This movie shows the hurt that a number of characters suffer as a result of disability, race, or personal circumstances. Into their lives comes an intelligent, caring person who happens to be deaf. He helps each through the tough times and yet at the end of the day, he too had to deal with own hurts and rejections. The leading character is a young man named Singer, performed by Allan Arkin, who is still going strong forty years on.

The movie presents the viewer with a number of sub-plots that become slightly unwieldy. Yet all the characters feel the ray of light and hope that their friend brings into their lives. The ending is puzzling at first but we can see that the problems of some people are often easier to handle than those who are their strength and support.

A fine movie with a great performance by Allan Arkin. Cicely Tyson, Steacy Keach, Chuck McCann and Sondra Locke give great performances as well.

This unassuming movie has a lot heart and maybe that's why it works so well.


This film is powerful, sensitive, meaningful and memorable once you watch it. I have it on tape, and usually if I get to pick a film, I pick one that makes me laugh, not one that tells me a story about real life. At my age, I don't need that. Carson Mc Cullers as a writer can find the depths of a character's soul, and the film captures most of her talent. If you are looking for a remarkable film, this is one of the best. But I would suggest that the best place to find something serious can be found in a novel, written by an artist and not a hack turning out pulp fiction. A film unfortunately is restricted to roughly two hours, and thus at best can only be a short story. A single short story, to my knowledge has never won a noble prize for literature. The cinema has an art advantage no other art form has, except for the restriction of time limited to the limits of the human body to sit for more than two hours. A book, you can always put down, and return at your leisure.


The Heart Is A Lonely Hunter, was a film based on the book of the same title, and which followed the theme of the Carson Mc Cullers novel rather well. Although most people tend to think of the Alan Arkin character (John Singer) as being the most pivotal, or even Sondra Locke's character (Mick Kelly) It has always seemed to me that the most important would have to be Biff Brannon (portrayed in the film by Hubert Harper) It is Brannon as the proprietor of the restaurant where all the characters come and go, who sees what is happening with all the others and interacts with most of the townspeople. The exceptions being those who were in the plot line prior to Singer's arrival in town (the other deaf mute,(Antonapoulos) superbly defined by Chuck McCann. Stacy Keach also turned in an excellent performance as the sad, deteriorating perpetually drunken Jake Blount. Excellent movie with a wonderful cast! And for those who must know, yes, I was named after the Biff Brannon character, so maybe I'm a little bit biased in my review.


In 2002, director Lucky McKee made a big impression with his first full feature film, the oddball horror 'May'. Since then, he went on to direct the best episode of the Masters of Horror series, and this film...which has unfortunately remained in limbo for far too long. It's not difficult to see why the film struggled to get a release, as McKee's film isn't exactly your average slice of horror. It's clear that the director has a thing for deviant young women, and that theme is carried through with this film; along with a whole load of influence, which ranges from Video Nasty classic 'The Evil Dead', to Dario Argento's masterpiece 'Suspiria'. The film takes place in 1965, and focuses on central character Heather Fasulo - a girl sent to a an all-girl boarding school by her parents after she decided to burn down their house. The school is surrounded by thick woodland, and the girls there tell stories about it which revolve round a coven of witches that decided to take the school by force many years earlier. Furthermore, this story seems to have some truth as Heather suffers nightmares which focus on the surrounding woods

The film is really slow paced for the first hour, and despite some mysterious goings on at first; there isn't a lot of horror involved. But that's not to say that the film is boring! McKee utilises this time well and uses it to create mystery around his central theme and build the characters up to a point that we can easily care for them. The atmosphere is continually creepy, and this bodes well with the mystery theme and the dark and gloomy woodland. While The Woods doesn't feature much in the way of blood and gore, McKee skilfully manages to work some schlock sequences into the film, and the frenzied final third brilliantly offsets the slow build of the first two. The director has managed to put together a good line-up of acting talent for the film, which sees Agnes Bruckner doing well in the lead role, and receiving good feedback from experienced actors, including a devilish Patricia Clarkson, and cult icon Bruce Campbell; whom I'd like to have seen more of. It all boils down to a satisfying, yet open, climax and overall; despite its problems getting a release - this is a damn good horror film and will surely rank as one of the best of 2006! Here's to hoping McKee has an easier time getting a release for his next film.


Compared to the lame horror films that the major studios theatrically release these days, THE WOODS is superior and stands out. It easily deserves a wide theatrical but remains on the shelf for no logical reason. The film is a variation on a SUSPIRIA-type witch story and delivers genuine scares; not the trendy, superficial jarring jumps 'boos' that the reviewer above probably expects. Director McKee (MAY, SICK GIRL) delivers a deliberate pace and gradually building mood and atmosphere. Above all else, THE WOODS is character-driven with real acting! We not use to seeing that in a recent genre film. The photography and 60's period production design is flawless. THE WOODS has the true power to creep you out and you may never drink milk again!


I'd been awaiting this film's release for over a year now, and finally, after a bunch of problems with editing and whatnot, this movie got a DVD release. "The Woods" tells the story of a troubled girl named Heather (Agnes Bruckner), who is sent to a secluded private girls school in 1965 by her estranged parents after causing problems and lighting a tree on fire in their back yard. Ms. Traverse (Patricia Clarkson), along with two other women, run the old school. Heather doesn't seem to fit in at the school, and has a rough first week there, getting in scuffles with a snobby bully named Samantha (Rachel Nichols). Her only friend is Marcy, a quiet girl who is nice but shy. As she spends more time around the school, Heather has nightmares and hears strange voices, and is told the story of some witches who took over the school 100 years ago. As more strange events occur in and around the woods surrounding the school, girls begin to disappear.

Unlike some, I found "The Woods" to be a satisfying horror film. I'll start off with the story - it's intriguing but derivative, I'd describe it as a hybrid of "Suspiria" and "The Watcher in the Woods", which are both films that I love, I might add. While it does borrow ideas from these films, it's nonetheless an imaginative and entertaining movie. The direction in the film was great - Lucky McKee, who spawned the unique fairy-tale-like horror film, "May", does a good job with this film. There are some really creative & spooky sequences and some nice cinematography to offer, plus the great '60s atmosphere was strongly present, brought to life through the costumes, sets, and the vintage score, and providing a perfect backdrop for the story to take place. I tend to have a soft spot for period pieces, so I really liked the time setting.

The acting was on par and flowed naturally, the whole cast performed very well. Agnes Bruckner is likable in her role and Patricia Clarkson was great as the mysterious, something-isn't-quite-right-about-her Mrs. Traverse. Horror legend Bruce Campbell (of the "Evil Dead" series) plays Heather's father, although his role is pretty minor. And Rachel Nichols, who had a small role in the "Amityville Horror" remake, plays the rude school bully very well. There are some neat special effects used nicely throughout the film, and weren't too overdone. The CG was surprisingly really real-looking. I felt the conclusion of the of the film was slightly rushed, but I've seen films end much quicker than this, so for me it wasn't really a big deal. Plus, the ending features some great witch slashings via an axe, which was a nice addition to the film since the majority of it is gore free.

Overall, "The Woods" is a satisfying horror movie. It's different, but it's imaginative and throughly entertaining, with a great story and a strong vintage atmosphere. Definitely not bad at all, especially for a horror period piece. Other than the slightly rushed conclusion, I can't really say anything bad about it. It took over a year to finally get a release (in any form), but the wait was well worth it. I love stuff like this, so it was almost perfect for me. One of the better horror films of the past year. 9/10.


In 1965, after provoking a fire in a forest, the rebel teenager Heather Fasulo (Agnes Bruckner) is sent to the boarding school Falburn Academy in the middle of the woods by her estranged mother Alice Fasulo (Emma Campbell) and her neglected father Joe Fasulo (Bruce Campbell). The dean Ms. Traverse (Patricia Clarkson) accepts Heather in spite of the bad financial condition of her father. The displaced Heather becomes close friend of he weird Marcy Turner (Lauren Birkell), while they are maltreated by the abusive mate Samantha Wise (Rachel Nichols). During the nights, Heather has nightmares and listens to voices from the woods, and along the days she believes that the school is a coven of witches. When some students, including Marcy, simply vanish, Heather believes she will be the next one.

"The Woods" is an interesting low paced horror movie directed by Lucky McKee, the director of the cult-movie "May". Using a creepy atmosphere to develop the characters and the supernatural mysteries surrounding the boarding school and their teachers, the story reaches its climax in the very end, when the secret of the Falburn Academy is finally disclosed. The underrated actress Patricia Clarkson is scary in the role of the evil dean of the school; the cult Bruce Campbell has a minor but important participation; and Agnes Bruckner is also good in her role. "The Woods" is never better than "May", but it is also a good psychological horror movie. Mr. Lucky McKee, please do not wait for another four years to release your next movie. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Floresta" ("The Woods")


With "The Woods", Lucky McKee proves that he wasn't just a "one hit" wonder (May). This is a supernatural thriller that takes place at a spooky girl's school in 1965, and there are some strange things going on with a new girl (Heather) who was more or less sent there because her mother was afraid of her. Seems like Heather was a bit of a firebug, and has somewhat of an attitude problem. She is accepted into the school as the result of some test she took which proved her to be worthy, although worthy of what is not quite evident at that point. As time passes Heather gets into some scrapes with some of the other girls, and other girls mysteriously disappear, their beds filled with leaves. So what the hell's going on? Well, one of the girls says that when the school was just founded there were three girls who wandered in from the woods, who stayed, supposedly orphans, or perhaps, witches. They were discovered doing unsavory things and then what happened from there isn't clear but it seems they were dealt with nastily. Or were they? The staff at this school is something to behold, all quite creepy and cold, one woman reminds me distinctly of Dana Carvey's "Church Lady" from Saturday Night Live, oh my. Bruce Campbell plays Heather's dad, and this is quite a better role for him than anything else of his I've seen lately. This is actually very well done and quite creepy at times, has a good atmosphere and is well worth seeing. Not a gore-fest, mind you, but a solid supernatural film. 8 out of 10.


not as intricately paced as May but still a good film....i do have to correct IMDb on their error comment dealing with the lesley gore song mention....in the film, the dj clearly says, 'you first heard her at the ripe old age of 17 with the #1 hit, It's My party, Heres lesley gore' and then it goes into "you don't own me'. making it clear that they were just introducing the song as a new song.

i have to admit, these posts in the messageboard about the film not being scary or horrific are pretty sad. the film is creepy as can be and if that doesn't scare you then maybe you really aren't into scary movies. I don't want to sound like i am trash talking but a film like this, to me, is far scarier than a movie like Saw, Hostel or any of the new crop of pseudo horror/gore films out there.

