Panahi, whose previous films such as The Circle and Crimson Gold have seemed to range from dour to grim, has produced in his new Offside a funny, obstreperous, joyously chaotic ensemble piece that ends on a note of liberation and heartfelt fun  yet the movie deals with material quite as challenging and relevant as anything else he's done. By focusing on a group of ardent girl soccer fans caught sneaking into the pre-World Cup Bahrain-Iran match in Tehran stadium, Panahi brings up issues of national spirit and independent-mindedness, and the contradictions  and sheer absurdity  of the regime's religious gender apartheid in a world of modern competition with a majority youth population and urban girls who increasingly think for themselves.

As the film opens we breathlessly join one of the girls in a bus, with a father pursing a lost daughter. This one has a disguise and has national colors as warpaint, but we cringe with her in the knowledge of what's going to happen: she's still easily spotted. The thing is, most of the men around don't really care. Still, rules are rules, and once they try to make it through the various checkpoints on the way into the big stadium the would-be soccer girls, or some of them anyway, get rounded up and held in a little compound upstairs in the stadium by some mostly young, green, and rustic soldier-cops who have no idea how to deal with these big city girls' independent ideas and would rather be watching the game  whose roar we constantly hear in the background  themselves. Each girl is different  represents a different set of reasons for wanting to break the rules and different ways of doing it. One wore a soldier's uniform and got into the officers' section. One is tough and masculine and mocking and provocative (she could pass for a pretty boy, and teasingly hints at that: "Are you a girl or a boy?" "Which would you like me to be?"). One doesn't care very much about soccer but went to honor a dead comrade. One (Aida Sadeghi) is an ardent soccer player herself  and so on. These Tehrani girls are stubborn and smart and they walk all over the uptight rural lieutenant in charge of them (Safar Samandar). One of the rural cops (Mohamad Kheirabadi) takes the girl soccer player to the men's restroom (of course there's no ladies'), forcing her to wear a poster of an Italian football star as a mask. A comedy of errors and chaos follows in which the girl escapes.

Later a spiffy looking van comes with an officer who directs the cops to take the girls to the Vice Department  violating sexual segregation rules qualifies as vice. A male gets mixed in with them  a kid who's chronically guilty of smuggling fireworks into the games. The van turns out not to be so spiffy: the radio aerial is broken. But one cop holds it in place so they can listen to the increasingly heart-stopping reportage. Cops and prisoners are all joined in a common excitement now. There's no score, the game goes to penalty kicks, and the winner will go to Germany.

In the background through all this is a real game, a real stadium, and real masses of young men crazy about the outcome of this event. The excitement is tremendous, and the streets are jammed with cars and flags and a milling mob of supporters praying for an Iranian win and united in their excitement.

What makes this film so good, as may be clear by now, is that it's shot during the evening of an actual game with a real finale that turns everything around. This, in contrast to Panahi's previous highly calculated narrative trajectories, is spontaneous vérité film-making that improvises in rhythm with a captured background of actual events and sweeps you into its excitement in ways that are quite thrilling.

The essence of Offside is the disconnect between modern world soccer madness and retro-Islamic social prohibitions repressing women  the latter existing at a time when young Iranian women are becoming part of a global world in which females participate in sport and share in the ardor of national team spirit. How exactly do you reconcile the country's ambition to become a modern global power with social attitudes that are medieval? A lot of Offisde is astonishingly real, including the way everybody tries to talk their way out of everything. The director's decision to inject young actors into an actual sports mega-event leads to a stunningly effective blend of documentary, polemic, and fiction that is too energetic to seem to have a bone to pick, and that ends in a way that's brilliant and moving.

I've had reservations about Panahi's films before, but this one kicks ass. Panahi does something remarkable here. He critiques his society, presents an unusual drama, and touches our hearts with a sense of a nation's aspirations.


Another fantastic film from a country, where due to decades of oppression from fundamentalist regimes, has no problems in creating passionate subject matter. Panahi takes a different approach this time around with a blend of ironic comedy and an endearing, non-professional cast. While still getting across his message of what he sees as being inherently wrong with his country, he does so without the need of a heavy storyline. It is a positive take on a country, in particular its people, that the Iranian population desperately need. The greatest pity is it won't be released domestically. The insular, paranoid Iranian government assert that this fine film maker is only successful overseas because he is part of a global conspiracy to embarrass them. After growing up amid revolution and watching the academics, artists and educated 'disappear' over the last 25 years he shows great bravery in continuing to put his work out there. The realism achieved by shooting at the actual world cup qualifier really transports you to the event. The fact he shot it on 35mm is amazing as most would only attempt this project using a digital format. It looks fantastic. His insistence in only using non-professional actors also really works in this film. Fine performances all round. After watching many films showing the problems Iran has and also the news media reporting the facts we can tend to demonise the people as well as the government. This film does the opposite. It shows us they still love the same things and that by laughing at themselves and the absurd rules of sharia law that maybe a change for the better isn't too far away. Some call Panahi a feminist film maker but I think he just fights for the most oppressed demographic in Iran. Young, independent women.


In Iran, the Islamic Revolution has shaped all parts of life, including everyday things. But people still go on living their lives, generally just doing the things you'd expect, like go to soccer matches to cheer on the national team as it's in the running to qualify for the World Cup. Except women aren't allowed to go to the soccer stadium to watch the game.

A frequently funny little film follows the small group of women that were caught sneaking into the soccer stadium and the little group of bored soldiers assigned to guard them in a holding pen just outside the stadium. The absurdity of the situation, the simple wish of these women to cheer on the team (nothing subversive there), and little human touches about the lives of everyone adds up to quite a fine comment on humanity versus the ideology.

Amateurish acting, good script and dialogue, a really enjoyable film. Bend It Like Beckham, sort of - a warm heart and a joy in the daily interests and pleasures of people.


This was the first of Panahi's films that I have seen, I saw it at Melbourne film festival. I was totally absorbed by the different characters that he creates and how differently they react and behave compared to Aussie kids and yet on other levels how similarly. I think perhaps if more people could see movies like this, they could see people as individuals and avoid racism that can often be fueled by the fear of the unknown. There are the obvious large political differences between Oz culture and Iranian culture, but I found the more subtle differences between the characters, that this film fleshes out so successfully on screen, extremely fascinating. There are idiosyncrasies in the characters that seem to me, so unique. I found it made the characters compelling viewing.


That's what one of the girls said at the end.

Is the soccer game a metaphor for a qualifying game between the girls (or more broadly, a free-thinking group) and the authority? "To Germany" means to a future that's of hope?

It's one of the most unforgettable cinematic experience I've ever had -- despite the crude cinematography and plot, and mild over-acting (though I like the cast -- they're lovable and well above the expectation for amateurs). The ridiculous situation is well captured. I can feel the deep frustration being denied to a game (being female and a soccer fan) and I cannot stop thinking how to make a convincing disguise. I wonder why there's no women's section in which protection from dirty language and bad behavior can be provided -- defeating the flawed reasons for the deny.

The movie is very cleverly made -- the amazing title, the filming during the actual game, the spontaneity, and various methods to put the viewers into the shoes of the characters -- the game that's so important but inaccessible (not shown), the luring light and cheering sound from the stadium, the confinement of the van, and the uselessness of it when those inside connect with the celebrating crowds outside. I can feel the comfort coming from the radio, the drinks and the food, and of course, the kindness and consideration from each character to others. During the end credits, I am amused that no character has a name -- he's just any "soldier" and she's just any "girl" or "sister".


I have to point out, before you read this review, that in no way, is this a statement against Iranian people ... if you really want to read something into it, than hopefully you see, that I'm against politicians in general ... but if you're looking to be offended ... I can't help you!

Not in Iran as this movie is banned there (see IMDb trivia for this movie). Which is a shame, because the movie is great. Would it not be for "Grbavica", this movie would have won at the International Film Festival in Berlin.

Rightfully so (it was the runner-up, or second place if you will). Why? Because it is a movie about oppression. It's not even that this is a complete women issue. It is about the government trying to keep the people down. An analogy so clear that the government felt the need to ban the movie. But by banning it nothing is resolved and/or can they make this movie disappear!

Another reviewer had a great summary line: "Comedy about a tragedy", that sums it up pretty well!


I probably doubled my knowledge of Iran when I saw Secret Ballot (2001). Now I know about four times as much (I doubt I learned a whole heck of a lot from Not Without My Daughter (1991)).

Offside is a splendid budget Iranian comedy about a group a girls (working individually) to attend a decisive soccer match for their country's place in the World Cup. Women are not allowed to attend soccer matches, so the nation's armed forces have been mobilized to save any women who try to enter from themselves. Some (teen?) girls try to crash the party by dressing as boys, but are caught. The movie is mostly set at this holding pen where the girls are detained by soldiers, awaiting some unspecified punishment (although, the girl who dressed as a soldier claims that she was one insignia away from being executed!)

The movie explores the absurdity of the situation. The thinking that bars women from football matches comes down to it being too raunchy an experience for the fairer sexa philosophy not unknown in the west less than 100 years ago. This farce comes to a head when a girl needs to go to the bathroom, so a soldier escorting her demands that she cover her eyes so she can't see the graffiti. The conflict is not entirely about the battle of the sexes: at one point some friction arises between a solider who is rural and the girls who are urban.

Fortunately, this movie was not too culturally esoteric that the comedy was lost on this neighbour and cultural cousin of the Great Satan. You have to be in the mood for it, but no one should avoid this movie because they think that they won't get it.


On the face of it a film about women wanting to see a football match wouldn't appeal much to somebody with little interest in football such as myself however this isn't about football it is about discrimination and the women's enthusiasm for the sport they love.

The film opens on the day of a crucial World Cup qualifying match between Iran and Bahrain, a girl is trying to get in to Tehran's Azadi Stadium by dressing like a boy, it looks like she will get in until a soldier tries to search her. Once caught she is taken to a small enclosure high up on the outside of the stadium where there are a handful of women who had already been caught, here they are guarded by a small group of conscript soldiers who's leader would rather be back home tending his livestock. We never learn the character's names but we get to know them as people as the girls plead with the guards to let them watch though a nearby gap in the wall and when refused try to get them to at least provide a commentary.

