"Ace High" (1968) qualifies as one of the better hybrid action/comedy spaghetti westerns that followed in the wake of Sergio Leone's trend-setting bounty hunter movie "A Fistful of Dollars." Variously titled overseas as either "Revenge In El Paso" or "Four Gunmen of Ave Maria," this handsomely-produced, elaborately-staged, sun-drenched, shoot'em up shares something in common with the Lee Van Cleef oater "Death Rides A Horse" (1968) in that our lice-ridden hero (EIi Wallach) got double-crossed by his outlaw buddies and left behind for the law to catch while they made good their escape. A two-bit bandit of Greek heritage, Cacopoulos winds up serving fifteen years in prison. Once he gets out of prison, he is framed by crooked banker Harold ("Trinity" alumnus Steffen Zacharias in a dramatic role) for a murder that he didn't commit, and then sentenced to hang by the neck. Although this Giuseppe Colizzi written & directed effort contains about as many twists and turns as a diamond-back rattlesnake, the scripting is often haphazard but nevertheless entertaining. Our heroes participate briefly in the Mexican revolution, a favorite theme of late 1960s and early 1970s spaghetti westerns, which hikes the body count substantially. Italian western buffs who aren't familiar with this well choreographed dustraiser need to saddle up and watch the bare bones Paramount DVD with enhanced widescreen to see what other less well-known helmers were doing with the genre while Leone rode herd over sagebrushers.

For the record, blue-eyed Terence Hill plays Cat Stevens (like the folk singer but no relation to him) and Bud Spencer co-stars as Hutch, his beefy, barrel-chested sidekick who shuns a Stetson. They are an arresting pair to watch in their sweaty, greasy, western outfits, on horseback in the blinding sun prancing around mainly on the plains of Almeria, Andalucia, Spain, where veteran cinematographer Marcello ("Assignment Outer Space" & "The Stranger Returns") Masciocchi lensed this sprawling western in widescreen splendor. A clue to its filming location is the lopsided anvil-shaped mountain in the background that dominates the long scenes not only in "Ace High" but also "For A Few Dollars More" and "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly" the way that the Paramount logo mountain stood out against the studio sets in the old "Bonanza" TV series. Another dead giveaway that this is a foreign western is the perfectly synchronized but too cool dubbing of Hill and Spencer. Their perfectly modulated dialogue foreshadows the dubbing on anime adventures of the 1990s. Some of the dialogue sounds like it was translated into the English by foreigners, because nobody would talk that way, but that's what makes Italian movies of any genre so much fun.

Actually, "Ace High" is the second entry in the only cinematic trilogy that Hill and Spencer starred in. Remember, they only did two "Trinity" movies together. "Ace High" picks up where Colizzi's "God Forgives, But I Don't" wrapped up with the explosive death of bandit Bill San Antonio (American expatriate Frank Wolff of "A Stranger In Town"). Our heroes trundle into town with a wagon load of gold, $300-thousand, and try to collect the bounty on Bill, though all they have of him is his boots and hat. When they cannot convince the law as to the authenticity of their claim, they traipse over to Harold's Bank and blackmail him into giving them an undisclosed fortune that Hutch at least plans to retire on and run a small ranch. Seems that the late Bill San Antonio and Harold were in co-hoots in stealing from the bank. Spaghetti westerns always had more plot than they needed. One of the neat touches that occur through "Ace High" is little bits and pieces like the dusty boot prints that Cat and Hutch leave when they saunter across Harold's blood red carpet in this upstairs office. Meanwhile, Harold springs Cacopoulos and hopes that he will kill Cat and Hutch. Caco does steal their newly acquired fortune, but not before he deals with the slippery as a rattlesnake Harold, one of the three men who set him afoot after a bank robbery. Anyway, Cat and Hutch chase Caco across the parched southwest and run across a traveling circus sideshow Thomas (Brock Peters) who performs high-wire (in this caserope) acts. Eventually, all team up to rob a casinothink a lean, mean, "Ocean's Eleven" with only one casino. The music is pure spaghetti. "Ace High" is tops!


Character actor Eli Wallach is the real treat here as he carries his Tuco role from "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" over to "Ace High." This is a pre-Trinity pairing of Spencer, Hill and most of the fun and hilarity is carried on the able shoulders of Eli Wallach, who is more than up for the assignment. Wallach steals every scene he's in and this only means total enjoyment for the viewer. A must see for all western fans!


I have to say this is in the top 5 best movies with both Terence Hill and Bud Spencer! I don't want to tell you the plot. ( read other reviews for that ) But it's very interesting. It may be 2 hours long, but if you see it in a movie store or a video rental, get it! One bad thing about this movie is Eli Wallach. I wish he didn't act in this one!!!! Every time it shows him, this movie seems to get boring. ( Thank god they don't show much of him in this movie ! )

Aces High get a 7/10.


fun, fun, fun; well made in every detail; fantastic score, beautiful photography, story with twists, lots of action, fun actors - having fun doing the movie and being fun to watch, this western comedy is a delight. By the way; I'm NOT exaggerating. One of the Hill/Spencer highlights.


giuseppe colizzi was a fine underrated director dead too early that invented the characters of Spencer-Hill. Differently from E.B.Clucher, Hill is more Eastwood-way then Trinità but the substance is the same. Colizzi was a well competent director, more american then italian, with strong sense of spectacule and correct with the particulars. In Italy is very underrated, I don't know why. "Ace high" is, probably, his best western. It's also hard to see his movies in tv. You can only see every summertime "Arrivano Joe e Margherito", but this is not his best. I hope one day critics rediscover the art of this modest, hard worker artigian of the screen.


One can see the influence of Sergio Leone writ large all over this large-scale Spaghetti Western (and not just in the casting of Eli Wallach from THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY [1966]) – but Colizzi doesn’t in any way show a comparable talent! The director also receives sole writing credit, which rather explains the film’s relentless self-indulgence – padding a wafer-thin plot with lame attempts at characterization and dreary passages of local color!

The film happens to be the second teaming of popular Italian brawling duo Terence Hill and Bud Spencer (the first – GOD FORGIVES…I DON’T [1967] – was actually a prequel to this!) but Hill’s atypical glum countenance robs the film of some much-needed charisma. Incidentally, neither title – American (which places an emphasis on the gambling subplot which comes into play only during the last third) or original, which roughly translates to FOUR GUNMEN OF AVE MARIA – is really satisfactory…but, then, neither is the film itself: one isn’t bothered by the sluggish pacing and extreme length of Leone’s Spaghetti Westerns, but that certainly can’t be said here! Mind you, being a vintage outing, it’s moderately watchable and, at least, the print (via the Paramount DVD – how they suddenly felt the urge to release this I’ll never know!) was very nice…in contrast to its follow-up, BOOT HILL (1969), which I recently viewed by way of a horridly panned-and-scanned Public Domain edition.

Anyway, the plot involves “lice-infected jailbird” Wallach being sprung from jail by a corrupt banker to retrieve a sum of money ‘stolen’ from him by Hill and Spencer; there follows an endless series of chases and double-crosses – with occasional interjections from black tightrope-walker Brock Peters and, it goes without saying, numerous stops for the duo’s trademark brawling antics. Eventually, the four join forces to clean up the gambling-house owned by Wallach’s long-time enemy (and former partner) Kevin McCarthy: this is an elaborate and mildly suspenseful sequence – climaxed by a shoot-out between the gang and McCarthy and his (anonymous-looking) henchmen on either side of the gambling table during a particularly busy night. The soundtrack is, once again, the handiwork of Carlo Rustichelli – but, while serving its purpose, isn’t especially remarkable within the impressive pantheon of Spaghetti Western scores…


I am a huge fan of the three main stars of this movie - Wallach, Spencer & Hill - so it is with sadness that I have to report negatively on it. Even as a sort of benign curiosity, it fails to work for me. This is a very poor imitation of spaghetti westerns such as 'The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly', and Wallach tries hard - but ultimately fails - to successfully re-create a Tuco-style character here. Hill is a good-looking, charismatic chap, but he's no Clint Eastwood. He and Spencer are magnificent together in more honest, comic capers like 'Watch Out, We're Mad' but this movie tries to be something it's not - stylish.

I guess it proves how brilliant Sergio Leone and Ennio Morricone are together, and how futile it is to attempt to copy their works. If nothing else it proves the old adage - stick to what you're good at.


Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer (2003) has to be Nick Broomfield's best film to date. Aided by the phenomenal camera work of Peter Watkins' protégé Joan Churchill, the two film makers capture the final days of convicted murder (and madwoman) Aileen Wuronos. Nick Broomfield put his heart into this project. He tries to delve deeper into the shattered and hateful psyche of Aileen (whom he has interviewed in the past) and continues to search for answers. I liked this documentary better than his previous one with Aileen. The photography and depth is so much better. Will Mr. Broomfield and Ms. Churchill find the answers that they're looking for? How will Aileen react to them as they try to interview her again? Why does the Christian right wanted this woman to die so bad? To find out you'll have to watch Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer.

A great film from Nick Broomfield. I just enjoy his film making. He should do more documentaries and have the ones he's already made released in the United States. Broomfield and Churchill make an awesome team! I have to highly recommend this movie. Even if you don't like documentaries you'll enjoy this one!


