This version of Bleak House is the best adaptation of a classic novel known to me. The representation of the court of Chancery as a 'character' in the drama is magnificent. The acting is marvellous, from the sinister Tulkinghorn, to the Dedlocks, Smallweed, Crooke, Miss Flyte, and the two young lovers. But it is the spider's web of chancery that holds the whole thing together, and the cinematography is superb. What mistake did the BBC make about copyright that meant that this version could not be seen in the UK on either video or DVD for many years? I tried to find out from them, but faced a stone wall. In the end I got a DVD copy from Canada.


You don't need to read this review.

An earlier review, by pninson of Seattle, has already identified all the main shortcomings of this production. I can only amplify its basic arguments.

Bleak House was a relatively late Dickens novel and is much darker than his earlier work. This is taken too literally by the director, Ross Devenish, who piles on the gloom and fog too much. When Ada, Rick and Esther appear, half an hour into the opening episode, it is a relief just to be in daylight for the first time. In some of the murkier scenes it was hard to see what was actually on my TV screen. I watched the whole thing in one day, starting in mid-afternoon. As daylight faded this became less of an issue, but I have a pretty good TV and I have never encountered this problem before at any time of day.

The pacing is very deliberate (i.e. slow). I am sure this was intensional, but it is overdone. There are numerous shots of people trudging though the muck and gloom of Victorian London that are held longer than is necessary to establish the mood and atmosphere. A good editor could probably take several minutes out of each fifty-minute episode, without losing a line of dialogue, just by trimming each of these scenes slightly.

I don't want to overstate these two problems. You soon adjust to the look and pace of this production. The more important issue is that it doesn't always tell the story very effectively. Earlier Dickens novels are as long as Bleak House, but are not nearly so intricately plotted. For example, I recently re-read Nicholas Nickleby because I was intrigued to see how Douglas McGrath crammed an 800 page book into his two-hour movie. The answer is simple: the book is full of padding. McGrath cut great swathes of the novel while still retaining all the essential story elements. This would not be possible with Bleak House.

This production needs its seven hours. Probably, it needs even longer, because many elements of its convoluted plot are not sufficiently clear, or as well handled, as they need to be. A few random examples will illustrate the problems.

The maid, Rosa, appears from nowhere with no background, so Lady Dedlock's attachment to her is largely unmotivated.

Sergeant George's acquiescence in Tulkinhorn's demand for a sample of Horton's handwriting is somewhat fudged.

It is not made clear enough that Esther is actually in love with Woodcourt when she agrees to marry John Jarndyce. Neither is it clear that they have agreed not to announce their engagement, or why.

Ada and Rick's secret marriage is omitted. In one episode they are merely lovers, in the next, people are suddenly referring to them as husband and wife.

Mrs Rouncewell is only introduced at a late stage in the story and Sargeant George's estrangement from his family is left unexplained - as is the means by which she is discovered.

Tulkinhorn's dedication to maintaining the honour and respectability of the Dedlock family is understated, so his motive for persecuting Lady Dedlock is more obscure than it need be.

The involvement of the brick makers with both Tom and (later) Lady Dedlock is somewhat opaque.

It is not obvious that Guppy renews his offer to Esther because her smallpox scars have all but vanished.

This is only a selection: there are others. They are not major problems and the main thrust of the story is clear enough. Nonetheless, they are minor irritations that detract from its power: you shouldn't have to puzzle over little plot points. However, there are more important structural problems that do weaken the story in its later stages.

The whole business of Tulkinhorn's murder is somewhat thrown away. Bucket immediately pinpoints Hortense as a suspect, which undermines the suspense of Sergeant George's predicament and the importance of finding Mrs Rouncewell. It also diminishes the impact of the sub-plot in which suspicion is thrown on Lady Dedlock and weakens the scene in which Hortense is unmasked in front of Sir Lester.

A more serious problem is that the murder, its investigation and the subsequent search for Lady Dedlock, dominate the story for over an hour, during which time we completely lose sight of the other main plot strand: the legal case and its effect on Rick. His failing finances, his gouging by Vholes and Skimpole, Ada's despair, his declining health and so on, are all put on hold for an entire episode. This may be how Dickens wrote the book (I haven't read it for years) but a good screenplay should keep the different plot strands moving forward together.

Finally, Smallweed's role in the story is so diminished that he is almost superfluous. His discovery of the new will, that triggers the final phase of the story, is also thrown away. It happens off screen.

Despite all of this, it is still a very good production. Many of the performances are outstanding. Individual scenes are beautifully realised. Its accumulating sense of tragedy is very powerful. I would still be recommending it as a superb adaptation of a great book, had it not been for the 2005 production. In fact, I probably wouldn't be fully aware of its defects if I hadn't seen how Andrew Davies did it better. I have been critical of Davies's Jane Austen adaptations, but I have to admit that he really knows how to tame Dickens's sprawling books.

This is an impressive and gripping drama and well worth seven hours of anybody's time. Nonetheless, its probable fate is to be viewed mainly as a cross-reference to the near-definitive 2005 version.


This is a great adaptation and a great miniseries in its own right. The plot cutdowns might disappoint the fans of the book (but really how many modern readers have read Bleak House without seeing a film version first? I know of only a few).

I think it is quite appalling to see reviews critical of the series which have clearly been written by people who haven't a clue about the story - did you actually SEE the series or did you just bag a BBC production because Gillian Anderson was in the newer version?

The series captures the mood, pace, characters and plot-drivers (cutting out the Dickensian flourishes which aren't needed and detract from a film treatment like the Turveydrop story, the Smallweed family dynamic and the extra lawyers - Tangle, Vholes etc are very truncated). The only omission that I wish had been kept was the Jellyby incident but as the first episode is already a trifle slow (after the first episode the pace is perfect) I can see it had to go.

The only other criticism I have is that Jo's death could have been more faithfully done. I can see that would have practically canonized Woodcourt and he's kept a little more human for not having that scene but really I think Jo's death is one of the most poignant points of the book and I missed it even though it always makes me cry.

Has theowinthrop actually seen the series? HOW did he think that Esther was raised by her aunt and UNCLE?? Who is this uncle? I suppose someone who could mistake the name of DENHOLM Eliott for Desmond isn't really an appreciator of English art (film or literature).

I also think he mistakes the treatment of the law. YES the law is drawn VERY badly in Bleak House. It fails the descendants of Jarndyce whose valuable inheritance is eaten up by the costs of litigation, it fails the deceased Tom Jarndyce and Rick Carstone and all who have faith in the suit. It fails Miss Flyte. In some sense it also fails Captain Hawdon who is driven to his death by the monotony of law copyist work. Yes it feeds the scavengers of Vholes and Tangle. But it also makes men like Guppy and Kenge able to move beyond their station in life. Though not kind to social status-climbers Dickens clearly would have preferred that they weren't bound to being stuck in the station to which they were born (contrast Jo and the brickmakers' families to the climbing out of poverty by Charley Neckett).

Also, the law, while misused by Tulkinghorn and the Chancery vultures, is actually the source of security for the wards of the Court Ada and Richard, and for Esther who is simply Jarndyce's ward. Their security was ensured by the law which delivers them to Jarndyce.

I can't see how anyone could have trouble following the story - remember you aren't supposed to realize Esther is Lady Dedlock's daughter right at the beginning. Neither are you supposed to "get" all the connections immediately. Instant gratification just doesn't happen in Dickens.

As for "seeing clearly" through the fog - gosh the Gillian Anderson had such scatty editing that I found IT impossible to follow and I knew the plot already!

I found Diana Rigg absolutely brilliant (overacting and drama don't make a good Lady Dedlock but if you think they do try the Gillian Anderson version).

It's ADA and Rick not "Kate"! and you get all you need of the Rouncewell subplot.


Perhaps you won't care for the social commentary, or the film makers point of view (I myself am mystified at the insignificance' angle Kasdan seemed to promote  when clearly, the actions taken in the movie promote CERTAIN significance. The ending confused me). However, there's absolutely no denying the manner in which the story is presented; the magnificent symbolism throughout; the threaded character arcs; visuals; dialogue  is absolute masterwork. I've watched the movie dozens of times, and I still marvel at its perfection. There's not a moment, action, cut, or line that doesn't have everything to do with the theme. Realistic human performances from all the actors. Scene to scene it's woven fantastically.

I have a pretty level sap-meter. The buzzer never went off during this film. If you're a thinker (rather than a casual viewer)  this movie delivers. Exponentially. Absolutely mesmerizing. (Do you have to agree with the message to appreciate the display? Who cares if it made you warm and fuzzy or not, was it interesting?)

Personally, the movie affected me  significantly. In my top 5.

Note: The front-page reviewer clearly speaks from a flawed African American perception. What he may have failed to recognize, is, there was a hand  shake. Not a hand - out. The spiritually dead white man', simply saw a man to respect, and admire. And he did something about it. The fact he was black had little, if anything, to do with it (color is simply used to draw the parallel. And the chasm. It's no accident the opening sequence shifts from black and white to color either). If you view the blacks in this movie as token'  you may want to reassess YOUR angst. You may be seeing only black and white yourself, eh. Just a thought.


I'll keep this one quite short. I believe that this is an extraordinary movie. I see other reviewers who have commented to the effect that it's badly written, poorly shot, has a terrible soundtrack and, worse, that it's not real in its portrayal of life. OK, so it may not be quite believable for its whole length, but this movie carries a message of hope which some others seemed to have missed. Hope that it isn't too late to save people from the terrible things that go on in so many lives. Gangland violence is real, right? Is it right, no! This movie carries an important social message which the cynics may dislike but which nonetheless is to be praised, rather than denigrated. I have watched this movie with great enjoyment at least eight times, each time with equal enjoyment and each time with the feeling that maybe the world could be made better and is not beyond saving (well not until 2008 anyway). 9 out of 10 from me for this one. It's very nearly perfect in my view. JMV


This highly underrated film is (to me) what good writing in a movie should be all about. Kasdan takes the search for meaning in our lives and lays it out for all to see and wonder at. The movie is about the divides people create to insulate themselves from the violence and hatred and bigotry of everyday life.

