ajith has come with a refreshing movie and although it has a weak story yet it was entertaining. Looking at three ajith was good. Twin son and a father seems old trick but was given fresh injection by KS Ravikumar. Any movie by KS RAvikumar, one can hope for a very entertaining past time. The movie starts a bid slow at the beginning but once you start to confuse why the son is doing all the crap then it takes off. Enjoyable.Ajith really brings out his act especially on the soft character. An entertainment movie for all except for some rape scenes. Definitely a go for Ajith's fan. Plus look out for the final scene after the director say goodbye. tells you a lot of hidden story.


Varalaaru aka Godfather is an awful movie, with a thin story. The only reason for casting Asin in the movie is the songs. Kanika's role is even worse and she hardly has anything to do. (It's intriguing to see why a young girl would agree to act as the mother of a 35 year old actor!!!) Lousy story.. frivolous characters.. sudden duets.. all of these leave the viewer wondering when the movie is going to end, and not how. Considering that even A.R.Rehman's songs are bad, there really is nothing that could keep you in your seat till the end.

The only thing tolerable in the movie is Ajit's performance - he has put in effort to portray different characters, and he has done it quite reasonably well.

If you have the patience to sit through this movie, do listen carefully to the last dialogue in the movie. It is the only indicator to why the movie was named 'Godfather' in the first place.

Verdict - it really is awful. Please don't try to watch it except if you are an Ajit fan.


Of all the movies that you could watch, if you choose to watch this movie....i should say that your very unfortunate....The story is crap, the acting nowhere near tolerable and the music not something we'd expect from A.R. Rehman..but its not fair to judge A r rehman with this movie because the music of a movie is to an extent influenced by the story and acting.......I wonder how someone like Ajith can ever be called an actor.....his dialogue delivery is pathetic and its better i don't mention his facial expressions......you'd do yourself a favour by not watching this movie...or rather watch it and educate others on how these kinda movies humiliate the once-enchanting Tamil film industry...Also....i beg the filmmakers not to cast people who are stone heads when it comes to dancing in roles that are supposed to highlight it.....For crying out loud, Ajith can't even dance to those funny dappankuthu songs...how can one tolerate him DANCING BHARATHANATYAM......the thought of him donning the role of a classical dancer would make good dancers of yesteryears turn in their graves.....And watch out for the scenes where Ajith is supposed to be projecting an effeminate side.....Its official ...he's the worst(or is there a worser term for that) thing that can happen to Tamil cinema.........


I saw this movie years ago as a 13 year old and I can say without exaggeration that no other movie has had such a strong and lasting impact on me. While I was aware of the sacrilege going on in the Amazon, this opened my eyes to it like never before. Shortly after this I ran away from home with a friend, with the intention of going to Brazil, mobilising the Indians into a guerrilla band and killing the loggers. It took our families all of two days to track us down at a port city : )

But I never forgot the lesson this movie taught me and today I work for a conservation organisation. Some of the Indian quotes from the movie are truly tear jerkers. "When we were young the end of the world(the limits of the forest) was very far away, but it gets closer and closer each day" or something to that effect. As an idealistic kid I saw no flaw in this movie and cheered at the improbable climax where the rains destroy the dam and the captured Indian women throw away their cheap clothes and return to the forest. This movie is a must watch


I actually grew up near the city of Belem, shown in the beginning of the movie, and spent 18 years in the region. I also spent time in many of the Indian tribes in the area, including being "adopted" into one at the age of five.

The movie does a great job of showing many aspects of life in the jungle, including some of the lawlessness. The costumes are fairly authentic, and portrayal of many tribal customs is well done. The manhood ceremony is closely based on authentic ceremonies that happen in most tribes.

Altogether, about as good as you can expect from something that is not intended to be a documentary.


Have you ever seen a movie you thought was great, but couldn't even remember its name a month later? This is one movie you will never forget.

I have heard it said that the true test of a movie, or any art form, is whether it accomplishes what it set out to do. Did it inform you, delight you, anger you, scare you, or make you laugh? Besides presenting a very entertaining and original storyline, this movie wants you to care about the environment. After seeing The Emerald Forest, I immediately called one of the major environmental organizations (I don't want to play favorites, but it's one of these: The Nature Conservancy, WWF, Greenpeace, The Sierra Club...) to set up automatic monthly contributions. I never expected a movie to have so great an impact on me, especially such a long lasting one. You would expect that, after time, my enthusiasm would diminish, especially since I have no interest in ever visiting the Amazon! None whatsoever. However, this movie really changed my perspective on the global environment as a whole.

The central character is Tomme (Charlie Boorman). While watching his father direct the construction of a huge dam, Tomme is quickly and silently taken away by a native Brazilian Indian tribe called the Invisibles. They don't see their actions as kidnapping. When they see the young boy, they figure he would be better off with them, rather than with the "termite people", the name they give to the white men who seem to devour all the trees.

Tomme's father spends the next 10 years trying to find him.

This is definitely a thought-provoking movie, but one that is not too heavy handed. It's one of the most entertaining movies I have ever seen, the type of movie you can watch over and over.

Update: Since I had not seen this movie for many years, I decided to see it again last night. I was totally blown away. It was even better than I remembered. Although my original 9-star rating is very high praise, I can't fathom how I could have enjoyed the movie more, so I raised my rating from 9 stars to 10 stars. Director John Boorman also directed Beyond Rangoon, and some other films that are amazingly good.

Charley Boorman's performance is simply brilliant. I can't imagine anyone better in the role of Tomme in The Emerald Forest. I am definitely going to start watching the other movies he has made.


Certainly the best of Boorman. After seeing again Deliverance, which was thrilling when it was first released, and Excalibur, poetical, Wagnerian but a little bit out of date (regarding the shining 70's fake armors), Emerald Forest deepens philosophy and ethnology. Very profound and touching, very good acting, excellent photography, technically superb, there's nothing to really complain about. It hasn't aged at all and probably won't. I gave it a 10 because I do not see anything to improve. In our sad new era of ethnological destruction, where there's no place anymore for the Aborigene or any other tribal culture, this movie gives a little hope, a little reverie of seeing things turning in the right direction thanks to ancient magic. How vain but how beautiful!


Touching, well-paced, sad, uplifting, absorbing. Good acting, good writing. Lots of meaning, lots of symbolism, but never in your face, never tiring. Mystical stuff that's presented well and believably. A movie at once so ambitious and so real and so well-done...there just aren't very many in its league. Action, love, adventure, drama, striking images, succinct dialog. Amazing.


Not sure that you'll get a comment from anyone of my generation (the Depression-ridden 30's) about the Emerald Forest. But here goes, anyway...

I first became aware of the term "ecology" when I signed up for a masters-level college class of the same name in 1965. It was the first formalization of the study of ecology on the West Coast. I took it simply because I needed a natural science credit and all the other classes were full. The class changed my life, and my perspectives. I devoured Rachel Carson, and savored movies like Dances With Wolves and Medicine Man. I even joined Green Peace at the age of 32 and suspect that I am probably the only Republican in history that can make that claim.

I would vote that Emerald Forest is the best of all popular eco-message dramas. It is my all time favorite. It is so well done in every area...script, acting, photography, and re-enactment of tribal customs. At the same time, it delivers a powerful message that can only be dismissed by the most callous of personalities. Every time I see the movie I am filled with regret that I could never accomplish such a landmark cinematographic ecological statement.

I was also filled with the emotion to go to Brazil and blow away anyone with a chainsaw...


This film is nice as a step out of the usual backgrounds or settings for movies. And whilst it is in the main part shot in rain forest, it is most certainly not boring in any way.

I notice there have been comments by others about certain mystical aspects in the film being too far fetched, but i can assure they are not. Following this, it is quite understandable that if someone watches this and has a limited understanding of reality and the mind - they may find certain aspects of the film slightly frustrating and/or overly convenient to be true. An example here is the art of merging with spirits who take on certain archetypal forms, such as an eagle or leopard. These are very ancient shamanic methods used to attain knowledge, power and healing abilities and are not a crazy load of made up stuff by the director. I have personally had many similar experiences to some in the film - example: once some way through a year long shamanic training, i lay on my bed and merged with a spirit and found myself as the form of an eagle (as was usual with this spirit). I had asked the spirit to take me to a gorgeous girl i had met in London a few weeks before, as i regretted never asking for her phone number after having to rush for a train. I found myself flying above London and eventually landed in leicester square where the spirit told me i should go. I finished the journey, left my house, got on the train and went to leicester square. The first person i talked to (a guy doing the charity stuff on the street) turned out to be one of the flat-mates of the girl! Einstein said 'co-incidences are God's way of remaining anonymous'. The point of this story is that the mystical stuff in Emerald Forest is factual. And it is not confined to rainforests, but in fact can be and is used in modern cities - ha ha and not just to save tribes but sometimes God willing to get girlfriends! Then also the idea that sickness (in the films case, a severe fever from enemy tribal poison), can be sucked out of someone in it's elemental energetic form- this is also ancient practise which traditionally one is merging with a helpful spirit to gain powerful protection beforehand - as is demonstrated in the film. All the mystical stuff is indeed actually down to earth, factual and to be embraced.

And this is one particular thing which brings beautiful harmony to The Enchanted Forest - it is not just down to earth because of it's setting, because of good actors and acting or because of a good story - but because it has not been afraid to remain true to another part of life, inherent in the films settings and culture. That which perhaps seems overly mystical to the average western mind. For me it seemed nothing had been left out of the film, as often is the case in order to meet the wishes of studios, who only care about their profit and not the wealth of the film itself as a branch of art.

Bear in mind that the whole film is based on a true story and really how can you go wrong? Adventurous, beautiful scenery, good acting, good characters, based on true story, unusual spiritual elements, emotional and action plus a good eco message leaving you wishing the whole world would watch it.

Enjoy!


This is a very entertaining adventure story, marred only by a stupid voodoo ending. The story grabs you almost from the very start as a young boy, son of Americans, is whisked away from his parents by Amazon rain forest natives.