This is a documentary dealing with the appeal of Aileen Wuornos murder convictions . Don't worry I have no idea who she was either and it's only when I'm told that Charlize Theron played her in MONSTER that I discovered who she was . Try asking someone who Aileen Wuornos was and they'll give a similar blank response , and it's only with the words " Charlize Theron - Monster " that their memory will be jogged . Somewhat sad that an acting performance is better known than a series of real life crimes

Nick Broomfield's documentary is black comedy of the highest order , he's worth a myriad of Michael Moores' and lets the facts speak for themselves . Wuornos employed " Dr Legal " at her original trial , a man , or rather spaced out hippy , with no legal experience and no office who attended court after smoking as many as seven joints . I can respect Dr Legal as a toker but how on Earth was someone like that able to defend someone on multiple murder charges ? We're later shown someone claiming being gay is a very modern invention :

" Where were the gays years ago ? "

" In the closet ? "

" No there weren't any gays years ago , they didn't exist back then . Were there any gays when you were at school ? "

" I went to a British public school . We invented it along with the Greeks "

Broomfield is very much anti death penalty and he's also very much against the cheque book circus that surrounded the case , but perhaps the beauty of this documentary is that despite being biased Broomfield doesn't feel the need to twist facts into lies or treat the audience as retarded schoolchildren , if you agree with the death penalty this documentary won't change your mind but does raise serious questions about the American legal system


I really enjoyed this docu - was thought provoking and gut wrenchingly sad. I haven't seen Monster but I did watch Nick's original, so go out and watch that first, then sit back and be shocked, horrified, touched etc.. at this final chapter in the life of someone who did not deserve the life she had.

I hope Jeb Bush watches this, I don't know how he can sleep at night - the karma police are going to catch you up.

What a tragic tale.


I am sitting listening to Aileen's song she wanted played at her wake (Natalie Merchant - Carnival). and i feel like weeping, here is the story about a woman who has been failed by everybody she has come in to contact with. Raped, Abused and left to fend for herself since 13 years old the film shows the harrowing story of a woman left with nothing but her own salvation. This is one of those films that make you question your own humanity. The last interview Aileen gave is heartbreaking, Going from acceptance to the fate she finds herself in, Happy even, To be getting it over with, To exploding with anger at everybody who made money from her story wile leaving her with an unfair trail an unfair investigation (movie rights!!). this woman is in no fit state to be executed. Life in jail, Yes, But execution??? My god what have we become. Killer? Victim? I know my opinion. Make yours.


"Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer (2003)" is a documentary about the life of the notorious Florida serial killer, Aileen Wornous, who inspired the much lauded film "Monster". Not to be confused with "Aileen Wornous: The Selling of a Serial Killer (1992)", also by Nick Broomfield, this film provides background on Wornous who was selling sex for cigarettes as a 9 year old child in Michigan and follows her life from criminal trials to death row up to her execution (which was not shown). The film paints a portrait of a troubled woman who descends into paranoid schizophrenia as the end nears all the while maintaining the unexpectedly undaunted, matter-of-fact demeanor of one very much reconciled to her fate in spite of being trapped in a system with no recompense for abuse in childhood nor insanity in adulthood who well may have been failed by the criminal justice system as well. A worthwhile watch for those interested in the Wornous story, especially as a follow-up to "Monster". (B)


Nick Broomfield's documentary is a tragedy. It is an indication of how a person's life can destroy them psychologically and make them into a 'monster.'

The documentary leaves you with many questions. Was Wuornos the child of incest? Why did everyone look the other way when Wuornos was kicked out of home? She was forced to live in the woods and had to sleep in the snow when winter came! How is it possible that a community could let a 13 year old girl live in the woods and the snow? The evidence of this is readily apparent when her friend Dawn shows Broomfield around the small Florida settlement of where she grew up. Wuornos also shows her hands to Broomfield and they have the distinct markings of someone who has certainly slept in the rough.

Growing up in her small Florida community, what the documentary finds is that Wuornos was sexually exploited by all of the males around her. Even her brother was having sex with her! She was not protected. It also states that she had the 'reputation' of the town tramp and as a result was ostracised and hated by the small community, especially by other girls. Eventually she got pregnant and after the baby was given up for adoption she was kicked out by her grandfather.

What is most interesting is that another individual ended up living in the woods with her for a while. The person was a homosexual man who liked to cross dress. This is interesting because of what it implies. It implies that the community values a high degree of conformity. The different or the ones who do not behave are rejected from the town. The degree of cruelty inherent in this kind of community social ostracism is astounding!

The film does show that Wuornos is indeed a monster. At least twice in this film she rants and raves. One minute she is nice and calm. The next...the explosion comes! The Aileen that pulled the trigger becomes plainly visible. The angers pours out of her like lava from a volcano. It spews forth! The anger is so extreme it is obviously psychotic. Yet Aileens emotions are fleeting and often exaggerated. Illustrating the borderline personality disorder that she had been diagnosed with.

The most disturbing part of the film is when Aileen is going after the death penalty as a GOAL. She even goes as far as trying to sabotage her own defence. After TWELVE years on death row she has lost her mind from the constant stress. THREE psychiatrists find her competent enough to vouch for her sanity.

This becomes an absolute joke in her last interview with Broomfield. Aileen rants and raves about cops who she thinks let her kill these men so they could make her a serial killer. That way they would be able to sell her story. She claims that the government is controlling her mind through radio waves. Aileen also states that the guards are trying to poison her and she must wash her food. She claims that the whole time she was murdering her victims, that she was also being followed by unmarked helicopters. Police supposedly dropped from these choppers to follow her. So basically Aileen had completely lost her mind and was delusional!

Anyone with a vague notion of mental illness knows that stress is a major factor in causing schizophrenia or any mental disorder. The documentary shows that Aileen had a bad birth and this possibly caused some physical brain damage. Add childhood trauma and then place more intense stress on the individual. I believe that the incredible stress of death row was enough to throw Aileen into paranoid schizophrenia.

Because of the cloudy circumstances of the case. Aileen could have spent the rest of her life on death row. She wanted release by death. Who could blame her? It becomes quite clear that some of the killings were self defence and others were just to obtain money. This was to keep her lover Tyra. Remember border-lines are terrified of being alone and will do anything to keep their lovers. Wuornos being an extreme case was willing to kill.

Aileen was a very sick woman. A woman who should have been institutionalized not executed. Shame on Jeb Bush and his cronies! The tragedy of Aileen Wuornos is also the tragedy of western society. How long must child abuse and neglect go on before people start to realize that all of societies worst monsters arise from the aforementioned factors? Where were the social services that could have helped Aileen? That might have led her to a better life. I am a true crime fan and a grad student in psychology. I have read about many killers. It always comes back to the same factors with a depressing regularity, mental retardation, childhood trauma and paranoid thinking.

The system failed Aileen. The defining moment of this film is when after a fit of ranting, Aileen gives the camera the finger. Broomfield tells her he is sorry. We the audience also cannot help but feel pity. We know that that if this woman had not suffered such brutal mistreatment and betrayal. If someone had actually given a damn about her, things might have been different. This documentary shows that United States has a long way to go before it is a humane civilised society.

Indeed, as Dostoevsky points out, the degree of civilisation in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.


Aileen Wuornos grew up in a financially, and emotionally, deprived family. She later killed seven men in cold blood (she may have been defending herself from attack in some cases, but that remains unclear). She showed little remorse thereafter. She was intelligent, articulate, and although towards the end of her spell on death row appeared wildly deluded, was arguably not insane: her view of the world may have been wrong, but it did make sense. The story of her final year, told in this film by Nick Broomfield (who had made another film earlier during her journey through the U.S. legal system), makes highly disturbing viewing. Wuornos does not come across as a "monster" (the name of a subsequent fictionalised account of her case) but as very human; and yet she seems incapable of comprehending the significance of death, even her own at the hands of the state. The system treated her badly, and I personally oppose the death penalty in all cases; and yet it's hard to imagine how anyone in her position could generate less sympathy than Wuornos does. In some respects, 'Aileen' is a ghoulish film, peeping through the window of a house of pure horror.

Broomfield's earlier film centred on the grotesque way almost everyone involved in the case tried to sell their story to the media. But Broomfield himself is part of that media, and notwithstanding the fact that he gained Wuornos' trust, this film seems almost out of it's depth. Broomfield's style, first practised on South African white supremacist Eugene Terreblanche, is based on turning up, turning on the camera and letting people damn themselves. In his film of Terreblanche, the tactic worked, brilliantly deflating alarmist rumours of an Afrikaaner coup in it's portrait of it's pathetic subject. But in 'Aileen', it's unclear who Broomfield is trying to damn, or whether anyone is well served by the putting of the story on camera. In one of the most chilling moments, we see the awful television coverage of Wuornos' execution (sample sound-bite: "Date with Death"), but at one remove, through Broomfield's own lens. Does this make the film an expose, or merely an exploitation of (and contributor to) our collective and irrational fear of that tiny proportion of humanity who kill for apparently no reason? It might do us more value to look at the (socially licensed) serial killers on both sides of the war in Iraq. Instead we play "watch the monster". At least 'Aileen' makes you think. But don't expect to understand.


In my 1001 movies you must see before you die book, this documentary was actually recommended. Not to mention that when I saw the movie Monster, that won Charlize Theron her Oscar, I was more interested in learning about Aileen Wuornos, one of the country's first female serial killers. My mom and I have been watching this show called Most Evil or something like that and Aileen gets mentioned quite a bit, she's up there with most male serial killers on how she thought and acted. So I rented this movie curious on her interviews and what she was like before her execution, man, this woman was disturbed, very badly.

The only problem I have with this documentary is that it seemed like Nick was a hypocrite saying how everyone was trying to make money off of her, but he did just that by making this documentary. Not to mention that I don't like the fact that he tried to make her sympathetic, I'm sorry, just she did still kill these men. There was only proof that the first killing was a possible self defense, but the rest were just out of blind robbery. I know there are a lot of sick people out there, I don't think she did it for pleasure, but still acting upon what she did was just wrong.

Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer is a good documentary, don't get me wrong, this was still incredible and I'm glad that he was able to get these interviews with Aileen. I couldn't believe her last interview, it seemed like she had lost her mind. The only thing that made me feel sorry for her is how long she had to wait for death row, it's like 12 years of torture, but I'm tossed up on the decision of death row. It's a tough subject. But this was a good documentary on her life and what might have led Aileen to act the way she acted. Aileen killed 7 men, lived as a man hating lesbian, a hitch hiking hooker; did society make her this way or did she just not see the light? Well, check out this documentary if you wanna find out for yourself.

