Years ago, I found a "bargain bin" copy of this film for a buck or two. In so many ways, this is quite fitting, as when it was made back in 1933, it was truly a cheaply made film by the "poverty row" studio, Majestic. However, while the film is rather derivative, it is STILL well worth watching and provides a few surprises.

The story is very, very familiar, as in some Germanic town, the people are upset because of some recent deaths that appear to be the work of vampires! Adding to this familiarity is Dwight Frye. He played Renfield in Dracula, and here he is very, very similar--though he plays a much more harmless weirdo. In this case, he's obsessed with his pet bats and people begin to blame him for the deaths. The film does a good job of providing some "red herrings" (i.e., false leads) and while it doesn't take a genius to figure out Frye may not be responsible, the WHO and WHY are intriguing and make it VERY different from the average horror film. In addition, while the production had little money to speak of, it still had some good actors of the day--Lionel Atwill and Melvin Douglas--and it also used Universal Studios sets at night (when they were done filming for the day). As a result, the film looks pretty good overall, though I also thought that, as usual, Fay Wray was terrible--thought it didn't noticeably detract from the film. I have seen her in more movies than most people on IMDb and I have come to notice that her characters have no depth--she always seems to be cast as the "screaming lady" and provides little new in each film.

Overall, for fans of old horror films, this is excellent and worth seeing. For people who are NOT fans of the genre, it's probably pretty skip-able.


Until today I had never seen this film. Its was filmed on the sets of the Old Dark House and Frankenstein and concerns a small Bavarian village where supposedly giant bats are sucking the blood of the villagers.

Frankly its a damn good movie that has atmosphere to spare and a cast that won't quit, Lionel Atwill, Dwight Frye, Faye Wray and Melvin Douglas playing a character named Brettschnieder which is of interest to me since that was my great grandmother's maiden name.

This is a carefully modulated film that has suspense and witty one liners that slowly builds for its brief running time, only going astray when about ten minutes before the end they realized they had limited time to wrap everything up. From that point to the end its a straight run to the finish with very little of the fun that preceded it.

Leonard Maltin and IMDb list a running time of 71 minutes and warn of shorter prints. The trouble is that IMDb and Maltin can be wrong, and in this case I think they are since a source I trust more says the full running time is 67 minutes (The Overlook Film Encyclopedia) Quibbling about this I know is insane but since most prints that are available tend to run around 60-63 minutes the amount of missing material is considerably less if its only 67 minutes long. Personally I think it won't matter that much since its at most five minutes and I doubt very much it will make or break the film.

What ever the running time , if you like creaky old films, do, by all means do, watch this movie, its a great dark and stormy night film.


This film has a lot of strong points. It has one of the best horror casts outside of the Lugosi-Karloff-Chaney circle: Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray, and Dwight Frye, plus leading man Melvyn Douglas. It's got all the right ingredients: bats, a castle with lots of stone staircases, a mad scientist, townspeople waving torches and hunting vampires, an "Igor"-type character, a beautiful girl, even a goofy-haired Burgomeister. The soft-focus camera work is moody and imaginative. There's even some good comic relief nicely spaced throughout the script.

But it's not really a monster movie because there is nothing supernatural going on in "Kleinschloss" ("little castle"). The plot revolves around the generic crazy scientist (nicely played by Atwill) who values his work more highly than human lives.

It's not top-tier material, because of a ho-hum resolution of the plot and some embarrassingly bad dialog for Dwight Frye. But it's worth a look if you like early b/w horror pictures.


Someone(or, something thing..)is leaving puncture marks on the jugular and draining victims of their blood till dead. Police detective Karl Brettschneider(Melvyn Douglas, before slipping out of the B-movie horror genre for greater heights)is stumped at who..or what..is behind these notorious crimes. The village is overcome by hysteria and Karl depends on his trusted medical genius, Dr. Otto von Niemann(Lionel Atwill, in yet another effective mad scientist role)to provide some feedback as to what might be causing the deaths of innocents. He also fears for the safety of his beloved Ruth(the lovely Fay Wray who stars for the third time with Atwill after "Doctor X" & "The Mystery of the Wax Museum")who is Niemann's assistant.

Dwight Frye steals the film as a rather loony village idiot who collects bats and carries a demented demeanor wherever he goes..it's easy to see why he becomes a suspect as local paranoia is at a fever pitch. Maude Eburne provides the film's humor as a very naive(..and easily influenced)patient of von Niemann's who believes she has ailments she reads about in books near the laboratory where he works. She's impressionable and often von Niemann just humors her and constant fictional illnesses she feels plagued with. Lionel Belmore returns as yet another frightened, superstitious Bürgermeister.

Creaky, static, but rather entertaining nonetheless thanks to the cast. The film is obviously as low-budget as they come, but this doesn't hurt the film too much since it's put together rather well by director Frank R Strayer and his crew. I'm certain the film's print has seen better days, though. This is the kind of B-horror item you'd find packaged in with 50 other random cheesefests and poverty row programmers. The film's villain..and his motives for feeding a synthetically made biological creature..certainly provides a different take on the Frankenstein formula. Many might be disappointed with the end results as the film strays away from being an actual supernatural tale about a real vampire killer causing the murders.


I really enjoyed this film because I have a tremendous interest in American History... the Antebellum years and the Civil War in particular. I purchased it recently from a rack of previously-viewed videos on sale at the supermarket and I was very glad to add this one to my history video collection. Though not of the caliber of Civil War films such as "Glory" or "Gettysburg," provides a lot of history on the pre-Civil War brotherhood among cadets at West Point.

Maybe it's the gray uniforms, the youth, or the military discipline, but I am fascinated by the story of the Corps of Cadets from around 1830 to the brink of the War. I imagine what it must have been like to sit in a classroom with other young men, learning how to make war, then later putting the lessons to use against your own classmates!

Actually, there were two classes graduated in 1861: one class in May, the other in June. the movie makes no real mention of this, except to mention Henry A. DuPont, first graduate of the May Class; and George Custer, last grad of the June Class. the reason for the two classes was not so much about the war, but it was the result of switching back to a four-year course of study, after a few years of experimenting with a five-year course (I think the first class had attended five years, the other for four). As the movie portrays, cadets were like brothers and often had nicknames for each other... George "Fanny" or "Autie" Custer; Alonzo "Lon" Cushing; James "Beauty" Stuart (for J.E.B. Stuart, class of 1854), etc.

I say this film is "Santa Fe Trail" as it should have been because that 1940 film, while enjoyable, really fudges history. Cadets from several different classes are all graduating together. JEB Stuart and George Custer are portrayed as the best of friends and are side-by-side in stopping John Brown's 1859 insurrection at Harper's Ferry. In fact, Stuart and Custer were never friends, but enemies during the War. They faced each other (for the first time, I think) at Gettysburg in 1863 (Stuart was at the Harper's ferry Raid, but Custer was still a cadet at the Point when it took place).

"Fanny" Custer plays a role in "Class of '61," though his classmate chums, Dev O'Neill and Shelby Peyton are fictional. I believe they are respectively based on Partick Henry O'Rorke and John Pelham, two people you can look up.

Anyway, I truly enjoy this film or any film which provides a window into mid-19th Century America.


I for one really like this movie for some reasons I'll go into late but I want to touch on why I think people don't like it. First off, there are people out there who just like to hate Tom Cruise. I don't understand it really. Second, Cameron Crowe I think successfully p***es off two groups of movie-goers with this film. The casual, relaxed, "not looking to think too hard" group of movie-goers are left confused when the plot takes a complete 180 at the end of the movie. And the deep, philosophical, mystery-fans are devastated when Crowe has one of his characters completely explain the mystery.

This is a good movie. And Tom Cruise does a very good job in it. I think it's probably his best performance from what I've seen all though I haven't seen all of his movies, or even a majority of them probably. The supporting cast is good as well. Penelope Cruz gives a solid performance and Jason Lee was enjoyable.

I like the story, and I think that's what Vanilla Sky is more than anything. It's a mystery, an adventure, and a romantic comedy, but it's mostly just a good story. And it has a lot of philosophical undertones to it, and many similar ideas and stories like this occur in historical philosophy. David Aames (Cruise) is the man that had everything he wanted, more or less lost it, was given a second chance with a catch to regain it all back, and in the end facing his demons and the full scope of what is happening, chooses reality, simplicity, and normality to see if he can finally find the one thing he could never get a grip on: happiness.

Many people were disappointed that Crowe laid out the complete mystery at the end. I think it's necessary. The audience then knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that David is aware of his circumstances and it makes the choice at the end all the more powerful.

And the music in the movie is great. It's probably what makes the movie as enjoyable as it is. Particularly, "Njosnavelin" by Sigur Ros, which is an amazing song.

All in all, I'd give it 3 out 4 stars. It's a movie with some substance for those who like to think things through, and a great story for those looking to relax. That "moderate" approach is probably why people dislike it so much because it isn't a full blown mystery, or a full blown love story. It mixes and matches different elements and genres.


I had heard some not too good things about this movie and had probably seen the low score here at IMDb and that's why I had avoided it. Today they showed Vanilla Sky on TV and as I had nothing better to do... and as it turned out, I would have had a hard time finding anything better to do. Vanilla Sky is a frightening, sad and touching movie, actually one of the best I've seen in a while. I was surprised by how I was affected watching it. It's hard to explain, but during the movie your feelings towards the characters and your perception of what is going on changes and it's quite an emotional journey. Vanilla Sky really touched me in a way that is very rare for a movie, or any media for that matter.

I really recommend everyone to watch this movie. Regardless of what you have heard about it.


