This movie is great. It defies logic at every turn. For example, people are killed by having their hands nailed together. What? The person behind the motorcycle helmet sounds like they're talking through a synthesizer, but when the helmet is taken off, it's just a normal person. What? The sheriff's car is just a normal blue car with no markings. What? The sheriff's badge and shoulder holster magically jump sides the entire film! What? The sheriff and town coroner find a body in the middle of town and then desert it, saying "it's been here this long, it ain't goin' anywhere." What? A woman sits and blubbers simply because her friends have walked into the forest and have been gone for awhile. What? Oh, and my favorite scene, where a guy gets shot and falls over onto some garbage cans. He's draped over one of them, dead, and it starts tipping over, so he reaches out and pushes off on a wall to re-balance himself! What?? Look, obviously I could go on and on, but you just have to see this one for yourself to see how hilarious it is. My grade: A-


Coneheads is one of the best "Saturday Night Live" movies. I was expecting a light comedy but what I got was a whole lot more. Following a similar plot to the skit, Coneheads is the story about the Beldar Conehead family who crash on earth during a scouting mission for planet conquest. While here, they dodge the INS, have a child and discover that life on Earth is quite good.

This is where the movie shows its heart. It could have been a movie of comedy bits but by the end, it is about happiness in a stable family, which is quite refreshing in these days of depressing movies about divorces and unmarried couples. It is nice to see Beldar be a father figure to his daughter rather than the "Let Your Kids Be Who They Are" mentality of these days. The direction of the film in excellent, setting up many nice visual gags and shots that are very impressive for a comedy film. And at times, the film feels "epic" as you see the family on the run from the INS, to moving to the suburbs to returning to their planet.

There are great performances throughout the film and the many cameos are perfect. Look for funny scenes from Jan Hooks, Adam Sandler, Michael Richards, and Garrett Morris. Michelle Burke makes a nice debut as Connie Conehead and I expect to see more of her in the future.

On the surface, this seems like a dumb movie and it has received many poor reviews. But if you sit back and let it take you on an adventure (and if you can keep up with the way the Coneheads use different words for common items) you will be pleasantly surprised.


The fact that this is a good film AND it was done by ex-SNL actors help this movie to really stand out for me. Dan Aykroyd is terrific as Beldar and it shows that he CAN do a decent film (and he's done some stinkers--Neighbors, 1941, Nothing But Trouble, Dr. Detroit).

As I said above, I haven't been that impressed by many of the films by ex-SNL cast members--especially when they are movie-length versions of SNL skits. However, this movie expands on the characters and has great heart. In other words, despite the humor, the lead characters come off as sympathetic and decent. If the characters had been just like they were in the skits, the movie would have fallen flat on its face. Instead, we are treated to many instances when the Coneheads try so hard to fit in and be the average American family. It's also quite amusing that almost no one seems to notice that they AREN'T! There are many SNL-related cameos and supporting players throughout the movie and they are pretty well integrated (i.e., they usually don't seem like tacked on cameos but fit within the plot). Also, although I generally hate David Spade, his annoying personality fits in perfectly with the character he plays.

This is a good film for the whole family. It's cute, funny and actually has amazingly good family values!


Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtin reprise their roles from Saturday Night Live on to the big screen. The film is filled with countless classic cameos that really make this film. Jason Alexander as the follically challenged neighbor and Chris Farley as Connie Conehead's boyfriend are especially hilarious. I really wondered if you could pull off a feature film from basically a 5 minute TV skit...but the script is so well written with so many funny jokes...David Spade is another who delivers line after line as the smarmy kiss butt assistant to Michael McKean's character. But its the talent of Aykroyd and Curtin, two comedy veterans who really drive this one home. Laughs all around, I loved it!


