The visuals and effects are up to par with the the original film and provide a lot of entertainment even if the storyline is essentially the same as the first two films. It also seems a lot more erotically charged than I remember the other films being. If you're a big fan of flying prehensile hair and tongues that can reach all the way down into your stomach, you'll like this film.


While essentially a remake of the original Chinese Ghost Story, this third installment has higher production values and greater subtlety in both the acting and the story. Tony Leung is particularly good. CGS III is a gorgeous, moving film.


If the movies are to be believed, Chinese ghosts are much prettier and more mischievous than their Western counterparts. The storylines of the three 'Chinese Ghost' films are largely identical, but the direction is excellent and the detail and colour is such that it's not a huge problem. As always, humour is an integral part of the film, accompanied, of course, by a great deal of mugging. For those who haven't encountered the 'Chinese GhostStory' trilogy yet, this film offers an interesting departure from the Western horror/ghost genre; for those who have, another enjoyable romp in the Chinese ghost world.


It's this sort of movie that you try and imitate. By attempting to realise something... then flying through the air almost immediately. I'd like to do that and I know you would too!

Great stuff!


If you r in mood for fun...and want to just relax and enjoy...bade Miyan Chote Miyan is one of the movies to watch. Amitabh started off pretty good...but it is Govinda who steals the show from his hands... awesome timing for and good dialog delivery.....its inspired from Bad boys... but it has Indian Masala to it... people think it might be confusing and stupid...but the fact that David Dhavan is directing and Govinda is acting... should not raise any questions....other recommended movies in the same genre(David Dhavan/Govinda combo)...are Shola Aur Shabnam, Aankhen, Raja Babu, Saajan Chale Sasural, Deewana Mastana, Collie no. 1, Jodi no. 1, Hero no.1, Haseena Manjayegi, Ek Aur Ek Gyarah.


One of the best "Amitabh comeback" movies I liked. This was the phase when Govinda was going strong with Dhawan. The songs were awesome and totally as we call it "masti" type. An evergreen entertainer with the likes of the multifaceted Anupam Kher chipping in. The story line has a lot of hilarious twists and turns as is known for David Dhawan's potboilers. With a timely appearance by Mrs.Madhuri "Nene" Dixit, it was a total riot towards the end. It was great to see Amit perform with such force and humor after a long exile. Although some may consider it a typical "Bollywood Masala" movie, I would watch it any day. I am giving it an easy 8 out of 10 just for being pure Bollywood.


This movie is very funny. Amitabh Bachan and Govinda are absolutely hilarious. Acting is good. Comedy is great. They are up to their usual thing. It would be good to see a sequel to this :)

Watch it. Good time-pass movie


As a kid I remember being nine or ten and loving this movie. It was the all round Bollywood action/comedy movie. It is a imitation of Bad Boys obviously! The whole swapping identities but the arrival of two other twins throws everything out of the window and then the arrival of colourful villains who dance and sing! The action scenes in the film aren't revolutionary but still amazing scenes. The film is genuinely very funny and was the great comeback Amitabh Bachan needed. Govinda is a gem like always and this is probably his best work to date, he shines as the side kick nd delivers the best comedy scenes available in Indian cinema.

The songs....The songs are both funny and catchy..............proving laughs when you least expect it...Amitabh Bachan surprisingly is very funny and will make you laugh as 'Bade Miah'....his accent...body language..... Brilliant...

'Assi chutki naab re daal' is the best song..............Hilarious.


This movie is an awesome non-stop laugh riot incorporating all the usual ingredients of a Dawid Dhawan comedy - bumbling heroes , buffoonish supporting characters , made-up dolls for heroines , nasty villains , wisecracks , rocking soundtrack + choreography and a little dose of action .

Amitabh Bachchan and Govinda both are in double roles of policemen and conmen . The heroine of Amitabh the cop is Ramya Krishnan and Raveena is opposite Govinda the cop . Heroines are mere rouge-smothered props as usual . The conmen have no heroines . Paresh Rawal carries his villainous act in DAUD forward (He played a similar Don in KHOOBSURAT too) . Asrani shines in a brief role . He does a retake on his famous "Angrezon ke zamaane ke Jailer" act in SHOLAY .

Govinda is impeccable as usual - as a wisecracking , good-humoured policeman Pyaare Mohan and as a conman Chhote Miyaan . He imitates Bihari style of Hindi speaking with hilarious results . Amitabh Bachchan , believe it or not , pales in comparison with him . But still AB is fine . Madhuri Dixit does a cameo as herself in the song "Makhna" . She dances like wind .

Viju Shah's music is awesome . Check out "Kisi Disco Mein Jaayen" , "Makhna" and the title track .

Do not go looking for any LOGIC since it is a comedy and the screenplay is of convenience completely . Just Enjoy Yourself .


Military training films are becoming so common that they are becoming a genre unto themselves. Among the more prominent we have, `Officer and a Gentleman', `Top Gun', `GI Jane', and now `Men of Honor'. The fact that this one happened to be true doesn't change the fact that the formula is the same. This film is probably most like `GI Jane' since it focuses on the desegregation angle.

The story is actually quite inspirational and is probably the best human-interest story among those mentioned above. Carl Brashear (Cuba Gooding, Jr.) is unquestionably a man of great courage and principle, and his strength of character shines through brightly in this film. Unfortunately, director George Tillman has tunnel vision in presenting the characters and eschews character development of various characters other than Brashear in favor of showing Brashear in a constant state of adversity. Billy Sunday (Robert De Niro) is a central figure, and except for the initial scene, the fistfight and a couple of scenes with his wife, we don't know much about him. For instance, Brashear sees the scars on Sunday's palms and we are to assume that he worked a plow, but there is no follow-up on that point. Mr. Pappy (Hal Holbrook) gets only one short scene by which we can judge him. The rest of his screen time shows him pacing around and ranting. If a director is going to make a human-interest story, he needs to humanize the characters.

Cuba Gooding Jr. gives an outstanding performance as Brashear. This is probably the best I've seen him. This is a role and a character that is far more complete than any part he has played before, and he rises to the occasion. In `Jerry Maguire', Rod Tidwell was a fascinating, but one-dimensional character with the depth of a rain puddle. Brashear is much more complex and grounded, and the issues he faces are life crises, making the part far more challenging. This is an excellent recovery from Gooding's last role in `Chill Factor', a film so dreadful that it was almost an act of professional suicide to take the part.<br /><br />After a stint trying his hand as a comedian (`Analyze This', `The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle', `Meet The Parents'), Robert DeNiro is back to his dramatic roots with an outstanding performance. DeNiro isn't a bad comedian, he is just such a great dramatic actor that it seems like he shouldn't waste his time doing comedy. DeNiro endows Billy Sunday with a rock hard personality belying a tortured soul. It is a pleasure watching him work.

It seems every film I watch lately has Charlize Theron in it. I saw `The Legend of Bagger Vance', `Men of Honor' and `The Yards' right in a row and I was beginning to wonder if she had a part in every film in 2000 (actually, she only did five). This was a minor role for Theron, but she carried it off well and managed to stay with DeNiro step for step. David Keith, who co-starred with Richard Gere in `Officer and a Gentleman', has a cameo here

The DVD has some interesting special features, including reflections by the real Carl Brashear and some deleted scenes.

I enjoyed this film despite the hackneyed plot and the one-dimensional presentation. I rated it a 7/10. I'm a sucker for underdog stories and I have a fondness for stories where strength of character is the central theme. This film is particularly strong in both areas and brings us two memorable acting performances that compensate for some of the director's shortcomings.


"Men of honor" - true story about a proud and persistent black navy diver (fabulous Cuba Gooding Jr.) is definitely a great movie that both touches and entertains and it's part of the absolute cream of the new millennium cinema. Wonderful acting is the main reason to make this movie something truly special and pretty enjoyable, splendid experience. Charismatic Robert De Niro is marvelous as rough, fierce and pitiless chief Billy Sunday - role is practically written for him. This film alongside with fantastic "15 minutes" (2001) are two of the latest proofs that he's still one of the very finest actors of our time. On the other hand "Men of honor" includes a fine performance from Cuba Gooding Jr. who has been one of the most promising young black actors since "Boyz n the hood". "Men of honor" goes straight into the company of "Jerry Maguire", "As good as it gets" and "Instinct". Cuba Gooding Jr. is a skillful and fantastic actor and I'm prepared to get lots of more terrific movies from him. "Men of honor" has also quite an excellent story-line and probably the most exciting diving sequences of the movie history. This is a great, fascinating movie and I can only recommend it.


This one is a great one! Robert De Niro and Cuba Gooding have teamed up to make a powerful and very influential film. This is the true story of the first black US Navy diver and the obstacles he faced in attaining his certification at the hands of a racist Master diver. Along the way, he must also face plain old bigotry from all of his classmates, none of whom want him in their class. They move out of the barracks when he arrives. Ultimately, he becomes certified and goes on to have a great career as a US Navy diver. Watch this one! It's a great tale of courage and honor. As the story unfolds, we get to watch racism slowly dissipate and everyone begins to respect men one at a time.


This film is an excellent military movie. It may not be an excellent Hollywood Movie, but that does not matter. Hollywood has a reputation of sacrificing accuracy for good entertainment, but that is not the case with this movie. Other reviewers have found this movie to be too slow for their taste, but  as a retired Soldier  I appreciate the pace the movie crew deliberately took to tell their story as completely as possible given the two hours and nine minutes allotted. The story itself has been told and retold several times over, but it remains for a professional soldier  and an African American at that  to report on the story as presented by the movie crew, and as it presents the US Navy to the world. The story of Brashear's work to become a Navy Diver, and his life as a Navy Diver beyond his graduation, is not the only story that is presented. There I also the story of how Master Chief Petty Officer Sunday defied the illegal order of his Commanding Officer that Petty Officer 2nd Class Brashear not be passed in his test dive no matter how well he did, and paid the price of a loss of one Stripe and a change of assignment. It also told the true story how Brashear found the third Hydrogen Bombs lost in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Spain in the 1950's, and how he saved the life of another seaman who was in the line of the snapped running line that would have snapped him in two if Brashear had not shoved him out of the way and took the shot himself. This was a complex story that was worth telling, and I will admit that two hours and nine minutes was not enough to tell the full story, and I can tell from the deleted scenes on the DVD that the crew tried their best to tell a story as full as possible. As a professional soldier, I was proud to see such a great story told in such a comprehensive manner, and to see the traditions and honor of the navy preserved in such a natural and full manner.