As well as making an important point about the rigid gender segregation in much of present day Iran the film contains many hilarious moments such as the "disguise" one of the girls is made to wear when going to the toilet and the girl who disguised herself as a soldier and was only caught because she chose to watch the match from a seat reserved for a senior officer. The girls enthusiasm for the game is such that by the end the viewer is likely to be on the edge of their seat hoping that Iran will win and thus get to go to the finals in Germany. The soldiers aren't shown as fundamentalists, they are just conscripts who are there because they have to be and when explaining to the girls why woman can't watch men's sports don't seem that convinced by their own arguments.

It is a shame that this film can't be seen in Iran itself but it is good that the wider world can see it and thus see that ordinary Iranians aren't a bunch of fanatics desperate to wage war on the west but normal people with the same passions and concerns as people everywhere. The cast did a great job in making their characters seem like real people rather than mere caricatures.


Not a bad film. Somehow I was made to actually root for the Iranians to win the game played in the movie even though I don't know anything about soccer and am not a fan. The ending on the bus was exhilarating.

The film itself deals with the issue of women in Iran, and how they are not allowed to go into sporting arenas amongst men because their swearing is inappropriate for women to hear. Despite this law, some women try to sneak in, but many of them get caught and detained. It's really astonishing that any society could still have such antiquated notions of gender. In an interview, Panahi says his films are documents of history and its injustices, and that one day in the future we can watch these movies and see how Iran once lived. One hopes that future will come sooner rather than later.


Ah, the best and funniest movie about female football fans, only slightly better than the 1982 saga of teenage delusion set in North London (qv). By the way, I just watched this on Film 4 [2008-12-21] and am ruing my inability to set the PVR).

This is easily my second favourite football movie after "Mike Bassett: England Manager", but this time with the added twist of looking like a guerrilla piece of movie-making from a team who apparently keep making movies which are banned in the country in which they are made (just think about the bit where the girls are taken from the stadium just as the Sun is setting: fast reactions all round).

It is rare for a movie to make me laugh out loud, but when the rural soldier escorted one of the girls into the lavvies while forcing her to wear an inpromptu mask made from a poster of Ali Daei, I couldn't stop waking the others in the house with my snorts, especially when the young soldier misunderstood the grandfather's calls for assistance...

Speaking of the toilets, I just wish I could speak Farsi so that I could work out the writing on the toilet walls (yes, there were a few scribblings in Roman script, but they mostly referred to wanky American rock bands).

Also, on the rural-and-Farsi theme, don't you reckon that Omid Djalili sounds like a yokel when he talks Farsi? Listen to the custody sergeant in this movie and then go "Yup."

I'm not going to bore on about the sexual politics of Iran, and I'm not going to bore on about the dubious acting; my love for this movie comes from the script and the editing: top notch stuff.

Here's a list of my top favourite football movies: 1. Mike Bassett, England Manager 2. Offside 3. Those Glory Glory Days 4. A Shot at Glory 5. The Arsenal Stadium Mystery


Different film directors from different countries have contributed to the film medium a lot by their thoughts. As a result, we have experienced different genres when the medium is concerned. Jafar Panahi, unlike J.L. Godard or F. Truffault, believes in simple story telling; Schematic Narratives is one of the main traits of his directorial job. He has trust upon the automatic as well as critical intelligence of the viewer; he does not feel any necessity to go for Alienation or such things to reach to the viewers. He is equally effective despite being conventional. Offside (2006), is another schematic creation from him, where Gender Subordination of Middle-East Asia gets gradually clear to everybody as the simple but catchy tale of the movie progresses. Now-a-days, when all of us are shouting on the issue of Rights of Women, this movie very calmly creeps into our mind and ultimately becomes a hump for our critical intelligence by conveying the message that the Egality of Human Rights is nothing but an illusive good, an utopia. Paternity will never let the women to be empowered. An important soccer match where the nation is participating, a teenage girl who understands the game well, loves her nation does not have the rights to enter into the stadium to cheer for her country. She is merely permitted to listen to the live commentary. Her alias could not work for her. As a result, she had to undergo several humiliating situations. From the very beginning her worried father ran here and there for her daughter. At the end of the day, celebration came as the nation won the match which the girl could not see as she was detained in the outer side of the stadium during the match time. But the celebration cannot suppress the question of Rights of Women which remain in every corner of the world in different format. Jafar Panahi has most successfully pointed to this issue of Gender Abuse from with in the frame of conventional film making and patriarchy as well. A Global Tragedy has been dealt with ease and some times with humour which, in turn, teases our being constantly.


In Iran, women are not permitted to attend men's sporting events, apparently to "protect" them from all the cursing and foul language they might hear emanating from the male fans (so since men can't restrain or behave themselves, women are forced to suffer. Go figure.). "Offside" tells the tale of a half dozen or so young women who, dressed like men, attempt to sneak into the high-stakes match between Iran and Bahrain that, in 2005, qualified Iran to go to the World Cup (the movie was actually filmed in large part during that game).

"Offside" is a slice-of-life comedy that will remind you of all those great humanistic films ("The Shop on Main Street," "Loves of a Blonde," "Closely Watched Trains" etc.) that flowed out of Communist Czechoslovakia as part of the "Prague Miracle" in the mid 1960's. As with many of those works, "Offside" is more concerned with observing life than with devising any kind of elaborately contrived fictional narrative. Indeed, it is the simplicity of the setup and the naturalism of the style that make the movie so effective.

Once their ruse is discovered, the girls are corralled into a small pen right outside the stadium where they can hear the raucous cheering emanating from the game inside. Stuck where they are, all they can do is plead with the security guards to let them go in, guards who are basically bumbling, good-natured lads who are compelled to do their duty as a part of their compulsory military service. Even most of the men going into the stadium don't seem particularly perturbed at the thought of these women being allowed in. Still the prohibition persists. Yet, how can one not be impressed by the very real courage and spunk displayed by these women as they go up against a system that continues to enforce such a ridiculously regressive and archaic restriction? And, yet, the purpose of these women is not to rally behind a cause or to make a "point." They are simply obsessed fans with a burning desire to watch a soccer game and, like all the men in the country, cheer on their team.

It's hard to tell just how much of the dialogue is scripted and how much of it is extemporaneous, but, in either case, the actors, with their marvelously expressive faces, do a magnificent job making each moment seem utterly real and convincing. Mohammad Kheir-abadi and Shayesteh Irani are notable standouts in a uniformly excellent cast. The structure of the film is also very loose and freeform, as writer/director Jafar Panahi and co-writer Shadmehr Rastin focus for a few brief moments on one or two of the characters, then move smoothly and effortlessly onto others. With this documentary-type approach, we come to feel as if we are witnessing an actual event unfolding in "real time." Very often, it's quite easy for us to forget we're actually watching a movie.

It was a very smart move on the part of the filmmakers to include so much good-natured humor in the film (it's what the Czech filmmakers did as well), the better to point up the utter absurdity of the situation and broaden the appeal of the film for audiences both domestic and foreign. "Offside" is obviously a cry for justice, but it is one that is made all the more effective by its refusal to make of its story a heavy-breathing tragedy. Instead, it realizes that nothing breaks down social barriers quite as efficiently as humor and an appeal to the audience's common humanity. And isn't that what true art is supposed to be all about? In its own quiet, understated way, "Offside" is one of the great, under-appreciated gems of 2007.


This is a totally delightful and unexpected film. You start by following a young person who hopes to get into the qualifying football game between Bahrain and Iran. If Iran win they will get into the 2006 World Cup in Germany. The problem is the young person is a girl and girls (or women for that matter) are not allowed into football matches to "sit with men". What follows is a wonderful comedy, played with consummate skill by a small ensemble cast. The film explores the absurdity of restrictions on the freedom of women (and for that matter the young soldiers who have to corral them). There are some excellent set pieces, not least when one of the girls must go to the toilet and, of course, the stadium has no toilets for women. The camera work is of the simplest and in some ways this story could have been told as a stage play. Yet it is the small scale that gives the film its bite. Great cinema? No, probably not; great entertainment - for sure.


Offside is the story of teenage-girls who tried to sneak in the stadium to watch final world cup qualifying soccer match in Tehran that may lead Iran to the 2006 world cup in Germany. Females are forbidden to go to stadium by law in Iran, although many of them dress like boys and sneak in. Stadium guards search every one at the entrance to make sure no one carries fireworks and of course; no girl gets in.

Like most of Panahi's work, his armature cast's performance was superb. You actually think that you are watching a documentary. The dialogs between the girls and the privates were executed delicately and astonishingly believable. The film depicts the interactions between captives and the drafted guards who themselves are serving mandartory away from their family and friends in a funny sort of way. At the end, the audience realizes that there is not such a difference between the girls and the guards who were just following orders.


Which do you think the average person would know more/less about: Iranian cinema or Iranian football? Interestingly, the two come to the forefront of controversial Iranian filmmaker Jafar Panahi's latest film entitled 'Offside', a tale that uses football or access to football as a backdrop for a series of scenes revolving around one's right to do something or go somewhere and an individual's right to extend that courtesy if and when they'd like to. The odd thing is, you don't come away from Offside having learnt about Iranian football or too much about Iranian cinema (unless it's an education in Panahi's controversial style), but you do come away feeling enlightened, that at least someone from Iran has taken a controversial issue that is clearly still very much in force in a nation like Iran, and is willing to present it to an international audience rather than exploit it.

I can remember the 2006 World Cup, I'm sure many people can. It was the summer after my initial year out at university and after the slog that was my first year, a summer of World Cup football acted as a nicely timed tonic. Needless to say, I saw practically every game bar the ones they show simultaneously with the other ones at the very end of the group stages so that to avoid incidences as seen in Spain '82 when it was thought West Germany and Austria transpired to get a result between them that would see them both through at the expense of Algeria.