 Along the way we are asked question after question about life. Davis (Steve Martin with a great beard) asks himself 'Is my making a violent movie (and by extension our enjoyment of it) causing the violence in society?' Claire asks "What kind of world throws away something as precious as a human life?' Mack is not immune as he asks 'Is it possible to pass beyond the bounds of race and (an even harder step) finance? These are of course not quoted from the film, but generalities. Others ask their questions too, and to be honest it raises more than it answers.

 But that is the nature of life. We strive all our lives to find answers to questions we will never totally answer, and in certain cases have to make answers fit to our own needs and desires. As humans we thrive on questions we cannot answer. Some answers are real. Claire and Mack come to realize that even though they could take the easy road and let the state take the baby, their finding it placed the responsibility for her life in their hands. Some answers are not. Davis `Sees the Light' and decides not to make violent films, but the next day turns around and dismisses his epiphany as subordinate to his art.

 We all seek answers. This movie does not answer them for; it simply reminds you to keep looking for the answers.


On second viewing of this movie, I like it even more than the first time. It is full of nuances and a perception of life as being quite ordinary and often fearful but what lifts this movie to a height rarely realized is its focus on the little incidences in our lives to which we normally only offer the briefest of attention spans. Here the movie spins into the celebration of these incidences, the meeting of a tow truck driver and client, the jogger hearing a baby's cry from the bushes. The dialogue, acting, casting and direction are superb. No two by fours, no grand revelations. What I did observe was how true the characters were to their basic natures and how enhanced their lives became when these were celebrated. Kudos to all involved in this, we need more "Grand Canyons" in our lives. 9 out of 10.


One measurement for the greatness of a movie is, 'if it came on t.v. right now, would you want to sit there and watch it again?' My answer for the Grand Canyon is as powerful a "yes" as it would be for nearly any movie I have ever seen. There are just so many powerful moments, such an intelligent and moving story, such incredible performances.

 It perfectly captures the confusion and violence that were so rampant in the early nineties. But it also dramatically affirms the capacity of individuals to love, think and care. In a slight way, the movie was of its time. It partly portrays society as a balloon about to burst. Because the country was in a recession, and so void of leadership, this was true of that time. But the movie is also timeless. I think it could honestly stand up against any movie that has ever been made, and it is the most overlooked film of all time.


I really liked this film when it was released, and I still do, because the storyline makes you feel hopeful about life in general, and people too...one of the things I like about the films of Lawrence Kasdan. In addition to the positive vibes from the film, there are other reasons to like Grand Canyon. For one thing, it has an outstanding cast...Kevin Kline and Danny Glover, for example. In my opinion, Crash, the highly acclaimed film that won the Oscar for best picture, was very similar to this film. The difference is that Grand Canyon leaves you feeling positive. Crash had the opposite effect with me; it was very dark. I would choose Grand Canyon over Crash any day.


I have to say that Grand Canyon is one of the most affecting films I've ever seen. I've watched it several times now and I still feel as I did the first time; that this film, by itself, could make up the entire curriculum of a post-graduate course in film direction.

A long time ago film trailers used to promise, "It'll make you laugh, it'll make you cry." That's a very trite and shorthand method of describing what Grand Canyon does. It takes you to the best places in human experience and the next moment takes you to the gates of hell.

Much of the film is paced to cycle back and forth between people being close to happiness and the same people being close to horror. It's always a short step, too. Just to manage that swing with grace and without making it look false or exaggerated is directorial genius.

Spoiler (of sorts) coming up. After getting the audience used to rocking back and forth through the emotional spectrum, the film throws a curve with a sequence that doesn't go from good to bad and back but instead escalates from an ordinary marital spat, through an accidental self-inflicted knife wound that may or may not require stitches, to an earthquake that has the characters run from the house. In the moment of their relief, argument forgotten, cut finger forgotten, the earthquake survived, a neighbor woman calls out that her elderly husband has collapsed. The couple rushes to his aid. I cried when I saw this sequence. I cried every time I saw it. I'm crying now. It isn't sadness that does this to me. It's not a particularly sad sequence. What tears me up is that this few minutes of film was PERFECT. That's PERFECT! Astounding. (end of spoiler)

There's so much to say about Grand Canyon. It portrays relatively ordinary people experiencing epiphanies and it lets the viewer experience them vicariously. They aren't showy or overblown and there's no long pause to examine the moment carefully. The film moves on at the pace of life. Even when the characters do try to make sense of what has happened, they are uncertain of what to derive from their experience.

Grand Canyon is a very human film.


I just watched this film again and remain dismayed at the number of cynics who dismiss it as just New Age pap. A great film, one that takes its time to develop, it keeps coming close to going over the edge but never does and ultimately is meditative, affecting, and truer to life than most films people who dismiss its "coincidences" can see. I was angry at the time that movies like "Prince of Tides" and "Bugsy" (though I liked the latter) were nominated for best picture that year (let alone that "Silence of the Lambs" won!) and this was ignored completely except for one nomination for best screenplay. Upon revisiting it, I think history supports my initial reaction!


I revisited Grand Canyon earlier this year when I set out to devise a ten best list of the 1990's. I first saw the film when I was 17 years old. How did I hear about it? It was reviewed, and recommended highly, by Siskel & Ebert in 1991, and I eventually caught it on video a year later.

It's a great film, a powerful film, a healing film, about the power of listening, truly listening to one another. I've seen it six times now, and it entertains and inspires me with every subsequent viewing. But why the poor reviews for this movie? Maltin's movie guide gives it two out of four. Too melodramatic, too much coincidence, too sappy, are the expressions that I read the most. Yes, there is melodrama in this story, and yes, there is a lot of coincidence, too. But it delivers with an intensity and force that seems supple. For all of the "plot" that exists in Grand Canyon, such as drive-by shootings, a police chase, an earthquake, a love affair, a woman's discovery of a baby in the bushes, another shooting, a near accident by a new driver, and worldly advice from a homeless man, this movie wins because of the smart performances by Kevin Kline, Steve Martin, Mary McDonnell, Alfre Woodard, Danny Glover, and Jeremy Sisto. It also succeeds because of Lawrence Kasdan's skillful direction and writing. You know that this isn't just another movie when you consider a sequence at the beginning of the film that involves Kevin Kline being harassed by four black youths. Danny Glover plays a tow truck driver who assists the Kline character, but not before he gets harassed too, by the leader of the bunch. Listen to the dialogue as the kid suggests to Glover,"Are you afraid of me because of me, or because I have a gun?".

Grand Canyon is filled with one perceptive scene after another. Steve Martin should have been nominated for best supporting actor as a movie producer who has a change of heart and then a subsequent change of mind. I think his character is a warning that "the good" can carry us forward, that idealism is a virtue, but one that we must fight for constantly rather than depend upon.

I fear that Grand Canyon may be lost forever in the wilderness of non-new releases at the video store. But with the deals now on older releases as low as 99 cents, I plead with anyone who has read this far into a review from a reviewer that you will thank after having rented it, Grand Canyon is something special. If you loved Magnolia, another movie with a big ensemble about deep humanist themes, you'll love Grand Canyon, too.


Grand Canyon falls under a very scarce category: it is a very clever film, with very clever dialogs and food for thought everywhere from start to end. I have the impression that it never made it to it's deserved ranking (and never will), because of it's simplicity. This kind of flick needs sensitive watchers. Pity thought that IMDb makes me write ten lines, because this is in no way necessary in this particular case. Anyway in order to fulfill this request, I will tell you that the weak point of the film if any is in the acting: not that it is bad but it could have been done much better. Exception made for Kevin Kline who was perfect. Go ahead and watch it.


If you have not seen this excellent movie about life in the 90s (in L.A.) then you've missed a special treat. This is one of the most amazingly and most powerful movies ever made about life for Americans in the 90s and it even carries over into today's world in which we live in. It covers everything from raising a child, prejudice (more than one way),love, adultery, empty nest syndrome, selfishness, etc..and the list goes on. This story builds up to an ultimate climax and then when nothing else matters it always goes back to love with friends and family and love of life. It helps us dig deep within ourselves and to make us search for what we want out of life. Makes us ask questions of ourselves. Have we done enough for others, are we like this, etc.??? Sit back and enjoy a wonderfully done and emotional movie that I'm sure others will enjoy for a lifetime.

Take note of Mary Mcdonnell, Kevin Kline and Danny Glover's wonderful performance through this whole film. These actors are amazing and really show the true glow and meaning of what message is being sent to all of us. These are 3 of my favorite actors for life after seeing this film over 10 years ago now. I still enjoy it again and again. Also enjoy the wonderful soundtrack with it and don't forget to count how many times you see the helicopter fly by and try to figure out it's symbolism for the movie??hmmm... I almost forgot this is probably Steve Martin's very first serious acting role in any film he has ever done. He, too does an excellent job in this movie. This may come as a surprise to most of you. Sit back, relax and enjoy truly good film making.....


This work is less about Steve Martin's character Davis, than it is about Kline (Mack) and Glover (Simon), and Kline and McDonnell (Claire), but the dialog inserted via Davis is pondering, contemplative, near-poetic existentialism at its best. He is witty, intelligent, and thoughtful in both dialog delivery and content. The writers deserved an Oscar.

The performances are easy, relaxed, and natural; just what you would expect from "A List" actors. Martin contributes the performance which leads into his more recent Shopgirl, guiding you through life, love, and the pursuit of wisdom if not happiness. Kline is the straight - the suit - the conformist of the film, and as such his performance is crisp and refreshing.

This work deals with life in all aspects. It engenders a true emotional investment in its characters, and leaves you feeling hopeful that Mankind is not doomed, after all, no matter WHAT you believe, deep down.