Ten years later, the kid - now being a teenager - is discovered by his father who had never stopped searching for him. During that search, and afterward, we are witness to numerous action scenes, really nice jungle photography and just a fascinating story.

The cinematography, involving story, no profanity and just plain good adventure all make this movie an entertaining one. Just ignore what's put at the end, which is insult to anyone of any intelligence but Hollywood can't stop giving credence to any Indian mythologies and superstitions.


The movie the Emerald Forest was a fictional story that was based on a true story. Boorman based his movie of a article that appeared in the Los Angeles Time in the early 1980's which talked about a father whose son was abducted by native tribes and rediscovered ten years later. This may be a true story although there are critics out there who claim that the man made up the story because he wanted attention. The Emerald Forest was a very good film. The Emerald Forest was the first film to bring up the issue of the destruction of the Amazon. The locations are picturesque and Boorman is able to capture the cultural authenticity of the native tribes of the Amazon. What really surprised me was that Boorman did not use actors but went deep into the jungles of Brazil to find real natives to give his a film an authentic feel. This was especially true regarding the Invisible People who Boorman portrayed as a mysterious and elusive tribe which is demonstrated when they are camouflaged in the jungle and manage to stroke Tommy's face with a feather undetected by his family who are only a few feet a away from the Invisible People. That being said although Boorman did capture the authenticity of the native tribes and address the issue of deforestation the storyline was a little dull and cliché. This movie contains all the clichés that other movies have where a white man meets the natives. The first major cliché we can see in the movie is when the white men come they bring with them guns and alcohol and of course they exploit the natives. Another cliché is that as the white men come and development and progress disturbs the native's way of living as well as destroy the rainforest. The final cliché which we see in a lot of movies where natives play a predominant role is that the native lifestyle is portrayed as a sanctuary that sin has never entered. I still believe the film was good and I understand for the most part that is really what happens but Boorman could have made the film a bit more interesting and different and still portray his message. The preservation of the rainforest can easily be identified as the overriding and most obvious theme portrayed in this movie. The concern for maintaining the rainforest is demonstrated through the presumed wisdom we are called to see in the American Indian elders, however; Bill Markham is blind to this wisdom until the end of the movie. A few statistics are also thrown around in the movie concerning the role the Amazon plays in the world and how the white man is destroying it all by bringing industry to the area. The statistics are thrown around in a subtle way for Markham to realize the implications and damage he has caused by building the damn, showing them as being far greater and vaster than he had expected. It was powerful to hear the reporter say that 40 percent of the world's oxygen supply is generated by the rain forests and watch Markham dismiss him because of his ignorance to the real issue. Also, the movie goes on to assert that 5,000 acres of Amazonian rainforest is disappearing every day. This is actually generous. Once Markham realizes the vastness of the problem, the tables had already been turned on him. He too is kidnapped and is rescued by his son "Tomme". This scene was powerful because it shows that the boy had actually become loyal to his kidnappers and what they stand for, not the white man plight for development and industrialization. Through all of Bill's begging and pleading, he wouldn't return back to civilization with his biological father. What does it reveal to his Bill? He finally understands the destruction of life he had contributed to over the past 10 years and tries to undo his wrong by letting a violent thunderstorm destroy the dam they built.


One of the most faithful nuns in her convent, Sister Maria finds herself obsessed by the Devil. Obsessed, not possessed, because Satan is an external force in this film. A strapping and vampiric lad, the Devil brings out Sister Maria's inner desires for both sex and blood. Plagued also by her devotion to God, she tries to fight these forbidden desires and lusts with prayer and penitence only to have them come back ten fold. Sister Maria is suddenly caught between Satanic submission or death.

Satanico Pandemonium is a good nunsploitation effort in the vein of, the more celebrated, Juan Lopez Moctezuma'a Alucarda. It has sex, nudity, lesbianism, child seduction, self mutilation, blood, and death(not necessarily in that order, of course). The ending is clever and surprising following a bloody and ravenous climax. If you're a fan of nunsploitation and offbeat cinema, do yourself a favor and check out Satanico Pandemonium. You won't regret it.


Even though I have ambiguous estimations about this film on the whole, I can only say for sure that "Satanico Pandemonium" is a must-see nunsploitation Mexican flick for anyone who can be pleased about these kinds of movies for their evident ridiculousness. This is one of those flicks that have too many flaws and no plot whatsoever but it's still impossible not to like them, for some imprecise cause. The acting is not exactly Academy Award material and it causes unintended laughter. The special effects in which we see the concept of Satan and temptation itself represented on a laughable guy naked, is by far one of the most hysterical things about this film, along with the outrageously shabby sound effects during these strange apparitions. The whole thing just looks too tacky and the look on the guy's face is simply priceless, so how can anyone not love it?. I know some people could take it as a reason to overthrow the director's gracious effort, but I myself, found it too silly not to like it. Without offering an actual share of real horror, "Satanico Pandemonium" manages to get the attention, even if it is by some means erroneously advertised. There are some noble allocations of gore here and there, but the film mostly focuses on the drama and eroticism. The first half an hour happens to be ineffective in a way and that would be the only reasons why I felt compelled to turn it off throughout the first minutes and leave it incomplete. It contains no dialogs, no action and for the most part only a nice display of beautiful Mexican landscapes, which is not exactly enough to make it endurable. However, it is only a matter of persistence to realize that after the big unnecessary moments of silence and boredom, the story starts to develop some of the most astonishing states of affairs, in which we see lesbian soft-core sex between two nuns, a nun taking advantage of a teenage boy and some enjoyable bloody murders inside the convent. Without anything else to add, I can only recommend "Satánico Pandemonium" to anyone who is in the mood for a decent nunsploitation drama, with some utterly random sexual scenes, a couple of nice murders to attach at least a small share of horror to the story, a badly placed background story of racism and of course...lots of sexy and sinful nuns.


I haven't watched that many "Nunsploitation" films, but the ones I did were among the more prominent titles from the subgenre - Ken Russell's THE DEVILS (1971), Jess Franco's THE DEMONS (1972) and LOVE LETTERS OF A Portuguese NUN (1977), and Juan Lopez Moctezuma's ALUCARDA (1975) - and this one, though less well-known (which may be due to the fact that its prolific director had cut his teeth on lowbrow commercial stuff, including several "Santo" movies!), is just as good.

Hilariously, the production company which made it is called Hollywood Films and finance was provided by the "Promocion Turistica Mexicana" (what were they thinking?)! Despite the obvious low-budget, the quality of the cinematography (including its color scheme and the moody lighting) is very adequate - if not exactly smooth! The score, too, is notable in its schizophrenia: lively pop and electronic sounds (as in the rather silly orgy at the end, in which some of the bawdy nuns were actually played by prostitutes hired expressly for this one scene!) alternating with pastoral/lyrical sections and the occasional reverent passage inside the convent.

The film, unfortunately, badly lacks pace and several shots run longer than is necessary - apart from it being somewhat repetitive (particularly during the possessed nun's sex-and-death rampage and her subsequent attempts to cover her tracks, which scenes may have influenced the first half of THE ANTICHRIST [1974]; SATANICO PANDEMONIUM itself was partly inspired by Matthew Lewis' celebrated novel THE MONK - which Luis Bunuel, friend of the director and my personal favorite film-maker, adapted for the screen {but didn't direct} around this same time...and which I managed to catch while in Hollywood early last January!) It is, however, galvanized by an exceptional leading performance from the statuesque (and Keira Knightley look-alike!) Cecilia Pezet.

Unsurprisingly, the film faced censorship problems with its seduction (and later sex) scenes involving a nun and an under-aged shepherd boy!; his subsequent murder at her hands, however, is extremely unconvincing. Like ALUCARDA, the film doesn't dwell on period reconstruction (and, in fact, we only realize when the story actually takes place via a reference towards the end to the Inquisition); still, a few social/racial issues are raised nonetheless with the presence of the two black nuns/maids, who are mistreated even by their white 'colleagues'!

One of its most interesting - and audacious - concepts is the way the film subverts its own intentions by pasting four endings to the narrative back-to-back: a) the girl renounces her sins and is about to allow herself to be captured by her fellow nuns; b) the Devil (campily coiffured and given to elementary conjuring tricks, but aptly incarnated by the handsome Enrique Rocha - who, at one point, even manifests himself to Pezet in the guise of a lesbian nun!) re-appearing to offer her the post of Mother Superior at the convent (the girl having conveniently murdered the current one), whereupon she discovers that her colleagues have been possessed as well, though they still end up killing her!; c) the whole story is revealed to have been merely the delusional fantasy of the main character, under shadow of death from the plague!!; and d) the devil is, however, seen to be all too real and has already set his sights on a new 'victim' at the convent.


There's a bit of unintended notoriety connected with the title of this film. You have to see the 1996 Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez writer-director collaboration From Dusk Til Dawn, an un-P.C. film if ever there was one, to get it. The movie's characters have set up shop at a trucker's and biker's bar, the Titty Twister, to cool their heels. The M.C. announces a new entertainer for the stage, a woman named Santanico Pandemonium. The voluptuous actress Salma Hayek steps out draped with a huge snake and little else, and proceeds to rock her hips to the delight of every man who can see her. It's a stunning moment toward the middle of a not very striking flick.

Satanico Pandemonium isn't only exploitation, it belongs to a genre called "nunsploitation." The place is Spain and the time is most likely pre-1834. Sister Maria (Cecilia Pezet) is a devoted nun who finds herself visited by visions of Satan, or Luzbel. The devil appears as a man to Sister Maria, and using obvious Biblical symbolism, tends to carry a bitten-into apple. Sister Maria is startled and horrified by the series of temptations that happen to her via the film's faulty special effects. As another user has pointed out, this is an obsession scenario by an external devil.

