This film should definitely lay to rest claims that Crawford could not play comedy--she is hilarious, cute, and laugh-out-loud funny throughout! In her first "talky," Crawford plays Bingo, a girl brought up in South America who inherits three million dollars when her dad dies. She moves to NYC by cruise ship, and meets a young man played by Robert Montgomery (in his first role as leading man!).

Since both Crawford and Montgomery were very young when the film was made, it is a joy to watch. All the actors give spirited performances, Crawford and Montgomery are incredibly cute together, and are funnier than I have seen them in any other film! The theme song from the film, "Chant of the Jungle" (sung by Joan Crawford in the film) was a hit in 1929, when the film was made, and you'll be sure to get it stuck in your head even after the movie is over.

The plot of the film was also quite good, surprisingly. Robert Montgomery and Crawford's characters love each other, but because she is rich and he has little money, he is afraid to marry her because of what people might think. Bingo's uncle Ben also discourages the relationship and offers Montgomery money to leave her! Of course, everything goes astray and uncle Ben's plans fall through in a hilarious fashion. The film offers a fairly intelligent view of such a situation, as well.

Definitely a treat for classic film fans! This gem hopefully will continue to sparkle for a long time, with more airings on TCM and video release!


Fun to watch an early "talking" but the acting is marginal and the fight scene laughable. Fun seeing Montgomery and Crawford in the earliest part of their careers. But you can tell western electric was still playing around with sound trying to get the levels right. Sometimes background music overpowered dialogue.


Joan Crawford's first talkie reveals her to be irresistibly sexy and personable, but her role is hamstrung by the inane plot and contrived dialogue. Unfortunately, this is characteristic of most early MGM talkies. Ernest Torrence is notable as the guardian of Joan's character, but the rest of the cast, Robert Taylor included, is submerged in the froth of this lightweight comedy. See it for Joan, but don't say you weren't warned.


I've never understood the 'camp' phenomenon, with its devotees (camp followers?) who actually prefer to see their cult favourites -- usually larger-than-life actresses -- in *bad* films, rather than good ones. But Joan Crawford's 'camp' credentials are unquestioned, and 'Untamed' is a campfest. Those who like to see Joan Crawford in queen-bee mode (you know who you are) will enjoy this film immensely. Me, I liked Joan better in 'Daisy Kenyon'.

Here, she's cast as Bingo Dowling -- yes, Bingo! -- an oil heiress who's been living in the remote jungle with two older men named Murchison and Presley, whom she calls her 'uncles'. She takes a shine to handsome young Andy McAllister, and the two of them warble some bad songs. This movie was made in 1929, when silent films were fading fast and the Hollywood studios were scrambling to prove that their stars could not only talk but even sing. Actually, Joan was a pretty good singer and dancer in 'Hollywood Revue of 1929', but her singing in 'Untamed' is quite dire. And the sound recording is bad: well below the usual high standard of Douglas Shearer and MGM.

Speaking of which: MGM were consistently the studio with the best production values, the most opulent sets and the most stylish costumes. You'd hardly know it here. Several exterior sequences -- notably in the jungle -- have clearly been filmed indoors on a set-dressed soundstage. Several other sets are too swank for their own good. A simple little shop is kitted out like a posh emporium. As Bingo, Crawford flashes too many bangles, and her jewellery tends to rattle loudly in the bad sound mix.

SPOILERS NOW. Eventually, Bingo shoots Andy (good idea!) but they fall in love anyway (bad idea!).

I consider myself a Joan Crawford fan (for several reasons) but 'Untamed' is not her finest hour. I'll give some slack to all concerned, as this talkie was made during Hollywood's awkward transition period. For that reason, and out of sentiment for Joan Crawford, I'll rate this movie 4 out of 10 ... but I'm being generous.


I watched this old 'talkie' late one night on the classic movies station (couldn't sleep). I figured this movie is 77 years old. It was pretty weird watching a movie with young actors that are all dead by now. The movie was semi-interesting but the end was disappointing. Andy is going to leave 'Bingo' when she shoots him in the shoulder. WTF? And he immediately changes his mind about leaving and decides that she is the woman for him. The movie ends about 40 seconds after 'Bingo' shoots Andy. Again, WTF? The two actors never had any chemistry to start with. Andy was good looking...but scrawny and effeminate. Joan Crawford looked good, but what was up with the sweat stains? And the singing? The movie is for the very bored only....definitely not a classic. It seemed like they were filming in sequence and run out of budget or were just sick of making the movie by the end of it.


This creaky and absurd film starts out promisingly enough, as young Joan Crawford does a decidedly risque dance to native accompaniment. It's all downhill from there, and the film's climax is particularly absurd, as Crawford makes up with lover Robert Montgomery immediately after shooting him! Not one of the brightest stars in MGM's firmament.


When I first popped this DVD in, I had no idea what I was in store for. Sure, I read the description on the back and the reviewers quotes and I knew it was unrated, but I had no idea... Lies is a bold film. Whether you despise the places it dares to go or admire it for going there, you cannot argue the fact that it goes to the outer most limit. At times I found myself queasy, sometimes out of how graphic the sex was and other times out of a feeling that I was uncomfortable for the actors for being that naked -- i'm not talking about just their skin -- i mean their vulnerability being in those scenes to begin with. Although I would usually ask what the point of a movie this raw is, in this case I have to say that I'm really glad that I saw it. I don't know what you walk away with from it, but I do know that I'm always psyched to see something different cinematically than what I already know and surprisingly satisfied to discover a film that I didn't know existed. Lies delivered both. I can't really put my finger on what it is about the film and it's not my type (AT ALL) but it's worth it. For some intangible reason, it is worth it and has much merit.

If you're not uptight and can deal with watching thing that you would probably not venture nor wish to do and want to see a filmmaker totally unashamed and unfazed at exploring a genre, then this is a movie that is definitely worth seeing. 7/10.


As I recall, in G. Lucas' film "THX-1138" there was a television channel that featured nothing but a robot beating a naked person with his billy club. When I first saw this, I laughed out loud at the obvious satire of our society's need for sex and violence in our entertainment. I had much the same feeling after seeing this film.

At first the film seemed like a competent look at how two people in love want to explore every aspect of each other's bodies. The initial mild S&M just seemed like a logical extension of that exploration. But when the beatings bordered on mutual self destruction, I immediately saw this as lampooning our society's need for ever increasing "kicks" to satisfy our insatiable lust for ever increasing degradation of the human body.

The director suckered us in and punched us right in the gut! Bravo!.


(spoilers??)

At least this movie has a story to tell. The camera angles are better than that of the Blair Witch Project. ;) Hmmmm how bout the Erotic Witch Project? lol. whoops. Which reminds me, both films have a female with stretch marks. Any takers? But really, I think the director was intentionally going for the shock value. He says something to the effect on the dvd. It's a funny movie. Though if your a guy and paying attention to the humor and not the um a stuff. Something is a little odd for ya. ;)

I find it interesting though that the actress playing Y is listed by IMDB as being born in 1984. When was this filmed? 1998-99? Did IMDB mess up or was the actress really 15 when the film was shot. I find it interesting that this movie made it into America then and Eyes Wide Shut (uncensored) did not. Oh well. If your bored on your Emmanuelle movies, want something a little less harsh than alssc*n. And your a movie fanatic in more ways that one. Hey jump at the chance to watch it.

7/10

Quality: 7/10 Entertainment: 8/10 Replayable: 8/10


I was at first disgusted with director Sun-Woo Jang because I had felt that he cheated me. Jang had the potential to create a strong, deeply emotional film about sex and its effects on people, but instead chose to focus his strength on the pornography element more than the actual human element. I couldn't see the characters at first and his sloppy introduction which blended both realism and cinema together was amateurish at best  yet this film remained in my mind for days after I viewed it. What stayed with me wasn't the story, it wasn't the characters, nor was it the apparent pornographic nature of the film, but the transition that Jang demonstrated between Y and J. If you watch this film carefully, you will see that both begin in an exploration phase of their relationship, eager to jump into the unknown, but not quite certain the next step. As they continue to meet, exploring new avenues of pleasure, they continually jump between the aggressor and the aggressed. Jang initially explores the idea that J is the one that in control of the situation, then hauntingly, the reversal happens when J becomes obsessed with Y. It is a very small change, and due to the graphic content of this film, it can easily be missed, but it is there. It becomes apparently clear near the end when J cannot live with Y, as their meetings become less frequent, and J attempts to become a part of normal society. This was a huge and very exciting element to this film to see right before your eyes, but alas, it was the only element of this film worth viewing.

I will ignore those that speak of this film as nothing more than pornographic, because there are human elements at the core of this film, as underdeveloped as they are, they are there. It is a film about a facet of our lives that is very rarely explored in cinema or talked about in the papers. What happens behind closed doors is never known  or so we should believe. While the act itself does becomes repetitive after a bit, director Jang tries to change it up a bit with some constantly changing scenery. Our characters are continually moving from hotel room to hotel room to best quench their thirst for each other's flesh. This is fun at first, but again, Jang's repetitive streak seems to make it feel boring than exciting. This leads me to the biggest issue that I had with this film. Jang had a great story with Gojitmal, but where he failed (outside of the obvious choice to focus directly on the pornographic side) was that he took scenes, repeated them time and again, without changing in front of us to allow us to get to know the characters. Where was Jang going with this movie? Did he want the sex to tell the stories, or did he believe the characters would? He failed in this sense because by the end of the film we know so little about Y and J that we could care less how they resolve themselves. The ending seems almost random at best as Jang attempts to create a final resolution for our two, absolute unknowns, of this film. I have to give Jang some credit for trying, but not much. He attempted to create some sub-stories that would create the personal element that we were lacking, but they just couldn't congeal well together. Y's brother and J's wife were those plot points, but again, due to him focusing so strongly on the sexual element, these stronger sub-stories became un-rememberable and down-right dull. Maybe it was just how I viewed this film, but outside of the sexual scenes, nothing else worked together. We knew nothing about J and Y and that is why Gojitmal failed.

