This is an awesome action film with great one liners from Arnie!. It's stylishly made, with lots of tense action to keep one satisfied. The Characters were awesome, and Richard Dawson, is very menacing as the main villain. Yes it has tons of plot holes,however it's highly highly entertaining, with a great ending as well. It had a great story, too it, and Arnie and Maria Conchita Alonso had great chemistry together. The Character development was also pretty good, with, some superb performances. The Directing is great!. Paul Michael Glaser, does a very good job here, with awesome use of colors, keeping it stylish throughout, awesome camera angles, and overall keeping the film at a very fast pace! good job. There is a little bit of gore. We get a few bloody gunshot wounds, exploding head, slit throat, bloody chainsaw slices, skinless corpses, blood, and an impaling. The Acting is great!. Arnold Schwarzenegger is AMAZING as always, he is excellent in the acting department , has tons of hilarious one liners, kicks that ass, and as always is a big physical presence!, and was tons of fun to watch! (Arnie Rules!). Maria Conchita Alonso, does well here, she was really cute, and had good chemistry with Arnie!. Yaphet Kotto, is decent here, with what he has to do, which is not much. Marvin J. McIntyre, is good as the geeky type guy, he was cool!. Richard Dawson is awesome as the main villain, and was very very menacing, and he was fun to watch. Jesse Ventura,Jim Brown,Erland van Lidth,Gus Rethwisch,and Professor Toru Tanaka, all do what they have to do very well as the stalkers. Overall a MUST see! ****1/2 out of 5


This movie is one of the most Underrated movie of its time. When watching this movie , your filled with action, and when somethings not really happing , the humour is un matched. Brilliant writing for a movie that was made to give us a bloody mix , of a game show where criminals are the contestants, and a near future where the general public all have a thirst for blood.Also Arnold Doesn't let us down with some of his best one liners.I don't want to spoil anything for you ,but i will tell you when Arnold gives his "I'll be back line" He gets the best response of them all in this movie. Hope you enjoy this gem as much as i did.


I'm sitting here Nov 2006 and I still can't help rave about this movie. Arnold's best movies came in about a 4-5 year span. Running Man, Predator, and Total Recall (1990). All 3 are amazing. The cheesy one liners by Arnold in this movie will make you laugh on more than one occasion. I find the acting in this movie surprisingly good as was the case in Predator and Totall Recall. They did a great job in trying to make the scenes futuristic as it is supposed to take place in 2017, but you can't help but snicker at the 80's style haircuts on the men and woman in the crowd and the normal television monitors in the Running Man studio which we all know here in 2006 are on the way out with the emergence of flat panel and HDTV's. Also the computer graphics of the "The Running Man" game show intro would not look like that in 2017. Nevertheless the storyline is absolutely fantastic. Not once during this movie did I want to get up and not care about the ending which is something I do often with today's movie's. I really think that Arnold's acting is much better than he's given credit for. Now I would not have elected him governor but that's California for you. Buzzsaw, Dynamo, Fireball, SubZero are fantastic "stalkers" as well and I find the producers don't try to overkill the fight scenes. When the stalker is dead...he's dead. It doesn't go on for 20 minutes each. The stalker scenes are quick and entertaining but they don't try and overplay it. I give this movie a 10/10 and that's coming from someone who doesn't enjoy a lot of movies these days. If you get the right actors and the right story then the futuristic graphical displays that you'd see in 2006 are not important or necessary.


The Running Man is often dismissed as being just another Arnie action thriller full of explosions, bad puns and gunfire, and to be fair, there is a lot of that in it. People used to look at it and compare it to the Terminator series, saying it was one of the poorer Schwarzenegger films.

But, give it 18 years, and you find yourself being able to appreciate it in a different light. Rather than just being another brainless action film, it works very well as a parody of reality TV. It is quite different to the Stephen King book, true, but I doubt whether Hollywood, with its love of upbeat endings and so-called 'ordinary guys' who turned out to have the skills of a trained commando, would have accepted it in its current form.

But, on with the review.

Ben Richards (Arnold Schwarzenegger) is a cop working in a dystopian United States where democracy is a thing of the past, and the entire country is ruled by a government/media conglomerate amalgamation. The economy is in tatters, food is scarce and the state keeps people distracted by producing sadistic gameshows for them to watch, like Jumping for Dollars, where people jump for money over a pit of rabid dogs, and the most popular one is The Running Man, a gameshow hosted by the slimy Damian Killian (played by the entertaining Richard Dawson) where supposed 'criminals' are hunted down by theatrical, pro-wresting-esquire 'stalkers'.

Some, however, try and speak up against the government. When a group of hungry people hold a protest in the town of Bakersfield, California, a helicopter piloted by Richards is sent to 'calm' (i.e. kill) the protest. When Richards refuses to fire on innocent people, he is arrested and framed for the murder of the people in the crowd. He is sentenced to a slave labour camp, but escapes with the aid of a resistance leader (Yaphet Kotto) and goes on the run.

However, his freedom does not last long, and after he kidnaps network employee Amber Mendez (Marita Conchita Alonso) in an attempt to escape those pursuing him, he finds himself taken prisoner again, but this time he is forced to appear on The Running Man.

And there, of course, the entire film kicks into standard Arnie mode. Richards is launched into the post-apocalyptic wasteland of Los Angeles (why is LA always destroyed in these dystopian worlds?) and forced to run from the 'stalkers', along with two other prisoners who escaped from the labour camp with him. Amber also becomes curious about Richards' protestations of innocence, and discovers he was framed. Guess what happens to her, then? So, as Amber, Richards and the two other guys run around trying to avoid the stalkers, we soon become aware that Richards is no ordinary cop. He's Super Arnie, the unkillable one man army who can collapse evil corporate dictatorships and fight obese men covered in Christmas lights all while being just your average American guy with an Austrian accent.

Yes, the remainder of the film becomes dumb, loud, classic 80's Arnie fun. There's a lot of exciting fight sequences, the trademark dreadful puns ('He had to split' being my favourite), and the general formulaic final confrontation and happy ending. It's a lot of fun watching Killian react to it in the typical 'wholesome' gameshow host way, as well, and some of the funniest moments in the show revolve around the contrast between his interactions with the crowd as the seemingly benevolent host (watch out for the cursing old lady!) and the cold, cyncial man he is in reality who will do anything to increase ratings.

If you expect a high-brow, intelligent film, you'll be disappointed. But if you want a great 80s flick, well, this is it. But the great thing about this film is it was quite prophetic.

If you look at the entertainment we have today, you'll have noticed the way reality TV is going nowadays - shows featuring people willing to put themselves through anything for five minutes of fame, and producers all too willing to let them humiliate themselves on TV. It's not too far a leap to imagine that some vile TV exec out there has been trying to get the right to show people be executed live on TV. We've already had that, however, with the ghoulish al-Qaida hostage beheading videos posted on the internet. It seems that in the current climate, at least some people are perfectly fine with watching real death on their television sets.

With that in mind, and coupled with the fact that everything these days appears to be a revival of the 80s, you have to be impressed by the far-sightedness of this film. Of course, we haven't reached there yet, as it's terrorists, rather than the mainstream media, who have bought us easily available programs featuring real human death, but you just have to wonder how long it is before some exec decides to see if he can find a way of pitching a show that combines people's desire for entertainment and desire to indulge their morbid curiosity...


Arnold once again in the 80's demonstrated that he was the king of action and one liners in this futuristic film about a violent game show that no contestant survives. But as the tag line says Arnold has yet to play! The movie begins in the year 2019 in which the world economy has collapsed with food and other important materials in short supply and a totalitarian state has arisen, controlling every aspect of life through TV and a police state. It's most popular game show is The Running Man, in which criminals are forced to survive against "Stalkers" that live to kill them.

The movie opens with Ben Richards (Arnold) leading a helicopter mission to observe a food riot in progress. He is ordered by his superiors to fire on them, refusing to gets him knocked out and thrown in prison, in the meantime they slaughtered the people without his help. The government blames Richards for the massacre earning him the name "Butcher of Bakersfield". Eighteen months later Richards along with two friends William Laughlin (Koto) and Harold Weiss (McIntyre) breakout of a detention zone they worked in. They make their way to the underground, led by Mic (Mick Fleetwood). Mic quickly identifies Richards as the "Butcher of Bakersfield" and refuses to help him, but his friend's convince him otherwise. They want him to join the resistance, but he'd rather go live with his brother and get a job. Soon he finds that his brother has been taken away for reeducation and a woman name Amber Mendez (Alonso) has taken his apartment. Knowing who he is she won't help him, but he convinces her, but is busted at the airport by the cops after she ratted him out.

Meantime, The Running man is having trouble finding good new blood for the there stalkers to kill. Damon Killian (Dawson) the shows host and one of the most powerful men in the country sees Richards escape footage and is able to get him for the show after his capture. Richards refuses to play, Killian threatens to use his friends instead of him, so he signs the contract. You'll love that part. But soon he finds they will join him as well and makes sure Killian knows he'll be back. The Runners begin to make there way through the Zones and fight characters that are memorable, Sub-Zero, Buzz Saw and many others. Eventually Richards is joined by Amber who suspected he was set up but was caught and thrown into the game too. Together they find the underground and make there way back to Killian and give him a farewell send off.

The running man is another one of Arnold's great movies from the 80's. The movie was apparently somewhat based on Stephen King's book of the same name. Some have said that the book is better. I'm sure it's not and I don't care anyway I loved the movie. As in all of Arnold's films the acting is what you would expect with classic one liners from Arnold and even Ventura gets a couple in. But without a doubt Richard Dawson is the standout in this film. Being a real game show host he easily spoofed himself and was able to create a character that was truly cold blooded. The whole movie itself somewhat rips on game shows and big brother watching you. Keep an eye out for them poking fun and some old shows, "hate boat" among others. Also the cast was great besides Arnold, Koto, and Alonzo don't forget Professor Toru Tanaka, Jim Brown, Ventura and Sven-Ole! With all the reality TV nonsense that goes on it almost fits in better now, but I'm sure the Hollywood liberals would make it into a movie about the "Evil Bush". The new DVD had mostly poor extras meet the stalkers being the only redeemable one. Some how the ACLU managed to get some of there communism into the DVD and is laughable garbage that should not be anywhere near an Arnold movie of all things. Blasphemy! Overall for any Arnold fan especially we who grew up in the 80's on him ,you can't miss this. Its one of the first ones I saw back in the 80's and it's still great to this day. The futuristic world and humor are great. Overall 10 out 10 stars, definitely one of his best.