All in all? This is delightful, with a gritty moment or two, and easy natural dialog which draws you in, assisting its audience in gaining a high enjoyment from this work. It's definitely worth your time, though it may not be every one's top choice as Friday/Saturday night entertainment.

I really enjoyed the intelligence this exhibited. It's not typical, and was an unexpected surprise. Another wonderful surprise was the honesty exhibited herein. The couples and friends hold detailed conversations, which feel and sound fully honest and (again) natural. I was very impressed with this work, and will be adding it to the DVD collection soon.

It rates a 9.1/10 from...

the Fiend :.


If you really want to know how most of the actors and directors in the Hollywood scene "made it" to where they are, the vast majority will tell you (assuming they will tell) that a strange coincidence took place. They happened to meet the right people at the right time and get into the right project which led to other connections and other projects. Quinten Tarrantino took an acting class whose instructor knew Harvey Keitel. Kevin Spacey lifted a back stage pass from a sleeping old woman at the lecture of a famous playwright who helped him land an important role. And Robin Williams credits his career to Gary Marshall's son who, after having seen "Star Wars", suggested to his father that an alien should visit the Cunninghams of "Happy Days". These coincidences, many times viewed as pure luck, shapes many of the careers in Hollywood today. Or is it pure luck? Is possible something else is going on? "Grand Canyon" written and directed by Lawrence Kasdan, proposes an altogether different explanation for the inexplicable, aka the strange miraculous coincidence. The movie concerns several different characters whose lives intersect because of positive and yet inexplicable happenstance.

Kevin Kline, a middle-aged father, experiences a break-down in one of the more dangerous areas of LA. After he phones a tow truck, a young gang accosts him. They threaten violence if he doesn't leave his car. Just before the confrontation can escalate, Danny Glover appears as the tow truck driver and dampens the intentions of the gang. Although Glover denies it later, he probably saved Kline's life. A producer (Steve Martin) of cheap violent films gets shot in the leg and after wards has a spiritual experience. He then announces retirement from producing blood and gore entertainment. And Kline's wife, Clair (Mary McDonnell), while on a morning jog, finds a baby hidden in some foliage. She claims the baby cried for her and that her "rescue" of the infant was preordained.

The movie explores further the results of these strange connections that lead to further relationships, end to relationships, and new beginnings. And all the while, a strange homeless man appears throughout the movie as if somehow he is also connected to everything that is going on.

It is very rare in Hollywood, or for film in general, to explore such a purely esoteric subject. There are a few moments that seem somewhat unbelievable, but maybe that's the point. What makes the film work is the superb acting by the cast. Although the miracles and coincidences may seem far-fetched, the actors make you believe they are experiencing these new realities. Maybe this is a subject we should explore more often.


A lot of the comments people have made strike me as (sorry) missing the point. Kasdan wants to present life, simply, ordinary life. The conventionally structured story, where characters have insights that change their lives, and then fade out, music up, and the film is over, is absorbed into this much larger canvas. Several characters in this movie have just such illuminations, and then they move on. Sometimes they can hold onto their insights, sometimes they can't, and that's the way life really is. In other words, Kasdan jettisons conventional dramatic structure in favor of an exploration of the the ongoingness of life  there is no happy ending, only an eventual ending; and everything before that is still in process, still always up for grabs  and, if you absolutely insist on a theme, an exploration of the role of the miraculous in our lives. What is a miracle? Well, life itself, for a start. Then add in all the random incidents and cross-connections that make up a life, or several interconnected lives, and you have miracles by the bucketful. Kasdan underscores this theme lightly, rather than insisting on it, and bolsters it in various ways, most memorably by the device, right in the center of the film, of having Mac and his wife, lying in bed, each dreaming their own dreams, but as well showing, later on in the film, how those dreams have the power, within the film, to shape reality. This is not a film with an easy or obvious message. You just have to let it play out in front of you, and then let it sit in your mind for a few days, a month, a few years, and see what it has wrought there. This is, without a doubt, Kasdan's best film, his most mature, his most humane. A major meditation on life from one of our most gifted writers and directors. The tragedy is, of course, that he has not been allowed to work for a number of years now, mostly due to studio constraints around "Dreamcatcher." Hopefully we haven't heard the last from Larry Kasdan. A great film from a great artist. Keep in mind that art does not have to rationalize itself completely in order to succeed.


Before there was Crash, there was this interesting film called Grand Canyon. Released about 14 years sooner than the former film, Grand Canyon was a movie about two people from different backgrounds who come together as friends over a lifetime. To me Crash was still a slightly better film, but Grand Canyon was no slouch either.

Taking place in Los Angeles, an upper-class lawyer named Mack (Kevin Kline) takes a shortcut through the seedier side of town only to have his car break down at the worst time. He calls for a tow truck, and has to wait for awhile, only to soon be threatened by a group of dangerous people who want his car. Soon the tow truck driver arrives at the perfect moment, and out steps Simon (Danny Glover) to take the truck away. Both men are threatened, but Simon manages to get himself, Mack, and the car out of dire straits. It is from here on out that a friendship develops between the two men over a lifetime with Mack helping out Simon just as Simon had helped him out of a dangerous situation earlier. You see Simon's sister Deborah (Tina Lifford) is living in a dangerous neighborhood with her two children, and fears for her oldest son who seems to be roaming the streets at night with some bad people. Mack offers them a better place to live as well as hooking Simon up with his secretary's friend Jane (Alfre Woodard).

This is the main plot of the film, but there are other smaller plots involving the same secretary mentioned above (Mary Louise Parker) as well as Mack's wife, (Mary McDonnel) who discovers an abandoned baby not long after their son Roberto (Jeremy Sisto in his first movie role) has gone to camp for the summer, and will likely be moving on with his own life soon. The details of all these plots are brought together into one complex movie which uses a police helicopter as a metaphor for life and as a bridge to entwine all the different scenes. This simple plot device works very well and helps greatly with the flow of the story.

The director Lawrence Kasdan, whose biggest movie to this date was The Big Chill, has created a splendid movie here. The cast is excellent, and most of the ideas are well thought out, but alas it falls short of greatness because some points, that would've made the film even stronger, are glossed over. The story involving the secretary is one, and the second involving Simon's nephew is the other. These scenes should've been more apart of the entire story, and then maybe Lawrence Kasdan's views of life between the upper and lower classes would've been more on a superior level instead of just very good. Still Grand Canyon exceeded expectations, and yes you will get to see a view of the canyon that this movie was named after. There is also a small role for Steve Martin as Davis, a producer of violent films, who offers his own views on life, and has a small part to play in this movie's ideas.


Well, maybe not immediately before the Rodney King riots, but even a few months before was timely enough. My parents said that they saw it and the next thing you know, the police got acquitted and LA got burned to the ground. It just goes to show the state of race relations in America. The plot has white Mack (Kevin Kline) and African-American Simon (Danny Glover) becoming friends after Simon saves Mack's life in the black ghetto. Meanwhile, movie producer Davis (Steve Martin in a serious role) thinks that gratuitous violence is really cool...until he gets shot. There's also some existentialism in the movie: Mack and his family come to realize that they aren't living as they really want.

It seems that "Crash" has somewhat renewed people's interest in race relations, but this one came out much earlier. Maybe we'll never be able to have stable race relations in this country. But either way, "Grand Canyon" is a great movie. It affirms Kevin Kline as my favorite actor. Also starring Mary McDonnell, Mary-Louise Parker and Alfre Woodard.


The mere fact that I still think of the movie a decade later is what really speaks volumes about the film. To me this substantiates Grand Canyon as a film that will touch you in one way or another. I truly believe that before the movie Crash there was Grand Canyon. The major difference between the two films in my opinion is the timing of their release. I'm not going to argue which one is better, but I will contend to the idea that they share the same message. I'd love to hear from those that have an opinion on this subject. I will start a commentary which you can find at http://www.myspace.com/62229249. You may also find me there to post any other topics about movies that we may share, because i have a true love for film.


Grand Canyon is a very strange bird. It's a completely unique urban piece, where relating the entire plot would fail to convey much.

It's central theme seems to be the inherent uncertainty life holds for people of every race, background and station. But to proclaim that THE theme of the film would be to horribly understate its scope. Similarly, to pigeonhole it in a particular genre is futile.

The film has volumes to say, though likely different volumes for every viewer, and says it all in such a non-preachy way from so many angles, that in the end, i can't even define its central message for myself.

Nevertheless, it does it's business with such laser precision; every prop, line of dialog, and bar of background music contributing to it's pervasive mood and powerful message, that i'm pleasantly surprised, and come away very thoughtful after every viewing. Still it doesn't feel at all stuffy. A sparkling film with a great cast and everything working.


I remember seeing this movie when I was about 7; and at the time it shocked me. I had seen a violent movie before, but I never saw a movie with the consequences and reality of violence. This movie not only shows this, but it also shows how people can change their lives and choose happiness. What this movie did and crash failed to do was to be truthful. Crash tried to show how racism was bad (and Crash actually had a built-in anti Asian bias) and to come at it from a morally superior position. Grand Canyon came at things from such a raw and real perspective that it actually ends up on a higher ground than crash. Especially when you compare the endings. The ending of crash is this supposedly neat little ending that ties everything up. While Grand Canyon simply ends on a quiet note, where you know nothing much will change in the character's lives but that's because life just goes on too, there's no suitable ending. No matter how good...bad you are. There is no ending of a chapter to begin another.


This is an excellent movie with a stellar cast and some great acting. I never tire of watching it. I especially love the scene where Danny Glover's character and Kevin Kline's character namely Simon and Mack have brunch together. Kevin Kline is such a natural and it seems his mannerisms are effortless and one you would encounter often. SO its a very 'real' movie.

One of the most powerful scenes in the movie however, is at the beginning of the movie when Simon arrives at the scene where Mack's car has broken down. The movie also has a strong message and is unlike the stereotypical message carrying movie where there's one person preaching his guts out to an audience. Instead the actors' emotions and situations deliver an impactive message that does best without the use of words. And lastly, Mary McDonell is brilliant as always.