Sure, i am a big fan of films with gore, Cannibal Holocaust is a fave of mine but i actually think this movie is scarier....sure CH is disturbing due to its content and such but this movie is full of old fashioned scares that hold up. The sounds in the surround sound are enough to drive me and my cat crazy. and the movie is done well, the acting is top notch, the story is cool, the period nature of the film works and the direction is great.


Judging from the enthusiastic response at Sunday night's screening, I suspect that if THE WOODS were given a conventional theatrical release, it would attract a wide audience. The film is structured and presented as a nightmare, and it has the inconsistencies and incongruities that a nightmare has. That is too much for some people to tolerate, but judging from the screening, there are many who get it, and like it. There is much to like. Fans of MAY will be happy to see that Lucky McKee has developed more fully into an actor's director, zeroing in on character and bringing to a scene the proper dramatic balance and tone. They'll also be pleased to see that given a modest budget by today's shock-horror standards, he has exhibited new freedom of movement and imagery. Above all, this is a visually stunning film. with an almost overwhelming sound design that is understandably too much for some people. McKee knows how to create a mood of foreboding, but he chooses to do it through artistry rather than through cheap manipulation. The clichés that he uses are an evocation, not an imitation, of classics like SUSPIRIA. What lights up the screen is an individual voice, a distinctive style that immediately sets McKee apart from his contemporaries. It's not that he does it better (although compared with most Hollywood releases, he really does it better), but that his work is instantly recognizable as unique, clearly identifiable, unlike anything we've seen before. There is a unity of artistic elements, with cinematography, art direction, music, sound and acting that blend seamlessly into a coherent style that is more important to the film than the details of the story. That's a pretty tough accomplishment, and one that may or may not appeal to thrill-seeking moviegoers, but it's earned him enough respect from his peers to be named one of the "Masters of Horror." He belongs in that group because of the way he approaches his work, not because of the number of screams his films generate, or the clarity and logic of his scripts. It's not for everybody, but it does strike a chord with fans who value the way McKee creates and sustains tension, allows his characters to come alive within the story, and moves the camera with breathtaking effect. I'm still not sure what was going on in that school, but I know how it felt to watch it, and I found this movie riveting. McKee is aiming at lyricism, and while we should expect that plot is also served, in this film it is secondary. Nightmare logic isn't covered in Aristotle's Six Elements of Drama. It is McKee's creativity that we experience, and it was gratifying, last Sunday night, to be among so many people who came to enjoy themselves watching the work of this talented film maker.


I saw this movie on the Amsterdam Fantastic Film Festival. and I loved it.

To begin at the beginning, the characters of the film are very interesting for a horror movie, so is the setting. The fact that heather's parent's dropped her at a school for girls were the mistresses are strict and she gets taunted a lot are nice ways to build up the story.

That's what's good about the movie, it builds up quite slowly (also because actually there is not much story to build up) and when we are fully aware of the threats, the viewer is also aware of the fact that one cannot escape from a mysterious force that is everywhere around you. Not even when Bruce Campbell is your dad.

Bruce has a great part in this movie. Because its about a school for girls and 99.9% of the movie is filled with women (now I know why the director's name is Lucky) you can't expect Bruce to have a big part, however his part is vital towards the end of the movie. Lucky mcKay used Campbell in a great way and even makes him go into "evil dead" mode towards the end.

Gore, blood and guts are not really what this movie is about. The scenes with the girls waving with axes are bloodstunning though. If you want to see a nice horror that is a bit different from the ordinary watch this! They should really release this baby. It won't be a box office smash hit but I think it'll definitely do something in the cinema, at least more than the 12 million it cost.


A sparse and atmospheric cross between Suspiria and A Watcher in the Woods -THE WOODS delivers subtly for its first two thirds and erupts in a rushed finale that deserved a more thorough and complex screenplay. This film needed more odd side characters and more Angela Bettis she was the voice of the woods though and that and the 60s settings along with Bruce Campbell and Patricia Clarkson's performances made this worthwhile from my viewpoint, I liked the pacing and effects and the bed in the corner had creepy possibilities that were misused by the writer. Overall I liked it but a lot of gorror fans might struggle with this one


Lucky McKee's long-awaited (at least by me) new film is perhaps slightly disappointing when compared to his debut "May" and the exquisite Masters of Horror episode "Sick Girl", but it's still a spooky supernatural chiller and easily one of the most stylish genre-efforts released during the last five years. Moreover, "The Woods" is a film that brings tons of homage to older horror classics, like Dario Argento's "Suspiria" just to name one, and that's an aspect the more experienced cinema lovers will certainly appreciate. Following the umpteenth painful collision with her mother, Heather is reluctantly sent to a boarding school for girls that lies isolated within a large forest. Her fellow students don't exactly welcome her, the teachers all behave strangely and pretty soon Heather even begins to hear "voices" speaking to her from within the woods. Who knows, maybe the scary tales about an ancient coven of witches living between the trees are true...and they've been waiting for Heather to join them! Like in "May", Lucky McKee tries to accomplish a whole lot more than just serving some gory images and/or disturbing themes. Our gifted director puts a lot of effort in the character drawings, resulting in a likable female protagonist and a long list of interesting supportive players. Among them Bruce Campbell as Heather's silent but understanding father and Patricia Clarkson as the strict school principal Mrs. Traverse. The story of "The Woods" ingeniously takes place in 1965 and makes fabulous use of the contemporary religious habits and conceptions and... MUSIC! The film's absolute best sequence involves a series of moments illustrating the life inside the boarding school's walls, guided by the atmospheric song "You Don't Own Me"; sung by Lesley Gore. Although constantly ominous and mysterious, I was hoping for "The Woods" to contain a little more genuine frights. Also, it doesn't always make sense and particularly the last half hour is confusing. I read that "The Woods" flopped in the States, mainly due to the audiences wrongful expectations. I can safely recommend it to admirers of story & atmosphere driven horror films.


After Heather Fasulo sets fire to the front yard,her parents decide that boarding school is the best thing for her.As the story unfolds,we learn that Heather has an extrasensory abilitynot only can she hear the trees in the forest speak,which is cleverly presented as symptomatic of paranoid psychosis,but she can balance a pencil and small rocks in gravity-defying positions by simply concentrating on the them.Enmeshed with feelings of alienation and hormonal upheaval,her powers are a source of enormous anxiety until sympathetic school mistress Ms Traverse explains the nature of her special powers. However Traverse is not what she seems and has a sinister plan that involves the evil tree-dwelling sprites and the entire student population."The Woods" is loosely based on the tree-dwelling female Dryads of Greek mythology.It's also highly influenced by "Suspiria",Serrador's "La Residencia" and "The Evil Dead".In "The Woods" Lucky McKee of "May" fame has fun with some dynamic CGI effects for the tree limbs,roots and branches that keep sleeping teens in stasis until the latest teen offering has been snatched from her bed,but the effects seem out of place in a film that's kept fancy visuals to a minimum.Still this surprisingly subtle horror is worth a look.8 out of 10.


After fans of McKee's first film, "May," waited and waited as this was shot and reshot and constantly pushed back by the studios, "The Woods" is finally here. And while it is definitely a fun ride, it's a bit on the disappointing side. This had a budget 24 times bigger than "May" and it has about 24 times more flaws. Glaring anachronisms abound, and a climax that feels very unfinished (I wonder if we'll ever see any other cuts?), as well as some questionable CGI. However, an intriguing story and script, witty dialogue, fantastic style, great music choices, a large dose of estro-infusion, and strong lead performances (Bruckner and Clarkson especially) all make this one a nice enough addition to McKee's small but noteworthy filmography. The film is a obviously bit of a nod to "Suspiria," but has its own sense of style and humor that keep it from being a complete ripoff. It should have gotten a theatrical release, as this is probably the best horror with a primarily young in years. Still, one has to wonder what this movie would have looked like if McKee were given free reign with no studio interference.


In the year 2002, a young Californian director named Lucky McKee too the independent film scene by surprise with a modest tale of horror and suspense named "May", the tale of a young woman traumatized by her difficult childhood. "May" quickly became a cult-favorite due to its remarkably well-done script, it's superbly original direction and the breakthrough performance of Angela Bettis in the lead role. Thanks to this success, three years later McKee was offered a bigger project by United Artists, a horror film named "The Woods". Sadly, the film ended up shelved due to the company's many problems until 2006, when finally, "The Woods" was released straight to video. While far from the originality of "May", this classy Gothic horror is definitely a worthy film that really deserved a theatrical release, as it's infinitely superior to most films that do get one these days.

Set in 1965, "The Woods" is the story of Heather Fasulo (Agnes Bruckner), a young and troubled teenage girl who is sent to an isolated private school for girls by her parents after her failed attempt to burn her house. As she gets used to her new school, she begins to experience strange supernatural events after strangely, she is granted a scholarship by the headmistress, Ms. Traverse (Patricia Clarkson). Heather begins to hear voices from the woods calling her, and begins to have visions of horror apparently related to a legend surrounding witchcraft and a secret of the school's past. Soon Heather will have to unveil those secrets as the voices of the woods claim the should Marcy (Lauren Birkell), the only friend she's ever had.