I loved this movie. It is a definite inspirational movie. It fills you with pride. This movie is worth the rental or worth buying. It should be in everyones home. Best movie I have seen in a long time. It will make you mad because everyone is so mean to Carl Brashear, but in the end it gets better. It is a story of romance, drama, action, and plenty of funny lines to keep you tuned in. I love a lot of the quotes. I use them all the time. They help keep me on task of what I want to do. It shows that anyone can achieve their dreams, all they have to do is work for it. It is a long movie, but every time I watch it, I never notice that it is as long as it is. I get so engrossed in it, that it goes so quick. I love this movie. I watch it whenever I can.


The inspiring story of Carl Brashear (Cuba Gooding, Jr.), a black man who grew up in poverty in Kentucky and then joined the US Navy, aspiring to be the first black Master Diver in Navy history. We are shown the series of struggles from boyhood on that Brashear has to overcome to make his dream come true (and then to keep it alive.) Not the least of the challenges was Master Diver Bill Sunday (Robert DeNiro), the head trainer at the diving school the Navy sends Brashear to, who is not especially sympathetic to Brashear's goals, but who ultimately becomes an unlikely friend and supporter.

This is a good movie; fast paced and with a lot of action, although not an "action" pic in the normal sense of the word. There's a very human story here as well, and an interesting study of racism and the struggle to overcome it; there's also a sense of the struggle that took place in the 1960's between older and younger naval officers (the "old navy" vs the "new navy.") The performances are quite good - particularly Goodings'. I thought DeNiro was perhaps a bit over the top in his portrayal of Sunday (although, who knows, Sunday might well have been this extreme kind of loose cannon) and the portrayal of Sunday's wife Gwen (by Charlize Theron) also made me question whether these parts were "jazzed up" to provide entertainment value.

A good movie, though. I never once wondered if it was worth tuning into.

7/10


Men of Honor stars Cuba Gooding Jr., as real life Navy Diver Carl Brashear who defied a man's Navy to become the first African American Navy Diver. Sometimes by his side and sometimes his adversary there was one man who Carl Brashear really admired. His name was Master Chief Billy Sunday (Robert DeNiro). Sunday in a lot of ways pushed, aggravated and helped Carl become the man he wanted to be.

I loved Cuba in this film. His portrayal here is as liberating and as powerful as Denzel Washington was in The Hurricane. Through every scene we can see his passion, motivation and stubbornness to achieve his dream. We can see the struggle within in him as he embarks to make his father proud. I also loved how the director created and brought forth a lot of tension in some of the key diving scenes. Brashear's encounter with a submarine during a salvage mission is heart-stopping and brilliant.

The only fault I could see would have to lie in the supporting cast. Cuba and DeNiro's characters are very intricate and exciting to watch. Which does make you a little sad when they have to butt heads with such two-dimensional supporting characters. The evil Lt. Cmdr. Hanks, Sunday's wife (Charlize Theron), the eccentric diving school colonel (Hal Holbrook) and Cuba's love interest are the characters I found to not have very much depth. What could have made these characters more substantial and more effective was a little more time to develop them. Why was that colonel always in his tower? How come Sunday's wife was so bitter and always drunk?

Another curious question has to be this. What happened to Carl Brashear's wedding? I mean if this film is chronicling this man's life wouldn't his wedding be an important event? Maybe it's just me. Men of Honor, however, is a perfect example of the triumph and faith that the human spirit envelops. This film will inspire and make you feel for this man's struggle. Which I do believe was the reason this powerful story was told. My hat goes off to you Carl Brashear. I really admire your strength.


TIllman Jr.'s drama about the first African American Navy Master Diver (Gooding Jr.), who defies all odds and achieves his goals despite a strict embittered trainer. The screenplay is not bad, a bit extreme at times, but the direction and acting is first-rate, and this film is inspiring and achieves what its supposed to do. I liked DeNiro in the lead, although its not on par with his masterful works (taxi driver, godfather and all the others) it is as good as his other good performances such as in King of Comedy or Angel Heart. DeNiro is always convincing and believable here, very good performance, Gooding Jr. is not bad, definitely one of his better performances. --- IMDb Rating: 6.6, my rating: 9/10


I was curious to know how critics responded to this rousing, inspiring film, so I went to Rotten Tomatoes and was dismayed to discover that the pompous peanut gallery that is our nation's film critics had given the film an average 43% (or "Rotten") rating.

All I can say is, if this movie doesn't move you, you have no heart. (It's interesting to note that the same film on the same website got a 74% rating from viewers).

Not that the opinion of critics is all THAT important to me. After all, I can't think of a more useless, overpaid profession. Some schmo gets paid to go to the movies (what a tough life) and does the same thing everyone else on the planet does: forms an opinion. But these chumps have a way of coming across like their opinion somehow matters more than yours, and even worse, they love to hate.

I'll grant you that this movie is old fashioned (well, except for the f-bombs), syrupy, and a little predictable... after all, you know right from the beginning that Cuba Gooding Jr., portraying real-life Navy hero Carl Brashear, is going to triumph (eventually) at every turn simply by the way he comes across: determined and plucky; strong-willed and optimistic.

But his performance and that of De Niro (as Billy Sunday, a composite character of several real-life people) are so strong, so inspiring, that you'll be on your feet cheering many of the film's scenes, especially the courtroom climax. You'd have to be a real stick in the mud not to be moved by these scenes. Like our nation's film critics. Michael Rappaport is excellent as well as a sweet-natured, stuttering diving student that befriends Gooding's Brashear. If anyone has seen "Higher Learning", this character totally redeems that character.

Anyway, this confirms what I've always felt: don't listen to critics. See this movie and get inspired.


Robert De Niro, Cuba Gooding Jr., Hal Holbrook, and all the rest of the actors and actresses in "Men of Honour" have combined to make this a fine movie. Mark Isham wrote the filmscore, so you know the music is truly fine, too.

But: After noticing a slew of goofs, loopholes, and over-dramatic heart-string pluckings right from the start, I had to make a vow to ignore them and sit back to enjoy the film. If you can do that, it _really_is_ good.

The story of Carl Brashear, a true-to-life hero, is inspirational enough to last a lifetime. Look him up on the internet... The entire story is more amazing than the film, as the Director admitted in his comments. There were only three African-American U.S. Navy divers in World War II. However, none reached the status of U.S. Navy Master Diver. Carl Brashear was THE first African-American U.S. Navy Master Diver. AND he was the first amputee diver to ever be certified or recertified as a U.S. Navy diver. (Resounding Applause).

On the negative side of the movie's ledger: Should I tell you of only one of the many "loopholes"? Yeah, I'll mark this comment as containing "spoilers" and do so... The early, pivotal scene where the helicopter hits the radio mast and sinks into the sea: They'd never have had the time to suit up a full Mark V diver, even if he were the legendary Master Chief Billy Sunday, in time to be only "... a couple of minutes late" saving the pilot.

So, for loopholes, goofs, and over-dramatization, I derated "Men of Honor" from a perfect 10 down to a 7.

Will Hollywood EVER realize that the unalloyed truth is so much better that their over-dramatic approach to story-telling? I doubt it. Too bad!


I'm certainly glad that a film was made about Carl Brashear's amazing life story. Coming as it did during the Civil Rights era, Brashear became an inspiration for people of all minority groups not willing to settle for a status expected.

Brashear as played by Cuba Gooding, Jr. leads by example in the conduct of the life he has chosen. Very similar to Jackie Robinson who integrated baseball and made it stick by his character and conduct. As Brashear, Gooding knows that he does not want the sharecropper life that his father Carl Lumbly has and Lumbly makes it real clear to get more out of life than he's gotten.

But while Harry Truman integrated the Armed Services after World War II, the Navy still has its restrictions. A black man can only be a cook or an officer's valet, the real fighting parts are denied him. That's not good enough for Gooding who applies to become a Navy deep sea diver.

Once at the diving school at Bayonne, New Jersey, Gooding gets it all thrown at him, mostly by the Master Chief Petty Officer in charge, Robert DeNiro. DeNiro may have some leftover prejudices, but he's nevertheless a hero and one who can inspire if one can get passed racial divide.

The best thing about Men Of Honor is the chemistry between DeNiro and Gooding. They certainly come from different places, but as they get to know each other, both turn out to be Men Of Honor.

Other good performances to note are Charlize Theron as DeNiro's wife and Hal Holbrook as the head of the diving school, a guy the Navy just wish would retire for reasons you'll see.

Men Of Honor is an inspiring story about people with courage to spare and the ability to change.


This is one of the best military films ever made. And it is great because of its focus on values. It's a great human interest story that turns on a commitment to honor, loyalty, love, and determination.

Gooding and DeNiro are superb in the lead roles. It's wonderful to see the Master Chief's racism evolve toward respect and love through Carl Brashear's determination, drive,and yes, sense of honor. The title indicates the source of their bond. I never noticed until this last time watching it how brilliant Carl Lumbly's portrayal of Carl's father, Mac Brashear, was. In a way, it's a cornerstone of the film in that it's Carl's memory of his father that helps carry him through hard times.

I am selective about what films I purchase. This is one of those rare ones that I want on my shelf. It will be seen many times in the future, I'm sure.


Guys, you got to watch this awesome movie. At the end of this movie you will have a strong passion and profundity imbued into yourselves. The acting of the two characters, Billy Sunday and Carl Brashear deeply touches the heart from inside. This movie is about principles, dignity, patriotism and HONOR. You will hear Chief Carl Brashear say, the Navy has greatest tradition of all - Honor - practiced thoroughly by these two characters. Mere glances of these characters during the movie fills you with enthusiasm. Dialogue delivery of this movie is perfect. You can't find any flaws in the dialogues. What the Master Chief Billy says roams in and out of your mind for a long time after watching the movie. Please watch this movie.