... but watch Mary McDonnell's performance closely. Her body language. Her fine body movements. Her subtle, but powerfully effective, reactions. This is an accomplished artist at the top of her craft. And the rest of the cast were pretty damned good, too! ;o)

This is perhaps the 3rd or 4th viewing for me, and I see more in it each time. What /IS/ this world coming to, anyway? -R.


In my opinion, the best movie ever. I love when people ask me what this film is about. I usually smile and say "life". They shrug and probably never give it another thought. The fact that everyone from every background can relate to some part of this movie makes it all that much more amazing. Definately a must see for everyone.


This film could well have been one of those ordinary "soapies" relating the day to day events of half a dozen families whose lives are intertwined..broken relationships,building new friendships, street bashings, near accidents, hopes and dreams and even the discovery of a baby discarded under some bushes! What a mixture of events!

Fortunately the film maker goes beyond those daily events and poses questions to consider although there are no satisfactory answers. He asksin this chaotic world do things just happen, is it just luck when things turn out right or , taking a fatalistic view, is a person predestined to be at a certain place at a certain time and thus become involved in the event and his future takes on a new perspective? Most of us have had this uncanny experience.

Is it our super ego that makes us believe we are so important? As one character says he once sat on the edge overlooking the Grand Canyon and came to realize how infinitely small he was.

This is not one of my favourite films but is a good study of human relationships. Danny Glover is outstanding in a sympathetic role.


At your video store, you might find this gem.

The human condition in modern times LA. No exaggerated drama, just a collapsing of events that might happen to any group of individuals over time.

Helps you understand the joys and desperation of urban life.

The direction and cutting are top class. Cinematography and music very much follows the mood and situation. And the CAST!!!

Excellent casting and excellent acting. No one out of place or out of character.

And it's NOT really as much a downer as you would expect. I gave it 7 of 10.

If you havent seen it, DO!


This movie awed me so much that I watch it at least once a year. At times I find it uncomfortable. At times I find it empowering. And I always find the characters human and real. It is a movie that shows you the gritty reality of life in LA, starting with the recurring helicopter search lights scanning for the dangers lurking so close to the ordinary lives being carried on by the characters. It is also a movie that shows you how the kindness of a stranger can change your life and empower you to make a difference. Grand Canyon reminds you that every action you take, whether intended or not, has powerful repercussions. I found this movie to be similar in many ways to Robert Altman's film Short Cuts. Both had a star-studded roster of perfectly cast actors & actresses and both movies allowed you to gradually see how the the characters interrelated with one another and affected each other, for better or worse. Grand Canyon did a better job of providing a cohesive message, (hope in the face of despairing reality), than Altman's film, although I found them both intriguing in their own way. This film is a definite must see!!!


Every now and then a film maker brings to life a unique group of people and lets you inside to see the things that make us human. Lawrence Kasden done this again. I always felt theBg Cill was the anthem of it's age and he has managed to do it again in Grand Canyon. Every so often we find ourselves at a point where we have the opportunity to choose life and so often we blow it. This is a film about people who find the courage to choose and experience life because of that choice. The juxtaposing of little and big events that lets us see how basically trivial most things we worry about are is truly genius. I have watched this film a number of times and am constanly surprised at how deep the emotions run through this film. Danny Glover and Kevin Kline do their roles with great tenderness and Stever Martins portrayal of a movie exec is priceless. Thank you again Mr. Kasden


This would have been my number one movie of the year for 1991, except it got beat out by the brilliant JFK. This is such a wonderful movie! I loved it. I love stories where different characters' lives intersect with others and how deal with their lives. Kevin Kline is good here, but is outshined by Danny Glover and, especially, Steve Martin. I've never much like Martin or his style, but here he is great. I loved the whole speech he gave to Kline near the end about the Grand Canyon. The writing was excellent. Larry Kasdan is, IMO, a great dialogue writer, along the ways of Kevin Smith and Quentin Tarantino. Here, he has formed several three-dimensional characters and well thought out storylines, and messages that give a positive feel to our lives. A truly excellent film. 4 out of 4 stars


Alain Chabat claims this movie as his original idea but the theme of reluctant lovers who finally get it together is as old, if not older, than Shakespeare.

Chabat is a "vieux garcon", happily single and not wanting any member of the opposite sex to disturb his life. He has a problem, 5 sisters and a matriarchal mum - the G7 - who decide he should be married. Enter the delightful, charming Charlotte Gainsbourg and what should be a simple plan. Charlotte has to pose as Chabat's girlfriend and then simply not turn up on the day of the wedding. No more talk of marriage from the G7. Of course the best laid plans have a habit of spiralling out of control.

There are very strong supporting roles from Lafont as the mother and Osterman as the tight-fisted brother of Gainsbourg.

There are some fantastic scenes as first Charlotte has to charm, then revolt the family. French farce with an English.


There wasn't a dry eye amongst the audience yesterday afternoon after I left the cinema, having seen this gem of a film in a sold-out house as part of this year's Hamburg Film Festival. And the tears shed were all of laughter. This film was hilarious, there's no other way of saying this. There wasn't one boring bit in it, I laughed right through it and with me everyone else of us three hundred lovers of French cinéma.

Alain Chabat was absolutely terrific. A great clown if needs be and serious if the situation calls for it. The performance was of course completely over the top, but this was exactly what the story needed and what made it work so well. Equally great was Charlotte Gainsbourg who I love to see a lot, and the mother was also a very strong performance. The sisters could have been a bit more detailed in character script-wise, but apart from that there is nothing to moan about. I had a great afternoon seeing this film while Hamburg was drowning in rain outside, and I wish films like this from France would get a regular release in Germany. But the distributors is this country don't seem to understand that the French make good films. I at least can't wait to find a DVD which offers subtitles (Hello Australia? Please?) because that film I need at home to watch several more times!


Alain Chabat is a fine actor, writer and director but maybe a trifle misguided to take an 'idea' credit for a story that probably had them rolling in the aisles when Aristophanes was still learning that it's 'i' before 'e' except after 'c'. But, like I said, Chabat is a fine actor and he can do charm when he needs to. I'm also gradually overcoming an aversion to Charlotte Gainsbourg who also turns in an accomplished performance. If you absolutely insist on knowing, the 'plot' is the one about the guy well into his forties and more than content to be single. This doesn't sit well with his mother and five sisters and to get them off his back he makes an 'arrangement' with the sister of a colleague to pose - for fifteen thousand euros -as his new girlfriend, allow the romance to come to fruition with a wedding and then jilt him, thus getting him off the hook. Naturally they wind up together but along the way there's some sub-Benedek and Beatrice duelling and all things considered it's a pretty painless ninety minutes and performing so well at the French box office that a sequel may not be out of the question.


Didn't know anything about the movie before watching and I think it was the "no expectation" factor that helped me endure at first and later like it more than I anticipated.

The setting was interesting, strange but interesting. The storyline had gaps/jumps that I think throws the audience off a bit. There's no great soundtrack playing in the background, creating the "romantic" ambiance. BUT they all didn't matter.

The chemistry between Emma and Luis was simply exquisite. There was some inexplicable strange chemistry that I couldn't resist; I fell in love with it and here I am, writing this review. The subtle love portrayal by the two actors was superb, and I believe, that is the core of this movie.

This movie is not an everyday romantic comedy; in fact, not all of us will appreciate it. I had to sit a while and then slowly began to comprehend the little things I didn't catch at first. I cannot guarantee everyone will like it, but I hope YOU do.


From the opening shots of the lead actor, we are given a early view on how so many mens lives are run by the women in them, and the humour that comes thru with all that goes on in the day to day of 'normal' life.

Eric Lartigau, the director picks up on how so many European men feel that they are in complete control of their lives, yet without the help/support of the women around them cannot seem to make things work. The use of facial image throughout the film is superb, and his clever positioning of the senior member of the family (mother) is spot on.

While there are more than enough laughs in the movie, it still deals with single parents/adoption and the strength of family in society. Truly rewarding to watch, and again one that only the French seam capable to make.

So far one of the best 50 or so Films I have seen this year, and well worth a five start rating. I look forward to adding this one to the DVD collection when it is released and highly recommend it to all ages.


I think Charlotte Gainsbourg is one of the best performers in the world. I can't understand why some people say she's not. Boring....??? Maybe the one who said she's boring is because he/she is boring. She's a great actress and the movie was excellent. It has lots of wonderful ideas and very good performers. The direction was great. I imaging myself in the French environment with all the sophistication and perfume, flowers, churches, problems, etc. When she goes to the sister's shop is simply amazing. Everything's great. We have a very good actress, wonderful, for long time. Alain Chabat and Bernadette Lafont are perfect. I like him more than in his next movie LA SCIENCE DES RÊVES. And Eric Lartigau did a very good work.

Ana


I have to be 100% honest with you fellow IMDb users. I wanted to see this movie for a very long time only because of the poster. Doesn't Charlotte Gainsbourg looks extremely sexy and charming smiling that way? I'm in love with that woman! I got what I expected...but only half. This film should deliver expectations for those who enjoy all kinds of romantic comedies or stories involving intelligent humor and light dramatic situations.

While I don't agree with another fellow IMDb user who states that the movie is overrated; I must admit that "Préte-moi ta main" has plenty of flaws.

My main problem with the film is the lack of on screen chemistry between the main characters. There isn't a single scene previous to the climax that shows the main characters sharing a moment "of romance" or even a clue to suggest that they're interested in each other.

In fact, the only scene were both share a moment is tremendously awkward (when both are in the couch) and does not help the audience understand about a possible love interest. I didn't buy the dinner sequence.

Still, the movie delivers very funny moments and has a strong dialogs that support such an ingenuous premise. I mean with ingenuous that it would be very difficult to execute such a farse by a 43 year old man in these days.