How strange the human mind is; this center of activity wherein perceptions of reality are formed and stored, and in which one's view of the world hinges on the finely tuned functioning of the brain, this most delicate and intricate processor of all things sensory. And how much do we really know of it's inner-workings, of it's depth or capacity? What is it in the mind that allows us to discern between reality and a dream? Or can we? Perhaps our sense of reality is no more than an impression of what we actually see, like looking at a painting by Monet, in which the vanilla sky of his vision becomes our reality. It's a concept visited by filmmaker Cameron Crowe in his highly imaginative and consciousness-altering film, `Vanilla Sky,' starring Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz. At the age of thirty-three, David Aames (Cruise) inherits a publishing empire left to him by his father. His fifty-one percent controlling interest, however, has made him something of a marked man, as there are seven members of his board of directors, and each deems himself more worthy than the young Mr. Aames of the lion's share of the company. And fueling the fires of discontent is their perception that David lacks the focus the job requires.

Admittedly, David likes to play; still, he's in control of the business and does what he sees fit, whether the board (he refers to them as the `Seven Dwarfs') likes it or not, and no one has ever had the courage to challenge him directly. But during a lavish birthday party in his honor, one of the corporate lawyers, Thomas Tipp (Timothy Spall) warns David that the seven are up to something behind his back. At the time, however, it's the last thing on David's mind; he's been having a casual affair with a friend, Julie Gianni (Cameron Diaz), but even that moves to the back burner when he meets a woman at his party that he can't get out of his mind. Her name is Sofia (Penelope Cruz), and after knowing her for only one night, she becomes a pivotal part of his life-- which is about to be turned upside down, as on the morning after his party he makes a decision that will change his life forever. And he is about to learn that sometimes, there is simply no going back.

Director Cameron Crowe has crafted and delivered much more than just another film with this one; far more than a movie, `Vanilla Sky' is a vision realized. Beginning with the first images that appear on screen, he presents a visually stunning experience that is both viscerally and cerebrally affecting. It's a mind-twisting mystery that will swallow you up and sweep you away; emotionally, it's a rush-- and it may leave you exhausted, because it requires some effort to stay with it. But it's worth it. Think `Memento' with a driving rock n' roll soundtrack and a vibrant assault of colors proffered by the stroke of an impressionist's brush. There's darkness and light, and sounds that pound and drive until you can feel the blood rushing through your veins and throbbing in your brain. And all played out on a landscape of virtual reality swirling beneath that ever expanding vanilla sky. Simply put, this one's a real trip; it's exciting-- and it's a mind bender.

As to the performances here, those who can't get past the mind-set of Tom Cruise as Maverick in `Top Gun,' or his Ethan Hunt in `Mission Impossible,' or those who perceive him only as a `movie star' rather than an actor, are going to have to think again in light of his work here. Because as David Aames, Cruise gives the best performance of his career, one that should check any doubts as to his ability as an actor at the door. He's made some interesting career choices the past few years, with films like `Magnolia' and `Eyes Wide Shut' merely warm-ups for the very real and complex character he creates here. And give him credit, too, for taking on a role that dispels any sense of vanity; this is Cruise as you've never seen him before. `Jerry Maguire' earned him an Oscar nomination, and this one should, also-- as well as the admiration and acclaim of his peers. Cruise is not just good in this movie, he is remarkable.

Penelope Cruz turns in an outstanding, if not exceptional performance, as well, as Sofia, the woman of David's dreams. There's an alluring innocence she brings to this role that works well for her character and makes her forthcoming and accessible, yet she lacks any hint of mystery that may have added that special `something extra' to the part. But Crowe knows how to get the best out of his actors, and he certainly did with Cruz.

He also knew what he was doing with Cameron Diaz, who is absolutely vibrant in the role of Julie. She's never looked better, and fairly sizzles on screen. But make no mistake, this is no `window-dressing' part, and Diaz delivers a complete package with this character. The quality of her performance can be measured, in fact, in the impact she makes with rather limited screen time. And it's the persona she integrates so fully with her innate beauty that makes Julie so unforgettable. Overall, a terrific job by Diaz.

The supporting cast includes Kurt Russell (Dr. McCabe), Jason Lee (Brian), Johnny Galecki (Peter), Armand Schultz (Dr. Pomerantz), Noah Taylor (Ed), Mel Thompson (`L.E.' Man), Jean Carol (Woman in New York) and John Fedevich (Silent Ed). About half-way through, this one may have you questioning your own sense of reality; but rest assured, by the end of `Vanilla Sky' all will be revealed. It's a reality-bender, to be sure, and a wild one; but this is exciting entertainment that offers a satisfying-- and unique-- experience, one you have to see to believe. It's the essential, and absolute, magic of the movies. 10/10.


Vanilla Sky is a 2001 remake of the 1997 movie Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes). And in my opinion, a much more human and emotional version. Tom Cruise plays David Aames, a selfish egomaniac who takes other people's emotions for granted, and thinks only of himself. Jason Lee plays Brian Shelby, David's best, and in many ways, only friend. Penelope Cruz plays Sofia Serrano, Brian's girlfriend whom accompanies him to David's birthday party. Cameron Diaz plays Julie Gianni, David's occasional bed buddy. Kurt Russell plays Dr. Curtis McCabe, a psychologist interviewing David. All of their interactions, and the consequences of them, make Vanilla Sky one of the most emotional, and complex thrillers ever made. I won't explain anymore of the plot, because it's far more compelling, the less you know. Ignore all people that call this film too confusing to follow. If you pay attention, you won't be confused. The film is very complex, but not confusing. And in my opinion, one of the best movies ever made.


"Vanilla Sky" was a wonderfully thought out movie. Or rather, "Abre Los Ojos" was well thought out. I watched that movie late one night, excited about what was to come. I wasn't disappointed. By the end of the movie, I was awstruck. I couldn't get it off my mind. The whole idea of it just blew me away. The ending, was more of a surprise than Shyamalan could ever do. The plot line was also something that kept me interesting through and through. The cast, superb. It was an all around wonderful movie. The kind of movie you can watch again and again and always find something new. I've seen it four or five times and I'm always finding something new. It's a movie to keep you interested forever.


I could not agree more with the quote "this is one of the best films ever made." If you think Vanilla Sky is simply a "re-make," you could not be more wrong. There is tremendous depth in this film: visually, musically, and emotionally.

Visually, because the film is soft and delicate at times (early scenes with Sofia) and at other times powerful and intense (Times Square, post-climactic scenes).

The music and sounds tie into this movie so perfectly. Without the music, the story is only half told. Nancy Wilson created an emotional, yet eclectic, score for the film which could not be more suitable for such a dream-like theme (although never released, I was able to get my hands on the original score for about $60. If you look hard, you may be able to find a copy yourself). Crowe's other musical selections, such as The Beach Boys, Josh Rouse, Spiritualized, Sigur Ros, the Monkees, etcetera etcetera, are also perfect fits for the film (Crowe has an ear for great music).

More importantly, the emotional themes in this film (i.e. love, sadness, regret) are very powerful, and are amplified tenfold by the visual and musical experience, as well as the ingenious dialogue; I admit, the elevator scene brings tears to my eyes time and time again.

The best part of this film however (as if it could get any better) is that it is so intelligently crafted such that each time you see the film, you will catch something new--so watch closely, and be prepared to think! Sure, a theme becomes obvious after the first or second watch, but there is always more to the story than you think.

This is easily Cameron Crowe's best work, and altogether a work of brilliance. Much of my film-making and musical inspiration comes from this work alone. It has honestly touched my life, as true art has a tendency of doing. It continually surprises me that there are many people that cannot appreciate this film for what it is (I guess to understand true art is an art itself).

Bottom line: Vanilla Sky is in a league of its own.


This film is one of Tom Cruise's finest films. He captures the audiences imaginations with his role of David Aames. His character can relate to us all in some way.The story line is very clever and keeps the audience on edge throughout the whole film. I never really watched Cruise movies that much before but after seeing this it shows me his true talent. My favourite part in the movie is the end where it all comes to a big conclusion and he find out the truth. If you have not seen this yet you definitely should give it a try. It's one of those films that once you've started watching it you just got to see it until the end or it will keep you thinking and you will regret it. My opinion is you should just go buy it and take a risk thats what I did and it became one of my favourite films of all time. It's A* 10/10 I promise once you watch it, it will stick with you and you will like it forever.


"The sweet is never as sweet without the sour." This quote was essentially the theme for the movie in my opinion. Tom Cruise plays a young man who was handed everything in his life. He takes things for granted and it comes around full swing in this great movie with a superb twist. This film will keep you engaged in the plot and unable to pause it to take a bathroom break.

Its a movie that really makes you step back and look at your life and how you live it. You cannot really appreciate the better things in life (the sweet), like love, until you have experienced the bad (the sour). The theme will really get you to "open your eyes".

Only complaint is that the movie gets very twisted at points and is hard to really understand. I think the end is perfect though. I recommend you watch it and see for yourself.


I'm from Romania i'll try to speak in English. All i want to say about this movie is that it is and will be my all time number one. Seen it above 30 times at least and will see it for many years now. It has all the little things i like in a movie , it's very touching makes me cry . Shows a whole lot of twisted love things and questions about love and reality , and the true things that matter for different people. It so happens that for me this matters the most , the love , the soul of a man , he's inner being, and this i see in this movie. Perhaps for me it's much more than a motion picture , it's a proof in my mind that it could really exist and that you most make the best out of every moment you live with your soul mate. It's a long way from reality to sci-fi , but .. what if. What if all the capitalism disappeared and economy would go down , would fall? We would all be concerned about other issues and my thought is that , on your death bed , the bigger thing you remember , is not the wealth , not the adventure , not the countries you visited and the people that remember you. But the true friends and your true love and the hope that after you die , all will be god damn perfect and people would be good and care more. WATCH THIS MOVIE and probably it will guide you through your life like it did to me :) Hail from Romania


This movie consists of such great emotion especially with its outstanding soundtrack that coincides with the film. Tom Cruise is one of my favorite actors because of his enthusiasm to make films and to entertain. This movie was not the best the first time I watched it, but after about 3 more times I decided that this is one of the best films that I have ever seen. It takes place in New York, and progresses on through his lifestyle. He discovers a delimma in his life with his girlfriend (Diaz). He goes through a state of depression and then an outgoing blend of imagination. This film was beyond my expectations, and is one of Cruise's best films ever!