Finally, I would like to say that this film could have benefited from having a strong score or a daftly remote music genre element to it to bring us, the viewers, closer to the emotions being felt by J and Y. From what I can remember, and I am trying to push this film far from my mind, I don't remember any musical undertones. Gojitmal may have been a stronger film if Jang either stylized it with music or done something to allude towards our character's beings. While I understand that he wanted the sex to speak for itself, there was just a technical element missing from this film that may have quenched a stronger desire for more. Technically, this was a poor film. Obviously an independent film in nature, it felt more like director Jang was trying to make symbolic references out of nothing instead of your typical independent of this nature. I didn't see as much of a social message or human element like mentioned above, I just felt like he threw this film together over the course of two weeks and understood that the sex would sell it enough. This was no Larry Clark production; this was sub-par and definitely needed some further technical clicks to develop it stronger than the final release!

Overall, I think I could have liked this film and there were smaller elements that I did enjoy, but I felt this film was rushed, repetitive, and played too much towards the taboos instead of breaking them. The obvious pitfalls of this film can be seen by the last scene of this film when we are privy to how the title of this film was conceived. Our characters were uneventful, our story was underdeveloped, and we could have used something memorable to make what was happening between Y and J into something more symbolic than sex. To me, Jang was trying too much to capture art house meets pornographic  and it failed miserably. This was not a film worth the time and effort that it took to make.

Grade: ** out of *****


Lies is a story of two people who have a sexual obsession. That is the whole plot, in a nutshell. They don't come together for any other reason than to have all out, straight up, kinky, beat-each-other-up sex and they're not pretending there is any other reason. They glory in it, they obsess about it, they talk about their last encounter and look forward to the next one. The best thing about it is the way it draws you in and makes you watch just to find out - where will all this end? To all the reviewers who complained about the grapehic sex, so, why did you watch it? You can't see five minutes of this movie without getting the idea, so what were you doing? Tied to your chair, maybe? Couldn't get free to turn it off? Held at gunpoint? What a bunch of hypocritical goober heads.

Neither of the protagonists is particularly attractive, not in the conventional way, and I didn't feel that anything was shown for pornographic purposes (although that would have been OK with me). It is simply an account of an intense sexual relationship, where the whole reason for being together is kinky sex, and this idea is followed through the film. You may not have any sympathy with the characters, or like them, or even be able to empathize at all; but you have to watch because you just know it is going to get more intense, and it does.

Each time J and Y come together, the sex gets more intense, more brutal, kinkier and nastier. They beat each other unmercifully, finding ever more severe objects to whale on each other with. Sounds kinda fun, doesn't it? The intent, though, is to show such a relationship and show how it develops, where it can go, and how it could happen. It even goes one better by making J an older man, an artist who is very class sensitive and somewhat tormented. Y is a schoolgirl, and her motives are never completely clear, as they probably wouldn't be to someone her age in this relationship.

I would never have watched this except for the reviews complaining about the graphic sex and violence. That got my interest quick, but then I was sucked in by the plot. I just had to know where this was going and predicted some big blow up at the end. I thought that possibly one would kill the other during a beating, or their families would intervene. Either way, I had to know what happened, and that, to me, is the best part of this movie.


This often startling account of a progressively S&M tinged love affair (and, yes, that is the right word for it) between an 18 year old schoolgirl and a married man twice her age remains currently banned in its native South Korea where it's considered pornographic. In a sense it is, considering how much of the film's running time is devoted to fairly explicit (at times clearly non-simulated) sexual encounters. What sets this film apart from other recent releases that have incorporated hardcore footage as part of their narrative (like the astonishing BAISE-MOI or Lars Von Trier's THE IDIOTS) is that here there is actual warmth and sensuality to the copulation sequences, even when the protagonists are beating the feces out of each other, making it much harder one presumes for moralists to condemn on grounds of lacking humanity or compassion. Not that they would allow themselves to be seduced by this deeply moving yet quietly disturbing film in the first place. I for one found it exquisitely erotic (and frequently sweetly funny with the lovers' DIY approach to S&M), even - or especially, perhaps - in its more extreme moments, all of which handled beautifully by the two non-professional leads. The pared-down visual style gives the movie an edge and intensity, as if you're watching real people in a documentary rather than a fiction film. The movie's English title is explained in the shattering last line. It would sound glib to call this a REALM OF THE SENSES for millennium's end but that's the comparison that comes to mind.


I saw this feature as part of the Asian American Film Festival in New York and was horrified by the graphic, sado-masochistic, child pornography that I witnessed. The story line is hidden beneath way too many graphic sex scenes - and, not one is in the least bit erotic - sick is the more the feeling. The director seemed to be going for shock value rather the exploring the various levels of why these characters are like this. See it if you can stomach it - I still have flashbacks.


J - 28 years old artist, Y - high-school girl, who want make a first sexual experience for her own choice. But there are no love without a pain... Flagellation is rule, and Lolita must die... Porno? Art-house? Avanguarde? Nor, but all together... And - best picture about love and sensuality...


"Lies" tells about an affair between an 18 year old bucktoothed female student and a scrawny 38 year old married man with the pair of protags spending about half the screen time engaged in naked sex and hokey whipping and the other half meandering through the pathetically naive storyline which seems little more than an excuse for the sex scenes. With very poor production value including obvious sanitary appliances and phony softcore sex to a story which is a messy mix of comedy and drama, "Lies" quickly becomes redundant ad nauseam. With an almost 2 hour run, subtitles, and so little substance, "Lies" is simply not recommendable. (C-)


At first I was surprised at the number of votes for this film, but on reflection, it becomes all too clear why this is so. This film may be too literate for contemporary audiences. How many people now know who Henry Adams, Owen Wister, and Louis Brandeis WERE? Still, one shouldn't have to be a constitutional law scholar to love a film so well acted and so rich in Human interest. Yes, the film does occasionally sentimentalise Holmes. So? I find it fascinating that Emmett Lavery, a devout Catholic, educated by Jesuits, was able to paint such a warm portrait of the atheist (and lets not mince words-he WAS an atheist) Holmes, who had little use for moral absolutes or the Natural Law. In short, a very fine film, of the sort that is impossible to make nowadays.


I caught this on Turner last night. I happen to be in the history business, in a way, and was surprised at how good this still was. Like most films-adapted-from-plays of the 30s and 40s, it never really transcends its stage origins, but I thought it dealt with the big issues of law, justice, morality, life and death in a way inconceivable in a politically correct age such as ours. We are much smaller people now. The conversation Holmes has with his wife while she lies dying in her bed is a masterpiece of really mature human communication, it's not sappy or sentimental, it's just heartbreaking in its honesty.

The Justice Holmes of this film was Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., the son of the famous poet-doctor of the same name who wrote "Old Ironsides" and "The Autocrat of the Breakfast Table." The father and son are often confused. I was also delighted by Eduard Franz's underplayed portrayal of Louis Brandeis, the first Jewish justice on the US Supreme Court, after whom Brandeis University was named.

I didn't want this film to end, and will now look up the original stage play.


I had never seen this film before until I saw it on TCM TV the other day. It is really an extraordinarly drama of the life of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes portrayed by Louis Calhoun and his wife played by Ann Harding, and directed by John Sturges. Judge Lewis Brandeis is played by Eduard Franz. Holmes always wanted a son and he called all 30 of his secretaries "his sons". One of the sons I recognized but just couldn't think of his name, so I looked it up; sure enough he was played by child actor Jimmy Lydon whom I always loved in films. Lydon played the part of Secretary Clinton. This truly is a well acted and enjoyable biography. Highly recommended!


I had never even heard of this film until I saw it yesterday on TCM. Louis Calhern does an excellent job portraying Holmes, and Ann Harding does a creditable job as his wife, although she is saddled with lines of insufferable banality. Eduard Franz is quite good as Brandeis, and judging from pictures I have seen, he looks quite a bit like Brandeis as well.

All this having been said, it was astonishing to me that this film tells us almost nothing about Holmes' professional life, even though he spent over 30 years as a Supreme Court Associate Justice. Holmes is 61 years old when the film begins! The only hint we get of his life before this is a couple of mentions that he fought in the US Civil War, and that he went to Harvard. There is no mention of his having been Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. There is no inkling of why Teddy Roosevelt appointed him to the US Supreme Court, and we are left with very little notion of why Roosevelt was disappointed with Holmes, other than that Holmes wrote a few opinions that Teddy didn't like.

The film seems totally unwilling to tackle weighty or controversial subjects. We get a few glimpses of Holmes' rulings on free speech issues, and his willingness to restrict free speech when it may present a clear and present danger to the public good. Holmes' notorious opinion in Buck v. Bell, upholding the right of the state to sterilize 'mentally defective' people, in which Holmes made the statement that 'three generations of imbeciles is enough, is never mentioned. The focus of this film is almost entirely on Holmes' domestic life and the fact that he and his wife devotedly loved each other but regretted not being able to have children. The film also depicts how Holmes' court clerks were in effect surrogate sons. Louis Brandeis is a significant character in the film, but he is there only to show that he and Holmes had a close friendship and often voted alike. The film depicts that the appointment of Brandeis by Wilson in 1916 was controversial, and that 22 senators voted against confirmation, but we are never told exactly why Brandeis was controversial, other than that his being Jewish may have been a factor. Finally, I was irritated by the fact that there is a recurrent character named Adams, whose first name is never mentioned. We learn that he is a grandson of John Quincy Adams, but who is he? Is he Henry Adams or Charles Francis Adams? We never find out.

This film was released in 1950. That is surprising, because it must have been an anachronism even then. It has much more of the flavor and feel of the biopics of the 1930s, e.g., the biographies of Pasteur and Juarez starring Paul Muni, although it is nowhere near as good as either of those. In short this is an entertaining film worth watching for Calhern's performance, but don't expect to learn anything of substance about Holmes.


