This little known 1955 melodramatic gem starring Joan Crawford, Barry Sullivan, Betsy Palmer, John Ireland, Lucy Marlow is not only incredibly over-dramatic (sometimes hilariously so) but a great opportunity for Joan Crawford to show off her inner diva and those great acting skills of hers.

Emotions run high as ruthless Southern socialite Eva Phillips (the Queen Bee - played by else but the magnificent Joan Crawford who is absolutely in her element) manipulates those around her, turning them against each other. The story begins when her sappy cousin (badly played by Lucy Marlow - you are almost happy when she gets slapped) arrives at Eva's mansion and boy, is she in for one wild ride! Affairs, suicide, car accidents, love, manipulation all drive this movie.

It is such a pleasure to watch Eva Phillips tear people apart and see the cunning ways in which she works and gets her own way. The script is, as I previously said, insanely dramatic (and sometimes the lines aren't delivered well - bad acting) and sometimes it got very funny as it just seemed really pathetic. That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it though - no, I loved every minute of it. I loved Eva Phillip's ability to torment the people around her (for example - calling her drunk, scarred husband 'Beauty') - it was incredibly fascinating to me. And the ending was very rewarding too.

Undoubtly over-the-top to the point of laughing, but a very entertaining ride perfect for a day in. I enjoyed every minute of it, I thoroughly recommend it to comedy and drama fans alike - both could get some enjoyment out of this.


This movie is sort of a "guilty pleasure"--you know, a film you like watching despite the fact that it's not exactly well-acted or intellectual fare. I'll be the first to admit that the movie was very histrionic (in particular Ms. Crawford's performance) and is pure soap opera as well--but I still enjoyed the film immensely.

The film opens with a nice young lady (Lucy Marlow) coming to visit her bitchy cousin (Joan Crawford). Ms. Crawford acts incredibly kind and sweet and Ms. Marlow is completely taken in by this performance. However, the rest of the household (including Joan's husband and sister-in-law) seem far less taken by Joan's kindness--going so far as to warn Lucy it's all an act. And, eventually, Joan's evil, controlling and horrid nature seeps through and the audience comes to realize many things: she hates her own children (that must have been a BIG acting stretch), hates everyone around her, must be 100% in control of everyone and is like a wild animal when crossed. Her evil ways eventually lead to her sister-in-law committing suicide and her husband begins plotting to murder her. Exactly how this is all resolved, I'll leave to you--I'd hate to spoil it.

As for the problems with the plot, there were several. If you don't think, they won't pose a problem. However, the romance between Lucy and Joan's hubby (Barry Sullivan) seemed completely illogical and "from out of left field". It didn't make much sense and it just wasn't at all convincing. Second, Joan was so bad, so cruel and so gosh-darn awful, it's really hard to imagine it took anyone so long to try and kill her! Perhaps this was just a little too far-fetched!

All-in-all, this movie is very typical of Crawford's movies of the 1940s and 50s. She played the bitchy, controlling role a lot and based on reports from Christina Crawford, these roles weren't far from the truth! Fun to watch--impossible to live with!


The characterization and acting were generally acceptable in this movie but the script let them down. There were many instances where the dialog made no sense, in other cases it was just unintentionally humorous.

Examples; when Jennifer arrives and everyone is in the drawing room and Eva makes her entrance. She completely misses the existence of the only stranger in the room; Jennifer. Then, upon seeing this stranger standing there, she fails to realize that this is her cousin - who was expected ("should have picked you up at the station"). How could she not instantly know who this was?

Later Jennifer asks Eva what the doctor said about Ted, she replies, "Did you see how the doctor trembled as he spoke to me? You'd think he'd never seen a beautiful woman before!" For the life of me I can't figure out who she was referring to; it couldn't have been herself.

While Crawford is not mud-ugly she certainly is not beautiful  by '55 standards or by today's. With her long square face, too-intense eyes, and caterpillar eyebrows she is far from beautiful (handsome, perhaps). And while the above line alone wouldn't have been sufficient to criticize, similar references to her "beauty" appeared often enough to insure this wasn't unintentional.

Then you've got to wonder what hold this woman had over these people. She wasn't pretty, charismatic, rich, or sexy - so what was it? To steal a line from "10 Things I Hate About You"; "Wha'does she have, beer-flavored nipples?" And the characters kept going on about how nice Eva could be when you first meet her  what? At no point in this movie could Eva be considered "nice". This lack of likable side ruined the opportunity to contrast nice with mean leaving a one dimensional character rather than the intended schizoid persona.

Lastly, the scene where Eva was informed by Jennifer of Carol's suicide was absolutely hilarious. Totally out of character, overacted and with ridiculous smearing of coal cream on the mirror. What was that about?

While I enjoyed the movie it was far from great and only approaching good. 3 out of 10


When I read Christina Crawford's tell-all of all Hollywood tell-alls, "Mommie Dearest," I remember her writing about not being able to sit through "Queen Bee," since her mother's character in the movie was just too close to that of the real life Joan Crawford. And if this is true, then Christina's childhood must have been hellacious indeed.

In this film, the diabolical Eva Phillips, played by Crawford, rips a bedroom to shreds with a riding crop, lassoes a potential bedmate with a telephone cord, gives a young ingénue a wicked smack across the face, and verbally destroys her enemies with lines like, "Don't you look nice  even in those tacky riding clothes." This is Joan at her Joan-iest, and I couldn't help but think that this is the film Faye Dunaway must have studied as she prepared to play Joan in "Mommie Dearest." In fact, watching Crawford in this movie is like watching Crawford playing Dunaway playing Crawford.

"Queen Bee" is camp at its highest elevation, with a script full of nasty one-liners that would later become staples of catty nighttime soaps like Dynasty and Dallas. Crawford wears amazing clothes that woosh and crinkle as she glides across the room, and she is accessorized to within an inch of her life in pristine white gloves, sparkling rings and bracelets, and Paris-fashion-week-style hats. Though not as extravagantly dressed as Crawford, the other actors always look like they're ready for an elegant dinner party, even though they never seem to leave the house.

It would be easy to dismiss this film as typical 1950s melodramatic drivel, but there's much more to "Queen Bee" than meets the eye. Director-writer Ranald MacDougall creates a claustrophobic atmosphere by staging nearly the entire movie within the boxy confines of the Phillips mansion. The viewer feels trapped, much like the characters that inhabit the house. The movie is filmed in crisp black and white, adding to the rigid tension that permeates the environment. And in one intentional and hilariously symbolic scene, Crawford's character emasculates her husband, played by a morose Barry Sullivan, as he crack walnuts at the dinner table. Joan as the ultimate ball buster.

Most of the actors do a competent job, with Betsy Palmer standing out as Carol Phillips, the niece destroyed by Eva's manipulations. Everyone's favorite ape lover, Fay Wray, has a brief, but memorable appearance at the beginning of the movie as a woman so devastated by Eva's wicked ways that she's been forced to retreat into her own fantasy world. John Ireland, as Eva's former lover and Carol's current fiancée, gives the most wooden performance, firing off his dialogue as if he's reciting a Western Union telegram. Crawford rises above it all, however, always commanding the screen with her physical presence (her eyebrows in this one are bigger and blacker than ever), her throaty voice, and her impeccable diction.

The film's ending seems rushed and contrived, and the last line of the movie delivered by Sullivan is eye-rollingly corny, but don't let that deter you. If you've always wondered what the real Joan Crawford might have been like, "Queen Bee" just might give you a little glimpse.


Aging star Joan Crawford took to stretching the years later in her career and this is a prime example. She's lounging around the house in mink lined see through nighties and spewing venom at everyone. A typical star vehicle, the flick itself is a bore but we love Joan best when she is playing supreme bitch and in this pot boiler she plays it to the hilt.


We are at the Polo Grounds in New York City with the visiting team - the Gas-House Gorillas - giving the home team - the Tea Totallers - a thrashing, leading 94-0 and it's only the top of the fourth inning! Bugs emerges from his hole in the outfield and is disgusted. "Hey, I can beat this team singled-handed," he thinks, so he takes over from the 91-year-old pitcher who is getting shellacked. In fact, he takes over for everybody, being the whole team!

From that point on, it really becomes total lunacy - but one of the funniest Bugs Bunny cartoons I've ever seen (well, I'm a baseball fan, too) - capped off by a the most ridiculous catch ever made!

This was a lot of fun to watch. I hope Bugs did more sports cartoons and, if so, I get a chance to see them.


In most Bugs Bunny cartoons, he is pitted against a foe, usually human, while formidable in their own way, are obviously not in his league when it comes to brains. In this particular one, directed by Friz Freleng, he is up against a whole team of them. Bugs calls the Gas House Gorillas "a bunch of dirty cheaters". They then challenge him to a game of baseball where Bugs has to play every position, plus having to catch up where the Tea Totalers left off, behind 96-0 or something close to this score. Many of the jokes aren't up to writer Michael Maltese's usual standards, but anyone who has ever watched this cartoon will never forget the ending sequence where Bugs has to catch the last out of the game to win it.


My description for this Bugs Bunny episode, overall, is fun. The beginning of it is very boring and not very funny, but Bugs Bunny transforms this cartoon completely. If it had been any other cartoon character, this episode would have been a disaster. Bugs Bunny had to come on to enhance the action.

Bugs Bunny is watching a very boring and bad (according to him anyway) baseball match, saying he could do better. Not too surprisingly, the other players of the game challenge him to a game and Bugs Bunny accepts. Can he really do better than the other team..?

I liked this episode for the animation, some of the jokes (which were very original in 1946) and of course, Bugs Bunny. Personally I did not think the subject of baseball would make this episode very enjoyable, but I enjoyed it a great deal.