"The Woods" is David Ross' debut as scriptwriter, and while of course it shows some of the common problems of a first time writer, it also shows that Ross knows his influences very well (in more than a way, the story is a homage to Argento's "Suspiria"). While Ross' story of horror and isolation may not be the most original in the world, what makes it stand out is the fact that it is always focused on its characters and their interactions. Through the story one can really get to know not only the main character, but also the many supporting characters no matter how small their role is. It's not exactly a character study, but it's an excellent (and rarely seen these days) way to build up a horror film.

It's not a surprise that McKee accepted this project, as Ross' script takes on many of McKee's familiar themes such as loneliness and angst. What it's really surprising is the way that McKee makes the story his own with a style that seems to adapt classic Gothic horror to his own artistic ideal without being unfaithful to both and without being too much of a copy of his previous masterpiece. McKee creates a film that shows his evolution as a filmmaker, his domain of the genre and most of all, a versatility that certainly shows that he is more than a one hit wonder. It's also worth to point out that McKee makes the most of John R. Leonetti's wonderful cinematography and specially of the eerie score by John Frizzell and Jaye Barnes Luckett; creating a haunting horror film that like Ross' script, pays good homage to Argento's legendary masterpiece.

One of the best things about "May" was the excellent cast and with "The Woods", McKee continues to show his skills at getting remarkable performances from his actors. Leading the cast is Agnes Bruckner as Heather, and while nothing amazing, she carries the film and makes us care for her character. The film's jewel is without a doubt Patricia Clarkson's deliver as Ms. Traverse, and every scene with her is a joy to watch. Lauren Birkell appears in a supporting role as Marcy, and among the younger cast she is easily the best actress of the movie. I hope to see more of her in the future. Rachel Nichols, Emma Campbell and legendary horror actor Bruce Campbell complete the cast, each one of them delivering great acting in their respective roles (specially Bruce in an atypical role for him).

Personally I think that "The Woods"' biggest problem would be the high expectations created by McKee's previous work. It's not that the film lacks quality (it's certainly really good), but it's not exactly in the same tone as "May" or "Sick Girl". "The Woods" plays on the tone of older, classic horrors with ominous Gothic atmospheres and a slow build up that will probably disappoint people expecting something more "modern" (although this doesn0t mean that McKee's style is out of place). The slow way the film's plot unfolds and the notorious lack of "scares" in the classic way may be one of the reasons the movie was sent straight to video. A big shame if you ask me, as this classy and elegant horror film is as good (if not better) than the series of slashers and remakes released lately.

It's safe to say that the promising talent that McKee showed up in "May" was not the product of a mere lucky strike, and that with "The Woods" McKee continues his growth as a director expanding his horizons to other film-making styles. This movie is a very recommended film to those with a preference for Gothic films about the supernatural, and of course to fans of "Suspiria". It's really great to be able to finally see "The Woods", as for once, the long wait for it was worthy. 8/10


"The Woods" is the story of a teenage girl taken to a private school by her parents after showing signs of criminal behavior (starting fires). But the faculty and the school itself might have a long tradition of secrets behind it.

I was drawn to this film by the inclusion of actor Bruce Campbell ("The Evil Dead"), who has a pretty pointless part until much later in the film. He does very well in his role, and appears to be moving towards a more serious sense of himself as an actor (he shows none of the comedy in here that has made him famous in such roles as those in "Brisco County, Jr." or "Bubba Ho-Tep").

The real star of the film, though, is the main actress whose name I sadly am not acquainted with. Not only very beautiful (almost in a Claire Danes way, but better) but very seductive and gripping. I often find myself pausing movies to get a sandwich or to use the restroom, but she had me watching every move like she was a puppeteer and I was her helpless marionette. I cannot say enough about this stellar performance.

I have heard from others that this is a sad follow-up to Lucky McKee's last film, "May". I disagree. While "May" was certainly a unique movie, this one really stood out as a mature vision from the director. I wish all sophomore efforts could come across as striking as "The Woods".

The visual effects were very nice, keeping the 1965 setting well done and making the school seem isolated. Later in the film, the visual effects become very noticeable and we see some of the best in the business. I can't say what, as it might give something away, but let me say it might remind you of a notorious scene from Campbell's earlier film, the original "Evil Dead".

The other actors and actresses were great, as well. None stood out as poor, though none were nearly as striking as the main actress.

One last reason to watch "The Woods". Maybe this was a coincidence (it most likely was), but the film's theme song could easily be "You Don't Own Me" by Lesley Gore. While many remakes exist, the most notable is by a band called Rasputina, who featured it on their album "How We Quit the Forest". The title and album cover suggest a girl who is trying to leave the woods she is trapped in, not unlike the film.


Within the first minutes of "The Woods" one can see that director Lucky McKee and writer David Ross are horror film geeks that came of age in the video age of the 80s and feasted their eyes on films like Dario Argento's "Suspiria" and Sam Raimi's "Evil Dead" series. This is a Suspiria remake in anything but name, crossed with some wood demons and Bruce Campbell to fight them. The picture is beautifully helmed and McKee's compositions are often quite effective and moody, even if the overbearing influence of Argento's masterpiece sometimes works against "The Woods". It's influence is so blatant because Ross recycles not only the basic plot, but even detailed plot points such as the drugged drinks. McKee follows suit by having numerous visual references to that film, even copying whole shots. This can become a distraction for fans who are very familiar with "Suspiria" though McKee gives it enough of a spin for the film to not look like a lame rip off and more like an inspired "let's do it like in the good old days" romp. The film has some pacing problems, though, most of which are linked to the heavy foreshadowing. When a girl tells new arrival Heather a spooky myth about the boarding school deep in the woods she has just arrived in, the avid viewer pretty much knows the secret of the place, the main villain's motivations and secrets and can easily map out the proceedings from there. The second third of the film suffers from this predictability. "The Woods" does pick up some steam towards the hour mark with the reappearance of Heather's parents and the first words spoken by a formerly silent Bruce Campbell, who plays to his adoring cult following once more here. The finale is a bit of a let down, though, even if the involvement of the titular woods is fun to see (thanks also to some convincing CGI, not the second-rate crap that often destroys the atmosphere in these small-budgeted movies). It's pretty much by the numbers, though it is enormous fun to see Bruce "Don't Call Me Ash" Campbell wield an axe and split some witch bitch open.

"The Woods" certainly isn't the most innovative movie of the world - especially not if you have seen "Suspiria" - but it is very well made and has some really efficient sequences, despite the absence of anything truly scary. Considering the poor quality of the horror genre in general, this is a small delight for genre fans.


I believe I am doomed to never catch THE WOODS all the way through, despite owning a DVR, but I have now seen most of it over two or three viewings. A troubled girl is sent to a girls' boarding school set in the woods, and from there her troubles only mount. She hears voices, witnesses nasty things going on in school, keeps getting into it with a jealous adversary, and periodically exhibits traces of telekinesis, making various objects stand on end and dance. In the end, which I am yet to see completely, her power linked with those of two other school girls, keeps three ancient witches from doing something nasty, like swapping bodies or something equally bad. The movie is slow-going and moody, but genuinely scary. I understand the ending dissatisfied many viewers. Maybe some day I will find out why. Agnes Bruckner as the new arrival is the real focus of the film, and she gives an amazing performance for a then-20 year old playing a teenager. The wonderful Patricia Clarkson is the slightly mysterious school dean. The rest of the cast are pretty much unknowns. The film, while American, set in Connecticut and shot in Canada, feels almost foreign, as if it were set in Germany, for example. Also, I was reminded from time to time of Argento's witchcraft masterpiece SUSPIRIA, although there is no gore in THE WOODS.


I have been looking forward to this movie. After all it sounded half decent and had Bruce Campbell in it. I didn't like Lucky McGees previous movie May that much. Fortunately the director improves with his second movie The Woods. The basic plot is that a girl is taken to a secluded private girl school deep in the forests where she soon starts to suspect something weird is going on in the school. The actors are good, the plot is good, dialogue quite sweet and Bruce Campbell gets to wield an axe. It's good to see him in another good movie besides the Evil Dead trilogy and Bubba Ho-Tep.. and I don't know what obsession Lucky McGee has with lesbians and bloody mayhem endings but it's fine with me.


1st watched 10/21/2009  7 out of 10 (Dir-Lucky McKee): Scary, atmospheric chiller about a girls boarding school in the woods that is haunted by something.(which we really don't find out what it is 'til the last scene of the movie) A girl, played by Agnes Bruckner, is brought to the school by her parents supposedly because she's gifted and they want her to be their prize to gloat about to other parents, but actually they are just getting her out of the way because she's different. The school is eerie right from the beginning with a very straight-laced unemotional headmistress, played perfectly by Patricia Clarkson, a twitching teacher and other scary-looking old folk. We can tell the young girl is different at the beginning and that she doesn't mesh well with others but we don't know if the voices she hears are in her head or are coming from the woods. A story is told in a tongue-in-cheek way about how the school was established by some witches that come out of the woods, but again it's hard to tell how real this is. This is what makes this movie good  it's ambiguity. There is an eerie chill around but you don't know why until the end. And then the end isn't an all-out gorefest but is scary and definitely different. This is one of the better scary movies I've seen in awhile. It does what it's supposed to do without being over-the-top and overly-gross. These aren't the type of movies I usually enjoy, so this is really saying something coming from me. I'd like to own this movie, but I might be too scared to watch it again.(I admit it OK, I'm a loaf)


even on it's own, the woods was a pretty satisfying horror movie: it was dark, the dialogue doesn't pain my ears, and the ending totally doesn't suck (though i'm not too sure how it made sense [?] still good though), and there weren't any bad performances!

but the thing that really surprised and delighted me was Bruce Campbell's turn from his usual wacky schtick to a straight performance! i mean, i love Mr. Campbell, but i never actually realized that he CAN act! when i found out he was in this movie, i was expecting a cheesy cameo, but i was happy to get much much more than that. also, another important thing about a good horror: Agnes Bruckner and Rachel Nichols are not bad at all to look at!


