredients. The film is a brave (albeit flawed) effort, certainly worth a watch.


Page 3 is most definitely a very enthralling and captivating eye-opener that very cleverly exposes the hypocrite lifestyles of Mumbai's elite. From the fake kisses to the plastered smiles, Page 3 leaves no stone unturned in revealing the shocking lives of the rich and the famous. Backstabbing, gossip, corruption, and scandal lurk in every dark corner in the world of glitz and glam. Humanity and generosity are analogous to an oasis in the desert in this world where Social Darwinism is the prevailing mentality. Everyone is constantly craving for more money, more fame, and a higher reputation, driving them to do the most shameful things imaginable ranging from signing film contracts at a funeral to child molestation. Anything is possible in this metropolis where there is a such a wide gap between the social classes. The audience sees the ugliness of both of these classes through the eyes of the protagonist. She observes the suffocating atmosphere and the mind-boggling frenzy that the socialites live in. Bollywood, business tycoons, politicians, and the underworld are all intertwined in a completely convoluted mess! Kitne Ajeeb Hai is a nice track as is the peppy Kuan Main Doob Jaongi. Terrific film with excellent character development!


The first review I saw of Page 3 said "what is madhur bhandarkar finally wants to say?". Should he say something so decisive.

The most beautiful thing about Page 3 is it doesn't take sides. No propaganda whatsoever. This is the film that captures so many angles of an issue(I don't know what do I call as an "issue" here) and yet like any mediocre movie doesn't come up with an solution. I was so intrigued when I realized that the movie ended almost in the same scenario just like it started.

The movie defines so many characters who are completely with completely different priorities and different ideologies and yet they are all a part of the system which is all the more apathetic. I wish i can say more but there would be more spoilers ahead. So watch Page 3 if you wanna see one of the most mature films of the recent times.


Madhur Bhandarkar goes all out to touch upon taboo issues and gives the most realistic picture of the modern society. One gets the impression of the director even from his earlier movies like Satta and Chandni bar. The issues just hinted on in the latter movie are explored and exposed in totality here. The casting is amazing and one can see the judgements on each scene from many angles. Mostly, the movie leaves you wondering on lots of facts around. As you start guessing the things, you end up at most being close, but missing the mark in many a scenes. It leaves a lasting impression in the end.

Actors to watch are Konkana Sen Sharma, Boman Irani & Atul Kulkarni among others. The dialogues are well written and you feel you've lived around some of these people. There are still some scenes that make you think of more depths. The songs are in the background saving time and Lata's voice in a very meaningful song "Kitne Ajeeb" leaves you feeling you're left all alone in the midst of the modern society!


The movie is a real show of how unemotional and selfish the upper society has become. It has plenty of characters and each and every character is representing a different category of person. No character is 100% good and moral unlike the heroes of all the typical Indian movies and no character is 100% bad rather all are just different. The movie is a very perfect mixture of emotions, drama and entertainment. For the very first time i liked a movie that has raised some social questions. I would recommend all to see the movie. Madhavi Sharma is a journalist who covers those hip-shaking parties of Bollywood for the Page 3 of the newspaper but this is the story of how she becomes a crime reporter for the newspaper. But this is not all, then it shows how she couldn't survive there and when she helped rescue some innocent children, how brutally her voice is suppressed. Even she is fired from the job. Then she couldn't find a job of crime reporter and has to do Page 3 again. Not only her but a very very large number of characters are interwoven in the movie and all gives different feeling while watching the movie. I would really congratulate the director for making such a great movie. Please do not afford to miss it.


Madhur Bhandarkar has given it all raw. But the best part is he hasn't forgotten to give the ingredients. It has come short and crisp to the viewer and it is the audience to make the choice now. Page 3 is a revelation of the naked truth irrespective of the crudeness attached to it.

Madhavi (Konkan Sharma) is a journalist and enjoys her work. A simple and peaceful life adores her with a caring boyfriend and a nice roommate Pearl. She covers the Page 3 (Celebrity Page) of Nation Today, where she has a very supportive editor Deepak Suri (Boman Irani.) But life takes turn for her as she hits the first bump and takes herself away from Page 3 and goes into Crime bit. Omigosh! a whole new world was waiting for her there. She is shocked, excited, stunned with the revelation. Her reaction has resulted in losing the job. At the end she is back to Page 3. Now when she meets any celebrity in a party, she knows the actual looks of each, hidden under the illusive face.

The movie has a message and it is crude. The audience needs to get it in their own color. The theme and the screenplay was fantastic. There are some very good thoughts applied to prepare the audiences. Like the foreplay-club is shown before the pedophiliac exhibition, the short suspense before gay-actions in bathroom. The dialogs are strong and the actors are really good at delivering it. Charu Mohanty's 2 words speaks volumes and he is very successful in uttering those two words with such ingenuity, it leaves an impact. The set selections could have been better. The songs don't stand anywhere; but they were needed in the background. Atul Kulkarni has a small role with high-impact. There were a few flaws visible. Atul Kulkarni explaining Konkan Sharma that honesty should be tagged along with intelligence. There could have been a better dialog as this sounds like a preach. The meeting between Thapar and his daughter doesn't call for acting. That scene looks very unprofessional.

Overall it is a must-watch movie with selective options before the pedophilia incident. That may spoil your mood.


Yet again, Madhur Bhandarkar takes you on a ride to the wild side. And a remarkable one it is, literally and figuratively.

Mumbai hi-society -- stars and starlets, glam dolls and witch doctors, business tycoons and broker types, yep the whole stinking lot -- are in sharp focus here. In typical tabloid fashion, their worlds unfold, with every colorful story a clever sub-plot in itself.

A struggling starlet dumped by the producer after getting her pregnant, the stewardess and her high-profile husband, the pedophile businessman and his neurotic wife, the reporters and the police captain; all shades on display and countless hues in between.

Bhandarkar does a swell job of digging up the dirt on the drama kings, the dancing queens and the living dead. Atul Kulkarni packs a punch, as does Boman Irani and Sandhya Mrudul. Konkona Sen Sharma is effective as the ex-crime beat reporter, but she could have been dolled up a little in keeping with the job change and the party circuit.

Highly focused (running time 140 min) and refreshingly different film, well worth the money.


Madhur from CHANDNI BAR started making realistic films, which some people called dry

He made SATTA which was another realistic though filmy film but a great film

AAN men at work was a formula film by him which flopped

He returns with his superlative PAGE 3

A film which dwelves into the lives of journalists and it's a brilliant film

The film is well narrated though the half baked romantic portions of Konkana could be avoided but that is forgiven

The entire Upendra Limaye track is superb too

while the Atul Kulkarni track is great too

The dial between Manoj Joshi and his friends are funny at first but repetitive at times

The subplot of Bikram- Tara is brilliant and so is the entire hospital scene and also the final child abuse which shocks you

The film has a open ended ending which is nicely handled

Madhur does a great job Music is okay

Konkana excels as Madhavi, using her expressions to the best Tara Sharma is decent except her voice Sandhya Mridul is good as usual Upendra Limaye excels in his part as the cop, one of the talented actors Sadly he isn't used well nowdays Atul Kulkarni too is good in his small part Boman Irani is restrained and does a great job rest are okay


PAGE 3 **** out of 4 Stars

Madhvi (Konkona Sen) enters her boyfriend's house and its empty. She looks here and there and then goes in his bedroom and you get the picture - 'Ah! another girl  that two-timing baddie and yes indeed he his two timing her but it's a GUY this time around. And i say 'Brilliant!'

END OF SPOILERS (The above scene is not a spoiler really ... but for me it was so i didn't want to take a chance)

When asked upon as how was this film, my friend answered 'oh, it just an exposé of the P3 people' which made me believe that ill be watching a stupid movie if nothing more. When I went to the theater, I thought to myself '' I better get a pen and a paper to jot down the bad things about this film'' but I was proved entirely wrong and then some because I could muster only the goods. This film was great. Great, not because it is offbeat and noncommercial cinema like storyline but because of the cleverness in the screenplay and how this movie tells you how to handle a movie brilliantly which could have been a dumb and senseless movie if given in the wrong hands.