Other than WAYNE'S WORLD, this is the only film adaptation of an SNL skit that really worked for me. CONEHEADS was an inventive and smartly written 1993 comedy that expanded upon the original Saturday Night Live skits starring Dan Aykroyd, Jane Curtin, and Lorraine Newman as Beldar, Prymatt, and Connie Conehead, the aliens who are trying to live as earthlings and tell the world that they are from France. The movie starts before Connie is even born, showing why Beldar and Prymatt were sent to earth and how they ended up smack in the middle of suburbia. There are some moments of genuine warmth that you feel for the Coneheads as they have to stay on the run, as they are being pursued by a slimy Immigration agent (Michael McKean, in an on target performance) and his ass-kissing assistant (a hysterical David Spade). The film has one hilarious moment after another. Jan Hooks appears as a student of Beldar (who is seen working briefly as a driving instructor)who lusts after Beldar and her silent encounter with Prymatt in a supermarket is hysterical. Chris Farley is very funny as Ronnie, Connie's boyfriend. The role of Connie has been inherited by Michelle Burke for some reason, though Lorraine Newman can be spotted in a cameo near the end of the film. Jason Alexander and Lisa Jane Persky are very funny as Beldar and Prymatt's suburban neighbors. Sinbad has some funny moments as Beldar's first boss and Adam Sandler is funny in a brief scene as a guy who provides Beldar with a phony Social Security card and whole new identity. There is so much to take in here and a lot of talented comedians are seen to good advantage, whether in starring or cameo roles. CONEHEADS is one of the most underrated comedies of the 90's which I don't think ever got the credit it deserved. If you've never seen it, definitely worth the rental.


Beldar (Aykroyd) & Prymaat (Curtin) Conehead are two aliens who come from the planet Remulak their ship has crash landed on earth and have no way to return home. Forced to enjoy human society they try to get used to their new surroundings but are soon on the run from immigration officers Seedling (Mckean) & Turnbull (Spade), months later Prymaat gives birth to a beautiful baby girl whom they name Connie . 18 years later Connie (Burke) is pretty young woman who is always at ends with her parental units she falls head over heels in love with Ronnie (Farley) a local mechanic and neighborhood boy who admits to never have dated a girl taller than him before. Coneheads is a great family comedy with tons of laughs from start to finish , Chris Farley 29, & Michelle Burke 23, play the star crossed teenage couple with humor and warmth 8/10 Stars


I love, love, love Coneheads! This movie has GREAT lines. The perspective of American life from that of an alien is SO funny. Some of my favorite lines...like when Primaat and Beldar invite the neighbors over for "charred mammal flesh" or when she reads a magazine and asks Beldar how he'd feel if she passed away (his answer is one that EVERY husband needs to memorize and tell his wife OFTEN!. There are too many to list, and so many that I think are better than what are listed on the page. I love the creativity of the story line. From screaming at the bowling pins and eggplants to rigging the pop machine to get "silver tender disks" to pay for the motel room. I've watched it over and over again through the years and each time find a new favorite part! It's a movie that grows on you from the start!


Just like Beldar's homemade fireworks display this movie may not make a lasting impression immediately, but give it a chance.

The movie is a really fine piece of work, it's good for a laugh again and again.

On top of that most (US) comedy actors worth mentioning are in the movie!


This was nice, harmless fun for the most part. I got turned off right near the beginning of the film when the alien couple got a motel room and the wife was seen laughing out loud as she read the Bible: a typical Hollywood cheap shot.

After that, however, it was fine and had some funny, outrageous scenes. However, I would definitely not call this movie "hilarious" as I had heard it described a number of times. I wouldn't get that carried away. However, it was decidedly entertaining all the way through, never boring and pretty tame profanity-wise. There were a number of sex remarks and innuendos, maybe to make up for the little profanity but by today's standards this was an inoffensive film.

It's an hour-and-a-half of goofy humor played by the same people (Dan Achroyd, Jane Curtin, etc.) who made this couple famous on television.


This one is such a classic. I don't know why so many people hate it. I found it very funny all the way through.

What surprised me when viewing it after haven't seeing it for over 10 years is that most of the SNL cast is in this movie. I found them to be pretty funny.

*Spoiler Alert*

The movie revolves around a couple of aliens who get left on Earth and they can't leave Earth for a long period of time so the alien couple try to adapt on Earth by starting a family and living among the people of Earth. The movie is called Coneheads because of the top of their head is shaped like a cone.

*End Spoiler*

The movie is very funny. I would recommend everybody see this. I was pleasantly surprised to find it just as funny as I did 10 years ago. Don't worry, Dan Aykroyd and the rest of the SNL cast won't disappoint you. Pick it up for some good laughs.