I thought this was a solid film, great acting by the leads, great effects. The first hour was a bit slow, but in the end I understood that, they had to build the back-story in a way that it would be believable. I thought that all the players were good, Bruce Campbell did a great job, as always. I would definitely recommend this film to any of my thriller fan friends. I would compare this film to The Gift with Cate Blanchett. Both were suspenseful without being too gory. I understand that this film didn't have a huge box office life (if any) and that is a real shame. It was a creepy, suspenseful thriller. I rarely give any movie a 10, but this one was really close.


After all the delay this film suffered I finally got around to seeing Lucky McKee's second movie. His first, 'May', was weird but brilliant horror with some genuine shock moments. The Woods doesn't disappoint in either department. The film is set in 1965 and centres around Heather Fasulo (Agnes Bruckner) who is sent to an all-girl boarding school in the middle of the woods. Right from the start she suspects that something is different about the school and it doesn't help the teachers are all a tad weird, especially Headmistress Traverse (Patricia Clarkson). Her suspicion is raised when the girls at the school tell her the story of three witches who took over the school 100 years ago.

McKee's influences are obvious. From cult favourite 'The Evil Dead', Dario Argento's masterpiece 'Suspiria' and the supernatural Stephen King adaptation of 'Carrie.' He blends all these into an original little horror that is effective and interesting from start to finish. The first hour is actually very slow paced and in terms of horror there isn't a whole lot. That's not a bad thing, however, as it allows McKee to create a mystery around the central theme and develop the characters nicely. The last 20 minutes take a different stance, with gore galore and a neat twist which wraps up the movie nicely. The acting is good from all, Agnes Bruckner carries the movie well, Patricia Clarkson is subtle as the villain and Bruce Campbell makes a cool cameo. All in all 'The Woods' is a fine horror and I eagerly await McKee's next movie! 4/5


If you like movies, with a vintage feel, such as; The Village, The Others, An American Haunting, than this is a movie theme for you. Taking set in the mid 60's for one was something unique and refreshing. Right off the bat as the movie starts a 60's ballet sets the viewer's time period for the whole movie. The shots of the academy and forest were just alluring and magical. This is no doubt nothing ugly, fake, or tacky to look at. The acting was decent and Heather a strong bold character to watch as well.

Plot wise, it was over all entertaining, it lead you steadily through the story without much stretch and pointless side-stories. If you also enjoyed movies such as Practical Magic, and The Craft I would highly recommend to see it.


I loved this movie from the beginning to the climactic ending. It was suspenseful and I always had the feeling of trying to see around corners to find out what was to happen next. I won't give a synopsis of the movie as others have always done it adequately. I won't liken it to other movies as it stands quite clearly on its own. Transgressing shock horror and mutilations for the fear of what cant be seen, and that resides not only in the woods alone. I love the way the woods intruded on the school with vines and leaves on the walls and the floor. And the leaves always present on the teachers hair. Patricia Clarkson does a beautifully understated job as the headmistress, and her quiet voice doing a lot more to scare me than a lot of yelling and overbearing attitudes of other films. Agnes is great as the Heroine Heather, and I found myself totally captivated by her style. Her friend Marcy was a lovely touch and the vocals for the part (whether her or not) were stunning. The stillness was also an attraction, never hurrying, like trees, still and composed. I am enamored by the atmosphere, the cinematography, and the set design and I don't know if the director can better this but I do hope he gives it a try.


I rented this film, knowing nothing about it. I knew Patricia Clarkson from other indie films and she has always delivered a fine performance. The plot promised an eerie ride so I was game for the ride. Although the story became an often told tale I was extremely taken aback by how originally it was being told. Most importantly, I was thoroughly engaged by Agnes Bruckner's performance---her beautiful face entranced the camera as it did me---she made the movie. Despite this story having been told in many different ways over the decades, if you love macabre films, I wholly recommend this film because of the inventive direction and the sensitive performance of Ms Bruchner.

Nuff said, Dean Merriman, former film maker and editor.


This story is of a young woman sent to a mysterious boarding school in the middle of nowhere. She is driven there by her parents, her mom being the one eager to see her daughter off, while her father is less than thrilled with the idea. Of course, once she is at this school she has to deal with the typical problems of learning to adjust, dealing with the teachers and bully's, and dealing with the horrific visions and dreams afflicting her sleep. Well that last one is not so typical, but it is what makes this a horror movie. Yes, at this school you have the teachers and students, both seem a bit out there, so you are left wondering who is responsible for the terror that lurks in the woods. Though it is not to hard to figure out thanks to a story told by one of the students. The movie works rather well and has a rather good cast too, Bruce Campbell is in it too and that is always a plus as he adds a spark near the end of the movie. I also enjoyed seeing him take on something he is actually known for taking on in an earlier set of films. The ending itself could have used more work in explaining what was going on. I was not sure of the motivation, though I was sure of the who was responsible and the identity. Still, nothing like a mystery in an all girls boarding school as the setting for an interesting movie experience.


I really don't get why people dislike this film. It wasn't the high gore/'boo' kind of film with silly teenagers having sex and being sliced to death.

It reminded me more of J-horror - the creepy,unsettling scenes that make your hair stand on end.

No, the movie is somewhat predictable - but the fun was getting there! There were a lot of really spooky scenes that made my tense, and the sound was fantastic. The acting was uniformly of high standard - except, oddly enough Bruce Campbell who I thought was miscast.

The only real complaints I have about the film were the forced levity (didn't work for me) which thankfully was very short, and the ending was way too 'happy'/neatly wrapped up for my tastes. I think it would have been more effective to end on a 'picnic at hanging rock' note where you weren't sure what happened to the girls.

But for those who have patience and can appreciate mood over gore, this is a very well done film and deserves to be seen...


An lonely bright young teenager by the name of Heather Fasulo (Agnes Bruckner) is been sent to the Falburn Academy. Which it is all-girls boarding school. Punished by her parents (Bruce Campbell and Emma Campbell) to be sent there. Heather is been watched by the mysterious headmistress Ms. Traverse and her disturbing menacing staff. But Heather isn't like the other girls-She hears voices. Heather knows, there's nothing what it's seems at this academy. When several students has been disappearing into the forest. There's an horrifying secret waiting to be uncover and there's no escape from this seemingly innocent academy.

Directed by Lucky McKee (May) made an interesting horror fantasy with fine performances by Bruckner and Clarkson. This was made for theaters but released to DVD instead. But this film did play in the fantasy/horror film festivals before being released to DVD. Although this picture has some originality, "The Woods" has echoes to Dario Argento's Suspiria. Probably one of the few problems of this movie, that there's hardly any scares.

DVD has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer (also in Pan & Scan) and an strong-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. Sadly this underrated film doesn't have any features. Originally this DVD was supposed to have features like Commentaries Tracks, Deleted Scenes and Featurettes. Hopefully in a future DVD, we should get this features with enough support from fans of this film. This picture has good cinematography by John R. Leonetti (Detroit Rock City, The Mask, Mortal Kombat) and an fine music score by John Frizzell (Alien Resurrection, Beavis and Butt-Head Do America, Dante's Peak). This well made film is certainly worth a look. Super 35. (*** 1/2 out of *****).


The Woods is a solid,eerily effective ghost story,it boasts very good acting,a decent plot and a good setting.there are some special effects, but not as much as you would expect,which is a refreshing change for this genre.this is not a slasher flick.the movie is very character driven,and so is very dramatic,and is a bit slow at times,but not enough to lose interest.the only weak spot is near the end of the movie,but i won't give it away.the movie relies more on suspense and psychological scares than gore,another positive.this is not the best movie of the genre,but it is certainly on of the better.for those who like a little gore in their movies,it may not be your cup of tea.but then again,this is a different type of movie which doesn't require gore to tell its story.all in all a good offering. A strong 7* out of 10


This movie is well made and well acted, its set in 1965 and the style of this period is captured perfectly. There is no blood, gore or boobs, despite the setting been base at a girls school. In one scence, a girl hangs herself, yet no-one around her, acts to help her, were they either fleeing or looking at her corpse hanging there. In another scence, a lone police officer is busy searching for missing girls, yet strange enough, when he is killed, it seems he is not missed at all.

Its great to see a well made horror story with a good budget with good actors, instead of the poorly made backyard jobs you see littering the selves at the local video store.


I loved the low key, surreal mood present throughout this movie! Heather (Agnes Bruckner) is required to go to a boarding-school during the 1960's era, by her very proper and upscale mom (Emma Campbell). This is to help reform her after a fire-starting incident involving Heather and an evidently irksome forest close to home. The very proper instructors at this school, behave very mysteriously (they must know something:).

The head mistress who is named Miss. Traverse (Patricia Clarkson), both takes an interest in Heather and seems to know something of her powers. Heather tries to do her time, but then the strange stuff starts happening - one student disappears, another has an accident.

Heather eventually realizes that she has a supernatural power and that destiny has led her here - because these woods really do need a good burning!! The ending is both exciting and re-uniting.


This film alone was worth the price of the DVD it shares with "Plan 9 from outer space." See the locations used,hear members of Wood's "stock company" talk of him! See Ed Wood actually directing scenes from a Grade Z western!!And,it answers once and for all just what did Ed Wood use for the flying saucers??Who could ask for more?


Plan Nine From Outer Space has been hailed by many as the worst picture ever made. Despite this critical disfavor, it has a huge cult following that led to a revival of interest in the work of Ed Wood, Bela Lugosi, Vampira, Criswell, etc... and perhaps even to the production of Tim Burton's Ed Wood...a homage to the film and its makers. This video chronicles the film's history by looking at the script, the lives of Wood and company in detail, the place the film was made, make-up, and other sundry aspects of its pre-production, production, and post-production. Many of the people in the film are interviewed, and we get first-hand accounts on what is was like to work for Edward D. Wood Jr. I found the video to be very thorough in its purpose, highly entertaining, and most informative. In many ways it is a tribute to Wood himself and his unflinching desire and drive to make movies despite his obvious lack of talent and other shortcomings. If you like movie history and lots of information of the behind-the scenes variety then I strongly recommend The Plan Nine Companion for you.