Konkona Sen Sharma is grace. She is so damn beautiful who has nailed her role perfectly as if she was born to play this part. One of the most charming actresses I've ever seen. But this is not the only performance which is good in the film, there's Sandhya Mridul, Boman Irani and Atul Kulkarni. Particularly Sandhya Mridul who just fires up the screen. (And guess what even the unusually accented Tara Sharma speaks normally)

The movies stars off with some silly old parties of the hush-hush celebrities of the film industry et al and you get the idea of what this movie will be about. And for about half hour through the film you feel just about the same. But then the movie picks up the pace grabs onto a good storyline and never lets go of it. Even Boman Irani agrees to that statement  'It was a good story, Madhvi'. (Thank you). The great thing is that it tackles the issue of how silly these people are with style and does not make it over done and also tackles the social issues and does not make them boring. In the end its all a roller-coaster ride and Madhvi informs us that by just smiling at all these people. Just the reason why I love watching films. Ecstatic film-making. The screenplay is beautiful, clever and witty.


Page 3 is a great movie. The story is so refreshing and interesting. Not once throughout the movie did i find myself staring off into space. Konkana Sen did a good job in the movie, although i think someone with more glamour or enthusiasm would have been better, but she did do a great job. All the supporting actors were also very good and helped the movie along. Boman Irani did a great job. There is one thing that stands out in this movie THE STORY it is great, and very realistic, it doesn't beat around the bush it is very straight forward in sending out its message. I think more movie like this should be made, i am sick of watching the same candy floss movies over and over, they are getting hard to digest now. Everyone should watch Page 3, it is a great film. -Just my 2 cents :)


This is yet another tell-it-as-it-is Madhur Bhandarkar film. I am not sure why he has this obsession to show Child moles***ion and g*y concepts to the Indian filmy audience, but I find some of those scenes really disgusting! What's new? It is a nice piece put together by Bhandarkar, where he shows the story of an entertainment reporter played by leading lady in the famous film, Mr & Mrs Iyer. What makes this movie different is, that it also covers the stories of people that this reporter interacts with or is friends with, such as her roomies, her colleagues, film stars, models, rich people and others featured in the Entertainment Page#3 in her newspaper.

Noticeable: It is another good performance from Mrs Iyer. She is likely to be noticed for this role. She does selective roles but shines in them. She is noticeably de-glamorized and less beautiful in this film. But then, entertainment reporters are not supposed to outshine the people they cover, right? Verdict: Madhur has come up with another good movie, that brings social issues to the limelight very nicely. However, this movie loses focus and one is not sure what the director is trying to convey.

Is he trying to show us the glitz and glamor of the rich people? or is he trying to show us the life of an entertainment reporter and contrasting that with the life of the REAL crime reporter? Is he trying to tell us how the government and rich folks rule the press? or is he trying to illustrate the issues with child abuse and g*y folk. The other concepts brought forth include the unwritten rule that young women have to sleep with directors or co-stars, if they wish to enter Bollywood.

In addition, he talks about how flight assistants get sick and tired of their jobs after a while and resort to extreme measures by marrying much elder people, etc. He also talks about unhappy women and spoilt kids in rich families.

This was all okay for me.. but might be too complex for an average movie-goer, who just wants to relieve some stress from day to day work


This movie is an eye opener for those who can only the glamorous lifestyles of the stars. It tells you how people who would like to do good are not able to. Plus the bomb blast scene is very real.

What you read and are taught just does not happen!!!

Can raise your BP level by 10%

All actors played their role very well.

Some scenes may / could have been avoided to include teenagers.

This movie is quite adult in nature.

Not a movie that can be seen with family.

Casting is great!!!


Here is proof of why Mary Pickford was `America's Sweetheart.' In this rather complex drama, Mary plays the young daughter of a squatter that dare to dream of a relationship with the son of one of the `hill-toppers.' The scenes where they steal a kiss and otherwise fall in love are simply delightful. She is even willing to take a bath. That Mary could pull this role off at the age of 30 is simply amazing and somewhat due to her diminutive stature (5').

Tess must face numerous physical and emotional challenges. She does so with spunk not seen in many heroines of the time. Tess packs a wallop and is not shy about fighting with anyone. Why she agrees to help the `hill-topper' daughter is beyond me, but she sacrifices her own happiness in order to keep a deep secret. Pickford's close ups are wonderful.

Danish-born Jean Hersholt is simply wonderful as the villain. The scene in which he manhandles a small baby is enough to make you throw vegetables (or whatever) at the movie screen. If Forrest Robinson (who plays Daddy Skinner) had worn a beard, he would have been a match for the model used in those World War I recruiting posters of Uncle Sam  Wants You!

Although the story is somewhat predictable and slow in the beginning, it is worth the investment in your time to see the piece or pure `Americana.' The film highlights choices available to us all involving making someone else happy and what it is to be a real Christian. Recommended.


Uneducated & defiant, beautiful TESS OF THE STORM COUNTRY is the daughter of a fisherman squatting on a rich man's land. Spirited & bold, she captures the heart of the millionaire's son, but violence, terror & sudden death are what will haunt her immediate future before she can claim the sweet peace of happiness.

Mary Pickford is utterly charming in this splendid, heart-wrenching film. She considered Tess to be her favorite role and she fills it with all the spunky joy & enthusiasm which made her for years the world's most popular movie star. The story has all the essential elements for a modern fairy tale, with Mary the lovely, distressed heroine beset by all manner of dangerous, stressful situations. The atmospherics are first-rate, with the outdoor fishing village sets being particularly well-conceived.

In the supporting cast, Jean Hersholt stands out as the vile villain who tries forcing Pickford to marry him. Hersholt, a very gentle soul off screen, manages brilliantly to depict his character's complete moral corruption.

This was actually the second time Pickford filmed TESS. A 1914 version had been one of her first important films, but its production values were a bit antiquated by the standards of the 1920's (no close-ups, for instance) and Mary, producing her own films & powerful enough by 1922 to make whatever film she wanted, decided for the only time in her career to remake a film. The end result certainly lived up to her expectations. Both films were very popular at the box office.

A fascinating study for some future film researcher would be the influence of Christianity in Mary Pickford's life; it certainly runs like a golden thread through the silent movies she produced. Although the romanticism inherent in the very nature of silent cinema might cause these spiritual sentiments to appear somewhat awkward today, we are compelled to accept them as sincere reflections, by their very repetition, of Mary's heartfelt beliefs. In TESS, one beautiful scene in particular stands out in this regard: Pickford is teaching herself to read using a Bible. She indicates to Lloyd Hughes (who plays her sweetheart) a word from near the back of the Book that she does not understand. He mimes it for her (the word is obviously `crucified') and, eyes turned Heavenward as the full meaning of the Sacrifice dawns upon her, Mary's face becomes positively beatific.

A splendid new orchestral score for TESS has been supplied by Jeffrey Mark Silverman which perfectly underscores the beauty & pathos of this wonderful film.


I had never seen a silent movie until July 24, 2005. I had never seen a movie with Mary Pickford in it. I've seen thousands of movies. Very few are hypnotic to me. I found Last of the Mohicans and Unforgettable (Ray Liotta) to be hypnotic, so consider the source as you read this. I started watching Tess of the Storm Country on TCM just to see who this Mary Pickford was, who has been credited by many for launching Hollywood. I had no idea what I was in for. Two hours later, I snapped out of it, and realized I'd watched one of the most beautiful women I had ever seen, playing a role perfectly suited to her. Imagine a movie fan in 1922, having never seen anyone that gorgeous and that expressive before. You would have to see her again and again. The setting was perfect for a girl that expressive. She was a poor squatter, couldn't speak the King's English, but you had to admire her. What a movie... time to start my Mary Pickford movie collection!


Had this been the original 1914 version of TESS OF THE STORM COUNTRY (also starring Mary Pickford), I probably would have rated it a lot higher, as this sort of extreme melodrama and sentimentality was pretty typical of the teens. However, by 1922, this film was already starting to show its age. And, compared to many of Ms. Pickford's other films (such as DADDY LONGLEGS, SPARROWS, MY BEST GIRL and SUDS), TESS comes up a tad short--and not every Pickford film merits a 10 (even if she was "America's Sweetheart"). Now this isn't to say that it's a bad film--it certainly isn't. But, I just can't see how so many have given this film a 10.