I really can say I felt the movie in its right essence where the mind games from dreamy reality enter into the surreal aspect of future faced by Tom Cruise. I didn't cared much about Tom Cruise's acting prowess but I must say that he seems to impress at every point in the movie...not simply due to an engaging storyline but also due to his self being imparted to the lead character....they merge and then speak and its beautiful. However I must say this movie doesn't come under the "average flick of weekend" which you pick at random and watch gleefully; It carries strong sentiments and characters so don't wash this one down with your beer and pop-corns. It certainly needs more than that.


After reading some quite negative views for this movie, I was not sure whether I should fork out some money to rent it. However, it was a pleasant surprise. I haven't seen the original movie, but if its better than this, I'd be in heaven.

Tom Cruise gives a strong performance as the seemingly unstable David, convincing me that he is more than a smile on legs (for only the third time in his career- the other examples were Magnolia and Born on the Fourth of July). Penelope Cruz is slightly lightweight but fills the demands for her role, as does Diaz. The only disappointment is the slightly bland Kurt Russell. In the movie, however, it is not the acting that really impresses- its the filmmaking.

Cameron Crowe excels in the director's role, providing himself with a welcome change of pace from his usual schtick. The increasing insanity of the movie is perfectly executed by Crowe (the brief sequence where Cruise walks through an empty Time Square is incredibly effective). The soundtrack (a distinguishing feature of a Crowe movie) is also sublime.

You will be shocked and challenged as a viewer. The plot does seem a little contrived but the issues explored behind it are endlessly discussable. The movie isn't perfect, but its a welcome change of pace for Cruise and Crowe and for those raised on a diet of Hollywood gloss, should be a revelation.


This is one of those movies that's difficult to review without giving away the plot. Suffice to say there are weird things and unexpected twists going on, beyond the initial superficial "Tom Cruise screws around with multiple women" plot.

The quality cast elevate this movie above the norm, and all the cast are well suited to their parts: Cruise as the irritatingly smug playboy who has it all - and then loses it all, Diaz as the attractive but slightly deranged jilted lover, Cruz as the exotic new girl on the scene and Russell as the fatherly psychologist. The story involves elements of romance, morality, murder-mystery, suspense and sci-fi and is generally an entertaining trip.

I should add that the photography is also uniformly excellent and the insertion of various visual metaphors is beautiful once you realize what's going on.

If you enjoy well-acted movies with twists and suspense, and are prepared to accept a slightly fantastic Philip K Dick style resolution, then this is a must-see.

9/10


Strangely, this version of OPEN YOUR EYES is more mature and more nuanced. Aided by hindsight, Crowe's screenplay is a lot tighter and more fleshed out than Amenabar's original. The Spanish filmmaker should get credit for thinking of the story first, but there's no doubt that Crowe has improved on it -- if just slightly. Notice that you have no idea what the lead did in OPEN YOUR EYES, but you know almost everything about the lead in VANILLA SKY. That's what i mean by more "fleshed out."


I really liked this movie. I've read a few of the other comments, and although I pity those who did not understand it, I do agree with some of the criticisms. Which, in a strange way, makes me like this movie all the more. I accept that they have got a pretty cast to remake an intelligent movie for the general public, yet it has so many levels and is still great to watch. I also love the movies, such as this one, which provoke so many debates, theories, possible endings and hidden subtext. Congratulations Mr.Crowe, definitely in my Top Ten.

P.S. Saw this when it first came out whilst I was backpacking in Mexico, it was late at night and I had to get back to my hotel and I had a major paranoia trip! Where does the dream end and the real begin?


Despite excellent trailers for Vanilla Sky, I was expecting to be disappointed by the film because I'd heard that it did not get great reviews. However, I left the cinema completely in awe of how good Vanilla Sky is.

There was no bad acting at all in the whole film, every single character is believable. The romantic moments between Cruise's character, David Aames and Cruz's character, Sophia are tear-jerkingly realistic and intimate (probably due to the fact that they were a soon-to-be real-life couple).

The plot of Vanilla Sky will confuse you in the last third of the film and there's very little chance of you guessing the ending. However, ends are tied up towards the end, leaving you with a strange mixture of feelings consisting of sadness, shock and empathy for David Aames.

The film is intellectual and you have to pay attention throughout. This isn't that hard because chances are that you'll be completely drawn in to the film and won't take your eyes off the screen for one second.

I usually leave cinemas forgetting all about the film I just watch. But Vanilla Sky is still lingering in my mind days after watching it. I recommend it to anyone who wants a change from simple, shallow films.


I went to see Vanilla Sky with a huge, huge, huge!!..Tom Cruise fan, my extremely cynical brother and my girlfriend ... what can I say .. I was totally blown away by the movie and especially TC's performance, I thought it was a very moving film and it was not at all what I was expecting.

I had read the reviews and had decided not to go and see it, I am so pleased that I was 'coerced 'into seeing it. The strange thing is I cannot say why, all I can say is that I found it totally involving and could not stop thinking about it the next day. As to what I felt about the film, all I can say about is, ITS NOT THE STORYLINE (fantasy, psychodrama, whatever) its about the people and the events that shape their life and how small events, like getting into a car can change everything......

As to what the critics wrote, yes maybe the original was a stunning 2nd film for Alejandro Amenábar , but this was a totally different interpretation of the subject, and by no means a narcissistic remake for the benefit of Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz.

I cannot even consider writing a couple of trite, glib sentences to describe the film just go and see it!!!!

Yes I know this isn't a balanced thoughtful review but so what .It's not that kind of film.


This film was just absolutly brilliant. It actually made me think. During the whole movie I was confused as hell. I loved everything about it...it was just so confusing and so twisted and weird, it was hard not to love it. All of the actors were phenominal, and no one could have done a better job...This is one of my favorites of the year...it deserves an ocar.


As the one-line summary says, two movies have left such a remark on me when I walked out of the theater. The one was "Stir of Echoes" with Kevin Bacon, and the second was "Vanilla Sky".

Its one of those movies that you sit deep in the theater seat and stop thinking about anyone around you, stop wondering what the end of the movie will be and just leave the movie swift you where it wants... Walking out of the cinema was a bit weird, like that feeling you get when you are sick and cant think of anything. One of those movies that you become one with the guy, and feel that nothing else moves around you than the things in the movie.

One thing is certain. The actors are awesome, the sound track is excellent, and everything in the movie is 9+.

Surely one of the best movies I ever saw, and the movie that made the best and most shocking awaking about my life and my purpose in this world.


David Aames is a rich good-looking guy who lives in New York City. When his 'sleeping partner' Julie Gianni gets very jealous after David falls for Spanish beauty Sofia, she gets David into her car and tells him that he's the only guy she loves and wants to be with, but seeing as he's in love with Sofia, she decides to commit suicide with David in the car with her, by driving off a bridge. David survives the crash, but is left with a disfigured face. He is then charged with the murder of Julie. The thing is, David doesn't know what's real and what's not as he keeps having these strange dreams (Most of which are actually nightmares.) and flashbacks, some of which just don't make sense to him. Everything will soon come back to him though as he's begins to find out the truth.

Well, there's an all star cast here, including Tom Cruise, Penélope Cruz, Cameron Diaz, Kurt Russell, Jason Lee and Noah Taylor who all give good performances in the movie. In the movie they all put off different things about there characters, like happiness, sadness, angry, etc. really well. There's also a cameo in the movie from the brilliant, Steven Spielberg.

Vanilla Sky is a well made, different, interesting and original movie which will leave you talking about it a lot after it's finished. It's not just a thriller, but it's a real psychological thriller. The trailer for the movie is really good, but the movie is so different from what it might be made out to be. It's been directed very well and there were a couple of really great scenes here too. All in all, an enjoyable movie which should be really be paid attention too. They are sure making a lot of "Are they dead, if not who is dead" movies recently.


this movie is another on the list that i did not want to see. i was talked into it and dragged into the theater, but boy am i glad for that. i thought it was going to be just another love story, but it turns out to be SOOO much more than that. definatly an intellectual flick, one of those movies you have to pay attention to.


Warning: Does contain spoilers.

Open Your Eyes

If you have not seen this film and plan on doing so, just stop reading here and take my word for it. You have to see this film. I have seen it four times so far and I still haven't made up my mind as to what exactly happened in the film. That is all I am going to say because if you have not seen this film, then stop reading right now.

If you are still reading then I am going to pose some questions to you and maybe if anyone has any answers you can email me and let me know what you think.

I remember my Grade 11 English teacher quite well. His name was Mr. Krisak. To me, he was wise beyond his years and he always had this circuitous way of teaching you things that perhaps you weren't all too keen on. If we didn't like Shakespeare, then he turned the story into a modern day romance with modern day language so we could understand it. Our class room was never a room, it was a cottage and we were on the lake reading a book at our own leisure time. This was his own indelible way of branding something into our sponge-like minds.

I begin this review of Vanilla Sky with a description of this brilliant man because he once gave us an assignment that has been firmly etched in my mind, like the phone number of a long lost best friend, and it finally made some sense to me after watching The Matrix. Now if I didn't know better, I would have thought that the Wachowski brothers were really just an alias for my teacher Mr. Krisak. But giving them the benefit of the doubt, we'll assume it wasn't him. But that was the first time this assignment was anything more than impalpable.

He had asked us to prove to him and to ourselves that were real. Show me how you can tell that you are real. This got the class spouting off all of the usual ideas that I'm sure you can imagine. Everything from pain, to sense of touch to sense of loss to sense of hunger were spouted off to our teacher to prove to him that we were real. After every scenario that we gave him, he would come back with the one answer that would leave us speechless.

"What if you are nothing but someone else's dream?"