Anyone in Britain that was watching the BBC's broadcast of the Iran  Mexico game, both nations' first of the tournament, may remember that at the top of the show, the BBC's football anchorman Gary Lineker let off a snide comment to introduce the match. It went something like: 'We've seen giants Germany, England, Argentina and Holland play but now we get to see.........Mexico and Iran battle it out'. The emphasis on the latter two being inferior was clear and that maybe watching them was a chore. It's a shame because there are people, and films like Offside present them, who are really willing to see Iran play to the point where they risk their well-being to achieve it and it's sad when people in a position of power dismiss what they deem 'inferior' when there are others who'd do anything to have the chance to otherwise engage.

When immediately thinking of the words 'Iran', 'football' and 'World Cup', my mind flies back to the France '98 game between said nation and America. Here is a film about a World Cup game of sorts involving Iran but where some or indeed most Iranian filmmakers may well have opted to present a tale revolving around Iran's famous victory over The United States and what that meant to them, director Panahi chooses to look at what goes on behind the scenes and presents a story from the stands as women are barred from football matches and are not allowed to live the ecstasy of winning a game of immense magnitude. You can imagine a heavy handed film detailing Iran's 'victory' as a lumbering propaganda film designed to exploit as they 'defeat' a Western power or 'enemy' at a sport they perhaps were not expected to do so in.

A couple of films that spring to mind when it comes to beating the unbeatable at their own game are 2001 Indian film 'Lagaan', in which the Indian peasants defeat the ruling British at cricket. Similalry, 2005's 'The Game of Their Lives' sees the Americans defeat the English at a football match only this time in the 1950 World Cup. The differences between these films and Offside are immense; Offside is looking at a situation behind a state's mentality and dares to explore an essence of Feminism as the girls, trying to see their beloved Iran defeat Bahrain and qualify for the World Cup, are rounded up like animals and kept in a crude purgatory mere feet from a barred window that would allow them to see the game. The reasoning is to do with the foul language the men 'may', not will, but 'may' use during the game. The film presents Iran as so incompetent that they cannot take away a man's right to swear and ban the bad language but must ban a woman's right to see the game all together  it is no wonder Panahi's film was itself banned in Iran.

But Panahi remembers to include what makes the rule so crazy in the first place by frequently allowing his female characters to both smoke cigarettes and use mobile phones, two things the doctors and scientists will have you think are far more dangerous to the human body/mind than hearing a little bit of foul language at a football match. Panahi pays special attention to the title of his film 'Offside' which itself is a ruling within football detailing when an 'attacker' is 'caught' trying to gain an advantage in the field of play. The parallels run with the womens' position in the film as these advancing (supposedly without right) individuals are caught trying to put one over the opposition team; that being the state itself.

I think Offside is one of the better films to come out of the Middle East and surrounding Gulf area that I've seen. It's a tense but humbling film about people who do not carry any acting history according to the IMDb and thus, the acting is raw and real adding that quaint neo-realist aura to it all. The immediate ending is haunting and the constant verbal battle between the male soldiers and female wrong-doers who dared to defy the state is wonderful. I also think for anyone to actually dislike the film for the reasons I've mentioned shows a distinct level of callous, either that or you work in the Iranian government.


There are enough sad stories about women and their oppression by religious, political and societal means. Not to diminish the films and stories about genital mutilation and reproductive rights, as well as wage inequality, and marginalization in society, all in the name of Allah or God or some other ridiculous justification, but sometimes it is helpful to just take another approach and shed some light on the subject.

The setting is the 2006 match between Iran and Bahrain to qualify for the World Cup. Passions are high and several women try to disguise themselves as men to get into the match.

The women who were caught (Played by Sima Mobarak-Shahi, Shayesteh Irani, Ayda Sadeqi, Golnaz Farmani, and Mahnaz Zabihi) and detained for prosecution provided a funny and illuminating glimpse into the customs of this country and, most likely, all Muslim countries. Their interaction with the Iranian soldiers who were guarding and transporting them, both city and villagers, and the father who was looking for his daughter provided some hilarious moments as we thought about why they have such unwritten rules.

It is mainly about a paternalistic society that feels it has to save it's women from the crude behavior of it's men. Rather than educating the male population, they deny privilege and rights to the women.

Seeing the changes in the soldiers responsible and the reflection of Iranian society, it is nos surprise this film will not get any play in Iran. But Jafar Panahi has a winner on his hands for those able to see it.


It was simple and yet so nice. I think the whole sense of sex segregation in society, which can be bitter, was shown very delicately. It had a bitter kind of hummer in it. The fact that most of the actors were not professionals, made the movie more tangible and more realistic. There was a "documentary" side to the movie too. The best scenes were those that all the girls, banned from watching, were listening passionately to the soldier, who is supposed to keep an eye on them, broadcasting the game. If you are an Iranian, the familiar cheering and dancing in the streets after a game won, fills you up with National pride!! If you are not Iranian, you'll still love it all the same!


I felt this movie was as much about human sexuality as anything else, whether intentionally or not. We are also shown how absurd and paradoxical it is for women not to be allowed to such a nationally important event, meanwhile forgetting the pasts of our respective "advanced" nations. I write from Japan, where women merely got the right to vote 60 years ago, and female technical engineers are a recent phenomenon. Pubs in England were once all-male, the business world was totally off-limits for women in America until rather recently, and women in China had their feet bound so they couldn't develop feet strong enough to escape their husbands. Iran is conveniently going through this stage in our time, and we get a good look at how ridiculous we have all looked at one time or another. Back to the issue of sexuality, we are made to wonder what it may be intrinsically about women that make them unfit for a soccer game (the official reason is that the men are bad). Especially such boyish girls, a couple so much so that you even get the feeling that lesbianism is on the agenda as well. I think one point is that not all women are the same, and the women the police are trying to "protect" are not the ones who would try to get in in the first place. The opening scenes of the approach to the stadium makes you appreciate the valor of the young women trying to get in -- and each one separately -- at all. It is a brutish man's world. Any woman brave enough to try to go should be allowed! The world of sexuality is not one-size-fits-all.

Meanwhile, the apprehended criminal girls bond inside the makeshift pen awaiting their deportation to who-knows-where, and in a much more subtle way, begin to bond with the guards keeping watch over them. These had definite ideas about women and femininity, which were being challenged head-on. The change in attitude is glacial, but visible.

Since the movie is pure Iran from the first moment, it takes a little easing-into for the foreigner, but the characters have a special way of endearing themselves to you, and you end up getting the whole picture, and even understanding the men's misunderstandings and give them slack. The supposed villain is the unseen patriarchy of the Ayatollahs, which remain unseen and unnamed, and likely unremembered.

Knowing that this movie was filmed during the actual event of the Iran-Bahrain match gives me a feeling of awe for all involved.


Is this your typical women in chains navy transport love story? Maybe, hell, you know how the formula works by now, pretty woman is introduced in to a picture, someone has to fall in love with her.

I think this film does follow some typical story lines, but that doesn't say anything about the content. There are great scenes with Crispen Glover, Dennis Hopper, and Gary Busey, although short. Some things didn't make sense, such as the need to get in to random fights, but it is entertaining to watch, the fights were actually well done.

This is definitely a comedy foremost, but it does have a lot of good feel to it. The humor is well balanced, you won't hurt your stomach on this, but you will keep a smile.

There is a little bit of steamy action, so not one for the kids.


My wife and I have watched this movie twice. Both of us used to be in the Military. Besides being funny as hell, it offers a very realistic view of life in the Navy from the perspective of A Navy enlisted man, and tells it "like it really is". We're adding this movie to our permanent collection !


If you want a fun romp with loads of subtle humor, then you will enjoy this flick.

I don't understand why anyone wouldn't enjoy this one. Take it for what it is: a vehicle for Dennis Hopper to mess with your head and make you laugh. It ain't Shakespeare, but it is well done. Ericka Eleniak is absolutely beautiful and holds her own in this one - Better than any episode of Baywatch - and shows a knack for subtle humor. Too bad she hasn't had many opportunities to expand on that.

Tom Berenger fits his role of "real Navy" perfectly and William McNamara does a solid job as a hustler.

Throw in a walk-on by Hopper in the middle of the chase for "the Cherry on this Sundae" and you've got a movie that kept my attention and kept me laughing. I bought this one as soon as it was available.

Brain-candy.


no movie with dennis hopper, gary busey, erika eleniak, tom berenger, dean stockwell, marilu henner deserves a rating under 5 on here. This is a poor mans version of movies like 16 blocks or the timeless Midnight run except the prisoner being transported here is the very easy on the eye Ms.Eleniak. Tom Berenger plays another gruff, maverick military type well and William Mcnamara plays his rookie-about to be discharged foil well. The plot on the face of it is absurd because I lost count of the times Eleniak should have and could have escaped but this is an entertaining feel-good movie and there are good cameos from all of the above actors that keep the movie rolling. This isn't really a family movie as there is some swearing and a rare nude scene with eleniak but this is a lot better than some of the other guff that came out around this time.


Well, the movie isn't exactly "funny."

Okay, I admit, there are a few HUMOROUS lines, but definitely nothing that is laugh-out-loud funny. For example: Right before a steamy sex scene between Eleniak and one of her male costars, sh is handcuffed to the bedpost and he cannot remove her shirt. Before leaving the room to retrieve the key, he tells her, "Okay, don't go anywhere."

See, humorous, but not funny.

The plot and acting are pretty good.

But Erika Eleniak definitely steals the show. She's hot and sexy and there is a really steamy scene with her that one can't help but rewind and re-watch.

There are also some other very sexy scenes with her and she has some very provocative lines.

Overall, 5 stars. I'd only give it three if not for Erika Eleniak.