The film has a very long and complicated plot--especially because most films of the era were shorter. A rich old crank builds a mansion at the top of a hill next to the river. At the bottom of the hill are some dirty squatters who he hates but who he cannot evict. So he tries to come up with a variety of ways to get them off the land. One ends up in tragedy, when his daughter's fiancé is killed in a scuffle with the po' folks. The man accused of the murder is dear old Mary's father, though he is innocent. To make things a lot worse, the only witness to the real murder won't talk AND the dead man had gotten his fiancée pregnant! So, at this point, we have an innocent man in prison waiting to be executed and a pregnant lady afraid to tell her sanctimonious father she is "in the family way". There's a ton more to the film, such as the crank's son falling in love with Mary, but it's best you just see the film for yourself.

The film excels in some ways. The plot, while very complicated, is also rather interesting and the cinematography is top-notch. The very final scene is also pretty cute. However, there is so much overt sentimentality you can practically cut it with a knife. Mary is SO good and SO sweet and So plucky, at times the viewer might find it all a bit hard to take. While it worked great in 1922 (making her the biggest star in the world), today it's very dated. This is NOT true of all her films, but this one certainly is.

By the way, the Image Entertainment DVD is of decent quality, though a few scenes are badly degraded--something that isn't very surprising considering the age of the film. Also, the only extras included are a brief filmography.


TESS OF THE STORM COUNTRY is possibly the best movie of all of Mary Pickford's films. At two hours, it was quite long for a 1922 silent film yet continues to hold your interest some 80 years after it was filmed. Mary gives one of her finest performances at times the role seems like a "greatest hits" performance with bits of Mary the innocent, Mary the little devil, Mary the little mother, Mary the spitfire, Mary the romantic heroine, etc. characteristics that often were used throughout a single film in the past. The movie is surprisingly frank about one supporting character's illegitimate child for 1922 and at one point our Little Mary is thought the unwed mother in question! If the Academy Awards had been around in 1922, no doubt the Best Actress Oscar for the year would have been Mary's.


This film does not fail to engage and move, even in 2008 to an audience only familiar with modern over-produced sound and computer enhanced techniques.

The experience of the movie goer in 1922 who could only see this in a cinema with others on their big screen must have been truly profound and a thoroughly satisfying experience.

One has to ask could a film maker today make a two hour silent movie and make it interesting and achieve the same structure tempo and balance as this movie has. Silent film making was pure art, it had to hold the attention through its structure, direction and acting - there was no padding out with more words or computer generated distractions. A poorly made or uninteresting silent movie is unwatchable.

This film needs to be put into context for those who might be disconcerted with the mention of Christian themes. This is not a 'Christiany' film, it is not selling anything. These themes along with reference to current moral standards often appear in this era - also church going on Sundays was a national past time, Christianity was a given in most households thus the film is only depicting normal life as it was then. The themes would have rung true and deep at the time.

It is most odd given the strong support to good Christian thinking of this particular movie (and it is not preaching religion to anyone, only highlighting the difference between hypocrites and the honest)that in 1922 a Pastor in an open debate with a representative from the film industry with a large crowd denounced Pickford as an example of immorality, along with some other individuals he named. NY Times 1922.

Maybe they should have watched this movie that also came out in 1922 and, learned some lessons.

The Pastor complained that since the film industry had started church attendance had dropped 500,000. The film representative in the debate however made the following observations; that saloon attendance had also dropped, that there were far more pastors in prison than actors (fact) and that selecting a few examples from among the many was not representative of the whole.

Thus there was an ongoing battle between church and the film industry during the early days of film.

This is a wonderful film about being honest and true to family friends and to be willing to make sacrifices. Mary Pickford, naive, honest, feisty, full of happiness and joy, faithful, humorous and silently sacrificing - though poor and uneducated she represented the perfect character. This however is not thrust down our throat but revealed bit by bit through the film.

This is reminiscent of some modern Chinese films where characters are slowly, languidly revealed over the course of a film and it is this tempo that creates a stronger connection with the character.

It has a smooth even tempo for the first half that builds all the elements for the last section. The last 30 minutes are great film making and it has to be appreciated it was achieved without the benefit of sound, running dialog - it was achieved through deft acting and great directing. It is sometimes surprising to realize that at the end of the film you haven't hear a word spoken, but it feels like you have heard everything.

The supporting cast put in great performances especially Gloria Hope, Jean Hersholt and Lloyd Hughes.

The final few minutes are typical Pickford understated humor as she goes outside under the pretext of sweeping the snow, a near perfect balance and ending. This is a special type of touching humor that should not be underestimated. Chaplin used this device often and copied some of from Pickford.

Another special observation to be made about Silent films and especially Pickford films is that the star often has to hold the camera for much of the movie without the audience becoming jaded or bored, with the actors over-exposure. That Pickford is usually thoroughly the center of attention through most of her movies but the people still couldn't get enough of her is a testament to her fine acting ability.


Mary Pickford often stated that Tess Skinner was her favorite movie role. Well said! She played the part twice and for this version which she herself produced, she not only had to purchase the rights from Adolph Zukor but even give him credit on the film's main title card. Needless to say her portrayal of this role here is most winning. Indeed, in my opinion, the movie itself rates as one the all-time great experiences of silent cinema.

True, director John S. Robertson doesn't move his camera an inch from start to finish, but in Robertson's skillful hands this affectation not only doesn't matter but is probably more effective. A creative artist of the first rank, Robertson is a master of pace, camera angles and montage. He has also drawn brilliantly natural performances from all his players. Jean Hersholt who enacts the heavy is so hideously repulsive, it's hard to believe this is the same man as kindly Dr Christian; while Lloyd Hughes renders one of the best acting jobs of his entire career. True, it's probably not the way Mrs White intended, but it serves the plot admirably, as otherwise we would have difficulty explaining why the dope spent a fortune on defense but made not the slightest attempt to ascertain who actually fired the gun that killed his future brother-in-law! Needless to say, this particular quality of the likable hero is downplayed by Jack Ging in the bowdlerized 1960 version which also totally deletes the author's trenchant attack on smug, middle-class Christianity. Notice how the well-washed priest here moves forward a pace or two in surprise at the interruption, but then makes no attempt whatever to assist our plucky little heroine in the performance of duties that he himself was supposedly ordained to administer. This is a very moving scene indeed because it is so realistically presented.

"Tess" also provides an insight into the work of another fine actress, Gloria Hope, whose work was entirely confined to silent cinema. She married Lloyd Hughes in 1921 and retired in 1926 to devote her life completely to her husband and their two children. Lloyd Hughes died in 1958, but she lived until 1976, easily contactable in Pasadena, but I bet no-one had the brains to interview her. Another opportunity lost!

To me, Forrest Robinson only made a middling impression as Skinner. I thought he was slightly miscast and a brief glance at his filmography proves this: He usually played priests or judges! But David Torrence as usual was superb.

In all, an expensive production with beautiful photography and marvelous production values.


Tess of the Storm Country was a Mary Pickford vehicle I had intended to get for some time. I finally found a VHS copy for a reasonable price and got to enjoy it.

Mary gives her typical spunky, innocently sexy portrayal of a wrong-side-of-tracks girl who wins the heart of a rich heir. Only this time the stakes are higher: a false murder charge, an illegitimate child (and ensuing case of mistaken motherhood) and contemplated suicide.

One can see why Pickford wanted to redo this one. The story is a real morality tale, the kind that she loved to star in. The controversial topics aren't always spelled out plainly; a viewer has to pay attention and pick up on hints to catch everything that is being implied on first viewing  although everything is more or less explained in the end.

About the only negative remark I can make would be concerning Jean Hersholt and the dog. Hersholt, whose character, Ben Letts, looks to be about 6-2, 200 pounds (bigger next to Mary, of course!), is sent fleeing in panic when a 60-pound chocolate lab charges toward him! Then, to top it off (or maybe to justify his perplexing fear of the dog), it manages to pin him to the ground and somehow injures him so badly that he is still struggling to get up much later, as a bad storm hits! This is the same lovable lab that sleeps with Frederick (Lloyd Hughes) and cuddles with Mary! Yet Mary later throws boiling water in Ben's face, which barely slows him! OK, I've vented about Ben and the chocolate lab! Other than that, the movie was quite touching and certainly held my attention. Pickford's supporting cast was strong and believable. This is certainly among her better films.