9/10


to see films like this. When the media dehumanizes a person for profit, and thanks to Nick Broomfield, we see the other side. A 13 year old girl raped and impregnated by her grandfather, who slept in the freezing Michigan forest when her family kicked her out of their house.

Shame on Diane, Aileen's mother, who sits and states that Aileen loved living as a homeless person. The denial in this abusive family is rampant. I was actually angry and upset by this film.

Actions have consequences. Abuse starts at home, and this entire situation escalated to the point it did because an abused woman finally lost her grip on life, she had no help, no means of support, and the state of Florida was only too pleased to step in and garner media attention during an election year.

Capital punishment does not provide a deterrent (this is a scientific fact) but it does prove man's inhumanity. Thank you Mr. Broomfield for this upsetting documentary. 10/10.


I saw monster last year, and tonight I just saw this documentary. Wow. There is so much more to this woman. Charlize Theron did a good job portraying Aileen, for a glamorous Hollywood actress of flawless beauty--of course it took pounds of added weight and makeup. But the real Aileen isn't as grotesque as Charlize looks in the movie--really. There is a certain charm about the real life woman that I saw in this doc. And a lot more anger.

In this doc, we see the woman laugh and joke, she is quite playful at times. But then you look at her eyes change when she talks about her life and you can the whites and it is frightening. And sad. And raw, emotionally powerful. The real life woman she loved betrayed her. And another thing, Charlize has a deep voice, while the real Aileen has a high pitched shrilly voice. The real Aileen seems a lot crazier, a lot angrier. Like that girl in Freeway, a movie I just saw last night. Especially in the scene where she gets picked up and robs the john, and she says, "Cause I'm pissd off and the world owes me." Definitely the same kind of crazed anger and hate. Raw. That's all I have to say.


After watching this movie, one can only wonder how Hollywood had the gall to make the "Monster" movie. It's clear from this - and Nick's previous docu on Aileen - that Hollywood's only concern was to make money out of Aileen's misery. Negotiating with the police officials involved in the case and with her former lover for the inside story before judgment had even been passed. Shame on Hollywood. Shame on law enforcement. And shame on her ex. A sickening and a sad reflection on society in general.

Aileen was mad. Mad as a hatter if her performance in this docu is to be believed - and I have no reason to doubt its authenticity. Clearly, she should have been locked up - not murdered. And if life imprisonment actually meant "life" then the pro-capital punishment lobby would not have a leg to stand on. But it doesn't. And so they do.

There were times when Aileen came across as likable. Genuinely likable. And one could fully understand why the film maker felt a rapport with his subject. When she was lucid she made sense. She knew she had been stitched up by the media. The validity of her argument must be obvious to anyone with a brain.

Not everyone who is abused becomes a serial killer. In fact virtually NOBODY who is does. Contributing factor, Yes. Justification, No. Indeed, there is no justification in the final analysis. She killed people.

No justification for "Monster" either. I for one will NOT be watching it.


This documentary was the stupid most disturbing thing I have ever seen in my life. Nick Broomfield is totally out of his mind when he tries to fight for Aileen. There is no point to it, she was an evil person who would kill again, so she's better off dead.

Dawn Botkins is just as much insane as Aileen is. She wants to be loyal to a vicious serial killer. I'm glad Aileen got exactly what she deserved. I give this movie no stars at all. It is just absolutely stupid.

Hey one question too, Whatever happened to Tyria Moore?

She did the right thing by helping the prosecution sent Aileen to the lethal injection table.


How many viewers of "I Capture the Castle" have a legal background and understand the humor underlying the family name of the central characters, "Mortmain?" Literally, "mortmain" means "Dead Hand" and in law it denotes the attempt of a person to control his property postmortem. The humor here is that the paterfamilias, James Mortmain (well played by Bill Nighy) is a dried up author who hasn't penned a word since a successful novel of twelve years past. He claims to be working on a new book, an assertion that may be face-saving but is of dubious credibility. James has a past that the family neither wishes to remember nor can face seeing its reappearance (can't reveal what that is, can I?).

When still at the top of his game Mortmain and his then wife (who later dies, no foul play here) and his two little girls stumbled upon a rodent infested castle which he leased.

Jump quite a bit ahead to a now remarried Mortmain who lives in the still unrestored castle with his new, young, artist wife, Topaz (the beautiful, funny and accomplished Tara Fitzgerald) and his two teenage daughters, an appropriately mischievous little son and a sort of retainer in farm clothes, young Stephen.

The family is now, as the English say, "on their uppers."

Rose (Rose Byrne) is a gorgeous redhead solely obsessed with marrying out of the castle into the squirearchy or at least the solvent. Younger sister Cassandra (Ronola Garai) is engagingly wise, funny and bewildered at the changes that overtake her family when two young Americans succeed to the ownership of a manor that encompasses the castle (for which rent is long overdue). The sisters' close, interdependent relationship is warmly portrayed.

So Rose pursues one of the Americans, Cassandra deals with first love, spurning one suitor while secretly pining for another. An interweaved subplot has Topaz and then Cassandra desperately acting as James's muse, seeking to ignite what may well be the drenched sparks of a one-novel author.

As would be expected of a drama set in England in the 1930s before the hideousness of war returned are the inevitable class clashes, both economic and trans-Atlantic. What would a film like this be without a formal dining room scene replete with persiflage and the ominous threat of words said that can not be retracted?

"I Capture the Castle" has a strong cast but Cassandra is the centerpiece as she shows developing resolve and growth. Her appeal is irresistible. She's the younger sister many have fantasized but few have had. Ms. Garai is marvelously believable.

Yes, the film is in the Merchant/Ivory and Masterpiece Theatre vein but what's wrong with that? I liked most of the characters and rooted for calm but troubled Cassandra and frenetic but basically good Rose.

7/10.


The rights to this film were rescued from Disney. I dread to think what Disney would have done with the book. Thank goodness they never tried it!

This book was one of my favourites, so I went to see the film in fear and trepidation. I needn't have worried. It is a beautiful film in its own right. Nothing was overstated. The emotions and nuances were captured perfectly by some wonderful performances, without the need to spell everything out in black and white.

Please see this film. I haven't enjoyed anything so much in ages.


I read Dodie Smith's 'I Capture The Castle' about three years ago and found it a charming and engrossing read. I looked forward to the film and have just watched on the BBC. I was pleasantly surprised with the film because I thought that it would put people off the book but the casting was very good for all of the characters.

The main problem was the fact that with the book, it is written as a diary with Cassandra's thoughts about everything but in the film, the viewer just got a brief comment about the several situations. Despite this, the film was sweet and the actress playing Cassandra is perfect. Not exactly how I imagined it but films hardly ever beat the books. I give it 7.5/10


I CAPTURE THE CASTLE, despite its protagonist being a young 17-year old girl, offers a universal theme: love is beautiful and great, and it can also hurt. Everyone who has ever been a teen knows what the lead is going through -- unable to distinguish between love and lust, or even how the opposite sex feels about you. It's a magical time in a person's life, but it's also extremely frightening and confusing. So wander through the mine fields of love with care, but also know that the hurt can't possibly last, and will soon enough be replaced by another love.

7 out of 10

(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review of the movie)


This film is just begging for the tag 'Charmingly eccentric 30s romantic drama', complete as it is with Empire line dresses, stunning countryside locations and a whimsical, bickering family. However it's the performance of the divine Romola Garai, as the middle child Cassandra, that really makes this film work. Bereft of makeup and hair shorn to an unflattering bob, constantly scribbling in her diary, she is the embodiment of the intellectual teen; her capacity for articulating cascading emotions seeing her forming a passionate bond with the written word. But her ongoing contemplation of her madcap family is born of concern rather than self-obsession. In the absence of their mother, Cassandara has begun to shoulder some of the responsibility for her brother, precocious and emotionally catatonic father. Her burdens are increased rather than lessened with the arrival of a pair of rich Americans, and the romance that ensues. The way Garai indicates Charlotte's confused emotions - torn between different impulses that propel her towards being a daughter, a sister and a lover - is remarkable. While Garai occupies the center of the film, some of the other players shine in their roles, especially the always entertaining (and perpetually unclothed, yes, she's naked again here!) Tara Fitzgerald and the lovely Rose Byrne as Cassandra's elder sister Rose. The men fare less well. Bill Nighy is miscast as the reclusive writer father, and Henry Cavill as Casandara's would-be beau Stephen is leaden. The other failing of the film - which is really more of a backhanded compliment - is that I found myself wanting to know more about the family and see more of their infighting. The plot errs towards the romantic rather than the comic (OK, fair enough, that's what it sets out to do) but I found the end result a little disappointing. I haven't read Dodie Smith's novel so don't know whether the slightly muted tone is due to allegience to the original story. Overall though, "I capture the castle" is sweetly and undemandingly entertaining, and Romola Garai's vulnerability is intoxicating.


In the picturesque 1930's English countryside "I Capture the Castle" tells the story of an eccentric family in a decrepit, murky and leaky old castle that is now a shadow of its former majestic self, as is the father of the family. Their financial and romantic struggles are sewn together by an apt narrative by its lead character Cassandra (Romola Garai) who is the youngest daughter in the family.

The film is adapted from the same-titled cultish novel by Dodie Smith and it is glaringly apparent that the latter is interwoven with classic Jane Austen elements: class struggles, layered characters, English landscapes  and one heck of a high-spirited and likable heroine, Lizze Bennet-style.

Yes, the film wholly belongs to Romolai Garai who portrays this heroine with remarkable sweetness, honesty and selflessness. Although there is a wealth of intrinsically 'good' characters to be found in the story, Cassandra is unmistakably the most likable one and indeed she propels the film with her warm, caring charisma. It is a damn shame the unspeakably talented Romola was not showered with awards for her unrivalled performance. Billy Nighy also chips in as the father of the family  a failed writer who suffers from chronic writer's block and is moody and self-indulgent because of it. Yet he moves away from the Nighy-like acting of "charming prat" here and instead hands in a bruised, broken and tragic performance.