This is a classic action flick from the '80s featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger in one of his most memorable roles. Set in a futuristic police state where the government controls everything, including the television networks. One of their most popular TV shows is "The Running Man", where convicted felons are hunted down and killed for the entertainment of millions. It's set up like a game show, where the audience votes for their favorite "stalkers", trained killers who hunt down and kill the show's unlucky "contestants". Audience members also win prizes for correctly predicting who will be killed by whom. And the host is played by none other than Family Feud's Richard Dawson, who's game show experience makes him well suited for this role. When Ben Richards (Arnold) is falsely accused of mass murder, he is forced to play this sadistic game.

This movie is chock full of classic Arnold one-liners, such as his famous "I'll be back" right before he enters the arena. And he taunts a stalker armed with a flamethrower with "How about a light?" I could go on and on, but I don't want to spoil the movie. It's funny stuff!

Whether it was intended or not, this movie serves as a great parody of today's "Reality TV" craze. Already there are numerous programs that show people enduring pain and humiliation for the entertainment of viewers, and even court cases are televised for their "entertainment value". Running Man demonstrates what would happen if reality TV hit rock bottom, and it is a scary picture. One can only hope that the networks have the common sense not to let it go that far.

Overall, this is a fun film & I highly recommend it. 9 out of 10!


THE RUNNING MAN, along with TOTAL RECALL, is my favorite Schwarzenegger movie. No, this isn't 2001, but it's not meant to be. And the acting and script here isn't even up to par with other Arnie movies like PREDATOR or THE TERMINATOR. But I submit that the IDEA behind this movie is one of the coolest ever to hit the big screen. A state-sponsored game show in which criminals convicted of serious crimes compete against "heroic" stalkers armed with all kinds of weapons (the runners are equipped with none) in order to satisfy the public's lust for sport and blood. The ultimate prize for a winning runner: freedom. Or so the rules claim.

For a movie with such over-the-top gory death scenes and cheesy one-liners, it really does have a lot to say. Someone else has pointed out all the commentary on culture/government presented in this movie, so I won't go into it here. Suffice it to say that if you can look beyond the seemingly silly feel of the movie, you will enjoy it very much (especially if you're a big SF fan with a lot of imagination). Like I said, it's not trying to be a serious art film, but it IS surprisingly layered for a 80s shoot-em-up flick. The premise is borrowed from a Richard Bachman (aka Stephen King) short novel, but diverges fairly strongly from its source material, especially towards the end. (The book ends rather nihilistically; needless to say this movie doesn't.) I enjoyed both, but I like the movie better.

My favorite line: "Guess it's caused from steroids."


If you were brought up on a diet of gameshows you'll understand that you gradually need a bigger and better fix. Well, in the world of the Running Man, your needs will be sated. For in this game show, prisoners compete for freedom, and the ultimate prize - their very lives.

I loved this film. It was such a parody on the mind-numbing tripe that we watch on a daily basis. It isn't one of Schwarzenegger's best performances, but on the whole it is a very good film. The underlying idea that Television Corporations will one day be the "real" rulers of the planet is very believable, and is very well portrayed in this film. Of course there are the usual Arnie one-liners, my favourite is when he is about to be catapulted into the gamezone, the gameshow host asks "Any last words?" Arnie says: "Yeah, I'll be back" but the host quips "Only in a re-run" and presses the eject button. I give this film a 10 for sheer originality. I must have watched it 30 or more times. The only film apart from the Die Hard series that I watched this often!!

In short, do not for a minute think that you own the T.V. - It owns you.....


Amongst the standard one liner type action films, where acting and logic are checked at the door, this movie is at the top of the class. If the person in charge of casting were to have put "good" actors in this flick, it would have been worse(excepting Richard Dawson who actually did act well, if you can call playing yourself "acting"). I love this movie! The Running Man is in all likelihood God's gift to man(okay maybe just men). Definitely the most quotable movie of our time so I'll part you with my favorite line: "It's all part of life's rich pattern Brenda, and you better F*****g get used to it." Ahh, more people have been called "Brenda" for the sake of quoting this film than I can possibly imagine.


Didn't Mystic Pizza win the Oscar for that year? This movie never had a chance, due to the casting, but perhaps by now people can see why I felt that way upon leaving the theater. Only "Wargames" left me feeling similarly disturbed after leaving the theater, with the feeling I was getting a glimpse of our future. History has shown that this is exactly what happened.

The casting is a pop-culture Cuisinart of the 1980s: you get Arnold as Ben Richards, the framed fugitive offered a chance to "run" for his freedom on the game show with the same title as the movie; Richard Dawson as Damon Killian, treating his role as if he were the host of Family Feud with the contestants using real guns; Jesse Ventura as "Captain Freedom" and co-wrestler Professor Tanaka as "Subzero," both "stalkers" who kill the "running men." Even Mick Fleetwood (Mic) and Dweezil Zappa (Stevie) show up, while the "dancers of the future" are none other than the Laker Girls. This movie SCREAMS "80s." The plot is a good excuse for the action: Ben Richards is determined to prove his innocence, but agrees to be the Running Man when he is told that his buddies would be set free; instead, they join him as "contestants." Maria Conchita Alonzo as Amber Mendez is the standard by which one can properly judge Salma Hayek in the 1990s.

The production value on the film was a bit poor, the lines were cheesy, and (at the time), the plot seemed a bit far-fetched. I remember thinking when I was leaving the theater that we were definitely heading in the direction of the film, but who could have seen how far we'd go there and how fast? If The Running Man were listed in TV Guide, most people would assume it were just another reality show pushing the envelope today. The government influences on the media have only gotten worse, and the dumbed-down American public of the future that surrenders all of its freedoms for "national security" is downright chilling. Ben Richards is played brilliantly by Arnold as one of the few remaining holdouts against a government tyranny that the rest of America is all too willing to accept in return for good television and some parting gifts for the audience.

The movie was way over the top, maybe even off the cliff for its time, but as with Back to the Future III, the "ravine" it appeared to be sinking itself into in 1987 was replaced by completed tracks in 2006 and beyond, and this movie will sail into the future as one of the more prophetic films of our time. It is tragic that, as with Wargames, the academy did not give this brilliant screenplay the recognition it deserved. "Serious" actors acting seriously while being so pretentious that you want to throw up may win more Oscars, but that doesn't make them better films than their "common man" counterparts, such as this one.

An absolute must-see.


This is one of the great movies of the 80s in MY collection that I think about all the time.

The Running Man is one of Arnold`s best and most different films even to this day and when I first saw The Running Man I was so excited to see a movie like this. I just adore all of the fights and this is truly a special movie. It also has Jesse Ventura, the legendary Professor Toru Tanaka, Sven-Ole Thorsen, the beautiful Maria Conchita Alonso, Yaphet Kotto, Kurt Fuller, Richard Dawson, and Thomas Rosales Jr. who seems to always like death in his movies because he has been killed in such films as Universal Solder, The Lost World, Robo Cop 2, Predator 2, and among others. All Arnold fans should love this film from the beginning to the end because its action packed, star filled, and its one its one of Arnold`s best to date!


This comic book style film is funny, has nicely paced action and a great futuristic style to it. Writer Steven de Souza, who also wrote Commando, gives Arnie plenty of lines to dish out: "Send me a copy," after signing a contract and stabbing a pen into the lawyers back; "What a pain in the neck," after strangling subzero with barbed wire; "He had to split," after slicing his body between his legs; and finally, as Killian slams through a billboard bearing his own face, Arnie concludes, "Now that hit the spot." Funnily enough, bears some similarities total recall, another sci-fi flick starring Schwarzenegger.


Running Man isn't a great movie, in fact it's kinda silly. But it delivers what you want in an Arnie movie and that is action and entertainment. I don't see how anyone couldn't enjoy this picture, it's so silly and over the top, that it almost makes fun of itself. By the way, this is probably one of the most quotable Arnie movies out there.


Running Man viciously lampoons the modern-day American media complex, and hits its target dead-center. It may be an easy target, but they pull it off none the less. RM effortless takes on pro-wrestling (featuring some pro wrestlers as the Hunters), network television, the Nielsen ratings, the American government (suggesting it's entertainment-oriented anyway), crime & punishment, and a half-dozen other things along the way. It's a far cry from the original Stephen King novella, and Arnold is not the Ben Richards of the novella either. But who cares? It's basically a Arnie flick, with all the well-choreographed action sequences and one-liners such an undertaking requires.


Why didn't Dynamo have any pants?! Where did they go?? It was never explained. That's why this movie was so awesome. Plus Starsky gave his kids the AIDS!!!! Great acting too. Richard Dawson deserved to win Best Supporting Actor! A I D S My favorite line from the movie was "That hit the spot" A I D S. This movie was for the "birds". I tried to give this movie the "stinkeye" but it continued playing. What am I doing wrong???!!!! I thought the "HATEBOAT" was funnnny lol ;) I would like that for a show. Why wasn't Dynamo wearing pants. I know his arm WAS skewered but... What's up with those crazy futur nets. Why didn't that family feud guy Ray Combs get a net?? He could have used one. AIDSSSSS


Set in 2017 (although one might easily mistake it for 1987, judging by the hairstyles and clothing), The Running Man sees all-round good guy Ben Richards (Schwarzeneggar) framed for a crime he didn't commit. After a daring prison break, he is captured and entered as a contestant in the brutal TV game show The Running Man, along with some fellow escapees and the pretty token female, Amber (Maria Conchita Alonso),.