What if you were someone else's dream? What a messed up question that is. This was a question/scenario posed to us about 15 years ago, before the astronomical use of the Internet and rapid advancement of computers. How possible could it seem back then? But if you look at today's technology, now ask yourself, what it you were a part of someone else's dream.

Another brilliant but surreal film this year, David Lynch's Mulholland Drive explored similar areas. But Vanilla Sky goes deeper than any other film could hope to. In short this is one film that will literally (if you let it) blow your mind from all of the possibilities that surround you.

Open your Eyes.

Tom Cruise plays David Aames, a young, hot shot, righteous, full of himself publisher and owner of several magazines. He inherited this from his father and although he has talent and business savvy, his board of governers, the Seven Dwarfs, think he is a rich dink born with a silver spoon in his mouth. They feel he has done nothing to deserve the pinnacle of success that each and every one of them believes should go to them.

Early in the film we meet one of David's gorgeous toys named Julie Gianni, played with pernicious but bombastic perfection by Cameron Diaz. David and Julie play a good game, both claiming they are just there to use each other and are not the slightest bit interested in a monogamous, committed relationship. This is the type of relationship commensurate with David's other flings he's had in the sexual prime of his life. And although both talk a good game, we can tell that only one is really telling the truth.

Next we meet Brian Shelby, played with a stroke of genius by Kevin Smith's good buddy Jason Lee. Brian is writing a book that David is going to publish but they are also very good friends. This is something that David has very little of in his life and you can sense a real caring for one another early on in the film. Brian has one famous line that he keeps telling David over and over again. And that is " the sweet ain't so sweet without the bitter." He goes on to tell him that one day he will find true love and not just this part time lover status that he seems to perpetrate with all of the floozies who inhabit his bed for a night or two.

At David's huge birthday bash, (so huge that the likes of Steven Spielberg wish him a happy birthday) Brian enters with his date, Sofia Sorrano, played of course by Penelope Cruz with what has to be the best performance of this year by an actress. This is a bash by invite only and at first David and Sofia seem intrigued with one another. And in typical David fashion, despite his best friend being there, he begins to flirt with Sofia. To complicate things, Julie shows up uninvited and begins spying on David. David then spends the night with Sofia, but they only talk and draw caricatures of one another. There is no hanky panky. The next day, as David is leaving Sofia's apartment, he is greeted by Julie, who offers him a ride and from there.......well, I think we have all seen the commercials.

That is all I will really say about the plot, because from here the film teases us with what is reality and what is blurred perception. We are introduced to a character played by Kurt Russel and a few other shady characters that all play a part in this labyrinth like haze. There is a subtext of death and possible panacea-like cure-alls that may or not be able to create the possibility of eternal life. This is just one of the intriguing possibilities the movie offers us, but it doesn't end there.

Like many movies seem to thrive on today, this film has a secret. Sixth Sense may have began this craze, but look even further back and you can maybe thank Angel Heart for starting the craze. Regardless of how it originated, Vanilla Sky has one of it's own surreptitious gut busters. And what makes this one so much fun is that the film gives you many obvious clues along the way but not enough to give you an apodictic solution to the gauntlet of truth and lies you have just put yourself through. I have seen this film four times and every time it has been because I want to see if there is something more I can pick up, something more I can understand. To be able to work your mind in the theater, to enable it to open up to new possibilities is something rare in a film. All of the ersatz so called "Best Pictures of the year" have been good but nothing spectacular. They lack substance. A Beautiful Mind was intriguing but flat, The Royal Tenenbaums was interesting but uneven. Vanilla Sky is a rarity because it is a film that leaves you yearning for more yet guarantees your satisfaction because the film and those that made it care about it. I know this film has received mixed reviews but I just think that those who don't like it don't quite understand it.

This is what film making is supposed to be like. This is what a film is supposed to do to you. It is supposed to make you feel something. Most of the other films this year have been just empty spaces. This one isn't.

10 out of 10 The best film of the year. I would love to see this get nominated for best picture and I would love to see Cruz up for best Actress, Diaz for best supporting, Cruise for best actor and Jason Mewes should be a shoe in for best supporting actor. Cameron Crowe should there as well. None of this may come to pass, and that is a shame. This is one film that should not be missed.

And on a final note, I am quite sure Mr. Krisak would like this film and maybe this is the one film that may answer his question. Can you prove you are real? Or are we just a figment of someone's imagination? Are we artificially transplanted for someone else's bemusement? This is a film that spawns more questions than it does answers. And I'm sure that is just fine with him.

Open Your Eyes


Made me think about it for days after seeing it. That to me is the mark of a great movie. Eyes Wide Shut had the same effect on me. I am tired of these people requiring these happy Hollywood cookie-cutter endings. I am planning on going to see it again tonight to understand the plot a little better - but regardless, the emotional messages of the movie were totally felt.


It does seem like this film is polarizing us. You either love it or hate it. I loved it.

I agree with the comment(s) that said, you just gotta "feel" this one.

Also, early in the film, Tom Cruise shows his girlfriend a painting done by Monet--an impressionist painter. Monet's style is to paint in little dabs so up close the painting looks like a mess, but from a distance, you can tell what the subject is. Cruise mentions that the painting has a "vanilla sky". I believe this is a hint to the moviegoer. This movie is like that impressionist painting. It's impressionist filmmaking! And it's no coincidence that the title of the movie refers to that painting.

This is not your typical linear plot. It requires more thought. There is symbolism and there are scenes that jump around and no, you're not always going to be sure what's going on. But at the end, all is explained.

You will need to concentrate on this movie but I think people are making the mistake of concentrating way too hard on it. After it ends is when you should think about it. If you try to figure it out as it's unfolding, you will overwhelm yourself. Just let it happen..."go" with it...keep an open mind. Remember what you see and save the analysis for later.

I found all the performances top notch and thought it to be tremendously unique, wildly creative, and spellbinding.

But I will not critize the intelligence of those of you who didn't enjoy it. It appeals to a certain taste. If you like existential, psychedelic, philosophical, thought-provoking, challenging, spiritual movies, then see it. If you prefer something a little lighter, then skip it.

But if you DO like what I described, then you will surely enjoy it.


Note: These comments are for people who have seen the movie.

Vanilla Sky is a brilliant, complex, and thrilling movie that existentially explores exactly what the tag-line says: LoveHateDreamsLifeWorkPlayFriends. Maybe the movie plot can come into focus for confused movie-goers if one looks at it from a different angle.

Considering the following:

Now, I have not painstakingly gone through the film scene by scene, so I will have to further examine my assertions, (and I welcome your thoughts) but give this a try and see if the movie doesn't fall into place: Where exactly does the debatable 'splice' occur?

Now, I'm not talking about the splice as it is explained by the L.E. 'technician', since that sequence itself could be actually interpreted as a rationalization inside of David Aames's mind/dream/coma state, but the true splice between reality and dream.

It seems to me that the reality of the car crash, the way that it is filmed (no explosion, for example) is a likely 'splice' point, and that any particular sequence containing an existential/dream/coma/non-reality feel to it -- whether it's shown onscreen before or after the crash -- is actually a part of Aames' personal journey toward self-realization inside of his own mind.

In that respect, then, we are left with two questions at the very end(if you know of more, let me know): is Aames actually disfigured, and where does he wake up?

If you don't get entirely wrapped up in the exact sequence of details in the plot, or at what particular point his dreams are scattered throughout, this movie becomes a fascinating exploration of a human on a journey to find himself and what that means in today's pop-culture society.


Comparable to Fight Club, The Matrix, A.I., Sixth Sense, among others. This film approaches the psyche in a way never done before. The first 30 minutes builds a interesting love story between Diaz-Cruise-Cruz. The rest of the movie is, well, confusing, you'll pick more every time you watch it (i've gone to the movies to see it 3 times now)


I think a lot of people just wrote this off as another one of Tom Cruise's weird movies (Magnolia, Eyes Wide Shut) but Vanilla Sky is definitely its own movie. Many people said it was weird; it wasn't. It was different and confusing but not weird. Weird is Stanley Kubrick or Pauly Shore. Different is The Truman Show. Confusing is The Matrix or The Game. And unlike Kubrick, this movie has a conclusion. Everything makes sense -- maybe not immediately, maybe not even today, but it will make sense. Vanilla Sky is confusing because David Aames (Tom Cruise) is confused. THAT'S the point. That's where the so-called "weirdness" that turned critics away came in. If they had bothered to "open [their] eyes" as the original 1997 Spanish movie, they would have seen that. And if that's not enough reason to see it, go see it for the music. Cameron Crowe offers a wonderful soundtrack; he uses it to set the "feel" -- that notorious element that many movies lack. With songs like The Beach Boys' "Good Vibrations" playing at the dramatic and emotional climax of the movie, he creates an offbeat, yet astoundingly "right" feel. A wonderful film, in its script, music, acting, and images, Vanilla Sky is sadly, a superficial bandwagon movie that critics chide in order to appear intelligent. Excellent: A+


I am a huge fan of Say Anything, Jerry Maguire, and Almost Famous (I wasn't that big on Singles), so it's safe to say that I look forward to anything that Cameron Crowe attaches his name to. I went to see Vanilla Sky having been told that it was a very weird movie and that I probably wouldn't like it if I was expecting anything similar to Crowe's other films. Well, having just seen it, let me say that the former was correct, and the latter couldn't have been more wrong. It is a very weird movie, and nothing really comes together until the end. Anyone who tells you that they saw it coming halfway into the movie is either lying to you or is unable to detach their hindsight from their memory. Anyway, the movie was stellar, and I look forward to owning it as soon as the DVD is released. I was moved by the film, and felt emotionally spent by the end. This is an experience that will draw from the viewer the entire spectrum of human emotion, if the viewer allows him/herself into the plot. In the theatre in which I saw the movie, there were more than a few people who clearly lost track of the movie and were bored by it when they found that they were unable to get back into the plot. I'm sure others just lack the ability to properly follow any movie like this. I don't mean that to sound pompous, but some people are more cut out for the Seagal, Chan, Van Damme genre of movies, and these are the types that probably would not enjoy this movie. It is very cerebral, so make sure you are prepared for a two hour mental bender, as well as much thought afterwards.