Louis Calhern is superb as Oliver Wendell Holmes. The script is extraordinarily literate, and the historical conflicts seem every bit as important as they did at the time. Superbly directed and acted by all involved, this should be required viewing for all would-be lawyers.


Louis Calhern who was in demand right up to his death in 1956 on both stage and screen gets a chance to repeat his most famous stage role as Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Magnificent Yankee. He appeared on Broadway with this play by Emmett Lavery in 1946 for 159 performances with Dorothy Gish playing his wise and patient wife Fanny Dixwell Holmes.

For those who think that this play and movie is about the Great Dissenter on the Supreme Court Oliver Wendell Holmes, author of some of the best known and most quoted legal opinions ever rendered by the US Supreme Court you are wrong. It is instead about a love story between two elderly people, Wendell and Fanny, who embark on a new adventure when at the ripe old age of 60, Wendell gets a major new job in his chosen profession.

If Holmes had never been put on the Supreme Court by Theodore Roosevelt in 1902 his reputation would rest on being the author of The Common Law which is a history of and Holmes view of same. It's a classic in jurisprudence published in many languages. In 1902 Holmes was three years into the job of Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court when he got the call which insurance actuarists would have given him a decade tops on his new job.

Yet we first meet Mr. Justice Holmes and his lady right after that appointment, buying a new home for themselves in Washington, DC. They were one of the great love stories in history. Fanny Dixwell was the daughter of the man who ran Dixwell's Latin School in Boston which was THE place to be sending your young Yankee children for their education. They met as children and it was love at first sight. They had eyes for no others.

Taking Dorothy Gish's place for the screen version is Ann Harding. She and Calhern perfectly fit my conception of what the Holmeses must have been like in their private moments. Eduard Franz plays Holmes friend and colleague Louis D. Brandeis who was his partner in dissent on many occasion replacing Edgar Barrier who did the role on stage.

It's sad that while Calhern was given an Oscar nomination for Best Actor, Ann Harding was not similarly honored. The two roles are so entwined that I don't think you can honor one without the other. I made a similar comment on William Powell being nominated for Nick Charles in The Thin Man and Myrna Loy being snubbed for the same film.

The Holmeses had no children, they did in fact raise a niece who was out of the picture when they moved to the capital, but the legend about his law clerks from Harvard becoming surrogate sons is quite true. You can spot such players as Jimmy Lydon, Richard Anderson, and Herbert Anderson in brief roles as the many clerks Holmes had over the years.

Oliver Wendell Holmes was possibly our most distinguished man of the law and Louis Calhern brings him vividly alive with the wit and grace Holmes was known for in his life. Don't ever miss The Magnificent Yankee played by a magnificent actor about a magnificent man.


First, the casting of Lewis Calhern as Oliver Wendell Holmes and Ann Harding as his wife, Fanny Bowditch Holmes, is perfect together. The film is set around Holmes' life as a Supreme Court Justice with the late Louis Brandeis who was the first Jewish member of the supreme court. The film is first rate and the script could use a little work. This film is an example of old Hollywood at it's brilliance with class, style, and a terrific cast and crew. The film's historical basis allows the story to be told easily. You can't help but enjoy Harding and Calhern on the screen as a loving couple. They don't make such high quality films anymore where it's character driven. I watched this film this morning and I couldn't take my eyes off Calhern as he played the late Oliver Wendell Holmes nor Ann Harding as his wife. The film is a perfect example of what thrived in Old Hollywood in it's golden era. It's never recovered from days where veterans like Harding and Calhern and many others worked five films per year.


Check out this plot: experimental drug in a sanitarium ends up making all the people there go completely nuts, because of sanity juice sucking inter-dimensional parasites! I thought it was made in the early 80s due to the film quality and sound quality, but it turns out it was actually 2001! If you like bad horror movies, then this one is fantastic! There are so many things in this movie that make so little sense that you will be rolling around laughing hysterically.

The lights dim and all the colors in the room go weird and stuff sort of blurs, then someone will go "they really ought to fix that!" this happens with increasing intensity and no one seems to notice that anything is wrong.


Where do I start with this one? There is no doubt that this is one of the worst pieces of trash I have ever seen. No, I'm not saying that because I disliked it a little and I'm definitely not exaggerating. This is on my list of top 5 worst films I have ever seen. The production values are absolutely TERRIBLE on the Region 1 DVD. I had my speakers on full volume and could barely make out what was going on. It was so full of static that it made me wonder if there was something wrong with my television. The visual aspect of the film is awful as well. It looks as though it was filmed on a Viewmaster.

It's hard to comment on other aspects of the movie like acting, simply because it's difficult to get past the disgraceful audio/visual quality. The storyline, however, is so convoluted and ridiculous that my head began to spin. If you can understand what's going on, or care enough to know what's going on, then you deserve a medal.

I see several 10/10 rated reviews and I can't help but think we're being duped. There is absolutely NO way that this film can be rated that high. I respect others' opinions, but these people MUST be associated with the film in one way or another.

It's utterly disgusting that trash like this gets released. People, such as myself, rent or buy stuff like this expecting a decent film and end up with a $20 frisbee. Stop releasing garbage like this! It's a disgrace to the horror genre and its fans. We should use films like these to torture Osama bin Laden if we ever find him.


Absolute rubbish-no way does this story connect to anything resembling reality. Its a hotch potch of unfinished ideas and the most absurd plot line imaginable-the patients NOT injected are the ones who end up infected! Suddenly 5 people are shot and killed just like that. At the beginning the patients on the ward are cackling then suddenly they stop. There have been some great movies made with the mental home theme but this isn't one of them. I thought it can't be me-does anyone else understand this junk? Its either too damn clever for its own good -in which case its enough to give your brain a hernia-or perhaps its me who's mental.


I really enjoyed this - well written, low budget horror/thriller. It was just a great story and the ending defies belief - old mental patients dancing with ballons to gothic music, it really has to be seen to be believed!


Whoa! This movie was bad. I can't believe how the DVD box in my local video store totally contradicted the actual movie itself. However, I won't claim false advertising. I was a sucker and blew about $2.00 Canadian to rent this thing. $2.00 that could have gone towards something far more useful, like bent paper clips or defective elastic bands. DO NOT BE TEMPTED BY THE MOVIE BOX. THIS IS A TERRIBLE FILM. The acting is wooden, the audio is worse. You really do not care what happens to the characters. It has already been mentioned that the idea was good, but it was not done right. I agree. The people who made this film did have a good idea and could have done a lot more with it.


The fact that some people thought this film was good, shows how subjective the film experience can be.

The fact that this happens with every

film on the IMDb only supports that theory further.

However, this film seems to go out of its way

to reach new levels of badness.

When I saw that the co-writer and co-director was also the film's composer, I knew I was in for a treat.

Sure enough, the music consisted of two things, repeated over and over again for the entire movie. One was a piano arpeggiating a minor chord over and over, and the other was a pitiful attempt at some Bernard Herrmann marcato string lines, ala "Psycho".

The rest of the movie, acting, directing, writing etc... was just as bad. The ending was incredible- "They're testing it again!" End of movie.


Sanitarium has shaken my cinematic beliefs. I once thought that Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell was the single worst film ever made. Now, i'm not so sure. What seems like quite a good idea for a plot, soon descends into needlessly complex twists, and just complete craziness. And not in a good way. Filmed in what looks like an old school, and using what looks like a £200 digi-cam, and edited on what looks like I-movie, the quality of the film leaves a lot to be desired. And that's putting it nicely. Presumably the budget didn't stretch to a microphone, as the entire thing seems to be dubbed over, making everyone's voice exactly the same volume, despite their location on screen. If this wasn't amusing enough, a lot of the blood appears to have been bizarrely animated by computer. All of this could be forgiven though, if the acting was any good.

The acting. Oh yes. i'm not sure if the cast consists of friends/family/general bystanders, but it ranks amongst the worst EVER. The acting in my friend's media coursework was far superior. The actors read in monotone, and with little change in pitch or tone, even the expression of the most simple of emotions seems beyond them. Maybe this is due to the voice-overs, but who knows. One highlight is the use of swearing, randomly placed around the script, making it 'gritty' (presumably). Max is the best, 'FFFUCK!' he pulls of with incredible emphasis, yet a monotone voice. Surely an achievement to be proud of.

The casting of the Uri Geller was totally pointless. He adds nothing, can't act, and just his being in the film immediately raises hilarious expectations. Though, much to my disappointment, he fails to bend any spoons or even natter on about how brilliant his mate Michael Jackson is.

This film is disastrous, the clunky, electric keyboard soundtrack compliments the woeful attempts at something serious. If the idea of a fat man dancing around balloons strikes you as scary, than this is for you. If you can believe someone requiring a tiny pocket torch to walk through a perfectly lit hospital corridor, than you'll like this. If you find the site of Uri Geller in a horror film neither amusing or cringingly embarrassing, then you'll get something out of this film. But I for one couldn't, so it's straight into the bin with you Sanitarium!


This boring british video is long on talk and is really hard to figure out. It has something to do with experiments on mentally ill people and a drug that opens the mind to parasites from another dimension( I think). There are some bloody scenes that liven it up a bit but this movie is so slow and disjointed they don't help. Maybe a bigger budget and script rewrite would have helped.


This very English sit com contains a series of under-performing human beings who spend 8 hours a day together in a small law office. We all recognise elements of them either in ourselves or in others yet how to describe them? Why do the English not have the exact words? Because we would consider it unkind to give harsh labels to the harmless. The Dalmation-dotty hopeless young Colin. Bumbling Bob - permanently paralysed by a mixture of passion and embarrassment. Stella: the real engine of the establisment but never getting work and a love-life in sync. Young Darren - his school friends would be out stealing cars but Darren has, relatively, a conscience and some ambition, and has risen to the level of office dogs-body. Alison a bored, beautiful bitch. Dick - posh senior partner, clever, clubbable and terminally lazy. An excellent and often accomplished cast.