One important observation should be stated. The actress playing Sister Maria is very beautiful with warm, bedroom eyes, and many of us (meaning men) wouldn't mind watching her getting robbed of her virtue - as well as tormented by particular sins. But what happens is with a little influence from Beelzebub, Sister Maria soon indulges in lesbianism, child seduction and heresy. The film has a church-like quality to the way it moves slowly and harps upon moments of less-than-dramatic value, and with its fantastic logic, Sister Maria turns into hell in a headdress. One scene in particular is actually quite disturbing, with Sister Maria covering her naked, bloody body with her uniform.

The flick isn't entirely baldfaced exploitation though, with interesting questions about faith in the dialogue. That aside, the flick's appeal seems rather obvious. In life, most of us want what we cannot have, and the fantasy of despoiling such a person (i.e., a nun) can be very powerful. Satanico Pandemonium uses its subject matter effectively, and despite an unsatisfying story resolution, it packs quite a wallop.


This movie is true to form with the opening of racial prejudice towards the nuns who're not Mexican.

I have read many reviews in where this movie was very confusing but this is not the case because this generation of movie viewer has to have everything explained to them because it hurts to think. Blame capitalism, blame the information age, Hell, blame me but if you have read such reviews don't take it to heart for ye will surely be deceived!!! The movie is about a nun who's harassed by the devil all because of her purity or desire to be chaste. Eversince she's been in contact with El Levid whom I shall refer to as (The Count of Dantecrispo, sister purity gets the urge to seduce goat herders and fellow nuns.

I will not share any more but for me, it's worth the investment. I like this movie more than Alucarda and that's saying a lot since Alucarda's pure Kult Ov the Kult of my video collectiones.


This was one tame yawn of a "nunsploitation".

There were like a coupla boob shots, one feeble, forced-looking lesbian kissing scene, and apparently one "rape" scene. I just thought they were all held-back or censored.

Here's the breakdown... ACTING: Okay, very subtle CHARACTERS: No real development, sympathy towards any of the characters, devil is lame. STORYLINE: Just plain ol' flatline. Nothing really happens.

The nun apparently being "possessed by the devil" is just uninspiring and cheesy. Don't buy the plot line that she's a "bride of Satan". It's a crock.

Uneventful, waste of film. The appeal of the title is definitely better than the actual film!


I came across this film under the title "Hot Sweat" at my local video store, and rented it out of curiosity; I had seen many movies by this director, and always thought his work was severely underated. The movie really surprised me with it's unsensationalistic style and well done cinematography. Although the female lead is very beautiful, and manages to get undressed frequently, there is always a tension to her sexuality...she is forced to rely on it only because the audience is clearly made aware that on the other side is the penniless abyss. Rutger Haur plays totally against type as a foppish young bank officer who adopts her as his mistress.

I think most people today think of Holland as a totally liberal and affluent country. This film goes a long way towards dispelling that stereotype, and I would recommend it to anyone looking for a (sometimes brutally) realistic picture of 19th century life among the underclass in Amsterdamn. I liked it.


"Keetje Tippel" is one of Verhoeven's lesser known movies but it really deserves to be seen and better known, all over the world. Reason why it isn't known better is I think because of "Turks fruit" from 1973. After that movie people expected this movie to be a sort of "Turks fruit 2", also because it was once again directed by Verhoeven and had Monique van de Ven and Rutger Hauer as the two main leads. "Turks fruit" and "Keetje Tippel" (and in a way also Verhoeven's earlier movie "Wat zien ik") show some similarities in the way the story is told but it are in fact of course two totally different movies.

The movie provides a pretty good and insightful view of life in late 19th century Amsterdam. The atmosphere of the old Amsterdam is perfectly captured by Jan de Bont's cinematography and by the costume design and art direction.

What makes "Keetje Tippel" better than the average period drama is the directness of the story telling. This is of course thanks to Verhoeven's typical style of directing that always is very direct and straight to the point. Once more the movie features quite some nudity and confronting scene's. But it all works well because it serves a purpose in the movie and it's obviously not only put in it to simply shock the viewer in a cheap way. The movie however is quite short and it didn't feel that the movie covered the entire story and the ending is abrupt and not entirely satisfying because it still leaves a bunch of questions unanswered.

The acting isn't always top-class but this is more because of the simple dialog, rather than its the actors their fault. Rutger Hauer however deserves credit for his role and he plays his character in a very believable way. Monique van de Ven is good for about 70% of the time but her acting really pushes it at times and her character at times goes a bit too much over-the-top. The movie further more features a good supporting cast.

The story is always interesting and you never know what is going to happen next, thanks to the unpredictable and realistic characters that are being portrayed in this movie. The movie is based on the real life of Neel Doff, which gives the movie an even more realistic and confronting feeling.

Better than your average period drama's. See this movie if you get the chance.

8/10


I was recently given the Anchor Bay DVD release of this title as a present, and I have to say that while I am impressed with the usual European frankness about things that would never make it into American films, this is probably among the least of Paul Verhoeven's work. Not that this is bad from the get-go. I would far prefer to watch a bad film from Paul Verhoeven than what could be considered good among the stables of directors like Peter Jackson or Jerry Bruckheimer. They say that the key to artistic success is being honest with yourself, and Verhoeven is a big example of the principle. More on that in a moment.

The story of Keetje Tippel concerns itself with a young woman named Keetje, who migrates from one end of Holland to another during the nineteenth century. The name might be obvious from the title, but one thing that should have been made clearer is that Tippel is not her family name. Tippel actually refers to the profession she winds up taking in order to fuel her rise from the gutter.

At the beginning of the film, Keetje is an idealist with little, if any, idea of how the capitalist society she enters actually works. She starts out going from one crappy job to the next. The first of which makes it clear that worker health and safety was a very minor concern at best in this primitive era. We see Keetje and numerous other workers dipping textiles into lye, no gloves or any other kind of protection, and we see its effects at various stages in the film. From there, Keetje falls into working as a seamstress, and eventually, as a prostitute.

One touch of Dutch cinema that I've always liked since I have become acquainted with it through Verhoeven's work is that there isn't always a happy ending. In Keetje Tippel, our titular hero does nothing to help the poor that she was once a member of. In fact, one of the many things she winds up doing in the latter part of the film hurts them very badly. This can be understood when one looks at some attitudes to what people feel when they get out of a situation they cannot stand. For example, were I to leave Australia and live somewhere like England, the only way in which I would lift a finger to help others who are unhappy with the lot Australia has is by helping them leave. Like rats from a sinking ship, as it were. That's the attitude of the character, and it is even more understandable in the context of nineteenth century social conditions.

The thing that keeps Keetje Tippel from obtaining the unqualified ten out of ten rating I normally give Verhoeven's Dutch-language films is, ironically, the same thing that normally prompts this rating. For once, the brutal honesty and unflinching depiction of reality counts against the film. Rather than the stomach churning for a second before expressing amazement, I found myself asking if the depiction of bodily functions is really necessary. Those who have seen the uncut versions of Soldaat Van Oranje, Turks Fruit, or even De Vierde Man, will understand what I am talking about here.

During the audio commentary Anchor Bay had recorded for the DVD release, the difference between Verhoeven and many a Hollywood director becomes obvious in a big hurry. Where other directors will attempt to put a spin on every aspect of their films, or even try to congratulate themselves, Verhoeven is so frank and honest that his commentaries could be used in film-making schools. Unlike Peter Jackson and his vapid writing staff, you won't hear Verhoeven trying to justify his artistic decisions from a position of arrogance. It's not "how do you expect me to do this? do you think you can do better?", but rather "I did this this way because... and I am pleased/disappointed with the results, so I will do it again/try something else next time". If all directors in Hollywood were this brutally honest, American film would be much more palatable nowadays.

I gave Keetje Tippel an eight out of ten. Its realism earns it a ten out of ten for the most part, but there are times when it either goes too far, or lets its ambition exceed its ability enough, to deduct two points. Jan Wolkers, the author of the novel on which Turks Fruit is based, had similar feelings about Turks Fruit, so this is quite easily viewed as a case of a new director faltering a little as he learns his craft. Still, with early pieces like Keetje Tippel and Turks Fruit, it is not a surprise that Verhoeven would go on to such masterpieces as Total Recall or RoboCop. The DVD is well worth the Amazon asking price.


If you like Paul Verhoeven's later work (Robocop, Total Recall, Black Book), you should take the time to delve into his Dutch language work.

This is a serious work showing class differences in 19th Century Holland, and the total lack of concern for workers. The title character takes a slew of meaningless jobs after the family is forced to move to the city, eventually ending up as a prostitute to survive.

Hearing the typical "streets paved with gold" dreams that were typical of America at that time, we can totally relate to those driven from their farms.

Women were certainly toys for men, even doctors, to play with, and rape, if they chose.

It was interesting to see Rutgar Hauer in a role as a gentlemen, and the experience of Monique van de Ven was not to be missed.


I recorded this movie a few weeks ago from our local community television station Triangle's night broadcast. I was surprised to see this on their schedule, as it's usually the lowest rate affair. The situation was another example of a great work getting lost in another vast video copy collection.

I was excited to be seeing an early movie from a director I always admired. I'd only ever seen his Hollywood work, and was especially fond of his Sci-Fi classics growing up. As others recognize, Verhoeven unashamedly puts into his films, his honest impression of the societal constructs we humans consistently find ourselves in. That regular criticism of the complexities of human nature, beyond the norms of each film's particular genre, has always resonated with my world view.

I finally watched this film this morning. As it started it was obvious the image quality was very poor, not helped by early scenes being predominantly in the dark. Not surprisingly the character's voices were dubbed into English, but were often mismatched or exaggerated, unfitting for the film. It seems to be the UK version I saw, yet some accents were American. I always try to watch a film in it's original intended language, but it seems the foreign films on the local community station are only ever poorly dubbed video copies.

Despite the poor quality of the copy I saw (the video company's logo even popped up irregularly in the bottom corner of the image), this film really amazed me. Much of the reasons why have been detailed by the few other comments on this site. The biggest flaw of the story for me was that the film ended too suddenly. This seems a common element to films the further back in cinema history you go. I actually appreciate a well crafted credits sequence, easing the viewer out of the film's world, and allowing reflection. Even at nearly 2 hours long, I felt my interest would have been sustained for a little bit longer.