As far as comparing this film to other Crowe movies, it is very similar in at least one regard, in all Crowe movies, the soundtrack is a character unto itself. This is almost definitely due to Crowe's longstanding ties to music, as anyone who has seen Almost Famous knows, and to his marriage to Heart star Nancy Wilson. It was also worthy to note that there was a definite chemistry between Tom Cruise's acting and Crowe's directing that made the movie seem familiar to anyone who has seen Jerry Maguire. In my mind, that is not a bad thing.

Anyway, if I had to compare this movie to any one other film, I would say this: if you enjoyed David Fincher's The Game, you will almost certainly be a fan of Vanilla Sky.


This game is the bomb and this is the 007 game of the year and should be on greatest hits. When I got Agent Under Fire, I thought that was a good game but then Nightfire came around and that was better, but now there is a new type of James Bond game. This time it a 3rd person shooter and there is more than 12 missions, the graphics of the game are out of this house. It even has all of the great actors and actresses in this game like Pierce Bronsan as once again James Bond, William Dafoe as the villain Nikolai Diavolo, and Judi Dench as M (forgive me all if I spell it wrong). This game would be own as the greatest James Bond game around.

I give this a 10/10


This is one of the best bond games i have ever played because:

The missions are very very fun to play they have lots of action in them they can be really hard sometimes that makes it even more fun the weapons that you use are really good. The cars in this game are really good the driving missions are fun to do. This James bond game has a good story to it. The voice over actors in this game are really good and it is cool that pierce brosnan is in this game and the way the characters look is really good because they look like what they look like in real life which is really cool. Also the graphics in this game pretty good.

Overall score ********* out of **********


Don't get me wrong. "GoldenEye" was revolutionary and is definitely the best FPS game to be based on the 007 franchise. But the series had fallen into a FPS rut. Enter "Everything or Nothing", which puts Bond in third-person. When I wrote my earlier review for "From Russia With Love", I had finished FRWL and just started EON and judged EON a bit harshly. Even though FRWL definitely has the edge in nostalgia and capturing the essence of the movie franchise, EON definitely is superior in terms of in-depth controls and gameplay variety. Missions range from standard running-and-gunning to driving an SUV, driving an Aston Martin, driving a limousine that is wired to explode, commandeering two different types of tanks a la "GoldenEye", riding a motorcycle, flying a helicopter, repelling down a shaft guarded by laser tripwires, and free falling after a plummeting damsel. Sure, vehicle controls are a little clumsy, but the issue here is the variety.

As movie adaptations, "GoldenEye" and FRWL were all that I could have hoped for. But EON's original storyline adds to the feeling of controlling a James Bond adventure. This is helped by the impressive cast list of Willem DeFoe, Shannon Elizabeth, Heidi Klum, and Misaki Ito. Judi Dench and John Cleese reprise their movie roles of M and Q, respectively, and Pierce Brosnan, while no Sean Connery, adds credibility to the game's proceedings. All characters resemble the stars, with the disappointing exception of Heidi Klum, who's in-game model doesn't do the real-life model justice. Mya's theme song is on par with at least some of the big screen Bond title tunes.

The game also plays tribute to some of the older Bond movies. Willem DeFoe's character is a former colleague of Christopher Walken's baddie from "A View to a Kill". Richard Kiel appears as Jaws, the hulking henchman from "The Spy Who Loved Me" and "Moonraker" in three fight scenes, the first and best of which proceeds in the same fashion a fight in the movies would have.

Single-player gameplay mainly consists of standard on-foot missions as Bond. Like Bond, you will be able to choose whether to use stealth or go out with guns blazing. The game provides plenty of opportunities to utilize stealth, with plenty of wall and object cover. Unfortunately, unlike FRWL, only one button in EON controls both crouching and wall clinging, so Bond may end up crouching low when he's supposed to be peeking around a corner, and vice-versa. The game also allows players to go into "Bond reflex" mode. While you browse your inventory, everything around you will go into super slo-mo, allowing you to analyze objects around you that can be interacted with. While this takes some getting used to, eventually this mode will allow you to perform many spectacular "Bond moments", such as shooting down a chandelier to take out four goons underneath, and greatly add to the Bond movie feeling.

There are 3 available difficulty levels: Operative, Agent, and Double Oh. On Operative, you can breeze through in a few hours. On Agent, a few weeks. On Double Oh, a few months. The difficulty level can be changed for each individual mission. Garnering high scores on missions will unlock gold and platinum awards and effect features such as vehicle upgrades and the skimpy outfits the Bond girls wear. Some missions can be extremely frustrating due to a scarcity of checkpoints, but when all is said and done, no mission is any longer than a single action scene in a Bond movie.

Multi-player, unfortunately, is not as thrilling. "GoldenEye" still has the best multi-player mode of any Bond game. EON's main multi-player is a co-op campaign mode that puts players in charge of lesser MI6 agents on a less important mission than Bond's. A more standard third-person death match can be unlocked from this mode. But the single-player mode is the most complete Bond experience to date. The ending, as with most Bond games, is anticlimactic. While the final mission is one of the most aggravating of the game, the final confrontation with the villain is disappointing. Also, levels that require Bond to be speedy become largely a matter of trial and error. Still, for any serious Bond fan, not playing this game is tantamount to missing one of the Bond films.


Goldeneye will always go down as one of thee most legendary games in VG history. Their is no doubt about that. But this game, although quite different, could quite possibly be the modern-day Bond champ, of its time.

This was not a bond game based on material from another medium. This was a completely new; scripted game. Which even had its own theme song! (wouldnt be bond without it, haha!) Gameplay was excellent, and if you're a fan of the bond games or films alike, you'll enjoy it.

Unlike some/most games, these cast members portrayed their characters themselves, as opposed to fictional creations for the game. Which gives it that more cinematic feel. With a very 'bond'-able storyline, you feel like you're in the game as much as you get lost in a movie.

Enjoyable in all aspects, from start to finish. Even after beating the game there's still plenty more to be done. With the ranking system and unlockables to be achieved, as well as its multi-player missions, this is a stand-out game. Despite being quite old now, in video game years. It's still a good game that you can pick up & play whenever you feel the need to get a little more Bond in your life. Even now just thinking about it, I've got the theme song stuck in my head. Such a great cast and well-written storyline.

The story comes to life on the screen, almost as if the actors were their in front of you, and is every bit as entertaining as the game itself. Superbly done, in true bond fashion. Which can only be named Awesome, Completely Awesome.

I've gotta go throw this game on now. If you haven't played it yet, you're missing out!


** Warning - this post may contain spoilers **

I only got a Gamecube in September 2005, and the first two games I bought were James Bond games, the decent Agent Under Fire and the dull Goldeneye Rogue Agent. The next game I planned to get was Everything or Nothing, because my friend told me that it was better than the two games I already had. I have to say, he was right.

I bought this for a tenner in HMV, and when I got home, I slammed it in to my Cube and played it for hours on end. It was much better than my other two games, and there was a much better and more interesting storyline. Graphics were some of the best I have seen (but now that the XBOX 360 has come out, Farcry Instincts Predator has some of the best graphics known to man). The storyline was clever; mad man (Willem Dafoe, named as Nikolai Diavolo) and beautiful henchwoman (Heidi Klum, named as Katya Nadanova), try to destroy the world with tiny nanobots, which at the start of the game, you, James Bond, have to destroy on a train. The bad thing is that one of them is hidden in Katya's boobs. You then have to thwart their plans and save the world.

The great thing about this game is that it actually has actors voicing the characters, such as Cleese voicing Q. There are 27 levels, some of them short and some of them pretty long and tricky.

Gameplay - 10/10 Graphics - 9/10 Sound - 9/10 Replay value - 7/10 Multiplayer - 8/10

I give this game a grand total of 90%


I have always been a huge James Bond fanatic! I have seen almost all of the films except for Die Another Day, and The World Is Not Enough. The graphic's for Everything Or Nothing are breathtaking! The voice talents......... WOW! I LOVE PIERCE BROSNAN! He is finally Bond in a video game! HE IS BOND! I enjoyed the past Bond games: Goldeneye, The World Is Not Enough, Agent Under Fire, and Nightfire. This one is definitely the best! Finally, Mr. Brosnan, (may I call him Mr. Brosnan as a sign of respect? Yes I can!) He was phenomenally exciting to hear in a video game....... AT LONG LAST! DUH! I've seen him perform with Robin Williams, and let me tell you, they make a great team. Pierce Brosnan is funny, wickedly handsome ( I mean to say wickedly in a good way,) and just one of those actor's who you would want to walk up to and wrap your arms around and hug, saying: "Pierce Brosnan, thank you for being James Bond," "If it wasn't for you, I wouldn't know who James Bond is." He's a great actor! I am a huge fan of Willem Dafoe even though I've seen him in a couple of movies. His role as Nikolai Diavalo was brilliant. (Did I spell the character's name right?) LOL!!!! He does a great job with an accent. Sometimes I can't even hear an accent. I have seen Willem, I mean Mr. Dafoe, perform in two movies: Finding Nemo, and Spider-Man with my favorite actress: KIRSTEN DUNST! SHE ROCKS! Anyway, He never ceases to amaze. And Richard Kiel, wow, he's definitely got the part of Jaw's nailed. I've seen him in the movie's and he's awesome! As a matter of fact, my Grandparent's have met Mr. Kiel, and I was jealous when they told me. But, Kirsten Dunst is at the top of my list of Celebritie's that I want to meet. John Cleese was breathtaking. I have never seen a better person play as the wisecracking, and gadget creating Q! Mr. Cleese was hilarious! I've seen him work with Pierce Brosnan in Goldeneye and Tommorow Never Dies. He's awesome! John Cleese's most recent project is Shrek 2 starring Mike Myer's, Cameron Diaz, Julie Andrew's and Eddie Murphy. ( Shrek 2 is now in theatre's!) GOOD LUCK 007! Oh, yeah, and as Q alway's says: "Grow up 007!"