I recommend this episode to anyone who likes Bugs Bunny and to anyone who likes baseball (or people who can bear it). Enjoy "Baseball Bugs"! :-)


Friz Freleng's 'Baseball Bugs' has become one of the most well known Bugs Bunny cartoons of all, so much so that it was referenced in hugely popular the sitcom 'Friends' in such a way that took for granted that the audience would recognise it. Commonly known as "that one where Bugs takes on a whole baseball team and plays all the positions", 'Baseball Bugs' brings back many a fond memory from my childhood. Watching it today, it's a fairly standard cartoon largely made up of visual gags of varying quality, the best involving a highly unconventional batboy. The main reason it has become semi-legendary would seem to be entirely down to its ingenious premise of pitting the rabbit against a whole team of thuggish ball players. Freleng does some interesting things with the premise but you can't help but feel a wackier director like Bob Clampett could have made so much more of it. Another problem with 'Baseball Bugs' is the more than usually abundant use of old references that inescapably date the cartoon. For cartoon aficionados like myself, these reference points always prove interesting (and 'Baseball Bugs' includes my favourite regularly used saying, "Was this trip really necessary?", which always cracks me up) but to most people they will prove perplexing and the fact that the cartoon ends with one of these forgotten catchphrases makes for a somewhat anticlimactic finale. Nevertheless, 'Baseball Bugs' is a fun short which I always enjoy seeing and which is not wholly undeserving of its reputation as a classic, even if it does pale in comparison to the truly great Warner cartoons


This is the one you remember from when you were growing up and watching Saturday morning "Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner" cartoons. I recently watched this cartoon a 15 years at least since I last saw it and laughed out loud at all the pranks that Bugs pulled out of his hat. I know I must have used some of these jokes when I was playing baseball as a kid.

And the cameo at the end of America's perennial first lady was a hoot - and Bugs goes and lampoons her on the spot!

Classic is the only word for this one.


The Tea Totallers is not a good ball team. The average age of the players is about 93--or 93 and a half as one player tells us in his best Lou Costello imitation. The Gas-House Gorillas is not a good ball team either. Everyone on it is an enormous, bullying reprobate. Contemptuous, too. A player grounds an umpire into the ground with his fist. The overconfident jerks even dance a conga line around the bases. Bugs Bunny picks the wrong team to boo. When he shouts that he could take on the Gorillas all by himself with one hand tied behind his back, they take him up on it, except for the hand-tying. Now it's the Gorillas against Bugs on first, Bugs on second, Bugs on third, Bugs pitching, Bugs catching; and it's no match. That is, the Gorillas are no match for our wily Bugs.

Friz Freleng and Michael Maltese give us several unforgettable moments: the screaming liner to left field; Bugs the catcher encouraging Bugs the pitcher with "That's the old pepper, boy"; Bugs's unique method for stealing a base; and even the Statue of Liberty imitating a typical woman fan of the day: "That's what the man said, you heard what he said, he said that!" Mel Blanc's voice talents, as usual, rival Bugs Bunny's one-man show. Treg Brown gives us several hilarious sound effects, such as what accompanies Bugs's wind-up pitch and what we hear when a Gorilla blows cigar smoke in Bugs's face. Carl Stalling writes a score worthy of Bugs and baseball.

This short is available on the "Looney Tunes Golden Collection, Volume One," Disc 1.


Having recently gotten the first Looney Tunes Golden Collection from my library, I went through all the extras first (except the "music only" shorts). Then I started watching the cartoons in order of appearance. Baseball Bugs is the first one listed on disc one. This Friz Freling effort from a Michael Maltese story piles on all the gags that one always associate with the Warner Bros. cartoons, like the one when Bugs, as the lone pitcher of a baseball team, manages to strike out three members of the opposing team by throwing the ball reeeeaaaaallll slow as all three swing their bat real quickly with the announcer saying at that speed, "One, two, three, out!" Or the one when Bugs distracts one of them by showing a picture of a sexy girl to keep him from catching the ball. Or how about a bat boy with bat wings giving the rabbit a couple of bats. There's plenty more but I don't want to spoil the whole thing for you so all I'll say is: Just watch.


I've heard some people to call 80s 'The Golden Era' and now after I saw this again after so many years I realized why. One of the greatest Sci-Fi movies were produced during this 'era' and even if you see them now again they will still keep you excited. I haven't seen this one long time ago (more than 10 years). I still remember how much amazed I was when I first saw it. I saw it so many times after that and I was enjoying it each time while I was watching it.

You can see the movies like this one these days. There weren't technologies which they could use to create such effects. That's why they (the effects) were just a part from the story and they weren't as many as they're in todays movies. The movies were so good because they were done with a real imagination.

Now the story some how stays like a background for the effects. They're doing movies which are rather like 3D PC games. They aren't interesting stories and they aren't cool characters. Effects only.


Holy crap, this is the funniest movie ever made, and my number #3 favorite movie of all time (second to The Fellowship of the Ring and the Two Towers, of course). What a heck of a cast! Martin Short, Dennis Quaid, and Meg Ryan are some of my favorite actors/actresses. How can you watch Martin Short get drunk in Tuck's office and not laugh?! Twistin the Night Away! BABEEEE! I am gonna buy the freakin thing someday, but nobody sells it! It must be one of those hard-to-find classics. Anyone who watches Innerspace and doesn't laugh, they don't know what humor is. Ya'll.


Kind of love sci-fi movie, this one is a must see for all ages. Lots of creative thinking that make this movie a wonderful experience for both adult and children.

The story is great and the effects are excellent too. Too bad is that the inner part of the movie is not shown. The story should shown more on the body itself and not just a common red blood cells. Maybe the script/screen writer can expand it further by showing the audience how "brain" look like inside the head and human lung, heart, liver etc then it even worth too seen this movie as part of human entertainment.

thumb up.


Oh my god, the 80's Dance music is REALLY bad! Please don't watch this film for your own good!!! Meg Ryan is very fit, but this is the only advantage this apawling movie has to offer. There is no way Dennis Quaid make up for the lack of descent actors, the others are like puppets.


I have always been impressed by the dramatic intensity of Abel Ferrara's films and 'The Funeral' does not fall short of any of them. The true beauty of this film lies in its characters and their emotions and relationships. The plot takes second stage but, honestly, the incredible acting performances will make you feel that a more complicated plot would be absolutely unnecessary. All the important bases of small-time mob life are covered here - God, family, revenge, lies, anger, etc. If you can sit down and watch a movie that chooses atmosphere and character over action, then I highly recommend this movie. You will be blown away.


The Funeral is a dark and gritty story that plumbs the characters in a New York band of criminal brothers. It doesn't have the romantic sweep of a Godfather movie, nor the rawness of Scarface. But it does have great acting: the cold, sinister aloofness of the leader-brother(Christopher Walken); the raging insanity of the bartender-brother(Chris Penn); and, the cockiness of the younger communist-influenced brother. Annabella Scioria as the wife with a tortured psyche who "had two years of college", and Bennissio del Toro, as the suave and slick rival mobster round out the terrific cast.

But the movie does have some problems. The abrupt, "surprise" ending is consistent with the arcs in the movie, and is supported by trends in the characters' developments, but seems unsatisfying. Also, long philosophical conversations between killer and victims seems unrealistic. While these conversations(and flashback sequences) give insight into characters, it just doesn't seem likely.

Watch this movie if you are a fan of crime/Mafia films, and you can enjoy a thoughtful introspection of characters and relationships between characters. Don't watch it if you want to see a "thrill-a-minute", or explosions every other scene.


All of director Abel Ferrara's movies are deeply flawed, but he is willing to take you into darker places than almost any contemporary filmmaker. His best movies are the bleakest kind of cinematic art, and The Funeral is one of the best.

To complain about the lack of action in this gangster movie is to miss the entire point. This is a character study of people who have made choices in their lives that have left them without hope, in much the same way as Ferrara's "Bad Lieutenant". Although it is often pretentious and a little boring, it also contains many potent, unforgettable scenes, most notably those featuring Chris Penn, who I frankly didn't think could act until I saw this movie.

"The Funeral" is an unremittingly dark film that at times achieves a terrible beauty. I'm not sure that I would recommend it, but I am extremely glad to have seen it.


Once again Ferrara attracts big star names to a small picture with large ambitions. This film would have made a great gangster saga but Ferrara and writer St. John are more interested about the characters than the story. What occurs on the surface may be minimal and very uncreative but deep within you enter the souls of each character who question their values as they mourn the death of a family member. Each one carrying a dilemma to the very surprising ending. This film could have been set in any era as it deals with intelligent issues such as the complex male macho image as questioned by Sciorra's character.


When it comes to cult film-maker Abel Ferrara, people seem to either love his work or hate it. I think some of his films are great but some are just rubbish. Fortunately "The Funeral" is far from being rubbish, but then it's not great either.

Set in New York in the 1930s, the film centres on an organised crime family, headed by brothers Ray (Christopher Walken) and Chezz (Chris Penn) who are set to bury their younger brother Johnny (Vincent Gallo). As Johnny's wake progresses the two remaining brothers reflect on his life and try to track down his killer.

The film is pretty well made, and benefits from strong performances all round. It's main defect is that the film tends to lose focus and go off at tangents (scenes where Johnny attends a Communist rally were pretty pointless). Also, as in many Ferrara films, there is a very blatant religious subtext which sometimes gets in the way of the drama. Also, be warned that there is a lot of pretty brutal violence in this film.

If you like gangster films (and obviously if you're a Ferrara fan) give this a go. It's worth trying anyway just for the quality of the performances.


I found this an interesting movie, admittedly a bit slow at points, but if you're out for another "crime gone wrong" or "gangster crime war" film, forget it. Several reviews complain about a lack of action. It's not an action film. Several reviews complain about a lack of plot. It's more an examination of characters than a story. The movie would have been much better had I been able to hear more of it. The sound editing is truly abysmal. People's shoes make more noise than their raised voices do. I actually stopped and rewound a few times to try and catch what people said. It's not the fault of the actors. It's simply a bad mix job.

7/10


This was one DIFFERENT gangster picture, brought to you by Abel Ferarra. I first came to know the rather unique director from his infamous DRILLER KILLER... Which is really 90 minutes of my life I'd like to have back. It's the one DVD I own that I'd love to not own. The one DVD I don't even CONSIDER rewatching. And with good reason. It's a jackass of a film. I can't go into it any more without swearing, and then my review won't get put up. Anyway, years after watching that...movie, I began to wonder how Ferarra is so known among film fans. Nobody likes The Driller Killer, so that can't be it. I looked him up here, and saw that such noted actors as Christopher Walken and Harvey Keitel have worked with him!! I was quite surprised and then I came across this one rather cheap. And I love gangster films so maybe I'm being a bit biased here.