I hadn't heard about Brashear before I watched this. This is the story of him and the man who trained him, helping him to become the first African-American US Navy Diver. A tale of will-power. The plot is well-written, and develops nicely throughout. This is what it seems, the typical underdog thing, and it doesn't hold too many surprises. It's also quite Hollywood, but hey, I don't know the actual man, maybe it's close to how it actually happened. Nevertheless, it gets the job done, with dramatic scenes and adversity along the way, and this is inspirational for anyone who's ever heard the words "no, you can't" be spoken about their life-long dream. The acting performances are all excellent. DeNiro and Gooding Jr. both shine whenever they're on-screen. Rapaport is marvelous, as well. The characters are well-written, credible and consistent. This is well-edited, and features good cinematography. The production values are high, and this does a fairly convincing job of transporting us back to the 50's. This is the only film I've seen by this director and the writer, though I may now consider looking into more they're responsible for. There is a moderate amount of strong language, otherwise no offensive material. I recommend this to anyone who finds the subject interesting, and/or fans of those who made it. 7/10


A Classic Hollywood Biopic is the best sense of the genre. Gooding and DeNiro both give spectacularly heartfelt performances in the two leads roles, and the supporting cast is uniformly excellent, with standout performances by Carl Lumbly and Michael Rapoport.

The only "nit" I might pick is that Theron's role was unnecessary & distracting (not her performance which was fine, it's just that the film seemed to add two unnecessary scenes to accommodate her role.)

Aside from that, the characterizations, dynamics, and action of the real-life story are riveting and unforgettable. The evolutions of the main characters and how what they experience evolves their beings are uniquely characterized by the performing artists. Despite the movie's extreme length, the pacing stays intact throughout. The score is also terrific.

Us this a predictable Hollywood film? You bet. So, Mike Leigh addicts should subtract a star, but everyone else should enjoy mightily.


I went to this movie at a cast and crew show cause my friend, whom is a producer on the movie invited me. Forget what you have seen in the commercials, forget what you have heard, go see this film for yourself. I was more than surprised by it. In a world of The Grinch, Charlies Angels, The 6TH Day, Unbreakable, here comes a film that is worth your hard earned bucks! Glorious scenes, wonderful cinemtrophy and a cast you want to eat with your heart. I found this to be one of this years most orchestrated powerhouse films and with reason. Robert Deniro deserves an oscar nod. If you could give an oscar to everyone involved as a package, this would be the film.


Although I gave a rating of "9", my expectations were higher than what the film delivered. I would have been happier had there been more deep diving since I am a diver myself, but it was supposed to portray the life of Carl Brashear and that's what it was about. This film made me angry in the beginning, but happy in the end.


I thought the racism and prejudice against Carl Brashear was grossly overdramatized for Hollywood effect. I do not believe the U. S. Navy was ever that overtly racist. I cannot imagine a full Captain, the Commanding Officer, ever telling his Chief to intentionally flunk anyone. Certainly not at the risk of his life. And there has never been a Chief Petty Officer as unabashedly prejudice against everybody but WASPs as DeNiro's character. No Chief as slovenly and drunken as he was played would have ever risen to Master Chief in the first place. Cuba Gooding saved an otherwise badly done movie.


As I watched this movie, and I began to see its' characters develop I could feel this would be an excellent picture. When you get that feeling, and the movie indeed fills those expectations the experience is rare. I had that very feeling throughout this movie. Robert DeNiro and Cuba Gooding Junior played riveting and amazingly strong parts which were both Oscar worthy. The supporting cast was equally as strong creating a winning foundation for the picture to grow on. I can say without any hesitation at all, see this movie it will not disappoint.


MEN OF HONOR features Cuba Gooding Jr., in what is probably his best performance to date. He plays Carl Brashear, a man of towering courage and heroism. He's a poor dirt farmer from the South, who wants to become a Navy diver- but has problems because of his race. The head of the diving school, played by Robert DeNiro, is a racist redneck that nonetheless grows to respect Brashear. The film is about how Brashear has to concur the nearly insurmountable odds, not once but twice. The performances are what make this film special. Gooding is great, and DeNiro, the best actor in movie history, gives a towering performance- his best dramatic work in years. Charlize Theron gives another solid performance as DeNiro's much younger wife. The film lays on the patriotism a little too strong (though no where near the level it was in THE PATRIOT), and a few of the characters are just one dimensionally bad (Hal Holbrook's Mr. Pappy is just so evil), but the film is a rarity among films today. It's uplifting and uncynical. A wonderful film.


I thought this move was very good. There were a few things that were less than perfect, but overall, I was quite surprised. The courtroom scene in the end seemed a little unrealistic, but was real enough to be entertaining. I found that the movie communicated the hardships of going though military training and the sacrifices that go along with it. Being a military pilot I could relate to many of these parts.


Men of Honor has many great aspects to it. Good action sequences, plenty of "feel good" scenes, a good musical score, but the part that really makes the movie is the great acting. Mostly by Robert Deniro. The story of Men of Honor is focused about Carl Brashear played by Cuba Gooding Jr. who wants to be the first African American deep sea diver in the navy. It chronicles his rough struggle from being a poor farmer to getting into diving school and even further. It is a good story, but it seems like it has been done many times before. A person, against all of the odds, won't give up until they accomplish their goals that they set for some sentimental reason many years ago. It could happen, but a lot of the struggles the Brashear faces in the movie are questionable including the C.O. of the diving school tampering with his final test. However, all of that is made up for the scene when Robert Deniro finally enters the movie. Deniro plays Mater Chief Sunday who is the teacher at the diving school Brashear is attending. As soon as Deniro come in he omits this vibe of extreme arrogance that you can't hate unless you have incredible wilpower. Before the movie ends, Deniro gives off multiple speeches that would have you laughing at how cool he is but you are too stunned at the way he punches them out. In the end you must doubt some of the aspects of the film, but admit it, if it was all the truth, it would have you snoozing it your seat by the first twenty minutes.


This film is a great example of fine storytelling. The acting is superb. The story is inspiring without being overly manipulative or fake. There were a couple points where they probably made people a tad more good or bad than they really were, but considering it is a Hollywood movie, they showed amazing restraint. There wasn't a single explosion shown in the movie, even though they had one opportunity to. The film, while having suspenseful parts, was not made into an action movie. The story is thus made to focus on an extraordinary man in unfortunately ordinary times. Well done!


It is one of the better Indian movies I have seen lately, instead of crappy song and dance or slum dog movies. All the actors have showed the right emotions at the right intensity with right timing. It is the hallmark of a good movie, that it make the viewer go back and research the subject, which exactly what I did checking on Harilal. I always enjoy Akshay Khanna's subtle style of acting and interestingly he had rather a complicated relationship with his own father Vinod Khanna, albeit not as dramatic as Gandhis and wonder how it helped him essay this character. I was impressed by the direction and 2 thumbs up for Anil Kapoor for producing such a classy movie.


The movie took a new angle to Gandhi's life, which is nice to see and it shows how human he was. His relationship with Harilal is something that Gandhi was troubled by and mentioned it several times as his failure as a father in his autobiography.

My big gripe is that I thought Gandhi was surprisingly uncharismatic in the movie. It could have been better acted by the person who played Gandhi. Some of Gandhi's statements seemed too smug and it seemed as if he was intentionally portrayed in a negative light in some parts of the movie.

The movie is not really all-rounded, but focused only narrowly on the relationship of the father and son. The rest is blurred out and only used to show the time frame and the general setting of the movie.

Overall nice movie if you keep in mind that it is not a complete picture.


Keeping all political views aside, Feroz Khan and Anil Kapoor's 'Gandhi, My Father' is a good movie that cleverly explores the confused-towards-family side of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, and the fight of his eldest son Harilal Gandhi with the society, his larger-than-life father, and most importantly demons in his head. One draws parallels to Gandhi the father of the nation and struggles any son could have with their father

The acting is good. Shefali Shetty, Darshan Zariwala and Akshaye Khanna-strictly in that order- add color and pathos to this heart wrenching tale of Harilal who weeps to be hugged just once and also runs away at the faintest touch of the finger.

Feroz Khan's direction and the production canvas is lavish and attractive, however, the screenplay could've been tighter. I had seen the play some years ago on a pirated video type DVD (it was called Mahatama vs Gandhi, I think) and it was certainly more gripping. Though, the movie's background score and the father-son and mother-son moments are just a brilliant treat.

This movie could have been great. It's borderline to that. It has the potential so huge to have been just a story differences between a father and son or just Gandhi or even both. somewhere, the plot is lost and when you expect absolute epitome of emotions, nothing comes to you.

It compares decently to other Gandhi's. Certainly not an overview film like Kingsley's Gandhi,or abstract as Kamal Hassan's Hey Ram. The film just about manages to find its footing; however, one is left wondering "what if..." Worth a watch. 7.5/10


I saw the movie and really could not stop my tears. Its tragedy that India has no such leaders after freedom, who dare to do justice with their own children, when they don't behave properly.. In current generation, politicians bring their children's into politics without measuring their caliber and skills.. I remember the dialogue from Gandhi 'What kind of society we want to create/make with such people (about Harilal)?' No wonder that it will be a dream that India will hardly have such leader in this or next generation.. Einstein was right when he said about Gandhi that 'After 50 years one would hardly believe that such person with body, soul and mind (Mahatma Gandhi) had ever lived on this earth.' I sincerely want to THANKS a LOT to Anil kapoor, Feroze khan and all film actors/actresses for this wonderful movie about great person and relationship with his son. All father and son should watch this movie once and take some lessons for both roles.