This film has special effects which for it's time are very impressive. Some if it is easily explainable with the scenes played backwards but the overlay of moving images on an object on film is surprisingly well done given that this film was made more than 94 years ago.


For animation buffs it's a must, but even general audiences will enjoy THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE, a very early example of 'pixilation' by the hard-working pioneer Wladyslaw Starewicz. Starewicz and his helpers painstakingly manipulated a cast of flexible insect figures to tell this story, paving the way for the likes of Willis O'Brien, George Pal, Ray Harryhausen, and legions of modern digital effect creators.

THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE is only about 10 minutes long, but packs in lots of amusing detail as the story follows the amorous adventures of two beetles from their home to a nightclub, a hotel, a cinema, and, eventually, a prison cell. There are two brief dance numbers at the nightclub (performed by a frog and a dragonfly), a scuffle between a beetle and a grasshopper, and a large-scale donnybrook at the cinema, which ends with the projector bursting into flames. Pretty elaborate goings-on for 1912, when even John Bray and Winsor MacCay were just getting started, and Walt Disney was still in grade school!

It's interesting to note, too, what an impact the alteration of a silent movie's title cards can have on the story being told. I've seen two versions of this film offered by two video companies, and watched them back-to-back, and although the image content itself is almost identical, two different sets of intertitles tell two very different stories. (And the plot outline someone provided above tells yet a third story, which suggests that there's another version out there somewhere.) The British Film Institute's print, which has rhyming intertitles, tells the story of two sibling beetles, each secretly married, who hide this information from one another in order to inherit their late father's fortune. The other, Russian print, tells a simpler story of married beetles who are each guilty of infidelity. In the Russian version Mr. Beetle visits his girlfriend at the "Gay Dragonfly" nightclub, while in the English version brother Bill Beetle visits his wife at the music-hall. Personally, I prefer the straightforward-- and spicier --Russian story; the BFI version tries to cram too much plot into what should be a simple tale, and some of the rhymes are a bit awkward.

Still, in any rendition, THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE is a delightful film, and would make an ideal lead-in to that other great animated work which features beetles, YELLOW SUBMARINE.


Ladislas Starewicz's curiosity with insects and cinema melds into a short film about a love triangle between Mr. Beetle, an artistic grasshopper, and Mrs. Beetle. The rather simple story of an adulterous beetle couple that both seek stimulation outside their marriage is similar to a Biograph or Vitagraph short of the time. Starewicz's twist on the story is to use embalmed beetles with wires straightening the legs in frame-by-frame animation. The story builds as Mr. Beetle is unknowingly caught on camera with a dragonfly from the local nightclub by a jealous grasshopper. When Mr. Beetle comes home to find his wife in the arms of her artistic friend, he chases her around angrily, but eventually forgives her and takes her out to see a movie. However, Mrs. Beetle soon learns of her husband's infidelities as the movie they watch is the jealous grasshopper's footage of Mr. Beetle and the dragonfly together. Mrs. Beetle thrashes Mr. Beetle with her umbrella, Mr. Beetle jumps through the screen, and they both end up in jail after the projector they wreck catches on fire. The insects are placed in humanized settings such as a house or a nightclub, and are given human characteristics of jealousy, anger, lust, and revenge. The insect characters carry briefcases, drive motorcars, and even wear shoes yet they also twitch their antennae and open and close their mandibles as real insects would. The novelty of the story doesn't wear itself out, even after multiple viewings, but as fluid as the movements are, the film moves slowly. Action happens with intricate detail, but rapidity and a quicker pace of filming is lost in the process. Despite its pace, the film is an excellent example of Starewicz's early puppetry and is highly recommended.


The Cameraman's Revenge is an unusual short not because of the subject matter (adultery) or because it's animated (Winsor McCay had introduced Little Nemo on film by this time) but because it depicts bugs to tell the story! Ladislaw Starewicz had originally wanted to film actual bugs fighting but couldn't get them to do it on camera because of the hot lights they suffered through so he took dead ones and started using stop-motion techniques to manipulate movements to his satisfaction. This short does a good job of putting human characteristics on little creatures such as riding motorcycles, painting, filming, kissing, and dancing. Starewicz would also make Frogland (1922) and The Mascot (1933) but his first notable work would be this one. If you're interested in this and the other shorts mentioned, check your local library to borrow the DVD The Cameraman't Revenge and Other Fantastic Tales from Image Entertainment.


An absurdly hilarious and strikingly human tale of the jealousies and infidelities surrounding a beetle marriage, Russian animation pioneer Wladyslaw Starewicz's "Mest kinematograficheskogo operatora" ("The Cameraman's Revenge", or "The Revenge of a Kinematograph Cameraman") is a delight of early animation, brimming with highly-effective stop-motion puppetry and no shortage of imagination.

Mr. and Mrs. Beetle have a completely uneventful marriage, and both yearn for more excitement in their lives. Mr. Beetle's desires can only be satisfied by the beautiful exotic dancer at the "Gay Dragonfly" night club, whom he visits whenever he takes a "business trip" to the city. She is the only one who understands him. A fellow admirer of this dancer, an aggressive grasshopper, is jealous that Mr. Beetle has stolen his lady and, as fate would have it, he is also a movie cameraman. The devious grasshopper follows Mr. Beetle and his acquaintance to a hotel room, where he films their exploits through the keyhole.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Beetle has, likewise, acquired a friend to add excitement to her life. He is an artist, and he brings her a painting for a present, before they both settle down on the couch for some intimacy. At that moment, however, Mr. Beetle returns home and witnesses the entire spectacle. As Mr. Beetle bashes through the front door, the artist friend clambers up the chimney, but he doesn't escape without Mr. Beetle first venting his anger and frustration upon him.

There is a certain irony in the statement that follows: "Mr. Beetle is generous. He forgives his wife and takes her to a movie." He is generous enough to forgive her, and yet he had been equally unfaithful just minutes earlier. At this point in time, however, we still haven't forgotten the jealous movie cameraman who had been plotting his revenge, and it is no surprise when he turns out to be the projectionist for the film Mr. and Mrs. Beetle are attending. Suddenly intercut into the film they are enjoying is the footage of Mr. Beetle's disloyalty, and the angry wife hits him across the head with an umbrella, before the frightened and angry husband dives through the theatre screen in search of the grasshopper.

In the final scene, both Mr. and Mrs. Beetle, now somewhat more appreciative of each other, are serving time in prison for the fire that broke out when Mr. Beetle sought his final revenge. We do, indeed, hope that "the home life of the Beetles will be less exciting in the future" This film may appear to be a mere story of the comings-and-goings of a miniscule insect species, but Starewicz is communicating so much more than that. This isn't a story about beetles  it is a story about us. And it's startlingly accurate, isn't it?!


This short is a puzzlement. Words fail me here, as this is almost indescribable, Technically exceptional after more than 90 years (the visuals are remarkable and even occasionally amazing), this is not something you watch if you like things that are mundane or "normal'-because it most certainly is not either. This be an odd one, gang. Well worth checking out, but if things like Ren and Stimpy make your head hurt, you may want to skip this. Recommended.


This is one of the best animated movies I've ever seen in my life. This isn't just a fun movie, or a well-made movie. This is a landmark in the art of animation and even if it weren't, just the technical skill that went into making it, would grant it a place in the history of animation.

Wladyslaw Starewicz created a stop-motion movie about the secret life of beetles. He imagined a coherent world of insects, with jobs, houses, nightclubs, movie houses, even little props like posters and bicycles and paintings.

In this movie he tells a simple tale of hypocrisy and revenge. Mr. Beetle has an affair with a dancing dragonfly, much to the chagrin of a grasshopper; but he's a cameraman and decides to shoot the fling. Mr. Beetle returns home and finds Mrs. Beetle having her own affair. Mr. Beetle chases the lover away but forgives his wife. The two make up and go out to the movies. And the movie they watch is Mr. Beetle and the Dragonfly. Described thus it sounds banal, but once seen it becomes a gripping work of cinema. Along with Emile Cohl and Jiri Trnka, Wladyslaw Starewicz pretty much invented everything that future animators would use in their work. For that reason he must not remain forgotten.