But this one was rather interesting. These aren't Scorsese style gangsters. They're guys in black suits but their life is much less glamarous. There is much rape and violence and little laughs or friendship. The film focuses on three brothers.. Christopher Walken is legendary in his role as wise but aging family head Ray. Chris Penn plays his rather temperamental (surprise surprise, it being Chris Penn) brother, and Vincent Gallo plays young foolish brother Johnny.

The film opens with the recently deceased Johnny lying in his coffin and everyone gathered around crying. How did he get to be there? The film tells this through flashbacks which occur every few minutes throughout the film, and we also see a part from Ray's youth. Very skilfully done! The time switching happens without us noticing, the film flows so well that we're not in the least bit distracted.

Christopher Walken is Christopher Walken in a Christopher Walken role, Ray... He's taking the Michael Corleone route here, the wise guy, the darker older brother who makes all the decisions for the family. And he's great at it... Chris Penn is Chris Penn in another Chris Penn role. He's completely insane. A brutal, angry man who loses it over nothing and spends his time on screen shouting and swearing at those around him. Chris Penn is really good at this, but I'd like to see him take on an emotional character... He's just doing Nice Guy Eddie over and over again. Vincent Gallo does the Freddie Corleone of the family well, but he's a bit unbelievable as a gangster and the camera has too many close ups on him. Also present in a supporting role is John Ventimiglia, who plays Artie Bucco from The Sopranos! Just thought I'd mention him, brilliant man. There's Benicio Del Toro as the rival gangster boss. He's pretty creepy but doesn't have a big enough part to do the character justice. Overall, the acting out of the two leads - Walken and Penn - is excellent. Typical, but excellent.

Ferarra's been known to be violent and disturbing. Maybe if I'd watched this film a few years back it might have affected me, but it didn't in the least. I am now immune to offense by violence. Some of the film's violent highlights, though, include a stabbing in the heart with a butcher knife, shooting two innocent truck drivers with a shotgun, raping a teenage prostitute (who sold her soul) and an ending pistol massacre.

Despite all this, however, it's an excellent if depressing picture, with many deep and dark performances. The violence is not over the top compared to the likes of De Palma or Scorsese, and it is not disturbing, or maybe that's just me.

I will definitely be seeing more Ferarra movies!


Great, and a unusual mafia/gangster movie. Full of excellent actors, like Christopher Walken, Vicent Gallo, Anabella Sciorra, Isabella Rossellini and the phenomenal Chris Penn, with a monstrous performance which make him win "Best Actor" Venice great prize. Once again this film is about limits and the madness of the human mind, the character Chez (Chris Penn), it an ambiguous, and unbalanced persona, that it explode in fury and anger, crying all the time, in total despair. Once more, Abel Ferrara shows us an unexpected and brutal film climax. A must see, for all Ferrara's fans. If you like this one, i recommend: "Godfather part- 1 and 2".


I didn't rate this movie higher only because of what I considered flaws in pacing and continuity--as others have noted, the ages of the brothers and their physical dissimilarities seemed peculiar and it seemed to drag at times, but the actors were so good and played their roles with such intensity and skill, and the intelligence and insight of the movie was so sharp that I feel guilty for not giving it another star. It seems like my own problem rather than the film's.

If you haven't seen this movie, you are missing one of the most powerful essays on the corrosive, self-destructive effects of lives addicted to criminality ever made, and if you have I'd be happy to hear you agree or disagree with my assessment.


I think this is a very good film with a lot of values. It's another gangster movie, but one with a story I've never seen before and really enjoyed. Walken and Penn are terrific, and Del Toro shows his screen potential. See it, but not with your mother. You will definitely stay awake.


"The Funeral" is one of Abel Ferrara's best movies, not to say his best work besides the instant classic "King of New York". The cast is superb, and all the big names (Christopher Walken, Chris Penn, Isabella Rossellini etc.) give breathtaking performances that you'll never forget. The story is intense and absolutely plausible, one can imagine that it happened right as Ferrara tells it back in the 1930's. The climax will knock you right out of your seats and will leave you gasping for breath. an undeniable masterpiece: undoubtedly 10 out of 10.


This film would have made a great gangster saga but Ferrara and writer St. John are more interested about the characters then the story. What occurs on the surface may be minimal and very uncreative but deep within you enter the souls of each character who question their values as they mourn the death of a family member. Each one carrying a dilemma to the very surprising ending. This film could have been set in any era as it deals with intelligent issues such as the complex male macho image as questioned by Sciorra's character. Another interesting piece from Ferrara who goes for the mind and leaves you silent.


I'm a little unhappy that it took me so long to hear of this movie. It is truly a movie drama. Some people when they hear about this probably relate it to the Godfather before even seeing it, and they are wrong for doing this. It is dark and gritty which makes it overall realistic. There is a very dark feel to the entire thing and there is basically no comedy, but the character development and emotion make up for it. The performances in this movie are also very good and add to the gritty atmosphere. Christopher Walken gives an unusually serious performance as the head brother of the family. I did not think that he could pull of such a part due to his naturally funny demeanor, but he did, and he did it very well. I also feel that Benicio Del Toro, as always, did a very good part in his role. I did not think that he could do the role of a gangster either, but he was extremely realistic and made the viewer hate him and feel bad for him at the same time. But, I think of all the people in this movie, Chris Penn stole this movie acting wise. To me, he was utterly spectacular in his part as the hot head brother out for revenge. The movie does get slow at some points and does seem choppy, but all in all this is a very good film and if you like gangster dramas and character development, it's for you.


Pointless. Abysmal in every respect in my view. Looking at the cast I was really excited to see this film. What I saw was a story so pointless, acting so intense yet superficial, disjointed continuity, extremely poor, choppy editing, over-crowded effects, pointless and gratuitous violence. A truck filled with radios explodes? From what? This film assassinates the character of Italians. While Chris Penn has center stage, his character in now way had the depth of soul to be the character he depicted with excessive boredom. Aside from "Artificial Intelligence" which I view as the worst film ever, this one almost ties it. The director and the editors as well failed. Darkness for the sake of darkness,murder for film dollars. Just a terrible film.


This dusty, low key, low budget gangster film manages to hold the attention for the most part despite being very derivative and rather dull.

For a character piece it's fatally flawed. The acting is strictly from the shout-and-then-repeat-with-added-F-words school of Italian-American gangster performances and very quickly gets tiresome. In fact it appears that much of it has been improvised, with director Abel Ferrara seemingly content that if the actors shout enough, get suitably red-faced and spittly, and repeat the same question enough times they'll qualify as "intense." They don't.

Chris Penn is the worst offender, turning in an awful performance that wants to be Harvey Keitel in Bad Lieutenant but emerges more like Christopher Lloyd in Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Christopher Walken plays himself but even that seems to disinterest him unless he's being given the chance to indulge in some painful "I'm an ac-tor!" moments - best demonstrated in the scene where he cries and shouts at his brother's corpse - and it's left to Gretchen Mol and Isabella Rossellini to deliver the only decent performances.

Considering the budget the period feel is quite good, there's some occasional gratuitous violence to keep things interesting, and the generally depressing mood of the whole piece is quite effective, but those are small compensations for having to sit through all that repetitive shouting and those horribly self-indulgent performances.


Not often I say at the end of a movie "what a waste of time". My time is not precious. I have a wealth of time. So actually it doesn't really matter what I do with it. At night I like to watch films sitting on my sofa next to my lovely wife who crumbles into my arms and sleeps most of the time. Usually we see good and very good films this way.

But this time it was different. I give most films a chance. When nothing really special happens or when something really strange happens, I'm curious and want to see what the maker of the film is trying to say. No difference on that part, looking at this movie.

I have one positive thing to say about this film: great acting.

For the rest, it is a boring film. I hated the little brother who was dead. I couldn't stand his moron face. He didn't fit in the 'family' to my opinion. The two other brothers, Walken and Penn, they were great!

The entire film I was waiting for something to really happen. But nothing happened. Only very boring intros and some stupid dialogs that have no meaning and in the understanding of the film have no meaning at all. When you've seen the film, you could forget like 60% of the dialogs and still understand it.

I liked what they did with Del Torro. And after that, the actual killer: just didn't fit in the rest of the scenario of this Johnny, nor did it fit in the entire film. The killer had nothing to do with the business, the communist thing. Then why these boring dialogs?

The end of the movie did it. I got a bad mood over it. This is what made me conclude: a waste of time. All dead. ...Come on!


From what little I've watched of Ferrara's work up till now - 6 films including the one under review - this emerges as easily the most substantial (I liked his BODY SNATCHERS [1993] but have always deemed it an unnecessary update).

It's generally compelling and filled with typically intense performances - Christopher Walken and Annabella Sciorra from Ferrara's THE ADDICTION (1995), Chris Penn, Vincent Gallo and Benicio Del Toro (though some of the over-the-top histrionics, usually involving Penn's bad-tempered character, do raise the occasional unintended chuckle). The plot, adopting a flashback structure which leads up to the titular occasion, deals with the director's favorite themes - honor, faith, violence - and, as such draws parallels with the gangster films of Coppola, Scorsese and even Tarantino.

On the strength of this, I rented two more Ferrara titles - FEAR CITY (1984) and KING OF NEW YORK (1990; again, with Walken) - to go along with BAD LIEUTENANT (1992; which I just recorded off late-night Italian TV, where it was presented in the original language); the latter two, in particular, are films that I've been meaning to check out for years (I just hope it'll be worth it).

By the way, though I rented THE FUNERAL from my local DVD outlet as part of a 2-Disc Set with THE ADDICTION, I was actually the one to have brought it over to him from London!


One would expect a film all about mobsters and hit men to at least be mildly interesting. Why not? "The Godfather" did it. "Married to the Mob" did it. Heck, even the spoof flick "Mafia!" managed to do it. All "The Funeral" will do is put your to sleep.