There is a DVD listed here with 5 of Verhoeven's films in their original Dutch form, with English subtitles. I'd like to see this one again, and the rest of his early creations, which others consider even better. Rutger Hauer is also a great, varied yet charismatic actor, and it seems his best work might be with Verhoeven.


From this movie, it is easy to see how the director made it out of Holland and landed in mainstream Hollywood. He takes a very serious subject, extreme poverty and how it leads to social uprising, and adds his personal light touches that almost make you forget the political subtext. The "finger shadow" scene before the rape was a touch of cinematic genius that I almost missed the first time around.

The ultimate lesson seems to me to be, of course, that we are all whores, it just depends on how much we can afford to spend on clothes.

One question, if she was so poor, how did she keep her roots died blonde?


Katie Tippel is very similar to Turkish Delight. This film has tons of nudity in it. This is one of Paul Verhoeven's early Dutch movies. Rutger Hauer stars in this movie. This movie is also shocking like most Verhoeven movies. This movie was cut to avoid an X rating. I saw the unrated version from Netflix. I have never seen this movie cut. All of Paul Verhoeven's movies have nudity in it. Jan De Bont was the cinematographer for this as with other Paul Verhoeven's films such as Turkish Delight, The 4th Man, Flesh + Blood, and Basic Instinct. I have only seen this movie once. I wish I can own it. I also wish I did not throw away Basic Instinct. This is a very well done Dutch film.


Anyone interested in family relationships will surely enjoy this movie about a manipulative matriarch, Louise Closser Hale, who is not averse to fake fainting spells to get her way with her four sons and their wives. The acting is first-rate by a stellar cast, five of whom (John Beal, Hal K. Dawson, Irene Cattell, Maidel Turner and Margaret Hamilton) were in the original Broadway production which opened 25 April 1932, and who reprised their roles. This was also the film debut of Beal, Hamilton and Cattell (the only film she ever made). But kudos go to the magnificent Helen Hayes as the new addition to the family who stands up to Hale, John Beal, as her sensitive nephew who falls in love with her, and Robert Montgomery playing Hayes' husband, still under the control of his mother. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Stick with it until the end; the last 20 minutes are as riveting as any drama can be.


Based on a Broadway play, ANOTHER LANGUAGE is one of those gems from yesteryear that few have heard of. It has much to recommend it, chiefly: believable and detailed interaction among members of a rather large and unpleasant family, mostly given to self absorption but with moments of genuine compassion and caring that surface unexpectedly. One of the members of this family is Margaret Hamilton (who was in the Broadway original) in one of the few roles that allowed her to enact a somewhat complex human being. Louise Closser Hale is perfectly cast as the controlling, selfish mother who sets the tone for her whole brood. Helen Hayes, a supremely skilled actress who could play ordinary people and make them fascinating, wins the viewer over completely as the bride who runs afoul of her in-laws. I wanted to marry her myself! The standout, however, is young John Beal who delivers a passionate performance as Robert Montgomery's younger brother. ***POSSIBLE SPOILER FOLLOWS*** His character is introduced well after the conflict between Hayes and the family is established. He is appalled that his family is treating Hayes so shabbily and falls madly, dangerously, recklessly in love with her. His vital, fresh-faced, youthful innocence and earnestness captivate the viewer. He too had played the same role in the stage version. This performance might have launched Beal to the top of the Hollywood firmament, but Hollywood didn't suit him, and he settled into a 60-year career of minor films, regional theater and numerous TV roles. Montgomery himself is top notch, as usual, playing the insensitive product of his narrow-minded mother's upbringing. Don't let the conventional opening scene as Hayes and Montgomery disembark from their honeymoon cruise fool you. It gets better fast. The theme is similar to that of HOLIDAY, based on a Philip Barry play, in which a free-spirited outsider clashes with members of his fiancée's stodgy, traditional banking family. Although not cinematically daring in any way, ANOTHER LANGUAGE delivers the emotional goods.


A marvelous movie, from start to (just before the) finish.

We meet Robert Montgomery and Helen Hayes, with whom he has eloped recently, on shipboard. She is eager to start their home life together. All he can think of is seeing his mother.

Louise Closser Hale is superb as the suffocating matriarch of his family. The other members, including Henry Travers and Margaret Hamilton, are very good as well. Especially fine is John Beal, as Montgomery's nephew. Indeed, he gives a heart-wrenching performance. It's possibly the best in this movie and he is working against very stiff competition.

Montgomery is not only a mama's boy -- called Vicky by everyone, as his name is Victor. He is also a supreme narcissist: In one shocking scene, he inspects himself in a mirror over the mantel. Directly under the mirror is a plaster bust of him that Hayes has lovingly worked on sculpting. He doesn't even notice it.

It's very hard to fault this movie. The ending is a trifle disappointing. And a Mark Twain aphorism is spoken by one character and laughed at by others, as if it were original to this screenplay.

Hayes is superb and very likable. Montgomery, not generally a favorite of mine, is believable as her self-centered husband. Beal is absolutely superb in a very touching role. And Hale is subtle but compelling as the woman of iron who becomes an invalid the minute doing so will get what she wants from her offspring.


Only film geeks could get anything out of this piece of garabage! I meant to spell it that way by the way. Listen, anyway, this film premiered in Tulsa Oklahoma, with a pretty darn loyal following pretty darn excited to see it. It was awful! A complete waste of money. Felissa Rose was the only saving grace to this turkey about zombies who are sent from the devil. The acting is about the worst acting in cinema history, even Brink Stevens and Tom Savini couldn't save it! Ugh! 0/10


Okay, I feel I must praise those who have given this film the bad rap it deserves! For starters, I remember getting invited to a special screening for, lets say, six bucks or so. I was expecting to see a wretched pile of bull, but I got something worse than that! I was so sure that having a few union actors such as Savini would give a little depth, or something enjoyable. NOPE! This film was the most pathetic concoction ever put onto film. Loust script, horrid acting, lame effects, and a whole lot of unreal violence that was just stupid to begin with. John Waters' "Pink Flamingos" looks like an early Spielberg classic in comparison, and thats a bad thing. I never had a problem with the Waters exercise in 'poor taste', because there was a message about it, this film, was just stupid. I cannot be more specific than that. Just stupid.

Now, it began out with an extremely unbelievable sex scene with Tom Savini and Brinke Stevens. Stevens then retreats to her radio office to conduct a question and answering about zombies. We then see the worst acting of a man and his son hunting zombies, and a tiger is involved...er something. Anyway, a community is under attack with a bunch of idiots running around getting killed one by one. The lead cops are sick and sleazy, and achieve sexual kicks by forcing young males to make love. It is just stupid I tell you! They don't give a crap about civilians. I can understand a filmmakers need to be self-expressive, but there are limits to which art become ridiculous and repetitive. The rest of the story has a lot of bad acting, cheap vomit effects, dreadful dialog, and the STUPIDEST climax to be seen by anyone, be it whoever. My finale plea, is that the filmmakers of this movie need to be banned from writing, directing, or any other type of process in the industry. I thought I was going to see some film that would at least be on its way to a real film-festival...alas, this film was NOTHING! My advice would be to make sure NO ONE ever see's this film again. Then the world would be a better place.

I just have to ask...why do these films get made? They're just so dumb, and offer nothing. If someone actually likes them, then they need help!


If you are a fan of Zombie-movies, this one will disappoint you: This is a movie without any good ideas, there are no thrills and shock-effects. The make-up is lousy, too and there was no money for special effects. The whole thing looks like a bad joke, a home video from a few crazy kids.

If you are a fan of the actors who appear here you will be disappointed, too because their appearances are much too short.

Zombiegeddon is a bad movie: very boring, no story, no, absolutely no action and a real waste of a few good B-movie-legends: Scream-Queen Brinke Stevens, she was about 50 when she made this one - real beauty never fades -, has a few good moments, Tom Savini, the legendary Sex-Machine in Tarantino/Rodriguez "From Dusk Till Dawn", is wasted here, too. His scene is not worth to mention and he isn't as cool here as we remember him from other movies.

"Maniac Cop" Robert Z'Dar appears almost at the end of the movie and he hasn't much to do in here. Julie Strain appeared also in the credits and you wait for her appearance than you recognize disappointed that they only dubbed her voice as one of the callers.

Conrad Brooks, the young Cop from Ed Woods "Plan 9 from outer Space", appears also here but why??? A few famous B-movie legends can't even save this garbage.

Joe Estevez seems to be the only actor who really enjoyed his work. His appearances are really funny. William Smith as Lord Zombie in his terrible costume with his terrible helmet looks like he would say: Oh my God, what am I doing here? When will I ever get a part in a real movie? Most of the scenes look like they were shot in 1 or 2 hours. Another funny thing is that the makers talk in the Making-Of about Kung-fu fighting Zombies, but what they are doing is Kickboxing. Hey, Guys, wake up! There is a difference between Kung-Fu and Kickboxing.

This DVD includes also one of the worst and most boring Making-Ofs I've ever seen. It looks like even the guys who mad this movie were completely desinterrested in their "work".

All in all: Zombiegeddon is a waste of time and a waste of money!


The movie isn't worth much of my time. It is total crap. I rented this movie because it has Tom Savini listed at the top of the credits and had kung-fu zombies. Savini was in the movie for about 5 minutes. The kung-fu zombie scene was short and poorly done. I should have looked farther down and saw that Lloyd Kaufman was is this movie. The I would have realized that this is a piece of crap Troma movie.

It is a piece of crap isn't very funny. My two laughs: 1) Uwe Boll came on before the movie started and said "this movie sucks" and "don't watch it". I started thinking: "I wouldn't trust Uwe's opinion on a zombie film." 2) The police were a little funny when they were framing someone.