Gandhi, the Great :

Greatness in the world is associated with people like Alexanader the great, Ashoka the Great for their greatness lied in being glorified as more than humans. Gandhi is called great for actually not being a Great but being more human, for I always believe bringing out the humanity in us is where the greatness of being human lies.Gandhi was a human with humanity and one who strived for humanity ready to sacrifice himself in the battle for humanity but not his enemies. Let me move to the movie review now.

About Gandhi My Father :

Gandhi My father is a film not about Gandhi but about his son Harilal Gandhi.On telling the story of a son whose father was one of the greatest humans to walk this earth, the director succeeds in portraying the tale.The film succeeds in telling the story of a mislead son of a father who lead a nation to greatness.The movie is termed as a criticism of Gandhi's failure as a father to his son, I would rather say it is of a sacrifice Gandhi had made as a father of a son to do justice as a father of a nation.

I wish the essence of this movie prevails not just in India, the Gandhian land, but through the hearts of all the people of this world.

Gandhi the true Human. Jaihind.


I would not like to comment on how good the movie was or what were the flaws as I am not a professional film critic and I do not have enough knowledge of making movies. What i do know is that making this kind of a movie in your very first shot is a big achievement and I would like to congratulate the Director for that. However, in some reviews, that i have read, critics have complained that Hiralal's relationship with his brothers was not highlighted, and his siblings were completely erased from the story. Now i would really like to raise a point here that as the name of the movie suggests, it is not a movie about Hiralal's brothers, it is a movie on the relationship of Mahatma Gandhi and his son Hiralal Gandhi, nothing more nothing less. If we start complaining about some characters being kept out of action in the movie, it would be a bit unfair because these characters don't fit in the picture, no matter how relevant they were in real life. So i think it would be better if we stick to the main idea and stop satisfy a critic in ourselves.

Enjoy!!!!


It was easy for Sir Richard Attenborough to make Gandhi (1982)he was merely narrating a story of a great individual who walked on this planet not so long ago. Comparatively, it must have been a lot tougher for director Feroz Abbas Khan making his debut as a filmmaker to make Gandhi my father, pitting a shriveled anti-hero against an international hero, both of whom were historically real individuals, and ironically father and son. The events in the film are mostly real. Mahatma Gandhi lived as shown in the film, setting high moral standards for the world to follow. Yet these very standards overshadowed the aspirations of his eldest son Harilal to be a lawyer of repute like his father, to complete his education and get a job in India and thus provide income for his nuclear family.

The film does not debunk Gandhi and his ideals. For Gandhi, his mission was larger than his family's aspirations. He loved his family and cared for them, though his thoughts for their appeasement were blinkered by his ideal of caring for the masses. He stood for equality and dignity among all persons and in his view to give special undue advantages to his own son overlooking other deserving persons went against the basis of what he preached. The film looks at an unusual case of parentingwhere an idealist parent places receding goalposts for a less-than-brilliant offspring.

The film presents an unusual scenario that happened. A son marries his childhood sweetheart, upsetting his father. The father upsets his son's educational aspirations at several key junctures. The fragile link between a devoted son and a father breaks, as the son wants to stand on his own feet and care for his nuclear family. While the father gradually becomes the father of a nation, the son stumbles in valiant quest for identity and survival. His marriage breaks and seeks solace in religion, buffeting between Islam and Hinduism. Through all his tribulations his link to his mother remains, until she chides him for being drunk.

Feroz Khan is essentially a director of plays making his foray into cinema. He wrote and directed the play Mahatma vs. Gandhi that had considerable impact on the Indian theater community. The play and the consequent film were based on two biographies, one by Chandulal Dalal and another by Nilamben Parekh, The success of the staged play was an evident reason for the commercial Bollywood actor Anil Kapoor to produce this noteworthy film. Every time a good director of plays attempts to direct cinema there is an evidence of a lack of confidence with the medium. Peter Brook is a great director of plays, but less competent as a film director. The opening shots of Khan's film promises great cinemaa derelict Harilal Gandhi is brought to Sion Hospital, Bombay (Mumbai) barely mumbling that his father is Bapu (the popular name of Mahatma Gandhi), father to an entire nation. The hospital authorities do not recognize him to be Mahatma Gandhi's eldest son, dying in poverty and loneliness. Apart from the dramatic opening, the film unfortunately merely presents a great story and some superb exterior shots of father and son meditating in silhouette. For an Indian film it does present some high production qualities that go hand in hand with a lack of interest for details (the clothes of most Indians in the film seem dust-free and freshly laundered, modern hairstyles of actors, and even Shefali Shetty playing Mohandas Gandhi's wife a century ago with plucked eyebrows), the bane of Indian cinema. Since Feroz Khan is a theater personality, he has invested much more effort in working with the actors in developing the characters rather than on cinematic details, somewhat like Sir Attenborough another person who is also a product of theater (Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts).

Knowing quite well that to criticize Gandhi in any manner was asking for trouble, even when there was no direct criticism in the film, producer Anil Kapoor took a remarkable decision of not putting up posters of the film at accessible heights in India, fearing that some one could tear the poster or disrespect it intentionally or unintentionally.

With all its mix of greatness and faults, Gandhi, my father throws several questions at the viewer. Is a mother-son bonding stronger than a father-son bonding in parenting? Is one's immediate family less important than humanity at large? Does one seek refuge in religion and alcohol only when worldly troubles are encountered? In this film, Harilal buffeted by adversities runs from one religion to another, while his father quotes scriptures "Forgive them for they know not what they do" when beaten and thrown on the ground by a South African policeman, convinced of the value of religion and convincing others as well.

The film won the Best actress award at the Tokyo International Film Festival for Shefali Shetty (Shah) and an Indian award from critics. Feroze Khan and Anil Kapoor have handled a sensitive subject very well and elicited above-average performances from the ensemble of actors. I do hope the international success of the film paves the way for some able director to film another brilliant Indian play Girish Karnad's Tughlaq some day meeting international quality standards.


I just came back from the Late-night cinema and it was indeed a silent way out as most of the audience pondered though the real-life black & white images of the partition,the freedom movement,etc which was very much reminiscent of the lives' our forefathers faced! Amidst this backdrop,mind you,there was no tel/fax/internet in those times but for the very voice of Truth & Non-violence, the cinematography infused some spirit of stark reality of adversity amidst the strict Raj.

Gandhi shown as a hardworking Attorney in South Africa,who stood for his basic ideologies and gave every degree of conviction to spread awareness of the same with humility and sainthood which to the uttered speech of general Smut was shown as a nice farewell on screen.It had the best drafted speech with a subtle humour & a veiled threat to the British raj in India!There was a nice remark when he said we pray in silence to the British in India now that Gandhi,the politician is set for India(towards sainthood).

The very backdrop of a big family with many kids needs the mention of an obvious divided attention and love which had to cast it's spell on the unfortunate kid's psyche who was left alone to aspire for unrealistic ambitions.Little did Harilal knew about his aptitude and he gets emotionally carried away with small pleasures in life and fails in front of the huge idol of his father.He tries to do away from mentor-ship which is the basis of any success which had to be seen by those fortunate neighbours in the streets of Gandhi's residence when Harilal vents out his frustration in open.This means he becomes mentally weak and gets psychologically deranged to an extent that he is forced into religious conversions and alcoholism ,with debt and dis-obedience fuelling his negative thoughts.He still had shown the sincere love for his mother through touchy scenes and even Gandhi's humble expressions form Harilal to forgive him didn't meet any conclusions in his mind as he always feared the Father,Gandhi.

he couldn't digest the fact that Gandhi couldn't share his love with him as he expected & was driven to rebellion when he couldn't understand the equal-merit based delivery of scholarship money by his father to his cousin where he saw a failed opportunity to study for barrister in england.

This had to take it's toll in him thrown to the streets as a beggar when the whole of India was celebrating the Indepedence!The life of a destitute never changes come what may but the manner in which the sad death of Kasturba & Gandhi himself is shown brings in an emotional silence.Finally the last turbulent thoughts of the dying Harilal is shown as a flashback to keep the audience gripping and wondering where did the father of the nation go wrong? was he clever enough to be mentally strong to lead an-one man army & use his brave soldier-son as a weapon to show to the British & rival forces that when it comes to the interest of the nation,nothing comes in between.Sadly though that to read a Mahatma's heart one has to live outside his family and see which the emotionally naive harilal couldn't see living inside....

A pity that such naive harilal's are still ruining the efforts of many Mahatma-like fathers in many families in todays' life and have taken to drugs,alcoholism and God knows what thoughts!!Here's a message to all those brave sainik(soldier)-sons please respect the father of the nation!Please Obey and happiness shall be bestowed or else it's a disaster in waiting,isn't it?


Gandhi my father is like viewing a book, chapter by chapter you read it(with your eyes) and you learn more about Harilal Gandhi and for that matter Kasturba Gandhi. So little is known about both of them and this movie describes them uniquely. The title misleads though, its as much a movie about Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and his son, as its about Harilal and his mother. And Akshaye Khanna and Shefali Chayya do full justice to their respective roles.

Such movies are like leap years. They come after only so much time.

Gandhi My Father, is also about an internal struggle, which is sometimes more difficult than any freedom struggle ever undertaken.

Watch it, if you like quality cinema.


mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation in his quest for India's freedom struggle ignored his own family and son, this movie is about his son Hiralal who feels neglected because of mahatma Gandhi's service to the society. The movie starts off in South Africa where Mahatma Gandhi works as a barrister and fighting the cause of India's freedom against the British. Hirarala arrives in South Africa to help his dad who is a barrister, since gandhi was involved in the freedom struggle, he wanted his wife and children to join in too as a service to the society and as a result hirarlal does not get a chance to complete his education and fails his exams, he gets married to his love gulab (bhoomika Chawla) against his father's wishes. Hiralal has ambitions to travel to england and become a barrister just like his dad but his own dad refuses to grant him a scholarship offered to his family by a businessman and instead gives it away to another person saying that the scholarship should not be limited to his family and should be open to the most deserving student living in colony. This angers hiralal and the rift between father and son increases, hirarlal hates his father for neglecting him and blames him for being uneducated and unemployed. Hiralal struggles to make ends meet and lands up on the streets through failed business attempts and in huge debt, he loses his wife and children. Akshaye Khanna has give a stellar performance as Hiralal gandhi.. all kudos to him, the direction and the script is fantastic, the picturization is excellent. overall an Excellent movie and a must see. I give it a 10/10


An ultra-modern house in an affluent neighborhood appears to be the cause of each of its inhabitants bizarre (and deadly) behavior. Or at least that is what Lara Flynn Boyle's character, Col Kennedy, argues. After a series of deadly occurrences in a gargantuan house next door, Col knows something has got to give. Mark-Paul Gosselaar also stars as the mysterious architect.