It's unfortunate in many ways -- there is an excellent cast in this film, and normally the actors are more than able to keep my interest, but the characters had no redeeming qualities.

Although many of the characters are well-written and very believable, there are too many holes in the plot and inconsistencies throughout the movie to save it from the hangman's noose. Wake me when it's over.


Abel Ferrara ? Not a movie maker that will appeal to everyone . He`s best known for making DRILLER KILLER a movie far better than it`s given credit for and his only mainstream film is BODY SNATCHERS which is a rather unnecessary remake

THE FUNERAL hints that it wants to be mainstream because everyone loves movies about gangsters don`t they ? , and there are a couple of well known actors in it too . Alas there`s an irritating aspect to the screenplay that wants to make certain characters leftists . Why do movies seem to be under the impression that gangsters have socialist ideals ? The British small budget production FACE had this as did the classic ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA . It`s often been said that the mafia are the most sucessful capitalist concept and I`m inclined to believe that

There`s other audience unfriendly concepts to the movie , most of them being the fault of the director like graphic sex scenes , some serious violence especially at the downbeat conclusion , but the one scene that can`t fade from my mind is the scene where some of the male characters are watching a porn movie in a brothel . Young Johnny turns to the woman sitting beside him and they begin some serious french kissing . Did I mention this woman must be about 70 years old ? YUCK

It`s hardly Ferrara`s best work and it`s probably recommended that potential audience members should familarise themselves with the director`s work before watching it

Four out of ten


I am of the opinion that Abel Ferrara's movies have been steadily declining since "Ms45". Way too much symbolism, religious guilt, and boredom have invaded efforts like "The Funeral". Might as well add a good dose of confusion on top of everything else. This one drifts back and forth in time almost as randomly as a doodlebug puddles about on a pond. The cast is excellent, Walken, Del Toro, Penn, give it their all, but the script is so muddled the whole thing just sort of collapses into a void of smoke and mirrors. The ending especially is less than satisfying. I mean an innocent Del Toro is killed, only to end with a crazed Penn lighting up the family and then blowing his brains out? Who cares? I certainly didn't. - MERK


This is one of the worst movies of all time. It is slower than watching hair grow on your dog -nothing happens for the first 45min. The story is terrible and the characters are weak, contrived, unimaginative, unoriginal, and uninspired. And the actors playing them are not better.

Chris Penn yells the whole time and the others are mumbling most of their lines (probably because they are embarrassed by them) so you can't understand a thing, which is probably good because one would realize even more how stupid the story is. Most of the performances are terrible, but the worst among them is Annabella Sciorra - who just happens to be a producer on this atrocious piece of junk. >


This is movie is so slow its unbelievable, There's not enough action to make up for this and makes the whole viewing experience very disappointing. It's got all your favourite gangster faces in it but sadly the film gives them nothing to do.


Joan Crawford shines as George Kelly's Craig's Wife, which had been made as a film some years earlier with Rosalind Russell, hence the title change. Joan is far better suited to the role, and closer to the right age. As a controlling, materialistic, unfeeling housewife, she is perfect, and is better than I've ever seen her. Crawford clearly understands this woman and doesn't play for sympathy. Yet we can sense her identification with the character, which is complete. SHE has sympathy for the monstrous Harriet, and we can feel it. There is a touch of Pirandello-ish identification here, and it comes through loud and clear; and yet for all this, Miss Crawford is never hammy. She is a thorough pro, and gives us a Craig's Wife that Harriet Craig would herself heartily approve of.


The line above is from the original advertising art, and it conveys the theme of HARRIET CRAIG very well. I have an issue with reviewers who are constantly comparing characters on the screen with the actors who portray them. Harriet Craig was a character, and that is all. There are parallels between the lives of the character and Joan Crawford herself, but one should not go so far as to say they are the same! Joan Crawford is a woman of many mysteries. Every account you could possibly read about her life is full of contradictions; was she good or was she bad, was the ruthless and cruel or was she generous and kind? She was probably all of these things and, like Harriet Craig, a complicated, non-conventional, and independent woman at war with the world.

This is where the comparison ends. The character in the film is a compulsive liar and manipulator. Harriet Craig lies about anything and everything in the spider's web she builds around her. Joan Crawford's performance is fierce and chilling in its complexity. This is a woman of astounding talent, playing a character worthy of that talent. This is one of only a handful of roles Crawford ever played that allowed her to really act, which she does so well you will forget all about those other "great" actresses which usually claim all the credit.

If 1950 was not such a tough year, I'm convinced Joan would have received an Oscar nomination for the performance. The film itself was worthy of a nomination and, as the advertising art claimed, was "one of the five best pictures of the year." I think it is comparable in quality to ALL ABOUT EVE and SUNSET BLVD., and certainly Crawford's performance is on par with the leads in those films, and one of the best of her career! One last final note: a feminist take on HARRIET CRAIG may emphasize that Harriet was just a woman trying to survive the sexist times...but Wendell Corey was such a good and nice husband, believing in their equality, that I don't buy it. Harriet was a woman hurt by her times and unfortunately taking out her mistrust of men on her innocent and good husband, as well as others around her. Harriet was, in the end, a victim of her own prejudice, and selfish, compulsive lies.


"Harriet Craig" started out as a stage success  obviously, it struck familiar chords  and saw at least one previous film version (Craig's Wife, starring Rosalind Russell). Remade in 1950 with Joan Crawford commandeering the part of the domestic despot, the movie takes on a dimension that helped define camp. It also offers an unadulterated middle-period glimpse of the controlling monsters she had begun (Mildred Pierce, Humoresque) and continued (Torch Song, Johnny Guitar, Queen Bee) to play on film. (And, if there is a sliver of verity in her adopted daughter Cristina's report from the front lines, such roles paralleled her off-screen personality).

It's a parable about the dangers of social ascendancy, an illustration of Thorstein Veblen's view of the affluent wife as agent of conspicuous consumption. Joan Crawford's Harriet Craig has it all: a husband in a grey flannel suit on his way up the corporate ladder (Wendell Corey), and so can buy her what she most desires: property and position. She's obsessed with who does and does not fit in with what she refers to as `our set' as she strikes poses in her perfect (and perfectly dull) upper-middle-class abode.

That her only interest in her husband is as a meal ticket is revealed by her avoiding her wifely obligations under the pretext that bearing children would be dangerous. But she's not content to leave him be, maybe to enjoy a little action on the side; what might the other members of their `set' think? She craves total control. When he's about to go out of town on a business trip, thus slithering out at least temporarily from under her oppressive thumb, she intervenes, lying to his boss that he's a compulsive gambler. Finally, of course, the worm turns.... But, in the closing shot, when Crawford regally ascends her curved staircase alone among the splendor of her possessions, you wonder who's really won after all.

This soapish melodrama remains surprisingly riveting. Perhaps it's the extra touch of authenticity Crawford brings to her portrayal (Mary Tyler Moore played a later version of this upscale shrew in Ordinary People; then of course there's always Martha Stewart). The movie preserves an uncanny sense of upward mobility in America, circa midcentury, a lugubrious self-importance that has not, alas, vanished from the land.


I love this movie, and own a copy of it. It's what I would call a melodrama, but has great characters, good pacing and a tightly-written script. In addition, George Duning's music score is beautiful and haunting. Joan Crawford dominates the movie, and her performance is over the top at times, but I think the other actors hold their own very well -- Ms. Crawford does not overpower them. The other characters -- Wendell Corey as the naive and deluded husband, Lucile Watson as the boss's shrewd but likable wife, and Viola Roach (I think) as the Craigs' housekeeper are all well-fleshed-out characters, and the performances are excellent. I don't think there's an actor in the whole movie who isn't memorable.

The lengths to which Harriet goes to insure the perfection of her home are comical, at times. She scolds Mrs. Harold (sp?), the housekeeper, for not remembering to close the drapes after 11:00 every morning. When she and Clare, her cousin, are out of town visiting Harriet's mother, Harriet has Clare calling everybody under the sun in her neighborhood to find out why there's nobody home. Clare tells Harriet that when she got no answer at the Craig number, she even had the operator check the number to be sure the phone wasn't out of order! There are many memorable scenes in this film, but some that I thought were particularly good were the scenes where Harriet visits her mentally ill mother in a sanitarium. Harriet simply cannot penetrate the state of oblivion that her mother dwells in to block out the world, and she's at a loss to know what to do, or how to communicate with her mother. Ms. Crawford does a good job of conveying her sadness and frustration. It is a poignant scene, serving to humanize Harriet and point up the fact that she does have genuine feelings for someone. Afterward, she confides her worries to the doctor, played by Katherine Warren, and the conversation between the two women is very revealing. I also enjoyed the scene where she and Mrs. Harold lock horns about the running of the house  Mrs. Harold isn't intimidated by Harriet, and gives as good as she gets.

This is a great vehicle for Joan Crawford, Wendell Corey, and in fact, everybody in the movie. Give it a look!


Joan, with director Sherman, trimming *all* the fat away from *Craig's Wife* (that means removing every scene in which Joan would *not* be present), and turning it into a tour-de-force for La Crawford. As the epitome of every neurotic, deeply disturbed female that Joan ever portrayed, *Harriet Craig* is Joan with a capital J. Taking the role in her mouth and shaking it into submission, she is playing, ultimately, another facet of Joan herself. But what Joan film role *didn't* become Joan herself  either before or *after* filming? In a case of Joan's art imitating her life, as well as her life imitating her art, Harriet provides Joan with yet *one* more of those peculiar roles  roles which must have been written with *only* Joan in mind, since it would be difficult to imagine *any* other actress in this role. If Rosalind Russell had had this much focus on her in *her* version, *Craig's Wife*, it's hard to imagine if she could have sustained it, since part of Russell's strength was her ability to respond to other characters while seemingly on a course all her own. But Joan, never one to shy away from *any* movie role, makes *Harriet Craig* one the great milestones of her career. And we are indebted to her for it. As she explains to her niece (she *always* has nieces in movies like this  sweet young things who come to live with her and become her indentured servants) about how to "keep men in line," we are given more pure-Joan philosophy. With lines like, "the average woman *does* put her life in someone else's hands  her husbands'. That's why she usually comes to grief," and "No man is *born* ready for marriage  he has to be trained," it is familiar Joan territory. Familiar now, because we've seen Joan spackling her angst all over movie and TV screens for decades, but along with *Mildred Pierce*, *Queen Bee* and *Torchsong*, *Harriet Craig*, at the time, was a new dimension in Joan's personal psychosis committed to film.