Believe it or not, at 12 minutes, this film (for 1912) is a full-length film. Very, very few films were longer than that back then, but that is definitely NOT what sets this odd little film apart from the rest! No, what's different is that all the actors (with the exception of one frog) are bugs...yes, bugs! This simple little domestic comedy could have looked much like productions starring the likes of Chaplin, Laurel and Hardy or Max Linder but instead this Russian production uses bugs (or, I think, models that looked just like bugs). Chaplin and Laurel and Hardy were yet to be discovered and I assume Linder was busy, so perhaps that's why they used bugs! Using stop-motion, the bugs moved and danced and fought amazingly well--and a heck of a lot more realistically than King Kong 21 years later!

The film starts with Mr. Beetle sneaking off for a good time. He goes to a bawdy club while his wife supposedly waits at home. But, unfortunately for Mr. Beetle, he is caught on camera by a local film buff. Plus, he doesn't know it but Mrs. Beetle is also carrying on with a bohemian grasshopper painter. Of course, there's a lot more to this domestic comedy than this, but the plot is age-old and very entertaining for adults and kids alike.

Weird but also very amazing and watchable.


I'm usually not too into a specific show (save for The O.C. & Desperate Housewives...hey, I am 20!), but, no kidding, after one episode of Reunion I was hooked.

I can't even say how bummed I was that it's time-slot conflicted with Bush's speech last night because I was really looking forward to the 1987 episode, which will now air next Thursday. Again, that conflict was disadvantageous because, being a new show, it needs to build up a following and having the second episode pushed back a week kills some momentum.

That said, TV doesn't always have to be Emmy worthy to be enjoyable. I don't expect Reunion to take home any prizes, but I do expect it will be able to capture my attention all season. Ever watch the first few episodes of a beloved show years later? Sometimes you wonder how you ever got hooked. Character building takes some time.

The one episode for each year idea is wonderful, in my opinion. The only other show I can recall doing something similar is 24, with each episode being an hour...and having an eventful year is more realistic than a day that eventful! Please give this show a shot. Relax about art form...it's just TV!


So, Fox pulled the plug midway through a drama/mystery...

How lame is that? Do they expect us to invest our time in their new shows when there is a realistic risk of never finding out what happens? Why weren't the remaining, already filmed episodes aired in the US? They were broadcast elsewhere.

Hey, Fox! Are you listening? This was a great show, but you left us hanging. If you're going to introduce new drama/mysteries, at least air a conclusion before abruptly ending mid-theme. Every time something like this happens (and it seems to happen a lot with you - i.e., Fox), there are more of those who will "wait and see" before investing their time. This means you will see an artificially low interest share, and are more likely to end the series. See? It is a vicious cycle. Don't let us down again...


I really love this show, it's like reading a book and each chapter leaves you wanting more. It gets you thinking about what is going to happen in the next episode, and the struggle of trying to maintain their friendship throughout the years. After each episode ends it leaves a sweet bitter taste in your mouth knowing that: One - The show was good, you can't wait for the next episode and it really gets you thinking about what actually happens to the friends throughout the twenty years. And two - the fact that the show has been put "on hiatus" and we will not see the show finish in it's entirety. Fox obviously do not know what they have done, they claim that they are losing viewers in the 18 - 49 category they clearly do not know what people want to see if they got rid of a good show such as "Reunion". I have one query though that I would like to raise. If they were to bring the show back and it went on for another season how would it work since each episode is done in the period of a year and the story is based on what happens in the span of twenty years? Your answers are most welcome. Bring back Reunion! Bring back Reunion!


I can't believe that they took this off the air. Especially, when they only had a few more episodes left. My daughter, sister and a few of my friends loved watching this show. We were so upset when they stopped showing this because of so called ratings. It is not fair to the people who were watching this show since the beginning. We had a right to see the end. I wish they would take an overall vote from all people with a 3 times a year voting system. They could send out papers in the mail and we as viewers could give an overall vote on all programs that we watch or have heard about. This could also help promote a new show. People would see it and wonder what it is. Not only could you see what the viewers are watching, you could also use this as a tool for free advertisement for TV and cable channels. We want to see the other episodes. Bring it back!!


so halfway through the season, i got so caught up in school and my activities that i didn't realize that the show had been canceled halfway through, which is crap.

i think the followers of this show should write fox and ask them to at least finish filming so that a the season can be released on DVD later. maybe then they'll see how many people were disappointed that the show didn't survive its first season.

i loved the show and looked forward to it every thursday after the OC. can you imagine my disappointment when i came back to try and watch the show only to discover that it had disappeared? needless to say, i'm not very happy with fox right now. even more so after discovering that NO ENDING WAS FILMED. i mean, if you're going to work on a project, at least finish it to see what happens. a half filmed show is like a half made car, it's pretty much useless. fox, film the damn ending and give some of the show's fans some peace.


this is indeed a treat for every Bolan fan, some might think that it's a little over the top, and that it is only about Ringo and Marc's egos, but i think it's similar to any other concert video, except for the fact that this is Marc bolan, not just any guy! i especially liked the music video for children of the revolution, with Elton John and Ringo Starr. this clip alone is worth all the money, i can't believe they did'not release this version as the single. The movie is really superb, especially for us danes. Now, I wasn't alive during the 70's. but danes in general was totally shot out from what was happening around them. the media didn't play or show any of the popular music back then, including Marc Bolan and T.Rex, they only played a little with The Doors, only the really popular songs though. so, i know from my dad, that seeing this, gives him back a part of his youth, he never got to experience.

i wont make this too long, so... If you're the least bit fan of Marc Bolan, you need to see this. you might find it boring or as said before, a little over the top. But at least you've seen one of the best musicians ever, in action!

Only thing that disappoints me a little, is that Ride A White Swan isn't on the tape. but i forgive it, since Jeepster and Get It On are so wonderfully played.


BORN TO BOOGIE is a real 'find'--though a rock fan for nearly thirty years, I only first saw the film a few days ago, and rank it among the top rock films of all time; the music's terrific (the cream of T. Rex) and the visuals consistently exciting and unusual, leaving this viewer craving any more past directorial efforts of Ringo Starr, who did a fine job here. If you love the music, you'll be in T. Rextasy throughout, as Marc Bolan really is the star of the piece, front and center. Even the fact that some songs are repeated doesn't matter a bit: different venues, costuming, musical arrangements, and bizarre visual concepts are all used to lend different textures and a great deal of upbeat humor to what could have ended up as 'only' a concert film in other hands. As rich and full packed as BORN TO BOOGIE is, the film's only about an hour long, but what is there is totally satisfying. Therein lies my only criticism--the video package states something like 71 minutes, and at least one online source claims the film to be 67 minutes, but apparently it's more like 61 minutes of rocking fun.


Panned by critics at the time but loved by the fans, this film has now become a classic. Mixing supposedly 'surreal' footage shot at John Lennon's home among other places with live footage of Marc Bolan & T.Rex at their very best, this film is not just a must for everyone who's liked Marc Bolan but gives a fascinating insight into the era.

These were the times when Marc was hobnobbing with the likes of Ringo Starr of the Beatles [who directed it] and you can even find a brief spot from one Reg Dwight [Elton John to you] bashing the ivories in an amazing [and never officially released] version of Tutti Frutti and rocking and ballad versions of Children Of The Revolution.

There's also wonderful scenes featuring Chelita Secunda [said to have 'created glam rock' with her use of glitter etc], Mickey Finn and even the actor from Catweazle!!

The best scene for me is in the garden when Marc leaves the dining table, sits down cross-legged in front of a string section and knocks out acoustic versions of classics such as Get It On and The Slider.

Highly, highly recommended!! FIVE stars [out of five].

Rory


If you're a T-Rex/Marc Bolan fan, I recommend you check this out. It shows a whimsical side of Marc Bolan as well as Ringo Starr, apparently having a pretty good time shooting some of the scenes that aren't part of the concert, but fun to watch, leaving you with a sense of getting to know them as just people, and when the concert is shown a talented musician, both playful and professional that rocks and seems to impress the screaming girls. Watching him in concert, you would never know that being a rock star is a job, but just having a great time playing some great songs with some good friends, like Elton John and Ringo Starr appearing in some of the live performances. True, there are a few songs missing that I would like to have seen on there, but like any album it can't have everything. I just bought this in 2006, but if I would have know it came out in 1972, I would have definitely bought it years ago. Sad and strange that a man with so many songs about his love for cars, would never learn to drive and would die in a car crash!