This is at times hilarious comedy. Its because we don't have the words to precisely categorise every kind of fool that it remains kind and not judgemental. We get to like them all in different ways. There is a self-effacing quality about Simon Nye's writing too - clever but never flashily so.

Oddly it reminds me a little of "King of Queens" - entirely different setting but similarly human and not unkind.


'The Fantastic Journey', along with 'Planet Of The Apes', 'Logan's Run', 'The Invisible Man' and 'Gemini Man' flopped in the U.S.A., but here in the United Kingdom proved enormously popular. They were slickly produced, boasting better special effects ( and lots of flashing lights! ) than our British shows could manage. 'Journey' had a most captivating premise. Trapped on a mysterious island at the heart of the famed 'Bermuda Triangle', a group of travellers venture from one dangerous time zone to the next, searching for a way home. Jared Martin's 'Varian' was from the future, and carried a tuning fork weapon not unlike Dr.Who's 'sonic screwdriver'. Katie Saylor made the biggest impact on me ( well, I was 15 at the time ) as Liana. She had a telepathic cat called Sil-L. Roddy McDowall's 'Willaway' fulfilled a similar function to Jonathan Harris in 'Lost In Space'. Hardly Hugo-award winning stuff perhaps, but 'Journey' was lively and entertaining and deserved a much longer run.


A previous reviewer compared The Fantastic Journey to shows like Stargate SG-1 and Sliders. He listed 8 similarities between the shows. He should have listed a 9th. Which show, you ask? What about Lost? You have a doctor, (Fred in TFJ, Jack in Lost), a psychic, (Liana in TFJ, Desmond in Lost,) a man of faith, (Varian in TFJ, and Locke, in Lost,) see the similarities? If you don't, I do. In TFJ, you have a scientific expedition lost in the Bermuda Triangle. In Lost, you have 48 survivors from a plane crash on an island somewhere in the South Pacific. In TFJ, our little group of travelers is trying to get back to their times. In Lost, that's not so clear. Jack wants to go home in the first three seasons. Locke doesn't. When you consider the similarities between the two shows, you can't help but recognize the fact that this '70s show was an influence on Lost. J.J. Abrams and Co., say that the game Myst, was one of the influences. Did I leave someone out? I did? Well, my bad. You also have another man of science, in Jonathan Willaway. Did I leave anyone else out? I don't think so. If I did, too late to change it now.


I was enthralled with the programme with the first episode when they went into that strange storm. It was like a syndicated series, as each episode followed on from the one previous. I would love to see it again in repeat episodes either on telly, or on the internet like Google.

It was a great programme for the 70's and I practically grew up watching Eisenman in everything he was in from a boy. I was a secret fan of his and wasn't one for fans clubs. I liked his character of Scott Jordon in the series. I was anxious for the next episode and they couldn't get around soon enough.

Eisenman is and always will be my favourite actor, as I practically grew up with up, while watching him on screen. The other characters were great, too and the storyline was never the same week to week. Shame it had such a short run.


I have seen this in reruns in the 1980's and it wasn't too bad. Let me fill you in with more of what I remember.

Spoilers. Valerian (I don't remember him being "Varian") had a super crystal tuning fork that could do just about anything. But he wasn't an alien. He was from Atlantis. He was healthy, wise, handsome, took his vitamins, had a clean aura, probably a vegetarian, and he never abused that aardvark in the back yard. Your basic all-around 1970's hero guy. And the tuning fork was really an amplifier that tapped into his spiritual essence to effect change.

In the Bermuda triangle, people would get sucked in from various times throughout history. I believe it was the pilot when they ran into pirates. One of them asked if Elizabeth was still Queen of England. Clearly, they meant a previous Elizabeth. They answered yes, which only prolonged their delay in realizing they were in a time vortex.

Roddy McDowall was a late-comer, probably to boost sagging ratings. He was from the future but I don't remember from when exactly. I think it was the 2100's.

It turned out there were some bad guys running the island from a shiny silver cylindrical tower that looks remarkably like one of the buildings in downtown Los Angeles. They were agents working either for or with "The Source". Valerian defeated The Source, leaving the show with no direction at all. They quickly slapped together a new threat  "The Power". It some kind of artifact gun. The reruns didn't get that far in the 80's so my memory gets hit and miss at that point. I remember them beating The Power also. I think they knew the clock was running out so they were kind enough not to leave the audience hanging.

It was a bit simplistic at times, and some of the plots were a bit too obvious, but it was good clean escapist fun. There was a family on the island with Valerian so it was easy enough to identify with someone and pretend you were there also on a wild adventure. I would watch it again if it was on at a convenient hour.


At first I was put off this film due to the title 'Please Kill Me, I'm a F*ggot N*gger Jew', but after being constantly badgered by a friend I eventually sat down to watch it Boy was I surprised. 'Please Kill Me, I'm a F*ggot N*gger Jew' is a touching tale about a man who in his own words is a "F*ggot N*gger Jew" and the daily hardships he must endure due to his social status.

This short film says more about the plight of being a minority more than all of Woody Allen, Spike Lee and Lloyd Kaufman's movies put together. The only problem with this movie is that it's way too short, but in it's short running time it says more than most Hollywood movies say in their 2hr plus running times. Hopefully someone will have the vision to release it on DVD with the underground classic "G*yn*ggers From Outer Space"


The title serves as the antithesis of this movie's existence. It features a deep exploration into the depths of man's focus on racial division as a means of control. It walks the very divide that is inherent to any human; the divide we're genetically predisposed to establishing. What I witnessed was an atypical artistic melding of man and acceptance, forging a deep bond with the essence of equality; no racism, no anti-racism. I cannot adequately explain the premise without ruining the genius that is this movie, so I can't say much more than that! I can truly say that my life changed as a result of watching this film -- heck, it even proffered some hearty laughs along the way!

Don't let the title fool you, it's something the whole family should see!

10/10 - Christopher Poole


The first time I watched this movie in high-school, I instantly loved it. It has pretty much all the aspects of a great book, lots of action, special FX, lots of humor and what-not. There were some minor flaws to this epic show cast though, with the most obscene one being the fact that the character introductions are pretty much absent, seeing as everybody seemingly just pops up and goes away after a few scenes, to return later again. The personalities weren't too great neither, it was the basic 'Good guy' and 'Archetype nemesis' thing. But this movie really isn't about the characters, it's about the epic story, great acting, great action, lots of drama and laugh, and most of all, Mudkipz.


I cannot give this family film a higher rating. Best viewed in racially mixed company, although certainly having homosexuals, African-Americans, or those of the Jewish faith would be preferable. On the flip side, there is the possibility someone in the room may become deeply offended, at which point they should leave and never return. At least for the next 10 minutes. Underlying themes, including the difficulties of being probably the only member of a minority in history, can be difficult to spot but with a keen eye these subtleties can be unmasked, leading to a fantastic theatrical experience.

HIGHEST RATING POSSIBLE.


As I read reviews of this movie I just can't keep feeling like most of you just don't get it. I'm reading comments here on IMDb like "white boys trying to act like they are black (c'mon that is terrible)" or "can someone say Wigger...". You are missing the point. This movie is simply one big satire of young white teenagers who grow up in decent or rich environment (or Iowa) idolizing the ghetto life that they see on MTV and trying to mimic it. As a product of a large city public school system in the mid nineties I saw these kinds of kids every day. It's pretty depressing actually. Low self-esteem kids with terrible identity disorders trying so desperately to find themselves. Or not? Maybe most of them just don't know how to act. Whatever it is I'd have to say that this movie was on point with every aspect of this kind of lifestyle. For someone like me, who went to school with kids like this, Whiteboyz is a hilarious movie! Flip dog is just so incredibly lost in his gangster world, working out scenarios with Khalid before his talks to him, rapping in front of the mirror, etc. Khalid even tries to explain this to Flip and Flip is so lost he just doesn't understand what he is telling him. Khalid was probably the most normal kid in the movie. He respected his Mom, he has aspirations to go to college, and wasn't all about getting in trouble. What was the most revealing about what this movie was trying to do was the scene where James comes out of his "gangster" act and starts ranting racial slurs. Did James have multiple personalities? No. How could you miss the point after seeing that? There are plenty of people I'd like to show this movie to but sadly they won't get it. It's definitely one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. It was acted out perfectly and just down right hilarious. Unfortunately, most of the people just don't get it. Recommended as a wake up call to all you gangster white boys out there that grew up in a stable home. Cheers!


I love this movie. It hits the nail on the head portraying suburban white kids trying to be thugs by imitating rappers from MTV. You tend to find more of these kids in backwoods towns and deep in the suburbs than in the inner city and this movie seems more like a non-fiction representation of that ridiculous subculture. They even address the fact that these kids weren't dressing the same years ago or listening to the same music. Basically, acting like these kids is similar to deciding to dress like a cowboy because you start to like country music.

Anyone who doesn't like or appreciate this movie - the joke's on you, thug life with a North Carolina jersey.


This movie is a landmark film. It may well serve as the most important tool available to young white males to illustrate how incredibly stupid they look trying to be black. I firmly believe that if this movie is shown in schools there may yet be hope for a future for Caucasians everywhere. Stoop Dogg was instrumental in making this film and that's important to note due to the fact that he's come far enough in his career that he no longer needs to placate young "wiggers" by reassuring them that they don't look stupid trying to act black, and has gone so far as to make them look stupid directly and make a movie about it. This film did not enjoy wide distribution due to the entertainment industry's fear that white people would stop buying C rap music and they would lose those dollars. I applaud Fox's decision to distribute this film and will make every effort to support them in all of my movie watching choices in the future.