The conflict emerges with the blossoming of Rose (Rose Byrne), the oldest sister. She is the official family beauty and selfish on the surface, desperate to marry so she will get away from the miserable old leaky castle and escape into wealth. In a time of social climbers, Rose is a mountaineer. So naturally when one night two rich and eligible American bachelors (and brothers) set foot in the castle, she takes her chance. Cassandra forever takes a backseat to her older sister, but remains kind and happy for her nonetheless.

When Rose starts climbing the social latter, the financial constraints of the family are eased, but is she truly willing to marry only for money? 'I Capture the Castle' explores this question through the perspective of Cassandra as she writes her 147 pages of musings. It often offers delicate and classy humour in the juxtapositions of the seedy, drafty castle life with the glossy upper-class dinners at the American brothers' estates and indeed the whole film is peppered with light-hearted comedic situations and crafted with humorous, charming strokes. Yet it needs to be said that were it not for Romola Garai as the spirited tomboy Cassandra, the castle would have fallen apart  literally and figuratively.

There is that unmistakable romantic angle to every element of the story  never chick-flicky but always love-oriented  that renders I Capture the Castle a pleasant Austen-diversion. Hard-boiled attention-deficit action-viewers, you have been warned.

8 out of 10


I was very disappointed in this movie. Hearing the DVD commentary by the director, producer, and screenwriter explained why it was so bad but annoyed me because they didn't seem to know the book as well as anyone adapting a book into a movie should. It is understandable that the director and producer were much better acquainted with the screenplay than with its source, but the screenwriter has no excuse. She frequently said that adapting a popular book is difficult because fans of the book are so devoted to the text that they are upset because their own favorite episodes are left out. I enjoyed the book but am not that devoted a fan, and though I was sorry to see characters and scenes I liked left out, I know it would be impossible to make a movie that retained everything in a full-length novel. But to take the title, characters, and some of the events of a book, but change significant motivations, events, or characters beyond recognition is inexcusable. It was especially annoying when the screenwriter claimed scenes were true to the book when they weren't. The worst was when she made a big deal about not changing the ending, saying that Dodie Smith (the author) had been offered half a million dollars by book-of-the-month club to change it and she (the screenwriter) felt that if Smith resisted that much money it was important the ending stay the same. And she changed it! She changed it in a different way but the change was just as bad, arguably worse. She also changed some scenes in a way that made them not only contrary to fiction, but also to the real era in which the events of the movie are supposed to take place. Many movies do this, but I wish they wouldn't. On the positive side, the scenery was beautiful (though wrong for the supposed setting) and the acting was good for the most part. It was too bad that the story was changed enough that Neil and Simon behaved bizarrely and inexplicably. Neil especially was a strange caricature of an American, but given what he had to work with, I don't think it was the actor's fault. I'm sure I would have liked this movie slightly more if I had not read the book, but I still wouldn't recommend it to anyone. The screenwriter's plot just doesn't make sense. Maybe no screenplay could have adequately conveyed the character's motivations and the plot only makes sense in book form, but this screenwriter's attempt is truly terrible.


It generally goes without saying that a film adaptation is never going to be as good as the novel on which it is based, but I can't think of another novel-into-film that missed the mark so completely as this one. The book is insightful and

touching but also very funny, with some really wonderful, original language.

It's clever and poignant and has one of the most delightful narrators out there. The movie, on the other hand, gets so bogged down with sentimentality that it just drags along, devoid of energy. There are some beautiful locations and the cast looks good and seems capable enough, but it's been directed as a heavy drama

with deep dark pain at its core-- instead of a romantic coming-of-age story that mixes comedy, drama and quirky charm in equal measure. Everyone in the

movie just seems so miserable, even in scenes where they're supposed to be

happy. The voice-over narration is one of the biggest problems. In the book the story is told through the journal entries of 17-year-old Cassandra Mortmain, a very bright aspiring writer, and her voice has an intensity, precociousness and excitement that just hurls the reader blissfully along; but in the movie

Cassandra's voice-over narration lacks every single one of these qualities and instead has a solemn, mournful tone. This is probably more the director's fault than the actress's, although some blame should also go to the screenwriter, who has the unfortunate habit of substituting her own annoyingly mediocre narration and dialogue in place of the often brilliant language that's readily available in Dodie Smith's novel. The writer also seems to have felt the need to invent more than one scene completely out of nowhere; one huge scene in particular

between Cassandra and her father is not only NOT in the book, but it contradicts everything the book stands for-- and in such a maudlin, obvious, movie-of-the- week type of way. Sadly, they really blew it with this interpretation of a

thoroughly enjoyable book.


I was thrilled when I learned this book was being turned into a movie, but was dismayed at the casting of the American brothers. Could they have chosen two more boring actors? I doubt it. At least Henry Thomas can act, but he's much, much too wimpy and lightweight for the romantic Simon (I weep for the wasted opportunity that would have been Paul Rudd in this role) and Marc Blucas is a big, big zero here. He's a terrible, stiff, unconvincing actor (as he was on Buffy and in nearly everything else he's ever been in) and impossible to swallow as the object of the flighty Rose's affections.

Still, Romola Garai and Rose Byrne were lovely as Cassandra and Rose, even though the central romances in the story were subverted by the performances of Thomas and Blucas. I was initially appalled by the idea of Bill Nighy and especially Tara Fitzgerald as the girls' parents, but both were quite good. It's too bad one can't totally ignore the two male leads and just concentrate on the good actors, but as they're central to the story, it's impossible. As such, this is a lackluster film adaptation of a wonderful book.


This has always been one of my favourite books. I was thrilled when I saw that the book had been made into a movie, for the first time since it was written, over 50 years before.

I think Romola Garai is brilliant as Cassandra, but it is a shame that some of the dialogue she is given just does not compare well with the book. Bill Nighy did not seem to be the right actor for James Mortmain, who I think is more of a stiff-upper-lip type, not so artsy as Nighy portrays him - Mortmain has written a book but it's a scholarly work.

I know a book has to change when it becomes a movie, but I missed characters like the romantically-minded school teacher and the dressmaker's dummy that Cassandra "brings to life". I also miss details like Topaz and Rose having long blonde hair (described beautifully in the opening pages of the book) and Thomas being 15 - so not quite as precocious as he appears to be in the movie.

The movie captures some of the book's charm: the castle, the countryside, Cassandra's emotions, but I felt it was unnecessary to make up a particular scene between Cassandra and her father (I think this was done to accommodate Nighy's acting style) and I was really disappointed by the ending, where Cassandra seemingly lets go of her love, writing it off as a general experience, rather than declaring her love, as she does in the book, and her hope that the man she loves will return.


For those who enjoyed the book first, this film seems strangely wrong. The filmmakers are too greatly influenced by a combination of the Merchant-Ivory films, all those wonderful Masterpiece Theatre/BBC historical British dramas and a sort-of light, airy type of film-making that's completely out-of-place for this story.

This family is living on very hard times and I don't think that's shown properly. In the book, Topaz is a much stranger character (in the book, she reminds me of a blonde version of perhaps, Morticia Addams(!) and Mortmain should not just be moody. In the book, he's much more odd...and interesting.

I guess they got Rose and Cassandra right, but there's none of the poverty and hopelessness that's so clearly drawn in the book.

Perhaps this one of those books that simply couldn't be properly adapted nearly 40 years after it was written.


I read the book in my English class and after we had read and assessed the book we were told that we were in for a treat because we had done such great work. We were allowed to watch the film of I capture the castle in class, It was nothing like the book. they took important bits out and added useless bits in in their places, we lost the motherly characters for rose and Cassandra when Mrs blossom was just a dummy we saw in the corner of the screen and ms Marcy was just a school teacher with little say in their lives when both characters had a great deal of say in the book for as i said they add a kind of motherly atmosphere for the girls for they have no mother and it shows just how much they miss their mother but in the film without them they also loose the atmosphere for rose and Cassandra and their lose and suffering without their biological mother. it is a good film but has little to nothing to the book, if you haven't read the book and are thinking of watching the film then i say that you wont get the real story that Dodie smith wrote.


I found this film to be a disappointing and confusing adaptation of a lovely book. The book is quite long and involved, so I was looking forwards to see which threads were omitted to make the film. Actually, most of the book is included in the film, but so superficially that much of the meaning is lost. Sort of spoiler coming up now... The sense of "the incident" between Cassandra's parents is completely altered from the book, and there is a brand new and utterly ludicrous scene between Cassandra and her father, which implies that the person adapting the book hadn't actually read it properly.

If you've read and enjoyed the book, I suggest you avoid the film. If you've watched and enjoyed the film, I suggest you avoid the book.


A great cast

Beautiful setting

Lively script (based on a fab novel (i've had so many recommendations to read it)

It's a touching film, possibly even a tear jerker that most women are likely to fall in love with. The lead part of Cassandra is played with commitment and I believed 100% in her character because she did. Other characters, her father, played by Bill Nighy added a sense of humour to the film.

Basically its a great film. Watch it.


The book (by Dodie Smith) is better. It's usually so, as it has the space to develop the characters, set the setting (as it were) and be more satisfying.

But the movie for me ranks 8/10. Adaptations are always difficult, but here an harmonious compromise has been reached.

The acting is not uniformly good, but each performer gives the best of itself. Particularly Tara Fitzgerald, Romola Garai, Henry Thomas and, yes, Marc Blucas(if you've only seen him on 'Buffy' you're in for a treat).

All in all a wonderful, old-fashioned with the odd touch of XXIst century romantic comedy.


This movie is ideal for the task of escapism, immersion, the transformation of one's mood.

The film has the perfect combination of giddy happiness and stabs of sadness. It achieves this because it forces the audience to CARE ABOUT THE CHARACTERS. A vital ingredient which film directors neglect all too often. Of course this compelling quality is thanks to the inspired writer Dodie Smith, but it takes a keenly in tuned director to animate a writer's vision on screen.