After repeated listenings to the CD soundtrack, I knew I wanted this film, got it for Christmas and I was amazed. Marc Bolan had such charisma, i can't describe it. I'd heard about him in that way, but didn't understand what people were talking about until I was in the company of this footage. He was incredible. Clips from the Wembley concert are interspersed with surrealistic sketches such as nuns gorging themselves at a garden party as Marc Bolan performs some acoustic versions of Get It On, etc. (I'm still learning the song titles). George Claydon, the diminutive photographer from Magical Mystery Tour, plays a chauffeur who jumps out of a car and eats one of the side mirrors. Nothing I can say to describe it would spoil it, even though I put the spoilers disclaimer on this review, so you would just need to see this for yourselves. It evades description.

Yes, I love the Beatles and was curious about Ringo directing a rock documentary - that was 35 years ago - now, I finally find out it's been on DVD for 2 years, but it's finally in my home. It's an amazing viewing experience - even enthralling.

Now the DVD comes with hidden extras and the following is a copy and paste from another user:

There's two hidden extras on the Born To boogie double DVD release.

1.From the menu on disc one,select the bonus material and goto the extra scenes 2.On the extra scenes page goto Scene 42 take 1 and keep pressing left 3.when the cursor disappears keep pressing right until a "Star+1972" logo appears 4.Press Enter

5.From the main menu on disc two,select the sound options 6.On the sound options page goto the 90/25 (I think thats right) option and keep pressing left 7.When the cursor disappears keep pressing right until a "Star+Home video" logo appears 8.Press Enter


Canto 1: How Kriemhild Mourned Over Siegfried and How King Attila Woos her Through his Ambassador Rüdiger von Bechlarn: Kriemhild (Margarete Schön) insists on having the head of the killer of her beloved husband, Hagen Tronje (Hans Adalbert Schlettow), but her brother, King Gunther (Theodor Loos), refuses her request. When King Attila of the Huns woos Kriemhild through his ambassador Rüdiger von Bechlar, she makes him promise through oath in the name of his king that no man would ever offend her. Hagen Tronje hides the Nibelungen treasure in the bottom of a lake.

Canto 2: How Kriemhild Takes Leave from her Homeland and How She Was Received by King Attila: Kriemhild brings some earth from where Siegfried died, and travels to the court of the Huns, where she is welcomed by Attila himself, who also promises through oath to defend her.

Canto 3: How King Attila Besieged Rome and How Kriemhild Summoned her Brothers: When Kriemhild delivers a baby boy, Attila returns to his realm and asks Kriemhild what she would like most to please her. She asks him to invite her brothers to come to his kingdom.

Canto 4: How Kriemhild Receives her Brothers: Kriemhild insists on having the head of Hagen Tronje, but her brothers keep loyalty to their friend and again do not accept her request.

Canto 5: How the Huns Celebrated the Summer Solstice With the Nibelungen: Kriemhild asks Attila to kill Hagen Tronje, but he refuses since in accordance with the laws of the desert, a guest is considered sacred. Kriemhild offers gold to the Hums for the head of Hagen Tronje. There is a fight, and Hagen Tronje kills Attila's son.

Canto 6: The Nibelungen's Distress: The Huns lose the battle against the Nibelungen, but keep them under siege inside Attila's castle. Kriemhild promises to spare their lives provided they deliver Hagen Tronje, but her brother Gunther tells that German people are loyal with their friends.

Canto 7: The Nibelungen's End: After the death of Rüdiger von Bechlarn, Giselher and Gernot, Hagen Tronje and Guhther are finally captured. Kriemhild kills Hagen Tronje, ending her revenge with the destruction of the Nibelungen.

The conclusion of the poetic saga of Siegfried through "Kriemhild's Revenge" is also told through seven dramatic cantos. The nature of the first part is a magnificent tale of fantasy, adventure, romance and betrayal; the second part is a dramatic story of hate, revenge and loyalty. The solid screenplay with a perfect development of the characters, the excellent performances of the cast and the awesome direction of Fritz Lang produced another epic ahead of time. Margarete Schön is impressive with a total different woman, obsessed and inflexible in her revenge wish. The costumes that Kriemhild wears are also very impressive, and her acting is based on her face and look. I was a little disappointed with the reaction of Attila after the death of his only son, since I found it too passive. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Os Nibelungos  Parte II: A Vingança de Kriemshild" ("The Nibelungen Part II: Kriemhild's Revenge")


I saw this film last night at a special movie theater showing in Nürnberg, and it was superb. I do have to admit that the original music composition of the cello player and percussion/xylophone player influenced the mood of the film, but the film itself also had force in its portrayal of the tragic Nibelungen saga.

If you are interested in silent films or in the Nibelungenlied, I highly recommend this film. The costumes were fantastic and creative, the sets were opulent and exotic, and the acting was dramatic and breathtaking (as is typical of silent film "tragedies") Unfortunately, I have not seen the first part of this film duo that concerns Siegfried. The story of this second film begins after Siegfried's death, when Kremhild (Gudrun in the Norse versions of the story) begins to plan her revenge against her brothers.

Also, I watched this film in German; I am a native English speaker and have a basic German knowledge. It was difficult to read the ?subtitles (what do you call that in silent films?) at first because of the old style German script, so I advise that if you watch it in German that you make sure you can differentiate your "k's", "f's", and "s's" in the old script. :)


Please see also my comment on Die Nibelungen part 1: Siegfried.

The second part of UFA studio's gargantuan production of the Nibelungen saga continues in the stylised, symphonic and emotionally detached manner of its predecessor. However, whereas part one was a passionless portrayal of individual acts of heroism, part two is a chaotic depiction of bloodletting on a grand scale.

As in part one, director Fritz Lang maintains a continuous dynamic rhythm, with the pace of the action and the complexity of the shot composition rising and falling smoothly as the tone of each scene demands. These pictures should only be watched with the note-perfect Gottfried Huppertz score, which fortunately is on the Kino DVD. Now, with this focus on mass action, Lang is presented with greater challenges in staging. The action sequences in his earliest features were often badly constructed, but now he simply makes them part of that rhythmic flow, with the level of activity on the screen swelling up like an orchestra.

But just as part one made us witness Siegfried's adventures matter-of-factly and without excitement, part two presents warfare as devastating tragedy. In both pictures, there is a deliberate lack of emotional connection with the characters. That's why Lang mostly keeps the camera outside of the action, never allowing us to feel as if we are there (and this is significant because involving the audience is normally a distinction of Lang's work). That's also why the performances are unnaturally theatrical, with the actors lurching around like constipated sleepwalkers.

Nevertheless, Kriemhild's revenge does constantly deal with emotions, and is in fact profoundly humanist. The one moment of naturalism is when Atilla holds his baby son for the first time, and Lang actually emphasises the tenderness of this scene by building up to it with the wild, frantic ride of the huns. The point is that Lang never manipulates us into taking sides, and in that respect this version has more in common with the original saga than the Wagner opera. The climactic slaughter is the very antithesis of a rousing battle scene. Why then did Hitler and co. get so teary-eyed over it, a fact which has unfairly tarnished the reputation of these films? Because the unwavering racial ideology of the Nazis made them automatically view the Nibelungs as the good guys, even if they do kill babies and betray their own kin. For Hitler, their downfall would always be a nationalist tragedy, not a human one.

But for us non-nazi viewers, what makes this picture enjoyable is its beautiful sense of pageantry and musical rhythm. When you see these fully-developed silent pictures of Lang's, it makes you realise how much he was wasted in Hollywood. Rather than saddling him with low-budget potboilers, they should have put him to work on a few of those sword-and-sandal epics, pictures that do not have to be believable and do not have to move us emotionally, where it's the poetic, operatic tonality that sweeps us along.