This documentary is the perfect companion for PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. The producers tracked down everyone they could find who had worked on the film, such as Harry Thomas, the makeup genius who tells the story of how he made up Tor Johnson; the lovely Maila Nurmi, still lovely, very well spoken and extremely intelligent; and Conrad Brooks, who played a cop in the original Wood film.

The documentary looks at the impact PLAN 9 has had on our culture, and the events that led to its "re-discovery" years after its rather uneventful debut at movie theaters and drive-ins. It even interviews Sam Raimi and shows him doing a superb Groucho Marx imitation recreating the day Tor Johnson showed up on his quiz show, YOU BET YOUR LIFE.


Low budget documentary. It's all about Ed Wood Jr. and his "masterpiece" "Plan 9 from Outer Space". It briefly covers his childhood and his other movies but goes into great detail about "Plan 9". It goes into how it was developed, how he got the cast, how it was shot, its distribution, reception and how it gained cult status. There are interviews with surviving cast members (Vampria is the most amusing) and very long sections about Wood's relationships with Bela Lugosi, Tor Johnson and Criswell.

This has a lot of fun, valuable information about the movie but it's far too long. "Plan 9" is a silly movie and spending two solid hours paying homage to it is overkill. Also the budget for this was obviously criminally low. It's flatly directed and scenes wander all over the place. Still, fans of the movie will love this and it IS sometimes interesting. I give it a 7.


This is a wonderful made for TV movie that I would highly recommend. It is a tearjerker, so be sure to have a box of Kleenex handy. All though it is long (four hours with commercials) it is worth watching every moment of it over and over again. Valerie Bertinelli's portrayal of a grieving sister is one that should have gotten her at least a nomination for an award, if not won it. The supporting cast is amazing in ever sense of the word as well. This movie cannot be truly appreciated unless you've seen it with your own two eyes. In A Child's Name manages to tap every emotion known to man--sadness, anger, fear and joy. It is certainly a movie that will instantly become a favorite. I am patiently awaiting its release on DVD (hopefully).


I was at some of the filming of this movie (in Wilmington, NC)and it was great. I was also involved in the investigation of this crime.

People always want to know if the book (made first) and the movie are as what actually happened. My answer is that both are Very Close to the actual facts in the matter.

There are some minor differences between the book and the movie but nothing of any value that would drastically change anything. If you have seen the movie - get the book and read it. The book has some of the trial of Dr. Taylor and the movie covers almost nothing of the trial. A forensic pathologist (Doctor)testified at the trial - and the same Dr. testified in OJ's trial.

Questions? Let me know. Bob


as Angela Cimarelli, the concerned sister who realizes something is awry with her sister's "perfect" marriage.

Her sister marries Michael Ontkean- (what families of low income may have considered a prize) he is a dentist, with great future potential earnings. He cheats on her, has several affairs, and when she returns from Acapulco after the honeymoon, she has already been physically abused. Only Angela has the first instinct: something is wrong.

This is a haunting tale because it is based on a true story. At first the family is in denial. Louise Fletcher is Ontkeans mother. ..."Dear God they live here?"... she intones as she meets the future daughter in law (Cimarelli family in NY). Apparently Ontkeans family is from Indiana. Whether or not they actually drove an over-sized RV to the wedding (I would question that fact) but the differences in family background (religion and social strata) are delineated at the outset.

Ontkean eventually buys the obligatory over-priced house, has a thriving practice, and is finally in control (he thinks) he can even pop home at lunchtime- do a few lines of cocaine and go back to his work as an oral surgeon. His life is perfect.

Then his wife informs him she is pregnant. (Stop the cameras, his reaction is priceless) Apparently this did not fit into his plans. His wife has the baby but clearly this is a mere inconvenience to him.

The scenes where he disposes of the body, and the inter-actions between the sisters are very emotional. The scenes with the police, and when they investigate the home where the murder has been committed, using Luminol, are disturbing and effective. Louise Fletcher (Ontkeans Mom) asks the police why the bedroom is "glowing". ..."Because of the blood and DNA stains, M'am" ...the police factually answer. She still denies that her son is capable of murder. UNREAL.

It is sad that the baby lost her mother, but Bertinelli (the Cimarelli family) eventually adopt the child. A positive outcome in a truly disturbing true story. Best thoughts and prayers go out to the Cimarelli family and the pain they must have lived through. Stories like this NEED to be told. 8/10.


I saw this movie many yrs ago and I thought it was so heart wrenching. the cast was great. The story really hits home with me now my daughter died March 16th 2009 hiking in Eagle creek on the trail. She fell to her death 100 ft. Her whole entire family including her friends thinks her boyfriend pushed her. They share a child together and he was living in Portland close by to me and my daughter and the baby. since she's passed he's taken the baby to live in Bend with his parents who I think are evil people. He's limiting my time with my grand daughter and is now trying to get my 19 yr old daughter to be with him and he took out a life insurance policy on her 3 months before she died for more than what he insured himself for. This is all I'm going to say about it. I love my daughter very much and I know she would want me to raise her child. I'm going to fight with everything I have to get custody of her.


I was a NJ resident when this case broke in 1984. I remember the story as relayed on the pages of the Asbury Park Press and the conversations around the office. When the Sunday article was published by Peter Maas, I felt a sigh of relief for the family. I later purchased the book by Maas and read it a few times. When the movie first aired, I was married with three children. All of the detailed portrayed in the movie was right on the money.

I recently re-acquired my book (it was stowed in a storage facility up north, along with my DVD) and have re-read it. Domestic violence doesn't go away - it stays with you forever! In reading this book again, I realized that the "child" is now a young man of 25 - the same age his mother was when she was murdered.

This movie is timeless, in so much as there are still women killed by their husbands in such a violent manner, that it begs one to question the existence of a "civilized" society.


There is nothing better than seeing someone who is straight up evil and heartless get what is coming to them. This movie was a tragic story but one that had a great ending. A man marries a young woman and beats her almost to death on their honeymoon, although the wife vows he didn't do it, only to find out for sure later that he did. After having a son with this man, he precedes to beat her to death, cleans up the murder and drives around with her body in his car for a week. Once he is found out, he makes up an outlandish story about why he did what he did. His sister-in-law (Valerie Bertinelli) fights to get her nephew back and to prove that he is trying to keep her from doing that. Pregnant and losing her sister she is emotional but she is strong and angry and knows exactly what this man is about, hes a liar. Hes a wife beater and she isn't going to let it go. Sharing custody with his parents they fight with everything they have, finding a lawyer to actually help their cause and get her nephew back. In the end thats exactly what she does. Getting custody and raising her nephew along side her own new daughter. Its a true story of a sister fighting for what she knows is right. Fighting for what she knew her sister would have wanted for her child. She doesn't give up and she doesn't quit. Its a touching movie, a sad movie and a horrendous sight a how someone could brutally kill another the way her husband did. He paid for what he did and he will never see his child again. A good movie, a must see.


This movie had a great impact on my life, when you think about it, anyone of us can be a victim of someone as mentally disturbed as Kenneth Taylor. The charm of a Narcissist Psychopath which we find everyday. There are so many sick people out on the loose, it's scary. I saw this movie as a teenager and never forgot about it. The book by Peter Maas is incredible, I bought it through the internet and highly recommend it. I am currently studying Psychology and this character is a very good subject for study. If anyone out there knows where I can purchase this film, I would highly appreciate it. Please send me any information regarding this film to camarito87@hotmail.com Thank you.


this movie was really good i have watched it a million times and every time i watch it i cry. i feel sorry for the family because they had to go through all this the courts, wondering if the Taylor's were going to take the daughter and sisters baby but they didn't get to. i feel for the family i am going through the same thing right know and we all are scared. no body deserves to be treated the way Teresa was and the family does not deserve to be put through this either. and there son now has to grow up with out his real mom but he will always have Angela and her husband to be there for him. Teresa will not be able to meet her daughter in law or her grandkids she will not be able to see her son graduate. she will not be able to be there for Angela's kids or meet them since they have grown up. Teresa's parents will not be able to talk with her or see her laugh they don't get to spend Christmas or thanksgiving with her or there b-days or her b-day with her anymore


I thought this miniseries was an excellent because it shows how much the judicial system can be corrupt. It also showed what families go threw when fighting for a child where a husband has killed his wife and tries to get custody after he has done a horrible crime.


This movie is heartwarming and a real tearjerker. I have a copy of it on tape, and I watch it all the time. I never get tired of watching the Taylor's get what they deserved. I really enjoyed watching it over and over again.


This is not your standard underdeveloped Lifetime movie fare. There is nothing superficial about this movie. The characters are fully developed. Let's face it. The best movies on Lifetime are the ones that are two parters. When you are dealing with this kind of material, you need that extra time to develop the plot and characters fully. Valerie Bertinelli is at her best in this. I kind of almost got the impression that she was really just playing herself. The aspect that I found most interesting in the second half of the movie, was the exploration of the Midwestern "Family Values" of the Heartland versus the evil New York/New Jersey devils represented by the Silvanos. Kind of makes you wonder!


I've read some complaints about how this movie is "4 hours of my life I'll never get back." But trust me, these are 4 hours you will NEVER forget. This is a story about a woman named Teresa who meets a seemingly perfect male specimen named Ken. They meet, fall in love, he woos her traditional Italian family and they waste no time in getting married - Teresa's first marriage, Ken's third. But Ken is not all he seems. Not very long into the movie, we see that he's a substance abuser, he cheats on his new wife and is physically abusive towards her. Teresa, blinded by her seemingly perfect new love, defends him, regardless of her battered state. But Teresa's sister, Angela (an AMAZING Valerie Bertinelli), suspects otherwise and alerts her husband (a GORGEOUS pre-receeded hairline Chris Meloni of Law&Order SVU fame) and family that something sinister is hiding under Ken's "Perfect Man" facade. Eventually, Teresa becomes pregnant with her first child - something that was NOT in Ken's plans, and he is visibly irritated by the news. Brilliantly acted and completely riveting to the viewer, "In a Child's Name" will have you on the edge of your seat, anxiously awaiting what will happen next. This movie takes you on a roller-coaster ride of emotions - fear, anger, love, hate - and it literally makes you want to jump through the screen and knock Ken Taylor in the teeth. Called one of the most "disturbing" screen-shots in ALL of cinema history - that's right, not "Lifetime" history - CINEMA history, the famous "Luminol" scene will stay with you long after the movie is over. (PS: I know for a fact that the Luminol scene is completely accurate. My grandfather was a detective on this case, as my family lives in Staten Island, where the Cimarelli's lived, and he was physically in the room when this happened. He said its totally dead-on accurate... which kinda makes it all the more scarier!) If you want a movie that will tap into every human emotion possible, and make you stand up and cheer at the end, then this is the movie for you. Valerie Bertinelli should of been nominated for best actress in this role, and the rest of the cast is stunning as the 2 families battling for custody of the murdered wife's newborn son. This film is a shining example of what a substantial movie-watching experience should be.