I am a big fan a Faerie Tale Theatre and I've seen them all and this is one of the best! It's funny, romantic, and a classic. I recommend this for all ages. It's great for little kids because it's well, Cinderella and great for adults and teen because it's funny and not over the top. I watched it when I was little and I still watch it now. It has great lines that my family and I quote all the time. The acting is great and it never gets old. If you like fairy tales and romances you will love this. I've watched many a Cinderella movie in my time and this is the best of them all. (Sorry Disney) I highly recommend this movie and all the Faerie Tale Theatre shows. They all appeal to all ages and are all unique and very entertaining.


Here is one the entire family will enjoy... even those who consider themselves too old for fairy tales. Shelley Duvall outdid herself with this unique, imaginative take on nearly all of the popular fairy tales of childhood. The scripts offer new twists on the age-old fables we grew up on and they feature a handful of stars in each episode. "Cinderella" is no exception to Duvall's standard and in my opinion it's one of the top five of the series, highlighted by Jennifer Beals (remember her from "Flashdance"--and she's still in Hollywood today making a movie here and there) in the title role, Jean Stapleton as the fairy godmother with a southern accent and Eve Arden as the embodiment of wicked stepmotherhood. Edie McClurg ("Ferris Bueller's Day Off") and Jane Alden make for a hilarious duo as the stepsisters. Matthew Broderick is an affable Prince Henry. You'll all keep coming back for this one!


This is the best of Shelley Duvall's high-quality "Faerie Tale Theatre" series. The ugly stepsisters are broadway-quality comedy relief, and Eve Arden is the personification of wicked stepmotherhood. Jennifer Beals does an excellent job as a straight Cinderella, especially in the garden scene with Matthew Broderick's Prince Charming. Jean Stapleton plays the fairy godmother well, although I'm not sure I liked the "southern lady" characterization with some of the lines. Steve Martin's comedy relief as the Royal Orchestra Conductor is quintessential Martin, but a tiny bit misplaced in the show's flow.

As is customary with the series, there are several wry comments thrown in for the older children (ages 15 and up). With a couple of small bumps, the show flows well, and they live happily ever after. Children up to age 8 will continue to watch it after the parents finally get tired of it -- I found 3 times in one day to be a little too much.


This show is awesome! and I've seen it about 6 times.

Granted it may be lacking in educational content as some people like those sort of movies, but I think it's great, very funny and excellently written!


I haven't laughed that much in a long time - although the movie has some sad moments too, especially when it changes from hyper-funny to honest and serious. The characters are very realistic most of the times, sappy sometimes, but quite believable. I am not a fan of the Jerry Springer show - I feel sorry for the participating people. This film instead is a satire, and it is doing great.

Too bad that all expletives were *beeped* out while this movie aired on public tv, that takes a lot of fun out of it. I will go rent this movie to fully enjoy it.


The film maybe goes a little far, but if you love the show it's what you expect. It's not a bad movie; it's actually pretty good. If you don't like the show, don't see the movie. It starts off a little slow maybe, but then picks up and turns out to be pretty funny. There are even a few "heart-wrenching" scenes toward the end. After all the protagonists have gone through these scences do get to you. Also Jerry throws in his opinion why his show upsets people and justifies his show's existience. He's got a pretty good point. We care so much about the private details of celebrities lives, so why is it wrong that these people tell their private lives on national TV, too. If they were celebrities we wouldn't mind at all, we'd eat it up. Do we not like his guest doing this just because they're poor white trash and it reminds us that there really is poverty in this world and not just rich glamous movie stars living in a "Leave it to Beaver" world?


I can't agree with any of the comments. First time I saw the film on a UK TV channel, it was presented as an indie film and if you take the film under this angle I think it's an all different matter. I couldn't believe what I was seeing and got hooked instantly. The plot may be as bad as a JS's show (ie there is no plot) but the acting is wicked, it's hilarious and it's all in all an incredible trash movie.

It says as much about America than a Bully or a Ken Park without the drama perspective but it gives a glimpse on the US society, and more precisely on what afternoon TV viewers in America (and I believe there are plenty of them !) are interested in. After all it's the neighbours we're talking about, don't we ?

100% fun !


It's highly stylized, but this movie shows that real people appear on these shows and what seems like good fun and a chance to appear on television can have serious consequences.

Yes, i's mostly comedy, but there are some sad moments.


I thought the movie was extremely funny and actually very interesting. It was raw and honest and felt as if I was really watching the "real people" not actors. It's great entertainment, it also painted the people as human on our level not below us. It is a very good film.


An old saying goes "If you think you have problems, visit a hospital." That has been updated in recent years to "If you think you have problems, watch a TV talk show...especially Jerry Springer's!" This movie is one of those that is so bad, it's good! That's why I gave it a seven-it's all right, but not great. It's a great way to waste 95 minutes, just as the daily talk show is advertised as "an hour of your life you'll never get back!" All the familiar themes are here...unfaithful husbands/boyfriends, the wildest audience on television, women flashing Jerry, etc. The shocker was watching Molly Hagan, who normally plays sweet characters ("Seinfeld" and "Herman's Head") playing a trailer-trash mom and Jaime Pressly ("My Name Is Earl") as her equally trashy daughter, performing sexual favors for virtually every man with whom they came in contact. The men (including the staff producer) were presented as quintessential lunkheads who deserved what they got. I don't want to spoil or reveal everything but the movie plays like the daily show. Here in Phoenix, it's shown back-to-back for two hours every morning and, after that, everything else seems to pale. Again, I give this movie a seven...it's good but not great. Jerry Springer is best taken in small one hour doses.


I rented the film (I don't think it got a theatrical release here) out expecting the worse. The previews made the film look awful. I was in fact very surprised, it was well worth watching; it was loosely scripted, almost like an ensemble piece of film. It had some very funny moments in it and although flawed is an effective satire on the show and the people on the show without being too scathing. It is flawed, mainly by the awful soundtrack of bludgeoning 'comedy' effects but on the whole it comes across as honest and generally true to form of the show in an altmanesque or Larry Sanders way.

At the moment it is the fashion to be critical of Jerry Springer, he is also an easy target. Springer could have made Citizen Kane and it would be proclaimed 'the worst film ever made'. I recommend this film for anybody interested in the show. A flawed but innovative and interesting piece of film.


Personally, I disdain The Jerry Springer Show, however, I found "Ringmaster" to be the funniest movie I've seen this year. The never-ending satire of Jerry Springer "guests" starting in the opening scene keeps you laughing throughout the movie. Despite a brief scene in which Jerry Springer makes a feeble attempt at justifying his existence, I definitely recommend this movie for sheer entertainment value.


Just saw the movie, and the scary thing was, the people talking during the movie sounded just like the actors. The movie had its moments, but also lagged and was rather sick. It was all meant to be a farce, but once you see the pathetic lives of the people in the movie, you think to yourself "People like this are all around us" All attempts at getting the audience's sympathy are dashed as the actors do one stupid thing after another. On the plus side, there are some great (and funny) insults. I think I would wait for video- but it was a good laugh. WARNING- Jerry takes his shirt off during the movie!! (not a pretty sight!)


The Ancient Mariner is a truly classic piece of work, as the original poem was/is. The context/setting with the old mariner himself is fine, clear, and without pretense. The artistic work that accompanies the reading of the poem fits perfectly the time/period of the setting and of the work itself, carrying the audience into the period with a still, yet moving accompaniment, using excellent still-movement strategies only well conquered by the pre-MTV era producers and much less apparent in more current works. (MTV brought to television and video a static movement that races through, often irrelevant cuts, from theme to theme without forward movement and without clear relationships to theme or storyline.) The voice, intonation and vitality of Redgrave's reading brings this touching poem to life with all its fear, strife and pain. In addition, the smooth movement of the video emphasizes the cadence and occasional monotone (in this case a positive mood under the theme of the story itself)of the author's rendition of the ancient mariner's sad and spooky tale. This is a must for any love of classic poetry, the sea, a tall tale, that almost rings true, and a story that has left a lasting impact on our world and culture. Who does not understand the meaning of an "albatross"? or the concept of "water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink?" A truly fine experience. Thank you Mr. DaSilva for bringing this to life for us, never to be forgotten.


The blend of biography with poetry and live action with animation makes this a true work of art. The narration by Sir Michael Redgrave is moving. The length of the work makes it easily accessible for class room exposure or TV/Video time slots.


Recently, a friend and I were discussing educational and ethical influences when we were growing up in the 1950's versus today. She mentioned Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who, in 1798, wrote The Rime of The Ancient Mariner. Both of us had been required to recite parts of the epic poem in high school and in English Literature courses in college. My friend said, "Its messages even might be called metaphysical within today's context."

We tried reciting it and only remembered bits and pieces. (I have problems remembering Dr. Seuss.) I said I'd get two copies of the poem so each could read it. That was easy enough, but I was extremely surprised to find it had been made into a film. We looked forward to watching the film to see how it had been interpreted. After all, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner isn't exactly light reading. After each had read the poem, we watched the film together.

We considered the film a remarkable achievement, especially considering it was made in the 1970's, before computers, before the so-called "Ken Burns effect," and before special effects too often began compensating for a lack of substance. Particularly noteworthy are the 19th and 20th century illustrations culled from "lesser known artists," such as Willy Pogany, the early Hollywood designer.

The film is narrated by Sir Michael Redgrave, whom had taught the poem when he was a schoolmaster, adding a tone of authority and credibility in remaining true to the poem.

Its mastery is in the layers of subtle messages, conveyed without "instructing," or becoming an oppressive and obvious morality tale. We found it such a refreshing change from today's 'in your face' and 'clobber them over the head' mentality. Most of today's morality messages in film are two-dimensional: extreme violence, murder and mayhem mark the bad. The bad are really, really, bad, and good are super heroes. It is as if human character lacked any nuance. The Rime of The Ancient Mariner is a celebration of the individual, of character, of an appreciation for celebrating all the richness life has to offer, within the larger context of humanity, i.e., man's capacity to give to others.