"White Boyz" has a good premise with the concept of white suburbans that are enticed by the ghetto lifestyle. The story and characters are under developed and loses pacing with the music videos and day dream fantasies. The acting of the lead is weak which makes the film fail. In addition to this the genre of it being a comedy is lost as it moves between bland serious drama with sprinkles of comedy. Almost all the scenarios in this film are serious and don't have any funny characters or light score music or songs to create a comedic tone of any kind. There has been better white boys acting black in movies like "Malibu's Most Wanted" or the character that Seth Green plays in "Can't Hardly Wait". Ultimately it was a good idea with very poor execution.


I only watched this movie because parts of it were filmed in my hometown and I was very disappointed with it. I just thought the plot was stupid. Apparently, people don't think there's drugs in Iowa, because stereotypically, we're just a whole bunch of white farmers or something, and that's what the movie portrays us as. But there are a lot of drugs here because people make the stop in between Chicago. Anyway, I just didn't like all the stereotyping. It was totally not what life is like here.


I first rented this movie looking for a few laughs. Take as either good or bad, but I've known a lot of kids just like this. Adolescence is a time where you seek meaning, and whether your friends wore black cloaks, Fubu pants or Dead Kennedys t-shirts, everyone looks for a way to stake out their own identity. This quest for self is usually masked behind defensive mental and emotional walls. Set this to the backdrop of a socially confining small Iowa farm town, and you're able to get past the sneers and narrow vocabulary of Flip and crew. The daydream scenes of champagne-drinking diamond-clustered thug videos (that are all too common these days) prove extremely funny mainly due to their ironically realistic portrayal of similar videos. The climax of the drug buy gone sour paired with the rat race of reflection seen at the end brings a decently snug close to a movie whose plot did not meander in too many directions to begin with.


I saw previews for these films and I thought it was a comedy but it is so much more. This movie is one of the best movies written and made. It deals with subjects that people don't want to see or talk about. It is not just a sterotype when cops are racist or when The movie is so real each character could easily be a real person. Someone said that it is just a sterotype of white boys but it is not because there are really people like Flip, Trevor, and James who want to be black for some reason. With all the realness of this movie it is still funny as heck. The movie is well acted by the whole cast which makes it even more real. It breaks many raicial bounderies, and lets people be aware of what really does hapen in some ghetto's. I think everyone should wacth this movie, they can laugh and then see the world as it really is so times. This movie reminds me somewhat of SLC Punk! in ways that the main character is searching for who they are. In SLC Punk! the lead character Stevo (Matthew Lillard) is searching for who he is and what he belives in. In Whiteboys Flip is searching though differt racial personalities and finding who he is.I give this movie two big thumbs up, it has become one of my favorite movies.


Black street dramas, like Clockers & Boyz In The Hood, are made to raise awareness about the atrocities that happen everyday to young black youths. Whiteboyz is about three white boys who want to lead that life so bad that they dress, act and talk like they see on the movies and in rap videos. The idea of white males pretending they're black could have been funny if they had tried a This Is Spinal Tap approach to the film. Instead they take every cliche out of black street dramas, but because they're white and because it's set in the ridiculous setting of Iowa (no offense to you Iowonians) they slap a comedy label on it.

However, there is nothing funny about this movie. The group of white kids at like they think black kids act. When young black men finally enter the picture (in real life that is, not fantasies) they act nothing like that. Eugene Byrd plays Khalid (one of the only actors to leave this movie with some dignity) a young black man ready to start law school that is if he can stay out of the trouble the white boyz are looking for. The three want him to introduce them to Chicago drug dealers to set up a Iowa connection. The result of which is bloody.

I was actually angered while watching this movie, not at society (like with Do The Right Thing) but with the filmmakers themselves. This material is not funny at all. It's like a person telling a joke and gets the entire thing wrong, then can't remember the punchline. This movie just drags on and on which is not good since it's only 88 minutes.

This not only the worst excuse for a comedy I've ever seen, but one of the worst films I've ever seen. zero stars out of ****

David W.


I turned on HBO last night and this movie was on. For some reason, I kept watching long after the movie got ridiculous. So many stereotypes of white people being racist came out that even I was offended. 150 white people at a party and the one black guy is the one who gets arrested? With no search for evidence? Some cops might be racist, but that would be suicide to handle it the way they did. And of course, every white guy in the movie, except for the leads, is a hillbilly racist (as everyone knows we all are) The only thing that surprised me about this movie was that the guy in the jail cell didn't rape Flip. Of course, that might have made the movie more enjoyable, much like when Flip gets beat up. If you're a minority who wants to believe everything is about race, then watch it and continue to hate, but for the rational people, watch the paint dry...you'll be much more concerned about the fate of the paint than with the fate of Flip.


I looked at this movie on the shelf for months before I took a chance and rented it....I figured that it would either be hilarious or suck fiercely. It turned out to be one of the best I've seen this year. It was funny as hell and (I was VERY surprised...)had a great message. The final scenes had way more depth than I was expecting. I can't believe how low the average rating is for this film.


'Whiteboys' is not a wall-to-wall comedy, although most reviewers think it's supposed to be. True, it starts out almost like a parody or satire of white gangsta-wannabes, but it develops a true context for these characters and their behavior, and then it takes them to Chicago to contrast their ideas with the reality of drugs and ghettos. Almost every review has criticized this film for not sustaining the initial gag of white gangstas in rural Iowa, but these characters aren't simply jokes. They're developed through both humorous and serious scenes, amusing but thoughtful dream sequences, and the all-too-real Chicago experience at the end. The film's messages about racial identity should be listened to by more filmmakers and TV producers. This is a well-paced comedy with a context that is never boring to the thoughtful, open-minded viewer


I Loved the movie! I was hysterical laughing during the popcorn scene and bittersweet during the Snoop-Dog scene (wonderful!) because its contents were so funny but its context of the prison so sad. The Cabrini scene was a tour de force of direction and the final fantasy in the cornfields as well as other situations where Flip expresses or demonstrates his view of racism makes this movie so unique for its daring to voice the subject.


This has to be one of the sloppiest, most slapstick, dramatic, idiotic movies i have ever been subjected to witness. Not only is the main character sloppy and poorly thought out, but they could not have picked a worse actor to play the character. I've seen so much better. If this director wanted to put comedy, major drama, and racial issues into a movie along with music videos to boot, he should have thought this project out more seriously. god help anyone for sitting through this movie. i am ashamed of myself for being bored at 3 am, and angry with HBO for even airing this stink. There are way too many plot lines within this movie. they should have stuck to a genre, developed the characters with a lot more thought, and...lose the music videos...half of the movie doesn't even make sense because of it. I have to say, i have seen some bad movies, but this might be the worst one. i have never been to Iowa, but i can assume that this is an overly dramatic way to portray life. i would never watch this again. save yourselves from watching it as well.


This is a horrible movie. Three stupid white kids who want to be gangster rappers do drugs and dream of moving to the big city. The way the kids act is embarrassing to their family and friends. Their fantasy world of living the thug life comes crashing down when they take a trip to Chicago. This movie is extremely uneven with a slapstick beginning and serious ending with music videos direction sprinkled throughout. This is not funny or dramatic just silly. I don't think I have ever rolled my eyes more while watching a movie.


It is SO corny...it is the worst possible representation of an inspiring white hip hop prospect ever. Everything the main character says just makes him need to shut up even more. He doesn't know anything about being a rapper, he doesn't know anything about drug dealing, he doesn't know anything about being a gangster, and frankly it makes people in Iowa look really bad because i'm sure they are not really like that. He thinks becoming a hip hop star is all about being black and living in the city selling drugs. Yes, he actually wants to move to the ghetto in south side of Chicago. His head is in the wrong place and he will never become the rapper he dreams to be.


This movie was terrible. Who could believe that someone is so stupid. There is a great message in this movie about white kids who think they know the "ghetto" and try to act tough and hardcore but all they are doing is looking stupid. Its one thing to enjoy rap and the hip hop culture, buts its whole different thing to change your voice and accent to sound "cool". If you are a parent and your kids think they are "thugs", then make them watch this and they will understand how stupid they are acting. life is too short to waste time trying to act cool. I loved the Slick Rick, Doug E. Fresh cameos and am still wondering how they got Snoop Dogg to agree to show up in this cameo.


This could actually have been a good movie. Instead it was a bizarre movie.

Whiteboys actually had a point; but it waited until the last 10 minutes to make it. In fact, the last 10 minutes would make a good music video.

But by the time you get there, you don't much care any more. Because you're so tired of Flip being such a one-dimensional human being.

It's probably funnier if you've already drunk a couple of 40s ... but then, who does?

The rest of this comment has been added. Because IMDB insists on a minumum of 10 lines. But sometimes. A half dozen is more than enough. Like Whiteboyz.


This movie is just plain dumb. Very bad acting. Bad script, very very bad script. Danny Hoch, as Flip gave an awful performance. I really can't find anything good about this movie. Don't have more words to describe it, just plain bad.


OK, only half-joking about the one line summary (alluding to the B. Boys throughout this comment), I am a huge Beastie Boys fan (and most of hip-hop in general; Run-D.M.C. are the kings). Yes, Flip (Danny Hoch), Trevor (Marc Webber), and James (Dash Mihok) are respectable emcees (no where as good as the Beasties) and have good hearts, but they live in a fantasy land. They are so caught up in their dreams of living the "good life", that they don't recognize how bad things are in reality. Flip seems to be the one who has the most trouble accepting things the way they are. His father has been laid off and his mother uses food stamps to pay for groceries, and above all, he has gotten his girlfriend Sara (Piper Perabo) pregnant. He is so caught up in the "false" glamour of the ghetto lifestyle, that he thinks he's black and practices explaining his 'hood background in front of a mirror. Really, the biggest problem is he just can't accept that he's white and living in Iowa, and that his only black friend is Khalid (Eugene Byrd), who quickly becomes disgusted with the way Flip and his friends are acting.