The cast was picked because the actors were SUITED TO THEIR CHARACTERS. Again a vital ingredient neglected all too often. I despise watching an insipid actress who has been chosen because she is pals with the director. Both Romola Garai and Rose Byrne not only suited Cassandra and Rose, but also suited being sisters. The chemistry between all characters in this movie was believable, from Cassy desperately longing for Simon to view her as more than a silly child to her dealing with growing jealousy of her beautiful sister.

If one is ever homesick for england as Dodie Smith was when she wrote the novel, this is the movie to turn to for refuge. It transports the viewer to scenes that could only be England. Green meadows, crumbling castles with damp walls, the need to wear wool en socks in bed, the excitement of venturing into London.

A fascinating look at the age seventeen where one feels like they are forty, but are treated as if twelve and are being told that the passion they are feeling is mere fantasy.


If I could have rated this film lower than 1, I would have. I agree completely with Freudella's commentary (which see), and I don't understand how she could give it even 5*.

The events of the book are technically correct in the film, but the essential charm, agony, poignancy, and sense are completely missing. I do wonder how I would have felt about this film if I'd never read the book; I think it would have seemed merely baffling and pointless. As it is, the disappointment is deep.

I love a good "quirky" film, but for all its quirkiness this film is (paradoxically) both bland and nasty. No believable context is provided for the characters' eccentricities, which hang suspended out of time, place, or background. Whereas the book amazes with its revelation of the tension between Cassandra's innocence and growing knowingness, and the preservation of innocence within knowingness, the movie makes no space for her innocence at all. Contrast that with, say, Hudson's MY LIFE SO FAR.

Adolescent romance is an expression not just of sexual drive but, even more, of the need to make sense of adult life. Dodie Smith understood this. These filmmakers did not.


I am a fan of Dodie Smith's book and thought that this movie complemented the book very well.

The style and look of the movie was brilliant. From the clothes to the scenery, it was a visual feast.

The best part of this movie was the casting. The casting was perfect! Every actor fit their character beautifully. Romola Garai was great as the naive Cassandra. Henry Cavil is wonderful in his quiet, intense way (and of course he's gorgeous!), and Marcus Blucas and Henry Thomas were utterly charming as the Cotton brothers.

The only thing I can say negative about this movie is that the conclusion was made very obvious. The relationships between characters was given away at the very beginning, lessening the impact of the ending. (It's more subtle in the book.) I highly request reading the book first, before seeing the movie! It will allow you to make your own assumptions about the characters before the movie reveals all! If you want to see a smart, romance I suggest this film!


After reading the novel, I am usually disappointed by the screenplay, but not in this case.

The story is preserved and is magical in this film. Romola Garai is brilliant as the young Cassandra, but all of the characters are strongly played.

The soundtrack is fitting, and the settings work well. The characters traits develop smoothly and interact believably. This, to me is proof that with a great storyteller/writer, cast and director, time and care; something true to itself can be produced.

I just wish there were more films made to this standard.


Romola Garai and Rose Byrne as stellar as two sisters coming-of-age and in virtual competition with each other. The film is centered around their family life as they live in a old English castle circa 1930s. Most of the film is told from Garai's character's point of view and through this you see her genius father slowly go insane as he struggles to survive the novelist sophomore slump, which isn't helped along any by their eccentric mother. Byrne's character is a seductive vixen who has a guy who loves her but she would rather chase after another, meanwhile her younger sister (Garai's character) is in love with the very same man whom her sister repels.


Haven't seen such a beautifully portrayed romantic film in years! Of course Romola Garai(Cassandra)was great and more so charming; but so was Rose Byrne(Rose)detestable! What I mean to say is that the actress (I mean Byrne)is someone to lookout for. Because in both her films, this one and'Wicker Park', she's made audiences truly hate her respective characters. Whereas, in 'Troy', you fall in love with this damsel-in-distress kinda princess! But the reason I liked this movie was that all the actors did justice to their roles. The father is played just fine. And the stepmother is not the prototype abusive one; she's good to the girls. And the sibling rivalry as well as the bond of love between them is grippingly enacted. My Best of Luck to Romola and Rose!


This film taught me a lot about human nature, and about having such ardent hope amid such dire conditions. The protagonist/narrator Cassandra played excellently by Ramola Garai turns in a tour-de-force performance as a sometime gawky & awkward teen who despite her naiveté is so wise behind her years when dealing with people and affairs of the heart.

The movie made me laugh, cry and gave me hope that no matter how bad things can get, life will somehow work itself out if you have faith, a good head on your shoulders and believe in those close to you.

I'm glad I recorded this on TiVo. This is one movie I don't think I'll ever delete. I highly recommend this movie for its simple lessons and its picturesque scenery.


A young girls turning 18 and discovering her womanhood. Her older sister, willing to sacrifice her life in order to get her family out of poverty. Their father, an ill-tempered and drunken author with a severe case of writer's block. Their stepmother whose livelihood depends on closeness with an artist. One dashing American who can marry one sister and take the whole family out of its plight. The American's brother, who doesn't necessarily agree with his sibling's choice. Set the story in England in the 1930's and you've pretty much woven the tapestry for this lovely tale of poverty, hope, dreams and love.

Cassandra, convincingly played by Romola Garai, is the pillar of this poor English family. A family that is constantly hoping and waiting for the father to publish a second great novel, the novel that will finally bring decent food on the table and acceptable clothes on their back. During this maddening wait, Cassandra writes her most intimate thoughts and feelings in her diary and brings us along the roller-coaster ride that is the passage from childhood to womanhood.

The movie takes place in rural England, in an old castle. The camera work is fabulous. Blazing sunshine in good times and rain and clouds as life becomes more of a burden. The 1930's costumes are impeccable and make you wish you could have lived then, when men still knew how to wear suits, and women could look feminine and sexy without looking trashy.

I haven't read Dodie Smith's novel, but I've yet to see a movie adaptation that was better than the book. By these standards, the novel must be a formidable read.

I don't know what it is with English films. Being in North America, I've always heard that the English have a stiff upper lip and that they don't show any emotions. Yet, some of the most touching films and love stories I've seen were English (Sense and Sensibility comes to mind, here -- OK, Ang Lee isn't technically English but the screenplay and novel were; that's close enough in my book).

If you like funny, emotional and touching stories, without the loud music, the fake emotions and the telegraphed ending, you will enjoy this film immensely.


This movie is a real movie, as opposed to so many make believe films. It has a real, engrossing story, rich characters, and themes that are both humorous and painful. This is a fine picture. The lead actress is stunningly good. This is a fine adaptation of the novel


Had the pleasure of seeing a preview of this with the director and a producer at the Odeon Hemel Hempstead of all places on 8 May.

Do NOT be put off by the trailer shown on British cinema screens over the last few weeks - its poor technical image quality is NOT representative of the movie in any way. Instead watch the (presumably American) trailer on this site.

The central heroine - Cassandra - is a delightful new young actress and totally carries your interest through the movie and her convincing development from a naive teenager to a woman learning about the world and men.

Tremendous production values with some super rustic/castle scenery as well as a beautifully staged 1930s London environments make for an entertaining couple of hours likely to appeal to anyone from teens to OAPs (who remember this teens from the 1930s!).

Enjoy it while you can - though presumably as a BBC Films production it'll be on the small screen soon - big screens are better!

Nothing earth shattering but good ENTERTAINMENT!


...set in the 1930s in the English countryside. The young protagonist, 17 year old Cassandra, sets down in her diary her thoughts and adventures growing up in a bohemian family living in a rented castle. Her father is a novelist who has suffered writer's block and whose declining fortunes have reduced the family to a bare pantry existence. Relief comes in the form of two American brothers who inherit the land on which the castle sits. Cassandra's slightly older sister Rose sets her sights on landing one of the brothers as a husband, and a lot of romantic complications follow. The film has many strengths, and a few weaknesses. The strengths include the beautiful photography and winsome performances by the actors who play Cassandra and other members of her family. The main weakness is some uneven pacing which makes the film stumble along in parts. However, the characters are well drawn and likable, and the film has a commonsensical ending which rings true.


Stephen is indeed a beautiful guy. The casting director did a good job to find all those people. I have not read the novel, however, i think that this movie is well done.

There is one thing that I did not think that it is possible. It is when the little boy starts to talking how the young girl who is about to get married does not talk about her future husband all the time at all. And it also did make sense, why did the girl wrote him a list of things that she is getting. And what little boy knows anything about adult life.

the movie is well shot, the color was right and romantic. I especially when the girl walked in the forest with Stephen, it seems to be a place that has never been touched by human steps. it might be more beautiful if it was shot during a froggy day.

The ending was not too surprising. it is a little formulated, not unexpected. Love will always be the forever topic in films.


I was pleasantly surprised with this movie. Wow, this has been a great couple of years for Bill Nighy. He has shown such range and he continues in that endeavor in this movie. Romola also takes a striking turn in the lead as the sensitive, wiser, but younger sister. I most enjoyed Tara Fitzgerald's , quiet performance and thought it quite exceptional. She should have received award recognition for it. Rose Byrne, one of the exciting new actresses to come on the scene, is very effective as the slightly self-centered, dramatic older sister. Henry Thomas also turns in a very sensitive performance. This movie doesn't have an unrealistic ending and maintains its identity and integrity with solid story telling and good production values.


This was a charming film, but for those who love the book, it had some major disappointments, especially in the script and in the portrayal of Topaz. She was a marvelous, lovable, nutty character in the book, an original! Neither script nor actress even began to capture the real Topaz. I found Tara Fitzgerald actually annoying in the part. The book is not only intriguing and romantic,but deliciously funny, as told in Cassandra's journal. The writer and director didn't even try on that score--which gave the film a heavier, melodramatic quality. Rose and Neil were shortchanged at the end. Rose has a wonderful speech in the book which gives her reasons for her actions in movingly persuasive terms. That was left out of the movie. And, as another reviewer has pointed out, the scriptwriter did change the ending of the movie, and not for the better. The book's ending in Cassandra's journal was more authentic and true to the 18 year old character.