I could say, you had to be there. Or you just aren't old enough to understand. The bottom line? Sometimes it is nice to just sit back, suspend your disbelief and enjoy without having to analyze why it works or doesn't work. This falls back to a time when crude and rude was still in its infancy. Light for the day, it is still lots of fun. The punch lines are subtle and innuendo a bit advance for the punch and Judy crowd that is looking for the "Down with society" commentary that seems to fill the comedy of today. The Coneheads are classic Old School SNL. I like a story where the good guy wins, albeit the good guys in this case are Aliens. If you like Bob Hope, Jerry Lewis, or Danny Kay. Then you will probably like this movie. If you are the Dumb and Dumber crowd this will probably be a disappointment. So, suspend your disbeliefe and just enjoy it for what it is. A funny movie with a lot of "good" laughs.


Remember the "Coneheads" on SNL(Saturday Night Live)? Well, they are back! This time on the big screen. Beldar(Dan Ackroyd) and Prymatt(Jane Curtain) are on Earth planning to commit world conquest. But, when they settle on the planet they decided to live their lives there instead. They have such strange diets, and they claim themselves they are from "France". The government however don't think so. They later give birth to a daughter named Connie(Michelle Burke). She has a little trouble fitting in, until she meets Ronnie(Chris Farley, 1964-97). I liked the Subway scene where Connie puts away a sub which made Ronnie's mother look like an amateur. Looks like he found his dream girl there. When they go back to there planet, Beldar used his talents from Earth to stop a monster, while singing Soft Cell's "Tained Love". Great cast, silly plot, this movie is good for all SNL fans. Some say it was rather late, I would say, "Who Cares?" 2.5 out of 5 Stars!


Unheard of until is was recommended to me, I found 'Coneheads' to be a really good watch. As others have said, it's not just a laugh-a-minute surprise, there's actually a clever little storyline, some thoroughly engaging characters - human or otherwise - and some quite decent special effects. Dan Ackroyd is the main comedy player but the other actors spar along with him wonderfully. Everyone looks like they're having a good time.

The gags come in every way; visual, slapstick, puns, you name it. And there's a happy ending as well.

It's 15 years old, now; so the nuclear family values it seems to celebrate have been rendered unfashionable by the latterday millennium cynics. More fool them.

This is a feel-good movie of the first league. And it's definitely one of the funniest American movies I've ever seen.

Trouble is; you come away with those bang-bang lyrics of 'Tainted Love' permanently lodged in your cone.


The Coneheads did not open to overly positive ratings, and it's not surprising it didn't. The plot is contrived...in fact there barely even is a plot. The whole point of the movie seems to be to make an old sketch funny and hip again, and bring together 18 years of Saturday Night Live members under one roof, and actually it succeeds at both. Beldar and Pyrmatt Conehead were funnier here than they ever were on the SNL sketches, and cast members from all the years appear including all the surviving original cast members (minus Chevy Chase).

Beldar (Dan Aykroyd) and Pyrmatt (Jane Curtain) are coneheaded aliens accidentally stranded on Earth. This movie goes through their everyday lives, the birth of their daughter, Connie (Not played by Larraine Newman this time), and their trying to avoid being deported by the INS. Though this film is plot less, that's not actually a bad thing. Because of it's plot less-ness, every ex-SNL member that could be found seemed to have a role in this playing random characters. The jokes are coming at a rapid pace, so even if some don't work, a minute later another one will come to make up for it. Aykroyd and Curtain were actually great together and had quite a bit of chemistry.

This is a fun movie, and for any Saturday Night Live fan, this will be great. For anyone else, this may be a mixed bag.

My rating: *** out of ****. 88 mins. PG for language, nudity and sexual humor.