This movie was about my aunt's (Janice Miller) case. She recounted what happened for me and the movie followed the events very truthfully. I thought it was great for being on T.V. I thought they portrayed my uncle unfairly and spelled his last name wrong( it's gAUdio not gUAdio) but he is not central to the story. The actors had brilliant performances and you had to feel bad for the family of the child. Well that's about all I have to say on this movie. I still cannot believe this movie was actually about my aunt's case. It's nice to see that a relative finally gets recognition for their hard work.I only wish i could find a copy of this that i could buy.


Oh where do I begin... It is possible for a cheesy movie to still be good. Some movies, while corny, are delightfully so. This movie has a cheese factor that could beat out the entire state of Wisconsin. Now don't get me wrong, this movie will hook you with the whole "plight to save her dead sister's child from the husband who murdered her" storyline, but that doesn't mean you should sit through it to find out who gets the kid. I happened upon this stereotypical Lifetime movie on a perfectly useful Saturday morning and by the time the film was over, so was the day. It's called a Lifetime movie because it takes a lifetime to watch... For a "based on a true story" movie, it was ridiculously unrealistic. The crime scene was so outrageous and the idea that relatives would be allowed to live in the house while it's under police investigation is so unbelievable it's almost laughable. Sitting down to watch this will mean at least four hours of your life that you will never get back.


OK, to be honest i didn't expect much out of this movie,being a romantic comedy and all,but in the end i actually liked it, yes it's a chick flick ,and yes some things in it wouldn't really happen in reality,and the movie being so sweet and funny,the ending could have been a little better,but hey,these kind of movies always have something that we would like to be different,all in all i actually liked it,and enjoy watching it over and over again...

Kate Hudson was really sparkling in this light spirited comedy, and i for one would like to see her more in funny comedies like this...

Denny


Andie(Kate Hudson) is a beautiful young woman that works for a women's magazine called Composure and for her next article, Andie has to write about how to lose a guy in 10 days. Ben(Matthew McConaughey)is an advertising executive and he makes a bet with his friends that he can make a woman fall in love with him in 10 days. Of course, these two meet each other and the scam is on. Andie will do anything to lose a guy and Ben will do anything to win a girl, what they don't expect is that the two of them will fall in love with each other. I thought this was a funny and charming romantic comedy. The lovely Kate Hudson gives a great performance, she was absolutely hilarious! I would give How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days 7/10.


There are no words to describe this movie. I found it hillarious and heartwarming. The two principle actors were great as their roles as Ben and Andie. Kate Hudson was great at driving Ben nuts. I laughed for days.

I loved the soundtrack too. It had classics and modern day classics.

I feel this movie will go down as a classic with such films as Pretty Woman and Dirty Dancing.


There are scenes in this movie that defy quality, professional honesty that work like gems. The home family scene was particularly intriguing in "How To Lose A Guy...," the quality of the photography went from professional quality feature film to a something not home video, but less sharp and informal. It is there the audience experiences an honest, genuine quality time the coming off the screen between Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey. This movie was has a smart send up, funny lines and comical scenes about the dating behavior and quirky incidents that have befallen man and woman over time. While the ending wasn't quite as dazzling as it could have been, it ties itself up nicely. I was hoping for something more traditional, classy but as it was the ending was more personal and straight forward. A good date movie with bit more of a bite than the average man/woman collision/confrontation/competition movie.


Benjamin Barry is an advertising executive and ladies' man who, to win a big campaign, bets that he can make a woman fall in love with him in 10 days. Andie Anderson covers the "How To" beat for "Composure" magazine and is assigned to write an article on "How to Lose a Guy in 10 days." They are sure to meet each other in a bar and both tries to get what they want without knowing what they are really doing.

This is one of the funnier romantic comedies, if you'd like some laughs. There are many laugh-out-loud moments here and there. The humor was witty and slapstick, which I love in comedies.

The chemistry between Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey is great. this film is like the battle of the sexes.

Don't watch this film if you want lies between romance but if you would like to have a really good time, then this is the film.


*May Contain Spoilers*

I found "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" to be entertaining, funny, and cute. I saw it in the theater with my sister and friends and we all liked it. I found the plot to be original and the acting was good. The characters were also realistic.

 "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" is a twisted tale about Andie Anderson, who writes "How To" articles and Benjamin Berry, and advertiser. Andie Anderson is writing an article entitled "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" and Benjamin Berry made a bet with his workers/friends that he can keep a relationship with a girl for more than ten days. Andie and Benjamin meet and fall in love and then the action happens.

I suggest that everyone should see this movie because it really is funny. I give this movie 9/10 stars.


how to lose a guy is an original story, which is well-acted, very smart and very very funny. i found myself laughing out loud many many times. I think its one of the best romantic comedies of all time. I would encourage buying the movie: great for parties or anytime you want to good laugh. I quite enjoyed this movie actually. I didn't intend to see it but i'm not sorry i did. I like romantic comedies but the past couple of years they've been pretty disappointing & plain stupid + i'm not big on Matthew McConaughey. The main reason why i liked the movie is definitely Kate Hudson! She's so adorable & hilariously funny in the movie. Definitely the star. Matthew did a good job i guess, but i still don't particularly like him a lot. The story is original, the jokes are really funny & there's real chemistry between the main characters! Unfortunately it's just a chick-flick that will be forgotten pretty soon. But at least it's a romantic comedy with a real heart!

Entertainment Score: 9.9/10

Overall: 9.85/10


This movie is silly but funny. We can see the lovely Kate Hudson and the charming Matthew McConaughey (from EdTV) in this comedy as a couple who have everything to be wrong. Of course the end is very predictable, but this don't take the movie's fun. The 'princess Sophia' nickname is still one of the best nicknames I already heard for a guy's part. (laugh)

obs1:Kate Hudson wears a beautiful yellow dress in this movie. With 'Isadora Duncan'the diamond neck less, she is even more beautiful. obs2: Michelle's character (Kathryn Hahn) has a beautiful hair color. (red)


`How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days' is not the collaborated work of all the first dates I have ever had. The name of that piece is `How To Lose A Guy In 10 Seconds'. `How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days' is a giddy but formulaic romantic comedy starring Hollywood vanities Matthew Mcconaughey & Kate Hudson. Mcconaughey plays a cocky advertiser named Ben Barry. Big Ben places a wager that he can make a woman fall in love with him in 10 days. Hudson plays Andie Anderson, a fem-themed magazine scriber who writes a weekly `How To Lose.' articles. Her next reality assignment is = How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days. Now these two self-agenda dating gamers are off to the races. Andie does everything irritable imaginable to make the male species quiver with fear: furnishing Ben's apartment as a bunny festival, filling the bathroom with vaginal products , nicknaming Ben's penile instrument with a female name, and interrupting a guy's night out by actually showing up. Yes! Guys! This is one of the scariest films I have ever seen. Poor Ben has to undertake this torture so he could win his bet and make Andie fall in love with him in 10 days. Mcconaughey & Hudson did demonstrate screen chemistry. Hudson, who is strikingly beautiful, will make many male fans wish they can take a ride in that Hudson River. I did find the charm in `How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days' but I also found that it lost its luster. ***Average


"How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days" is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It's so lifeless, stupid, ugly and inept, it's hard to believe that anyone involved, from the director to the scriptwriter to Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey, titled, with a false generosity, "stars," received payment for their services. This is one of those movies where, frame by frame, you sit there saying, "How could anything this bad ever have reached theaters?

"Lose a Guy" is meant to be a romantic comedy, but there is no romance, and no comedy. Hudson and McConaughey have been more charismatic in tabloid TV talk shows. There's no timing, no tension, no wit, no music, no flair, just inert matter moving, like sludge, in front of your eyes. Not even good enough for one of those days when you are exhausted from work and just want to watch *something*. Staring at a blank screen for ninety minutes would be more uplifting.


Thank god I saw this at a screening and didn't waste money on it. After the horrid reviews, I had low expectations but still -this movie is so predictable, so false, so by the numbers that it just unfolds because it has to. Who thought the names of the leads was a cute idea - see, she's Andi Anderson and he's Benjamin Barry and they say the names all the time in the movie as if it's catchy and clever as opposed to forced and created. I must be in the minority because I find Kate Hudson so irritating and an awful actress. She can't seem to play a three-dimensional character so she resorts to pretty much mugging for the camera - watch me make funny faces as I eat a hamburger, watch me giggle just like my Mom did thirty years ago. I'm sorry - but if Goldie Hawn wasn't her mom - she'd be lucky to get a dinner theatre part. Bebe Neuwirth and Adam Goldberg try their hardest but seem embarrassed to be in the movie. SPOILERS************ (as if there's ONE actual surprise in the movie) But, once again, the reality of a cabbie stopping on a bridge in New York - especially post 9/11 -please. Plus the crowbarred in way they have Matthew give the cabbie money to take her stuff back to her apartment so they can ride back on his motorcycle. Sheesh - a happy ending? Maybe for some, for me I was happy only because this insipid tripe was actually ENDING. Look, that's what makes the world go round - but when smart, clever romantic comedies like MR. JEALOUSY OR NEXT STOP WONDERLAND have trouble finding an audience and this coloring book rakes in the money, well, hell, you get what you deserve.