My opinion: The House Next Door works because of Lara Flynn Boyle and the locations (beautiful house) and stylish sets. Boyle is a talented and dynamic actress, not to mention absolutely stunning. She brings credibility to her character and makes the film intriguing. Without her, it would have failed. "It's so alive" declares a prospective buyer in reference to the house. Yes, it is alive. But the story itself is not so much.

Barring Boyle's presence, not much is happening here, as an enormous amount of the movie is spent watching or waiting to see how the house will affect its current owners. The results are predictable. But I liked it anyway. The cinematography lends the film a polished look. 8/10 on account of Boyle, the premise of an evil ultra-modern house, the locations and cinematography, and set decoration and wardrobe.


After too many years of waiting, Anne Rivers Siddons' noted 1979 book "The House Next Door" has finally been filmed. The result veers a bit from the novel which, especially in the first story of the trilogy is understandable if unsatisfying as it's a TV film, the whole of which is absorbing and actually very good, just not as great as the book, one of Stephen King's favorites and one of mine as well.

With more running time and fewer constraints as a theatrical release, all the richness inherent in the original three-part story of the ominous ultramodern house could have been explored and nurtured, especially the climactic revelation near the very end.

Still, the whole cast does well in this thoughtful tale of mindless malevolence. There are a few unnecessary cheap shocks but the growing atmosphere of dread is well developed. Actually, one of the most disturbing scenes involves an abstract painting of the house by its next-door amateur-artist neighbor who is trying to visualize its corruption on canvas.

Be sure to read the great novel.


When I heard that this movie was coming out the night before Halloween, I was very excited. When I found out that it was a book, written in 1978, I had to read it before seeing the movie. I'm sure the movie would have been much different to me if I had not read the book. The writers actually did a good job of staying true to the main plot of the book, with minor differences, naturally. I think the thing that disappointed me the most about the movie was Boyle playing the role of Col. I'm not a big fan of Boyle, and it seems that no matter what the mood during the movie, she's always trying to use her over-plumped lips, and darkly makeup-ed eyes to make herself seem super sexy. Indeed, I think that the movie held true to the genuine creepiness of the house. My favorite subplot was the Sheehan family (which is so weird b/c the son was killed in Iraq and in current events there is Casey Sheehan whose mother went on a huge anti-Iraq tirade). In the book, obviously the war was not Iraq, but rather, Vietnam, and when the house turns on that video of the son in the helicopter, I was truly creeped out. Overall, I was impressed with the movie, in that it followed the book very well.


All films made before 1912 really need to be viewed with a sense of time and place.

In 1894, the Lumiere-family men [father: Antoine (1840-1911), sons: Auguste and Louis] owned and managed a factory that manufactured photographic plates and paper. Not a small enterprise; the factory had more than 200 employees who received pension and social security benefits - innovative for that time. It was located at Montplaisir in the suburbs of Lyon, France. What caused Louis Lumiere to become interested in building a Cinematagraph, in 1894, remains open for speculation. My suggestion is that the appearance of the Edison organization's Kinetoscope (peep-show machine), in Paris during the fall of 1894, provided the catalyst.

W.K.L. Dickson, of Edison's staff, invented a motion-picture camera about the size of an upright piano that was patented in February 1893. It was electrically operated (using power from from heavy storage batteries. This massive machine pumped celluloid film strip (newly developed by the Eastman company) past a lens at about 40 frames-per-second (fps). It was ensconced, as an almost immovable object, in the "Black Maria" (essentially the first movie studio.) The Kinetescope machines showed staged presentations (less than one-minute long)that were filmed in this studio.

During 1894, Louis Lumiere applied himself to the task of inventing a moving-picture camera. He had determined that, even at 16 fps on celluloid film, the persistence-of-vision of the human eye/brain would allow for normal motion to be perceived. His camera, dubbed the Cinematograph, was about the size of a large shoe box and was provided with a detachable film magazine that provided storage for enough film to make a shoot last about one minute when it was had cranked past the lens at 16 fps.

The size and light weight, of the camera (it could be converted into a printer or a projector by the addition of a light source) made it portable enough that it could be taken to any location to record an event (provided there was enough sunlight available.) In the spring of 1895, Louis filmed: trick-riding by some cavalry men; a house on fire with firemen arriving and dousing the engulfed building with water; and a number of other scenes in and around Lyon. Using a Molteni bulb, he turned the camera into a projector and presented his films to scientists assembled in the reception room of the Revue Generales des Science. The images were projected on a screen five-meters distant from the lens. The screen was stretched in a doorway between two rooms. At a meeting of professional photographers, that same year, Louis photographed the arriving delegates and the same evening showed them motion pictures of their arrival.

With accolades from both the scientific and photographic communities, Louis decided to have a public exhibition of his invention by the end of the year. Since each of his films would be about one-minute long, he would need at least a dozen films to make a good presentation. For one of these films he set up his camera at the entrance to his factory, photographing the egress of employees at quitting-time.

The public venue chosen by Antoine - who offered himself as the "fairground barker" for the Cinematograph - was the Salon Indien of the Grand Cafe on the boulevard des Capucines in Paris. It was a wintry Saturday night on 28 December, 1895. As the first audience sat, they were presented with a projected view of the exterior of the Lumiere factory (with closed gates.) Some were chagrined that they were just going to see a routine slide show of Lumiere photographs. But then the crank on the camera/projector was turned and movement began. Louis had an innate sense for motion picture taking. This film has a beginning, a middle and an end. In the beginning, the doors are opened and people begin to leave their workplace; during the middle, the people stream out - with many trying to ignore the camera, and the cameraman, as they seem to be happy to leave a day of labor behind them. At the end, the gates to the factory are being closed.

And this was the first film projected for the entertainment of the general public.


On the 28th of December, 1895, in the Grand Café in Paris, film history was writing itself while Louis Lumière showed his short films, all single shots, to a paying audience. 'La Sortie des Usines Lumière' was the first film to be played and I wish I was there, not only to see the film, but also the reactions of the audience.

We start with closed doors of the Lumière factory. Apparently, since the image seems a photograph, people thought they were just going to see a slide show, not something they were hoping for. But then the doors open and people are streaming out, heading home. First a lot of women, then some men, and one man on a bike with a big dog. When they are all out the doors close again.

Whether this is the first film or not (some say 'L'Arrivée d'un Train à la Ciotat' was the first film Lumière recorded), it is an impressive piece of early cinema. Being bored by this is close to impossible for multiple reasons. One simple reason: it is only fifty seconds long. But also for people who normally only like the special effect films there must be something interesting here; you don't get to see historical things like this every day.


This one-minute film is arguably the first movie ever made. Other inventors had previously filmed actions - like Edison's motion photography of a sneeze - but the Lumiere brothers developed equipment that tremendously advanced the medium. At the time, of course, their `cinematograph' must have bewildered their peers, including their subjects. In this first instance, the brothers record employees leaving their factory, some of whom understandably struggle to hide their awareness of the camera. The Lumieres attempt to make the film more entertaining by introducing animals and a bicycle, but `La Sortie Des Usines Lumiere' doesn't nearly match the ingenuity of their later films. The most interesting aspect of this short film is the brothers' selection of a familiar working class ritual as their subject. Their choice is the initial evidence of their curiosity about all of the world's people, a quality that makes viewing their experiments immensely rewarding and fascinating today.

Rating: 8


You're using the IMDb.

You've given some hefty votes to some of your favourite films.

It's something you enjoy doing.

And it's all because of this. Fifty seconds. One world ends, another begins.

How can it not be given a ten? I wonder at those who give this a seven or an eight... exactly how could THE FIRST FILM EVER MADE be better? For the record, the long, still opening shot is great showmanship, a superb innovation, perfectly suited to the situation. And the dog on the bike is a lovely touch. All this within fifty seconds.

The word genius is often overused.

THIS is genius.


The appeal of ancient films like this one is that you get to see an actual moving image of life over 100 years ago. Here are a lot of people leaving a factory, all of them dead by now and none of them even remotely aware of the magnitude of the invention that they are walking before. I was shocked to read one reviewer call this film as boring as home videos today, and at least one other mistakenly identified it as the first film ever made (it was the first film made at the rate of 16 frames per second, rather than the then-normal 46 frames per second).

Sure, all you see is a lot of people filing out of a building and passing before the cinematograph on their way home from work, but this is a curiosity piece for dozens of reasons, not the least of which is that it was the first film made by the Lumiére brothers, who probably had a stronger impact on the development of the cinema than any other individual or group of individuals in history.


Story says that on that on December 28, 1895, a small group of thirty-three people was gathered at Paris's Salon Indien Du Grand Café to witness the Cinématographe, a supposedly new invention that resulted from the work done by a couple of photographers named August and Louis Lumière. The small audience reunited that day (some by invitation, most due to curiosity) didn't really know what to expect from the show, and when a stationary photograph appeared projected on a screen, most thought that the Cinématographe was just another fancy devise to present slide-show projections. Until the photograph started to move. What those thirty-three people experienced in awe that cold day of December was the very first public screening of a moving picture being projected on a screen; history was being written and cinema as we know it was born that day.