Now, not that the "Whiteboyz" are splitting images of their New York counterparts (Mike D, Ad-Rock, and MCA), but they are going to experience the same harsh public criticisms that the Beastie Boys had gone through, and I suspect that if they hit it big (which they won't), they won't shape up their act (like the Beasties did) and become respectable rap artists. Even so, "Whiteboyz" doesn't aim to stand as a cautionary fable against whites in hip-hop, but more as a metaphor for the progressive movement of the music into non-African-American audiences. I mean, Flip lives in Iowa for crying out loud! The Beasties themselves, who before becoming involved with Def Jam, were three untalented punkers, who knew little if anything about hip-hop and eventually moved into rap and became the three great emcees they are today. Flip was the same way before, a slob I don't know, but he certainly acted differently from the way he acts in the beginning of the film.

Anyways, unlike their New York counterparts, these "'boys" live in a fictionalized world where it will take an act of total stupidity to wake them up from this fantasy. Yes, by the end, the walls are all going to come crashing down.

"Whiteboyz" is undoubtedly one of the best films about hip-hop I have ever seen, and it shouldn't be missed by anyone. True it's geared towards a black audience (I'm African-American myself), but you can tell by the films central themes and the subject matter, it's geared more towards a white audience. Even so, don't miss it, regardless of skin color.

9/10


I am surprised to see so many highly negative reviews of this movie. I thought Whiteboys was one of the funniest movies I've seen in months. In addition, it took some creative finesse and a heap of guts to even attempt to extract humor from such a racially charged subject. Sure, this is not an outstanding film that would win any of the overrated awards of the day, but it does deserve credit as a simple but entertaining movie.

Geez people it's just a movie. It didn't claim to be a documentary on life in Iowa nor a siren call for world peace. Basically, if you didn't find this movie to be mostly funny you are taking life WAAAYY too seriously! Lighten up - you'll live longer.


Alot of people throw filth at this movie, I dont know why. This movie breaks new grounds. It is the first Drama-Comedy I have ever scene. And it is truly strong on both the dramatical side and comical side.

The acting was superb! People think elsewise, they think "a bunch of dumb white kids trying to be black". Because of this, they think the actors have no skills. But as a matter of fact, THESE CHARACTERS ARE VERY BELIEVABLE. THE CAST WAS PERFECT!!!! Nobody in this movie did NOT act unrealistic. Even Flip Dog's racist dad was believable, I cracked up on the part when he said "So now you're a n!gger?" That line had me choking on my popcorn, but there are so many funny scenes in this movie. That also shows that this movie is NOT just based on characters trying to be black. Flip Dog is actually the ONLY character who thinks he's black.

I predicted that people would hate this movie, too bad they don't understand it. As matter of fact, if this movie wasn't so realistic as it is, it wouldn't be funny. The stereotypes in this movie are so very true and is what makes it hilarious.

Don't worry about the plot in this movie, a movie like this doesn't really need one. It only excells in the areas that it focuses on- reality, drama and comedy.

Much credit goes to a genius director!

8/10


This film does have a good message. Racism sucks. Overall, I did not like this movie. The only character (of the main 3) that didn't act like a total jerk at some point is Trevor, played by Mark Webber. I feel he is too good for this movie. Go see his other movies, you won't regret it. I also feel that Trevor was the only character of the main 3 that showed a shred of morality.


Obviously the only people who have something sooooo against this movie are the people from iowa. Did you people see this movie in the true story section of the library or something? What gives you the idea that the film was not supposed to be fictional?! This is one of the funniest "whiteboy" comedy's of the 90's. I am white and did not find this movie offensive or degrading at all! I think this is a good example for the "wannabe" gangstas out there!GET REAL!


This movie has to be one of the best teen movies ever made

1 day i was at the video store i came across this movie. so i hired it thinking it will be pretty bad, my god i was suprised, this movie is like one of those movies u always thinking of directing in ur head. not going to tell u much about the movie but just that it will surprise u


Whiteboyz is a film that was long overdue, even in '99, and informs the audience of the important lesson that white kids should stop emulating black pop culture. Unfortunately, Whiteboyz is less of a scathing social commentary and more of a lame comedy. The story revolves around "Flip", a white gangster-rapper wannabe that lives in rural America. Flip looks like Gomer Pyle except he wears baggy clothes, talks like an idiot, and is much less likable.

Flip is somewhere in his mid to late 20s and still lives with his parents, and as to how he wasn't thrown out by now is a mystery to me. Flip has a lot going on in his life right. He just recently got his girlfriend pregnant and she wants an abortion while Flip sees things differently. After all--why wouldn't a jobless, aspiring-rapper with zero talent make a good father? We can hardly blame her, after all no woman should have to carry Flip's child. It's too cruel of a punishment. Flip is also surrounded by his equally white wannabes who constantly refer to each other as 'dogg' spelled with two Gs because it is so very gangster (I'm sorry, I meant gangsta) to misspell things.

Flip and his posse of losers enjoy talking like idiots, getting drunk and possibly high at parties, and shooting at cornfields. They then get it into their skulls that they should take a road trip and invite the only person of African-American descent in Iowa along with them. But where should one go? California? Florida? No, Flip and his crew want to go to a harsh, poverty-stricken ghetto in Chicago to get a taste of the wonderful 'gangsta life'.

After all, who doesn't dream of living in one of the worst neighborhoods in America? A place riddled with drug dealing, violence, and economic hopelessness...where can I sign up! Now the humor of the film obviously stems from the portrayal of the white wannabe rappers and I don't know what's sadder about the whole thing--that I actually sat through and listened to all of their dialogue, or that there probably really are people out there as annoying as Flip and his friends.

It's at this point Flip and company leave cozy Iowa for the 'real deal' streets of Chicago. They arrive, giddy at their gloomy surroundings. Flip enlists the company of some guy to track down drug dealers, since dealing drugs is the first step on the "how to become a gangster-rapper" handbook. The man Flip enlists is quite disgruntled, who wouldn't be if these guys showed up on your doorsteps, and demands a twenty. Eventually Flip is brought to room where three angry-looking drug dealers/gangsters/loan sharks size up Flip and are irritated by his drug dealing diplomacy skills.

So the three of them beat up on Flip and it is truly a sweet, sweet moment if it is only so brief. We finally get to see what Flip deserves for trying to be the next Eminem. But it's three buff guys against one Flip, as if they needed anything more than a 13-year-old kid to put Flip in traction. It is in this moment that Flip realizes that men that deal drugs and carry guns aren't the nicest of fellows and manages to get away until the police show up and start firing wildly into the air.

This is ultimately the moral of the story, but it still comes off as incredibly trite and has a "TV movie of the week" feel to it. The man who helped Flip gets shot by a cop and soon dies while Flip weeps for his fallen comrade who he's known for all of ten minutes. Should've asked for overtime pay. Thus Flip and his buds flee all the way back to Iowa, where they stop the car in front of a bridge and Flip throws his gun over the side, symbolizing his giving up of his rapper dreams.

Except he still dresses the same and talks in a stupid accent. A man died and he was nearly beaten to death and he still hasn't learned his lesson, and to top it all off he now has a hallucination sequence in a cornfield when he returns home. The ending of the film is left open for interpretation, with Flip doing a rap which thankfully I do not remember the lyrics. Is he the next rap super star? Or is he still jobless in Iowa? I hope it's the latter.

In the end if you were expecting Whiteboyz to be the wakeup call for wannabe rappers in white neighborhoods it'll have to wait. Still, this film is worth catching on cable just to see Flip get a proper beatdown.


This movie was an atrocity. The whole movie based on Flip Dog's dream of going to Chicago, and you waited for him to leave Iowa the whole movie. Finally he went and just came right back to Iowa. Then it ended. Not that the beginning and middle were anything interesting, except Iowa locals doing what you would think it's like to hang out in Iowa. Except there life was ridiculous. Three ridiculous individuals. Flip Dog is pretty cool though.


The ever graceful and dynamic Loretta Young had a deservedly long movie career from the silent era until the early 1950's. She then turned to television with the popular "Letter to Loretta," where she is well remembered for her entrance sashaying through a door wearing a swirling skirt. "The Unguarded Hour" is from her early talky days in Hollywood before going on to win an Oscar for her fantastic performance in "The Farmer's Daughter."

Loretta plays one of her usual roles as Lady Helen Dudley Dearden a dutiful wife who stands by her husband, the debonair Franchot Tone as Sir Alan Dearden who is on his way to the top of the legal profession in England about to be appointed the youngest attorney general ever. Then appears a blackmailer Hugh Lewis played with his usual aura of chicanery by Henry Daniell. Lady Dearden must pay for some indiscreet old love letters written by Sir Alan to a lover before he met m'lady or the letters will be made public possibly destroying him professionally. Lady Dearden unwittingly finds herself a mystery woman in one of her husband's murder cases. The plot thickens until Sir Alan himself becomes a suspect in the same case. All must be unraveled with a few surprises along the way before the somewhat hasty ending to a well made film.

As with most movies based on plays, there is too much verbiage from time to time but director Sam Wood is able to make things move faster than many similar type vintage mysteries from the same period.


'The Unguarded Hour' takes its title from the existentialist premise (expounded in this film's dialogue) that every man's life contains an interval in which circumstances conspire to deprive him of all his defences, leaving him a pawn of fate. How true, how true.

I'm a great fan of the films of Sam Wood, a craftsman who remains sadly underrated. Even film historian William K Everson insisted on knocking Wood and calling him untalented. Contemporary reports indicate that Wood was a racist and an unpleasant man who founded some very dubious political causes, yet his films consistently show solid proficiency and some subtle symbolism. Regrettably, 'The Unguarded Hour' contains some howlingly unlikely plot twists, a few extra-long coincidences and some very implausible motivations, including one plot twist at the end that's fatally contrived.

SPOILERS COMING. Sir Alan Dearden is a promising young barrister, of whom great things are expected. He is currently prosecuting Samuel Metford, a meek little man charged with pushing his wife off the white cliffs of Dover. Oddly, the trial drags on for many days even though there are no witnesses. Metford's pathetic defence is that he warned his wife to keep away from the cliff's edge, and an unidentified woman passed by as he said this. But the woman can't be located, so Metford has no witness. Sir Alan confides all this to his beautiful wife Lady Helen.