The rest of the movie was total crap. There were a bunch of cameos from B movie stars and a bunch of bad attempts to intentionally make scenes look unintentionally bad. I was wired up when the movie started from winning a close softball game 15-14, but this movie put me to near sleep within 10 minutes. Do watch it. It is bad.


Not as bad as "Bone Sickness"

well ...yeah it is.

This movie is bad.

Very bad!!!

The director did'nt even want his name on it but put it on it since the crew asked him to. That should be all you need to know.

I love horror ...just so you know. I love a lot of really bad horror, but this is not the good kind of bad in any way. Don't spend any money on this flick. By "any money" I mean "ANY" ! A penny would be too much. You have been warned!


Before seeing this movie, i did expect it to be a no budget "so bad its good" zombie flick. What i saw was a lot worse. First of all Zombiegeddon has a very dull script - Lord Zombie (William Smith) is creating human-like zombies and sends them to Earth. This is just pathetic. I don't understand why in hell did people like Edwin Neal, Tom Savini, Brinke Stevens, Felissa Rose, Linnea Quigley, Robert Z'Dar and Joe Estevez even appear in this movie. Edwin Neal plays God. Tom Savini plays Jesus Crist. Robert Z'Dar appears for only 5 mins, and even makes fun of his own cult movie The Maniac Cop !

The effects are cheap, and unrealistic. Awful soundtrack. The directing is even worse. Zombie make-up is none-existent. Some zombies are kickboxers, and kung-fu fighters. The acting is beyond bad. In the beginning of the movie, director Uwe Boll tells us not to watch this movie, because its bad. Well after seeing Zombiegeddon i'll have to admit, he was right. His House of the Dead was better than this.

So, to sum it up - don't watch this movie. Its really that bad. And believe me, i've seen bad movies. This one is worse than Zombie Lake, Flesheaters, Bloodeaters, Meat Market, Redneck Zombies, Bone Sickness...etc. All of the B-movie stars listed above appear for only a couple of minutes each. Other actors are absolutely awful. The movie isn't funny, isn't scary, isn't interesting, isn't shocking. The only movie i can think of right now, that is worse than Zombiegeddon is probably Zombiez. 1/10


IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO READ SPOILERS, DO NOT READ ON. THANK YOU.

I'll be honest with you. I went into the video store looking for something mildly bad, but funny enough to keep myself entertained. The DVD starts off hilariously, with a rapidly-moving movie about zombie chickens, making me laugh in hilarity. This went on for so long, I was happily munching on my hot pocket... until it said it was a preview. This was followed by another long one, which, thanks to the genius programmers, I couldn't skip passed, so I had to FastForward. Then I finally got to the menu, which surprised me, to be frank. For the price I got it at, I wasn't expecting that much. The movie started with Lloyd Kaufman, an eccentric Jewish man who is the father of a few cult films, which made me excited. Generally, anything with Troma on it will elicit a "what?" response, which is what keeps me going. After Kaufman speaks with a few cute girls at some horror expo, the movie begins. Well, not quite. After play, some guys talk about how big a, I quote exactly, a "POS" this movie was. This goes on for awhile until I skip ahead.

First thing I can't help but notice is that the camera and lighting work is about as good as your typical soap opera, and sometimes won't even sit still.

The movie starts off jarringly, but no one cares. Two cops kill a guy, and put in some framing guns, though later they just shoot people for fun. Not even five minutes in, a woman disrobes, meaning someone is about to die. Naked chicks are always a signal something big is about to go down. They're in the gym of a community college, and one of them, I'll say, isn't particularly bad to look at. any arousal is quickly doused by the biker-chick esquire woman who supposedly gets hit on a lot. All of this is just filler, until the cuter woman goes in the shower, disappears when a hand grabs her, and some juice is tossed at the shower wall. I should mention, the sound is appalling in this scene. It's not award winning in any others, but the gym is inexcusable. Kaufman also plays an overacting janitor, supposedly has the biggest case of homophobia on earth because he thinks, I'm not kidding, that a man being eaten by another man is totally normal, homosexual behavior.

These zombies are not really zombies at all. They can choose to reveal themselves, they are sentient, intelligent, and well skilled in combat. Hell, they're demons, I have no idea where they got zombies from. We learn this when a guy who hates late fees kills the clerk by cheaply ripping his heart out, and eating it when charged.

We return to the cops, who may as well be named Good Cop and Bad Cop, since it doesn't matter. I actually had to take notes throughout this whole thing, and to run through them all would fill up the amount of characters I have available. so, I'll lay out a few of the more glaring memories: There's a pointless scene where the bad cop humps to orgasm a car driven by a group of four college kids after belittling them. There's also a lengthy conversation about testicles and the eating of said organs. There's also a running comment that no one should be in the college "at these hours," often through a truly pointless subplot about some jerk-turned-good guy who saves a girl he likes, who works inventory at a book store. despite the implication that it is pretty late at night, it's always broad daylight outside. Most of the killing early on is done by the Bad cop, who is in fact a good guy. The zombies are also major wusses, who can be defeated by a few punches. There's a half decent fight scene between Sensei Zombie (a kung fu master undead) and the good cop after they rescue three useless girls. After this, they go into a safe house occupied by God. Despite being a safe house, every one inside it eventually dies. There's a few other things, I could mention, but I'd like to skip to the ultimate fight of good v. evil: Good cop is supposedly a warrior of God, because of his blood line. He fights the head zombie, which consists of him getting his punch caught, and then ripping the head zombie's heart out. Think they could've made this scene, the climax, a bit more interesting? I don't know. The movie ends with the guy getting gunned down, and zombies swarming the world.

Wow. This is one of the first movies they ever made me stare at the screen speechless, before bursting out into laughter. "What the hell is this?"

What is this? This is a major piece of crap. If you're a fan of that, well, perhaps you should look into it. But, the main stream movie-goer will probably want to commit suicide after watching this, so by all means avoid.

Main stream: 1/10

Masochistic Movie-Geek: 10/10


I have to say when a name like Zombiegeddon and an atom bomb on the front cover I was expecting a flat out chop-socky fung-ku, but what I got instead was a comedy. So, it wasn't quite was I was expecting, but I really liked it anyway! The best scene ever was the main cop dude pulling those kids over and pulling a Bad Lieutenant on them!! I was laughing my ass off. I mean, the cops were just so bad! And when I say bad, I mean The Shield Vic Macky bad. But unlike that show I was laughing when they shot people and smoked dope.

Felissa Rose...man, oh man. What can you say about that hottie. She was great and put those other actresses to shame. She should work more often!!!!! I also really liked the fight scene outside of the building. That was done really well. Lots of fighting and people getting their heads banged up. FUN! Last, but not least Joe Estevez and William Smith were great as the...well, I wasn't sure what they were, but they seemed to be having fun and throwing out lines. I mean, some of it didn't make sense with the rest of the flick, but who cares when you're laughing so hard! All in all the film wasn't the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I wasn't expecting that. It was a Troma flick so I figured it would totally suck. It's nice when something surprises you but not totally sucking.

Rent it if you want to get stoned on a Friday night and laugh with your buddies. Don't rent it if you are an uptight weenie or want a zombie movie with lots of flesh eating.

P.S. Uwe Boil was a nice touch.


At the beginning we can see members of Troma team company and Uwe Boll says " This is bad, it's a big s***, don't watch it, don't even think about it, stay away from this movie", now we are warn...

But they are wrong, the film is brilliant. OK it have a lot bad things like : no budget (of course), no good acting, no fancy FX, no good location, no good editing, no good sound.....etc In fact, in all technical aspect, the film is bad, but that's not a surprise. But when you watch Zombiegeddon a lot of this disappear or make the film pretty funny. And that's the power of this movie, the film is fun, good fun. Because it's not an annoying and boring movie, no that's more a good horror/comedy, between "shawn of the dead" and "an Ed Wood movie". And that's really enjoying to see a movie like that make you smile at least 75% of the time. The movie is really cool. Great Troma movie !


I got a screener of this film a couple of weeks ago. Before I watched it I checked out this site and instantly began to dread watching it. I finally gave up last night and threw it in. What were these other reviewers watching? Is it the same film? One mentions he thought the movie, called ZOMBIEGEDDON for Christ's sake, might be a film festival flick. I'm wondering now if this person needed glasses to read the title. Do movies with cheesy titles usually go to film festivals? If so, which one so I can go! Then there's one saying that they weren't warned like they are with a John Waters film...um, did you see the warning at the beginning of the film? Or listen to Uwe Boll in the opening? It makes me think some of these reviews are fake. One of the best zombie movies? Nooo, not even the positive ones seem like they've seen it. What you do get here is a real weird ass zombie film, if you can even call it a zombie film. After the warnings on how bad it is from Uwe Boll and retard doctors (I'm serious) you get Brinke Stevens humping Tom Savini. You get in on the tail end of the sex and then some brief nudity and a few cute one liners from Savini. Then Savini is gone. Perhaps my biggest beef with the film is the in and out cameos. The people I want to see more of only have brief scenes and then there's those that annoy me to no end that we have to see for the whole film. I suppose that's how you get a great crap cast though...After the sex, Brinke goes to her job at the radio station and is provoked into telling how all of mankind will be dead in so many hours. The movie then goes into all these different and sometimes intersecting stories that add up to a bunch of Z grade actors getting killed by zombies. I have to admit it and definitely hate to, but I kind of liked this film. It's guaranteed to get trashed, as it is on this site but there's something offbeat and weird about this film that makes me love it. Maybe it's the cameos from people I love or the pure ballsiness to seemingly not care what people are going to think of the film, like when they gave it such a cheeseball title (probably not expecting people to confuse it with art-house fare like one reviewer did). I found myself smiling through most of the film. That doesn't happen very often. I laughed out loud two or three times and a few more times at the horrible delivery of some of the actors but I'd be shocked if 80's B movie fans didn't enjoy this film if they're willing to accept it for what it is. It's a movie that obviously had no budget, hopefully made by young people. If it's by young people then this movie is OK. If the makers of this film have been around for a while you should probably stop. What sold me on the movie is just the weirdness of it. I really don't have any other way to put it. The actors are crap, the movie looks like good digital, there's nothing special about the way it's filmed or edited, the make up is probably good for no budget but not for something with a budget so all this movie ends up having going for it is it's weirdness. Luckily, it's one weird arse movie.