She was dominant! In my opinion, she is in the top five of all time great actresses. Her presence captivates you. There are actors and actresses that you will watch any movie they are in. She is one of the handful.

The supporting cast was terrific as well. However, this movie was all Crawford. Most of her movies have slipped into relative obscurity today. Its unfortunate, because she was on the same level as Katharine Hepburn and Bette Davis. The problem with Joan was that she never appeared in a legendary movie. Every star from that era had a movie which made legends. Hepburn had the Philadelphia's story, and Davis had all about eve. Mildred Pierce was a great movie in my opinion, However, its not highly regarded like the other classics. Enjoy this movie for superb acting and a lesson in why warmth and honesty should never be neglected.


Perhaps one of Joan's last great dramas that had the production values, a good script and fabulous costuming; Joan digs her teeth into Harriet making her a very scheming, perhaps mentally disturbed woman. Turning in a great performance as the brittle Martha Stewart of the 1950's, Joan makes Harriet Craig a stand out movie just as she did with Mildred Peirce, showing what she can do with good material. Wendell Corey, at first seemingly miscast, does embody the role of the "Happy go Lucky" nice guy that the part calls for. Not realizing how calculating Harriet can be, she thwarts her cousin's love life, alienates Walter from his friends from his bachelor days, until finally interfering is her husband's business affairs that would take him to Japan, Walter finally see's her for the fist time. As delicate as her china service, Harriet needs everything to be perfect and in her eyes, change is a very bad thing. She cannot be left alone and will not be ignored. She's as antiseptic as her polished kitchen floor, and just as cold one.


"Queen Bee" had a better title, but if you want to see Joan Crawford at her hissable best, this is the one you want! Playing Mrs. Craig, Joan is more Joan than ever. She runs her home with an invisible whip, snaking around her relatives with the sneaky, sinister airs of a cobra. And when that final dramatic sequence comes, you will be beaten and bowed but will applaud a relievedly fine comeuppance. Based on George Kelly's play "Craig's Wife", the film has a stagy look and direction, but you can't beat the title character for a worthy villainess. Harriet is a suburban monster, a notch or two above Mary Tyler Moore's character in "Ordinary People", and Crawford gives one of her best-sustained performances in the juicy part. *** from ****


To me, this was Joan at her best! Some of the things she says are so true about men. BUT, we are not items you purchase and own and nothing lasts with ALL of her thoughts in this movie. Harriet was insecure to say the least. Her father sat the pace for any other relationships in her life. She could not stand the neighbor or the neighbor's child due to her insecurities. She also had issues with her cousin and went on a mission to ruin her relationship as well. I've seen Ellen Corby many times but Joan made her cry early in the picture and if Ellen was seeking self-esteem, she took the wrong JOB!

HOW CAN I BUY THIS. I WANT TO SEE IT WITHOUT COMMERCIALS!


It was exactly a quarter of a century after George Kelly's Craig's Wife opened on Broadway that Joan Crawford followed Rosalind Russell - who had starred in the first film version - into the role of the eponymous Mrs Craig. Crawford, lacking Russell's natural warmth, was perfect casting as the cold, manipulative control freak and could well have phoned it in. As it happened the supporting cast included the likes of Ellen Corby and Lucile Watson but there were albeit superfluous as Crawford could carry this one by sheer willpower and force of personality. Wendell Corey was still getting work wherever mahogany was called for and he did about as well as anyone with the thankless part of Craig, who is there merely as something - as opposed to someONE - for Harriet to fool, foil and manipulate. Inevitably, of course, she gets her comeuppance although she was never a magnificent Amberson so much as an insignificant Craig.


TCM showed this movie immediately after Craig's Wife (this movie is a remake of that one) and I loved comparing the two versions of the same story.

The Harriet in Harriet Craig is wonderfully evil and Joan Crawford was perfect in this role. I loved watching her spin her lies and was very curious as to just how her house of cards would fall.

I was not disappointed. The scene where Walter confronts Harriet about her lies was brilliantly played by both Crawford and Wendell Corey. Scenes like this are often melodramatic or just not believable. In this movie, however, Crawford and Corey hit it out of the park.

With just her eyes, Crawford showed Harriet's inner panic at being found out and her desperation when she realizes that Walter knows the truth.

Corey was fantastic at showing the mixed emotions of Walter Craig. He was able to convey anger, disappointment and even love all at the same time. The moment when he found out that Harriet had lied about not being able to have children was just heartbreaking. I felt Walter's pain in that moment.

My only quibble with this movie is Joan Crawford's hair. I know they were going for a severe look, but it was truly awful.


Joan Crawford is "Harriet Craig," a manipulative, insecure woman who has to control everything around her in this 1950 film also starring Wendell Corey, K.T. Stevens, Lucile Watson, Allyn Joslyn and Viola Roche.

The director, Vincent Sherman, knew how to get a good performance out of Crawford and did so several times, in "Goodbye, My Fancy" and "The Damned Don't Cry." He described her as a very bright, knowledgeable woman when it came to every aspect of filming. Here, Crawford is a cold, manipulative bitch married to hapless Walter (Corey), and as is implied, the sex is great. Pretty soon, he forgets that he's uncomfortable in his own house and that Harriet has isolated him from his friends and things he used to enjoy, and also that she can't have children - so she says. Harriet is unfortunately stuck with the old Craig family housekeeper, Mrs. Howard, who continues to be a burr in her saddle. Mrs. Howard sees through Harriet, as does his boss' wife (Watson). She recommends a promotion which will require Walter to spend some time away from dear Harriet in China. When Harriet finds out, she has a fit and makes sure the boss decides against sending him. Wouldn't want Walter gambling away the company money while drunk, now, would we? Harriet's niece Clare (Stevens) is made to feel extremely grateful by Harriet, so she works for Harriet for free. When Harriet finds out a worker at Walter's lab is interested in Clare, she tells Clare he's a womanizer who brags about it. Harriet is a piece of work.

The saddest part of all of this is that I know someone like Harriet and believe me, this portrait is only slightly exaggerated! They are sad cases. They make the lives of everyone around them miserable. And they aren't happy people.

Crawford is great in the role and has been said, she plays this type of part very well. She has the regal looks, the voice, and the requisite chilly delivery. For those who say this was the real Crawford, no one knows for sure. I don't think anyone deals with the woman herself at this point, only a plastic persona. She had to have been a lot more charming than Harriet and also, unlike Harriet, capable of letting down her hair once in a while and having a good time. Crawford the actress had many more sides to her than the "Queen Bee" and "Harriet Craig" persona. I think she was at her best in "A Woman's Face" and "Possessed" (the second one) which show what she could really do. I never felt she was great in comedy, but she was a hard worker who could do drama well.

Wendell Corey does a good job as a man who loves his wife, his work and his friends and has to walk a thin line. The rest of the cast is uniformly very good, and the Craig house is gorgeous, if you like living in a museum. I'm really talking about the layout.

As a spoiler, I think it would have been a riot if, after what we see in the film, Walter ended up with the widow next door. Who knows? Maybe he did.


In what is almost a stereotype of her mature public persona, Joan Crawford gives one of her most effective late-career performances in "Harriet Craig." With echoes of "Mommie Dearest" reverberating behind the role, Crawford inhabits Harriet, a woman who perceives marriage as a business deal and runs her home with the efficiency of an office. In Harriet's world, there is no room for clutter, disarray, warmth, comfort, or conviviality. Certainly wire coat hangers were verboten as well. Rooms are embalmed for the rare guest who invades her world. Flowers are an expression of uninvited intrusion into her sphere. Furniture is to be seen, but not used. Harriet is the ultimate control freak.

For an unexplained and perhaps incomprehensible reason, poor Wendell Corey has married Harriet, and the couple lives in his ancestral home, which Harriet has evidently redecorated to eliminate any vestige of coziness. The household staff includes a matronly housekeeper, who has cared for Corey since his youth; a skittish, scatterbrained maid; and an unmarried, impoverished cousin of Harriet, who acts like an unpaid servant. Although Harriet bullies all three in both subtle and overt ways, the housekeeper manages to retain her self-respect, while the maid crumbles and the cousin surrenders. Corey, the hapless husband, also buckles under his wife's overbearing personality, until Harriet oversteps the line and tries to manipulate his career.

While Corey and the cast, particularly Lucille Watson, perform ably under Vincent Sherman's direction, "Harriet Craig," which was based on a Pulitzer Prize winning play, is Crawford's show. The strong-willed Harriet, who tries to bend everyone and everything to achieve her own ends, is an unlikable character, and Crawford was brave to tackle such a role at that point in her career. Audiences certainly sympathize with her victims, and her ultimate fate would be unlikely to elicit a tear from anyone. Until the publication of "Mommie Dearest," Crawford's performance perhaps elicited more praise than now, when it can be perceived as a rare glimpse into the off-screen Crawford household.


This film seems tailor-made for Ms. Crawford and her persona. A controlling housewife, Harriet Craig, she controls all of her husband's life, (portrayed well by a kind-hearted Wendell Corey), who you may also recognize as the long suffering husband in "No Sad Songs for Me".

Harriet is a desperate housewife, whose own father abandoned her. Her mission in life is order and control, of the house, her husband, and his career. She refuses to have children, and conceals this from her husband ( unheard of in 1950!).

Crawford looks lovely, is a beautiful woman, but people have problems relating to her. She is not an accepting person. Eventually her scheming and attempt to thwart Corey's trip to Japan disgusts him, and he decides he can carry on his life in a more normal manner with someone, anyone else.