The unknown woman is in fact Lady Helen. Sir Alan has been blackmailed by Lewis, a scoundrel who possesses letters written to the oddly named Diana Roggers ten years before he married Lady Helen. If those letters were to resurface now, the embarrassment would put paid to Sir Alan's career. When Lady Helen passed the Metfords, she was en route to paying Lewis £2,000 for the letters. Now she daren't come forward, lest the information come out. (Amazingly, she won't even tell her husband!) Matters get worse when extremely contrived circumstances make Sir Alan a suspect in a new murder. Lady Helen wants to clear him but she can't. Then, at the end, Sir Alan is cleared by the unlikeliest person in this film, the one who has the most to gain if Sir Alan is *not* cleared.

'The Unguarded Hour' is entertainingly told but is a complete load of cobblers. If Loretta Young weren't so beautiful, I would never have sat through this rubbish. The film boasts some excellent production values, and quite a few of those great supporting actors from Hollywood's golden age. Henry Daniell is especially hissable as the blackmailer. But this is implausible rubbish. I'll rate 'The Unguarded Hour' 3 points out of 10.


This 1936 film is a great film Classic with outstanding veteran actors who made this into a great dramatic story concerning Lady Helen Dudley Dearden, (Loretta Young) who tries to protect her husband from a past relationship with a young woman. Sir Alan Dearden (Franchot Tone) is an outstanding lawyer who is about to be chosen as Attorney General and his wife Lady Helen is being blackmailed by Hugh Lewis (Henry Daniell) with a bunch of love letters that Sir Alan had sent to this woman. The story gets quite involved with a man being accused of killing his wife and also another murder of a woman Sir Alan had an affair with. There is a very tricky ending to this film that you will not be able to figure out until the very ending of this film. Roland Young, (William "Bunny" Jeffers ) gave a great supporting role to this great film classic.


Loretta Young always managed to bring a certain cool quality to her movies and has come to epitomize the feminine beauty and elegance of the 1930s. It's hard to tell if The Unguarded Hour would've turned out quite as well without an actress of her charm to divert the viewer from the plot holes. The story itself is very entertaining and amusing, once you come to accept their motives and not ask questions such as "why on earth doesn't she tell everything to her husband and get it over with?" But of course, a woman of such beauty and elegance (there, I said it again) can't be wrong, can she? And we wouldn't have had a movie to start with.

If you manage to get a hold of this rarely seen gem which hasn't been released on DVD as yet, you're quite sure to spend a very enjoyable time, trying to guess the perpetrator of the villainy and feasting your eyes on the rosy cheeks and elegant gowns of the damsel in distress.


First off, let me say that I'm a tad biased, as I have never failed to enjoy Christopher Walken's film roles. His characters are always quirky but always Walken...in much the same way every character Cary Grant or John Wayne played was always Cary Grant or John Wayne. He has a personality that is difficult to hide behind another persona, but which always adds a little something to it.

This is a suitably creepy film, but is very realistically and believably handled, given the fantastic story matter. The visitors in this movie aren't quite the sadistic neo-vivisectionists of Fire in the Sky, but they are still unsettling. The blue men almost remind one of something out of Star Wars, but the presence of the willowy aliens keep that impression well in the background.

Walken carries the film, especially in his sojourns aboard the aliens' craft. One is never quite sure what is really happening...oft times it is like something out of an early David Lynch movie...lying on the borderline between funny and nightmarish.

The film does make you think about all angles of the situation, especially when you consider the point of views and personalities of the people at the abduction support group that Walken's character goes to, and his reaction to it.

The special effects are excellent...not gaudy, but quite realistic (for lack of a better term).

I've seen the real Whitley Strieber on television and read a few of his novels. Walken is definitely not Strieber, but I think he is the only actor who could've made this movie work.


After reading other users' comments, I concur that this film is not for everyone. I, also, am not a believer in this specific subject matter, but I don't let that interfere with my interpretation of the film. Nevertheless, this film absolutely scared the hell out of me. Walken's character, though often bizarre beyond the point of full understanding, is outstandingly well acted. Some may view this film as a silly alien movie. Others, such as myself, will feel absolute terror for Walken's character. Several scenes in the film have made their way into my head and are most disturbing indeed. Fans of this film will agree that specific visual and audio segments are the stuff of nightmares! Walken fans _must_ see this film, as should any alien buffs or film afficionados.


This movie remains one of Walken's best performances to date. Forget "Deer Hunter", he is one of two things that carry this film. It's him and the aliens, and that's it, but what a great film, anyway. The X-Files, though a good show, never quite reaches the level of freakiness that "Communion" has in moments like those in which Walken confronts the aliens. At one point, he states upon waking up to a suspected abduction that, "I don't want to think about that so, I go back to bed." There are so many classic lines of dialogue between Walken and the aliens that the movie reaches a point where it seems almost like a bizarre, personal delusion--portrait of a madman rather than alien abductions.


You have to watch this movie for the pure enjoyment of witnessing Christopher Walken "do his thing"... The special effects are cheesy at times, and the wife and child are two of the worst characters and actors I've ever seen. Honestly, I thought many of the effects worked and the suspense was skillfully crafted, but the hypnosis scenes were where the movie began to go downhill. Still, hearing Walken describe the abduction and even utter the words "rectal probe" was worth the price of admission. Make a night of it by pairing this movie up with "Brainstorm" another classic Christopher Walken performance. 7 out of 10


I saw this in original release and recently viewed it again with a friend who'd never seen it. What I remembered about the film was obvious in seeing it again. This is the most bizarre performance Christopher Walken has ever given on screen. It's as though he personally finds the story insanely funny (and for many, Streiber's visitors in the night schtick is a joke), and he seems to be winking at the audience and barely restraining himself from rolling his eyes. Whether or not this movie works for you depends almost solely on whether you buy into Streiber's personal alien abduction mythology. I don't. Alien abduction may be an open question, but I see Streiber as an opportunistic huckster. So for me the film is third-rate sci fi. It's a little spooky in the beginning, but as it unfolds you'll understand why Walken seems to be laughing at a private joke all the way through the movie.


I saw this movie when I was a kid. Only two movies have images and scenes that will stay with me forever. One is 'Saving Private Ryan' which I was devastated by just last year in my 20's, an the other is 'Communion'.

Telling people to see this film just doesn't work, it really is something you have to discover yourself. Also seems like one of those films you either 'get' or 'dont'. I've had two types of reactions from friends/people I've told to see this film:

1. What a hokey piece of rubbish, etc...

or

2. Why did you make me watch that? I can't sleep now.

I'm became a complete Walken fan after this movie (my first Walken experience if you will), and I won't reiterate the already spot-on comments. The kid in the film is incredibly amazing and real too, however Lindsay Crouse lets Walken influence her too much (starts doing a Walken at one point). Only failing of the film.

So many classic lines...

Well, look, the thing is, if you're reading this trying to figure out whether or not to hire this video, I have these words of advice. You'll either hate it, or...

I've seen 'Fire in the Sky', I've watched and been a fan of 'The X-Files' since the beginning, I've seen that Roswell movie with Kyle MacLauchlan, and that TV special 'Intruders'... none of them have been able to do what Communion did. I've never been abducted by aliens, and I hope to God I never am, but god damn 'Communion' is the only movie I have ever seen that has absolutely captured the primal fear, freaky mind-bending bizareness, and profoundly life changing aspects of what one of those experiences might possibly be like. Those aliens are the single most evil special effects I've ever seen, with their black eyes. And as you just begin to laugh slightly and think Walken is freaker than them, the mood just -turns- sickeningly... ok, I've said enough.

Watch it alone, with the lights out, very late at night, and it may very well change your life.

My vote for the most underrated film of all time. Definitely one of the most disturbing, and I'll never, ever look at the corner of my cupboard in my bedroom at night the same way again. :)


In 1985, Whitney Striber had a dream which led to a close encounter. It became the subject for his book 'Communion' which became a best-seller. Four years later he gives us this. True story though it may be, it is clearly too personal for Striber to manipulate (even just a little bit) to make it the right shape and form for a movie. Instead it remains too abstract, and subsequently clumsy. But that is only half the problem.

Communion wins my award for biggest miscast in cinema history. Christopher Walken does everything wrong, starting with the way he delivers his dialogue. He is not even remotely engaged in the story, he is emotionally dead. Walken is portraying somebody who went though what must've been the most traumatic experience that a person could have. The only time he comes close to showing signs of trauma is his ability to make himself cry (a little) at the end of one scene.

Next, there is the matter of visual effects. If you were to walk into a room where this was on TV, and up to the part when we meet the 'little blue doctors' and their slightly taller, skinnier red-skinned cousins, you might think you were watching an Ed Wood flick, or something from that decade. Looking at these creatures, one is more likely to think they are cute rather than creepy or surreal. Anything that looks like rubber on strings belongs in a puppet theatre, not in a sci-fi thriller.

I guess the only crew member who did a competent job in their field is Eric Clapton, who wrote a good theme for an otherwise mediocre score. Communion has much potential, but sadly it ends up being one of those films that you are glad when it is over.


-- The Book:

I just read the book last month, and it was a very anticipated read (with me having seen the movie years prior and the book being a best seller and all). And in this case, I wasn't all that thrilled after reading it. Don't get me wrong, it's a great book. Whitley has a clever writing-style. He fights a constant psychological battle, on the one hand coming up with evidence that he really was abducted by aliens, while otherwise trying to refute the experience with other explanations. He also, at times, delves into folklore and mythology. Makes up for an interesting read, but the downside is, that the book becomes very repetitive after a while. Strieber keeps on going over the same events that happened on two nights in such a way that after a while he really isn't adding anything new. Not a new angle, nor a new light on the matter. And at such times, it gets a little harder to sit through his whole story. Nevertheless, it's an interesting read, and great material to compare to the screenplay of the movie (also written by Strieber).