"I Capture the Castle" is a coming-of-age flick (circa 1930) about a 17 year old English girl whose family takes up residence in a castle. A delightfully lyrical tale, the film spends time with the eccentric father suffering from terminal writer's block, the step-mother who likes to romp in the altogether, a sister who marries Cassandra's love, a handyman/boy who loves Cassandra, and sundry other characters. Humorous and plaintive, whimsical and surly, but always romantic, "...Castle" is a chick flick which scored well with males and critics as well. Worth a look for anyone into English period films about the awakenings in a young woman and unrequited love. (B+)


I see a number of commentors over the year have felt the need to lambaste this perfectly innocent program. The central themes were about playing fair and making believe, and if it seems to be a simple premise, I'd like to hear where a sophisticated premise was used for a children's show that succeeded. The age group this show was created for was essentially preschool to kindergarten, and managed to coexist with the likes of Mr. Rogers and Sesame Street for decades, so it couldn't have been that gawdawful.

I seem to remember the show was a sweetly naive little half hour of kindergarten teacher types directing 'children' who were really toys how to behave together. This may regarded as insidious socialization, but it was created and ran through the very liberal 70s, so that claim is paranoid anti-government nonsense.

As for this show having no child actors, the toys made perfect surrogates, both because they were portrayed as childlike and because they reinforced the notion of abstraction necessary to allow children to see themselves in the same position. That level of abstraction was a necessary ingredient to instructing children to use their imagination.

As well, shows that primarily feature children often ran afoul of one of two problems with child stars: amateurs and professionals. The amateurs couldn't be relied upon to react properly to the puppets and toys, and the professionals come off so rehearsed and plastic as to be offensively unbelievable.

In the end, it's an argument over which philosophy for child education yields the best results. Personally, I don't think children's shows have been improved upon appreciably since the 70s, when at least diversity and imagination were openly encouraged, and the moral lessons were delivered a little more clearly without the obsequious and nauseating touchy feelie performances modern children's shows tend to use in lieu of actually explaining things to children. The assumption that children cannot or should not be told anything not relevant to playing in the schoolyard is utter nonsense.

With that in mind, I'd like to offer that The Polka Dot Door was actually a wonderful preschool children's show which hasn't been improved on by the likes of The Teletubbies.


Dudes, Polkaroo rocks. Who are the losers who gave it a 4? For shame! Polkaroo is a cultural icon for an entire generation of Canadians, some Americans, and even some Irish! Why, my brother once used Polkaroo as his ICQ nickname for crying out loud. Man, I can't believe that The Polkadot Door got canceled. Polkaroo, Goldilocks, Bear... Man, those were the days. The Polkadot door is what made me the man I am today. Without those cherished memories of Polkaroo's innocent, happy, naïve voice happily chanting his name, I think my scarred childhood would have been unbearable. I can honestly say without the least bit of exaggeration that THE POLKAROO SAVED MY LIFE. He is a celebrity... an icon... nay, dare I say, a NATIONAL HERO.

ALL HAIL POLKAROO! LONG LIVE POLKAROO!! In the immortal words of the master himself: "POLKAROO! POLKAROO!"

Regards, David


This show was great, maybe someone can't appreciate it because they're used to nonstop crap being pummeled at them through their countries shows. I found this site searching for the seasons to buy, for my 3 kids. This show made kids use their minds and imaginations as opposed to most of the cartoon or mind numbing shows that are on now. And it was from Canada - but how can it compare with jewels like KFed and Brit from your great country, I guess. Loved this show when I was a kid, I know lots of other people did too. I wish I could find some toys and memorabilia to buy, all of the shows that were on when I was little were so much better than the majority of stuff now.


The people who dislike the Polkaroo (and/or the show in general) haven't a clue what they are talking about. I watched this show all the time as a child, and my unbelievable memory is even today still capable of pulling up a memory of seeing the Polkaroo on stage when I was only 1 or 2 years old. I was being extremely annoying that day, wanting to be moved CONSTANTLY, either because of restlessness or because the Polkaroo was constantly escaping my limited field of vision. But I digress. Even though I am having trouble finding reruns of it on TV, and I must resort to watching YouTube clips permanently downloaded on my computer, they are enough to drown me in childhood memories and also memories of that silly Polkaroo. I am 18 going on 19 in February 2010, and also I am autistic, but this show was the GREATEST kids' show EVER MADE. LONG LIVE POLKA DOT DOOR AND THE "POLKAROO!"


Cheech Marin is a great talent. In his film, "Born in East L.A.", he clearly shows a man that has a good understanding about the issues at the heart of this entertaining movie. For some years now he has been by himself as his partnership with Tommy Chong ended.

Mr. Marin makes an important point in the film. Rudy, his main character, is a man born and raised in East L.A., as the title indicates, yet, he is deported to a country he probably has never been to. His roots are American, yet being in the wrong place, at the wrong time, trying to do a favor to his cousin, he is hauled to a detention center for illegal aliens and deported to Mexico.

Of course, the arrest and his deportation serves as the basis of a clever comedy that is easy on the eyes and have us laughing throughout the many funny situations Mr. Marin has created for himself and his crew. Daniel Stern is good as Jimmy, the man that exploits Rudy. Paul Rodriguez has some good moments as the newly arrived guy that keeps thinking the messages he hears in Rudy's answering service come from the Jesus image behind it. The lovely Kamala Lopez is easy on one's eyes, and the great Lupe Ontiveros plays Rudy's mom.

"Born in East L.A." is a funny movie with a message.


Much better than i expected. I first saw this film on one of those boring rainy days where you end up sitting in front of the TV channel surfing. i stopped while this was on. needless to say, i watched the whole thing and totally enjoyed it.

it's very funny at times, and the plot is hilarious! some of the comedy is slapstick and some of it isn't...but it's all good. give it a rent and you won't be disappointed. i just picked up the DVD for 9.99 and i'm glad i did.

yeahhhhhhhhhhh yeah yeah!

(sorry, i need ten lines before i could post a comment)


I love this movie! Next to "Shrimp on the Barbie," this is my favorite Cheech Marin movie as he goes on to prove he can actually be funny by not playing a pothead. A Mexican-American dragged across the border, he shows the lengths he is willing to go to return home and prove he is an American, but there is also a sensitive and heart-warming touch to his range as he proves he is also a good guy and not just some clown. Daniel Stern is also a hoot as an opportunist, and Paul Rodriguez flexes his comedic muscle that we his fans appreciate so much.


Rudy, a Mexican-American, born in the United States is deported to Mexico by mistake. He tries to get back, but is repeatedly caught and sent back into Mexico. Cheech Marin showed some excellent acting in this movie. He's a kind-hearted person who helps out some folks in bad situations, like the mother of three who he gives the oranges to, and the wife of a man who can't afford to pay a coyote to bring her into the United States. He is ready to leave and gives up his spot on the transport to but this lady on, even after he had worked to get money to return. It was a love story...a painful thing to watch at times and funny at the same time. Just picture yourself being sent to a country that you don't know, even if your parents came from there. He was lost I'm his parent's birth place. I had seen it before, but the second time around made the picture better. Very human movie.


Pretty entertaining movie staring Cheech Marin as a Latin guy named Rudy from East LA who mistakenly gets deported to Mexico. Marin is tooling around some factory one day when INS busts in and rounds up the lot of them. Jan Michael Vincent busts him, Rudy not having his id is thought to be an illegal and is promptly shipped off to Mexico. Meantime Rudy's cousin or something like that played by Paul Rodriguez ends up at Rudy's house waiting for his arrival. Rudy ends up meeting Jimmy (stern) down in Mexico and begins to work some low end jobs and things to earn some cash to get back to the US. After many comical scenes he meets Dolores and brings her back to the US. Of course he marries her in the end and she is able to stay...the end. This isn't the funniest movie I have ever seen, but its very entertaining. Cheech is always fun to watch and saves what probably would have been a fairly boring movie. If your looking for some time to waste on a Saturday, as I was, flip the channel and find this. 6 and half stars. "Born in east LA, I was Born in east LA!"


When this movie was made, it was a comedy. It couldn't really happen, right? Well, as of 2008, 21 years later, it's happened to five US citizens, as far as anyone knows, since 2007 alone. There's no way of knowing how many people have actually been detained and/or deported because the government refused to believe their documentation -- Or they lacked it; Citizens don't have green cards, after all, so an immigration officer who is determined to deport anyone without one will deport a lot of citizens.

I just read an Associated Press article about a man by the name of Jose Ledesma who was jailed for two months, because the feds refused to accept his 100% real birth certificate as legitimate. The government has become so absurd, that a parody of 1987 has become the reality of 2008.


Excellent Movie! Cheech is sent to a factory full of illegal immigrants to pick up his cousin "Javier". When he gets there, a pile of cops come in a arrest the immigrants. They think cheech is one of them, and they send him to mexico. If he had only took his wallet with him, he wouldn't have been sent down south. I read all the reviews and most people didn't like this film, but i think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread! The best part of the movie is when he tells the prison guard, Phil,says "Rudy, you still owe me $100!" Cheech says "Yeah, Heres one of them, F**K YOU!" (I wish IMDb allowed curse words!) This gets a 7/10. It's worth your money!


Cheech wrote, directed, and starred, so stack this with Chong's solo resume ("Far Out Man" !?)and you see who was the true talent.

Some have passed this film off as second-rate 80s fluff, but they're missing a lot. East LA is, upon second look, a timely take on the overreactive Reagan-era round-'em-up, ask-no-questions immigration policy, in which many legal residents and citizens were actually deported. Plus, Cheech's character grows from initially fawning over a French woman in the opening scene and living a typical apathetic American life to falling in love with a Mexican woman and helping others in their quest to work in the U.S.