I have seen this film on countless occasions, and thoroughly enjoyed it each time. This is mostly due to the lovely Erika Eleniak- a great actress with incredible looks. Plus, any film starring Tom Berenger and Dennis Hopper is bound to be entertaining.


what can i say?, ms Erika Eleniak is my favorite blonde girl ever, and like a Italian American, fan number one of female beauty i can't forget this movie.

you know i really don't remember a lot about the plot, or the situations or the other actors . i only can remember about drop dead gorgeous Erika and that in this film she looks better than ever, i really don't care if it was a bad movie or a good movie, i only care the nice moments i had been a teenager in Brooklyn just contemplating Erika's beauty.

Well just to conclude if you are an Erika Eleniak's beauty fan like me definitely this film is for you.


Clark Gable plays a con man who busts into the life of hard-boiled dame Jean Harlow. He tries to sucker her while she brushes him off with her tough-gal attitude. Despite their cynicism and cons they fall in love. When Gable accidentally kills a man during a sting he runs out leaving loyal Harlow to women's prison where she discovers she's pregnant. Anita Loos' and Howard Emmett Rogers' writing is excellent throughout with many well-drawn and surprising characters (including a Jewish socialist woman inmate and a black woman inmate and her preacher father played with hardly a trace of stereotype). Gable and Harlow show their mettle as actors adding telling nuances and quirks to their characters that send them beyond the typical Gable and Harlow roles. And the direction is much better than you'd expect from Sam Wood. One beautiful shot has Harlow being inducted into the prison, then led out into a surprisingly snowy courtyard as the camera tracks after her. This is one of the best of both the "criminals in love" and "women's prison" genres and has some of the best hard-boiled dialogue ever written.


This movie is witty, watchable and utterly touching. And now often do you get to see Jean Harlow (or any actress of this era, for that matter) give another woman a swift punch in the jaw? (Twice!)

After Harlow's Ruby is sent to a reformatory after getting mixed up with Gable's Edward Hall (he of that cheesy yet endearing crooked smile), her predicament becomes all the more complicated when she discovers that she is pregnant, and she's convinced that this rake has abandoned her, but in fact, her love has reformed him and he comes to see her, despite the fact that he will be arrested, and from the help of a minister, are married.

The wonderful relationship that Harlow shares with her fellow inmates is second only to her electric chemistry with Gable, who was her most frequent leading man. Her cynical character is a perfect match for Gable's smooth-talking crook. What's not to like?

"You know, you wouldn't be a bad looking dame - if it wasn't for your face!" Ruby cuttingly remarks to Gypsy, her rival. "If you're going to get that close to me, I'll have to open the other window!"

Priceless!!!


Hold Your Man finds Jean Harlow, working class girl from Brooklyn falling for con man Clark Gable and getting in all kinds of trouble. The film starts out as his film, but by the time it's over the emphasis definitely switches to her character.

The film opens with Gable pulling a street con game with partner, Garry Owen and the mark yelling for the cops. As he's being chased Gable ducks into Harlow's apartment and being he's such a charming fellow, she shields him.

Before long she's involved with him and unfortunately with his rackets. Gable, Harlow, and Owen try pulling a badger game on a drunken Paul Hurst, but then Gable won't go through with it. Of course when Hurst realizes it was a con, he's still sore and gets belligerent and Gable has to punch him out. But then he winds up dead outside Harlow's apartment and that platinum blond hair makes her easy to identify. She goes up on an accomplice to manslaughter.

The rest of the film is her's and her adjustment to prison life. Her interaction with the other female prisoners give her some very good scenes. I think some of the material was later used for the MGM classic Caged.

Harlow also gets to do the title song and it's done as torch style ballad, very popular back in those days. She talk/sings it in the manner of Sophie Tucker and quite well.

Gable is well cast as the con man who develops a conscience, a part he'd play often, most notably in my favorite Gable film, Honky Tonk.

Still it's Harlow who gets to shine in this film. I think it's one of the best she did at MGM, her fans should not miss it.


I expected this film to be a run-of-the-mill 1930's romance. Boy meets girl, they fall in love, boy loses girl, boy wins her back in the end. It wasn't like that at all. Clark Gable plays con artist Eddie with all his usual charisma and mischievous eyebrow raising. He is hiding out from the cops when he bursts into Ruby (Jean Harlow)'s apartment, to find her covered in bubbles in the bathtub, no less. Instant chemistry.She plays hard to get for a while, but a girl can only resist that grin for so long. The heat between them is evident, and there are some scenes that are definitely pre-production code! When a blackmail job goes bad and Ruby ends up in a boarding house for "troubled girls", she is miserable and, thanks to the ragging her roommate gives her, begins to believe that Eddie will never come for her. Harlow plays the hard-nosed, fast talking Ruby perfectly. She never lets Gable get all the good lines! There is an especially moving scene with her playing "their song" on the piano that is acted perfectly. The last fifteen minutes have me crying every time. A truly sweet romance.


One of the great mysteries of life, suffered from daily, is why nice girls so often are more interested in the jerks and heels than in the nice guys.

Worse, when the nice guys even want to marry those girls, the girls STILL prefer the jerks and heels, even after the jerks and heels have shown their contempt, have shown they're just interested in using the girls.

Stu Erwin is the nice guy, who continues to be nice after being lied to and cheated and even after losing the girl completely.

Clark Gable is the jerk, and he is perfect in the role, rather a sad note to his fans.

Jean Harlow comes across as a more slender Mae West, even sounding like La West in some of her cynical throwaway lines.

Somewhat puzzling is that so many of the other characters, intended to be bad guys -- I mean, heck, they're locked up, so they must be -- are so obviously nice people.

In fact, there are lots of nice people here, people who, in a lesser film or story, would be snarling and back-stabbing but here go out of their way to help someone else.

So, maybe the story is rather clichéd, at least by modern standards, but ultimately the viewer will be glad to have watched.

The biggest complaint I have is that so many really good actors are not given credit. Once again, we can say a fervent "Thank You" to IMDb.com.


Jean Harlow and Clark Gable were a great on screen team and this may be their best movie together.

Yes, Hold Your Man can be cheesy and predictable, but that's not what I love about the movie. I love seeing Harlow and Gable together and in this film they are simply wonderful. It is obvious that they really enjoyed working together and that is part of what makes this such a wonderful film.

The witty dialogue, great script and attention to detail are the other things that make this such a good movie. I loved this movie the first time I saw it and on each subsequent viewing I always notice at least one new detail. To me, that is a mark of a great film.

The dialogue and script are better than most movies from this time period (early 30's). I adore classic movies, but I admit that most of them are just average and at times don't hold my interest. Hold Your Man is one of the exceptions.

This has a lot to do with the fact that Hold Your Man is a 'pre-code' movie. (The Hays code was not enforced until a year after Hold Your Man.) This movie could not have been made under the code. Well, it could have been made, but it would have been an entirely different story. Thank goodness the code was not enforced until 1934. Otherwise, we would have missed out on this gem.


If you only read a synopsis of the plot, this movie would sound like quite a typical one of the 1930's. The story would seem quite contrived, the subject matter maudlin. The strength and beauty of this film is in the direct, earthy performances of the cast.I have seldom seen Jean Harlow display such a range of feeling, rich and subtle nuances float over her face. If you watch their faces during the wedding ceremony in the chapel, there is such an obvious depth of feeling between the principal characters. The raw emotions are so sincerely portrayed, so true. The final sequence is almost unbearably poignant: when Clark Gable looks down with such joy and surprise at his son, lifts him up and proudly says, "My kid!", I couldn't help remember that Mr. Gable's own son was born to him posthumously. This is one of the finest examples of Depression era cinema.


Don't listen to the many acerbic and derisory comments heaped upon this film.....simply put, as regards ninja movies, this my friends is about as good as it gets!

Yes it's silly, yes the acting and script are admittedly absolutely atrocious, but by gum - it's so much bloody fun! In fact, as is often the case with B-Movies, the horrendous 'acting' (which in the case of the movie in question, is truly amongst the worst I have ever had the joy to behold!) and ridiculous 'plot' actually only serve to elevate the enjoyment level ten fold.

Obviously the fight scenes are the main attraction in this though and for the most part I'm pleased to say, they're very well choreographed, especially the final showdown (during which we witness that ninja are not ostensibly constrained by the normal laws of gravity....)

Trust me on this, if you are a fan of ninja movies and you have not yet seen Sakura Killers, then you are truly missing out on what is in my opinion, one of the true jewels in the crown of the genre.


It's hard to rate films like this, because do you rate it on production or just fun?

I saw this film back in about 1988/89 or so when I was a boy and I'm sorry to say it started a life long fascination with ninjas. The plot is fairly dire and the acting is of course terrible, but there is a certain mystique surrounding the ninjas in this film which makes for quite a good atmosphere. What is important are the fight scenes, while a 'little' sparce, are really good.

I must say it was better when I was a boy, only now can I see the glaring points of unbelievable nonsense in the film, but as a "sit back with a few beers" martial arts film I can't fault it, it delivers and is much better than the mountains of "American Ninja" Style rubbish that was churned out in the 80's with hundreds of guys in black suits but really not very good fight scenes.

In an interesting note, Dusty Nelson, the writer and director of Sakura Killers did another ninja film under the Bonaire movie flag called "White Phantom" I have no idea if this was meant to be a sequel to Sakura Killers" but the Sakura clan is once again a main feature, including the same logo and similar story only this time including a White Ninja. This too, while being mostly dire, had a small sense of atmosphere but the fight scenes are even more sparce and to be frank, are pretty awful.

So, if you are a martial arts fan then give it a blast to kill a few hours!


Hey people, what's up. It's me man, the one and only Mike "Sonny Sakura KIller" Kelly. You know........ you can't really write a review on the script of Sakura, cause there we didn't have one. As far as I know, the story was just made up as we went along. I had the best time of my life making that film, and got so much stank that I ran out of Jism...........fun times. So glad that you all enjoyed the film. I really didn't get to do the fights that I had envisioned. Every time I set up some moves, the fight director kept changing them. Still, I had a blast and met some really great people. Especially the purple female Ninja who has seem to fall of the film-making scene.