Of the 10 short movies that were shown during that historic day, "La Sortie Des Usines Lumière" (literally "Exiting the Lumière Factory") was the very first to be screened. The film shows the many workers of the Lumière factory as they walk through the gates of the factory, leaving the building at the end of a hard day of work. While a very basic "actuality film" (movie depicting a real event), the movie took everyone in the audience by surprise, as their concept of moving pictures was limited to Edison's "Peep Show" machines (the Kinetoscope), the brothers' invention was like nothing they had seen before and so the audience stood in awe, as the people and the horses moved across the screen. The idea wasn't entirely new (Le Prince shot the first movie as early as 1888), but the way of showing the movie was simply revolutionary.

"La Sortie Des Usines Lumière" would become the first in the long series of "actuality films" that the Lumière would produce over the years. This primitive form of documentary was the brothers' favorite kind of film because they were more interested in the technological aspects of their invention than in the uses the Cinématographe could have. Despite the initial lack of enthusiasm, after the first showing the Cinématographe became a great success and "La Sortie Des Usines Lumière" quickly became an iconic image of that first screening. It definitely wasn't the first movie the brothers shot that year, and it probably wasn't the best of the 10 movies shown that day (personally I think that "L' Arroseur Arrosé" was the best of the 10); however, it is really meaningful that the very first movie was the opening of a pair of gates, as literally, this movie opened the gates to cinema as we know it. 8/10


It's utterly pointless to rate this film. It's as if you would condemn (or praise) the newly born for his future life. Instead look at it as a powerful meditation at what could have been and what has been in the past 100+years. One hundred and eight years of the cinematograpy: what has become of the babe? I like to contemplate on what would have (creatively) happen if Europe wasn't interrupted (devastated) twice by the great wars of the XXth century. On her ruins the bogus neon castle of the non-creative and reactionary circus named Hollywood erected itself. Before 1914 French, Italian and Scandinavian cinemas were leading the way both financially and of course creatively. French film in particular was already threading some very original and creative pathways that could have (if not interrupted) possibly altered the medium history in some unimaginable ways. One wonders what the film history would look like today if it wasn't stultified and choked by the mercantile and cheap political agenda of the Hollywood's 80+ years of, what Chekhov might define as the reek of greed and harlotry... Be it as it might, please at least become aware of La Sortie as the key (or at least one of them) to the "Kingdom". Thus the birthplace of Cinema : Lumiere Brothers Factory, Lyon, France The date: March 19th 1895 (there's also a replica reel shoot in the Summer of 1895 so if you notice Summer lights and the workers' lighter clothing: that was the version shown to THE VERY FIRST PEOPLE WHO EVER SAW THE MOVING IMAGES. *Louis Lumiere: creative ideas, cinematography, direction it was all Louis' own domain because Auguste took care of the rest (money). *First film reels were all fifty seconds long: the camera(=le Cinematograph) & the cameramen (le cinematographer) having only paltry fifty seconds to make things happen! *Apparently Le Institute Lumiere has managed to preserve around 1500 of these first films executed mostly by an industrious brigade of Loumiere travelling cinematographers criss-crossing the globe. ***So, all the stars in starry heavens and a minute of silence for perhaps the most magical invention in Human history (so far).


What can i say about the first film ever?

You can't rate this, because it's not supposed to be entertaining. But if you HAVE to rate it, you should give it a 10. It is stunning to see moving images from the year 1895. This was one of the most important movies in history. I wonder how it was to be one of the people who saw the first movie ever!


How can't you rate this movie with 10/10? I admit to say that this movie is not very entertaining but the goal is not to tell you a story but History! This is the first `real' movie of cinema history (`le Prince de Galles' was first but it was not technically perfect enough) and it has an undoubtedly huge international value. These people that you can see finishing their working day in the movie had the chance to participate to a historic moment, becoming the first persons to be able to see themselves moving! And above all the shot is a beautiful shot! And it's very moving when you think about the first persons to have seen that! What a moment! Historic for science first (because the Lumiere brothers first invented the cinematographe for scientific reasons) and for art later. A movie to venerate!


The first film ever made. Workers streaming from a factory, some cycling, most walking, moving right or left. Along with Melies, the Lumieres are both the starting point and the point of departure for cinema - with Melies begins narrative fiction, cinema, fantasy, artifice, spectacle; with the Lumieres pure, unadorned, observation. The truth. There are many intellectuals who regret the ossification of cinema from the latter into the tired formulae of the former.

But consider this short again. There is nothing 'objective' about it. The film is full of action - a static, inhuman scene burst into life, activity, and the quiet harmony of the frame is ruptured, decentred from the back to right or left (but never, of course, the front, where the camera is). And yet the camera stands stock still, contains the energy, the possible subversion, subordinates it to its will. The cinematograph may be a revolutionary invention, but it will be used for conservative purposes - to map out the world, edit it, restrict it, limit it.

worse is the historical reality of the film. These factory workers are Lumiere employees. The bosses are spying on their workers, the unseen eye regarding his faceless minions. The film therefore describes two types of imprisonment. Behind the gates, the workers are confined in their workplace. The opening of the gate seems to be an image of freedom, escape, but they face another wall, the fourth wall, further confining them. The first film is also the first example of CCTV surveillance, an image of unseen, all-seeing authority entrapping its servants. A frightening, all too prophetic movie.


Of course, he did have to INVENT EVERYTHING about cinematography, film directing, etc. before he could make classics like "The Gardner," so I suppose he may be forgiven this initial excursion into mere sociological documentary. Today we call them "home movies," and they are just as boring now as this one is


I have no idea how to describe this movie, and also would love to provide others the same opportunity I had - seeing it with no prior knowledge of what to expect. I enjoyed it immensely but can also say I barely understood what was going on, if in fact there was anything to understand in the first place. Fans of David Lynch (tangentially) or especially Guy Maddin films should particularly enjoy this, and any fans of the comic book EIGHTBALL will probably be beside themselves with joy and wonder (it came as close as any film I've seen to the tone and mood Dan Clowes creates so effectively).

One slight note just to warn anyone easily offended - this movie, if rated, would be NC-17 for sure. Fans of male full-frontal nudity, however...hmm, well...yes. This is weird wild stuff.


This is an important film. It challenges the viewer and encourages you to pay attention. There's a lot to like here. The director seems interested in taking apart some of the more tired cinematic conventions. Unlike a lot of recent American cinema, this film takes an interest in what it means to make a movie in the first place. The DVD includes a lot of bonus features, and there are two commentaries that explain the movie for the viewers still befuddled after an initial viewing. When the film screened at Sundance, it made more than a few audience members uncomfortable and angry. This is a Sunday morning coffee movie, not a Friday night party movie. For the dedicated viewer, it's a treasure trove.


The best Treasure Island ever made. They just don't make films

like this anymore, or ever. No one makes films like this. More

than a novelty, this film is funny, frank and fascinating, yet moody,

mysterious and morose. This is one of my favorite pictures. The

director must have had some idea what it is all about, but he

certainly leaves room for your own impressions and interpretations, while leaving little left to the imagination. Why he

has not made more films like this, I have no idea. While

reminding me of some of the best noir, it is one of a kind. But this

is not for the lazy or simple.


I've seen this film in avant-premiere at Imagina Festival in Monaco.

I saw the first trailer four years ago, and from this moment, I was waiting to see the final result. I haven't been disappointed.

It is a full 3d movie with a high contrasted black and white render. Clearly inspired by some comic books, such as the ones from F. Miller. In this optic, it goes one step further than the excellent "Sin City" adaptation from R. Rodriguez. This time, (almost) no Grey or any middle color, but a graphic style never seen before in a realistic animated film.(can't wait for scanner darkly)

The massive use of Motion Capture gives a lot of life and credibility to the characters and we forget really soon the technical aspect to concentrate on more classic elements, such as direction or plot. The direction stays sober and controlled despite the infinite possibilities of the medium, and that is a really good surprise.

The futuristic story (Paris 2053) makes it a classic sci-fiction movie and maintain the viewer interested till the end. Despite a classic base plot (an investigation that goes far beyond initial expectations)the atmosphere and some interesting recurring themes (genetics, absolute power of certain firms...)gives this movie a great interest.

Despite it is an animated film, this one is obviously not made for children. You won't find here any funny pet or any stupid family moral, only the cold reality. It is far closer to a good film noir.

I found that the setting is one of the best aspect of the film: we still feel the well known Paris, but it is morphed by a fine touch of futurism.

Nevertheless, I regret a few mistakes. The montage is sometimes a bit flat, one or two very cliché slow motion effects and some poor dialogs. Even though the technical is excellent, it shows its limits in some romantic sequences (a bit like "final fantasy" did). Those little things makes it a 7/10.

Altogether, it is a successful artistic challenge that you have to watch if you can. The director, Christian Volckman, knows how not to fall into potential traps (luckyly, they didn't ask John Woo to do the job!).

To conclude, it is a film with blasting visuals, an intelligent story and a wonderful art direction. Watch it if you can!

Please excuse me for the spelling mistakes.


A Scanner Darkly, Minority Report, Blade Runner, Sin City and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow  if you are a fan of any of these then this will be well worth checking out.

French animation project 'Renaissance' took seven years to make on a shoestring budget and tonight I finally got to see it at a private screening for the International Film Festival in Stockholm. My spontaneous reaction is awe; my further reflection is 'huh, neat' and closer analysis regrettably gets a resounding 'meh'. It is a gorgeous science fiction triumph on the surface, but scratch it or even poke it a little and its unnecessarily complex plot becomes glaringly apparent, as do the flat characters.

Nevertheless it is clear that the people at Onyx films have done something spectacular with the aforementioned surface. The visuals are staggering. They have used live action motion capture fitted into key-frame animation, with stark jet black and bright white contrasts and a heavily shadowed rotoscoped background. For those of you who are not down with the 'technical lingo', the film looks like a fully-animated Sin City. Its fluid, transparent, dark and stylized template is complemented by great lurid lightning. It's a vision. Yet much credit is also due to the crisp sound effects that take the form of humming futuristic weapons, suspenseful music, heavy raindrops and glass shards breaking. It's every tech-nerd's wet dream...