Coneheads

Wow! What an all star ensemble cast! Michael Richards and Jason Alexander in the same movie! Dan Ayckroyd making all the right moves in the lead role as a no-nonsense, old school pater familias! Chris Farley, as a car mechanic-cum-Romeo, David Spade as the proverbial suck-up and Adam Sandler in a cameo as a small time crook are perfectly cast and effortlessly deliver a tight performance. It's a Saturday Night dream come true! The story of two coneheaded aliens who later triple knits together with a coherence lacking from most films belonging to the derided sub-genre of dysfunctional earth invaders. Life on earth must surely be as surprising to those aliens up there, as are the habits of these adorable coneheads to the amused viewer: Prymaat (Jane Curtin) avoiding any intermediaries and using her mouth to vacuum those dirty rugs, Beldar (Dan Ayckroyd) using condoms as chewing gums (their eating habits in general build up to a whole cluster of gags that seldom if ever fall flat) Connie's (Michelle Burke) way of kissing and so on. In fact, the most reliable source of amusement is the pretentious-sounding conespeak (and the additional paraphernalia of gnarls, hisses and snores that accompany their emotions) employed by Beldar and Prymaat to express their wisdom and interact with inferior humans. It's on a par with the cavespeak in another wonderful comedy of the same ilk called Caveman. Example: Beldar : - If everyone jumped into a bituminous cauldron would you jump in too? Connie- I am not a little cone anymore, dad. Beldar  Maintain low tones with me, maintain low tones.

The dialogue is so inspired is almost reaches a tarantinoesque level, kept to a necessary minimum, with a lack of the non-sequiturs common to the genre. Another key to the success of this movie are the endearing characters. This is one of the quirkiest ensemble-casts ever to appear in an eighties-type comedy. Recommended for repeated viewings.


Maybe because I grew up watching SNL live during its first 5 or so years but I really got a laugh out of the Coneheads when they would do that skit on SNL. I admit I have not seen the movie in a while but I was just thinking about Laraine Newman from doing some reading about the group Devo (its a long story) and I just realized that she really got screwed not getting the role that she played on the TV show. I see pics of her on IMDb and she looks OK now, back in 93 she probably still looked cool, I mean why not use her as the kid? I mean there freakin aliens anyway so so what if a 35 year old plays a teenager. The teen in the movie Coneheads plays like the Marylin Munster type as the only semi normal one and her role is kinda lame except when she scarfs down the sub, that was funny, and Farleys reaction was about the best part of the movie. Well, I liked Coneheads but then again I liked Dragnet so I'm probably an Akyroid lover at heart that would watch anything he's in an enjoy it.


This is my favorite movie of all time! My husband is patient with me, and allows me to use much of the duologue from the movie as repartee.All the performances are first rate and the writing is sharp and biting. Many American conventions are held up to the light in this movie. Family values, teenage sex, mid-life crises, employment, immigration,neighbors, being stalked by large animals, its all there. The absolute best piece of prop comedy of any movie, even Buster Keaton's, is when Beldar chews the condom and then blows it up. And the great non-reaction from Sinbad makes it even funnier.Michael McKean is one of the all time versatile actors(check him out as the pool boy in Earth Girls Are Easy) and he gives a classic performance here.


I saw Coneheads for the first time on TV last week. So, not having paid for it, and not expecting too much, its reasonable to think that I might not be as critical as I could be. (Drum roll...) I was VERY surprised how damn good it is. When I saw the title come on screen I thought, Jeeze, in 20 minutes I'll be clicking away, but no. Dan and Jane do amazing things to keep their limited characters extremely entertaining. Just about every other bit part, and there's a load of 'em, measures up. Even Sinbad does a nice job as Beldar's first boss. Adam Sandler is on screen for 2 minutes and I am still chuckling at his quirky sleaze-ball office geek. Its a good satire about the hypocrisy and prejudice in our so called Democracy, and on balance, a ridiculously accurate reflection of the diversity and opportunity in modern America. It came on again two days later and I watched it again. I would have rented it. No, seriously....


Coneheads is one of the best "Saturday Night Live" movies. I was expecting a light comedy but what I got was a whole lot more. Following a similar plot to the skit, Coneheads is the story about the Beldar Conehead family who crash on earth during a scouting mission for planet conquest. While here, they dodge the INS, have a child and discover that life on Earth is quite good.