And it's funny..."Whas happenING!" "I like your pants" "Get behind me, Satan!"


I don't know how many times I have seen this movie, and it's Still very entertaining for me! there is nothing like an actor growing and expanding their horizons, and showing you what they think is funny! not to mention that he brought a whole new light to things that most people don't even think about (even if it was for entertainments sake)

Awesome movie when you just don't know what else to watch! its a funny feel good movie that actually makes you think and displays cheech's talent! he is no longer the burned out drug fiend with a fried brain! he is genuine and warm and does the right thing! (when it's important) I think the acting was actually pretty remarkable (even when it was meant to be goofy)


As a kid, I didn't like it probably because he wasn't with Chong getting stoned all the time. But having just watched it as a standalone piece, I found it quite bittersweet and enjoyable. Sure the story was a bit predictable but the movie did have a decent flow and never seemed to bore. The acting was pretty decent and there were plenty of laughs (again it's not slapstick stoner humor) Also keeping in mind that Chong usually directed their films, Cheech did a good job first time out. I think we'd all like to see them reunite, but lets just appreciate the material they've left us and leave it at that. So if you want to see Cheech branch out on his own, I'd suggest checking this out.


From half the team that gave us classics of the hippie and drug era, comes this suprisingly good comedy. Some sentiment, some romance, but al in all a lot of laughs. Cheech Marin puts in a solid performance as Rudy who gets accidentally deported. Daniel Stern is frighteningly good as the sleezy con-man who works just south of the border, and hires Rudy to do whatever little tasks he could come up with (and pocketing most of the earnings, and a share of Rudy's). Kamala Lopez is simply gorgeous as the El Salvadorian who becomes the romantic part of Rudy's stay in Mexico.

And what can be said about the Red Headed Girl in a Green Dress that you can't see in the opening scene.


Don't go into this expecting serious stuff. But as a light comedy, done with some warmth, it is pleasant. A shame that it has been deeply cut, all the section about the house across the road is missing (all you get is the mention from mother at the start) and since the result is a really short film with a jagged disconnect at the end, one wonders why they did that. It isn't as if the DVD is overflowing. Did the DVD editor go on holiday or just drop a can of film? Weird. The result is just wrong. Didn't anyone on the original production review the work before issuing it?

Some sequences are laugh out loud funny. The eye candy, the tattoo, was happening, and a few other cameos. And if you ignore the comedy for a moment, there is a message and a question in this which is still unanswered, as it has been for hundreds of years (compare to the Streets of New York). The film ages reasonably well, some styles and situations are already dated but it hardly matters.

Picture quality is generally clean, nice color. Sound quality ok but it is a pity the editors could not make an effort to give the music more body. Its just a so-so stereo track (the voices don't even seem positioned with aid of the center front speaker) and I presume for something made by Cheech in 87 there would have been some good quality masters available and an ability to position the dialog. But then editors who drop a whole section of the story probably have no motivation to spiff up the sound track either.


I love everything about this movie, funny, touching (with the woman, her kids and the oranges) and everything else. But what I love most about this movie is Kamala Lopez. When she adjusts her dress and flips her gorgeous hair, I am left a helpless, drooling idiot. She is one of the most gorgeous women I have ever seen. It is my opinion that Latinas have the most beautiful bodies in the world. From Salma Hayek to Jennifer Lopez to Miss Nude Universe Mercedez, these Latina women are the reason why cavemen chiseled on walls (to borrow a quote from Greg Kinnear in As Good As It Gets). I love them, one and all! Anybody else out there love the Latinas? Let me hear ya say, yeah!!!


BORN IN EAST L.A. looks more like a threat to society than a comedy based on a Bruce Springsteen parody. Cheech Marin goes solo in this unfunny farce as a U.S. citizen who is wrongly deported to Mexico and tries to make it back to his L.A. home. Cheech tries his best to make it in Hollywood on his own, but without Chong, the hilarity just isn't there, and the movie's message is dismally pointless. A huge turkey with lots and lots of cheese on top of it. I'm sure that will be delicious, especially for Americans and Hispanics who dislike crap like this.

0 out of 5


This is an excellent 'coming of age' adolescent film. Everytime I've caught it on cable over the years I've never been able to stop watching it. Yesterday on IFC it happened again for maybe the 8th time, I've lost count. It's great that a channel like IFC or BRAVO has recognized the worth of this film because in my video guide they gave it the worst score possible (a turkey), which is an abomination. This is one of the most truthful films about kids and in a wider sense Brooklyn or New York City attitudes in the '80s. The director has to be either very good or extremely lucky to get this much truth on film. 'Old Enough' is almost like an updated, early '80s adolescent version of Engel and Orkin's 'Little Fugitive,' or 'Lovers and Lollipops,' two pioneering cinema verite films of the '50s. It is cut directly from the fabric of life and needless to say, shot entirely on location. In fact, it is almost like walking into the lives of these quintessentially 'New York' people, you can almost smell the neighborhood. The two girls playing the leads are just fabulous; it's as if they're just living their real lives and you're eavesdropping on them; you hardly suspect you're watching a movie. In the end, friendship is shown to be stronger than class conflicts but not until the magical and forever vanished world of the 11 to 13 year old that once existed in every soul has been resurrected for re-evaluation and non-sentimental nostalgia.


This is a story of a friendship between an unlikely pair but kids don't care. One young girl comes from a well-bred upper class family and another girl is a street smart daughter of a New York apt. building super. They learn from one another about a different culture and the dialog is fantastic - extremely believable. I'm sorry the overall rating this movie received was so mediocre. The low scores were obviously given by persons out of touch with real life, especially from the perspective of a young girl.


I could not remember the name of this movie. In 1984 I was 11 years old and I watched this movie every time it was on. This movie moved me. When I was 9 years old I was a lot like the innocent girl. A new girl moved across the street from me. She was from a city. I was from a very small town. She had me wanting to be like her. I even helped her steal a mini-skirt outfit for her school pictures. She was the one who told me about the "period". She used curse words, she wore makeup, and her mother used to drink vodka all day long. After she got into some trouble, her mother said I was a bad influence and we were no longer allowed to hang around anymore. She moved away 2 years later and I never saw her again. When this movie started showing on cable when I was 11 I was drawn in forever. This movie is wonderful and so real. This movie was able to show exactly what I had lived and that I was not the only one. Nobody knew then or knows now that these things had happened to me. Im glad I finally found the name and now I will look for its next showing on bravo or IFC. I will record it and have it for my daughter.


This is a rare gem, one that isn't afraid to confront what it means to grow up in 80s America. Set in 80s New York, Silver has lensed an astonishingly authentic view of childhood, surprisingly devoid of sentimentality. She isn't afraid to paint life in realist tones, often shocking the audience with the intrusion of adult behavior upon the young protagonist's life. The issue of class difference is central to the film's development of the two main characters Sarah and Kare; the former a rich Upper East-side innocent; the latter a brash, precocious Italian-Catholic schoolgirl. Yes, this treatment of the different class systems seems rather trite at first, but the complexities of the characters are mapped through until the sombre end, which is a refreshing change from the feel-good nonsense made by Disney et al. This independent film could have been a Disney film; thank Mickey Mouse it wasn't. A testament to the true spirit of independent cinema in the 80s.


I was also surprised to see the low rating of this great little film. I saw it as a teen in the mid 80's on cable and, like so many others, was unable to stop watching this story through to its end. Even though it now looks so dated, I mean, no dot coms, facebook or cell phones here, the meat of the story holds true now, as it did in '84. The acting is fine and the issues are realistic. Speaking for myself, as a young teen-aged girl growing up in New Orleans, I could totally relate to the emotions expressed by the two lead characters, both New Yorkers, because the feelings were universal. If you're a female, you'll probably get it (and let me just say, I don't usually enjoy 'chick-flicks'). Like someone else has already posted, I, too, look forward to my own daughter viewing this film. It's still one of my all-time faves & whenever I catch it on TV, I still have to watch it, all these years later. I'd say it has stood the test of time.


Enjoyable little film about friendship, the fun and pains of growing up, and incidently, growing up on the streets of New York; Though not for everybody, this is still engaging to watch. 4/5 stars.... Maybe we see on DVD one day, no?


Living in New York City at the time of this film, and doing more than a few performances there, around the corner from my apartment at 4th & LaFayette Streets, I often wonder how films like "Old Enough" get made. I mean, where do they start and how do they develop? I'm sure that this is a great 'coming of age' film, but where does the inspiration start and why doesn't IMDb have pictures of the lead character {they only seem to have pictures of A list people}.

Strange, I don't remember any "Old Enough" before I wrote "Old Enough" which you can find under /Artists/TerryJames/Lyrics/OldEnough/OldEnough.html which John Hughes used in "Home Alone." Like IMDb, there seemed to be a lack of listing the song credits here too.

But make it worth your while to go see this film, it's worth it.

I just love "original" ideas!


The Three Stooges has always been some of the many actors that I have loved. I love just about every one of the shorts that they have made. I love all six of the Stooges (Curly, Shemp, Moe, Larry, Joe, and Curly Joe)! All of the shorts are hilarious and also star many other great actors and actresses which a lot of them was in many of the shorts! In My opinion The Three Stooges is some of the greatest actors ever and is the all time funniest comedy team!

This Three Stooges short is a very good one. This was Curly's last short but he did a good job. Vernon Dent, the very lovely Barbara Slater, Theodore Lorch, Symona Boniface, Helen Dickson, Johnny Kascier, Emil Sitka, Al Thompson, and Victor Travers are in this one. I believe the beautiful Christine McIntyre is also in this with a believe it or not very dark hair color! There is a remake with Joe Besser called Pies and Guys which is pretty good. This maybe Curly's last one but its a good one to watch!


Taken at face value, without knowledge of the history behind it, this is a lot of fun. The dining table & reading scenes are among the funniest Stooge bits I've ever seen, and the latter includes what has to be the strangest Stooge quote ever: "Tar yetridy eeth say. Glug zap snorglotz ramitz. Ronissance kibbaertz..."