Found this flick in a videostore, it cost $2 to buy. The whole movie stinks really bad! The so-called colonel, who would the hero here if the cover could have been trusted, must be in his eighties and is barely able to walk. He nevertheless manages to shoot some of the dumbest ninjas in the world. Then the story leaves the colonel, which makes sense given the old man's inability to DO anything worth mentioning, a now two terrifyingly eighties-looking guys take over, in what must have been some sort of story. I got lost a hundred times but didn't mind, because the movie is so bad, it's real fun to watch. Zero-Budget trash with actors not deserving that name. Go check it out!


As I said in my comment about the first part: These two movies are better than most Science Fiction Fans confess.

The scenario in the second movie is not that moving as we don't see the destruction of human civilization, but the aftermath, thousands of refugees fleeing in tiny space cans, protected by only one powerful spaceship.

But when Battlestar Pegasus appears, the story heats up, carrying the battle back to the Cylon Planets. Okay, it has a little bit of Mad Max because all they fight for is fuel for their spaceships to travel on to find the distant Earth, but it works for me. It is thrilling Science Fiction entertainment featuring fine actors and decent special effects (even though those tend to repeat themselves, to say the least :-) ).

I would have loved a continuation with Starbuck and Apollo on board. Instead, we got a second sequel with no name characters who proved that the story had worked before especially because the feature characters were so well-chosen...

So thumbs down for the productions of 1980, but thumbs up for the two movies from 1978.


Although others have commented that this video is just an edited version of the two shows: "Fire in Space" and "Living Legend", if you watch the original shows you'll find that dialogue from this video edition was edited out. I found this video version much better because scenes and lines were added to it. I would say if you want to see the show in its original version, see the video versions on VHS. They have more to offer the fan than the original episodes being offered on DVD now. Another good video is Conquest for the Earth, which had more scenes from Galactica 1980 than did the actual broadcasts themselves. Overall, I rate this as a 10 because it gives you more to enjoy than what the networks wanted to show in the time slot they gave the producers.


This movie is pretty good. Half a year ago, i bought it on DVD. But first i thought that it was the original film. I have seen the series and it is a good film, but here, they have put "The Living Legend,part1 and 2",and "Fire in space" together. The same as they did with the first film, but with other episodes. But still, it is a pretty good film. Only the ending is strange (you don't see what happens with the Pegasus). But I still think that it is pretty good. The actors and special effects were good. If you haven't seen it, go see it. Starring:Richard Hatch, Dirk Benedict, Lorne Greene, Herb. Jefferson Jr., Tony Swartz, Terry Carter, Lloyd Bridges, Jack Stauffer.


Let's think people , quit bad-mouthing the original , for it's time the original Battlestar series was a masterpiece , even still with all the stars , story lines and art . Lorne Greene was great as Adama and Richard Hatch was perfect as Apollo and Dirk Benedict was funny as Starbuck , but I dare say , not as pretty as Katee as Starbuck .

I loved the episode with the Pegasus and Greetings from Earth was good John Calicos was great as Baltar , War of the Gods , the best was Experiment in Terra , I thought that was a tribute in a way to Heaven Can Wait , then you had the women of Battlestar , not to compare them to let's say Tricia who is outstandingly beautiful as Number Six , but Jane Seymour's beauty could not be compared to . Let alone Loerrta Spang as Cassiopea was fantastic .She had beauty that a rainbow would be embarrassed by . I loved the original as much as the new .

Can you imagine if John Calicos had a number six ? :)

Thankyou for listening .


Flavia the Heretic is an undeniable work of art and probably my number one recommendation to state that the euro-exploitation cinema is severely underrated and not to be ignored. This is an intelligent and complex film, beautifully realized and  surprise  pretty damn accurate! This is more than just meaningless sleaze or gratuitous violence and it's about time those prudish film committees who categorize Flavia as forbidden trash reckon this as well. Flavia is a beautiful 14th century adolescent, forced to live the life of an obedient nun in a strict convent. She refuses to accept her being inferior just because she's female and she curses her fellow sister for being so tolerant about this. After a fruitless attempt to escape, she befriends another rebellious nun and she even guides a troop of bloodthirsty Muslims into the walls of the convent.

Flavia is a downright mesmerizing film! Almost impossible to believe that director Gianfranco Mingozzi managed to make it appear so realistic and so disturbing. I challenge you to come up with a title that centers on the topic of pioneer-feminism more intensely than Flavia does. Several sequences are quite shocking (on the verge of nightmarish, actually) as the camera zooms in on brutal rapes, torture and mutilation. Yet all this raw footage isn't just used to satisfy perverted gorehounds, mind you. I'm strongly convinced that they're part of the statement 'Flavia' is trying to communicate: Humanity (the Catholic Church in particular) historically proved itself to be a hypocrite and discriminating race and there's no use in denying it any further. Films like "Flavia, the Heretic" have the courage to question and openly condemn our precious ancestors and I truly admire them for it. Flavia is an outstanding and fundamental exploitation film because of its substance, but it's even brought to an higher level by the wondrous cinematography, the glorious costumes & scenery and a breathtaking musical score by Nicola Piovani. Florinda Bolkin is very convincing as the ambitious and headstrong nun but it's María Casares who steals the show as Sister Agatha. She's a man-hating and loud-mouthed nun who likes to urinate in the open field! Amen, sister!


Reportedy based on actual historical events, this disturbingly violent, bloody, and shocking period epic sustains viewer interest by creating a verisimilitude missing in the majority of films set in a remote era. Ms. Bolkan's portrayal of the rebellious nun is a tour de force. Her gradual transformation in character from an obedient if unwilling complicitor in social injustices of her day is adeptly evidenced by telling sequences: her witnessing of the hated local Duke's casual rapist activity, her forbidden love affair with a Jew, her criminal defection to the invading Moslem forces of the sensual Prince Ahmed (Anthony Corlan) There are some painfully realistic gory sequences (human flaying) in this film that are not for the squeamish, but viewers with strong stomachs and an interest in medieval history should find ample interest. Deserves to be seen, if only as an antidote to Hollywood depictions of the medieval world.


Flavia(Florinda Bolkan of "Don't Torture a Duckling" fame)is locked away in a convent of carnal desires by her father.Tired of all of the sadism she sees around her(rape of a young woman in a pigsty,sexual cravings,horse castration)Flavia decides to run from the convent with her Jewish friend from the outside,Abraham.The two don't get very far before they are captured and then brought back to be tortured and forced to repent.After punishment she joins up with a band of Muslims called the Tarantulas,who had invaded the convent prior and leads a crusade that turns into nothing short of a bloody battle behind the convent walls."Flavia the Heretic" is a well-directed and fairly notorious piece of Italian nunsploitation.The film is slightly gruesome and sleazy at times.The acting is great and the characters are well-developed.Overall,"Flavia the Heretic" is a genuinely moving and intelligent movie with plenty of nudity and gore.You can't go wrong with it.8 out of 10.


Too many sources routinely lump this thought-provoking period drama in part based on historical fact together with the superficially similar "nunsploitation" which was a mainstay in '70s Euro trash cinema, overlooking the righteous anger that drives the whole endeavor. Perhaps coincidentally it was also director Gianfranco Mingozzi's singular attempt at narrative film-making outside of many well-received documentaries.

Safely set within a historical context, FLAVIA charts the growing rebellion of an early 15th century Italian nun (Florinda Bolkan's career performance, even surpassing her sterling work in Lucio Fulci's devastating DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING), locked away in convent by her not so nobleman father in a desperate attempt to curb the girl's budding sensuous nature. Wondering why women are relegated to secondary roles at best in life as in holy scripture, she is confronted by ways in which male domination can rupture female lives, inspiring revolt fueled by the ranting of semi-crazed older Sister Agatha (indelibly portrayed by veteran actress Maria Casarès from Marcel Carné's LES ENFANTS DU PARADIS) and - more constructively - by a Muslim invasion. Joining the oppressors and perhaps unwittingly manipulating them to do her bidding, Flavia truly becomes the outcast she already felt herself to be, with expected tragic results.

With its breathtaking widescreen compositions by Alfio Contini, who shot Michelangelo Antonioni's ZABRISKIE POINT, this is an uncompromising and austere account of one woman's fierce yet ultimately futile fight against patriarchal society which allotted her no rights beyond childbearing or whoring as Sister Agatha wryly remarks. A lengthy drug-induced fantasy sequence clearly modeled on Ken Russell's otherwise far more flamboyant DEVILS notwithstanding, the movie turns out relatively stingy in the skin department, making something of a mockery out of its semi-porn reputation. This is a serious work deserving rediscovery and restoration of its unjustly tarnished reputation.


FLAVIA THE HERETIC is a strange entry in the nunsploit genre - equal parts sleaze, feministic journey, and "history" as we follow Flavia on her strange trip.

We start off with Flavia in a convent...she ain't too happy there cuz she doesn't believe in all the male-dominated "rules" and macho-ism of the world around her and escapes from the convent with her Jewish pal, Abraham. They are both eventually caught and Flavia is brought back to the convent where she joins another "non-believing" nun in hastening a Moslem invasion. Flavia hangs out with the Moslems who take over the convent and get "busy" with the nuns in a strange set of scenes. Eventually the Moslems roll-out and Flavia is punished as a traitor to Christianity in another singularly brutal scene...

This one has pretty much all the stuff that I like to see in a 70's era exploit film - some good gore, including nipple-removal, and a nice leg-skinning scene, some decent nudity - including the requisite full-frontal, and a decent storyline as well. I will say that it sorta dragged in a few points, but not enough to get truly bored with it. I would definitely recommend this one to nunsploit/70's exploit fans...8/10


There is so much that can be said about this film. It is not your typical nunsploitation. Of course, there is nudity and sex with nuns, but that is almost incidental to the story.

It is set in 15th Century Italy, at the time of the martyrdom of 800 Christians at Otranto. The battle between the Muslims and the Christians takes up a good part of the film. It was interesting when everyone was running from the Muslim hoards, that the mother superior would ask, "Why do you fear the Muslims,; they will not do anything that the Christians have done to you?" Certainly, there was enough torture on both sides.