I understand it's a movie and that's why I accept it as a funny situation. Plus, the humor is versatile. There are moments involving S&M, funny lines with Chabat's best friend, some lesbian references, funny situations involving the family women, and more.

Charlotte Gaionsbourg's performance is top notch and she's by far the reason to watch the movie. She's funny, sexy, looks very thin and fine, and demonstrates she's a versatile and talented actress who can pull out a comedic and dramatic performance in sheer brilliance.

Alain Chabat is a fine actor and gives a very decent performance. I think the supporting cast do what they can.

The score, art direction, and other technical aspects are really good and give a dynamic look to the film.

Those who enjoy this kind of cinema should be pleased after the ending credits. It's a good example of feel good cinema.


Rain or shine outside, you enter a movie house. It makes you happy. (If not, come right out.) Lights go off. You settle down with a bar of ice cream. Moving pictures begin to flicker on the screen. You feel content. In the dark, you are back in the beginning of time. Sitting around the campfire...looking at the modern version of the flickering flames 24 times per second and sharing the joy of discovering the unknown turns and twists of the scenario with rest of your clan/spectators.

Those who are not happy with themselves, should not write comments. (Long live romantic comedies...)


This is an Excellent little movie! The acting is good and the music is fantastic!! Play it on a 5-1 sound system and enjoy! It will never win any awards but its good clean fun for all!! I recommend this movie to all fans of pretty girls funny and hansom men as well as robot lovers everyone!!1 P.S. It also stars Lisa Rinna! Enjoy!!This is a very hard movie to find, It is out of print. I first saw it on Showtime many years ago but recently found a used VHS copy. Its still a must see for all!!!This is an Excellent little movie! The acting is good and the music is fantastic!! Play it on a 5-1 sound system and enjoy! It will never win any awards but its good clean fun for all!! I recommend this movie to all fans of pretty girls funny and hansom men as well as robot lovers everyone!!1 P.S. It also stars Lisa Rinna! Enjoy!! Dave Engle This is a very hard movie to find, It is out of print. I first saw it on Showtime many years ago but recently found a used VHS copy. Its still a must see for all!!!


I saw this film (it's English title is "Who's Singing Over There?") at the 1980 Montreal International Film Festival. It won raves then... and disappeared. A terrible shame. It is brilliant. Sublime, ridiculous, sad, and extremely funny. The script is a work of art. It's been 19 years and I've seen only a handful of comedies (or any other genre, for that matter) that can match its originality.


This "tragicomedy" written by famous Serbian theatre/film writer Dusan Kovacevic is probably one of the best movies ever made in the comedy category. And yet, its appearance of a theatre play transformed into a feature film takes nothing of its value. A masterpiece one should not miss to see (preferably with subtitles, and not dubbed).

In an aged bus en route to capital Belgrade, a looming war decides the passengers' behaviour. Two Gypsy musicians sing of their miserable life but also foresee a tragedy to come; their singing both divides and connects stages in this extraordinary road movie (real life Kostic brothers are amateur actors, but together with Stanojlo Milinkovic as farmer who's plowed the road give a real-life performance).

The spectrum of characters gives a brilliant image of a society facing a war, an insight into nation's collective person: everyone is aware that war is just about to begin but they try to live their own lives the best they can, hoping that ignorance might avert the tragedy. Using a simple movie language, director Slobodan Sijan paints a picture of society torn by previous war (World War I), but also highlights personal portraits with success: provincialism of a singer, inexperience of the newlyweds, seriousness of the Great War veteran who is on way to visit his recently conscripted son, and gloomy predictions from a man who seems to be a German spy.

Brilliant in its narration, with memorable soundtrack (especialy the Gispsy songs) and adjusted atmosphere, well photographed and edited, this feature (Sijan's feature debut) was only an introduction into a series of the directors bitter-sweet comedies that will define Serbian cinematography of the 1980s: "Maratonci trce pocasni krug", "Kako sam sistematski unisten od idiota", and my other director's favourite "Davitelj protiv davitelja").


This movie is one of the funniest, saddest and most accurate portrayals of the mentality that seems to have pervaded the Balkans yet again, 45 years after the time depicted. All the usual characters and conflicts are presented with such anger, sadness and love combined that it is impossible to decide whether crying or laughing would be the more appropriate response. The accuracy of portrayal and the timelessness of the types, however, make it for a great film to watch if one wants to understand a little bit of what drove ex-Yugoslavia to its madness. In fact, no diplomat dealing with the region should attempt anything until they saw this movie, and its twin, *Maratonci trce pocasni krug.* Did I mention it is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen?


A milestone in Eastern European film making and an outstanding example of Serbian mentality. A group of completely different people are doomed to die because of their discord. With "Maratonci trce pocasni krug" makes two mythological movies everyone here knows word by word.


Superbly developed characters into the lots of funny situations full of spirit, absurdness and Serbian mentality. Movie is a great comedy, enjoyable, interesting, unpredictable. Best point in a film: characters, then humor itself, story and dialogs. Humor has 'inner development' , rare in Serbian movies. So, it is consequence of characterization, is well motivated, spontaneous and cogent. Also it is sharp, intelligent and lucid. Most of the movies, unfortunately, had constructed humor (devise a joke and put it into a characters's mouth) or ordinary situation comedy, burlesque, farce. Some of the 'art immortality' are incorporated in this movie. Little masterpiece, hardly reachable.


One of my favourite "domestic" movies. I don't know if there is any person in our country who hasn't seen this movie! It's funny, and sad at some moments...I don't know how did people around the world (who had opportunity to watch it) accept this movie, because you have to know some moments in our serbian history and character of Serbs in the first half of the 20th century, to be able to understand it! But as I see here, there is somebody from Canada who watched it...and he liked it.

I think that I'll try to put all good quotes from the movie on this site, but first to find out how to do that...

Cheers.


The group of people are travelling to Belgrade in an awful bus led by a drunk conductor and his dumb son (who likes to drive with his eyes closed). Their journey is frequently interrupted by many hilarious events which with much irony describe the fall of nation`s spirit in 1941 and are so funny that they are even today used as a common jokes. The man who "steals the show" is a peasant 4 feet tall with his 4 sons who are almost two times bigger than him. In the end, the movie takes one dramatical turn and the trip becomes nothing but a swan`s song of a dying country.


Years ago I was lucky enough to have seen this gem at a >Gypsy film festival in Santa Monica. You know the ending >is not going to be rosie and tragedy will strike but it's >really about the journey and characters and their dynamics and how they all fit into what was "Yugoslavia". >While I am not Yugonostalgic and tend to shy away from >the current crop of "Yugoslavian" films (give me Ademir >Kenovic over late 90s Kustarica) I'd be happy to have the >chance to stumble on this film again, as it shines in my >celluloid memories. Ever since seeing Who's Singing Over >There" 15 years ago I still hear the theme tune, sung by >the Gypsies, ruminating through my head "I am miserable, >I was born that way" with the accompanying jew's harp and accordian making the tune both funny and sad. The late, great actor Pavle Vujisic (Muzamer from When Father >was Away on Business) was memorable as the bus driver of >the ill-fated trip in his typical gruff yet loveable manner. Hi


This is the movie I've seen more times than any other (I believe I saw it on average once every year since it was released). And every time I see it, it is equally fantastic and always reveals something new to me. The cast was most probably a combination of the very best there ever was in ex Yu cinematography. This movie is an absolute must for any self respecting movie lover. In the same league: Maratonci trce pocasni krug, Balkanski spijun and Otac na sluzbenom putu. This is a poker of movies everyone should have in his private video collection.


"Ko to tamo peva" is one of the best films I ever saw. A tragicomedy with very deep implications on the fate of humankind shown through the eyes of seemingly very plain and common people from a God-forsaken Serbian province just before the start of the World War II. I saw it in a small movie theater in Russia where the film had had a very limited distribution, and I had no chance to come across it ever since. It is such a pity that this excellent film is almost forgotten now. I searched for a VHS or DVD copy of it many times, and alas - could find none. I would be most grateful to other fans of this little gem of movie-making for a suggestion of the ways to purchase a copy.


At first sight, Who's Singing Over There just seems to be an absurd and excellent comedy with only a kind of unusual, quiet and slow motion : what a mistake !

Beginning with two singers on a desert landscape, then a bus and a wonderful bunch of actors, it hides a gem !

The folded story, and a false rhythm induces you to think, yes it is comic, but just lets you guess it will be a gentle kind of movie.

Not at all : very funny by instant, dark subtle cynical on others, its development surprises you all along the story Very ingeniously and cleverly presented, all the characters are important, and the actors give them full life.

And what is astonishing, it's based on deep observation, great mastering of the camera work and has a great meanings, and really everything, the general direction and how also the details are presented, that it simply makes you forget it's a movie: it is like to watch a kind human society, you yet don't know,shot by a friend behind a camera.

And you're the one behind him. It is simple, and simply exceptional !

Don't misunderstand me; in no way that would means the script , the quality of picture, the music score have a kind of amateurish way, no, no ! It's great Art !

Because it flows like a river From high up in the mountain, down to the sea, with all the different sort of grounds and peregrinations that a real river will face on its journey to the sea from a tiny thing to a main stream.

This metaphoric image I used is the very best way I can find to explain all the charm that has Who's Singing Over There. For me, again, I take the hammer : simply exceptional...

I've seen that The Director is the one who made Chat Blanc/Chat Noir, which I know is quiet famous But as I yet didn't see it, I had no idea about this gentleman.

Others reviewers wrote dithyrambical comments on that film, I fully agree !

European Eastern Cinema is not well know because seldom translated, but I am lucky to have this exemplar one in original language, with good English subtitles. All in all : deep, delicious and exceptional...

For fast and empty exploding types and special effect buffs, avoid it at any cost, it may be too subtle and good for you !

But if you're interested in different genres and/or classics, I guess you won't regret this one, and in case of buying, it will have good companionship in your personal DVD library, with such no less than merited big names like Billy Wilder, Lubitsch, or Sacha Guitry among some of my preferred directors . At least for this movie !