Used by the totalitarian government as a way of controlling the masses, the show pits convicts against a range of colourful (and often quite camp) opponents, each having his own unique killing style: Dynamo fires electricity from a special suit, Buzzsaw uses chainsaws, Sub Zero has a razor edged ice hockey stick, and Fireball prefers a flamethrower to finish off contenders. But these killers are no match for Ben Richards, who dispatches each one in a fittingly gruesome manner (followed by the obligatory witticism).

Towards the end of the movie, Ben joins a group of freedom fighters in a battle against the authorities, and gets to exact revenge on the show's nasty host, Killian.

Twenty years ago, Arnold Schwarzeneggar ruled the action-movie universe and, to his legion of fans, he could do no wrong. The Austrian beefcake had a successful formula that almost guaranteed box office success for his movies: comic book violence plus logic-free plot plus pretty female sidekick plus witty one-liners, minus acting ability equalled massive profits. The Running Man faithfully followed this blockbuster recipe to a T and Arnie's (mostly male teenage) audience lapped it up (myself included).

Now, two decades later, and having just finished re-watching the movie for the first time in years, I find it a strange movie: one totally devoid of technical merit, decent acting, and convincing effects, yet somehow totally entertaining. Directed by Paul Michael Glaser (best known as Det. Dave Starsky from cult 70s cop show, Starsky and Hutch), and adapted from a short story by Stephen King (writing under the nom de plume, Richard Bachman), The Running Man is cheesy 80s tat that looks both incredibly cheap and very dated, yet despite (or maybe because of) the film's shoddiness, it has a special charm which is hard to describe.

With no attempt at creating a realistic near-future setting, the film provides plenty of unintentional giggles. Check out the scene in which Ben discovers Amber's secret cache of forbidden cassette tapes(!); marvel at the crap 'futuristic' graphics used on advertising billboards and The Running Man board game (as a graphic designer, I found these particularly amusing); be amazed at the distinct lack of convincing technological advancements.

The Running Man may be utter rubbish, but it is hugely entertaining utter rubbish that I have no hesitation in recommending to fans of Arnie and sci-fi action in general.


This is an Arnold movie. Now that you know that, I've saved a lot of you the time it would have taken to read this review. If you don't like Arnold, then you wont like this movie. If the case is the other, then you will very probably like it. It's as simple as that.

Now, if you're still reading this I expect you like Arnold. Good for you! He is quite good isn't he. The Running Man is a very typical Arnold feature. It's got the usual retro-future we know so well from 80's B-Sci Fi, it's got a bunch of terrible one-liners, lots of violence and explosions, and a good-looking heroine and a happy ending.

In this case, the evil opponent is the all-controlling 1984ish government, which uses television as an effective crowd-control with gladiator-type game shows. Arnold, of course, ends up in one of these shows and turns it all up-side-down, with a little help from his two confederates and the good-looking Amber.

It's not a big budget movie, but it still managed to create a pretty good atmosphere of the future, with some nice matte paintings and sets to help it. It's hopelessly 80's, but I find that charming. Acting is varying, Arnold doing his usual grunt and shout thing, with a helping of stone-faced one-liners. Heroine Amber is, to put it lightly, a bit stereotypical, and the subtly named Damen Killian is a typical evil TV man.

In spite of all it's flaws, the movie shows its message very clearly; television is an opiate of the masses, a good way to control people. It also features some at the time futuristic digital video editing, allowing the bad guys to change faces in a video to fool their audience. This does not seem futuristic at all today, which is a bit alarming.

If you've seen Arnold movies before then you know when to watch this one. Enjoy.


Although this film is somewhat filled with eighties cheese i have a place for it in my DVD rack and i don't know why. I think i like it because the moral of the story is 'television is garbage so turn it off and go and get a life'. For those of you who do decide to heed the message then you should try reading the book, its nothing like the film at all. To ruin it for you at the end of the story a fatally wounded Richards ends up crashing a plane into the network building, killing himself, everyone inside and shutting down the network at the same time. I read it many years ago but today it would hard not to compare it to 9/11.


I have seen The Running Man several times as I am a Stephen King fan and have all his movies but now it is even better because up until 2 days ago I didn't know about this website and I didn't realize that the Paul Michael Glaser that was involved with this movie was the same Paul Michael Glaser that I grow up watching on Starsky and Hutch television show. For me this is a pleasant surprise because I can't tell you how many times I cried when Starsky or Hutch got hurt. The episode where Starsky (Kill Starsky) almost died I cried so hard My dad had to turn away from the show. What to you expect of a kid at age 12. Now, I intentionally look for films and programs involving Paul or David Soul and anything that Stephen King has his hands on I'm so there!!!!!!!! Just got to say Happy birthday Paul!!!!!


The Running Man is one of those films that if overwatched, would become boring and depressing even.

My advice is to watch it maybe once or twice a year with a couple of mates and a few drinks.

In todays climate of TV Media domination and the capitalist mode in society it really does work as a revisionist social commentary, post 1980s-boom. Forget that though! There are other brilliant and better reasons to watch this film.

Schwarzenegger is on top form as Ben "The Butcher of Bakersfield" Richards, and the inclusion of Bond-belting one liners was completely inspired-thety are truly leg-end-dary (with his rant to Killian over a camera the main highlight).

The design of the stalkers is authentically American, and mirrors the characterizations seen in the PC 'Gladiators' TV show, and the WWE as well. Buzz-saw's grisly end will chill any viewer to the core (as a foot note, why does his death stand out as particularly disturbing in what is ostensibly an upbeat actioner with a bitter sense of humour?)

Jesse Venturer and Sven Ole Thorssen are great as backing muscle (and are Arnies buds in real life), and its even got Mick Fleetwood in it too! What more could you ask for?

I highly recommend the Running Man if you're looking for a great piece of entertaining action, with a glossty finish and some great characters. Just don't expect an education from it (at least on surface value).

Quality, I bloody love it actually. You will too unless you're a thesp. 7/10


Another Excellent Arnold movie. This futuristic movie has great action in it, and is one of Arnie's best movies. Arnold is framed as a bad guy in this movie and plays a Game of Death. This movie is excellent and a great Sci-Fi / action movie. I've always liked this movie and it has to be one of the greatest adventure movies of all time. 10 out of 10! PERFECTION


Another Spanish movie about the 1936 Civil War. This time we're told about the story of Carol (lovely played by débutant Clara Lago), a little girl which comes to live to a little Spanish village from New York. It is such an initiating trip, and soon she'll find about the injustices of the human race, their stupid fights and conflicts, their contradictions.

Imanol Uribe makes his best film since "Días Contados" (1994) with such a sober pulse, a beautiful photography, and a nice script. He tries not to take part in the conflict, he just shows us some facts and let us decide (ok, the facts are explicit enough to make us decide in which band are we in) and he takes a huge advantage of the presence and the freshness of the young starring couple: Clara Lago and Juan José Ballesta.

A well cared production.

My rate: 7/10


Carol, the young girl at the center of the story, is transplanted to a foreign land, Spain, at the height of the Civil War conflict in the late 30s. For this girl, everything is new, in it's foreignness. The war and her father are her constant worries, while she has to immerse herself in a provincial culture that is years behind what she has in New York.

Imanol Uribe directs this film by the numbers. Carol's family is obviously divided, while Carol's mother is married to someone that is an air force pilot with the leftist faction, the rest of the family's sympathies are with the Franco and the fascists that won the conflict.

The story adds nothing to what has already been told, much better, but it's an easy film to watch. Northern Spain's magnificent landscape is shown. Don't expect a lot of action since most of what happens revolves around Carol and the young boys she befriends.

Clara Lago plays Carol with sincerity and innocence. Maria Barranco is Carol's mother Aurora, the one that went away to America. Rosa Maria Sarda is Maruja, the teacher who befriends Carol. Carmelo Gomez, plays Alfonso, the man that Aurora left behind when she left for America. This actor, who usually has lead roles in most Spanish films, doesn't have anything to do, as he remains an enigma throughout the movie.


Yesterday my Spanish / Catalan wife and myself saw this emotional lesson in history. Spain is going into the direction of political confrontation again. That is why this masterpiece should be shown in all Spanish High Schools. It is a tremendous lesson in the hidden criminality of fascism. The American pilot who gets involved in the Spanish Civil War chooses for the democratically elected Republican Government. The criminal role of religion is surprisingly well shown in one of the most inventive scenes that Uribe ever made. The colors are magnificent. The cruelty of a war (could anybody tell me the difference between Any war and a Civil war ?)is used as a scenario of hope when two young children express their feelings and protect each other. The cowards that start their abuse of power even towards innocent children are now active again. A film like 'El viaje de Carol'/ 'Carol's journey' tells one of the so many sad stories of the 20th Century. It is a better lesson in history than any book could contain. Again great work from the Peninsula Iberica !


This is a very good Spanish movie but I am worried that many out there will feel lost because many around the world have no idea what the Spanish Civil War was all about or when it was fought. Being a history teacher, I had a big advantage but could easily see how the film could be confusing until you piece together all the pieces. I doubt if this would be a big concern in Spain where this film was made, but for other audiences they may be a bit confused until later in the film.

The movie begins with 12 year-old Carol and her mother returning to her mother's home town. Years have passed and you gather that they are coming to Spain from New York City. Despite the strangeness, Carol speaks reasonably good Spanish and much of the film is about how she adapts. As for why her and her mother are alone, I'll spill it now for those who don't pick up on the fact that Carol's father is fighting in the war on the side of the Republicans (who eventually lost in this very bloody conflict).

The movie gets exceptional marks for its lovely camera work and music. The rather slow and rambling pace isn't bad provided you are someone who can accept films this way. I have seen several other Spanish films about this war and this compares pretty well to them--not better or worse--just a decent slice of life film about those who are left behind as well as a nice coming of age flick.

PS--If you don't know which side is which, the Republicans were mostly Socialists and they were backed by the Soviet Union and Mexico as well as volunteers from many countries (including the USA). The Nationalists were led by Franco and were aided by Portugal and the Fascist states of Germany and Italy.