In some ways, The Wrath of Kriemhild surpasses Siegfried's Death, but it also loses some of that film's greatness. The plot of this one is more cohesive than the first, which is quite amazing. The second half of the actual poem is a lot sloppier and a lot harder to tread through, until, that is, you get to the climactic battle scenes; only the Iliad's are better. Lang and Harbou embellished the Huns. The poet-compiler of the Nibelungenlied didn't know a Hun from his right ball, and as a result they are, more or less, the same as the Burgundians in custom. For example, although the poet clearly describes Etzel as a heathen (which is Kriemhild's main concern as Rudiger tries to persuade her to marry him), when she gets to Hunland, the first thing she does is go to mass. The Huns here are clearly heathens; they're almost like caveman. The depiction of them is hilarious, especially Verbal, the jester, who has two marvelous scenes. Etzel's character has been given more weight. He is much more formidable. All he does is bemoan his fate in the original poem. Lang and Harbou are masterful at building suspense, especially at the banquet scene, which is intercut with Verbal's second performance to an amazing effect. However, as is the nature of this half of the poem, the film's amazing technical accomplishments are missing in this one, for the most part, except for a dazzling sequence where Etzel's hall burns down with the Nibelungs inside. The one thing I do have to object to is the way Harbou changes the ending. SPOILERS: in the poem, after Hildebrand captures Hagen and Gunther, they are imprisoned. Kriemhild visits Hagen in his cell and demands that he reveal where he has hidden the horde. He refuses and she herself decapitates her brother. When Hagen still refuses, she decapitates him. Hildebrand (or possibly Dietrich) is so disgusted that a woman would presume to murder a great warrior that he, in turn, decapitates her, calling her a "Devil Woman". Etzel, who is much weaker in the poem than he is here, says something silly like: "Ah me!" I can understand why they would want to keep a unity of time and place as Hildebrand brings them from the castle; to retain the prison settings of the two deaths would make the film very anticlimactic. I also understand why they didn't have Hildebrand kill Kriemhild: his character is much reduced here; his name is only mentioned once. But, to have Kriemhild kill herself, adopting Brynhild's death from the Icelandic sources, is just catering to the audience instead of challenging them. The point of the poem is that Kriemhild's wrath goes far beyond it should into the realm of pure evil. Here, we simply have her die for her lost love. It's not as interesting.


I finally got my wish to see this one in a cinema. I'd seen Fritz Lang's film on video some years ago. I'd been hoping that ideal screening conditions would work their magic.

Conditions were ideal at Cinematheque Ontario. Pristine full-length print. Intertitles in the original Gothic-script German with simultaneous English translation, accurate without being too literal. Live piano accompaniment. Ideal.

The film's magic sputtered for a little while but ultimately failed to catch, at least for me.

This film bears no real relation to Wagner's Ring cycle as I already knew but some may not. Wagner had adapted the 13th c. Niebelungenlied to his own purposes. Part I of Fritz Lang's epic -- "Siegfried" -- has much that will be familiar to listeners of Wagner however.

"Kriemhild's Revenge" is the story of Siegfried's wife Kriemhild, her marriage to King Etzel (Attila) the Hun, and her desire for revenge against Hagen and Gunther, the rechristened Nibelungs, for the murder of Siegfried. The spectacular conflagration in this film presumably evolved and expanded in the Wagnerian mythos into his Götterdämmerung, his Twilight of the Gods, and the end of Valhalla. This film remains earthbound.

Most of the film is spectacular. The massive sets rival those of "Cabiria" (1914), which inspired Griffith's "Intolerance" (1916). Their decoration sets a new benchmark in barbaric splendour. There's a huge cast of scarred, mangy Huns and Art Deco Burgundians. And battles. Battles that never seem to end in fact.

Kriemhild is very successful in her plan of revenge. She manages to destroy all around her. Her loyalty to her martyred Siegfried seems not to stem so much from love, or devotion, but from something closer to psychosis. Lady Macbeth cried out, "Unsex me here." She knew she was emotionally unprepared for what she needed to do. But Kriemhild displays no normal human emotions, and certainly nothing one equates with the feminine principle. She is already "top full of direst cruelty", to borrow Shakespeare's phrase, from the outset. Margarethe Schön and her director convey this with a glower. I don't want to exaggerate, but that glower is virtually the only expression ever to "animate" Kriemhild's face. It's the ultimate in one-note performances. It's clearly intentional however, not simply a case of poor acting.

What we have then on offer is a one-dimensional sketch of an avenging Fury. Some might see Kriemhild as an empowered heroine. I just see the film as misogynistic.


Fritz Lang's German medieval saga continues in Die Nibelungen: Kriemhilds Rache (1924).Kriemhild (Margarete Schoen) wants to avenge her murdered husband, Siegfried.Her brother is too weak to bring the murdered, Hagen, to justice.Kriemhild marries Etzel, the King of the Huns (Rudolf Klein-Rogge).She gives birth to a child, and invites her brothers for a party.Etzel and the other Huns should kil Hagen, but he is protected by his brothers.We see a huge battle of life and death begins, and she sets the whole place on fire.Eventually Hagen is dead, and so is Kriemhild.These movies deal with great themes, such as revenge and undying love.Sure we have later seen some better movies made of those topics, but this was one of the early ones.


In "Die Nibelungen: Siegfried", Siegfried was betrayed. Now, Kriemhild seeks revenge. She marries Hagen, and through a series of events, finally engages in a very drastic (but fitting) action at the end.

One of the things about watching this movie nowadays is that we can look at certain portrayals. Attila the Hun (called Etzel in the movie) is shown as the strange person from the east, possibly an allusion to the Soviet Union. Obviously, it was not Fritz Lang's fault that Hitler used "The Nibelungenlied" for German national pride in the Third Reich, but one can see what the Fuhrer liked about the story. Nonetheless, this is an absolutely formidable movie.


Great battle finale and nice sets help keep this often-slow movie enjoyable. At times it had me checking my watch, although there were enough memorable moments to make the film stand out in my mind days after watching it. The ending should surprise even those familiar with the Nibelungen story line.


I show this film to university students in speech and media law because its lessons are timeless: Why speaking out against injustice is important and can bring about the changes sought by the oppressed. Why freedom of the press and freedom of speech are essential to democracy. This is a must-see story of how apartheid was brought to the attention of the world through the activism of Steven Biko and the journalism of Donald Woods. It also gives an important lesson of free speech: "You can blow out a candle, but you can't blow out a fire. Once the flame begins to catch, the wind will blow it higher." (From Biko by Peter Gabriel, on Shaking the Tree).


This film is, quite simply, brilliant. The cinematography is good, the acting superb and the story absolutely breathtaking. This is the story of Donald Woods, a white South African who thought himself a liberal until he found out the reality of apartheid. Kevin Kline is completely convincing - so much so that when Donald Woods himself appeared on TV some years later, I recognised him from Kline's portrayal. Denzel Washington also turns in a masterful performance, as ever.

I urge you to watch this. It is long, but it is worth your patience because it tells such an incredible story. Remember, folks, this really happened.


Billed as the story of Steve Biko -- played excellently by Denzel Washington, as you'd expect -- this was actually more the story of Donald Woods, played by Kevin Kline.

This was undoubtedly the making of Kline as a serious actor, and he was surprisingly good in the role.

Attenborough gave this the sort of direction you'd expect, and the often spectacular scenes of the masses were those of the sort that only he can get across.

The remainder of the cast was competent enough and did a good job, in what ends up as an ultimately sad tale of a South Africa that is still nowhere near the distant past.