This is where the movie shows its heart. It could have been a movie of comedy bits but by the end, it is about happiness in a stable family, which is quite refreshing in these days of depressing movies about divorces and unmarried couples. It is nice to see Beldar be a father figure to his daughter rather than the "Let Your Kids Be Who They Are" mentality of these days. The direction of the film in excellent, setting up many nice visual gags and shots that are very impressive for a comedy film. And at times, the film feels "epic" as you see the family on the run from the INS, to moving to the suburbs to returning to their planet.

There are great performances throughout the film and the many cameos are perfect. Look for funny scenes from Jan Hooks, Adam Sandler, Michael Richards, and Garrett Morris. Michelle Burke makes a nice debut as Connie Conehead and I expect to see more of her in the future.

On the surface, this seems like a dumb movie and it has received many poor reviews. But if you sit back and let it take you on an adventure (and if you can keep up with the way the Coneheads use different words for common items) you will be pleasantly surprised.


While you may think that this is a silly concept; Aliens crash land on earth, adapt to the culture, and eventually succeed and prosper, all the while averting capture and deportation by diligent and determined civil serpents of the renowned INS, only to be suddenly rescued by their own kind and returned to their home planet where Beldar is tried and convicted for losing his space ship.

Alas, all is not for naught. Using his obviously over-sized brain, Beldar "successfully knarfles the Garthok", using the things he learned and the skills he picked up on earth.

In this story there is a life lesson: no matter how difficult the project, how dark the hour, or how vocal one's detractors, one can overcome by putting the old noodle to work and meeting the challenge head-on, just as Beldar did.


While not quite a masterpiece, the movie is really funny in places and has some inspired moments. But the best thing about it is the huge cast of comedy allstars (some of whom were still relatively unknown at the time) that make appearances. It would almost be easier to list the comedy stars who aren't in the movie. Not only is there a huge contingent of SNL stars from the 70s up to the 90s (Aykroyd, Curtin, Garret Morris, Laraine Newman, Jan Hooks, Michael McKean, Julia Sweeney, Chris Farley, Adam Sandler, Jon Lovitz, Phil Hartman, Kevin Nealon, Tim Meadows, David Spade, etc.) but others like Jason Alexander, Drew Carey, Michael Richards, Dave Thomas, Joey Lauren Adams, Parker Posey and Tom Arnold. Seems like almost every scene has a cameo from somebody. My vote for funniest goes to Jan Hooks as the driving student who tries to seduce Aykroyd. The dentists office scene with Lovitz is also unbeatable. The movie's premise is so bizarre that along with all the cameos, watching it is pretty surreal. Most characters in the movie barely notice or mention the cones; most of the time the coneheads make little effort to fit in, and only a few people seem to notice the difference. I guess New Jersey is even stranger than I had imagined. The movie is just interestingly weird. It must be one of the best movies of all time for intoxication.


This is my favorite sci-fi comedy of all-time. The premise is completely outrageous, that a family of extra-terrestrials could be accepted into our society so easily. The humor alternates between being obvious and subtle, leaving some of the funniest bits unnoticed to those devoting less than their full attention. Great performances from the entire cast, with tons of cameos from top comics and past SNL & Second City Television alumni. The climax on the planet Remulak contains special effects worthy of any modern big-budget sci-fi film. There's also some great old-fashioned stop-motion animation of a creature called a Garthok. It's a relatively short film, only 87 minutes and moves at a nice pace. Fans of the original Saturday Night Live of the 1970's, will get the most enjoyment from this movie. Say "Lactate extract of hooved mammal"..."Cheese!"


Brilliant - the story line is unique, the comedy is there, the acting is typically stupid and therefore fits right in with what we expect from Dan Aykroyd. The gags are hugely funny especially the references to our everyday things by their alien meanings! A must for FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT. A complete lack of swearing (almost unheard of these days) is refreshing!


As I have seen some other watchers don't seem to like this movie but I think it's good by any standards. Coneheads's way of speaking and doing everything a little more faster than everyone else is hilarious. And unlike others have said there are many gags that worked. If you had/have an opportunity to see this movie in an actual movie theatre you won't be disappointed.