Some unsuspecting films carry a message that resonates in the hours and days after viewing. Such is the case for CAROL'S JOURNEY (EL VIAJE DE CAROL), a beautifully crafted 2002 film from Spain based on the novel 'A boca de noche' by Ángel García Roldán who also adapted the book as a screenplay. War and its consequences are not new subject matter for films, but when that war theme plays in the background as a subtle driving force to develop characters (especially children) who must face adult life influenced by the games of adults, the result is a different and more tender examination of the coming of age film genre.

Carol (Clara Lago) is a 12-year-old Spanish American youngster from New York who with her critically ill mother Aurora (María Barranco) returns to her Aurora's home in 1938 at the height of the Spanish Civil War, a home that has been left deserted by her father Don Amalio (Álvaro de Luna) since his wife's death. Carol's father Robert (Ben Temple) is a fighter pilot who has sided with the Republicans against Franco and is rarely with his family. Aurora has a past: she left her lover Alfonso (Alberto Jiménez) to marry Robert, and Alfonso in turn married Aurora's cold sister Dolores (Lucina Gil). Carol is an independent girl who remains aloof to all but her grandfather Don Amalio until she meets others her age but not of her 'class': Tomiche (Juan José Ballesta) and his two friends at first resent Carol, but as events develop Carol and Tomiche are bonded by what feels like the first awakenings of love. When Aurora dies of her illness, Carol must live with Alfonso and Dolores and their daughter Blanca (Luna McGill), yet turns to her grandfather for support and to her mother's best friend and teacher Maruja (the always radiant Rosa Maria Sardà) to understand the disparity between classes and the senseless war that keeps her beloved father from her side. Through a series of incidents Carol and Tomiche learn the rigors of becoming adults, facing more traumas in a brief period of the war than most of us experience in a lifetime. The ending, though sad, is uplifting as Carol's journey to maturity is complete.

The film is shot in Galicia and Portugal and contains some extraordinarily beautiful settings captured with gentle sensitive lighting by cinematographer Gonzalo F. Berridi and enhanced by the musical score by Bingen Mendizábal. Director Imanol Uribe understands the fine line separating pathos from bathos, and in electing to concentrate the story on the children involved, he makes an even stronger statement about the futility and cruelty of war. The cast is exceptional: the stars clearly are young Clara Lago and Juan José Ballesta, but they are supported by the fine veteran actors in the adult roles. This is a visually stunning work with a lasting message and should find a much larger audience than it has to this date. Grady Harp


I was deeply moved by this movie in many respects. First of all, I just want to say that Clara Lago was the most precious little thing! Such a pretty little girl. Her acting was superb as well. True to life and very human. Though I don't like the part where she had to smoke; I hope it was only a fake prop. Either way, she was absolutely wonderful and the story was so moving. I found myself immersed in the story and her character.

It's quite interesting how I came to discover this movie actually. I was walking in blockbuster and I just happened to notice her pretty smile on the cover as I was walking by. Luckily I glanced in the downward direction that this movie was in! I thought to myself, 'Awe, look at her!' So I picked it up and saw that this movie was described as such wonderful things as "A Little Gem." I read the plot on the back and then thought that, well, maybe I'd look it up on IMDb first and then come back and rent it at a later time. I'm glad I didn't, because I certainly would have been missing out. After searching for a movie with my friend, I knew that I would end up regretting not renting this film, so I went back to the spot in which I originally found it and snapped it up.

It had been on my dresser for a week, since school started for me this week and I really hadn't any time to watch it, but tonight was the perfect opportunity. I popped it in and was glued to the beautiful cinematography, delightful score and moving plot from beginning to end. I was so captivated and must say, some parts nearly moved me to tears.

I would also like to make a special mention for the young boy in this film, Juan Jose Ballesta. He was remarkable. Also the actor who played Carol's father, who's name is unfortunately not listed on the site. His voice was just so loving and gentle that I could really sense his love for Carol. Even though his appearance is not prominent, I really felt his character's presence.

This is truly a wonderful movie. If you are a person who is moved by light, but emotional films, then this is definitely one for you.


CAROL'S JOURNEY is a pleasure to watch for so many reasons. The acting of Clara Lago is simply amazing for someone so young, and she is one of those special actors who can say say much with facial expressions. Director Imanol Urbibe presents a tight and controlled film with no break in continuity, thereby propelling the plot at a steady pace with just enough suspense to keep one wondering what the nest scene will bring. The screenplay of Angel Garcia Roldan is story telling at its best, which, it seems, if the major purpose for films after all. The plot is unpredictable, yet the events as they unravel are completely logical. Perhaps the best feature of this film if to tell a story of the Spanish Civil War as it affected the people. It was a major event of the 20th century, yet hardly any Americans know of it. In fact, in 40 years of university teaching, I averaged about one student a semester who had even heard of it, much less any who could say anything comprehensive about it--and the overwhelming number of students were merit scholars, all of which speaks to the enormous amount of censorship in American education. So, in one way, this film is a good way to begin a study of that event, keeping in mind that when one thread is pulled a great deal of history is unraveled. The appreciation of this film is, therefore, in direct relation to the amount of one's knowledge. To view this film as another coming of age movie is the miss the movie completely. The Left Elbow Index considers seven aspects of film-- acting, production sets, character development, plot, dialogue, film continuity, and artistry--on a scale for 10 for very good, 5 for average, and 1 for needs help. CAROL'S JOURNEY is above average on all counts, excepting dialogue which is rated as average. The LEI average for this film is 9.3, raised to a 10 when equated to the IMDb scale. I highly recommend this film for all ages.


Clara Lago is wonderful as the title character of the film, essentially a film about a Spanish/American girl who moves to Spain with her mom at the time of the Spanish Civil War. It turns out, the mother goes home to die, and she is left with her grandfather. She also makes friends and experiences much in a short time. Tomiche (Juan Jose Ballestra) is at first a nuisance to her then they become close. The film is shot beautifully, bathed in soft colors mostly. Carol yearns for her dad, who is a pilot in the war, and you can feel the love sher has for him. While the war itself is kind of taken a back seat in this film, it envelops the character's lives. I think you'll like it. See it especially for Clara Lago, who does a great job as Carol. She is definitely one to watch.


I just saw "Behind Bedroom Doors," and this was the first softcore flick with a solid story behind it that I've seen in a while.

We begin with two neighborly couples--Vivian and James Fenway (Julia Kruis and Eric Carrington), and Lillian and Gabe Harris (Nicole Sheridan and Chris Gustafson). Vivian appears to be a housewife, James is a lawyer running for district attorney, Lillian works in real estate, and Gabe is a successful plastic surgeon. Got all that? Now, let's get into it.

Enter Abby, played beautifully by porn star Chelsea Blue. She's renting the house across the street from the Fenways and lives all by herself. At the beginning of the movie, James looks out his window and sees Abby engaged in playtime with her girlfriend, Gigi (played by prolific pornstress Monique Alexander) and secretly begins to wonder what it would be like to be with her. The next day, Abby gets acquainted with all four of them, and appears to be a nice woman who just happens to be living an alternative lifestyle. She makes a pass at Vivian, who seems startled and says to her, "Oh...I'm...not that way." Everything seems okay...until the plan gets set in motion

First, Abby shows up at Gabe's office, naked, asking Gabe if she should get a boob job. This is where we get our quote of the movie:

"Tell me about Gabe." "What do you want to know?" "Is Gabe happily married?" "I'm married." "There's trouble.....let me guess. Your wife stays at home, and does everything you ask. But, she's a good girl." "Yes." "She's not a bad girl?" "No." "Does that door have a lock on it?"

You know what happens next....Abby gets it on with Gabe, right there in the exam room. After that, she puts on a little show in her window for James, who comes over and wastes no time in having sex with her. What James doesn't know is that the teddy bear on the piano with the flashing red eye is really a camera taping all the festivities (it's so obvious anyway). Abby has sex with Gabe again later, and this time Gigi joins in to make it a three-way. Now that Abby has something on both men, she requests $100,000 from each in order to buy her silence. Not only could she ruin James's run for office, but she could destroy Gabe's practice.

While Gabe and James wrestle with their guilt, Abby finds time to seduce Lillian--who "experimented" with women in college. That was a long time ago, but you wouldn't know that seeing her in action with Abby--she looked like an old pro.

While Gigi goes along with the plan, she's seems jealous of all the sex her girlfriend is having. "It's only business," Abby says. Confessions and apologies are sure to follow, as is some startling info on Abby's true identity--it seems she's been doing the same thing to different men in many different places. Gabe and James use this info to fight back against Abby's blackmail.

Now, on to the sex. The sex scenes were pretty good, and considering all the women involved in this film except for Julia Kruis have a lengthy porn background, I wouldn't have expected anything less. Nicole Sheridan's four scenes were the best of the movie, with the three-way coming in a close second. Monique Alexander only got naked once, but she was a relatively minor character. Julia Kruis was a major character and got naked the same number of times. I suppose since she was surrounded by experienced hardcore pros, she didn't have to have as many sex scenes.

To wrap up, "Behind Bedroom Doors" had a great storyline, which enhanced the overall grade of the film. I consider it tapeworthy.

Women: A- (Nicole Sheridan was good in this film--better than her later offerings in Fred Olen Ray's comedies. At least she can do drama somewhat. Chelsea Blue was a scene stealer--she wasn't that bad as the antagonist. I'd give her an A all by herself. Julia Kruis was her usual self. I wish Monique Alexander had more face time in this film, though.)

Sex: B (Solid, very solid sex scenes. Nicole Sheridan's performances were almost hardcore quality. Chelsea Blue looked good in her scenes, too. The two girl-girl offerings weren't scorching, but they did warm up the screen.)

Story: B+ (I liked the dialogue and the main storyline. Chelsea Blue's performance was good for the genre, and I was impressed with Nicole Sheridan's turn at drama.)

Overall: B (This was a nice softcore flick. I'm glad I was able to watch this one, as I was pleasantly surprised. If Chelsea Blue ever wanted to do more of these, she'd be welcome anytime. That goes for Nicole Sheridan, too--even though she's probably better at doing comedy. I don't mind hardcore girls who can act doing softcore films.)


If I'm going to watch a porn movie, I prefer it to have some sort of plot, and a descent dialogue. Behind Bedroom Doors is one of the few I've come across with those attributes.