Proud of ourselves for having found this "unknown" gem, we then learned it had won the top award in its category five out of six times at "name" international film festivals. Another surprise was learning the film's director, Raul daSilva, is a recognized authority on early animation, and authored six award winning books about film.

This film's message is just as relevant today, if not more so, than when Coleridge penned the original epic poem and when Raul daSilva translated it to film. If I still was teaching high school, which I did for five years, I'd grab this one and show it to all my students. There's a level of richness here that naturally leads to discussion about the big and important issues all of us face, whether in 1798, 1978, or today--in fact, as long as humanity has a spiritual component.

Highly recommended.


This filmed presentation of "the Rime of the Ancient Mariner" is a most beautiful and interesting rendition of Coleridge's haunting poem. The striking cinematography, combined with a collection of two centuries of efforts to illustrate the epic poem of 1798 by world famous artists, and Michael Redgrave's superb narration, are very well worth the time to view this excellent visual work.

In the age of television, such work as this is an invaluable tool to induce young students, as well as adults, to explore and to learn the value of great poetry. To the best of my knowledge,this kind of work is indeed rare; that is regrettable. As a student of world literature and as a former college professor and academic counselor, I feel that more great epic poems like Coleridge's "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" should be so "translated." Although not a movie critic, but as an avid reader of classic literature, I am glad to recommend this fine production without any reservations whatsoever.


I first saw this video 15 years ago. I thought it was excellent then and I still do. I am a former teacher of English (high school and college) and a lover of English Romantic poetry, so Coleridge rates highly with me. Anything which might detract from the beauty of the poem or the power of the story wouldn't get my vote of excellence. In this case, everything works well to engage the viewer, especially high school students. The story is well illustrated for a generation which grew up on television. In addition, the voice of Michael Redgrave adds a sense of authenticity and authority to it. Okay, so there wasn't a big budget for the project. So it wasn't Star Wars and there's no CGI in it. But who can dismiss Gustave Doré illustrations as part of the presentation? The comment above, which in just four lines dismisses the video as a piece of trash, is grossly unfair and unperceptive. I'm a friend of the producer, but that isn't my reason for this comment. Rather, I'm defending a work of artistry which I think has value on all levels. It is well suited to bring Coleridge's poem to students in a way which awakens their appreciation of it and awakens their sympathy for the lesson which the ancient mariner imparts.


Thirty years after its initial release, the third version of "A Star Is Born" finally comes to DVD in a package that should please the most devoted fans of Barbra Streisand. That would include me since I just saw her in concert singing among other numbers, the feminist anthem "Woman in the Moon" from this 1976 film. Easy to dismiss, the movie's career-polarizing story is such a sturdy pile of Hollywood-style clichés that variations of it exist in other films including Streisand's own "Funny Girl". This time reset to the then-contemporary music scene, the timeworn plot follows self-destructive rock star John Norman Howard on his deep-dive career descent just as he meets club singer Esther Hoffman who is awaiting her big break.

Troubles dog their courtship from the outset, as John Norman (both names please) responds to grasping fans and bloodless DJs with random acts of violence (from which he inexplicably escapes prosecution). To John Norman, Esther represents his last shot at happiness, and in turn, she is drawn to the innately decent, creative musician underneath the façade. In the movie's most pivotal scene, he gives Esther her big break at a benefit concert, and her career takes off. Inevitably, he can't handle the failure of his career in light of her meteoric success, and if you are familiar with any version of this story, you know the rest. Directed by Frank Pierson (although Streisand's budding directorial talents are obviously on display), the film still manages to draw me in, even though I know it is shamelessly contrived and manipulative. It still has a certain emotional resonance despite its numerous flaws.

Although Streisand in her prime seems like the ideal choice to play a rising singing star, her screen persona is simply too strong and predefined to play Esther credibly. The same can be said for her performing style since the script seems to make allowances for her softer Adult Contemporary-oriented material to be accepted within the otherwise hardened world of arena rock. From the moment she pops her head up as the middle of the Oreos, she can't help but come across as an established star. I can forgive the lapse simply because she is an unparalleled vocal talent, but what becomes less forgiving is how she makes Esther more strident than poignant when John Norman's woes become overwhelming. This creates an oddly discomfiting dynamic in the last part of the film when it becomes less about what caused the climactic event than Esther's response to it. This is capped off by an uninterrupted eight-minute close-up of her memorial performance - great except when she regrettably mimics John Norman's style toward the end.

Kristofferson, on the other hand, gives a superb performance throughout, managing a level of honesty that grounds the film and makes palpable his concurrent feelings of love, pride and resentment toward Esther. He makes his vodka-soaked onstage growling work within this context. Otherwise, what always strikes me as strange about this version is how all the supporting characters are relegated to the background as if they didn't exist unless they were interacting with the two principals. The only ones who register are Paul Mazursky as John Norman's level-headed manager Brian and Gary Busey as his cynical band manager Bobbie. Veteran cameraman Robert Surtees provides a nice burnish to the cinematography though a level of graininess persists in the print. A big seller in its day, the soundtrack is a hodgepodge of different styles from the 1970's - some songs still quite good ("Everything", "Woman in the Moon", "Watch Closely Now"), some that have moved to kitsch ("Queen Bee", Kenny Loggins' "I Believe in Love") and of course, the inescapable "Evergreen".

The print transfer on the 2006 DVD is clean and the sound gratefully crisp thanks to digital remastering. Streisand's participation is the chief lure of the extras beginning with her feature-length commentary. She gives insightful information about the genesis of the film, the casting and the reportedly troubled production. She is also refreshingly candid about the megalomania of Jon Peters, her hairdresser boyfriend who became the movie's producer, and her dissatisfaction with Pierson as a director. I just wish she could have provided more scene-specific comments that directly relate to what is on screen. She also tends to repeat the same anecdotes when the mood strikes her, e.g., it gets tiring to hear for the third time how the person playing the chauffeur was a friend of Peters. I think having a second commentator could have drawn out other nuggets from her.

There is a wardrobe test reel that shows some amusing 1970's clothes, especially Kristofferson's mixed-fabric poncho and orange polyester shirt. There are also twelve deleted scenes included with Streisand's optional commentary. One is a comic bread-baking scene which reminded me how much I like Streisand in farcical comedies. Another is an extended scene in which she plays "Evergreen" on the guitar in front of an awestruck Kristofferson who then falls asleep. The most interesting is an alternate take on the musical finale incorporating fast cuts, which I agree with Streisand should have been used. Fittingly, the theatrical trailers for all three versions of "A Star Is Born" are also included.


My mom took me to see this movie when it came out around Christmas of 1976. I loved it then and I love it now. I know everyone makes fun of Barbra's hair in this one, but I think she looks and sounds great! ...And I seem to remember a number of women who copied that permed look at the time! Also, the bath tub scene between Streisand and Kristoferson is just so sexy! The music is great as well. This is the groovy 70's Babs at her best!


A blockbuster at the time of it's original release (it was the second-highest grossing film of 1976), the third screen version of A STAR IS BORN has always divided critics and fans alike. The film open to scathingly negative reviews, however, $5.6 million-budgeted picture went on to gross over $150 million at the box office and won an Academy Award and five Golden Globes. It's not without some irony that Streisand's most commercially successful film would also remain her most controversial. For every ten fans who state that STAR is Streisand's best film, there are always ten more who claim it is the weakest film in her filmography. Although both sides have some merit to support their claims, it should still be noted that the seventies take on A STAR IS BORN remains one of the most touching and highly entertaining showbiz dramas that Hollywood ever produced. For my money, it's the best version of the often-told tale.

The film is solidly enjoyable and throughly absorbing. Changing the setting from the old Hollywood studio system to the competitive world of the music industry was actually a great idea, and the screenplay forges a realistic contrast between the characters' romance and their careers. This is the main area that the 1976 version of A STAR IS BORN actually surpasses it's classic predecessors. For example, the film is especially successful when depicting the clashing personal and professional difficulties during recording sessions and the never-ending phone calls that interrupt Kristofferson's songwriting attempts. This version of the story is also more believable in it's portrayal of the lead characters. For example, the female leads in the two previous versions were so virtuous and self-sacrificing that they came off as saints. On the other hand, Esther, the female lead in this version, is not only portrayed as being strong and passionate, but also flawed and conflicted. This makes her feel more "real" than the Janet Gaynor or Judy Garland characters felt in the previous films, and makes the story that much more effective.

The performances are all on target, even if some of the supporting characters aren't fleshed out enough. If you're looking for an actress/singer who can walk the fine line between tough and vulnerable without making herself seem like a script contrivance, Streisand is definitely the girl you want. She's one of the few film stars who can make even the most banal dialogue seem fresh and natural, and, as usual, she manages to make a strong emotional connection with the viewer. Simply put, her Esther is a fully-realized, three-dimensional human being. Kris Kristofferson may not get much respect now for his laid-back characterization, however, he's always interesting watch and displays a magnetic charisma here that he seldom displayed elsewhere in his career. Kristofferson actually received rave reviews at the time from NEWSWEEK, TIME, and even the NEW YORKER's usually vicious Pauline Kael. Gary Busey and Paul Mazursky also give believable performances, but both have a fairly minimal amount of screen time.

The film's soundtrack recording was also a massive success, hitting the #1 on Billboard's Hot 200 and selling over four million copies in the US alone. The Streisand-composed "Evergreen" (with lyrics from Paul Williams) is unarguably one of the most gorgeous songs in contemporary pop, brought to even-further life by an absolutely incomparable vocal performance from Streisand. The rest of the film's original songs (mostly composed by Williams and Rupert Holmes) are pretty good as well, and Streisand sounds fantastic - her live solo numbers remain in the memory long after the rest of the movie has faded. Streisand's vibrant performances bring "Woman In The Moon" and "With One More Look At You" to thrilling life, and make even sillier numbers like "Queen Bee" work far better than they have the right to. Kristofferson's solo numbers sound somewhat tuneless, however, that may have been intentional since he is playing a singer in decline.