The film zooms in on an eerily-lit, bleak, futurescape Paris in which a major corporation called 'Avalon' has begun to interweave in the lives of the citizens with surveillance (think the fluid transparent screens from Minority Report) and genetic engineering. The latter leads to a mysterious kidnapping of young researcher Ilona (voiced by the lovely Romola Garai). Cut to our hard-boiled cop-on-suspension and protagonist Karas (Daniel Craig)  a man who takes the law into his own hands  who is assigned the case of finding and retrieving Ilona. During this case, he is being aided by Illona's sister with whom he also begins a love affair. A very half-assed love affair, if I may say so.

The world of Renaissance is remarkable. Director Christian Volckman takes a fair jab at melting the noir themes and the result is an urban jungle filled with cads, rats, femme fatales and lonely detectives that hide in the shadows of the seedy slum. The problem is that the creators undoubtedly felt the need to have extremely clear and spelled-out archetypes in the story, or the film would have been "too surreal" for mainstream audiences, owing to its lurid animation format. It follows then that we have a multitude of clichéd characters such as evil-laughing villains, sleazy crime bosses and butch tough-chicks who blow smoke every chance they get. It shoves noir in our faces, and it isn't necessary.

What is worse is that the dialogue is a little contrived. It seems as though every line exists for the sole reason of propelling the plot. This is nothing fatal because the plot is so complex once it gets going that it needs some clear direction. Daniel Craig helps here too by bringing a no-nonsense attitude to his hard-edged cop character. At one point in Renaissance, he is seen in a vivid car-chase that surely is one of the most adrenaline-pumping and top notch sequences of the film. Unfortunately, the novelty of the sci-fi visuals have worn off post this car chase and 'Renassaince' could benefit from being slightly shorter. In summary, a very interesting but flawed futuristic comic book experience.

7 out of 10


One reason Pixar has endured so well, and been so successful, is that while their films remain technical marvels and visual mosaics, they have a story to match their style. And often very moving style at that: affecting, charming and cross-generational. That a lot Anime (speaking in broad terms) and a great many other animations fail to match their technical virtuosity with real substance is, I think (and I might be wrong) partly because either the makers aren't bothered with character and plot and focus far too much on sound and image, or the sheer effort that goes into making some animations is so enormous, so enervating that they don't have the energy to create a really engaging story.

That same cannot be said of Renaissance. There are flaws in its plot, but I'll get to that later. Those same flaws, however, are not reflected in the visuals - Renaissance is nowt short of stunning. The ultra-high contrast images (sometimes so high-contrast that is nothing but one face or one beam of light visible) and incredible detail are always impressive, always a joy to behold. The futuristic Paris on display is the grim offspring of Blade Runner and Brave New World; dark, murky, quite affluent and even clean, but shrouded in intrigue, corporate malfeasance, obsessed with beauty (capital of the catwalk, after all) and disguising the squalor and neglect of its labyrinthine passages with a veneer of monumental, sophisticated architecture.

It's a compelling environment, not entirely original, but great all the same. The film's much-touted 'motion-capture' technology and incredible attention to human and design minutiae result in images a black-and-white photographer would die for. Not that the detail prevents entertainment, because Christian Volckman crafts some superb action sequences: a hell-for-leather care chase, a couple of gruesome(ly imaginative) murders, several tussles in the dark and a nasty dust-up in a gloomy apartment. The locations are great, too (I want to visit the nightclub). While the central character of Karas is your regular off-the-shelf maverick cop, the other two female characters (who are sisters) are the real motors of the movie. Coming from war-torn Eastern Europe, products of a war, diaspora and a family spat, they're a compelling metaphor for Europe as a whole.

The film is tremendously atmospheric, its dizzying, swooping faux-camera moves and adult tone making for a very engaging experience. However, the plot... It never becomes more interesting than the initial hook, in which indefatigable plod Karas must find Ilona Tasuiev, a drop-dead gorgeous and pioneering scientist, after she's snatched from the street. The sinister corporation Avalon (is ANY corporation ever not sinister?), which she was working for on 'classified', projects are hell-bent on her retrieval, and soon Karas is up to his neck in official reprimands, dead bodies, cigarette-smoke and narrowly-missed bullets, and falling in love with Ilona's sister Bislane (very sympathetically voiced by Catherine McCormack), as he plumbs the depths of the city's sordid underbelly (and his own past).

Text-book noir, in other words, but while I enjoyed the film a lot more than Sin City (to which it bears a passing visual resemblance), the plot and resolution are dull, the theme of immortality being raised but never examined, and the shenanigans of high-rolling Avalon CEO Paul Dellenbach are also dull , undercutting a lot of the dramatic tension. The basic ideas are familiar sci-fi genre materials, and there's a nagging sense that the visuals and atmosphere are disguising the mundane material.

However, the film as a whole is lucid and perfectly coherent, even if some of the scenarios the characters get into occasionally feel like excuses for displays of technical wizardry. But it's the projection of life in Paris circa 2054, the vision of community and creation of another city from the ground up that makes this film something to behold. I may be taking it too seriously, and if that's the case I can at least say that it's superbly made, extremely entertaining (and pretty mature, too), and with an ambiance like no other.


If you've ever seen the trailer for the film "The Recruit" with Colin Farrell and Al Pacino, you'll never have to see that film. Sadly, Renaissance has had similarly revelatory trailer makers.

The story of Renaissance is about a detective investigating the kidnapping of a young woman and medical researcher. The setting is a futuristic Paris, and science fiction elements feature throughout. The special thing about Renaissance, though, is its visual style, and not its story. Renaissance is 3D computer animation, like Final Fantasy, but highly stylised into black and white with ultra sharp contrasts. The result looks stunning (although the problems of 3D animation of human beings are still noticeable from time to tome: slightly robotic movements, slightly wooden facial acting, etc) As a highly stylised, beautiful film noir, Renaissance succeeds at stunning the audience, especially visually. The story and writing, though, are not quite at the same level of quality as the visuals. It's not a bad story (and presumably, if you haven't seen the trailer, it's a lot more exciting than it was for me). But it is a story that isn't highly original, and verges on the corny. A few lines of dialogue were painfully corny, making the writing sound like a beginner's first efforts.

I will definitely recommend Renaissance to friends. It's unlike anything I've seen before, visually, and I believe its originality alone makes it a worthwhile experience. It is also a watchable story, even if it isn't perfect.


I highly recommend this film. Set in the Bladerunner-esquire future of 2054 Paris, it is in most respect a classic film noir script: lady in peril, sister trying to find her, honest cop fighting everyone. Luckily, it avoids being stereotypical, and combines a pretty good storyline with interesting, innovative visuals. The film might remind you of Sin City in look, but it has an even sharper, even more graphic novel look that I found really compelling. Each frame, each sequence seems like it could have been pulled from the desk of a skilled graphic designer. In terms of story and artwork, you can find nods going back to the nineteen forties (or even earlier with the classic views of the Eiffel Tower and Sacre Couer) and movies like Casablanca, as well as looking toward a grim future where our destines are ruled by corporations. Make any excuse you need to see this film.


First things first, this movie is achingly beautiful. A someone who works on 3D CG films as a lighter/compositor, the visuals blew me away. Every second I was stunned by what was on screen As for the story, well, it's okay. It's not going to set the world on fire, but if you like your futuristic Blade Runner-esquire tales (and who doesn't?) then you will be fine.

I do have to say that I felt the voice acting was particularly bland and detracted from the movie as a whole. I saw it at the cinema in English, but I am hoping that there is a French version floating around somewhere.

Definitely worth seeing.


I just went to a screening of the film during Expresion en Corto, a short film festival in Guanajuato, Mexico. One of the producers was there and gave a brief introduction. The Film rolled and from the first shot I was amazed: one long continuous shot of a futuristic Paris in glorious black and white.

I shouldn't go on with the details 'cause I think it is a film worth seeing. The sci-fi story might be found average for many... to me was really good. The action is great, the camera is free to fly everywhere and I mean everywhere. Things you would not be able to do or see is accomplished beautifully. The cast performance is good, in my opinion no one hits the wrong note.

Now, the thing that I found awesome is the animation. 3D grafics look 2D. A BW comic book brought to life. The details on the backgrounds gives more texture as if it had been done by hand (I'm sure it was but when the angles change you see the depth).

The producer at the screening talked about the hard work behind the film: 7 years! The director, she said, is brilliant, but perhaps he was quite unexperienced since he only had one short film in his CV. So, many people had true faith in them. They started their own studio from scratch and ever since they faced the challenge they brought upon them.

Don't miss it. I think you won't regret it... maybe Richard Linklater for the final look of this film is superior to his I think.


I just came back from a pre-release viewing of this excellent sci-fi film noire. It's style is definitively unique and very well made. It is filmed with actual actors, but transformed into a black and white comic-strip style you have never seen before. It goes one step further than Sin City, and it does it well. It's a successful combination of french comic and movie cultures. The story and mood remind of Blade Runner, and if you liked that one you will surely like this one, too. The storyline is intelligent, never boring and has some nice little twists. This film is a must-see for any cinephile except perhaps those who absolutely don't like sci-fi or b&w.


If the answer to this question is yes, then you should enjoy this excellent movie. I've just seen it a couple of hours ago here in Paris (where the action of the movie takes place)and I can still feel the huge trauma I received in the back of my eyes...What a visual shock ! I've never seen such a beautiful black&white photo and such a drastic change in the way of doing animated movies. I strongly believe there will a before and after "Renaissance", similarly to what we saw with Pixar movies or the Akira and GhostInTheShell experiences. This is a real breakthrough in the small world of animated movies and I hope this french initiative (a small unknown french studio with a few young folks who had a dream named "Renaissance"...) will receive the success and recognition it deserves. Vive la France !


Blade Runner (Deckard is a Replicant!),

City of Lost Children (augmented senses or whatever used and abused and mostly, well, just giving us far less than what we might dream of), and

Dark City:

These really ought to be added.

For a while now, I've been waiting for an animated film that might affect me as much as Miyazaki's stuff has. This one is the 1st.

Hmm, scratch the "animated" part of that.