The new girl next door scams on the neighbor's human nature and weaknesses where seduction and sex concerned. Chelsea Blue,(I mean Brooke LaVelle) is the choice actress to play the part of the blackmailing seductress, and plays the part magnificently. Chelsea Blue is a very talented and extremely beautiful actress. The movie get's an overall 10 just because she is in it. Her partner in the movie, Monique Alexander is a definite cutie. The two should do more work together. In this movie, though, Monique, who plays Gigi, doesn't have a whole lot to do or say. That's too bad. She seems like she has more talent to be shared. I like the girl who was the (possible) DA's wife next. I forget her name, but she's pretty good looking, and not a bad actress. Nicole Sheridan...I'm still trying to figure out what some people are so excited about. It's obvious there are parts of her bought an paid for. Which is okay, but is she finished? Sorry, but come on! I'm afraid her performance here would have dropped the rating some, except Chelsea's talent and beauty overrides any negatives. Overall, This movie is a good one.


It may be the remake of 1987 Autumn's Tale after eleven years, as the director Mabel Cheung claimed. Mabel employs rock music as the medium in this movie to express her personal attitude to life, in which love, desire and the consequential frustration play significantly crucial roles. Rock music may not be the best vehicle to convey the profound sentiment, and yet it is not too inappropriate to utilize it as the life of underground rock musicians is bitterly more intense than an ordinary one. The director focuses on the depiction of subtle affection and ultimate vanity of life rather than mere rock music. The love between father and son, lovers, and friends is delicately and touchingly delivered through the fine performance. Mabel does not attempt to beautify rock musicians as artists at all, instead, she tries to reproduce a true life on screen, making huge efforts of years' working on this project and gathering information in Beijing underground pubs.

Daniel has given probably the best performance in all his movies made so far. His innate dispiritedness and reticence fit the blue mood of the film perfectly.


I really like this movie because in Australia, Chinese movies like these never get shown during prime time. I must say this is one of the best serious movies ever, which outlines the difference between the Hong Kong people, and mainland Chinese. It really shows that there's discomfort between the two, but can only get better as HK are learning Mandarin. It also showed me how in mainland China the indie rock scene exists, and that Chinese people do know how to strum the guitar and get the house funking! Whoever said China isn't ready for rock music? Daniel Wu is absolutely superb, with his clean and crisp voice, honest acting, and a total chick magnet. I recommend this movie to those who don't know much about Asian people to cleanse themselves from the typical Western stereotypes, and people who just love Chinese/Asian cinema like myself. Check it out!


it's a lovely movie ,it deeply reflects the Chinese underground bands' current lives. if you chinese culture ,traditionaled rock n roll music, there you go, i will highly recommend this one .but one thing i am wondering is whether this movie has been showed in Mainland ? i sorta doubt it ,:D


Look, although we don't like to admit it, we've all have to suppress our fears concerning the extreme likelihood of experiencing the events that take place in this movie. You know: you get into your car and you immediately start thinking,"Gosh, I hope today isn't the day that my accelerator sticks at a comfortable cruising speed of 55 mph, all four door latches break in the locked position, both my main and emergency brake fail, my ignition switch can't be turned off, and I've got a full tank of gas; all simultaneously." Fortunately, for most of us, our Thorazine kicks-in before we actually decide that it's a bad idea to be driving a car. Not so for the makers of the harrowing, white-knuckle, edge-of-your-seat (if only in preparation to leave the room) action juggernaut, "Runaway Car" But they go ahead and drive anyway!

I am endlessly pleased to have found (thanks to the imdb) that this movie is real, and that I didn't merely dream it.

This movie is, at the very least, one of the fantastic sights you will see on your journey to find the El Dorado of Very Bad Cinema.

I highly recommend it.


How this has not become a cult film I do not know. I think it has been sadly overlooked as a truly ingenious comedy!

"Runaway Car" attempts to pass itself off as a fast-paced thriller, but taking the quality of acting (good God it's bad), the storyline, the practicalities of the car's demonic possession and the baby evacuation scene into account there is nothing you can really do but laugh. And laugh you will. Films are made to entertain us, and the degree to which they do this can be an indication of a film's worth. This film is the pinnacle in entertainment, I laughed from beginning to end. At one point I got short of breath and nearly choked, it really is that funny at some points. When the baby was airlifted out of the sunroof in a holdall by a helicopter with a robot pilot who managed to maintain a constant velocity identical to the car and a perfectly flat flight plain that meant the grapple hook didn't rip the car roof to pieces, I was laughing hysterically. But when the baby starting swinging around in the air, nearly hit a bridge and almost got tangled up in a tree, tears were running down my face.

It also occurred to me that the black cop was the guy who played Jesus in Madonna's "Like A Prayer" video. He seems to get everywhere.


In light of bad reviews - or car crashes - I feel possessed to get in gear and make a transmission to give merit where due, and do a service. I'm not sure people have license to say it was so bad, almost automatically.

It's rare for a movie to have SUSPENSE. This movie maintained suspense it's whole length, for me, despite any flaws that may be. How many films can say that? Not even many big ones. Because of the simple premise you don't know if the people will get out of the life-threatening situation, which lasts the whole movie. Yeh, the suspension was tight, and over some bumps the shocks did their work. It's not just a TV movie, but an all-action movie; there is no point where it stops, or deviates, or becomes talky. It would be hard to make a film like this, always on the road. Only Duel, or Speed, are this that I recall. The best thing in them also was the constant tension.

ACTING is not bad: The Judge is as good as ever, and the others are.

SCRIPT is good. But the jury is out as to whether it sometimes may be - or seem to be - a little awry. What seems unrealistic is not necessarily so. Your first judgments are not always right, but I think the lead actor's was right in being in this movie.

STUNTS are mostly terrific, especially for a TV movie. Their only failing may be the noticeable, and again, apparent, slow speed. But we all know how deceivingly slow Grand Prix cars can look.

I liked that THE BEGINNING said, "inspired by a true story." So you are not going to go how much is true? You know just the basis is. The usual "based on a true story" makes me think it should mostly be true. But maybe that's my error.

HOW TO SAVE THEM: Good idea of the reviewer to suggest a tow truck to lift the back wheels up. Just a few inches would do. A stunt driver could do that at 100 mph. Odd that they didn't call a car expert - or auto electrician or mechanic - to see if there's a way.

I hope this review has put in reverse that this film is a disaster. Or at least neutral. And help it become a runaway success.

Pic quality is a little soft for a DVD.

SPOILER: They would have been winched out after the baby was, but strangely that life-saving idea was cleverly dealt with in some joking conversation to fade it out. I guess we know why. End of movie. Suspension of disbelief went out the top window with the baby.


just watched it on sky TV missed the first half an hour. i did wonder if it was a true story so watched it to the end. there was no brief at the end to say what happened to everyone. it did remind me of speed but at the end of the day i don't suppose it was released at the cinema as we did see the following error. the goof that we saw was that they remove the bonnet (hood) and then later on there are two shots of the car with the police car in front trying to slow it down when the bonnet is back on. it did have me on the edge of my seat especially when i thought the baby was going to hit the bridge and of course when the bridge wasn't going to be lowered and then it was. I'm afraid i did burst into tears so it wasn't that bad!!!!


i thought it was pretty interesting my social studies/language arts teacher was the police chief guy that was holding the microphone on the water barrel part =D i was excited my teacher is in some commercials he was in a gas/coffee/phone/play station commercial its nice seeing him on TV he was also on everybody hates Chris except he always get the small part la la why do we have to right 10 lines thats so stupid -_- i think I'm done never mind I'm still not done what is this a joke? why do we have to go all the way to line ten... really what's the point of it??!! i will just right random words for now -_- maple story is fun i love my friends


This film was great.

The plot was preposterous.

The action sequences contrived.

But, provided you can lighten up enough to laugh, it was a throughly thrilling romp combining Keystone Cops and the Lone Ranger.

The baddies were more silly than bad. The good guys weren't too good. The black actors played normal characters rather than black stereotypes.

The inclusion of a baby added a good touch. Sympathy might have been a little difficult otherwise.

I have to disagree about the acting. It was, on the whole, very good. I really wanted to punch Judge Reinhold.

And, after all, isn't that the mark of a really good movie, wanting to punch Judge Reinhold?


I can still remember first seeing this on TV. I couldn't believe TVNZ let it on! I had to own it! A lot of the humor will be lost on non-NZ'ers, but give it a go!

Since finishing the Back of the Y series Matt and Chris have gone on to bigger and better(?) things. NZ's greatest dare-devil stuntman, Randy Campbell has often appeared on the British TV series Balls of Steel. Yes, he still f^@ks up all his stunts because he is too drunk.

Also the 'house band' Deja Voodoo have since released 2 albums, Brown Sabbath and Back in Brown. The band consists of members of the Back of the Y team and singles such as 'I Would Give You One of My Beers (But I've Only Got 6)' and 'You Weren't Even Born in The 80's' continue their humor.

The South-By-Southwest film festival also featured their feature length film 'The Devil Made Me Do It' which will be released early 2008 in NZ.

All up, if you don't find these guys funny then you can just F%^K OFF!!