Crawford and her hauteur are classic, there are some small scenes which are almost amusing as she obsesses about a vase, and scolds a young neighbor boy. Overall a do not miss. 9/10.


Enjoyed this film about a woman who was self-centered and cared only about her large home and as much possessions she can accumulate in a lifetime. This horrible woman is Harriet Craig, played by Joan Crawford who gave an outstanding performance only because she was actually playing her true self on the screen. We all know that Joan Crawford had a very dark side to herself and she did her very best when she had this type of character to portray. I felt real sorry for all the people who had to work in her household and especially her husband, Wendell Corey, (Walter Craig) who Harriet kept wrapped around her finger so to speak. There is a big explosion when Harriet decides to upset her husband's career and goes to his boss to make matters even worse. If you like Joan Crawford and enjoy seeing her act the way she really was in life, this is the film for you.


After having watched this film, I now have a favorite Joan Crawford movie. Although some reading this won't believe it, I think this movie is much better than Joan's Oscar-winning performance in MILDRED PIERCE and the movie might even be better than her very famous GRAND HOTEL--it's THAT good!!! In fact, I almost gave the film a 10, but considering how rarely I think it should be given, a 9 will suffice. In fact, it was so good that I began watching it after 1am and had planned on only seeing the first 10-15 minutes before bed. But, when the film ended around 3am, I was wide awake and thrilled.

So why did I love this no-name, no-reputation movie so much? Well, it is perfectly written and the acting, especially by Wendell Cory is terrific. Plus, although I have never been an especially big fan of Crawford, you could tell the role was written for and about her! I have a hard time understanding WHY she agreed to do this film because it hits so close to home. In other words, the title character is pretty much the real Joan Crawford. Both were extreme perfectionists, very controlling, emotionally constricted and could not (or claimed they could not in the case of Harriet Craig) have kids. And, of course, both had serious problems having a normal intimate relationship with those around them. While the biographies I have read about Crawford all confirm what I just wrote, the degree to which she made her family's lives a living hell is open to conjecture. Her daughter, Christina, who wrote MOMMY DEAREST, would probably see an awful lot of her mother in this film. The only real difference I noticed was that Harriet didn't adopt any kids (whereas Joan Crawford bought kids apparently for photo-ops) and this movie focuses on her dominating and controlling relationship with her husband--not the kids. And, it focuses on how she so cruelly uses and damages those around him.

However, while the film MOMMY DEAREST was anything but subtle and was also poorly executed, this film was expertly and intricately woven. The writers were geniuses. Harriet was like a spider spinning her web of deceit and control--seeing it happen made watching this film to its conclusion a must. So much damage and evil committed by this Borderline Personality/Obsessive-Compulsive (look it up in a Psychology book or the DSM-IV if you are interested). And, yet, ultimately the film draws to a wonderful and fitting conclusion.

I loved this film--and it's nice to see a relatively low-budget film with no special effects hook you so well.


This is the one film of Joan Crawford's that I could watch all the time. I think this is the one that got me started on keeping everything neat and tidy and in its place!! Thanks a lot Joan!! LOL But, honestly, this is a very good film--good acting from all involved, great music, especially at the end when the final scenes are showing, and a great settee--or whatever that couch thing is---sure don't look like the furniture we ever had. That poor thing would not have survived in our family. You know how poor white trash do everything on a sofa except sit on it!! LOL I really thought it was a bit much how, when Harriet goes to visit her mother in that nursing home, it was so spacious!! Man, I wish I had a bedroom that large!! LOL And how sweet of Harriet to bring her mother washcloths as a gift--how thoughtful a gift for mama!! LOL I know I am making fun of this movie, but I do love this film very much. I only wish that someone would show "Craig's Wife" with Rosalind Russell, as I have heard that this version is superior to Joan's version and I would like to make my own choice as to which is better. I give this film a 10 out of 10.


One character in this beautifully crafted film buys a book entitled "The Meaning of Life." While we never discover exactly what that book contains, "$9.99" peruses questions about life's meaning with poignancy and affection. It's sad, silly, very human characters are people we know, and real enough so that we might occasionally forget we are watching animation.

This is not a film for the young  there is no "action," no "romance," and little to make a viewer laugh out loud. Rather, we are offered a wryly comic look at human nature, best suited for those who have lived enough of life so as to be able to identify with the film's pathetically flawed characters, and look on them with affection rather than impatience or contempt.

Human beings, the filmmakers suggest, are rarely able to communicate with other human beings, even to express love to those they love most. They are even less likely to fulfill each other's hopes and expectations. It is a pessimistic outlook, to be sure, and rather depressing  but, in the end, we are left with the message that love not only is possible, it is the only thing that gives life any meaning at all. Love  crazy, misguided, or bizarre as it may be  is all that matters.


A man steps out of an apartment block and is accosted by a vagrant who pulls out a gun and politely requests for a dollar to buy a cup of coffee. The man refuses saying he is feeling manipulated and the vagrant promptly shoots himself. Yes, kills himself! This is the stunningly surreal opening sequence of the film. This stop motion animation film is populated with more such oddballs. . There is a drug addict who has for his buddies three Lilliputians straight out of Gulliver's World. We have a supermodel who likes her men so smooth that she can tolerate neither hair nor bones on their body. There is a little kid who gets a coin every time he drinks milk, which he saves in a piggybank; yet when it gets full does not have the heart to break it.

The one common thread that binds these disparate characters staying in the same apartment block is their deep melancholy. They are bored by the monotony of their lives and are in search of a meaning. We can readily empathise with these characters despite the comic book feel of the film.

The film takes a dig at the self help books available for $9.99. Despite shot in vivid colours, this is a grim film asking some uncomfortable questions about the meaning of life and happiness. The film ends on a positive note though with two of its characters teaching themselves to swim like a dolphin from a self help book. They have managed to discover their happiness. A fairy tale for today's grown-ups.

The animation is a treat for the eyes


Personally I dig stop-motion animation, for the simple conscious fact that there's a lot of blood and sweat going on behind the scenes just to get an object to move. You can imagine what it takes to get a character to move an arm, and you extrapolate that effort into a feature length film with a lot more things happening concurrently on screen, and you're likely to appreciate this artform a lot more, with new found respect for it.

$9.99 is an amazing piece of stop-motion animation coupled with a tremendously engaging story made up of multiple narrative threads, and a myriad of characters attempting to tackle their respective problems in life. It begins with a bang literally, where a homeless man (Geoffrey Rush) with a gun in hand, asks Jim Peck (Anthony LaPaglia) for a cigarette and a light, before launching into some really clever moments about manipulation. It's an excellent start to jolt you into realizing that this film isn't just another walk in the park, and as it plays on, you'd discover its brilliance in its commentary about life, as seen from the experiences of the residents in an apartment block.

We have a family of three, with Jim who might just need his karma checked for encountering really antagonizing moments involving death, and his two sons Dave (Samuel Johnson) and Lenny (Ben Mendelsohn), the former being unemployed and is found to be central to the narrative, and the latter being a Repo-man finding himself falling, and obsessing over the love by new neighbour and supermodel Tanita (Leeanna Walsman), who has a fetish for a hairless body. Then there's a lonely old man who finds the world contents passing him by with nobody interested in hearing him talk a bit (well, because he's long-winded as well), finding a companion in an angel, whom he asks incessantly about Heaven. Then there's a boy who has a friend in his piggy bank, and a couple on the verge of being married having to fall out because one of them refuses to grow up.

The "$9.99" comes from the price of a catalog of books, one of which touts to hold The Meaning of Life which Dave buys. Unfortunately, the characters here seem to be caught up in living their own lives and falling victim to respective challenges life presents itself, and so every effort that Dave wants to share gets spurned, and we the audience, unfortunately, don't get to hear if there are any insights to that. But of course we all know that there's no silver bullet, and the characters here, though the course of this emotionally moving film, learn of that meaning as it applies in their own, with the old man determined to take a more proactive approach, to a connection between a father and a son, to love found and running parallel to that, a love broken because of sacrifices that one has to make, or the lack thereof, and the maturing of a young child.

I guess nobody scoffs at animation, especially one that targets the mature audience  check out that Dr Manhatten moment. I've new found respect for stop-motion animation, and for the filmmakers involved in producing this fine piece of work. The attention to detail is incredible, never at any moment hinting that they had cut some corners and compromised quality. Definitely highly recommended, and easily one of the few films I thoroughly enjoyed in the festival lineup.


The U.S. is dominant at the world box office for animated films, with Pixar at the top of the top of that particular food chain. And, Japan paces the planet for sheer volume of animated movies.

So, who woulda thunk that not one, not two, but THREE of the more interesting animated features of the past couple of years would come out of the Middle East?? First, the Iranian filmmaker working in France, Marjane Satrapi made the superlative PERSEPOLIS -- and, with this past week's events, it's worth revisiting for it shows some of the seeds of rebellion that has lead to the protest marches. Then, came last year's Foreign Language film nominee, WALTZ WITH BASHIR out of Israel.

Now, there's $9.99, made by another Israeli, this time working out of Australia - Tatia Rosenthal. $9.99 got a brief, ill-fated Oscar qualifying run in December in NYC and L.A.. It is now back in those two cities before, hopefully, opening wider across the country. *(see Oscar rant below)

$9.99 is a well done claymation feature which weaves some short stories by writer Etgar Keret into an entertaining composite story centering around an "angel" and how he interacts with the inhabitants of unnamed small city. Don't expect a strict narrative and some of its best moments are just that - moments in time. It has a bit of the hallucinatory effect of Richard Linklater's animated features - SCANNER DARKLY and, especially, WAKING LIFE. Really hard to describe because the plotting is so loose that to give away many details both ruins the effect, and don't do the film justice. Best to let its brief 78 minutes just wash over you.

The Claymation (augmented with CGI) is interestingly done, with an oddly effective sculptured look to the characters. Australians including Geoffrey Rush as the Angel and Anthony LaPaglia head up a solid voice cast. And, this must be the year of animated male member. First, there was the big blue meanie in WATCHMAN, and now, a clay one here. Yes, this is an R-rated film - also, for some language, clay-sex and drug use.