***A film is never really good unless the camera is an eyes in the head of a poet Orson Welles***


Actually I'm surprised there were so many comments about this movie. I saw it as part of a Slavic film festival at a major American University. But nobody in USA has heard of it, which is a real shame! The dynamics between the people are what makes it both funny and sad. They are stuck together on a long bus trip--someplace most of us have been!! But I never had one like this!!

My favorite scene is the one where they stop for the funeral. Then the man & woman sneak off for some Lovemaking in the forest but everybody follows them to watch without them knowing! Just as she raises her skirt and he enters her all the way--the consumptive starts hacking & they realize everybody is watching!! Talk about surprised! But...you really have to feel for them even if it is hilariously funny! When you see the ending it is sort of ironic that they enjoyed themselves while they did! Serb humor at it's best!


I like this movie a lot, but it's a fact, that you cannot understand it, unless you're from the ex Yugoslavia. Most of the actors are now dead and those were the best actors in ex Yugoslavia. I appreciate that this movie is now on Divx and I can have it in my collection. Macedonia. Serbia. Montenegro. Bosnia and Herzegowina. Croatia. Slovenia.

All of this was ex Yugoslavia, a melting pot of the Balcan nations. It could be a dream land, if Slobodan Milosevic, Franjo Tudjman and other nationalists wouldn't poison the nation's mind with their sick ideas.


I watched this film over a hundred times. It is really best Serbian movie made ever.I wood like to recommend this movie to everyone. It is very good comedy. I surely like it!!!!


this is what i call a great movie. it lives trough the fantastic actor skills and a simple but human story. there are real characters which can be funny and dramatic. but the main theme is very cruel, like live is.the bus driver and his son are collecting people trough the country (jugoslavia) on their way to the capital Belgrad. the funny and cruel situations that happens on the way, connect the people and the pigs that travel together.

watch it and you gonna remember it for life... its filled with Slavic humor and lifestyle.

and another reason for its magic : it is hard to get!!


This is the best movie I have ever seen.

I've seen the movie on Dutch television sometime in 1988 (?).

That month they were showing a Yugoslavian movie every Sunday night.

The next week there was another great movie (involving a train, rather than a bus) the name of which I don't remember. If you know it, please let me know! In any case, how can I get to see this movie again???? A DVD of this movie, where?? Please tell me at vannoord@let.rug.nl

The next week there was another great movie (involving a train, rather than a bus) the name of which I don't remember. If you know it, please let me know! In any case, how can I get to see this movie again???? A DVD of this movie, where?? Please tell me at vannoord@let.rug.nl


Ko to tamo peva is the best comedy of all times. Believe me i saw a lot of movies and comedies but tell me which one make you smile every time you watching it. But truth is that the humour in this comedy is special.It is caratherisic for serbia. And all former republic of yugoslavia know it very well!!! So i think the rest of audience (for example: In Europe)can't enjoy it so much. Because the subtitles ruin the hole thing. But they should at least try!!!! Yes it is ironic! This is the best flick in Serbian history and the world doesn't understand it! :-) If you have got a chance to see this one, don't blew up OK!


Along with the "Maratonci trce pocasni krug" from the same director, one of the masterpieces of ex-Yugoslavia comedies. If you want to understand Serbian mentality, you must see this movie. And if you want to see several of ex-Yugoslav great actors at the same time, this is a opportunity.


i'm not sure if it is available worldwide - but if anyone who's deciding what is supposed to be put on videotapes and distributed in video clubs - is reading this - please , please buy it! (if I wasn't clear: GET THE MOVIE INTO VIDEOSTORES!)

can't be explained - must see!


During a Kurt Weill celebration in Brooklyn, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? was finally unearthed for a screening. It is amazing that a motion picture, from any era, that has Weill-Gershwin collaborations can possibly be missing from the screens. The score stands tall, and a CD of the material, with Gershwin and Weill, only underscores its merits, which are considerable. Yes, the film has its problems, but the score is not one of them. Ratoff is not in his element as the director of this musical fantasy, and Fred MacMurray cannot quite grasp the material. Then, too, the 'modern' segment is weakly written. BUT the fantasy elements carry the film to a high mark, as does the work of the two delightful leading ladies - Joan Leslie and June Haver. Both have the charm that this kind of work desperately needs to work. As a World War II salute to our country's history - albeit in a 'never was' framework, the film has its place in Hollywood musical history and should be available for all to see and to find its considerable merits.


First saw this half a lifetime ago on a black-and-white TV in a small Samoan village and thought it was hilarious. Now, having seen it for the second time, so much later, I don't find it hilarious. I don't find ANYTHING hilarious anymore. But this is a witty and light-hearted comedy that moves along quickly without stumbling and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

It's 1945 and Fred MacMurray is a 4F who's dying to get into one of the armed forces. He rubs a lamp in the scrapyard he's managing and a genie appears to grant him a few wishes. (Ho hum, right? But though the introduction is no more than okay, the fantasies are pretty lively.) MacMurray tells the genie that he wants to be in the army. Poof, and he is marching along with Washington's soldiers into a particularly warm and inviting USO where June Haver and Joan Leslie are wearing lots of lace doilies or whatever they are, and lavender wigs. Washington sends MacMurray to spy on the enemy -- red-coating, German-speaking Hessians, not Brits. The Hessians are jammed into a Bierstube and singing a very amusing drinking song extolling the virtues of the Vaterland, "where the white wine is winier/ and the Rhine water's Rhinier/ and the bratwurst is mellower/ and the yellow hair is yellower/ and the Frauleins are jucier/ and the goose steps are goosier." Something like that. The characterizations are fabulous, as good as Sig Rumann's best. Otto Preminger is the suspicious and sinister Hessian general. "You know, Heidelberg, vee are 241 to 1 against you -- but vee are not afraid."

I can't go on too long with these fantasies but they're all quite funny, and so are the lyrics. When he wishes he were in the Navy, MacMurray winds up with Columbus and the fantasy is presented as grand opera. "Don't you know that sailing west meant/ a terrifically expensive investment?/ And who do you suppose provides the means/ but Isabella, Queen of Queens." When they sight the New World, someone remarks that it looks great. "I don't care what it looks like," mutters Columbus, "but that place is going to be called Columbusland."

Anyway, everything is finally straightened out, though the genie by this time is quite drunk, and MacMurray winds up in the Marine Corps with the right girl.

I've made it sound too cute, maybe, but it IS cute. The kids will enjoy the puffs of smoke and the magic and the corny love story. The adults will get a kick out of the more challenging elements of the story (who are the Hessians?) unless they happen to be college graduates, in which case they might want to stick with the legerdemain and say, "Wow! Awesome!"


If you haven't seen this obscure little charmer, you should seek it out. It is the story of a bumbling, wartime Sad Sack (Fred MacMurray) who is listed 4-F each time he attempts to join any branch of the military. He finds a magic lamp which of course contains a genie (Gene Sheldon), but the genie is even more bumbling than MacMurray is, sending him across time to serve in all the wrong times and places than the one he wants. It is cute, cheerful, and pure fluff, and you can't help but like it. The plots is much like a Disney film, particularly since the two stars (MacMurray and Sheldon) both made numerous Disney films in the 50's and 60's, although not together. Needless to say, it all ends well for everyone, and the viewer goes away feeling pretty good.


I happened to see this movie twice or more and found it well made! WWII had freshly ended and the so-called "Cold War" was about to begin. This movie could, therefore, be defined as one of the best "propaganda", patriotic movies preparing Americans and, secondly, people from the still to be formed "Western NATO block" of countries to face the next coming menace. The movie celebrates the might of the US, through the centuries, while projecting itself onwards to the then present war, which had just ended. Nice and funny is the way of describing the discovering of the American Continent by Columbus and pretty the "espisode" of New Amsterdam and the purchasing of Manhattan from a drunk local Indian .. Must see it (at least once, for curiosity of fashion of propaganda through time)! :)


Saw it as many times as I could before it left the scene. A delightful and entertaining film with some of my very favorite stars. Only wish I could find it again! Would certainly buy/view it if I could. Please, somebody, bring it back. Fred MacMurray was perfect in his role as a patriot during World War II, and his leading ladies, Joan Leslie, and especially June Haver were beautiful and charming. It was a musical, but also romantic, funny, and clever. This was my favorite movie starring June Haver, although I always liked her. Her dazzling smile lit up the screen, and her beauty and talent were an asset to any film. The supporting cast lent credit to their individual roles. A well-balanced and light-hearted film; only wish we had more like it!


I adored this movie. Not only because I am a big fan of Moritz Bleibtreu, although he is in practically all German movies that count. But also because he is NOT the main actor. The lead is taken over by Barnaby Metschurat, who was the only reason to watch 2001's Julietta, and who really carries this movie on his shoulders.

A family moves from Italy to Germany seeking "the German dream" (this is my own invention and ironic...) of cheap labor in steel and coal industries. However, they end up opening a restaurant and the journey the movie takes to this point alone is so poetic and at the same time funny and charming. From this point onward, the story told is mainly that of the two brothers of this family, Giancarlo (Bleibtreu) and Gigi (Metschurat). Gigi's dream to become a filmmaker is threatened by rivalry with his brother and his mother's determination to return to Italy. What follows is a great - and totally neutral - look at what life can become formed by the choices you make.

In the end, this movie doesn't say which life (Gigi's or Giancarlo's) was more successful or fuller or more interesting. It merely gives us a rewarding glimpse at what it must be like to search for identity when two countries and mentalities are involved. and this look is not driven by bitterness or disdain to either country, which makes it such a great film for any and every country dealing with the tensions resulting from immigration. The fact that director Fatih Akin's moved to Germany from Turkey in the 70s also lends this movie a large measure of its credibility and emotional accuracy. The icing on the cake are fantastic performances by the entire cast, especially Metschurat and - this I really need to stress - the little boy who plays young Gigi. That kid's performance would be a hard act to follow by just about anyone! Great movie, go see it.