As a knowledgeable fan I recommend this film as faithful to the facts and well acted. As an 11 year old living in Istanbul I heard some friends talking about a new music sensation that caused girls to scream. I thought hmmmm, if girls like them, they must be crap. My only records until then were Haley Mills, The Everly Brothers & Ricky Nelson. Soon after while on vacation with the family at a military cafeteria in Ismir I heard a song (which I later learned was 'Love Me Do') and was floored by the difference between it and every song I had ever heard until then. When I heard the 'Meet The Beatles' album of my older brother I was hooked for life. Having read the definitive book of their beginnings (by Davis) I was surprised that this movie followed the facts very well with the exception of leaving out most of the sex and some of the drug use (it did touch on the use of methadrine/dexadrine). >


"Birth of the Beatles", for being a US television movie, released in the fall of 1979 has actually been, so far the best movie which tells the tale of the the four lads from Liverpool that revolutionized the music industry and the world. As told by the point of view of former Beatle Pete Best. The performance from the entire cast is excellent but, most especially the performance by Stephen Mackenna as John Lennon and Rod Culbertson as Paul McCartney. The film was produced by a legend of the Rock and Roll era,Mr Dick Clark. Who a year earlier in 1978 had produced another TV movie, that has stood the test of time starring "Kurt Rusell" in the lead role about another musical legend; "ELVIS". That movie was directed by an unknown director named "John Carpenter" who went on to direct other successful movies such as; "Halloween","Escape From New York", and "The Thing". The same can be said for the director of the "Birth of the Beatles", Mr Richard Marquand. He went on to direct other theatrical blockbusters such as "Star Wars Return of the Jedi","Eye of the Needle",and "Jagged Edge" among many. The only other film that tells the story of the Fab Four that I know of,is Back Beat which had a theatrical release in 1994. However, the critics did not care for it,nor did the public, for it did not have a long life span in the theater. Birth of the Beatles is very charming and simplistic film that gives you the essence of the beginning of the legend and the struggles & hardships they went thru and ends at there pinnacle of success when they arrive in NYC and appear in the Ed Sullivan show in 1964. I highly recommend this film.


The idea of making a film about the Beatles sounds doomed idea, as no production can catch the idea of the actual historic Beatles. Then it is perhaps best not to try to recreate the past, but to produce an illustration that works best with the other available Beatles material. This is exactly what 'Birth of the Beatles' offers to us, the simple story known to us without any extravaganza.

*** SPOILERS here on ***

Be warned that not everything is that accurate as some Beatles-graduates might expect. The Beatles are seen performing songs that hardly were even composed by that time. The Beatles perform "Ask Me Why", "P.S. I Love You" and even "Don't Bother Me". The Beatles-graduates should see that if the Beatles on the film only performed songs that they actually did at Hamburg, the younger viewers might not anymore recognize the Beatles they have learned to know them. Of that original Hamburg repertoire only "Johnny B. Goode" and Stu Sutcliffe's "Love Me Tender" are retained.

The guys who play the Beatles in this production scarcely look like the originals, but the rest of the film still make good viewing as the film is for the rest fairly accurate. The guy who plays Lennon does it good and the rest of the band are not bad either. Brian Epstein is great and the moment when he sacks Pete Best from the group is probably the most memorable scene in the whole film. Also as a bonus you get to see the original Cavern club in the film.


Having just watched this film again from a 1998 showing off VH-1, I just had to comment.

The first time I saw this film on TV, it was about 1981, and I remember taping it off of my mother's betamax. It wound up taping in black and white for some reason, which gave it a period look that I grew to like.

I remember very distinctively the film beginning with the song, "My Bonnie", as the camera panned over a scene of Liverpool. I also remember the opening scene where Paul gestures to some girls and says, "Look, talent!" So it was with great irritation that I popped in my 1998 taped version and "remembered" that the film opens with "She Loves You", instead of "My Bonnie". When you see how slowly the camera pans vs. the speed of the music, you can see that "She Loves You" just doesn't fit. Also, in this "later" version when Paul sees the girls, he says, "Look, GIRLS!"..and somehow having remembered the earlier version, THAT word just didn't seem to fit, either. Why they felt they had to Americanize this film for American audiences is beyond me. Personally, if I'm going to watch a film about a British band, I want all of the British colloquialisms and such that would be a part of their speech, mannerisms, etc.

Another irritation was how "choppy" the editing was for television. Just after Stu gets beaten, for example, the film cuts to a commercial break-LOTS of 'em. Yeah, I know it depends on the network, but it really ruins the effect of a film to have it sliced apart, as we all know. What some people might find as insignificant in terms of dialogue (and thereby okay to edit), may actually go the way of explaining a particular action or scene that follows.

My point is, the "best" version of this film was probably the earlier version I taped from 1981, which just so happened to include the "Shake, Rattle & Roll" scene that my 1998 version didn't. I started to surmise that there had to have been two different versions made for television, and a look at the "alternate versions" link regarding this film proved me right. That the American version had some shorter/cut/different scenes and/or dialogue is a huge disappointment to me and something worth mentioning if one cares about such things. Imo, ones best bet is to try and get a hold of the European version of this film, if possible, and (probably even less possible), an unedited version. Sadly, I had to discard my old betamax European version because I didn't know how to convert it.

All that aside, I found this film to be, perhaps, one of the best films regarding the story behind the "birth of the Beatles". Being well aware that artistic and creative license is often used in movies and TV when portraying events in history, I didn't let any discrepancies mar my enjoyment of the film. Sure, you see the Beatles perform songs at the Cavern that made me wonder, "Did they even write that back then?? I don't think so", but, nevertheless, I thought it was a great film and the performances, wonderful.

The real stand-out for me, in fact, was the actor who played John, Stephen MacKenna. I just about fell in love with him. His look, mannerisms, personality and speaking voice seemed to be spot-on. He looked enough like a young John for me to do a double-take towards the end of the film when you see the Beatles performing on Ed Sullivan for the first time. I actually found myself questioning whether or not it was actual Beatle footage, until I saw the other actors in the scene.

If you're looking for a dead accurate history of The Beatles' life and beginnings, you can't get any better than, "The Beatles' Anthology", as it was "written" by the boys', themselves. However, if you're looking for a fun snapshot of their pre-Beatlemania days leading up to their arrival in America and you leave your anal critical assessments at the door, you can't go wrong with the "Birth of the Beatles"--a MUST for any "real" or casual Beatle fan.


There are a number of things that are not correct, although this is not too important since what happened to whom and when is still in dispute. The most blatant liberty with the facts I think is when they start to play at Bruno Koschmidder's Kaiserkeller, when in fact they played at the Indra and moved to the Kaiserkeller later.

I agree with Semprinni20 that the film was biased in favour of Pete Best's version, but if he is the story consultant then I guess he calls the shots. I also agree with Semprinni that the recordings Pete Best plays on say the last word on the subject of why he was fired.

Although the film is not such a lavish production as the later film "Backbeat", I prefer this film because it is more accurate, and because it has a better script with deeper characterisation.

There is plenty in the film that is quite substantial - such as Brian Epstein trying to hide the fact that he has been "queer-bashed," only to find out that the band knew he was Gay all along. Little touches like the band going into a café and ordering "Corn-Flakes mit Milch." My favourite scene, which does have some bassis in fact, is where at an audition Stuart Sutcliffe has just bought his bass guitar but can't play it, so he stands with his back to the impresario and tries faking it, but gets caught. That's rock 'n' roll.

Well worth watching.


A true dark noir movie and a very graphic film, nice storyline of a man pursuing redemption, that may have just left it all too late. Visually there are some really nice scenes artistically amazing as to what can be done with a minimal budget. Full marks to Gareth Maxwell Roberts and team, I look forward to the next project with new ideas although hopefully more British actors would be great. Lisa Ray looked lovely not seen her before and hope to see her again in the future. Subject all interesting Sex,Drugs and Violence. Bring it on. I would definitely say to rent this one and check it out if you're in the mood for a semi moody noir.


This movie really surprised me. I had my doubts about it at first but the movie got better and better for each minute.

It is maybe not for the action seeking audience but for those that like an explicit portrait of a very strange criminal, man, lover and husband. If you're not a fan of bad language or sexual content this really is not for you.

The storyline is somewhat hard to follow sometimes, but in the end I think it made everything better. The ending was unexpected since you were almost fouled to think it would end otherwise.

As for the acting I think it was good. It will not be up for an Oscar award for long but it at least caught my eye. Gil Bellows portrait of a prison man is not always perfect but it is very entertaining. Shaun Parkes portrait of Bellows prison mate Clinique is great and extremely powerful. On the downside I think I will put Esai Morales portrait of Markie.

Take my advice and watch this movie, either you will love it or dislike it!


I started to watch this movie expecting nothing, just another movie to watch, but since the first twenty minutes, the artwork and main character, who is enigmatic, doesn't talk much, really got me in this movie.

I really liked this movie, it was dark, beautifully acted and really touching. It's a bit slow but the immersion was complete. The directing was awesome by letting us know bits by bits the story leading to the conviction of Joey and his life behind bars. The music was really great and very well incorporated into the scenes. The ending was unexpected with a twist I didn't see coming. It's not the kind of movie we see often.


Forget that this is a "B" movie. Forget that it is in many ways outdated. Instead give writer-director Ida Lupino much deserved credit for addressing a subject which at the time (1950) was taboo in Hollywood. To my knowledge, this was the first film to address the subject of rape and the emotional and mental effects that that crime has upon its victims.

Although much of the cast's acting is pedestrian at best, Mala Powers, who at the time was eighteen or nineteen, gives an excellent performance throughout as the traumatized young woman, Ann, who tries to run away from her "shame." Based on her work in this film, I'm surprised that she did not have a more successful acting career. Tod Andrews, too, has some fine moments as the minister who reaches out to help her.

Ms Lupino, obviously working on a limited budget, was still able to create some memorable scenes such as the pursuit through the streets and alleys leading to the rape, and the police lineup following it. And, she created a bittersweet ending which left me wondering if Ann really could ever have a normal life again.


Ida Lupino was one of the few women to break through the directorial glass ceiling in Hollywood under the studio system. Not surprisingly, she also tackled proto-feminist themes that, when touched at all, were approached in so gingerly a manner that it was seldom quite clear what was being talked about. In Outrage, she treats rape and its aftermath, and though throughout the short movie it's referred to as `criminal assault,' she leaves, for once, no doubt about what happened.

Mala Powers (in her official debut) plays a secretary-bookkeeper at a big industrial plant; she lives with her parents but is engaged to a swell guy (Robert Clarke), who just got a raise and now makes $90 a week. Leaving the plant after working late one night, she finds herself being stalked. In the ensuing scene  the best in the movie  she tries to escape her pursuer in a forbidding maze of buildings and alleys but fails.

When she returns home, disheveled and in shock, the police can't get much out of her; she claims she never saw her attacker (who manned a snack truck outside the factory). Trying to pretend that nothing happened, she returns to her job but falls apart, thinking that everybody is staring at her, judging her. She goes into a fugue state, running away to Los Angeles on a bus but stumbling off at a rest stop.