This movie was ridiculous. The plot is completely unbelievable. A woman bets her boss that she can 'lose a guy in ten days.' A man bets that he can make a woman fall in love with him in ten days. What can go wrong? Too much. The movie was not funny. It showed women as catty and men as stupid. There is no reason why he would 'want to keep her' and there is no reason that she 'would fall in love with him.' Granted, they are doing stupid and idiotic things on purpose, but after finding out that they were lying to each other, all is forgiven! And of course the climax is played out in public. Typical Hollywood. In reality, they would be so upset that they lied to each other that they would never see each other again. And any talking would be out of the line of curious ears. But of course, movies are not based on reality.

Kate Hudson is very pretty and Matthew McConaughey is quite handsome. The costumes, especially the yellow dress that Hudson wears at the end, are gorgeous. I do think that Hudson as Andie Anderson and McConaughey as Benjamin Barry did well with their talents, but the movie itself stinks. No matter how talented you are, you cannot save a sinking ship.

I'm sure several people will like this movie and that is fine, everyone has different tastes. I am a romantic, but I pride myself on being a sensible romantic. Movies of this kind are not romantic to me, just wastes of time. If you want a quality love story, go with something else. If you don't mind killing time and wasting your hard-earned money, then this may be the movie for you.


This schlock of a screenplay should have been a Showtime or HBO Original movie or to be more exact it would be better suited for Lifetime or Oxygen Channels. What are the chances that two conievers would both be trying to deceive each other over the same 10 day period. And they just so coincidentally meet at a nightclub and agree to start a dating relationship (of course each character is agreeing to date under false pretenses!). LOL! They must really think the audiences are stupid! But a fashion turnaround pose by Kate Hudson in a backless slitted dress (more suitable for airing on the new Star Search) and plenty of bare chested shots of Matthew McConaughey are sure to send the teenie boppers swooning and screaming. But do it at home people please and let the rest of us who got suckered into this flop of a movie based on Hudson's performance in Almost Famous enjoy our consolation popcorn quota in peace. See it at Blockbuster before the Summer Blockbusters open, better yet rent it if you were given a gift card from a friend.


I thought this movie was refreshingly funny. In a time where there is so much violence and nastiness going on in the world, it is great to see a film that just wants to make people laugh. What is wrong with that. It didn't hurt that Kate is just as funny if not funnier than her mom (good genes) and Matthew should be credited for his great sense of humor. He is also really nice to look at. Had to be said! I loved this movie. The supporting cast was also excellent. Adam Goldburg can play a straight man better than anyone. Michael Michelle, as the rival to Matthews character, made me want to scratch her eyes out. Of course I have to mention Bebe Neuwirth, she's as always amazing to watch on screen and on stage. RENT THIS MOVIE. IT'S WORTH THE $4.00.


Finally after trying for so long, i have watched this movie. It's either always rented out, or not available.

This is not a wonderful movie, but still very enjoyable. For the first time ever i have noticed how absolutely beautiful Kate Hudson really is. Wow, she is just so pretty ! She was absolutely hilarious. It's been a while since i laughed so much while watching a romantic comedy. There's really some things you can take away in this movie. It's fun, it's funny, it's enjoyable, and there's really some chemistry between Matt and Kate.

The bet part is so clichéd, and i didn't like Michelle all that much. I recommend seeing this movie, even just for the fun of it. I'd give it a 7/10.


Romantic Comedy doesn't get much better than this. A well plotted, captivating, and 21st century mature idealism of blossoming true love. A film in the same vein as Sleepless in Seattle to which this movie pays homage. Kate Hudson is simply great and more beautiful than ever. Matthew McConaughey really surprised me because he has played this role before without conviction. Also, it was fun watching both Bebe Neuwirth and Mr. "Sun Spit Morning" himself Robert Klein in their small but important "boss" roles. This wonderful chick flick (for chicks who love movies and guys who love chicks) is a real keeper.


Gangster No.1 shows the rise and fall of a prominent English gangster. Malcolm McDowell is Gangster 55, telling the story in voice overs, and Paul Bettany shines as the Young Gangster giving a great performance, which carries the film from cookie cutter gangster film, to one of the best.

This film is filled with inspirations from many others, such as Goodfellas, Reservoir Dogs, Get Shorty, etc. While some do work, such as "Look into my eyes", others don't, McGuigan, near the end of the film, fast forwards through decades in just a couple of minutes, we don't feel like we are with these people throughout their reign of terror in England. The film does have bits of originality, such as the "torture" while we see the FPV of the victim, fades in and out in his dying minutes, as the killer stands over his body, continuing the slaughter.

Paul Bettany shows how good he is in this film as he carries it to another level. His eyes in his "Look into my eyes" scenes are so hollow and terrifying that you know if he was interrogating you, that he could and probably would kill you at anytime. He has the look in his sharp suits and the style. It's a shame no awards went his way. McDowell, to me in this film is a little bit of, I don't know how to say it, but he didn't do all that much for me. The rest of the cast holds up well, blending well with the story line and environments they are put in.

The script is sharp and has a Goodfellas/Reservoir Dogs feel to it, the Goodfellas aspect shows the rise and fall, where as Reservoir Dogs, comes from it's dialouge. I've never heard the word c*nt used so many times. The film took it's time to showcase the rise of this young gangster from a common thug, to a crime lord. The one thing that did out me off though was the fact the he was just picked up out of a bar and given a spot. When Freddie goes to prison, that's when the young gangster takes his spot in being no. 1. Years go by and Freddie finally is released, while McDowell eagerly awaits his return, he expect some conflict, but what he get is a let down, I won't ruin what happens, but you'd expect something explosive.

So Gangster No. 1 showcases great performances from the actors involved and shows a great story that takes it time, instead of bang bang, you're dead. The film just lacks that one special thing to take it to greatness, above and beyond those other movies, but for now, it can just be the one to stand out.


Gangsters are vicious, murderous thugs, whose power is based on uniform, military might, a preying on the weak and a contempt for democracy. Nazis were vicious, murderous thugs whose power was based on uniform, military might, a preying on the weak and a contempt for democracy. Ergo, gangsters are fascists, and, double ergo, films which portray gangsters without a wagging finger are also fascist. This is the level of critical debate in the UK at the moment, that has greeted the recent slew of British gangster films in the wake of LOCK STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS. One misinformed hack in a major broadsheet even insinuated a link between this movement and recent, violent London crime.

The problem with these films is an aesthetic, not an ethical one, and the type of ignorant criticism they have drawn reveals a lingering bourgeois contempt for a genre that has proved over the decades to be infinitely varied, subtle, adaptable, but, most importantly, through an awesomely powerful iconography, capable of exploring ideas about society and the individual, modernisation, capitalism, dissent, cinema, masculinity, violence, the body, role-play, psychology, sociology, metaphysics. Can a genre embraced and remodelled by directors as diverse as Feuillade, Von Sternberg, Hawks, Lang, Lewis, Melville, Godard, Suzuki, Coppola, Scorcese, Kitano, among many others be considered negligible? The problem with these new films, as I say, is not that they are overly violent or glamorise crime, but that they are ineptly made, hackneyed, opportunistic, with their makers revealing little knowledge of, or love for, the genre in which they're working.

It's a pity for GANGSTER NO. 1 that it got caught up in this cycle, because it is a very good film, that maybe fails only in overambition, and that's not something we get to complain about very often. Ironically, the film's nearest model is not its sorry peers, or even archetypal classics like GET CARTER, but an American film, Soderbergh's THE LIMEY. Maybe these directors' non-Englishness (MacGuigan is Irish) allows them to cut through the phoney nostalgia more easily than native filmmakers, but their dismantling of gangster mythology is almost Melvillean (eg LE DOULOS).

There is the same fluidity here as in LIMEY, the same sense of the past's stranglehold on the present, the same impatience with genre's limits, with the impossibility of family, with the stifling of humanity by barbaric codes and ideals. MacGuigan goes one further than Soderbergh - both directors emphasis role-playing, casting iconic 60s stars who seem to be making it up as they go along, having a laugh, trying on accents and clothes, but while Terence Stamp achieves some kind of grace, Malcolm MacDowall goes very uncoolly mad.

There are three pointers in the first ten minutes that tell us where the film is going in its refusal to glamorise, to mythologise. First is the soundtrack, which is not the pumping macho nostalgic music beloved of the LOCK STOCK wannabes, but Sacha Distel - sung with heartbreaking sincerity by Neil Hannon, but Sacha Distel none the less. Secondly, the film opens at a business-like dinner of old gangsters blustering about the old times, MacDowell louder than most. If the flippant editing didn't tell us, the bathetic mocking of MacDowell when he leaves to relieve himself suggests that we shouldn't take everything he says too faithfully (or, in his straight-to-camera gesture, that he knows a lot more, eg about these 'friends', than he's letting on - is he a godlike creator?). In the third scene, champagne glass beside his feet, we notice his aim isn't quite what it was, and the title takes on rather a different, less iconic meaning.

It is this man who tells the story, and it quickly becomes clear that he is a raving lunatic, and thus as reliable as Humbert or M. This has two effects - every scene becomes infected by his madness, is heightened, in terms of colour and composition, by the way he sees the world, which is hightly unstable and schizophrenic, alternately jokey and horribly violent, with certain markers recurring in a kind of dream loop.

Secondly, we must look beyond his words to find the truth of each scene, forcing the viewer to play detective. This takes the power away from MacDowell, which is appropriate in a film about doubles, about hoow one man steals another man's identity (hence the foregrounding of mirrors, reflections, as well as the commodities that define people), only to lose his own.

MacDowell is never known by a name (his character is played by two actors, the others by one), and becomes a mere cipher, though with very real, frightening power, while Frankie remains essentially himself, his image a mere show of strength, never his whole self. The style reinforces this, and perhaps reflects MacGuigan's background in advertising, but neither Scott nor Parker ever rooted their style in character to such effect, and the fragmentation, heightening and distortion of imagery could have two meanings - they reveal a chaotic world which MacDowell, with all his will, and figured in his voiceover, has managed to unify through the power of his identity and voice; or they are a sign of breakdown. The extraordinary coda reveals which.