Sister Flavia (Florinda Bolkan) is sent to a convent for defying her father. In the process, she witnesses and endures many things: the gelding of a stallion, the rape of a local woman by a new Duke, the torture of a nun who was overcome during a visit by the Tarantula Sect, and a whipping herself when she ran off with a Jew. The torture was particularly gruesome with hot wax being poured on the nun, and her nipples cut off.

Sister Flavia is bound to continue to get into trouble as she questions the male-dominated society in which she lives. She even asks Jesus, why the father, son and holy ghost are all men.

Eventually, she joins the leader of the Muslims as his lover and they sack the convent. Here is where you see more flesh than you can possible enjoy at one time. But, tragedy is to come. She manages to exact sweet revenge on all, including the Duke and her father, but finds that the Muslim lover treats her exactly the same. She is a woman and that is all there is to it.

I won't describe what the holy men of the church did to this heretic at the end, but it predates the torture of Saw or Hostel by decades.

Nunsploitation fans will be satisfied with the treats, but movie lovers will find plenty of meat to digest.


"Flavia, la monaca muslmana" aka. "Flavia the Heretic" of 1974 is a truly disturbing and uncompromising piece of Italian Exploitation cinema that, to a certain extent, follows a somewhat feminist premise (though the level of sleaze and brutality would probably disgust the majority of feminists). Set mostly in a convent, and with a nun as the eponymous central protagonist (great performance by the wonderful Florinda Bolkan), "Flavia the Heretic" may be referred to as a 'Nunsploitation' film. However, this film differs quite drastically from the typical Nunsploitation flicks from the time, as it doesn't so much focus on the nunsploitation elements such as lesbianism, sadistic lesbian punishments, etc. Personally, I saw more similarities to the Hexploitation flicks of the time, such as "Mark of The Devil", (even though this one doesn't treat the topic of witch-hunts), which focus on the brutal execution of Christian fundamentalism in the middle ages and early modern period.

Italy around 1600: After witnessing her despotic father behead a wounded Muslim soldier, young Flavia is forced to become a nun in a convent. When her father condemns a fellow nun to a torturous death for a small misdemeanor years later, Falvia's disgust with male violence against women turns into hatred against the despotic church, and she joins a band of Arabic scavengers...

One thing is for sure, "Flavia the Heretic" is not for the faint-hearted, and neither is it for those who want happy endings. Director Gianfranco Mingozzi obviously tried to make his film as realistic and disturbing as possible, especially in its nasty scenes. The many torture- and execution-scenes are extremely disturbing, with skinnings, spikings and other gruesome scenes in explicit detail, the most shocking scene probably being the torture of the young nun quite in the beginning of the film. The violence here is never superfluous, however. After all, this gruesome methods actually were reality in the time the film is set in. The film is very well-made, with realistic costumes, fantastic settings an elegant cinematography and a great score by Nicola Piovani. The stunningly beautiful and great Florinda Bolkan has proved her talent in many great Italian cult-productions (including Lucio Fulci's Giallo-masterpiece "Non Si Sevizia Un Paperino" of 1972). She delivers another great, charismatic performance here, and I couldn't imagine another actress fitting as well in the role as she does. The film has some minor inconsistencies (E.g. why does the rigid church let bizarre cult-followers into convents in the first place). However, it is overall amazing how realistic this film is. "Flavia the Heretic" should definitely not be missed by my fellow fans of Italian Exploitation Cinema. This is a great Exploitation flick overall, though it definitely is a deeply depressing one and therefore should be watched in the right mood. Highly recommended to fans of disturbing exploitation cinema. 7.5/10


Expecting to see another Nunsploitation movie with a mean Mother Superior abusing and torturing her charges, Flavia turned out to be MUCH more than I had anticipated.

It actually has a feminist storyline, though I don't think such a term existed in the era in which the movie is set. It certainly wasn't practiced. Women (and the Jews and the poor) are very downtrodden and locked into menial spots in society. Throughout the story, Sister Flavia (Florinda Bolkan) witnesses the tyranny of her time until she just can't sit there any longer and actually does something about it, albeit with disastrous results.

The pre-credit sequence has Flavia as a young adolescent near a battlefield. She sees an injured "evil" Muslim soldier (one of the few still alive) and tries to assist him. Before she can, her hate-filled father beheads the soldier and waves his head in her face (great family dynamics, huh?). After this, her father forces her to join a convent where she witnesses even more injustice. Though scenes do involve violence, rape and nuns, I would consider this more of a historical drama than Nunsploitation.

Indeed, many of the ingredients for a trashy exploitation piece are there, but the acting, camera-work, storyline and music are too good to keep it down in that level. Most "nun" films I've seen usually have the basic premise of: A good girl somehow winds up in a convent, where the Mother Superior is a supreme bitch that likes to whip people and/or make their lives a living hell.

Flavia spends much of the first part of he movie passively questioning all of the atrocities happening around her. Much of her passivity is forgotten when she becomes acquainted with the strong-spirited (but slightly loony- she likes to pee outside like me, but it's a lot easier for guys) Sister Agatha. When a group of Muslims attack their abbey, Flavia and Agatha do not cower in fear like the other nuns. Their attackers actually function as their liberators (of the cruelty and near-slavery of the abbey). In fact, it is a Christian, not a Muslim invader, that impales dear Sister Agatha.

It is Agatha's death that sends Flavia on her violent crusade against those who have oppressed her... Her father treats her like dirt. Her Muslim lover deserts her at a very inopportune time. I don't want to give out too much of the rest of the story, but be prepared to be shocked, devastated and saddened at the conclusion. This is a great film, so don't be put off by its (undeserved) reputation as a trash epic. Plus, how on Earth could a movie featuring Florinda Bolkan and Claudio Cassinelli go wrong? I am not familiar with María Casares' other works, but Sister Agatha is a hell of a character.

I have read many great reviews of the Synapse (US) release, but I love my German X-Rated Kult DVD copy. It isn't anamorphic/16:9, but actually has a little more picture information on all of the edges than Synapse's release.

And there are also many great, wise or funny lines of dialogue (many from Sister Agatha)

"Why is God male? The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit They're all male!" -Flavia

"These men are afraid- look at them, Sister- Afraid their power will be taken away from them!" -Sr. Agatha (regarding Christians fleeing after the Muslims arrive)

"Woman, where are you going? The Moslems can do nothing to you that the Christians haven't done! Ha Ha Ha!" -Sr. Agatha (to a group of fleeing Christian women)

"Lord bless these Moslems- For putting fear into these pompous Christians." -Flavia

"Does it take the mere sight of a Moslem to make you $h!t your underclothing?" -Sr. Agatha

Closing message: "Flavia Gaetani, not yet a Muslim - no longer a Christian - was punished as a runaway nun. The idea for the film came from events which occurred during the Musalman invasions of Italy culminating in what even today is remembered as THE MARTYRDOM OF THE 800 AT OTRANTO"


Post-feminist depiction of cruelty and sadism.

Spoiler alert!

This underrated gem of a film tells the story of Flavia, a Fifteenth Century girl of Noble birth walled up in a convent after defining her father and indeed the whole of Medieval Christian society by viewing a fallen Islamic warrior as a human rather than demonic figure.

Unable to accept the patriarchal rule of the convent (explicitly stated in a scene where the Bishop arrives flanked by soldiers and monks) Flavia begins to explicitly question the society in which she finds herself and, through butting up against a whole system of subjugation, repression and violence, inevitably brings a tragic end not only to herself but all those around her.

Billed as a piece of nunsploitation this is far from the truth. This is a film depiction the consequences of violence, the effects of patriarchal dominance, the nature of rebellion and the corruption of the human spirit.

I described it in the title of this piece as 'post-feminist' and in the end Flavia's triumphs must always be corrupted, compromised and perverted by men. Even Flavia's gruesome end is perpetrated by men for men (the women turn away and only the monks look on without horror.

As to the much discussed violence: this is a depiction of the effects of violence and the horrors of a world driven mad by religious excess. To have shied away from the violence would have limited the film's impact, would have cheapened the film and allowed it to be assimilated within the Patriarchal discourse it is exposing. In addition it is a realistic portrait of medieval society.

Beautifully filmed, brilliantly acted (notably by Florinda Bolkin and Maria Casares), containing a wonderful score by piovani and still challenging after all these years Flavia is a classic of European Cinema.


I'd read about FLAVIA THE HERETIC for many years, but I only got to see it early last year, when I went on an insane movie-buying binge, and, for whatever reason, it has been on my mind lately, though it's been some months since I watched it.

It's a striking film, set in Italy somewhere around the 15th century. Definitely Medieval-era (though I don't think any specific year is ever given). This being the time of Christian ascendancy, the age is a time of utter madness, and the movie captures this very well.

Flavia, our protagonist, is a young lady who encounters a fallen Muslim on a battlefield. He seems a warm and intriguing fellow, and she's immediately taken with him. Her father, a soldier of a a family of some standing, comes along, almost immediately, and murders the wounded man right before her eyes. But she'll continue to see him in her dreams.

Her father ships her off to a convent that seems more like an open-air insane asylum--the residents, so harshly repressed by unyielding Medieval Christianity, slowly go mad. Flavia comes under the influence of one of the nuttier nuns. But in a mad world, only the sane are truly mad, and this sociopathic sister clearly recognizes the insanity around her. Her take on the times in which they live strikes a chord with Flavia, who, being young and apparently sheltered, is beginning to question everything about this world in which she finds herself trapped.

The movie is unflinching in its portrayal of that world, showcasing a lot of unpleasantness. We see a horse gelded, a lord rape one of the women of his lands in a pig-sty, the pious torture of a young nun. Through it all, Flavia observes and questions, rejecting, eventually, the Christian dogma that creates such a parade of horrors in terms that would gain the movie some criticism over the years for seeming anachronistic. I disagree with that criticism. Flavia's views, though sometimes expressed in ways that vaguely mirror, for example, then-contemporary feminist commentary (the movie was made in 1974), revolve around what are really pretty obvious questions. It is, perhaps, difficult to believe she could be so much of a fish out of water in her own time, but that's the sort of minor point it doesn't do to belabor. Flavia is written in such a way to allow those of our era, or of any era, to empathize with her plight. Getting bogged down on such a matter would be missing the forest for the trees.