* Oscar Rant. As noted, $9.99 played for a week in NYC and L.A. in order to qualify for the Animation Oscar category. So, not only didn't $9.99 not get a nomination, neither did WALTZ WITH BASHIR. But, BOLT did!?? The members of the Animation branch should be utterly embarrassed. What?!! Did these two films split the Israeli animation vote? Of course, animators in Hollywood further humiliated themselves by voting for the lite-weight KUNG FU PANDA over WALL-E at their Annie awards (in fact, a near sweep of their many categories).


I do not recommend this film!!! "$9.99" was promoted as this interesting animated flick everyone should see. I did see it, at least half of it. I got so bored that I walked out of the movie theatre. It was shown in connection with the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival. I'm glad they didn't include this film in the actual festival which starts on July 23, 2009. First of all, there's nothing Jewish about this movie. The director may be, but that neither here nor there. I hated the clay animation. The characters looked hideous. Even if the animation had been better, I still wouldn't have been able to get into the characters. The story is mediocre, at best; the guardian angel part was not well thought out, and who were those three little guys supposed to be? Maybe it would have been better to make this into an actual feature film, with a better script, of course. Since I left, I don't know how the movie ends, and frankly my dear, I don't give a damn...


My girlfriend and I decided to see $9.99 after reading a large write up in the NY Times. We both like claymation, and were intrigued by the mature approach this movie was taking. It's not a kids film, but the problem is that it's simply not a good film.

The plot, if you can even call it that, is practically non-existent. The story meanders from one character to another, with very little rhyme or reason. I guess you could call it a character-based film, but the characters were less than intriguing. They either come off as not very believable or just simply boring. The filmmaker can't seem to make her mind up whether this should be a slice of life or a surreal journey, and it ends up failing at both. On the realism side- you get the boring old guy no one wants to talk to, the young adult who can't hold down a job, a little kid who decides that his piggy bank is his favorite toy, and a few more. On the surreal side- you have an abrasive homeless jerk who becomes an angel, an engaged man who decides he'd rather hang with miniature party buddies instead of getting married, and a man who shaves off all his hair for a beautiful woman and then turns into a chair at the end. Don't worry about explanations, character development, or intriguing dialogue because there isn't any.

When a plot is this weak, characters are this boring, and the conclusion is so unsatisfying, I struggle to find any redeeming qualities here. The sophomoric claymation certainly doesn't do it any favors either. $9.99 wants to be a surreal philosophical journey, but it's mostly just an underwhelming, unsatisfying series of vignettes that are poorly tied together. It's almost like someone took the film Waking Life, removed all the interesting dialogue and philosophy, and tacked on a sorry excuse for a plot. There's simply not much here worth watching, and you certainly won't find the meaning of life with $9.99.


I saw the film at a packed out cinema during the Sydney Film Festival. I have nothing good to say about this film. The characters were very low quality animation, hideous to watch for nearly 2 hours but I stayed. Luckily I am a huge fan of Altman as somehow his film 'Short Cuts' 1993, is mentioned in the promo for this film and my immediate thought after seeing the film was 'can I ever watch Short Cuts again without thinking of this crappy film.' Simply a vehicle for weak and meaningless cracks at religion with a pitiful gratuitous sex scene thrown in and it evoked very little of the ordinary life in the characters which was my expectation from its advertised linking of Short Cuts. Maybe they meant bacon short cuts at the supermarket as that was a huge porky. I unfortunately wasted more than $9.99 on this film.


love Coronet guidance films. They're the furthest away from any psychological truth and behavior. Take, for example "Are You Ready For Marriage?" A hilariously overdrawn yarn about 2 kids who want to tie the knot, and go to their Church's family counselor for guidance. The counselor shows them this device, something about psychological distance, that I still can't understand after watching it twice. The counselor then starts explaining how attraction starts, by using this word. "Boing". No explanation on what it means, but I think we all KNOW what it means... Soon, he says that the relationship grows thin, just like the elastic.. "And soon.." He let's go of the elastic. The two kids yell "It's Gone!" "Where did it Go?" Just like their relationship, lol. The acting in this never rises above sub-standard. with special note going to the female actress who plays the part as BORINGLY as possible.


"Are You Ready for Marriage?" is enough to make anyone want to remain single. It portrays a pair of tensed-up teens going to some weirdo to ask whether or not they should tie the knot. This is the sort of movie that you can probably only find on "MST3K", as Mike, Servo and Crow had fun ripping it apart.

And the weird adviser? He looked like a cross between Dick Van Dyke and Fred Gwynne. In my opinion, Dick Van Dyke and Fred Gwynne had every right to sue the people behind this movie, just for making them look embarrassing.

In conclusion, the movie by itself is 0/10, but the "MST3K" version is 10/10.


Ah, yet another short instructional film that doesn't stand up to the test of time. Back in the prehistoric 1950's, divorce was a big no-no. When you married someone, you were more or less stuck with that person for life. This short is a warning against rushing headlong into a marriage that may be sweet and nice in the beginning, but later on will make the lockhorns look good. These days, however, it's marry now - divorce later.


Taking place immediately after the events of Ringu (1998), Ringu 2 features Mai Takano (Miki Nakatani) continuing the investigation into the events of Ringu. At the beginning of the film, Reiko (Nanako Matsushima) and Yoichi Asakawa (Katsumi Muramatsu) are still in "hiding"/"on the run" after their ordeals in Ringu. Both the police and Mai are hoping to find them. Meanwhile, Masami Kurahashi (Hitomi Sato), one of the two girls from the beginning of Ringu, is now in a mental hospital, the police have the remains of Sadako Yamamura's (Rie Inou) body, they're trying to recreate her living appearance through forensic modeling, and they've located a man who is supposedly Sadako's father, Takashi (Yoichi Numata).

Series note: As should be apparent from the above description, it's imperative that you watch Ringu before seeing Ringu 2. You may also wish to watch Ringu 0: Basudei (2000) before Ringu, and for fun, the original "Ring 2", Rasen/Spiral (1998) before or after this "replacement sequel" (this one was produced when audiences were dissatisfied with the very differently toned Rasen/Spiral).

Unlike Rasen/Spiral, Ringu 2 is so close in tone to Ringu that it seems more like a "second half" than a sequel. Also unlike Rasen/Spiral, I think that Ringu 2 is much more uneven. There are long swaths where the film is extremely bland. But there are also moments of brilliance, plus there is added value from the momentum of Ringu. They all average out in the end so that Ringu 2 earns an 8, or a "B", just as Rasen/Spiral did.

Many fans were dissatisfied with Rasen/Spiral heading off into sci-fi territory, on the way providing something of a scientific explanation for what turned out to be a "Ring virus". They thought it ruined some of the mystery from the first film. It's curious in that light that many of those same fans like Ringu 2 much better. There is also an attempt here at explaining the curse, and it also ends up in sci-fi land. There's even a seen that amusingly resembles sci-fi elements from John Boorman's underrated Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977). For much of the film, the Ring curse is more or less abandoned while the focus becomes Yoichi as a surrogate villain, perhaps as "possessed" as Regan was, just by a slightly different force.

Admittedly, though, the explanation for the curse in Ringu 2 is much different than it was in Rasen/Spiral, and despite the sci-fi, the strong mystery genre "investigation" elements that many loved so much in Ringu are woven throughout the plot. The sci-fi here is more psychological than Rasen/Spiral's medical sci-fi. There is a lot of talk of intentionality and theories of intentionality being physically manifested. The film's ontology has it so that "mental energy", emotions and thoughts can be suppressed and subsequently "concentrated" to such an extent that when released externally, they can be dangerous to others. Sadako, the chairperson of the Ringu villains, is the principal, most focused example of this, primarily because she's had 30 years in a veritable isolation chamber to effectively bury her thoughts. Is this an attempt to provide a subtext about the suppression of one's "real feelings and desires" in Japanese society? Maybe, but it doesn't work very well as such because the points are so shakily, ambiguously and infrequently realized in the film.

So we have to evaluate Ringu 2 more on its surface level. A lot of the film is a fairly pedestrian drama. Early ostensibly horrific events--such as the perusal of Reiko's apartment, deaths of supporting characters, possible "ghost" appearances, and the supernatural events surrounding Masami in the mental hospital--too often come across as a bit flat, almost banal. Ringu 2 is nothing if not a slow cooker. It improves, but very gradually.

By the time we get to one particular, very significant death, the film is cooking with full gas, but that's nearly an hour into a 90-minute film. Before that point, Ringu 2 is much closer to a 7, or a "C", if not slightly lower. I won't mention who dies in this pivotal scene, but it is beautifully realized. We never really see the body, but instead Nakata shows us bright red blood slowing flowing across pavement, trickling down cracks, filling up depressions.

From here to the end, Ringu 2 is much more even, often a 9 or above. The bulk of the "atmospheric" or "creepy" material arrives in this last half hour to forty minutes, such as the videotape of another young girl suddenly changing, her head bizarrely, violently shaking similarly to an effect first made popular in Jacob's Ladder (1990). Another standout moment is at the Yamamura family "hotel", when both Sadako and her mother eerily appear.

By the time the climax rolls around, the film is quite exciting, and Nakata forgoes dramatic sci-fi for more focused, horrific surrealism. Like Ringu, there is a climactic scene in a well, this one much more enigmatic, possibly meant to be a symbolic journey to the core of the pent-up emotions associated with Sadako (opposed to a more "journey to hell"-styled symbolism of Ringu), with the emergence from a light-filled "ring" representing the physical manifestation and release of the emotions through a person's eye (eyes are important ring-like metaphors/symbols throughout the film). In the finale, Nakata also more literally combines the ring symbolism with the series' ubiquitous water symbolism--water more than likely being used to represent a kind of unifying "spiritual" ("kamic" might be a better word) ether that permeates the world. Of course, he still leaves an opening for another sequel as well.

Unlike many films, Ringu 2 is impossible to evaluate "properly" in isolation. It must be contextualized with Ringu. It may be far from an excellent film on its own, but it's certainly above average when viewed in conjunction with the series.