Satire that is funny without being vicious, "Coneheads" has a smart observation about everything American from golf to immigration policy. But it's probably unsatisfying for the typical audience of the typical alien-invasion movie, and better suited to the home video than the big screen. A disappointing conclusion, but still all-round good entertainment


What an under-rated movie. Coneheads actually proves to be one of the funnier SNL sketch spin-offs. Not as humorous as the Wayne's World movies, but a far cry from the dreadful Night at the Rocksbury and other Lorne Micheals productions. Coneheads is full of cameos including Adam Sandler, Jon Lovitz and Tom Arnold and great small parts by David Spade and Chris Farley. The characters are truly likeable and the Conehead family is genuine. The ending partly tarnishes the rest of the movie, possibly a reason for low ratings amongst critics. However, with a majority of past SNL characters, Coneheads lives up to the the original sketches with Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtin. Forget the critics and give Coneheads a second chance.


This is one of the funniest films I have ever seen--lots of cameos, and virtually every SNL person from the beginning in it. A film that got bad word of mouth for some reason, I have never met anyone who has SEEN it that didn't think it was funny. SEE IT!!!


Favorite characters from the hit T.V. show "Saturday Night Live" bring a pretty low comedy that doesn't deliver too much. There are a couple laughs, but mostly all you get is a strange feeling after this movie. Despite the characters being non stop funny in S.N.L, they don't really have a life story that can be brought into a movie. They try to live in the suburbs and fit in. The community is questionable about their apperance, but they let them be apart of it. The daughter wants to look and feel normal, and eventually does fit in with her high school. Strange that she has a normal accent of humans, I have to mention. Over all, it's not a bad movie. But I'd only watch it again if I were pretty bored.

4/10


This movie is totally awesome,when i saw this movie first time back in 1995, i thought it was great funny and somewhat strange. I now own the movie on Paramount DVD and it is still awesome not that it should be in the top 200 but a maximum of 7.1. This movie rules and it is along with Wayne's World and Wayne's World 2, the most awesome movies from Paramount of the 1990's.


This is a great comedy. If you liked to watch Saturday Night Live back in 93 than you will simply love this. The story is about two aliens who were going to attack Earth but the mission went wrong. When they crash land in a lake and get out of the lake they go to a motel to spend the night. They come to the conclusion to blend in with the blood skulls (humans) and to ask for a rescue ship as soon as they get the supplies they need. Veldar (Aykroyd) immediately gets a job working for Otto (Sinbad). When the Coneheads have the proper equipment they build it all up and it works. However when they contact their commander the news is not good. He says he can arrange a rescue ship in maybe 7 years but maybe longer than even that. So the Coneheads decide that they are going to have to blend in longer than they expected. Eventually Mrs. Conehead has a daughter, Connie (Burke) and they try to live a normal life on earth. The life they try to lead however is anything but normal and they are doing things ordinary people would not do. Chris Farley is very funny also as Connie's boyfriend Ronnie and he really is good in his part. The Saturday Night live people who appear in this movie are: Adam Sandler (Who is also very good in his part as a guy who gives Veldar his new identity when Veldar is discovered by Otto as being an "illegal alien".),Chris Farley(I've already told you about him), Dan Aykroyd, and Jane Curtin. Some other cameos are by Jon Lovitz,(as a dentist) Drew Carey (as a taxi passenger),Jason Alexander (as the Coneheads neighbor), and David Spade (as an FBI agent).

*** out of ****


Alien couple and child with cone-shaped noggins crash land on Earth and set up house in suburbia until their people can come and rescue them. Over-produced, under-written comedy dud, an extension of the shaggy, funny skits on the earliest years of TV's "Saturday Night Live", never cuts loose. Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtin return to their roles as Beldar and Prymatt, though perhaps passing the torch on to different comic actors might have been wise (neither star looks very enthused about re-boarding this vehicle). Worse, a gratuitous, unfunny subplot involving Michael McKean as a Special Agent who tracks down "illegal aliens" is given far too much time on the clock. Some of the cameos are fun, and newcomer Michelle Burke has a nice presence as teenager Connie Conehead, but this is otherwise forgettable stuff indeed. *1/2 from ****