I saw this in Pittsburgh PA in a small theater there. This movie was a lot of fun with tons of B movie stars and references. A total blast from start to finish with everything you'd expect from a low budget movie. Brinke Stevens, Robert Z'Dar, Edwin Neal, and Tom Savini are especially good. This is by far the most fun I've had at the movies in years!


I caught this bad boy at a showing in a Tulsa Oklahoma theater. The title made me think I was getting in for a cheesefest. Conrad Brooks is in it too so it has to be REALLY bad doesn't it? Well, no. See what makes this flick stand out is that it's far different from anything else I've seen. It's not Romero that's for sure. Think Romero with a little Lloyd Kaufman with a little Larry Cohen. I sat through the entire film and was not bored. That does not happen very often. At one point things in the film are happening so fast it felt chaotic and that's exactly what I'd imagine the filmmakers wanted you to feel. They wanted you to actually get in the movie. Now I don't want to sound like I'm totally praising the film because it's not THAT good but it's not bad either. It's one of those low budget shot on video horror films so how can you go in expecting much? Then we've got the title and the fact Conrad Brooks and Joe Estevez are in it. How can you expect much? What you can expect is a good time. I think anyone who actually knows this convention like list of horror stars will have an absolute blast. If you're looking for A grade acting with an incredible beautiful story go rent Hamlet. If you're looking for a nasty good time rent Zombiegeddon.


I had not heard of the film until I saw it on the Turner Movie Classics schedule. Seeing the subject matter and the 1944 date excited me. The writer, director and cast would be playing out the issues in real time, as the die was cast. I grew up in a household conflicted with stories and opinions of Nazi Germany. My mother is Jewish. My father was German and raised by a father who supported Hitler. I have always been fascinated by Germans who seem to be good people who choose to ignore the eventual outcome of Hitler's madness and defend Germany's need for him.

The characters each have their unique perspective and reaction to Emil as played masterfully by Skip Homeier. The desire to see only the good in a human being with no expectation that they are dealing with a fully brainwashed evil acting thug is such an American trait. This movie is simply made and concentrates closely on the story, and it's the story and the acting that is compelling. I think you will enjoy it if you enjoy a good psychological study. My husband was disappointed with the ending, I, however, was overjoyed and cried. P. S. It was nice to see Agnes Moorehead in her role. I have never seen her play such a "normal person".


"Tomorrow the World" is a thought provoking film about an American family who adopts a troubled German boy after the war. Together they try to undo the ridgid Nazi influence that was instilled in him (which is no easy feat). Leslie Fenton directs a first rate cast including Fredric March, Betty Field, Agnes Moorehead and Joan Carroll. However it is Skip Homeier as the Nazi youth who steals the picture with an electrifying performance. The film is available on video and DVD.


One must make allowances -- it was wartime, it was propaganda, it was United Artists -- but even taking all that into account, this is a fairly ludicrous melodrama about an upper-middle-class American household that brings chaos on itself by unknowingly inviting a Hitler Youth into its home. And what a little hellraiser he turns out to be -- writing anti-Semitic epithets about his teacher and potential stepmom (Field), whacking his cousin(Carroll) with a fireplace iron, attempting to knife a playmate. Adapted by no less than Ring Lardner Jr. from a hit Broadway play, it may have had resonance at the time, if audiences were willing to overlook pedestrian direction, absurdly melodramatic music, and Homeier's undisciplined histrionics (reprising his stage role, he's sort of a Nazi Dennis the Menace). But the script, like so many at the time, takes the goodness of Americans, all Americans, so for granted that it starts to sound smug and patronizing. (It's a mighty white-bread America they're portraying, too; if that's how things really were, it looks today like an unwitting expose of America's racist past.) It also suggests that it's fairly easy to deprogram these little monsters; all it takes is a bit of lovingkindness and a birthday present. March and Moorehead (playing a repressed spinster aunt, much like she did in "The Magnificent Ambersons") were as good as movie actors get, but they're playing devices here, not flesh and blood. Under the circumstances, Betty Field manages to be surprisingly interesting -- she always looks so worried, like she has a horrible secret the audience never finds out.


"Tomorrow the World", the play in which this picture is based, was popular on Broadway during the WWII era. It was to expect it made it to the movies. Ring Lardner Jr, one of the best American writers of the time undertook the film adaptation aided by Leopold Atlas. Leslie Fenton, the director made the best of it.

An American family living in the midwest accept to house and care for a German youth whose father was friendly with the head of the household, Mike Frame, a widower, with a teen age daughter.

When Emil Bruckner arrives, he immediately makes a blunder when he describes his plane trip seated next to a fat Jew. Well, little does this little brat know that Mike is seeing a school teacher who happens to be Jewish. Leona Richards is the epitome of kindness and patience. So is Pat, the daughter who tries to show Emil around and help him make friends in her circle. Emil does everything possible to destroy this family that welcomed him into their home. Little by little he tries to get his way until everybody finds out this little boy is a bully and a coward.

The cast of this 1944 movie is headed by the great Frederic March, one of the icons of the American theater and the film industry. He plays the decent Mike Frame. Betty Field makes an impressive appearance as the kind Lee Richards. Agnes Moorehead, is also good as Aunt Jessie, who is charmed by the rotten Emil. Skip Homeier, repeating his theater role is remarkable as the young Nazi sympathizer who gets a lesson in how wrong he has been about his American hosts.

This is a movie that has a dated look, but still makes an impression because of the strength of the treatment it received from the writers and the director.


This is an entertaining and interesting film, as much for what it doesn't say as for what it does.

Our depiction of small town middle American life circa 1944 is wildly inaccurate and glorified, but this is not at all unusual in films of the era. World War II era audiences would have considered themselves morally superior to the Germans and had no argument with life as seen in "Tomorrow, the World!". In reality, however, it is unlikely that a Jewish woman would have been a teacher in a largely protestant public school, and even less likely that she would have entered into an interfaith marriage with the only protest being raised by a small foreign boy. And if one considers how the story would have played out had the character of Leona been black, she not only would have never been teaching in a white public school, but had she and Mike Frame sought to be married, there likely would have been a response from the community that involved a lynching and thus our moral superiority over the Germans is exposed as being more imagined than real.

None of which particularly ruins the film. It requires no greater suspended-disbelief than Superman or Dracula, and on its own merits this film is an enjoyable experience. However sanitized, small town 1940's America is a place one almost cannot help but to long for. And into this idealized world enters Emil, a character that at first comes on ludicrously overplayed, and yet pulls you in just the same. The audience quickly becomes concerned for what will happened to the Frame family, and the guilty pleasure of watching this pre-"Bad Seed" demon will keep you on the edge of your seat.. After what Emil does to Pat, the vigilante justice meted out by Pat's school-mates is shamelessly gratifying to see. Throughout the story one keeps secretly hoping for Emil's redemption, and it is the film's greatest drawback that it attempts to grant this wish in a quick and unrealistic throwaway end. This inadequately explored issue as well as the intriguing and thoroughly under-utilized subplot of Emil's manipulation of Jessie leave the distinct impression that someone demanded a great deal of running time be shaved off of this film.

"Tomorrow, the World!" still gets major points for at least attempting a subject matter few films of its era, outside of propaganda newsreels, would dare touch, and it's worth a watch.


I saw this movie and found it extremely puzzling. The child, Emil, is the least sympathetic character I have seen since, "The Good Son." Emil is cold, calculating and manipulates the other characters with no conscience whatsoever.

I found the ending the most curious of all. Emil attempts to murder Pat, and because he cries over it, and confesses the Nazis kept him in a dark cell for what his father did, the family forgives all. This seems to be a recipe for disaster. The end credits roll, but does anyone believe a kid that tried to kill before won't try to do it again when he doesn't get his way? Nuts!


**SPOILERS** Coming over to the Frame home in rural USA to be taken in as a member of the family young Emil Buckner, Skip Homeier, is anything but your typical American boy in fact he was brought up in Nazi Germany and brainwashed to grow up and become a future Aryan Superman in the Hitler Youth. That fact that Emil's dad who was thrown into a Nazi concentration camp where he eventually died for speaking out against the Fuhrer, Adolph Hitler, made Emil look suspicious to his Nazi overseers who felt that he may well become like his dad, normal, when he grows up. The Nazis decided that he didn't have what it takes to become a good and loyal member of the Nazi Party and sent packing to the US to stay with his old man's brother-in-law Mike Frame, Fredic March, and his future wife Leona Richards, Betty Fields.

Not getting the hint that he was a total wash out, in him not having what it takes to be a good Nazi, from his beloved Nazi Germany Emil ,because of him being brainwashed since he could barley walk, still thinks that he's a full fledged Nazi Superman and goes so far as to parade around the house, this in 1944 when the US was at war with Nazi Germany, with his Nazi or Hitler Youth uniform. Emil makes a complete jerk of himself in him trying to be a spy for the Fatherland and at the same time blowing his cover, by bragging about it, and not realizing that the Fatherland, wanting nothing at all to do with this nut, had him unceremoniously kicked out!

Acting like a Nazified version of "Dennis the Menace" Emil is all over the house and even at school trying to prove to everyone, including himself, what a great Nazi Superman he really is. For a while Emil does get his classmates to go along with his crazy antics that he picked up back in Germany while in the Hitler Youth. Emil has his classmates take night marches into enemy territory and staging roadside ambushes, all in fun of course, while being disguised in camouflage so that the enemy, whoever he is, can't see them as well as familiarizing themselves with all kinds of arms and ammunitions, German of course.