Flavia is heartened when the Muslims arrive, invading the countryside, and she finds, in their leader, a new version of the handsome Islamist who still visits her dreams. Smitten with her almost immediately, he allows her to virtually lead his army, becoming a Joan of Arc figure in full battle-gear, and directing the invaders to pull down Christian society, and wreak vengeance upon all those she's seen commit evil.

Is she the herald of a new and better world? She may think so, but Muslims of that era weren't big on feminism, either, as she soon learns the hard way. As they say, meet the new boss...

This is really just a thumbnail of some of the things that happen in FLAVIA THE HERETIC. The movie is quite grim, and with a very downbeat, rather depressing ending. Not a mass-audience movie at all, to be sure. It's quite good, though, and doesn't belong on the "nunsploitation" pile on which it is often carelessly thrown. I think there's much value in the final film, and I'm glad I saw it.


Bo Derek's beauty and John Derek's revolutionary direction make this film worthwhile.

Bo, looking more gorgeous than ever, is a recently widowed woman who is experiencing visitations from her 'dead' husband (Anthony Quinn). He has a plan. Bo must procure the body of a young man so that her ghost of a husband can make his transformation from spectre back to corporeal life. Can she find a fitting candidate? How will she do him in so Tony can do his thing?

With Bo's attributes, John's unique direction, Quinn's film presence, and, thanks to John, a very pretty exotic look to the entire film, this movie is pleasant viewing.


This movie is visually stunning. Who cares if she can act or not. Each scene is a work of art composed and captured by John Derek. The locations, set designs, and costumes function perfectly to convey what is found in a love story comprised of beauty, youth and wealth. In some ways I would like to see this movie as a tribute to John and Bo Derek's story. And...this commentary would not be complete without mentioning Anthony Quinn's role as father, mentor, lover, and his portrayal of a man, of men, lost to a bygone era when men were men. There are some of us who find value in strength and direction wrapped in a confidence that contributes to a sense of confidence, containment, and security. Yes, they do not make men like that anymore! But, then how often do you find women who are made like Bo Derek.


Ashanti is a very 70s sort of film (1979, to be precise). It reminded me of The Wild Geese in a way (Richard Burton, Richard Harris and Roger Moore on a mission in Africa). It's a very good film too, and I enjoyed it a lot.

David (Michael Caine) is a doctor working in Africa and is married to a beautiful Ashanti woman called Anansa (Beverley Johnson) who has trained in medicine in America and is also a doctor. While they're doctoring, one day she is snatched by slavers working for an Arabic slave trader called Suleiman (played perfectly by Peter Ustinov, of all people). The rest of the film is David trying to get her back.

Michael Caine is a brilliant actor, of course, and plays a character who is very determined and prepared to do anything to get his wife back, but rather hopeless with a gun and action stuff. He's helped out first by a Englishman campaigning against the slave trade that no one acknowledges is going on (Rex Harrison!), then briefly by a helicopter pilot (William Holden), and then by an Arab called Malik (Kabir Bedi). Malik has a score to settle with Suleiman (he is very intense throughout, a very engaging character), and so rides off with David to find him and get Anansa back - this involves a wonderful scene in which David fails miserably to get on his camel.

Then there's lots of adventure. There's also lots of morality-questioning. The progress of the story is a little predictable from this point, and there are a few liberties taken with plotting to move things along faster, but it's all pretty forgivable. The question is, will David get to Anansa before Peter Ustinov sells her on to Omar Sharif (yes, of course Omar Sharif is in it!)?


There have been far too few mainstream films set in post-colonial Africa, and the ones that have are a mixed bunch. This one, with its altruistic pretensions to expose slavery in the 1970s, shows the best and worst values of Africa, which turn out not to be too different to the values of humanity as a whole. It also has shortcomings, given the undue influence of western pre-conceptions of Africans and, especially, Arabs.

Dr Anansa Linderby, the beautiful African-American wife of the English doctor David Linderby, is captured by Arab slave-traders, along with a teenage Sanufu girl and a young boy. The lead slave-trader, Suleiman, is every bit the stage Arab, with his flowery and sometimes humorous rhetoric, and gestures to match - which would not be out of place on "Carry On Follow that Camel" but are not up the standard this film deserves. Peter Ustinov of course had more than enough skills to address some of the shortcomings of the script, and he rescued what could otherwise have been a woeful one-dimensional character.

Continuing the stereotypical theme, all three of Suleiman's Arab employees are unintelligent and one has paedophilic tendencies towards the boy, which thankfully are not portrayed on the screen.

One of David's first ports of call is the local police officer, a stereotypical pompous and incompetent African bureaucrat. David then meets two stereotypical white ex-pats, an Englishman (Walker, played by Rex Harrison) and an American (Sandell, played by William Holden). Sandell is a mercenary with "conventional" views on mixed-race relationships, who initially refuses to help unless David provides payment up front. Won over by David's love for Anansa, and conscious of his own inability to find love, he agrees to take David up in his helicopter to help search for Anansa. They find Suleiman and his captives crossing the border and are unable to pursue them into the neighbouring territory - as a result of Sandell's hesitation and David's lack of experience with firearms, his helicopter is shot down but David survives.

We then see David introduced to Malik (Kabir Bedi), an African who has lost his family to Suleiman and is now only driven by vengeance. They find the Sanufu girl with a group of Tuareg and know they are on the right track to find Suleiman.

In one of the most heart-rending scenes they kill a party of slave traders only to find that it was not Suleiman's group, and have no choice but to send their captives to the Tuaregs they met earlier.

Later on we discover that the young boy who had been raped is a witch doctor and, in an excellent scene with supernatural overtones, he uses his knowledge to kill one of Suleiman's henchmen. Anansa on her part - and despite the scepticism of the boy - manages to engineer the demise of Suleiman's two other employees.

By this time Suleiman and his slaves are within days of reaching the slave market.

Suleiman, now in no doubt that Anansa is "trouble", attempts to sell her to an obscenely wealthy Arab prince (Omar Sharif) who is corrupt but intelligent. On discovering that Anansa is an American working for the U.N., the prince rather unwisely decides to carry on with the bargaining without considering the consequences. The scene where the two men haggle is one of the best in the film.

At the slave market, the young boy is sold to a middle-aged German paedophile, and we are left to guess whether the boy will still be considered "wunderbar" when his owner is on the receiving end of his witch-doctoring skills.

David and Malik finally confront Suleiman and there is a bitter-sweet ending from Malik's point of view.

Ultimately, David and Anansa are re-united, and Malik, whose life is in ruins, can console himself with having seen the task he set himself completed.

The overall plot of the film is excellent but it loses marks for its stereotypical portrayal of nearly all the leading characters. Credit must go to all the leading actors for addressing many of the shortcomings of the scripting.


Once again, I was browsing through the discount video bin and picked up this movie for $4.88. Fifty-percent of the time the movies I find in the bin are pure crap (I mean horrible beyond belief) but half the time they turn out to be surprisingly good. This movie is much better than I expected. I found it very engaging, though it was obviously made by an amateur.

 The direction is nothing special, but the story is intriguing with some good thrills. I expected it to be more of a comedy, but I wasn't too disappointed.

 For a thriller, this movie is surprisingly good-natured. There's no bloody violence, no profanity, no nudity, no sex. Usually, these movies require all four of those elements. The PG rating is well-deserved--not like "Sixteen Candles" where the "f" word is used twice and there's a brief gratuitous nude scene.

 I just wish the romance between Corey Haim and his love interest could've been developed more. The film does tend to be plot-heavy, and the potentially good subplots are pushed off to the side. Instead of developing a chemistry between the two of them, we end up watching a careless three-minute montage of them on their romantic endeavors. They end up kissing at the end, but there's so little chemistry that it seems forced.

"The Dream Machine" is no gem, but it's good, clean entertainment. It's quite forgettable--especially with a cast of unknowns, except for Haim--but it's also much better than you'd expect.

 My score: 7 (out of 10)


A delightfully unpretentious send up of Romeo and Juliet. Approach with no expectations other than having a good time and you will enjoy this one. A talented group of comic actors let go and have a riot in this light-hearted performers' vehicle. Bad reviews were due to a snobbishness about treatments of Shakespeare. Some people feel that all film must be "important" ---If you share those views, don't bother. The credits read "introducing" Angelina Jolie, which is not even close to being true, but she is astoundingly beautiful as the Juliet character, and, as always, her acting is wonderful--- and, considering her age at the time, even her dialect is pretty good. Recreating this classic tale with feuding Italian families in the catering business in New York results in great fun. See it in the right frame of mind and you will laugh out loud.


The movie itself made me want to go and call someone so they could enjoy it too. It was extremely funny. Angelena Jolie was wonderful as Juliet. The parents are hilarious.They are caterers as well as enemies.The kids play the parts of Romeo and Juliet in the church play.They fall in love and their parents try to keep them apart.(Spoiler Ahead. I think) They sneak off after a party and do it. Surprisingly they still want to get married in the end of the movie. If you don't like stereotypes and the defilement of classic literature don't watch. If you don't mind those you will have a blast watching this one.


First off, let me say I have wanted to see this movie for about a year now because I knew Angelina Jolie was in it and I love her. But my love for her has nothing to do with my opinion of the movie. Anyhow, no video stores carried it but low and behold the local library did. I watched it and absolutely loved it. Yes there were Italian stereotypes but it was done well and funny. It was not degrading in any way.

Every actor and actress did a superb job. I laughed very hard at the sexual humor. Overall, I think this movie is well worth seeing if you can find it. It is adorable and just plain fun to watch. I rarely rank movies as a 10 but I give this one a 10!!!

Go find it and watch it!