After Fatih Akins first work "Im Juli", which was fairly good, he created a really gorgeous italian family epic. Its a german movie, which is unfortunately a bad precondition, cause we rareley produce more than moderate movies ;). But this movie makes some very good snapshots of the time then. "Solino" is about a Italian immigrant who arrives in the "Ruhr" region of Germany during the 60s. The immigrant and his family then start the first Pizza restaurant in the region. The characters are excellent drawn. Especially Gigi, the main actor. You live every second, every feeling he does. His brother, played by Moritz Bleibtreu, isnt that good. Well, you just dont believe him the role. But the character is wellbalanced and fits perfectly into this script. I feel an urgent need to compare the style of this movie with the style of "The Godfather". Many people will probably hate this movie, say its boring. Not much tension? - yes, but an outrageous movie. 9 out of 10.


Solino really moved me with its deeply drawn characters. While being a simple tale of rivalry between two brothers, it was not simply about hate or jealousy. What I liked most about the movie was how I could identify with the feelings Gigi was going through especially when he had to take his mother back to her home town in Italy and miss out on attending the festival film awards ceremony his film was entered into. To see this character who struggled so hard between his artistic dream and his innate sense of duty to his mother was so frustrating. Even at the end when he makes one more attempt to reach out to his father was so brave. And as in real life, most fathers can never get past their walls to reach out to their children. I could even identify with Giancarlo, the brother, who while being the more self assured and elder brother, had so many insecurities. A really beautiful film that made me laugh and cry.


This film plays in the 60s and is about an Italian family: Romano, his wife Rosa and their two children Gigi and Giancarlo emigrate from Solino in Italy to Duisburg in the Ruhr area. I like this film, because I think it is quite realistic: it shows problems which many foreign families have when they come to another country: they have to get used to a new culture, a new environment and this can be difficult: especially if you don't know the language.... It is difficult for the family but they find a way: they open a restaurant which offers typical Italian food, and it is named "Solino", like their hometown. The film also shows different conflicts - Gigi and Giancarlo fall in love with the same girl, and although Rosa has to work very hard, Romano refuses to pay money to engage more workers, etc. etc. But stop, I don't want to tell you how it goes on. You should watch the film yourself, it's a nice one - I have also made a Referat about it and examined scenes which show different cultural attitudes. And there are a few...


This movie about two Italian brothers who came to Germany with their family is just great!

It isn't an idealistic movie, I would say it shows life as it is or was in the 60s and 70s when the main story takes place. The characters are very nice but have also some "dark" sides, what makes you believe that these are real persons. Great movie with great actors to show that life is not funny all the time, but that you can find happiness with "fire and passion" as the main character Gigi would say.


Such a delightful movie! Very heart warming. One can't help falling in love with the character of Gigi. He's adorable as a child and grows into a sensitive artist. The whole movie revolves around him. He lives in a wonderful world  living all life  curiosity, desire and anticipation. There is an elder brother who tries to steal his glory but really remains in the shadow all his life. The father is very stereotypically Italian and so is the mother. I wanted the father to come and reunite with the mother in the last scene  and have them cry and laugh. I also wish that there was at least something redeeming about the elder brother. His personality seems to have been trashed entirely. Passion and ardour  that's the key to life. And looking through the camera  focusing on small details and savoring the delicate details of life.


I really enjoyed this movie. The script is fresh and unpredictable and the acting is outstanding.It is a down-to-earth movie with characters one cares about. It brought tears into my eyes a few times but left me with a great feeling afterwards.


really excellent movie, one of the best i've seen. Touching and simple - just like life, sometimes you cry sometimes you laugh and it's just beautiful. not too much of anything, just as it's suppose to be. Really loved the idea of the movie, noone is bad or good, all or just people, sometimes make mistakes mostly because of society's pressure, everyone tries to stay strong and some succeed more than others and the most important thing is that you don't have reasons to get angry - you can do it, but eventually the anger goes away and then you to need to let love come back in although it's hard, there lies the true happiness.

Great actors and cast, the movie really gets you into the feeling of the movie.

nice nice nice.

I recommend to see it, especially if you like to see italians' life...


this film takes you inside itself in the early minutes and holds you till the end. it has a very humane story and very good selected music. The acting of Moritz Bleibtreu (Giancarlo Amato) and Barnaby Metschurat (Gigi Amato) is satisfying. Recommended to people who get bored of action films and want to see a good movie.


I liked SOLINO very much. It is a very heart-rending story of an italian family moving to Germany. And it's an story about brotherly love, hope and disappointment. And the film is never boring. Go and see SOLINO!


Todd Rohal is a mad genius. "Knuckleface Jones", his third, and most fully realized, short film has an offbeat sense of humor and will leave some scratching their heads. What the film is about at heart, and he would almost certainly disagree with me on this, is how a regular Joe finds the confidence to get through life with a little inspiration. Or not. You just have to see for yourself. The short is intermittently making rounds on the festival circuit, so keep your eyes peeled and catch it if you can - you'll be glad you did. It is hilarious. And check out Todd's other short films also popping up here and there from time to time: "Single Spaced" and "Slug 660".


Whether it's three guys in their tighty-whiteys rapping to a dude bound in twine or a girl saying "What up, dog?" to a lump of roadkill, there's something please everyone in Knuckleface Jones. It is strange and surreal and not altogether a completely comprehensible yarn... yet it never loses you. The first time I saw it, I nearly laughed myself sick. And every night after I would come home and watch it again. Forget Coyote Ugly... this is the movie that cemented my crush on Piper Perabo. See it... before it's too late!


there is a story, but more essentially, the world of this film begins in chaos and comes to order over the course of ten minutes.

it is a celebration of life and an optimistic assertion of objective truth and good. representing along an axis unexplored in previous cinema, this film should be taught in every high school.

*CHIASMUS*


THE GIRL FROM MISSOURI arrives in New York City knowing exactly what she wants: to amount to something solid by marrying a millionaire - without losing her virginity. With her knockout good looks she quickly catches the eye of the playboy son of a tycoon, but by staying true to her virtue will she also discover true love?

Jean Harlow sizzles in this excellent little comedy. With her platinum hair & gorgeous accouterments, she is a dazzler. But her beauty should not obscure the fact that she was also a very good actress. She has rightfully earned her spot at the very top of the Hollywood pantheon.

An excellent cast gives Harlow fine support: Lionel Barrymore as the wily old tycoon, wise to Harlow's ways; handsome Franchot Tone as his son, smitten with love; raucous Patsy Kelly, stealing her scenes as Harlow's sidekick; debonair Alan Mowbray, as a well-mannered English Lord; elderly Clara Blandick as Barrymore's feisty secretary; hearty Hale Hamilton as a rich man with an eye for the ladies; muscular Nat Pendleton as a lifeguard who catches Kelly's flirtatious eye; and Lewis Stone, unforgettable in a small role as a bankrupted businessman.

It should be noted that this film was produced soon after Hollywood's Production Code was instituted. A comparison with RED-HEADED WOMAN, made two years earlier, would be fascinating - in which Harlow's character goes after the same ends, but uses very different means.


In this film, made JUST as the production code was being enforced, Jean Harlow is Eadie, and Patsy Kelly is the wisecracking, man-chasing sidekick "Kitty". Girl from Missouri starts out with the girls getting on a train, with Eadie making a promise to herself to earn money while looking for a millionaire husband, staying whole-some in the process. It doesn't take her long to meet up with Frank Cousins, (Lewis Stone, was the kindly Doctor in Grand Hotel, as well as Judge Hardy in the "Andy Hardy" films.), but all is not as it seems...The censors must have LOVED Harlow's line "A girl couldn't accept an expensive gift like that from a gentleman unless she was engaged." Later, someone says "You know we've never been alone together" and Eadie replies "Yeah, and we're not going to be!" Lionel Barrymore is T.R. Paige, another rich, uppercrust who comes to her rescue when trouble comes looking for Eadie. At one point, Paige declares "You oughta scratch me off your list - I'm not a ladies man".... I wonder what that line would have been just a couple years earlier before the Hayes code came rolling into town. What was he really saying? Carol Tevis seems to be the high-pitched "Baby Talker" as listed in the credits on IMDb. Looks like she was only in showbiz from 1931 - 1939, with "Munchkin" in Wizard of Oz being the last part she played. Fun, cleancut romp as the girls chase men around the country. Look for Nat Pendleton as the lifeguard, who was an Olympic Wrestler 1920 (silver medal winner) turned film star (he was in many of the Dr. Kildares, and would appear in four of Harlow's films.) Mistaken identity, plot twists, a young Franchot Tone, love stories, even Jean Harlow in a bathing suit in "Palm Beach", although the outdoor scenes of downtown appear to be a backdrop.


If the themes of The Girl From Missouri sound familiar it should. That's because Anita Loos who wrote the screenplay here also wrote the classic Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. Unlike Marilyn Monroe in that film, Jean Harlow will accept any kind of jewelry from men of means.

And it's men of means that Jean Harlow is after. She leaves the road side hash house run by her mother and stepfather because she's decided that the best way to gain the easy life is to marry it. Her talents as a chorus girl are limited, but she'll be able to trade in on that beauty.

Her odyssey starts with her and friend Patsy Kelly getting an invitation to perform at a party thrown by millionaire Lewis Stone. But unbeknownst to Jean, Stone's just having a wild last fling before doing himself because of the moneys he owes not owns. Still she wrangles a few baubles from him that fellow millionaire Lionel Barrymore notices.

Lionel's amused by it until Jean sets her sights on his playboy son, Franchot Tone. After that he is not amused and he looks to shake Jean from climbing the family tree.