Emil goes a bit too far when he first comes to deal with Leona, his Uncle Mike's fiancée, being Jewish as well as his determination to steal Mike's mail that he gets from the War Department. Mike is one of the country's top chemist and is working on a top secret project for the US military, the Atomic Bomb?, and Emil wants to get his hands on what he's doing by stealing his private notes and mail and send it back to the Fatherland. In the case of his future aunt Leona the fact that she's Jewish is enough to drive Emil batty in thinking that he'll be forced to live under the same roof as she is when she marries his Uncle Mike: a fate worse then death itself for the cute but somewhat not all there in the head little Nazi.

Two things happen that turn Emil around in his mission, or what he thinks it is, in serving his Fatherland. Confronting Leona about her being Jewish, in the most vulgar of ways, she slaps Emil across the face that shocks the very self-assured and arrogant young man in him, ,an Aryan Superman, not only being whacked by a lowly woman but a Jewish one at that! The second incident that brings Emil back to reality has to do with his getting into a fight with fellow student Stanley Dumbowski, Rudy Wissle. Stanley being a Polish/American whom Emil felt to be inferior to him was able to take him on and give him a bloody nose and even later force Emil, with their teacher Miss. Richards looking on, to apologies to him in front of all his classmates; What An Insult!

With all his arrogance about being a good Nazi now in question the only thing that can bring back Emil to his fantasy world of serving Fuhrer and Fatherland is to get his hands on Uncle Mike's secret papers and send them back to Germany, by US airmail?, to show everyone back home what a good German, or Aryan, he really is. Emil is stymied in his plan to serve the Fatherland when he's caught red-handed, with his hands in Uncle Mike's drawer, by his young cousin Pattie, Joan Carroll, who just bought him a birthday present, a illuminated watch which he always wanted for his crazy nighttime war maneuvers. All at once Emil graduated from just being just a pesky and uncontrollable but somewhat harmless young boy to a possibly up and coming psycho killer the very type of person that would make those back in the Fatherland, the Nazis, very proud of him.

Intriguing movie about how a young man can be so seriously brainwashed that he goes against his best interests to serve a country and ideology, Nazi Germany, that did nothing but harm him and his family. Where at the same time having him try to destroy, in his own childless way, the country and its people that did nothing but help him in every way it and they could despite his dislike of both of them.

Emil does see the light at the end the movie, or tunnel, in how he was treated by his Uncle Mike and especially Leona, a Jew who in his mind is the eternal enemy of his beloved Third Reich, as well as his victim of violence Pattie in the kindness and understanding as well as love that they all showed to him.This kindness and understanding is something that he never would have gotten, if he did what he did here back there, in Nazi Germany.


This was a film that got a rather high score in the Leonard Maltin Guide--saying the film was "still potent". Well, I was excited about seeing it, as I love American WWII propaganda films and have seen a huge number of them. Unfortunately, while the original stage production of the play and the subsequent movie made quite a splash, the whole thing seems terribly dated and poorly written today. The bottom line is that the film lacks subtlety and has plot holes big enough to fly a B-17 through them! The movie begins well enough, as Frederic March (a fine actor) is in the lead. But my hopes were soon dashed when the little Nazi boy (Emil) comes to live with them. First, it's hard to imagine the Nazis letting a boy leave the country to come to the US while we are at war with them! Secondly, it's hard to imagine the US government just accepting the kid without making sure he wasn't a spy or an America-hater. But regardless, here appears a 12 year-old boy who often sounds quite German (he uses German and English interchangeably) but his accent also wavers a bit--almost sounding Swedish or Polish from time to time. I guess you can't blame him that much, as this is a VERY demanding role for a young boy. But who you can blame are the writers who immediately throw subtlety out the window. Instead of the kid pretending to love America or creating trust with his new family, he immediately acts like the local chairman of the Hitler fan club--even showing up to his first meal dressed in full Hitler Youth regalia (including an armband). Now I don't know about you, but if I'd been alive during the war and a kid moved in with me and preceded to parade around the house in Nazi uniform spouting hate, I think I'd be a bit peeved! But, March and the rest try to show him understanding instead of turning the brat over to the FBI!! Plus, while March works on top-secret military plans, he does a lousy job of securing them so Emil isn't able to steal them. Also, you'd think when he went to school and began spreading hate and Nazi propaganda that the school would have taken more notice. No trip to the principal's office, no phone calls home and no contact with the local police. It just defies all common sense to think that during the war anyone would have been allowed to act this way without being arrested is crazy. America DOES have freedom of speech, but for a foreign national spreading pro-Nazi propaganda during the war, this is ridiculous! Now if this was the only problem with the film, I guess you could chalk it up to naiveté. Unfortunately, it got a lot worse. Emil spread anger and dissent everywhere but no one actually did anything about this...so far, so good. BUT, after 1001 warning signs AND when he then tries to kill two people (by beating one with a fireplace poker and then trying to stab another), you'd think the kid would have been deported or arrested or even shot! But, in one of the worst endings in film history, they stupid family feels sorry for the kid and decides, like the Beatles once said, "all you need is love". To make matters worse, the girl who was beaten with the poker was March's own kid and the lady who convinces March not to press charges in the end was his Jewish fiancée!! Yecch!!! What drivel. The film just doesn't make sense and becomes tiresome because of all this.


Fast transfer of a smash WWII B'way play is both fascinating and unintentionally ludicrous. An OTT idea ('typical' American family take in a German refugee relative and find an unrepentant Nazi Youth!) is given an OTT treatment, right down to Louis Applebaum's balmy background score. Character actor turned megger Leslie Fenton can't camouflage a penny-pinching budget and he certainly doesn't hold the actors down. (Skippy Homeier's award-winning perf as the Nazi boy is berserk.) Yet he pulls off a remarkable chase/fight climax that's like something out of F. W. Murnau. Even Henry Sharp's lensing comes to life, recalling his glory days shooting Doug Fairbanks classics & THE CROWD. (Bump down your brightness level to increase the 'grey scale' on this Image DVD edition.) With naturalism out of the question, pros like Fredric March, Betty Field & Agnes Moorehead all succumb to heightened stage manners, but they still can't pull off the simplistic humanistic psychological ending. The story might make a bit more sense if the kid remained the monstrous automaton we first meet. Put on your own double bill with Roger Corman's THE INTRUDER/'61 and see who decides to follow the Leader.


After viewing this film and trying to understand why a family would try to welcome a Nazi Youth into their family, who had all kinds of hatred for all people and was brain washed by monster's who killed Thousands upon Thousands of Jews and many other races. I realized this is only a Hollywood dream works during 1944, which was probably quite amazing to the public who viewed this film. Fredric March(Mike Frame),"The Iceman Cometh",'73, and Joan Carroll,(Pat Frame),"Tower of London",'39, did their very best to help their adopted Hitler Youth, Skip Homerier,(Emil Bruckner),"Halls of Montezuma",'51, try to adjust to the American way of living. Emil was a devil on wheels who did everything horrible you can even think about doing. Betty Field,(Leona Richards),"Birdman of Alcatraz",'62 and Agnes Moorehead,(Jessie),"Dragon Seed",'44, gave great supporting roles to this twisted story. Just imagine if we tried to adopt Usama Bin Laden's son into our homes today, I doubt very much if this film would win an Academy Award. I am happy to say that Skip Homerier did play a fantastic role in "Halls of Montezuma",'51 as Pvt (Pretty Boy) Riley.


One of my favorite films of all-time. Unusual because the pirates depicted in this movie are all too real. None of the romanticizing Errol Flynn or Jack Sparrow stuff. These pirates were shockingly ruthless and a real sense of danger permeates the film. Yul Brynner and Kirk Douglas bring intensity to their roles. Brynner as the egotistic sociopath who is the leader of the cutthroats and Douglas as a man who must deal with a desperate situation in a fight for survival. Samantha Eggar as a woman with flawed instincts for her own preservation evokes frustration and pity. From the brutal opening scenes, the message is clear that these pirates don't play. A sense of urgency then takes over until the final outcome. A great movie!


Once I overlooked the slow moving action (at times) and hokey plot and dialogue, I found this movie really entertaining in a circus and carnival (freaky pirates, treasure, monkey, violence, wild colors in a rough landscape with spaghetti western flashbacks) sort of way. Seemed to really push the envelope for that time period in terms of gay and trans-gender undertones - what with the pirate captain's attachment to his butler and to his androgynous second in command (the character who paraded around in a dress and feathers and appeared much more interested in Will than in Arabella). I didn't even sense that the pirate captain was attracted to Arabella in a sexual way. Anyway,that made the movie all the more interesting and unique - although likely far removed from what Jules Verne envisioned.


The Light At The Edge of the World marks Kirk Douglas's second filming of a Jules Verne novel. The first of course was one of his most popular films 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea. But this film is far more serious and has far more adult themes than Walt Disney's film aimed for the kid trade.

This was the last novel Jules Verne had published during his lifetime and it's a story of survival against almost impossible odds. In the original novel Kirk Douglas's character was named Vasquez which certainly was more in keeping with someone assigned to lighthouse duty on Cape Horn. But in giving Douglas's character an Anglo name it better explains his presence on the island and it certainly is in keeping with the international tradition of Jules Verne's writings.

Cape Horn is one of the loneliest parts of the globe and the geography of the southern tip of South America. Look on a map of the many islands and rocks in that part of the globe and imagine how rough the sea is because it has only limited space. It's not without reason that sailors in all cultures say that no one is really a true sailor until they've made a voyage crossing from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean in that area. Remember also this is 1865 as Yul Brynner identifies the year and the Panama Canal had not been built.

Which makes the lighthouse at Cape Horn an international concern which was something that is ever present in Jules Verne's writings. But then as now there are malevolent forces in the world and they are in this story Yul Brynner and his pirate crew.

On one desultory like any other down there, Yul Brynner's ship docks at the island and kills lighthouse keeper Fernando Rey and his young assistant Massimo Ranieri. By sheer dumb luck Douglas is not at the lighthouse when this happens, but he becomes a hunted man by Brynner and his pirate crew who want to set up headquarters there and use the light to pile up as many wrecks as they can plunder. Also they want to eliminate Douglas who's now the only witness to their crimes.