The problem is, this is hard to take at face value. Even if one didn't know about Curly's career-ending stroke while filming this, one has to wonder why his character never comes back after walking off to go sit down -- his absence from the rest of the film is obvious and makes no sense.

This was just the beginning of what was clearly a hard period for Larry & Moe. It's hard to imagine them having to be funny on film for the next several years while seeing Curly waste away, or during 1956 having to pretend the late Shemp was still filming with them. Knowing these parts of their history can really overshadow the humor of some of their films.


Many people like to view Half-Wits Holiday as Curly's last performance and talk about how ill he was. I prefer to take a longer look and mention how funny it is. It has plenty of classic stooge mayhem and lines. The boys being regarded as three missing links; feeling ashamed at the prospect of being turned into gentlemen; Symona Boniface telling Moe, "You act as though the sword of Damocles is hanging over your head!"; and of course, a tidy pie fight.

I've always thought that Moe seemed to get meaner as he got older, and my personal suspicion was that he didn't like the fact that his brother Curly was forced to act and not rest in his last few years as a stooge. (And after Curly's death, Moe really took it out on Shemp.) I was also thinking it must have been difficult for him on a certain level to be hitting Curly when his kid brother was obviously not well.

Anyway, I think this short has one of the most classic stooge lines ever. It's when the boys are seated around the dinner table and being coached on proper dining etiquette but only pretending to use utensils and eat food. Curly turns to Professor Quackenbush and asks, "Pardon me, what are we eating now?"


You don't often run into a director who can make an entertaining and genuinely humorous movie with so little cash. But with a small cast, some decent camera skills, and a few friends in the police dept, these guys made a film that's funnier than a lot of big budget comedies coming out of Hollywood. Is it polished? No. Does it look low budget? Yes. But much of the dialogue had me laughing out loud, and they even managed to create a staple character of sorts (youll know em when you see em). You even feel like you're along for the ride as their escapades escalate. Check this out if you're into humorous dialogue, smoking culture, and some very original and quotable lines.

I just wish Turtle would have kicked some ass in the end, that would have been a hysterical scene.


I always wondered what happened to Todd Bridges, anyone else? I had seen him pop up from time to time in different roles, but more serious roles. When I saw this cover on the video store shelves, I just had to get it. I was very curious. Now, here is what caught me totally off guard. He's in only like the first part of the movie then sprinkled here and there till the end? Now the other part of this is that I didn't know what think as far as the other characters and where this was going to go without Todd. Boy was I wrong, it was so funny. Don't get me wrong, Todd did his thing and he was funny, but once the others had to take control, they did their thing as well. I give props to to everyone involved. Good Job!


Well well, it's about time a good low budget comedy came out like this. Hollywood has been falling off lately. It's good to see films like this come out from those hungry filmmakers out there. They let the jokes speak for themselves, no special make-up, no effects, just good raw talent all the way around. And a good story. Reminds me of another Friday. You actually feel like you're going along for the ride with these guys. And it's good to see Todd Bridges in the mix, involved in a good comedy. His part isn't as big as you think, but it makes you give even more credit to the other actors who are left to entertain us. What a fun ride, check it out.


How come Hollywood doesn't make movies like this? Comedies like this? Here we have a story built from scratch that reminds me of the old John Candy days. It starts off with this guy who wants to buy some weed. And I mean it jumps right into it. Right when the movie starts, this guy is talking about all the weed he wants. He gets it then gets busted. Now his friends don't have they weed they thought they were going to have. So they got to hit the road and make things happen for themselves. But it's not going to be so easy. They get caught up in some stuff that had me praising this movie. I don't want to spoil the entire thing but you have to see for yourself. Let me just say that the filmmakers had some balls doing this, but that's what we need more of. We need people to take chances and stop being scared because Hollywood has their own "way of doing things" The actor who played the cop/security guy, he needs some props and I am going to give it to him. The guys who made this movie, they get props too. Aside from being very very very funny, they said, all the hell with it and made a good original comedy that is not going to remind you of anything else. Go watch it and take a break from all the Hollywood remakes, sequels, old TV show movies, and Comic book cartoon movies. See this movie!


I read the first review (on IMDb) for this movie and its really bad. I then realised that this movie will go down all wrong for conservatives.

Its all about 'scoring weed'. A lot of people can relate to this movie in many ways and thats what makes it absolutely hilarious.

If your 'square' you'll think this movie is absolute rubbish. So move on now.

Too all others i highly recommend this movie. Its up there with the first Friday movie. the low budget thing adds to the realism of whats going on. Don't let it turn you off in the first few mins or you'll miss out.

Have fun.


"I Got Five On It" is a funny comedy with a simple plot. This film is full of nasty remarks, swear-words and silly jokes. In my opinion, all the movies about black people and weed are similar. The film is not too long but it's a bit boring for me. That repeating and suchlike opprobrious language feeds me up. However, the actors play their roles really well, they impersonate "cool guys who like weed" really realistic and funny. The vocabulary of this film is full of invective and forwardness, so I would not recommend this movie for people, who like films with meaningful thoughts.. Otherwise, this film is a good way to provide light relief and to laugh from silly jokes. Especially I liked the scene in the toilet.. I'm sure you'll like it very much! All in all, I recommend this film for everybody, who wants to relax after a hard day...


I saw this flick in the new release section and just had to check it out, especially since it was from the talented filmmakers of one film that I saw of theirs. Wow! What a funny movie. I've seen the The-white guy-trying-to-act-black routine before but the filmmakers somehow was able to make this particular character more original and on top of that he's carrying an umbrella in his own store!! LOL. How funny is that? Everybody did a good job. I mean Todd Bridges was OK but the other actors were BETTER. They did a very good job. Props to the cast and crew. Hopefully there'll be a trilogy to this one like the "friday" franchise has. Jerzee Representin'!


This has to be the comedy of the year. What a comeback for Todd Bridges. Excellent writing and acting. This thing had me laughing my ass off all day. I saw it three times in a row. The funniest character is barney bumble, a old school pimp from Oaktown. Basically Todd Bridges and his buddies are all out of the green stuff. They go all over town trying to score. one thing leads to another and Todd's character "JIMMY" is arrested and thrown in the slammer. His buddies spend the rest of the movies going to various characters and go through various obstacles until they finally score. From a whitey hating white pimp, weed dealer. This fool has an umbrella in every scene. He speaks like he's from the ghetto-est ghetto. HILARIOUS!!!!!!Great rent, better buy. Thanks, and please make another one.


now you may be thinking this is just another senseless weed comedy that goes no where, but in fact you are wrong. I got five is one of the most original pieces of film i have seen since the days of Tarantino and reservoir dogs. The film is superbly directed and involves the audience at all stages whilst the laughs keep pouring in. I highly endorse this movie and am sure it will reach the status of cult classic very very soon. See this movie and you will be pleasantly surprised. The characters are very entertaining and funny each on their own level, whilst the soundtrack is one of the best hip hop colabarations I have ever heard in a movie. Go see this movie as soon as you can, it is well worth it.

Great movie A++++


funny? yes! good? yes! different? yes! Go see it! if you want to see something different. :p I have noticed that more and more movies about weed and that stuff is coming now, and this was a good one! Really enjoyed it. It's a funny story about 3 guys out looking to get some weed and a cop that is messing around with them. Well I'm not gonna say anymore about the movie, see it for yourself :) Anyway i though this movie was great and i recommend it to those who like little different movies with dope and all that. And great actors for this kind of movie. I give it a 8 out of 10 ! because never seen any movie like this before and i really liked it. More of this !!!


It is rare for any film to present so human a portrait of a villain and still succeed in warning the audience so effectively. See "The Brute Man" and you will beware the murderous psychopath who disarms his victims by preying on feelings of sympathy.

Rondo Hatton, better known for his role as the "Creeper" in the Sherlock Holmes movie, "The Pearl of Death," also plays the Creeper here  this time without Sherlock Holmes  but with such a depth of feeling that audiences more accustomed to hating and fearing monster-murderers may feel pity for the vengeance minded killer instead.

Only in the movie "Freaks" has any actor exploited his unusual appearance to such telling effect. Without makeup, Hatton plays very true to life as the hot tempered college football star Hal Moffett  maimed in a laboratory accident  who decides to take deadly revenge upon the friends he irrationally blames for his disfigurement.

Even though the grotesque drifter's bloody scheme is terrifying, antihero Moffett never seems like a purely evil monster. He is like a misguided adolescent driven mad by his misfortune and his own unyielding character, obsessive in the drive to heal his injured vanity by acts of desperation.

As masterfully lensed under the direction of Jean Yarbrough, Hatton's performance is outstanding, even by comparison to other horror movie legends; Hal Moffett/The Creeper may possibly have been his greatest role. Yet "The Brute Man" was conceived as a modest little shocker, was made on a low budget and is today not very well remembered even by nostalgia-minded critics. Perhaps that is because "The Brute Man" seems contrived to exploit the commercial successes of "The Pearl of Death," "City Lights" and "Phantom of the Opera," from which it derives some of its main story elements (including the sentimental scenes with the blind girl and the theme of disfigurement and revenge). There is, however, no cheating in the use of classic ideas; they are combined so craftily as to create a new legend of Gothic significance and intensity, one which is also true to historical accounts of murder and realistic in a frighteningly everyday way.


For such a low budget movie and from PRC as well, The Brute Man is quite good.

As a result of an experiment going wrong at university, Hal Moffat becomes disfigured and some years later, starts killing people. His victims include a grocer's delivery boy and a jeweller. He makes friends with a blind woman but nearly kills her after shopping him to the police and is arrested in her home after she set him up.

The Brute Man is shot well in black and white and is certainly one of the better efforts from PRC.

I've never heard of any of the cast in this, with Rondo Hatton in the title role.

This is worth checking out. A good way to spend an hour one afternoon or evening.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.