I have an intense love-hate relationship with film noir and, hey, if you don't leave, it must be mostly love, right? But, there are so many sci-fi and noir themes totally submerged in this film that it's just a wonder to watch.

These people did an incredible job!


Picture the classic noir story lines infused with hyper-stylized black and white visuals of Frank Miller's Sin City. Then picture a dystopian, science fiction thriller, such as Steven Spielberg's Minority Report or Richard Linklater's A Scanner Darkly. An amalgamation of the above would be a suitable way of describing visionary french director Christian Volckman's bleak and atmospheric take on the future in his feature film debut. But although Volckman's work does unquestionably take reference from the aforementioned films and those similar to them, such a simplistic hybrid does not do Renaissance, Volckman's end result, justice - the film itself is a far more complex piece of work than that.

Genre hybridity is usually a hit and miss affair, especially in a contemporary context, with the well of individuality appearing to be increasingly exhausted. As such, Renaissance is laudable as a cinematic experiment at the very least, with its unique interspersing of the gritty nihilism of the neo-noir detective thriller and the fantastic allegorical terror of the dystopian sci-fi drama, which serve to compliment each other's storytelling conventions in a strangely fitting fashion. The screenplay is a clever and intriguing one (although one gets the sense that many of the lines in the script would have been much more effective in their original french than the English translation - the film's title also becomes far more poignant) managing to stay one step ahead of its audience all the way through. Though many elements of the plot will seem quite familiar to those who frequent such science fiction thrillers, the script throws unexpected twists and turns in at exactly the right moment to keep the viewer on their toes, making for a truly compelling work.

Volckman's film truly excels in its visual component, and the stunning black and white animation is easily the film's highlight - superbly moody and stylish, it goes to show what tremendous aesthetic effect the simple use of two shades can have. With tremendous detail paid to the composition and look of each shot, and superb use of very noir shadows and intriguing angles to accentuate the emotional tension of the scene, the film appears straight out of a Frank Miller comic, but with a twist, the end result being consistently visually sumptuous.

The film's English rendition is also given added credence by its very fitting array of voice casting. The gruff voice of Daniel Craig is an absolutely perfect piece of casting for grim, stoic policeman Karas, and Catherine McCormack is a strong presence as the mysterious woman whose sister's disappearance he is investigating. Despite a wavering English accent, Romola Garai does great work as the frantic sister in question, and Jonathan Pryce is suitably menacing as the shady head of ominous mega-corporation Avalon. Ian Holm's reedy voice is also a strong choice as a mysterious scientist, and Holm makes a powerful impression in his brief scenes.

All together, Renaissance boasts a visually stunning, unique and compelling futuristic thriller, just as intelligent as it is entertaining. Though the plot may seem familiar to those who frequent such fare and the occasional weak line may inhibit the film from being the moody masterpiece it set out to be, the superb animation in itself easily carries the film through its occasional qualms. For fans of either of the film's intertwined genres or the gritty graphic novels of Frank Miller, or those willing to appreciate a capably crafted, slightly less conventional take on the futuristic thriller, the film is without question worth a watch.

-8/10


Animation always seems to be fringe. In Japan, this might not be the case, but in Europe and much more so in the USA animation has a big fat "KIDS" tag on it. France is probably one of the more comic-liberal countries, home of classics as Tin-Tin, Asterix, Lucky Luke, Valereon and so on(if you've never read these, it's not too late. There's no upper-age limit on them and they don't carry the nerd-stigma of DC or Marvel) It seems natural a movie like this one pops up in France. It suits my prejudiced image of the French as art-loving, anti-USA-oriented and talented movie-makers. Luckily there's also "A scanner darkly" out there to suppress that view - seems art is pretty much international.

Anyway, as you might have gathered Renaissance is artsy and French. If you're a normal person you will get scared by this. There's no need for that however! Beneath it's cool, sleek cel-shaded appearance there's a good thriller and a good movie overall.

That was one of my fears for this movie. It's so easy turning the spectacular animation to a gimmick, much like Sony & C:o are doing with their Pixar rip-offs. I was expecting a confusing, sometimes boring and not very engaging movie, but luckily I was wrong.

I would have enjoyed it anyway for the neo-noir stuff, but it was good that it was worthwhile on that level as well. NOTE: I've seen the French dub which was OK as far as I could see. English might be more interesting what with Craig and everything.

A final word of praise to the animation. It was awesome. Futuristic, well-crafted, nice camera-work, smart solutions(Eyes for example looked very good, which is hard to do) and so visually stunning I felt like bursting out "This is so damn impressive!". Then again, I really like animation and I appreciate the effort the studio put down, so my verdict is a bit biased.

Good movie anyway, definitely lives beyond it's "gimmick".


This is a film i decided to go and see because I'm a huge fan of adult animation. I quite often find that when a film doesn't evolve around a famous actor or actress but rather a story or style, it allows the film to be viewed as a piece of art rather than a showcase of the actors ability to differ his styles.

This film is certainly more about style than story. While i found the story interesting (a thriller that borrows story and atmosphere from films such as Blade Runner and many anime films), it was a bit hard to follow at times, and didn't feel like it all came together as well as it could have. It definitely had a mixed sense of French Animation and Japanese Anime coming together. Whether thats a good thing or not is up to the viewer. Visually this film is a treat for the eyes, and in that sense a work of art.

If you like adult animation, or would like to see a film that is different from most films out at the moment. I would recommend it. All i can say is that i enjoyed the experience of the film but did come away slightly disappointed because it could have been better


I am glad being able to say almost only positive things about the movie with Karas and the Tasuiev sisters, RENAISSANCE.

And firstly, that it looks as it ought to look; a boys' adventure, RENAISSANCE is the tale of a cop's investigation in search of a missing young scientistIlona Tasuiev, the geneticist and researcher for the Avalon company.

The tale of Karas, Ilona and Bislane is, though much less known than SIN CITY, the better movie, and the one more appreciated by the connoisseurs. To the French comics aficionados it will be even more meaningful (I have enriched my French comics collection last week, though I'm not so uptodate). The atmosphere, the music, the characters, their lines, the plot are all nice and endearing. A Parisian top cop, Karas, is displayed to find a young woman who was a rising star of medicalgenetic research, Ilona Tasuieva mildly hot blonde, whose rebel sister Bislane was erotically preferable, I guess.

For me, an oldie aficionado of comics and TV series, RENAISSANCE, a marvelously beautiful cartoon, was like a replay of a WILD WILD WEST episodehere, a mythological past replaced with an equally mythological futuremore jaded and blasé but, in a sense, as thrilling. RENAISSANCE is not suspenseful; nor does it look especially wellpaced; but it's seducing and hypnotic. Moreover, it achieves sketching, albeit briefly, a world, a true worldand we will think about the Avalon, Nakata, Jonas Mueller, the Tasuiev sisters, and Goran, Farfella, and Karas telling of his distant childhood in Kasbah . I liked RENAISSANCE's feel, of a certain gentleness and affability and adventurousness, and also the professional, assured look; among these new cartoons, this one and Linklater's Dick adaptation (--the only and first Dick adaptation ever--) stood out for me as works of beauty and genuine excitement.

I thought the futuristic devices were appropriate and, when not conventional, vividly eerie (like the invisibility costumes).

As advisable, the characters have exotic names, like Bislane and Farfella, mostly gathered from the arts and entertainment's world (Goran and Ilona and Naghib ).

None seems to have noticed that RENAISSANCE's poster features a Rourke look-alikethat guy is Marv; which doesn't make it a SIN CITY rip--off, but not a paragon of originality either, and in fact there's more resemblance to the Miller talenamely, the bleak futuristic look of a decayed society, the brio of the hero (in fact a cross of Willis' character and Rourke's persona in the previous movie )on the other hand, this cartoon breathes a more public air, a brim of straight adventurousness, and, in a word, it's like SIN CITY for kidswell, naughtier kids I mean, 'cause there's a bit of nudity on display. To what I have said one might retort that the traits mentioned are characteristic, even as clichés and common places of the futuristic more adult comics' look; true enough, and it was oldie Miller to have brought that things on screen and RENAISSANCE bears some resemblances here and there. Now it's also fair that every RING ought to have its ERAGORN, so to each sin city, its renaissance. I admit being quite partial to these bleak futuristic tales, a rather undemanding specialty.


I read that this did not well, that the story is not solid, that Volckman feels he has failed in some way.

I disagree. First, it is well executed. Volckman is doing well to not only to try a new technique, but to have a focus that is worth thinking about: would immortality reduce the value of life? Big question ...

I can see he trying hard to build a feeling, and he is not compromising. This is to be applauded. I am sure it was an interesting exercise to build characters in such a form. I have seen artists reduce a form to bare minimum to build the intensity of a moment. I identify this film with this.

Further, it is much more interesting than Richard Linklater's roto-scoping, and Volckman's story has more meaning than Linklater's later stories of a wasted life on drugs. Old news. Everyone knows it, but no one does anything about it. Renaissance has more to offer, something new to think about. And there are many more stories out there with loads of holes in them that do far better.

Well done, Volckman. Really nice work.


A very unique Sci-Fi animated film, and frankly I love uniqueness no matter which way it tends to be, better or worse. This French film is quite interesting to watch, the technique part is innovatory, like "Waking Life" I recently watched.

It took me quite a long time to get used to the Black-White style, but eventually I love it, the sketchlike images are really fancy! The contracted future world is a symbol of human race's final destination which I adore it very much.

The whole plot is fine for a Sci-Fi, not so intriguing but it's OK, like some Hollywood's products, a giant conspiracy about human's eternity, a little bit cliché and the twisted ending is not so convincing, some development is just too plain and insipid, and the whole movie is too long.

So I think I'm just in love with the style this film shows, others are not so good.

About the eternity of life, I think most people have come to a unanimousness that we don't want eternity because it demolishes the meaning of life, we treasure our lives because they are limited and meaningful, if everyone can live forever, thus the world world will become a disaster and chaos. Leaving someone you love is hard and heartbreaking, but that's also a way to show our lives are genuine and all the emotion fulfills one's life and make the world colorful and lively.