Waking up in a strange ranch house, she learns that she's been rescued by Tod Andrews, a young minister in a California agricultural town. She lies about her identity and takes a job packing oranges. The two fall vaguely in love, but it's clear to Andrews that Powers is keeping dire secrets. When, at a company picnic, she seizes a wrench and cracks the skull of Jerry Paris, who was trying to steal a kiss, the truth about her past comes out....

It was a courageous movie to come out in 1950, and that may explain and excuse some of its shortcomings. Lupino never recaptures the verve of the early assault scene, and the movie wanders off into the bucolic and sentimental, ending up talky and didactic. Yes, Lupino had important information to impart, but she didn't trust the narrative to speak for itself. Her cast, pleasant but bland and generic, weren't much help, either, reverting to melodramatic postures or homespun reassurance. But Outrage was a breakthrough, blazing a trail for later discourse on what the crime of rape really is, and what it really means to its victims.


Before this little black-and-whiter, the touchy topic of criminal rape never made it onto the American screen.There were lots of these topics that Hollywood and the Production Code kept hidden until the rebellious 1960's. So it's not surprising that it would take a little independent company like Ida Lupino's Filmmakers to raise the subject. The result is well-meaning but somewhat compromised, which is not surprising since director Lupino had to work with Code demands to get the movie released.

Interestingly, Ann Walton's (Mala Powers) main problem following the assault is not how others might see her, but how she sees herself. And it's a heavy load she's carrying. Will she ever be able to relate to men again? Will they look at her as "spoiled goods" (after all, this is 1950)? Small wonder she runs away rather than face these anxieties at home and at work, even though family and friends are generally supportive. Overall, this first part is earnest and well-done. The chase is hyped to inject some action into the plot, but then this is a movie-- notice how the incurious neighbor fails to respond to the honking horn near chase's end. Had those been screams of alarm from Powers instead, the neighbor's lack of response would have raised an interesting albeit complicating issue.

The second half is pretty much given over to the Production Code in the sentimentalized person of Rev. Ferguson (Tod Andrews). It's he (to quote a phrase) who "gives her courage to face life again". There's some effort at humanizing him-- is it Ann or her dilemma that he's most interested in. Still, his gentle and understanding presence comes across as a little too miraculous and a little too Hollywood. Fortunately, the ending avoids the usual Hollywood cop-out by emphasizing only the hope of a happy resolution for Ann rather than its certainty.

Give Lupino a ton of credit for dealing with the topic in the first place. Given the overall results, I expect she dealt as honestly with the topic as she was allowed to. I also expect today's audiences find the treatment mildly interesting mainly because of Powers' excellent performance that brings out the purely human drama. However, the film works best now as a document of its time, and what the cultural watchdogs of that day thought was appropriate for adult viewing.


This is the second film I've seen of Ida Lupino as a director after 53's the hitch-hiker. I think this one was a better film then that one. This one has a girl who is about to get married and she is then sexually assaulted and doesn't like everyone looking and talking about her so she runs away and and is taken in by a family. I think Leonard Maltin's review is right only to give it 2 and 1/2 stars.


This movie was very, very strange and very, very funny. All of the actors are quite real and very odd. The overall "look" of the film was different, too, sort of dreamy and bleached-out, which only added to the spacey, fumbling, weird vibe of the whole thing.

It's not for everyone, I mean, it's not what you would call "mainstream" but that is what I liked about it. It's unlike anything I have ever seen before . . . unpredictable, with a weird rhythm and punch lines in the strangest places. The kids are so heartbreakingly goofy (and pimply) that you can't help but feel for them. In other words, these are far from "hollywoodized" versions of teenagers.

All of, which for me, makes it a good thing.


i first saw this movie at the sundance film festival this year, and being a teenager myself i found the movie to be quite appealing. these kids are out of the ordinary and very unexpected to be in a movie of this stature but with the right dialog and junk they made the movie a complete success. i enjoyed this movie more then others but i highly recommend releasing and watching this movie. it is a mixture of witty comments and hilarious reality. capturing the essence of high school, high school record has topped my favorites list and hopefully has a chance to be released into theaters. i truly thank all of the kids who put the hard work into making this film, it helped me cry my eyes our in laughter.


As I am no fan of almost any post-"Desperate Living" John Waters films, I warmed to "Pecker". After he emerged from the underground, Waters produced trash-lite versions of his earlier works ("Cry Baby", "Polyester", Hairspray") that to die-hard fans looked and tasted like watered down liqueur. "Pecker", which doesn't attempt to regurgitate early successes, is a slight, quiet, humble commentary on the vagaries of celebrity and the pretentiousness of the art world. Waters clearly knows this subject well because he has also exhibited and sold (at ridiculous prices) some of the most amateurish pop art ever created that you couldn't imagine anyone being able to give away if it wasn't emblazoned with the Waters "name". Edward Furlong is fine as "Pecker" and Waters' non-histrionic style is at ease with the subject.


Edward Furlong and Christina Ricci are an excellent couple and demonstrate it with their unique charisma featured in this movie.

This is the typical "alternative" or indie movie with a plot that features a rare situation that suddenly becomes really important.

Pecker is an average boy who has an old camera and his main hobby is to take photographs of the exotic habitants of the small town where he lives in. Suddenly an alternative artist pays attention to his work and hires him in order to expose his work in some important festivals and more.

But Pecker life changes drastically as now fortune and fame seem to infuriate the town's people who are Pecker's main inspiration. Even his sexy girlfriend gets mad because now he does not pays the "adequate" attention to her.

Well this is an Indie movie with an edge but not for everyone. It may seem boring or pretentious for some people but still I think it worths a watch only because it offers something "different" than Hollywood's typical standards.

To describe in a few words: This is the typical Christina Ricci and John Waters movie. That's it.

Oh and I almost forgot to mention that the "Full of Grace" lines are really annoying. Geez.


John Waters most accessible film to date is one of his better ones, considering it cut down on all of the campiness and outright vulgarity which seem to litter most of his previous work. Sure, the nudity and the sexual references are still there, at least it is presented in a fashion

that cannot be deemed too foul or disgusting. Due to some great casting choices, this film really brought out the silliness associated with modern art and the subjective nature of your modern artist. Funny and somewhat lighthearted (if that is possible for Waters), this is one of those films I would watch on a rainy day.


Pecker is another mainstream film by John Waters done on a smaller than Serial Mom. The title character of Pecker has a hobby of taking pictures of anything he sees. It doesn't matter if it's dirty or shocking when he takes pictures. He soon uses the pictures he taken and puts them on display at his work. Pecker live in a semi-normal middle-class family. His dad works at a drinking bar with a claw machine, but doesn't make enough money with a lesbian stripper bar across the street. His mom runs a thrift shop and loves to dress-up poor people. His older sister, Tina, works at a gay bar where her specialty is trade. His younger, Little Chrissy, has a habit of eating sugar, sugar, and nothing but sugary food. His grandmother, Memama, has a small statue of the Virgin Mary and plays ventriloquist with it. He also has 2 friends. On of his friends, Matt is a chronic shoplifter and his girlfriend, Shelley, runs a laundry mat as if she was a dictator. Soon, a tourist from New York buys his pictures and displays them at an art gallery. With the picture comes fame, but the pictures expose the unusual life style of his friends and family's simple life. For an R-rated film, Pecker is sure tamer than most of Waters previous R-rated films and even Pink Flamingos. Another 10 out of 10!


The best thing about this movie is that it is fun. It is full of humorous characters and interesting situations, starting with the blithe, innocent Pecker (played appealingly by Edward Furlong) who likes to photograph almost everything he sees in every day life. Other great characters include Pecker's friend Matt ("he's a thief, but he's really a nice guy"), Pecker's sister Chrissy (who is addicted to sugar), and Pecker's Catholic grandmother who discovers life in a statuette of the Virgin Mary in her room.

The movie gently makes a point about how every day life has many riches to offer, and it succeeds in making this point without being too heavy-handed about it. There is always a risk, when making messages about the value and dignity of "common people", of sliding into a kind of reverse "holier than thou" - but "Pecker" avoids these traps, allowing the audience to get the point while allowing enough breathing room for viewers to compare this message to their own thoughts on the subject.

I recommend the movie mostly because it is a lot of fun.


I´m from Germany and I love the mvovies. I go 200 times a year. Tonight I saw "Pecker", it was a wonderful evening. Thank you, Mr. Waters. Everybody who has a chance to see the movie, go!!!


"Pecker" is a young, unknown photographer from Baltimore who becomes a big star in the public, the media and the local art scene with his pictures showing the dirty reality of all-day life just as dirty underwear or human excrements. It's a typical topic of John Waters Baltimore-based independent comedies to show the weird sides of the American way of life between political correctness fashion and conservative backlashes by exploring the backgrounds of the middle class society of his hometown.

Edward Furlong of "Terminator 2" fame plays Pecker, supported by Christina Ricchi, photographer Cindy Sherman, legendary Patricia Hearst and Water's long-time actress Mink Stole. Although the pacing of the plot becomes a big flaw sometimes and can't compete with the fast and furious joke attacks of Water's brilliant "Serial Mom", it's still has some good laughs in it and some unforgettable scenes like a former junkie-girl who became a vegetarian by sniffing peas from a vegetable dish... "Pecker" is a great comedy about the arrogance of the art scene, media hypes, middle-class sex angst and the strange ways of how to become a pop star without realizing it. Recommended!


Saw this again recently on Comedy Central. I'd love to see Jean Schertler(Memama) and Emmy Collins(Hippie in supermarket) cast as mother and son in a film, it would probably be the weirdest flicker ever made! Hats off to Waters for making a consistently funny film.


This is John Waters best film to date. The characters are obvious and symbolic, just as in his other films. So there are no surprises or character changes. I enjoyed the film because of the wittiness and pace of the story. It was good story-telling with honest people.