There have been complaints about the excessive violence of this film, but these scenes have a hallucinatory, ritualistic quality appropriate to a highly disciplined madman. GANGSTER's abstraction - that it's subject is gangster mythology rather than one particular protagonist per se, does not mean that it avoids social grounding - the vivid recreation of 60s London, only makes the unaccountable, inexplicable appearance of this phenomenon all the more alarming.


Thirty years after entering the cultural conscience with the his groundbreaking performance as Alex deLarge in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, Malcolm McDowell returns to the screen in this unabashedly violent and emotionally detached film about envy amongst gangsters and the need to be the "gangster no. 1". On learning that his old mentor, Freddie Mays (David Thewlis), has been released from jail, The Gangster (McDowell), now a kingpin among fellow gangsters, moves back to the late sixties when he was a young nameless man (Paul Bettany) just hanging around in the swinging sixties. He infiltrates himself into Mays' circle of gangsters, wins his trust, becomes a ferocious gangster... but there is something wrong with him from the get-go, something Mays is unable to see. The younger gangster has a serious personality imbalance that renders him covetous of everything surrounding Mays. Like Iago, he wants not only to be like Mays, but appropriate himself with Mays' life and this includes his then-girlfriend Karen (Saffron Burrows). Things reach a head when he hits on Karen who rejects him. The young gangster goes on a rampage, pitting Mays with a rival gang member, then brutally murdering Mays' rival and framing him for the murder which sends Mays to jail. He then emerges as the main gangster and lets loose on his up to then pent-up violence... that is, until the story reaches full circle and all three main characters are reunited. The Gangster realizes that Karen and Mays still love each other and his incomprehensible envy towards them has not caused a dent in their affections, and when Mays emerges as the more human person, McDowell sinks in his own self-hatred. An interesting film that takes its time to reach its audience, GANGSTER NO. 1 is a study not in violence but in self-loathing and what happens when the main character is a black hole. Both Bettany and McDowell, in remaining nameless, magnify this man's emptiness -- he, despite his position, is a nobody and has no future. Mays and Karen, on the other hand, having been swallowed alive by London's underbelly, become survivors who are above and beyond The Gangster's murderous rage. The director, Paul McGuigan, has a sharp eye for a stylized telling of such a violent story with flashy editing and some brutal points of view in depicting a murder sequence that resembles a rape and describes just how insane this gangster is. Not for the squeamish at times but a great film to view and enjoy.


What I remember most about GANGSTER NO 1 on its initial release was the critics mentioning the amount of violence shown ( Channel 4 also pointed out the "disturbing" content before the broadcast last night ) but I don`t really see what the problem is . I agree it`s a violent picture but at least the subject matter is treated very seriously with the deadly violence seen from the victim`s point of view for a change . The people who have a problem with this movie are the same people who have a problem with porn movies , honestly you`d think they`d never seen nine people in love before<br /><br />!!!!! SPOILERS !!!! <br /><br />If I have a problem with GANGSTER NO 1 it`s to do with the script , frankly it`s very dumb in places like Freddy Mays being convicted of the murder of Lenny Taylor . If Mays is lying in hospital in a critical condition why would he be a suspect ? The forensics would prove what time he died making it impossible for Mays to be a suspect . And the bare bones of the story seems to steal a massive amount from ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA though the screenplay does remain somewhat underdeveloped

As director Paul McGuigan can also be accussed of being heavily influenced by Scorsese but that can be forgiven as the direction is the best thing about the movie with nice little flourishes like the reflection of a man falling from a high rise block of flats in a car windscreen , and there`s the aforementioned scene of a torture victim . If I have a problem with any of the technical aspects it`s the sound mix with background noise drowning out the dialogue in some scenes , but there`s a good cast on show here with Paul Bettany especially good <br /><br />But GANGSTER NO 1 is a fairly good - Though uneven - British thriller that owes very little if anything to Guy Ritchie . It`s such a pity the story wasn`t a little bit stronger and that the lily livered critics didn`t state the movie`s strong points


As the film opens we see a table of men in later middle age, very well dressed, around a table having dinner. In the same room, nearby, there is a boxing match going on, mostly ignored or perhaps taken for granted. The men remember shared events, but with fading memories. Their heavy accents tell us that we are in England. And we begin to see that these are people are criminals. Our main focus is on a character ("Gangster 55") played by Malcolm McDowell. When someone says that Freddie Mays is getting out of prison, Gangster 55 reacts and leaves the table.

We flash back to 1968. Now the Gangster 55 character is played by Paul Bettany (who played the roommate in "A Beautiful Mind"). We see him get recruited by Freddie Mays (David Thewlis), a.k.a., "the Butcher of Mayfair." Freddie is dressed impeccably, as we hear Gangster 55 describe in the voiceover. Soon, after he joins Mays' gang, Gangster 55 is also.

I was reminded of a couple of films. It reminded me of "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels," in that it involved gangsters with heavy English accents. This film also has some flashy camera work, but on the whole is more straightforward than the earlier film. This is appropriate, because while I would call "Lock" primarily a comedy, this was most definitely not. While there were a small number of humorous times, on the whole this is a serious and far more violent film.

The other obvious connection is to "A Clockwork Orange." The films are related because of Malcolm McDowell, who figures prominently in both films, by the way that the young Gangster 55 is photographed glaring into the camera in a very similar manner to McDowell's Alex in the earlier film, and by the general level of violence.

This isn't really my kind of film. I went because I read some very strong reviews. I admired it, but I felt drained when I left, and I couldn't really say that I enjoyed the experience. Even though that doesn't sound like a recommendation, it is, for the right people.

Seen on 8/2/2002.


I have now watched all of Paul McGuigan's films and love every single one of them. he's really gone up in my ratings as one of the best directors around at the moment. other classics he's made are Lucky Number Slevin, Wicker Park and Push. its the style he puts into his films that really win me over. the sets look really rich and marvellous. i hope he keeps up his amazing directing techniques. in this film he centres on the gangster world in the 1960's england, and pulls it off brilliantly. the film is slightly surreal with the odd camera shots and dark atmospheric acting.

Paul Bettany gives an exceptional performance as a ruthless psycho of a gangster that will do anything to reign supreme on the gangster family. another cool thing about this film is that you never find out what his characters name is. Malcolm McDowell also gives a magnetic performance as the older version of Paul Bettany's character many years later. David Thewlis and Saffron Burrows give good support in this classic gangster masterpiece.

the film is very original for its intense and very violent scenes that will shock any audience that watch it. the tracking shots and music really go well with this film. there really isn't a problem i can say with this, maybe the film should be on for a little longer because of the shortness of it due to so many other gangster classics surpassing the 2 hour mark.

all in all this film is brilliant. Paul McGuigan is a hero director that has really won me over. he's a genius. if you love this then check out his other films.......... 10/10.........j.d Seaton


What a delightful movie. Well, no. Let me rephrase that. What a delightful movie for a Stanley Kubrick/Anthony Burgess/A Clockwork Orange movie fan. This movie seeps through with Stanley Kubrick. A Clockwork Orange oozes from the breaks in the glass. It cannot be unintentional. From the ultraviolence, to the casting of Malcolm McDowell, this is all A Clockwork Orange. The young gangster even looks, stares like young Alex. I'm pretty sure the movie is even washed the same.

Gangster No. 1 is a bloody mess of a movie, a crime movie, a gangster movie, an understated monstrous epic. Understated until it comes to the violence, that is. Over an hour is a long, long back story, and nothing more. Really. It's a back story that takes over an hour. A very long flashback, occasionally interrupted by the old gangster's (Malcolm McDowell) narration. It tells the story of a young gangster's (Paul Bettany) yearning for power under a gang lord's (David Thewlis) regime.

The violence is less/more than A Clockwork Orange. It's actually incredibly bizarre to describe. You don't really see people get killed, not up close, and not really. More often, you are being killed. The camera is your sight, as Bettany is doing something unsightly to you. And it won't end. Not nearly soon enough.

I think the direction is brilliant. The shots tell exactly what they need to. Nothing is spared. It's a lot of movie packed into a bit, which keeps it from getting slow, except when it comes to the violence. The director, (who is Paul McGuigan, by the way), knows what he wants you to see, and directs you through the movie. He learned well from Kubrick.

It's a disturbing movie. And I think it grabs, or repels. Fascinates or disgusts. And if you're very lucky, it does both. If you're very, very lucky, you'll see and appreciate A Clockwork Orange in it.


This is a story about a young ambitious man who likes being a gangster and when he is young the role is played by Young Gangster, (Paul Bettany). Freddie Mays, (David Thewlis) is the head king pin and decides to hire this young gangster who wants to fill his shoes someday. There are many flashbacks concerning the life of the young gangster and the older gangster played by Malcolm McDowell who managed to send Freddie Mays to prison and he also took over his entire business. There is plenty of blood and gore and rough and tough British crude language which is very hard to understand. This is a very unusual film and it will hold your interest right to the very end.


I loved this movie soooo much! I was first introduced two thirds into it and I was immediately ready to sit down and watch it at three in the morning staying up till five am. The way it is shot is like pure genius! There is a scene in it that is shot from the perspective of the person being murdered and I mean it is aw inspiring! Seriously if it weren't for the way this movie ended it it would have been a 10 on my voting. Point in fact though the ending isn't horrible it just leaves a little to be desired. NON-SPOILER ALERT about the ending, they use a different person for the main character as the older version, but everyone else plays themselves just with makeup....(Don't get me wrong the guy they got 'Malcolm McDowell' to play as the older gangster is the best narrator and therefore carries the movie, but it's just weird and very hard to over look) Not to mention Paul Bettany who is a genius in this movie as well! My god the man can play psycho! All and all a must watch and a pass on to any friend who is in the mood to see a great flick!!!!!