The Girl From Missouri went into production mid adaption of The Code so it went under peculiar censorship. I've a feeling we would have seen a much more risqué film. Still Jean Harlow as a younger and sassier version of Mae West is always appreciated. What a great comic talent that woman had, seeing The Girl From Missouri is a sad reminder of the great loss the world of film sustained with her passing three years later.

Ironically enough the casting of Patsy Kelly with Harlow was no doubt influenced by the successful shorts Kelly was making with another famous platinum blonde, Thelma Todd. Harlow and Kelly have the same easy chemistry between that Patsy had with Thelma. Todd would also die a year later in a freak accident/suicide/homicide that no satisfactory explanation has ever really been given.

Don't miss The Girl From Missouri, it's bright and sassy, must be from all that sparkling jewelry.


This film has slipped through the cracks of film history. It is by far much better than some other New York films of the same era such as: "The French Connection" or "The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3". There is a gritty reality to this film which also manages to effectively use humor to further the plot line. It's engaging from start to finish and hasn't tarnished with age as is the case with the above two examples.

Ron Liebman turns in a bravura performance as "Batman" and it's a shame his career didn't take off as a result of this project.

Gordon Parks directs and, coming as it does after "Shaft", it at first appears to be a strange choice. Yet it is the flip side of that earlier effort and approached with just as much in your face machismo.

Unfortunately this film has not been made available on either DVD or VHS in the United States. United Artists really has a gem on their hands and it's a shame they're not doing anything with it.


Gordon Parks, the prolific black Life magazine photographer, made a true ticking-timebomb of a movie here - one that does not mess around! Based upon the true story of two NYC cops - later dubbed Batman and Robin - who singlehandedly employed radical tactics to clean up their precinct neighborhood of drugs, this is a cop-buddy movie before that term became a repetitive formula. Lightning paced, there is not one unimportant throwaway scene here.

Man, early '70s NYC must have been a terrible place to be a police officer, from the looks of movies like this and "Serpico." These two cops start out as safety-division rookies, busting dealers in plainclothes in their spare time. But instead of receiving applause from the city police department, they receive nothing but resistance and antagonism from their peers. They have to singlehandedly navigate a minefield of police and legal corruption, boneheaded assignments meant to keep them from their work on the streets, ruthless drug kingpins, and a nasty ghetto neighborhood.

Both David Selby and Ron Leibman are fantastic in the leads; part of the entertainment is watching Leibman's eyes darting around crazily in every scene in what is a flawless comic performance, and Selby's acting is low-key and wry. These two make all the comedy aspects of the story work - displaying a palpable frustration mixed with gutsy determination. Director Parks, who was already known for his coverage of controversial subjects in his photography, does not shy away from the grittiness of the story. Rather, the movie is uncompromising in portrayal of the toughness of the world of police and streets criminals that these two men inhabit. Adding to this realism is the fact that the real Hantz and Greenberg acted as technical advisors for the film, and even appear in surreal cameo roles as two fellow officers who ridicule the protagonists. It is a real tribute to the effectiveness of Parks' direction that he manages to perfectly balance this depressing mileu with bright comedy.

Why has MGM/UA let this sit on the shelf for 30 years - barely giving it a home video or DVD release in the U.S? It is a minor masterpiece from the 1970s.


I read the book and saw the movie. Both excellent. The movie is diamond among coals during this era. Liebman and Selby dominate the screen and communicate the intensity of their characters without flaw. This film should have made them stars. Shame on the studio for not putting everything they had behind this film. It could have easily been a franchise. Release on DVD is a must and a worthy remake would revive this film. Look for it in your TV guide and if you see it listed, no matter how late, watch it. You won't be disappointed. Do yourself another favor - read the book (same title). It'll blow you away. Times have changed dramatically since those days, or at least we like to think they have.


I loved this movie!!! The characters were people that you could feel for. The young man back from the service still in love with the girl he left behind. Tom Drake is always perfect in the romantic lead as well as Donna Reed as the love of his life. The looks he gives her as if he has been starved for the sight of her as well as her hesitation and confusion as too her feelings for him were played very well. The rest of the quirky characters at the store were perfect as they tried to bring them together. The most touching scene however, was the young couple at his great grandfather's house. I laughed in parts, cried in some and thoroughly enjoyed watching this movie. In fact I've re-watched it about 5 times. A definite must see for total romantics.


The arch title doesn't fit this gentle romantic comedy. Donna Reed and Tom Drake don't have much chemistry -- but their characters aren't supposed to. Both are extremely likable and attractive.

The supporting cast is a dream -- with the exception of Sig Ruman's annoying faux Russian.


My observations: Postwar hilarity. Tom Drake and Grandpa from "Meet Me in St. Louis" two years later (the year I was born). Donna Reed charming and pretty. Margaret Hamilton good as always; smaller part than in "Wizard of Oz". Spring Byington way prettier, also with the prerequisite perky small nose lacked by Hamilton. Tent scene at end with former boy next door was hilarious. As a two year veteran of Army tents, he looked pretty youthful and inexperienced when I looked into his eyes.

I used to work in a department store, and it was just as elegant as this one. Sadly, it has disappeared and faded into obscurity. We were famous for those great show windows that were used to lure passersby into the store, to get them to buy all of that wonderful merchandise.

10/10


On the surface, this is an above-average post-war romantic comedy. Beneath the veneer, it is MGM character actor stunt-casting at its funniest.

The leads are straightforward, but all the secondaries are cast much against type. Margaret Hamilton (aka Wicked Witch of the West), Edward Everett Horton (professional obsessive-compulsive fussbudget), and Sig Ruman (the Marx Brothers' nemesis in _Night In Casablanca_ and the always-wonderful _Night At The Opera_), playing a well-intentioned gang trying to bring the two leads together, instead of driving them apart as their "usual" characters would do.

It also pokes fun at many romantic-comedy conventions, which is another indication that this could be not so much a "straight" romantic comedy, as it is a wry send-up of the many post-war romantic comedies & their 2-dimensional, stock characters.

I've seen it only once, with interruptions, so I can't be positive, but this movie may be one of those that worked better in the context of the time at which it was made, but is less successful now that viewers "see" these secondary characters through a completely different lens. I'm assuming this is the case when I give it 9 stars. I thought it was hysterical.


Charleton Heston wore one, James Franciscus wore one but Mark Wahlberg opts not to don the traditional loin cloth. I hope no one casts him as Tarzan. Linda Harrison wore a bikini in the first 2 Planet movies but Estrella Warren barely shows cleavage - her hair is always in the way. Tim Burton could have sexed up this simian saga & given the adults in the audience something to look at. Even the chaste Helena Bonham Carter never gets out of her costume which looks like a large curtain. She's cute but all the the love stuff is restricted to anxious looks & a little bitty kiss at the end. As in Artificial Intelligence which discusses inter species sex between robots & humans but never delivers - Planet of the Apes hints at inter species romance between the humans & the apes but only hints. Lisa Marie is the only ape that dares to be sexy. This movie has three great actors Tim Roth, Ms. Carter & Paul Giamatti chewing up the scenery as a trio of apes & they are fun to watch. Superlative make up (a certain Oscar) costumes, sets, music make this the hit summer movie of 2001.


Take this movie for what it is, not a remake, but a completely different approach to the same concept. It's not an epic like the original, it's more of a popcorn thriller. Visually, it's incredible. Everything else was just OK.

For what it is, I think the movie is awesome, but I like everything Burton has done. People need to calm down and stop acting like it's the end of the world b/c of this movie. It wasn't supposed to be a remake, and it's not.

The ending was cool. . I took it as a parallel universe.


....after 16 years Tim Burton finally disappoints me!!!! Whatever happened to the old Burton who read "The Dark Knight Returns" by Frank Miller as research for his preparation to direct Batman back in 1988-89? By the looks of it Burton didn't research the book nor the movie cause he got everything WRONG! This movie sucks! It's not as good as the original and it doesn't deal with the same subject as the original. If you want a good ape movie watch the original.

**out of****stars


ATTENTION, SPOILER!

Many people told me that «Planet of the Apes» was Tim Burton's worst movie and apart from that much weaker than the original film. So I decided not to see it. Another friend of mine who hadn't seen the movie yet, advised me to watch it in spite of this because `a Tim-Burton-movie is still a Tim-Burton-movie'. I decided to do it, and I found that he was right.<br /><br />It's clear that a remake of such a famous film as `Planet of the Apes' is automatically influenced by commercial thinking. Still, Tim Burton managed his film to represent his weird playfulness just as well as `Beetlejuice' or `Batman'. If you are already fond of Burton-movies, it's hard not to like one of his films, even if it has some flaws: nerve-racking monkey squeals, over-dressed apes and a leading actor who could have been, without difficulties, replaced by anbody else.

What the film gives us in the first place, is an answer to the question: What's the result when Tim Burton is instructed to create a remake? First of all, Burton wouldn't be Burton, if he wouldn't refuse to call it a remake from the start; it's a `re-imagining'. On the other hand, Burton knows that almost every viewer of his movie has seen the very first film version starring Charlton Heston (as human), and he knows that a remake doesn't exist without its model and that the two films will not stop being compared. So all he does is playing with this comparison at every moment of his film, e. g. by referencing to quotes. Concerning the story-line, Burton does a brilliant job by answering open questions of the original first, and then driving the whole audience to despair by destroying this wonderful clarity and ending the movie with  AND HERE IS THE SPOILER  Leo coming back to earth and finding himself inside a world that seems to have been ruled by apes forever.

Now, this is the burtonesque answer to people's expectations they hold because of the astonishing, shocking ending of the first `Planet of the Apes'. An ending, even more unexpected, more astonishing and: completely confusing, because  and here I'm disagreeing with various `Planet of the Apes'-homepages and -platforms  it does not make any sense. There cannot be a meaning to it, or just a so complicated one that it becomes ineffective. Tim Burton is playing his cruel games, he does it with a grin and he does it well. Burton fans will sure like it, others may feel betrayed and complain about some sort of manierism. Well, and I don't think producers will ever ask Burton to direct a remake again