Pecker is a hilariously funny yet twisted film about a small town in Baltimore whose daily, humdrum routine is broken by Pecker, a young photographer who takes pictures of "real things." No pretty models, no gorgeous men, just hard living. This wonderful film pokes fun at the plasticness of the urban art chain. There is one particular scene when a homeless woman who shops at Pecker's mom's thrift shop buys the same exact coat as one of the Whitney art junkies for only 25 cents instead of five hundred dollars. This just goes to show you that no matter what kind of money you have, you might not always have taste. Yet again John Waters sends you into a never-ending spiral of laughter and raw reality. You can have your mainstream Hollywood movies with special affects and mountains of celebrities, but give me a "Pecker" or a "Hairspray" (another excellent John Waters film) over a "Titanic" or a "Godzilla" anyday!!


John Water's ("Pink Flamingos"...) "Pecker" is the best movie I've seen in a while. It gives the viewer a surreal image of life in Baltimore (I live in nearby Washington, DC), with a Warhol-like use of color, exaggerated motions and emotions. Pecker becomes larger than his town can handle, and he is separated from his loved-ones (including a sexy Ricci) by his man-loving art manager. The picture left a refreshing taste in my mouth--kind of like a fresh strawberry ice cream on a hot summer day--and though this taste was rather flat and simplistic, it only made the whole thing more profound and critical. It is a celebration of life, liberty, and the right to bear arms...and everything else this country stands for. -Juan Pieczanski (jpieczanski@sidwell.edu)


This movie kept me constantly entertained. In comparing this to Serial Mom, Mr. Waters has gone back to his grittier side. This is not nearly as polished.

There is a dark side here. A message about how success and fame changes a person -- but more importantly how it changes the people around you.

There is not a false moment in this film.

The characters are somewhat cartoonish... but I want to believe that is what Mr. Waters is trying to achieve.

It is fascinating to watch how Mr. Waters has evolved... This is truly his finest work.


In a very short time, the movie showed a boy's odd life of taking pictures, showed his life and everyone else's get turned upside down as a result of his photographs, then brought everything back to normal in the end. One to see if you're looking for something interesting.


I found this film to funny from the start. John Waters use of characters reminded of some of the down to earth characters from Fellini films. Christina Ricci has once again expanded her abilities in this film. If you are looking for a fun movie without preaching, I recommend this film.


Once you can get past the film's title, "Pecker" is a great film, perhaps one of John Waters' best. A wonderful cast, headed by strong performances by Edward Furlong and Christina Ricci, make the story very funny, and very real. There are some shocking scenes that are definitely not suitable for young children, but they are there for a purpose. Unfortunately this movie was not mass produced, and most of the public will be denied the opportunity to view it. If the opportunity knocks, then go see this film.


John Waters has given us a genuinely enjoyable film. This certainly isn't without its shocking Waters-esque moments, but it is tamer than his older culty stuff, such as "Pink Flamingoes". "Pecker" harkens back to John's early mainstream stage in that it reminds the viewer of the same kind of humor that was evident in "Polyester". Overall, a really fun comedy with some great moments!


Went to see this movie with my brother and his girlfriend. The place was pretty packed and we all laughed so hard it was easy to miss lines. I knew it looked like it would be good but it was much funnier than I thought it would be. I liked both Edward Furlong and Christina Ricci, they seemed really weird just like normal people, if that makes sense. I get sick of movies that show teenagers as being like cookie cutter people, like "jock" or "geek" or "cheerleader"...etc. Both characters were unique but still very human and normal enough to relate to. I will be recommending this movie to all my friends and waiting very eagerly for it to be out on DVD, Go see this movie with your friends who can laugh at the funniest parts of life! I plan to see it again in the theater and I don't go see things more than once very often.


Absolutely hilarious. John Waters' tribute to the people he loves most (Baltimoreans) is a twisted little ditty with plenty to look at and laugh at. It's like being turned loose in a museum of kitsch! I haven't laughed so much in a theater since Serial Mom. I loved seeing old friends from the Dreamland days, Sharon Nisep and Susan Lowe, back in front of Waters' camera. The cast is simply wonderful (especially Edward Furlong and Martha Plimpton). Uses the best elements of past Waters atrocities (especially the underrated Polyester) and plenty of new surprises. Made me sick, in a wonderful way. Thanks, John!


I thought this was an utterly charming film. The story seems to be a thinly veiled autobiography of John Waters: Pecker's greatest gift is his ability to find beauty in unexpected places. Edward Furlong does well in the lead, but the best performances are by his grandmother, Mink Stole (a hilarious cameo) and, of all people, Patty Hearst. I think the reviewers are way off base on this one. They seem to be taking Pecker's worst valuation of his work as gospel, when I think the film pretty clearly states that he is indeed a promising artist.


"Pecker" proves that Waters has no intention of changing his tacky ways in his old age. A lot of things have changed since Waters started making films in the 1960s, but 40 years later he is still doing what he wants to do. Over the years, the budget of Waters' films has increased considerably. This is one of his most recent productions, but I was amazed to see that Waters still has that "trailer-park" touch. Edward Furlong plays Pecker, a kid who is obsessed with photography. He lives a quite life in Baltimore, MD, with his friends and family. But Pecker attracts the attention of a New York art agent (the always watchable Lili Taylor), and his life changes for the worst. Once again, Waters makes fun of art, fame and heterosexuality. It is not among his best films, but there are some big belly laughs here ("Memama" has the best lines in the film!). It is consistently clever and funny, and has that very "queer" sensibility that I have come to love in Warters' movies.


This is a very light headed comedy about a wonderful family that has a son called Pecker because he use to Peck at his Food. Pecker loves to take all kinds of pictures of the people in a small suburb of Baltimore, Md., and manages to get the attention of a group of photo art lovers from New York City. Pecker has a cute sister who goes simply nuts over SUGAR and is actually an ADDICT, taking spoonfuls of sugar from a bag. There are scenes of men showing off the lumps in their jockey's with grinding movements and gals doing pretty much the same. It is rather hard to keep your mind out of the gutter with this film, but who cares, it is only a film to give you a few laughs at a simple picture made in 1998.


After "A Dirty Shame", I never thought that I was going to see another John Waters movie. That movie was really so bad, that I was convinced that all his movies would be like that. But when the DVD of this movie was reviewed in a popular magazine and they said that this was an excellent movie, I decided to give it a try anyway. Only a couple of days later it was shown on television. I taped it out of curiosity and now that I've seen it, I can tell you that this "Pecker" sure is a lot better than "A Dirty Shame".

In this movie we see how a young 'nobody' from Baltimore becomes an overnight sensation in the art world of New York. He's a sandwich shop employee who photographs his weird family or things that he sees on the street as a hobby. When he keeps his very first 'exhibition' in the shop where he works, his pictures are noticed by a gallery owner who loves the pictures full of misery and weirdness. His photographs are sold for enormous prices, but when he sees how his family, friends and strangers react to his success he decides that he will no longer go to New York, they will have to come to him if they want to see more of him. And they do, but what they get to see there, is a bigger shock than they could ever imagine...

It's not difficult to see why I loved this movie a lot more than "A Dirty Shame". The first reason is that this movie has an actual story. This movie really has something to say and isn't just intended to shock as many people as possible. The fact that they make fun of the art world who considers everything out of the ordinary as art because they don't know what the reality is like, isn't just funny, it's not that far from the truth either. I guess there are many people who feel about modern art that way. Nobody understands why they are making such a fuss about it, but apparently we are all supposed to like it. The second reason why I liked this movie is because this one had much better acting performances to offer. I'm not saying that everything that you will see is great, but at least the characters have some meaning thanks to the performances of the different actors like Edward Furlong, Christina Ricci,...

Overall this isn't a great movie, but thanks to its criticism and some good jokes - which never really go too far - this is an enjoyable movie. It certainly isn't the best comedy ever, but I liked it a lot more than "A Dirty Shame". I give this movie a 6.5/10.


It has only been a week since I saw my first John Waters film (Female Trouble), and I wasn't sure what to expect the second time around.

While the previous film was outrageously over the top, Pecker is actually a funny film that satirizes the art critics in New York to a T. Anyone who cannot imagine what these "Experts" find so appealing about modern art, will enjoy seeing these pretentious snobs get so full of themselves over Pecker, a boy who just found a broken camera and starts shooting his friends and neighbors.

Edward Furlong (Pet Sematary II, Terminator 2: Judgment Day) was surprisingly good as Pecker. There wasn't a lot of meat on any of the roles in this film, but he really shines.

Christina Ricci (Prozac Nation) comes in with another great performance as Pecker's girlfriend. In fact, it was a banner year for Ricci (Buffalo '66, The Opposite of Sex, and Pecker.

Lili Taylor, who had the only good role in The Haunting, was also a significant part of the film and really made it enjoyable.

There are many funny scenes, but I have to say the best was when a crown gathers screaming, "We want bush!" "We want bush!" "We want bush!" I thought it was a Republican convention until I saw the police hauling off the dancer.

I am going to have to look for more of Waters' work, especially Hairspray, now that that is in the news.


Going for something far away from the deliberately gross stuff that he usually makes, John Waters (happy birthday, John!) made this parody of the celebrity/art world. Edward Furlong plays the title character, a working-class teenager in Baltimore who loves to photograph things. When a New York agent (Lili Taylor) discovers his work, she offers him his big break, which he accepts. But once he hits it big, he has to reconsider everything.

Basically, "Pecker" looks at how he loses his friends and his normal life once he becomes a celebrity. The sort of thing that we might expect, sure, but with Waters directing, there's always a few things to shock us (you'll know them when you see them). I certainly recommend it. Also starring Christina Ricci, Mink Stole and Patty Hearst.


John Waters has made the most effusively buoyant, heartfelt, dark, personal little film I think I've ever seen (well maybe Fast Food Fast Women comes in close second) The directors vision is untainted...the narrative is whimsical, the characters are personal and odd reflections of family and his own inner life ...the tone never forced or stylistically over-arch.

There is no pretentious shot design, ennui, or magazine grading....Martha Plimpton is amazing as the sister..Eddie furlong is inspired casting. A grandmother with a talking Mary, tea-bagging, recycled clothing, yesterday's garbage becomes today's art -- and the lesson of the film is that the most important thing we can value is family ... and a humble life.