I did like this film very much both when first seeing it in the theater and now on VHS. One thing of interest I found here is that there is no ambiguity, no shadings of character. Kirk Douglas is a good guy and Yul Brynner a bad one, no one is going to walk away thinking anything else. In fact Yul Brynner's pirate captain Jonathan Kongre is the most unredeemable villain we've seen on screen since Lee Marvin as Liberty Valance.

Definitely fans of Kirk Douglas, Yul Brynner and Jules Verne should earmark this film for their collection.


Surprising that Jules Verne would write such a story. Even more surprising that Hollywood would produce it. Yul Brynner is unbelievably good as a man freed of all bounds of convention, free to indulge his taste for cruelty and domination. Douglass is an excellent counterpoint, a courageous individual who's chosen simple solitude as a way to deal with the complications and turmoil society had imposed on him. And Samantha Egger's character is the capper, a woman willing to sacrifice far too much for comfort and safety. Inotherwords, everyman. The movie does show its age and is limited by the conventions of time and place and technology of the time. If you're looking for special effects and action as substitutes for thought, look elsewhere.


Jules Verne wrote about 80 novels as well as plays and short stories in his career. He began writing in 1854 with a short story called "Master Zacharias, or the Clockmaker's Soul". It was the first time he talked of the negative side of progress - the evil that results from some discoveries or inventions when they fall into the wrong hands. This becomes a running theme in his novels: Captain Nemo in TWENTY THOUSAND LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA, or Robur (from ROBUR THE CONQUEROR and it's sequel, THE MASTER OF THE WORLD) are two of his best examples of this them. Kongre, in THE LIGHTHOUSE AT THE EDGE OF THE WORLD, is another.

Verne was so prolific that when he died in 1905 he left a dozen unpublished novels and stories that were not fully published until 1910. They include some of his best writing, such as THE BARSAC MISSION (partly written by Verne's son Michael), THE SURVIVORS OF THE "JONATHAN", THE PURSUIT OF THE METEOR, THE DANUBE PILOT. All of these dealt with science, but also dealt with political systems, and economics, for Verne was interested in all the problems facing modern man. THE LIGHTHOUSE AT THE EDGE OF THE WORLD was the last novel that was published in Verne's lifetime. It does not deal with the political questions or economic ones that perplexed him, but seems to go back to his potboiler period, when he was turning out stories for money while considering better stories for later publication. But nothing Verne wrote is without interest. Rereading THE LIGHTHOUSE one sees what the subtle point is in it. It is the study of how the ego of a villain can prevent him from escaping retribution.

Kongre (renamed Jonathan Kongre) is one of the last pirates in the world of 1900. He and his gang find a damaged boat and repair it. They sail it across the Pacific, and reach Staten Island, a small island in the Straits of Magellan controlled by Chile. There they find a lighthouse with a crew of three men. They manage to kill two of them, but the third one (named Vasquez - he's from Chile, remember), hides on the island. Kongre and his men decide that they should prepare to leave the island shortly, before the Chilean Naval relief boat returns in three months to pick up the lighthouse crew. But first they will wreck any boat that comes to the passage, and increase their ill-gotten gains. But the key to the novel (and it is not in the movie) is that Kongre's right hand men (Carcante and Vargas) keep urging him to pack up his supplies and wealth and head to Asia where the money can be divvied up and everyone separate in safety. And each time Kongre won't do it.

Initially it is pure greed. He wrecks a boat, and massacres the crew (a scene that is done in the film). The sole survivor is an American, John Davis (the name became Denton in the film, except that it was given to the character of Vasquez). Now with an ally (and not a drunken one, as in the film), Vasquez starts sabotaging Kongre's activities on the island. Carcante keeps suggesting leaving, but Kongre (unused to someone annoying him successfully) keeps delaying in order to catch Vasquez and Davis. The end result is that when he thinks he has them cornered, the Chilean boat appears to sink his craft, kill most of his crew, and confront him. Kongre commits suicide to avoid capture.

Much of the mayhem of the movie (with Denton picking off crew members one at a time) is not in the book. Nor is there any female character in the novel (a rarity in most of Verne's stories - he could be quite a feminist when he wished). The egotism of "Jonathan" Kongre is well shown by Yul Brynner's performance, but the subtlety of that trait is lost. The writers presumably did not think the audience could appreciate it. Kirk Douglas does well enough as Denton, but his singlehanded success (Vasquez and Davis work together well to the end of the story, unlike Denton's ally who is killed by the pirates) seems unlikely. The bestiality of the pirates is well shown in the movie, particularly a singularly tall actor who in one scene wears women's clothing to particularly unsettling effect. The film is not a bad minor adventure film, but it could have been better if they had stuck to Verne's theme.


it is a quite slow pace face-to-face Brynner/Douglas...i found there was some pretty heavy violence/gore but you know, seventies giallo style : (maybe some spoiler ahead) a little bit phony and fake but the image is there : the monkey torn apart, the flesh torn from the mechanic, etc...

i don't remember if it is alike the novel...but overall i think it is a OK action flick, hero flick : he stands all alone at the end, all the bad guys are out..........

and nice images too : a small rocky island, the sun over the sea

but not a typical Verne's story-on-cinema : subs, sci-fi; but the adventure seen in a lot of Verne's novels tough


Remove yourself from the Kirk Douglass aspects of the casting. It is essential to your enjoying the film. There is a beautiful young woman playing double roles - and in the photos from the 1800's, I can't believe how smooth and white her skin is. Also, there is an excellent degrading of the film stock which chills the mind if you like faded greys and yellows as I do. This film is played on TNT from time to time so see it.


I did not know what to expect when I watched this movie but I can tell you it left me guessing from the beginning to the ending, and the ending was what threw me so , this movie was well done for a made for TV movie. The story line kept you wondering who was actually involved and Shannen Doherty was great. She has so much talent and did such a good job in this movie. She brought believability to the role and dept to the character. She proved that no matter how her past is constantly being thrown back at her she has an incredible talent and puts more than one hundred percent into what she does. She proves that she can move on with her work.


Really intriguing story, I sat glued to the TV. Good, smart twist at the end makes the movie even better then expected. The surprise element is great. Shannen is a great actress who plays the part flawlessly. Great acting combined with good story, a ten.


i think this film was confusing and had a bad plot.Shannen did OK in this but not as well as she normally does.i found it hard to follow the whole story and found it quite boring and didn't enjoy it till bout half way but i didn't enjoy it much i would say not the best of films i have watched with her in :l what was the point of this story and what was the plot

I've seen Shannen in better in other films i was very disappointed when i finished watching this cause it wasn't what i expected i would I've this film a bad review of 3 out of 10 Shannen is still the best actress in the world and she can act whoever put that comment that she cant she just isn't good in that 1


The mostly decent performances from Shannen Doherty, Colm Feore, and Tamara Gorski were the best thing about this forgettable film. The dialogue is laughable and the plot is overflowing with twists and double-crosses, but it's hard to tell who's fooling who -- is the *character* bad at pretending to be loyal, or is the actor just bad at portraying the character? I can see why this one disappeared without a trace.


despite only catching the film halfway through, the time when shannons already been conned, I was luckily able to catch up quickly and thankfully did because this turned out to be a better than average TV movie. Shannon doesn't bring her A game but does enough to keep us interested, I recall years ago reading a couple of bad reviews for two of her movies at the time and I think this might have been one of them which might have put me off a little before viewing this? Regardless because I think I might decide to watch another one of her films if they turn up on TV in the near future. Although the film doesn't cross the creepy line and we don't get to see any goodies of any such nature, shannon does look remarkably good. Wasn't a fan of her in 90210 (in kelly/jennies camp) or charmed (never seen it) but loved scare tactics. like the summary states, there was one too many twists leading to the climax and it did seemed force feed as you don't really see whats happening to who and remember who was crossed etc etc.


I got this movie because I wanted to see Shannen Doherty in a different element from 90210 and Charmed to determine if she could really act. The answer is: No. She displayed absolutely no emotional range in the character, hardly any visible change from a constant dead-pan expression, and no deviation from a monotone delivery of dialogue or narration. The one obvious opportunity to display any kind of emotion was when she discovered that she had been conned by a trusted friend, but no, an expression of anger seemed to be too difficult, so instead we get nothing. I mean Zero. There are numerous actors who get bottled into their TV persona, but eventually break free to prove they are talented. I really was hoping Shannen Doherty would be enjoyable to watch. She wasn't. This movie stunk.


If this quirky British comedy could be summed up in a word, that word would be "charming".

The story is a simple, low-budget British one: two orphans scam as many people as they can for as much money as they can in an effort to buy the stately home they always dreamed of as children.

Everything is going swimmingly, until they join forces with a typist, Georgie (the perfect Kate Beckinsale), and the plot leads on from there...

The acting is perfect for the film, neither overstated nor low key, and suits the plot and style very well. The direction is quirky, but makes no new ground, and also fits the script to a tee.

This film would be great viewing for a date (perhaps not for a lads night in), and has the simple comedy you might expect from such classic British TV series as "Only Fools and Horses", or "Last of the Summer Wine".

It doesn't require much brain power, but is one of the best homegrown (British) comedies of recent(ish) years.


I have seen this film so many times and never get sick of it. The casting is brilliant with Dan Futterman and Stuart Townsend in fantastic performances.

The plot is quite original following Dylan and Jez - two English con artists who are tricking people out of their money by selling voice recognition computers and other false devices. They need two million dollars to buy the house they never had - having grown up as orphaned children. On one of their scams they employ a secretary and medical student named Georgie, who is convinced they are raising money for an orphans project. This adds romantic themes into the story to make it even more entertaining. A stand out is the interesting relationship that Dylan and Jez have with each other, Dylan being the fast talking American and Jez being the British techno genius.

I recommend 'Shooting Fish' to all movie-goers. It has a great soundtrack, is funny, romantic, creative and a great achievement for British filmmaking.