CRY FREEDOM is an excellent primer for those wanting an overview of apartheid's cruelty in just a couple of hours. Famed director Richard Attenborough (GANDHI) is certainly no stranger to the genre, and the collaboration of the real-life Mr. and Mrs. Woods, the main white characters in their book and in this film, lends further authenticity to CRY FREEDOM. The video now in release actually runs a little over 2 and a half hours since 23 minutes of extra footage was inserted to make it a two part TV miniseries after the film's initial theatrical release. While the added length serves to heighten the film's forgivable flaws: uneven character development and blanket stereotyping in particular, another possible flaw (the insistence on the white characters' fate over that of the African ones) may work out as a strength. Viewing CRYING FREEDOM as a politically and historically educational film (as I think it should, over its artistic merits), the story is one which black Africans know only too well, though the younger generation may now need to see it on film for full impact. It is the whites who have always been the film's and the book's target audience, hopefully driving them to change. Now twelve years after the movie's production, CRY FREEDOM is in many ways a more interesting film to watch. Almost ten years after black majority rule has been at least theorically in place, 1987's CRY FREEDOM's ideals remain by and large unrealized. It therefore remains as imperative as ever for white South Africans, particularly the younger ones who have only heard of these actions to see it, and absorb the film's messages. In total contrast to American slavery and the Jewish Holocaust's exposure, South Africans' struggles have been told by a mere two or three stories: CRY FREEDOM, CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY (OK, Count it twice if you include the remake), and SARAFINA (did I miss one?). All three dramas also clumsily feature American and British actors in both the white and black roles. Not one South African actor has played a major role, white, coloured, Indian or Black!). And yes I did miss another international South African drama, MANDELA and DEKLERK. Though this (also highly recommended) biopic was released after black majority rule was instituted, MANDELA was played by a Black American (Sidney Poitier, who also starred in the original S.A.-themed CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY), while the Afrikaner DeKlerk was played by a (bald) very British Michael Caine, a good performance if you can dismiss that the very essence of Afrikanerdom is vehement anti-British feelings. Until local SABC TV and African films start dealing with their own legacy, CRY FREEDOM is about as authentic as you'll get. As villified as the whites (particularly the Afrikaners) are portrayed in the film, any observant (non-casual) visitor to South Africa even now in 1999, not to mention 1977 when CRY FREEDOM takes place, will generally find white's attitudes towards blacks restrained, even understated. Looking at CRY FREEDOM in hindsight, it is amazing that reconciliation can take place at all, and it is. But CRY FREEDOM at time shows not much has really changed in many people's minds yet, and that the Black Africans' goal to FREEDOM and reconciliation is still ongoing. This is why if you're a novice to the situation, CRY FREEDOM, is your best introduction.


As anyone old enough knows, South Africa long suffered under the vile, racist oppression of apartheid, which completely subjugated the black population. One of the most famous anti-apartheid activists was Steve Biko, who was murdered in jail. Following the murder, reporter Donald Woods sought to get Biko's message out to the world.

In "Cry Freedom", Woods (Kevin Kline) befriends Biko (Denzel Washington) before the latter is arrested on trumped up charges. When Woods attempts to spread Biko's word, he and his family begin living under threat of attack, and they are finally forced to flee the country. The last scene gut-wrenchingly shows police firing on protesters.

As one of two movies (along with "A World Apart") that helped galvanize the anti-apartheid movement, "Cry Freedom" stands out as possibly the best ever work for all involved.


An overlong, but compelling retelling of the friendship between civil rights leader Steve Biko and Donald Woods. The first half of the film is the strongest where we see the bond formed between the two men, and how they help each other out, but the second half isn't as strong, due to the elimination of the Biko character. Still, its a compelling film with great performances by Kline and Washington, in the film that put the latter on the map. Washington was also was nominated for best supporting actor for the first time. Overall, a well made film that could have been trimmed down a bit. 7/10.____________________________________


It's sad to view this film now that we know how the ANC got shafted by international capitalism. Biko died for nothing much. Woods achieved little. Yes, outright apartheid was abolished, but all the apparatus of power was reserved by the minority whites, leaving the ANC government more or less impotent. As Naomi Klein writes in The Shock Doctrine, in the talks between the black and white leaderships "the deKlerk government had a twofold strategy. First drawing on the ascendant Washington Consensus that there was no only one way to run an economy, it portrayed key sectors of economic decision making --- such as trade policy and the central bank --- as "technical" or "adminsitrative". Then it used a wide range of new policy tools --- international trade agreements, innovations in constitutional law and structural adjustment programs --- to hand control of those power centres to supposedly impartial experts, economists and officials from the IMF, the World Bank, the GATT and the National Party --- anyone except the liberation fighters from the ANC." The statistical results are horrifying, with not much change accomplished, and AIDS flourishing. Viewing Cry Freedom in this light is deeply ironic --- actually tragic. The ANC has transformed itself from being the solution to being the primary problem.


Very rarely does Denzil Washington make a bad movie and come to think of it that goes for Kevin Kline and in this case , this must count as one of their best films. It is more about of film about how strong friendship can more than the story of Steve Biko although we do get an insight into what the man was like and how far the reporter and friend Donald Woods went to preserve the mans name and let the world know what a corrupt , putrid society South Africa was. The Direction is outstanding from David Attenborough as it was for Gandhi although if there is any critisism to be aimed it could be at the length of the film. Two and a half hours is a long time to sit through a historic movie .What is amazing is how he manages to control all the extras. Thousands of people in both films. This film really does open your eyes to what happened before the break up of Aparthiet and you cannot fail to moved by it. 8 out of 10.


"The True Story Of The Friendship That Shook South Africa And Awakened The World."

Richard Attenborough, who directed "A Bridge Too Far" and "Gandhi", wanted to bring the story of Steve Biko to life, and the journey and trouble that journalist Donald Woods went through in order to get his story told. The films uses Wood's two books for it's information and basis - "Biko" and "Asking for Trouble".

The film takes place in the late 1970's, in South Africa. South Africa is in the grip of the terrible apartheid, which keeps the blacks separated from the whites and classifies the whites as the superior race. The blacks are forced to live in shantytowns on the outskirts of the cities and towns, and they come under frequent harassment by the police and the army. We are shown a dawn raid on a shantytown, as bulldozers and armed police force their way through the camp beating and even killing the inhabitants. Then we are introduced to Donald Woods (Kevin Kline), who is the editor of a popular newspaper. After publishing a negative story about black activist Steve Biko (Denzel Washington), Woods goes to meet with him. The two are wary of each other at first, but they soon become good friends and Biko shows the horrors of the apartheid system from a black persons point of view to Woods. This encourages Woods to speak out against what's happening around him, and makes him desperate to bring Steve Biko's story out of the clutches of the white man's South Africa and to the world. Soon, Steve Biko is arrested and is killed in prison. Now Woods and his family are daring to escape from South Africa to England, where Woods can publish his book about Steve Biko and the apartheid.

When I first heard of "Cry Freedom", I was under the impression that it was a movie completely dedicated to the life of Steve Biko. I had never actually heard of Steve Biko before I seen this film, as the events in this film were really before my time. But it's more about the story of Donald Woods and his journey across the border into Lesotho as he tried to elude the South African officials. Woods was put on a five year type house arrest after Steve Biko was killed. So in order to publish his manuscript on Steve Biko, he had to escape. Because the manuscript would be considered treason in South Africa and that could have resulted in Woods meeting a fate similar to that of Biko's. The real Donald Woods and his wife acted as consultants to this film.

Denzel Washington is only in the film for the first hour, and I was disappointed with that as I was expecting to see him for the entire movie. But he was amazing as Steve Biko, and captured his personality from what I've read really well and his accent sounded perfect. His performance earned him an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor. Kevin Kline delivers a excellent and thought-evoking performance as Donald Woods, and Penelope Wilton is excellent as his wife Wendy.

Filming took place in Zimbabwe, as needless to say problems arose when they tried to film it in South Africa. While in South Africa, the South African gestapo followed the film crew everywhere, so they got the bad vibes and they pulled out and went to neighbouring Zimbabwe instead. Despite everything, and the fact that the apartheid didn't end 'til seven years later, "Cry Freedom" wasn't banned in South Africa. But cinemas showing the movie received bomb threats.

Richard Attenborough brings the horrors of the apartheid to the screen with extreme force and determination. He doesn't hold back at the end of the movie when showing what was supposed to be a peaceful protest by students in a shantytown, turns into a massacre when police open fire on them. The film ends with the names of all the anti-apartheid movers who died in prison, and the explanations for their deaths. Many had "No Explanation". Quite a few were "Epilepsy", which is hard to believe, and many more either fell from the top of the stairs or were "Suicide from Hanging". No one will ever know what really happened to them, but I think it's fair to say that none of these men died at their own hands, but at the hands of others; or to be more precise, at the hands of the police.

"Cry Freedom" is a must-see movie for it's portrayal and story of Steve Biko. It's also a searing and devastating portrayal of a beautiful land divided and in the hellish grips of racial segregation and violence.