-- The Movie:

The 1989 adaptation is one that grew on me. I just finished watching it for the 3rd time (after quite some years), and I like it better now. The film itself is actually more entertaining than the book, so again, Strieber managed to write a clever adaptation. True, near the end the story gets quite fragmented, and results more in the telling of anecdotes than actually trying to wrap up an already incoherent story (note that I'm not using the word 'inconsistent', because Strieber is very consistent in his way of telling the events, both in the book and the movie). It's fun, though, noticing little details that he left out of the movie. Sometimes Strieber devoted a whole chapter in the book to a certain anecdote, while in the movie it gets reduced to nothing more than one line of dialogue (obviously carrying a lot more weight than you'd at first imagine). Christopher Walken plays Strieber, and he simply owns the film. It's great to see him walk and talk through this whole movie. The special effects are really neat and surreal at times, which fits the atmosphere of the movie. I'd say COMMUNION is really worth a watch. Reading the book gives you a more in-depth look on what happened and might help you to understand how the movie came to be.


Christopher Walken gets here a real opportunity to play "quirky" for all he's worth. He plays real-life author Whitley Strieber (author of novels such as "Wolfen"), who during one Christmas holiday at his cabin in upstate NY, has what he believes to be an alien encounter. However, figuring out the reality of what he saw, or the meaning of it, proves to be no easy feat as well as hard on his family.

"Communion" is a fairly creepy film that does establish a totally mind-blowing atmosphere. Director Philippe Mora, working from a screenplay by Strieber himself, does succeed in creating an air of ambiguity. It's sensitive to the dilemmas of those who claim to have had alien encounters without supporting them 100%. And that is precisely what gives this film its impact. It doesn't go completely in either direction. And yet it offers truly surreal alien encounter scenes that are interesting to watch. Ultimately, though, it's a good portrait of a strange cerebral experience and how it gets interpreted.

Walken is an eccentric gem that allows him plenty of room to use his trademark cadences and delivery. Lindsay Crouse, however, seems rather miscast in the role of the supportive yet frustrated wife, not that she doesn't give it some effort. Frances Sternhagen, Andreas Katsulas are fine in support, although Joel Carlson is too self-consciously "cute" as the Striebers' son. Actors from past Mora films (John Dennis Johnston, Paul Clemens) make cameo appearances.

Playing no small part in the success of the film is the striking Eric Clapton theme.

"Communion" is very deliberately paced. Mora is in no rush to reveal anything and allows the mood created by Strieber's dilemma to play out slowly. This is a gamble, but I think it pays off to a degree by allowing one to sympathize, if not identify with, Strieber.

This should be worth a look for viewers searching for something different.

7/10


An successful novelist Whitley Strieber (Oscar-Winner:Christopher Walken), who finds himself being visited by strange creatures from another world in his cabin at the woods from the state of New York. Is this unexplained phenomenon on his mind ? or the strange visitors are for real ?

Directed by Phillipe Mora (The Howling Part 2 and Part 3, The Beast Within, Mad Dog Morgan) made an effective psychological drama that is occasionally eerie, suspenseful and even darkly humorous. Walken is excellent in the role of the true-life writer. Which Striber claims that the story is true! This independently made film is well acted and keeps your interests for making up for the movie's occasional flaws.

DVD has an good anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer and an fine digitally remastered Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has an fascinating commentary track by the director and President of UFO Publishing on UFO Magazine:William J. Birnes. DVD also includes outtakes with commentary by the director, two theatrical trailers and more. "Communion" is truly an flawed film but director Mora and screenwriter Strieber (Based on his Best Selling Novel) keeps you on the edge of your seat. It's more of a mystery psychological drama than an science fiction film but it does works both ways for the viewers.

It was an box office disappointment, the reviews from critics were mixed but it went on to be an Cult Classic on video. This is an intelligent movie that should not be missed and it's Mora's best picture so far. Strong music score by Eric Clapton (Lethal Weapon Series, Homeboy, Rush) and Allan Zavod. Super 35. (****/*****).


To me Communion was a disappointment. I expected more of a Christopher Walken film, although all great actors have made lesser films. When I saw a clip of the film I thought it would be really scary but only parts of it were. It starts out well but the second time he meets the aliens it just starts to get funny. Ther'e not scary or even believable as abductors. They look like cheap little blue copies of Jabba The Hutt! The ''greys'' in the movie were scary but later on you only get funny looking orange versions of them. I like Christopher Walken as an actor but this is definitely his worst picture. They only thing good about it was the little boys acting he was great and at such a young age. A well deserved award


This is an extraordinary film which portrays the intense experience that victims of 'alien abduction' go through. This is a well documented phenomenon and the descriptions from people who believe they have undergone them have much in common. The subject was even researched by a professor at Harvard, the late Dr. John E. Mack, which ended up putting his career on the line. Dr Mack believed he was near to the truth about what was happening and this film may also be a step in the right direction towards a definitive explanation. Christopher Walken is superb in the role of Whitley Streiber, a rather wacky and annoying New York writer, who encounters alien beings at his country house. The first sight he has of the creature in his bedroom is one of the most intensely frightening scenes ever filmed and is the beginning of the real life nightmare Strieber and his family are then plunged into. Their further experiences are in turn scary, comic and disturbing and the film offers no easy answers as to exactly what this all means. There is however a lot of food for thought and anyone with the slightest interest in the subject of alien abductions should watch it.


Communion is a wonderful film, and one of the scariest movies ever made. In order for some people to cover up their fears, they want to mock this movie, the idea of aliens, and anyone who claims to have had contact with them. Whitley Strieber brings this up in his book, so it doesn't surprise me that some people smirk at this film.

The fact that Christopher Walken is in this movie only increases these immature people's drive to turn every role Walken does as a comedy. I feel bad for Walken. Too many people don't take him seriously anymore. He's one of the greatest actors in the world, yet a lot of fans want to turn every one of his performances as a joke, and make fun of him and/or just not take his work seriously.

Then they wanna point out the "lack of the special effects. Now I personally thought the special effects were great, but compared to a modern day movie on HDTV/blu-ray, of course it's not going to be the same. It was the 80's. You people who are spoiled by CGI need to understand that. It's also worth mentoining that the 80's was also an era where movie makers didn't go and remake everything like so many people are doing today. and there are more to movies then special effects, like good acting, and a great story, and Communion has that, but some people's immature ways of thinking blinds them to that.

People fear what they don't understand, and that fear soon grows to hate, and some people express their hate differently. Some people just wanna smirk, and make bad jokes, and mock what they fear.

Aliens are the most realistic "monsters" in the horror world, and everyone knows that. Any one of us could be a victim to alien abduction. That is where the discomfort of it all comes in, and for anyone to think we humans are the only living creatures in this giant universe is just plan egotistic.

I have seen a lot of movies in my life. Way too many in fact, but out of the hundred's and hundred's of films I've seen, I must say that Communion is truly the scariest motion picture that my eyes have watched. It scared me as a child, it scared me as a teenager and it scares me as man. I have never seen a movie that makes me feel more uneasy.

I first remember when I was a little kid being in Mann's video store in Bridge City, Texas and seeing the VHS cover of Communion and seeing the alien face really scared me.

Communion is the only horror film to ever make me revert back to being a child. I tried to watch it when I was 24, and as I was watching a very scary scene, my body began to experience the "fight or flight" system. My feet felt weird, my heart was pumping, I got goosebumps and I was sweating. No movie has EVER made me experience that and I don't think any other movie ever will. Even watching it during the day time, it scared me just as much. It scared me so much that I actually almost screamed in one part but gasped instead, and twice I had to turn it off and stop watching it because it scared me that much.

The reason why it scares me is because since early childhood I've suspected that I may be a victim to alien abduction. I know that sounds crazy and it's most likely not true (at least I have to tell myself it's not in order to sleep at night) but there's always going to be a part of me that will always be scared of aliens.

Communion is the only movie that takes me right into the film. I watch so many different scenes in this movie and I think...."I've been there." I know what it's like to wake up late at night and wonder if I'm alone in my room. I decided not to even finish it back then because it's way too intense.

Perhaps one day I'll watch the movie again. I'm right in the middle of reading the book now for the first time, and it's pretty scary too.

If you have a fear of aliens like I do and you have never seen Communion but thought about watching it....I highly recommend you avoid it. It WILL scare you.


I have read the book and seen the movie and wasn't disappointed by either. I am a Strieber fan so appreciated what risks he took to write this autobiographical novel. It's true the book does have a different feel to the movie. This is mostly due, I believe to, the director Philippe Mora and Christopher Walken's quirky yet memorable acting presence.

This film is very eerie, frightening, surreal and disturbing. It's not a feel-good movie but is definitely thought-provoking, just like the novel.

This is definitely one of Walken's best movies. I was impressed! Also Joel Carlson does a great job as Strieber's son, Andrew. The scenes involving his son and the other dream sequences are perhaps the most disturbing.

I felt empathy for Strieber in Walken's very convincing performance. I felt drawn to the character and his family.

I find myself watching this film every few years and as I do it is more rewarding each time. There are some very memorable lines in this movie that will stay with you long afterwards.

If you like thought-provoking, eerie, movies involving alien abduction then this may be well worth your while.


I rented this one again after having remembered enjoying it when I was a kid. Man... I don't know what I was thinking back then. Although there are some very interesting concepts discussed in this film (and moreso in the book), this is just an example of a good idea poorly executed. Horrible special effects (the blue creatures are especially laughable) are one of the films biggest flaws, but the absolute biggest flaw of them all is Walken's portrayal of Streiber. I almost couldn't watch the movie because his character was so annoying and, as another poster mention, goofy. Someone smack that stupid hat off his head, please. Maybe it was just the writing, but I actually found most of the performances, Walken's included, pretty bad... Again, I think this is probably just do to really poorly written dialogue. It'd be nice to see someone redo this one.