Even though Sadako had been around for a long time (there were Suzuki Koji's source books and two previous TV movies), it was the theatrical version of Ring that made her huge. So, of course, there has to be a sequel (which, oddly enough, wasn't based on the next book in Koji's series; different filmmakers had already adapted that as Spiral). It's a daunting task to make an effective sequel to one of the all-time creepiest movies, but the filmmakers pull it off. Unfortunately, a lot of stupidity gets in the way of the scares.

A lot of plot in this one. The movie opens a week after the first one ends. Reiko's dad has just died, and she and her son have gone into hiding. Mai, who found Ryuji's body at the end of Ring, is investigating her boss'/boyfriend's death. She thinks Reiko and her son hold the key to this mystery. So she teams with one of Reiko's co-workers (who's still working on the story of the cursed videotape) to try and track Reiko down. At this point, there's already enough plot for a movie, and I haven't even mentioned the return trip to Sadako's old home, the doctor who thinks he can get rid of Sadako, the burial of Sadako's physical body, the girl the co-worker betrays (and literally comes back to haunt him), and the weird, scary "exorcism of Sadako" finale. Plot, plot, plot.

Before I tear this movie a new one, let me say one thing: minute for minute, this one has more scares than the first one. In fact, the filmmakers have realized that Sadako has become so commonplace (a Sadako doppleganger appears in almost every Japanese horror movie made after the first Ring) that they need only show her trademark hair to invoke fear. And it works. But the massive, ridiculous plot nearly kills this movie. While it tries to explain the occurances of the first movie, it raises more questions than it answers (why does everyone suddenly have psychic ability?; why are people who haven't even seen the tape haunted by Sadako?; how does that girl see the tape if all the copies have been destroyed?) Still, with all of these potholes, the movie still works. It's also nice to see almost the entire cast of the first film reprise their roles (even the dead ones). An effective thriller, even though it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Fans of the first one won't be disappointed.


'Ring 2' is not only much deeper than it's predecessor, it's also a scarier and ultimately better film.

Rather than trying to emulate the original, Nakata & Co. opted to expand on the mythos and take it into new directions. It brilliantly explores left-over story arcs, turns previous ideas on their head and maintains ambiguity in all the right places. Naturally, this didn't sit well with many viewers...but if you keep an open mind and pay attention to detail, you'll see that everything brilliantly falls into place.

See this (along with 'Ring 0') for the very best horror has to offer.


Well this time around the filmmakers got it right. 'Ringu 2' (1999) is now the true sequel to the 1998 original, forget 'Rasen' (1998). This time around we see Mai Takano and the powers that be go of to look for the answers to the cursed video and to find Reiko and Yoichi only to find that Yoichi has developed Sadako's telekinetic powers and is in-fact becoming the demonic girl. This is the way they should have went in the first pace. 'Ringu 2' blows 'Rasen' out of the water and runs rings around 'Ringu'. T liked the original but found the suspense lacking and the film-making a nit bland, in this film however Hideo Nakata (who also helmed the original) gives the visuals a much needed kick and the atmosphere so much needed zing. The story is a lot more interesting and the acting gives the film a bit of a haunting feel.


Ring 2

Mourning the inexplicable death of her teacher and friend, Ryuji (Hiroyuki Sanada), Mai Takano (Miki Nakatani) attempts to track down Ryuji's ex-wife, Reiko Asakawa (Nanako Matsushima), who has disappeared from Tokyo with her son Yoichi (Rikiya Otaka). The police, who are investigating the death of Reiko's father, are also looking for her, while Okazaki (Yûrei Yanagi), a work colleague of Reiko's, is continuing from her research on an urban legend involving a videotape that kills whoever watches it. Mai and Okazaki's searches lead them both to a mental institute where Masami (Hitomi Sato), who was witness to Sadako's appearance in her best friend Tomoko's house, is being treated by a doctor (Fumiyo Kohinata) who favours some unorthodox medical procedures. Mai eventually manages to track the Asakawas down, but Yoichi is beginning to exhibit some strange behaviour. Can they escape the clutches of Sadako once more?

On the exact same day that the insanely successful horror masterwork 'Ring' was released, its sequel, 'The Spiral', seemed to come and go without any fanfare whatsoever. As I haven't viewed a single scene from the original second instalment (written and directed by Jôji Iida), it's impossible for me to say if it was deserving enough of its incredibly poor critical and public reception to be completely erased from the continuity of the series (although some who saw it commented that they would rather have watched Sadako's cursed videotape instead). But, in any case, here we are with the replacement, 'Ring 2', which has caused producer Takashige Ichise to rethink his strategy concerning the next follow-up, and reunited most of the cast and crew from the original 'Ring'. This approach creates mostly pros in 'Ring 2', but also some cons as well.

An adaptation of a Kôji Suzuki novel, 'Ring' had a breakneck pace because of its "race-against-time" plotting, and 'Ring 2' picks up from this by beginning just days after the events of the first film, allowing the audience to observe the aftermath of the terror that Sadako and her tape wreaked on so many people. But 'Ring 2' isn't based on a book like 'The Spiral' was, and screenwriter Hiroshi Takashi has nothing to build on but the first film. Wisely, Takashi chooses to go off in a new direction with the story instead of merely rehashing what has come before. But 'Ring 2', which hit the ground running, soon slows to a jog. Takashi answers a few too many questions lingering from the first 'Ring', and while he counters this by raising almost as many (especially with the "weird science" sections in the final act), one may feel robbed of some of the first film's mystery. However, there's a very interesting subplot involving a schoolgirl named Kanae (played by Kyôko Fukada) who owns a copy of the tape that Okazaki wants to study, and this provides a truly hair-raising sequence, similar to the climax of the first film, where interview footage of a young woman somehow refuses to be erased from the videotape it is on. 'Ring 2' is a nice mix of the best elements of its predecessor and some intriguing new material, but it's also a slightly uneasy one too.

With director Hideo Nakata ('Chaos') back on board, it's to be supposed that 'Ring 2' would end up as unsettling as the first film, and the director almost meets this dizzyingly high expectation, but he doesn't want to indulge himself here as much as he did the first time around. Nakata unnecessarily restrains himself on all fronts, with the sound design here being less potent, the cinematography not as innovative, and composer Kenji Kawai's music cues not as chilling as his work on the first film. That said, alongside a thrilling third act, Nakata does offer the audience a host of truly disturbing images, such as a melted, burnt-to-a-crisp videotape in a bathtub, Sadako's reconstructed facial features, and again, the distorted photos of those unlucky enough to have been "marked" by Sadako. But, dare I say it, Nakata seems to have become a tiny bit unenthusiastic with 'Ring 2', and this mutes some of the terror that he summoned up so effortlessly in the first film.

As in 'The Spiral', pop star Miki Nakatani, who was essentially a cameo in 'Ring' (despite being billed second), is elevated to the lead here. While certainly a competent actress (and has the "surprised/shocked/scared" expression nailed), it's difficult to empathise as much with the character of Mai as it is to with Reiko in the first film. Not only due to the step down from Nanako Matsushima's solid performance, but also as events seem to drop into Mai's lap at random. Maybe Nakatani is not to blame; Mai isn't a particularly strong heroine. But, lest I forget, the film is surprisingly as much about the supporting characters as it is about Mai. Especially the denouement, which promises a whole new cycle of horror by leaving the door wide open for another sequel. I can safely say that 'Ring 2' is a creepy, worthy follow up to the first film. But Nakata and co. might like to try a little harder if they decide to make a third (or fourth?) instalment.

~ 8/10 ~


Spoilers Ring 2 is a very, very good film that I gave 8/10 I would have given it a 9 but didn't because it gets a bit to overly supernatural. And because of this as a whole it loses some of that great spooky atmosphere that made the first film so magnificent. But having said that it does contain some of the best moments of both films. - The reporter who said he would then never watched the tape being freaked out when trying to erase the tape of the now dead girl. - When they see Sadako's mother combing her hair in the mirror (what you see in the tape) the way she glides out of sight behind a wall then peers round. It's hard to explain what I mean but if you've already seen the film you'll know what I mean. - The climax in the well. - And the ending with the dead girl sitting behind the reporter in his room in mental ward.

Also I wouldn't really call Ring 2 a sequel it start from where the first finished, if you play them back to back, there like one big 3 hour spooky movie. If you've never seen Ring 1 and 2 then you should go and see them straight away they are the best Horror films of the 90's (well Ring 1 is, and 2 is not far behind).


In more ways than one. When I saw "Ring 2" listed, I thought it would be the American they would air. And I certainly would not have guessed that I would wind up enjoying this anywhere near as much as I did. I had pretty much written off original(as opposed to remade ones... yes, I know) Asian horror films, sure that I wouldn't understand, and thus, not intending to pursue, them. Yet my eyes were just about glued to the screen, and it turned out to be one of the more engaging viewing experiences I've had recently. I haven't seen the first one, only the Verbinski version, so if you find any utter ignorance in this review, please chalk it up to that(and no, I don't have an excuse for the rest of my writing). The plot is well-written and develops nicely throughout. The pacing is good. The acting is great, even for the kid, which is arguably a bit unusual. The effects are all marvelous, nothing looked fake. The scares are well-done, and they work quite well. There is atmosphere and creepiness all over the place, herein. I'd still watch Gore's before this or the others in this particular series, but hey, I am a Westerner. And this still had me in a tight grip for the 90 minutes. I recommend this to fans of the genre and the people who made the movie. 7/10


As we examine the aspects of the lethal videotape in this very good sequel, it is admittedly not as frightening as the first movie.

Hideo Nakata resumes his taut direction, and a few shocks abound. Nice to see Nanako Matsushima return as Reiko even if the main star of this story is Miki Nakatani's character Mai Takano, who had a brief appearance in the first film.

Ring 2 does retain many of the atmospheric and subdued sounds of the first film, but, unlike Ring, you can watch this sequel without the lights on. However, the conclusion to the film is extremely ominous.

Ring 2 is not a horror movie in the true sense of the word, and is certainly not as shocking as its theatrical trailer suggests, but it continues the story admirably, and all the actors involved put in cherished performances. I personally enjoyed it.