This truly funny movie has a zany cast of characters, just about every voluptuous middle-aged female in Hollywood, and a touching, funny love story. The Capomezza's and the Malacici's are rival caterers in an Italian neighborhood in New York. They are also at opposite--extreme--ends of the taste scale. Their children are cast in the lead roles of a church production of Romeo and Juliet. Naturally, they fall in love. On stage! The mayhem and confusion that this causes, as the parents feud with each other and their kids, is played out for us against the backdrop of the Capomezza's magnificently tasteless home, and their magnificently tasteless catered weddings.

Besides the four over-the-top parents and the charming young lovers, the characters include a vaguely wise priest, a plain-speaking grandma, a lady who waves a wand and passes on spiritual advice she receives from a medium called The Blessed Roscoe, a motel with beds shaped like the back seat of a car, and two doves. There is not a sight gag or a punch line that doesn't click in this fast paced movie.

Even the family names of the two families are part of the fun. "Capomezza" could be interpreted as "low-brows," and "Malacici" could mean "stuck-up snobs."

If you are sensitive about Italian stereotypes, you may not like this movie. If Bette Midler embarrasses you, you may not like it, because all of the women in this movie make Bette Midler look like Martha Stewart. The rest of us should love it!


Stupid, Stupid, Stupid. I think that Angelina Jolie is probably one of the most talented actress' today, but a movie like this isn't just worth her time. She deserves better, and so does everyone else in this movie. Talent is just wasted. Sorry, but i don't feel like writing a review for this.

I give it NO stars out of *****.


Steve Carell plays Dan Burns, newspaper agony uncle and dedicated single father to three girls. At a large family homecoming Dan meets his perfect woman, only to find out that she is in a relationship with his brother.

What's a man to do?

I rather liked "Dan In Real Life", but I would imagine the success or otherwise of this flick is going to be down to whether you are willing to accept Steve Carell playing a part relatively straight and restrained, rather than going through the broad comedy moves that have made him so successful. If you cannot accept it, fear not, "Get Smart" will be along later in the year, but for the record I thought he was very good.

"Dan In Real Life" starts off like your typical, incidentally amusing, family drama, but it gets funnier and funnier as it goes along and Carell's frustration with his situation grows. It's not massively original (but if you only saw movies with original ideas, cinematic pickings would be very scarce indeed, wouldn't they?), but "Dan In Real Life" is entertaining, and a good cast (who wouldn't fall in love at first sight with the luminous Juliette Binoche?) make the most of an insightful enough script that contains many a ponder on the meaning and passion of love.

I hope that Steve Carell pushes himself and does something as interesting again.


I'm not a Steve Carell fan however I like this movie about Dan, an advice columnist, who goes to his parents house for a stay with his kids and ends up falling in love with his brother's girlfriend. Its a story thats been told before, but not like this. There are simply too many little bits that make the film better than it should be. The cast is wonderful, and even if Carell is not my cup of tea, he is quite good as the widower who's suppose to know everything but finds that knowing is different than feeling and that sometimes life surprises you. At times witty and wise in the way that an annoying Hallmark card can be, the film still some how manages to grow on you and be something more than a run of the mill film. Worth a look see


There is a scene in Dan in Real Life where the family is competing to see which sex can finish the crossword puzzle first. The answer to one of the clues is Murphy's Law: anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. This is exactly the case for Dan Burns (Steve Carell, the Office) a columnist for the local newspaper. Dan is an expert at giving advice for everyday life, yet he comes to realize that things aren't so picture perfect in his own. Dan in Real Life is amazing at capturing these ironies of everyday life and is successful at embracing the comedy, tragedy, and beauty of them all. Besides that this movie is pretty damn hilarious.

The death of his wife forces Dan to raise his three daughters all on his own... each daughter in their own pivotal stages in life: the first one anxious to try out her drivers license, the middle one well into her teenage angst phase, and the youngest one drifting away from early childhood. Things take a turn for Dan when he goes to Rhode Island for a family reunion and stumbles across an intriguing woman in a bookstore.

Her name is Marie (Juliette Binoche, Chocolat) and she is looking for a book to help her avoid awkward situations... which is precisely whats in store when they get thrown into the Burns Family household.

If you've seen Steve Carell in The Office or Little Miss Sunshine, you'd know that he is incomparable with comedic timing and a tremendously dynamic actor as well. Steve Carell is awesome at capturing all the emotions that come with family life: the frustration and sincere compassion. The family as well as the house itself provides a warm environment for the movie that contrasts the inner turmoil that builds throughout the movie and finally bursts out in a pretty suspenseful climax. The movie only falls short in some of the predictable outcomes, yet at the same time life is made up of both irony and predictability: which is an irony within itself.

Dan in Real Life is definitely worth seeing, for the sole enjoyment of watching all the funny subtleties we often miss in everyday life, and I'll most likely enjoy it a second time, or even a third. Just "put it on my tab."


I saw a special advance screening of this today. I have to let you know, I'm not a huge fan of either Dane Cook or Steve Carell, so I really had no expectations going into this. I ended up enjoying it quite a bit.

Dan in Real Life is the story of a widower with 3 daughters who goes to spend a weekend with his family. While at a bookstore, he meets the woman of his dreams, only to find out that she happens to be his brother's girlfriend.

This movie is pretty well made- the soundtrack, cinematography, and acting are all top-notch, especially Steve Carell. My problem with it was mostly that there seemed to be a lack of character development, mostly with Dane Cook's character. We never really get a close look at the relationship between Dane and Steve's characters, and I felt that it could have helped a bit in showing what Dan's inner conflict about being in love with Dane's girlfriend was like. Other than this though, Dan in Real Life is definitely a solid, sweet film- definitely a nice break from all the horror and action movies we've been getting this year.


I was drawn to DAN IN REAL LIFE from the excellent reviews and the thirst for a Dramedy that was well written-thank you Peter Hedges-and because when Steve Carell stars in the film, you know an audience is going to find like in LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, a performance that is very entertaining and rewarding. DAN IN REAL LIFE delivered that promise.

The film is so real to many families world wide that have lost a member and yet have gone on with their lives in search of something that will give them the magic back before their loss. With Steve Carell and the wondrous Juliette Binoche, their relationship was so beautifully done and written that their scenes were so real to their characters and to their journeys. The cast, sets and story made DAN IN REAL LIFE one to remember as we head into the holidays ahead.


Dan, the widowed father of three girls, has his own advice column that will probably go into syndication. After his wife's death, he has taken time to raise his daughters. Having known no romance in quite some time, nothing prepares him for the encounter with the radiant Marie, at a local book store in a Rhode Island small town on the ocean, where he has gone to celebrate Thanksgiving with the rest of his big family. After liking Marie at first sight, little prepares him when the gorgeous woman appears at the family compound. After all, she is the date of Dan's brother, Mitch.

It is clear from the outset that Dan and Marie are made for one another, and although we sense what the outcome will be, we go for the fun ride that Peter Hedges, the director wants to give us. Mr. Hedges, an author and screenplay writer on his own, has given us two excellent novels, "What's Eating Gilber Grapes", and "An Ocean in Iowa", and the delightful indie, "Pieces of April, which he also directed. It's just a coincidence that both movies deal with families during Thanksgiving reunions.

The best thing in the film was the natural chemistry between the two stars, Steve Carell and Juliette Binoche. Mr. Carell, in fact, keeps getting better all the time. In many ways, he remind us of Jack Lemmon, in his take of comedy and serious material. What can one say about Ms. Binoche, an intelligent actress, and a bright presence in any film. She proves she is right up to doing comedy, convincing us about her Marie.

The only sad note is the waste of talent in the picture. John Mahoney, Diane Wiest, Norbert Leo Butz, Jessica Hecht, Emily Blunt, Allison Pill, Amy Ryan, have nothing to do. They just serve as incidental music for decoration. Dane Cook, who is seen as brother Mitch, fares better because he gets to recite more lines than the others.

"Dan in Real Life" is a delightful film that will please everyone.


Steve Carell once again stars in a light romantic movie about choices, family and pressure. By judging on the plot and cover art of the movie I was expecting a flat-out comedy, lots of laughs and unrealistic elements, but I guess I was wrong. Sure the movie had some comedy, but it felt much more of a light Drama to me and Steve Carell once again gave a great performance. The movie itself really tackles true observations and that was a strong element I found. But, the ending felt a little bit rushed and predictable. Through-out, the cinematography was great, the acting was great and the message it delivered was obvious but yet still very important. Though, it came down to old, flat and predictable ending. I'd reckon if different choices were made at the end of the movie (perhaps for the bad, even) this movie would get better publicity. Still a fun movie.


The widower family man Dan Burns (Steve Carell) writes the column "Dan in Real Life" giving advices for families in The New Jersey Standard and raises his three daughters alone. Jane (Allison Pill), the older, has just got her driving license but Dan does not allow her to drive; Cara (Brittany Robertson) has a crush on his high-school mate Marty; and the young Lily (Marlene Lawston) misses her mother. When Dan and his daughters travel to Rhode Island for a family reunion, he meets Marie (Juliette Binoche) in a bookstore and they spend hours talking to each other. They feel attracted for each other, but Marie receives a phone call and leaves Dan, giving her phone number first. Dan immediately falls in love for Marie, but when he return to his parent's home, he finds that Marie is the girlfriend of his wolf brother Mitch Burns (Dane Cook), who is also in love with her. Along the weekend, the attraction between the clumsy Dan and Marie increases and they have to take a decision.

"Dan in Real Life" is a great surprise and a delightful movie, with comedy, romance and drama. The chemistry of the gorgeous Juliette Binoche and Steve Carell is awesome and it is very easy to know why everybody loves Marie. The trio Allison Pill, Brittany Robertson and Marlene Lawston is fantastic and their characters are responsible for some of the best moments of this story. The screenplay is wonderful and the performances of the talented actors and actresses are stunning, with a realistic behavior of a family meeting. Follow the advice of Dan's column and plan to be surprised with the reunion of the Burns' family. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Eu, Meu Irmão e Nossa Namorada" ("Me, My Brother and Our Girlfriend")