Though naturally dated in some respects (it definitely does reflect the decade in which it was made), the seventies take on A STAR IS BORN still holds up remarkably well. The film is well-mounted and slickly produced, the chemistry between the leads is extremely powerful and always feels genuine, and Streisand has two emotional scenes near the finale that are both aching effective. In conclusion, A STAR IS BORN is not only entertaining and moving, but it also transcends all criticism.


I am and was very entertained by the movie. It was my all time favorite movie of 1976. Being raised in the 70's , I was so in love with Kris Kristoffersons look and demeanor,of course I am no movie critic,but for the time era,I think it was very good. I very much like the combo of Streisand and Kristofferson. I thought they worked very well together. I have seen the movie many times and still love the two of them as Esther and John Norman. I am a very huge fan of Kris and see him in concert when I can. What a talented singer song writer,not to mention,actor. I have seen him in many movies,but still think back to A star is Born.


Personnaly I really loved this movie, and it particularly moved me. The two main actors are giving us such great performances, that at the end, it is really heart breaking to know what finally happened to their characters.

The alchemy between Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson is marvelous, and the song are just great the way they are.

That's why I didn't feel surprised when I learned it had won 5 golden globe awards (the most rewarded movie at the Golden Globes), an Oscar and even a Grammy. This movie is a classic that deserves to be seen by anyone. A great movie, that has often been criticized (maybe because Streisand dared to get involved in it, surely as a "co-director"). Her artistry is the biggest, and that will surely please you!


She is such an extraordinary singer, who cares about anything else!!!! That final scene is one of the best moments in all of show biz - bar none!! I'm glad she kept the camera on herself for ten minutes - she deserves that iconic status - such is the power of the voice.

I first saw this film when I was five and it had a huge impact on me. I see it today, and yes, I can see some of the flaws (like Esther wanting to leave the Grammy's right as her award is being announced).

But some of the other user comments are just plain false - I mean, where is the gratuitous nudity - maybe we saw different films???

Streisand's singing ability is monumental, and if she has a big ego - fine!

She's earned it.


I swear when I first saw this movie,I cried my eyes out! A STAR IS BORN is the movie that lets you know what love is really like despite the obstacles John Norman (Kris Kristofferson) and Esther (Streisand) face. You also experience what it's like to lose a love like that by the end of the movie. Streisand and Kristofferson have such great chemistry together and the music is fantastic! When Streisand sings With one more look at you/Watch closely now, it's just pure magic! This movie made the song Evergreen one of my favorites,and Queen Bee is such a fun song. Also I love the fashion of the '70s (except Streisand's afro. Besides that,she's a beauty.). A Star is Born is my number one favorite movie. This movie is a pleasure to watch and is a heart-breaker at the end.


I saw the trailer for this movie in the 70's when I was barely 16 while viewing another film. Oh!!!! how excited me and my best friend were. we couldn't wait for the month or so until it would come on. I saw this movie 17 times that year at the theatre. I love,love,love it. Kris is so perfect for the film. He is brash and kinda trashy but also shy and uncertain with Babs and it is so endearing to watch it again. When they sing evergreen at the studio and he chimes in with his raspy voice so very different from the perfect notes coming from her but I always thought this was one of the best scenes in the movie. The way he looks at her and he is so proud.I could watch this movie every day. We tried to dress like est-her I even have the long sweater and cap that was so like the one she wore. this came on TV on time and I got my daughters to watch it they were teens and they loved it to. Maybe its just that I was so caught up into it at an age when everything was extreme don't know. The ending always has me in tears even today.


Considering 'A Star is Born' had been made twice already by the time the 1976 film came into production, the latest remake has a freshness about it that can be attributed to the fantastic chemistry between the entire acting ensemble. A viewer could be forgiven for believing that Kris Kristofferson & Barbara Streisand were a couple off screen as well as on, with their incredible displays of pure affection towards one another.

The film has been described in the past as a 'Barbara Streisand concert on film, set to a soap opera storyline' however for anyone that enjoys watching a film that takes you beyond the living room into a world where the characters seem truly alive - A Star is Born is well worth the hiring price.

With its incredible soundtrack, flawless acting and touching reality in regards to human emotions and the true frailty of life; A Star is Born is a film that draws you into the world of Esther Hoffman & the love of her life John Norman Howard.

A film for anyone that sees the beauty in real love - the kind that keeps you devoted to a person even as they break your heart...


Barbra Streisand is a tour de force in this Hollywood story. Her performances and the songs are one-of-a-kind and are special in the halls of great movies. The scene where she is introduced to the unexpecting audience by Kristopherson, against the crowds' wishes and hers, only to turn them around with her magnificent performance of "Woman In the Moon" is one of the best examples on film of how well a great performer can win over an audience. It's real. The scene where she records Evergreen ranks with the best in the business.. all live, no lip-sync, very special. Streisand is often criticized for being a Diva, but she delivers on this one. She is majestic singing "With One More Look At You. She deserved the Oscar she and Paul Williams got for Evergreen. Kristopherson had his moments too, far above most of his movie appearances. This version of the "Born" franchise ranks with the first one of 1937 (Janet Gaynor, Frederic March)although I will always enjoy Judy Garland and James Mason musical remake of 1954. I haven't seen the DVD yet and don't know about its quality.


I was 16 when I first saw the movie, and it has always been a HUGE favorite of mine. Of course, you can't deny the appeal of Kristofferson in the movie - HOW FINE IS THAT MAN???????????? Sheesh. He still is. He's the bad boy every woman secretly wants. His acting is flawless. He played a drunk/druggie only the way someone who really had gone through it could - and he had - in '76 he finally got on the wagon, so it was all very real.

The music is GREAT and even though in later years I thought Streisand was somewhat not the right person for him in a physical beauty sense, I think it's more a problem for male viewers than female. Us gals are just looking at Kris - and naturally the guys are looking at the female interest - my husband cannot watch the movie b/c of her - he doesn't like her looks. But I did make him sit through just the red Ferrari scene on the road towards the end just so he could see how well done it was - the camera work was so perfect and you were totally in the car with him with the music blasting - you should have seen it on my 50" plasma - WOW!!!! And lastly, the transfer quality was GREAT - anamorphic widescreen and really clear with great color and very low noise except for dark areas which is normal for all film.

Brought back some great memories of my mom and I loving this movie together, I bought a copy for her for Christmas. Would have loved to watch it together with her last night.

I have tried to sit through the original with Judy Garland, but I guess seeing this one first, I just can't get into the earlier era. Watching all the concert footage in the '76 version was so much like what I was living at the time.

I am working my way through the commentary by Streisand, but she seems to only talk about herself and the songs, so far she has barely even mentioned Kris or details about scenes in the movie. Her voice sounds EXACTLY the same now as then.

Check it out, if you grew up in the same era as me (born in 1960) you will love it.

Wendy


For my humanities quarter project for school, i chose to do human trafficking. After some research on the internet, i found this DVD and ordered it. I just finished watching it and I am still thinking about it. All I can say is "Wow". It is such a compelling story of a 12 year old Vietnamese girl named Holly and an American man named Patric who tries to save her. The ending leaves you breathless, and although it's not a happily-ever-after ending, it is very realistic. It is amazing and I recommend it to anyone! You really connect with Holly and Patric and your heart breaks for her and because of what happens to her. I loved it so much and now I want to know what happens next!


I just watched Holly along with another movie about trafficking and child sexual exploitation called Trade at Film by the Sea international film festival. I have to say that Holly blew Trade out of the water.

Holly is a powerful and amazing film on many different levels. From purely an artistic and cinematic perspective, it is amazing. The sound-mixing, camera angles, directing and acting are all spot on.

Additionally, the way it handles the subject matter is tasteful and non-exploitative. It presents the issue of child sexual exploitation in a way that is both educational and accurate. The filmmakers paid an exquisite amount of attention to detail, truly capturing the nuances of the epidemic of child sexual exploitation and trafficking. Too often when dealing with a subject matter of this kind, it is tempting to shock the audience with graphic scenes of rape, and violence. Holly is able to achieve all of this without falling into that typical Hollywood trend.

I've had the pleasure of seeing Holly at two separate film festivals, once in the US and once in Netherlands. I can honestly say that I have never seen audiences more moved. Just listening to conversations after the screening, people are asking what they personally can do to fight child sexual exploitation.

I highly recommend it to everyone, both for its cinematic value and its subject matter.


Wow, this film had a huge impact on me, it moved me,. It is an amazing story about a girl in Cambodia who is sold into the sex trade. I can not stop thinking about the fate of the little girl named Holly. The setting of the film is realistic, The film was an eye opener, I can not imagine anyone walking away from it with out wanting to help make a change with this horrifying problem that exsists.

The content of the film was very very moving. It was one of the best films that I have seen this year. The

girl who plays Holly does a fantastic job with her character. Ron Livinston gives a fantastic performance. The film moved me to tears, It tells an important message that needs to be heard worldwide. Everyone should go see this film. I think this film will make a difference, I loved it!


Brilliant! My wife and I joined the sprawling line to see Holly at the Edinburgh Film Festival. After seeing the film, I can understand why there was such a long line. Holly is a touching story about an impossible connection between two people. She is a young girl, he is a worn out westerner. The film grasped every bone in our body. There aren't any graphic scenes or anything that is hard to watch - its the surrealism of normality that really kicks you in the gut. The film is beautifully shot. Among others, we loved the scene where Patrick teaches Holly to ride a small motorcycle. Thuy Ngoyen's rawness (cant believe this is her first acting job)and Ron Livingston's performance stayed with me for a couple of days. Highly recommended.