"WEST" is an honest and confident film that made me sit up and pay attention. To Daniel Krige's credit he has written and directed highly complex characters true to people who have experienced their youth in the western suburbs of Sydney. This film does not judge the characters it presents, but rather reveals people who are trying to do their best to "break the mould" with limited options for advancement. "WEST" explores the durability of bonds forged in youth (between Pete and Jerry) via the introduction of a catalyst (Cheryl) and unapologetically portrays the potency of unbridled sexual love for another in a young mind. In this film such all-consuming passion accompanied by the bitterness of complete betrayal has the power to destroy everything in the end. I was extremely moved and impressed after watching this film, which is a rare experience in the current climate of Australian films, which tend to stereotype real people with comedic intent. The cinematography and soundtrack of "WEST" adds to a dark and almost pulsating atmosphere, which matches the struggle behind every hefty decision these characters make. Solid acting and great direction also make this film a must see.


WEST Lives unravel in this potent tale of suburban boredom and violence.

As I settled in to watch West, the story of two young under-educated slackers getting into trouble in Sydney's western suburbs, I experienced a hedonistic urge for a geographical alternative. Why, for once, couldn't it be East, the story of the West boys' privileged counterparts - rich kids in sharp suits exchanging sharp talk while getting into trouble in sleek, expensive Sydney? But that hasn't been the Australian way. We rarely see the city's moneyed class taken apart on screen. Our writers and directors prefer to look for their stories elsewhere and it has to be said that West's writer-director, Daniel Krige, is one of the most persuasive. The film's opening has Pete (Khan Chittenden) and his cousin, Jerry (Nathan Phillips), drinking beer and smoking dope in their favourite haunt - under a bridge over a stormwater canal. It's not exactly a scene rich in dramatic promise, yet when it comes to disarming your prejudices, Krige proves an expert. West's settings are where he grew up. It's his turf. Clearly, it fascinates and exasperates him. He also knows how to hold its extremes in delicate balance, giving us a place where boredom and violence come together repeatedly in the unholiest of alliances.

In their bunker-like retreat, Pete and Jerry are getting in the mood for a night of partying. They're also engaged in an unusually reflective conversation. Jerry, strangely enough, wants to talk about the future. He says he still doesn't know what he's going to do with the year ahead - a remark that mystifies Pete. He says that they'll do what they did last year. They'll see what happens. He doesn't believe in making plans. "They don't happen. You get depressed." In these few words the film lays out its theme. For Jerry does make plans and they mark the beginning of his life's unravelling.

At the party, we follow a bleary-eyed Pete, who is lusting after Cheryl (Gillian Alexy), a girl whose good looks and sexual swagger magnetise every male she meets. Predictably, he has no luck; she bypasses him in favour of Jerry, possibly because he's not as stoned and can still string a few sentences together. It's not Pete's night. Pursuing his part-time job as a drug dealer, he offends Kenwood (Anthony Hayes), the most loathsome member of a gang of thugs, and is beaten up and robbed.

These are the basic outlines of the cousins' circumscribed world. At night, it takes on a spurious poetry born of noise and bustle and the shimmer of neon on slick, wet pavements. But in the flat glare of daytime, all the promise and colour are leached out of it. Jerry desperately wants to escape and he takes what he hopes will be his first step by getting a regular job behind the counter of the local fast food outlet. The extent of his good intentions can be seen by his willingness to wear a cap decorated with chicken wings while making clucking jokes at his own expense.

Unimpressed, Pete just carries on as usual, lounging round with his drug-dealing boss, who leads an amiably addled half-life in front of his flat-screen television set. And when this routine wears thin, Pete goes to the bunker by the canal and sits smoking and drinking with Mick (Michael Dorman), another equally aimless twentysomething. Mick is afflicted with a stammer and an abiding pessimism. He also displays an unnerving preoccupation with moral hypotheses. "Would you wear a condom if you raped a girl?" he asks Pete, who's so shocked by the question that he can't stop thinking about it, or its sub-text: that the vacuum created by frustration and hopelessness could conceivably become toxic and cause him to do something he'd forever regret.

When the inevitable tragedy happens, they're all caught up in it. Saddest of all is the good-natured Jerry, who falls in love with Cheryl and makes the mistake of telling her so. It's a poignant performance by Phillips, whose Jerry is a compact, energetic figure, brimming over with a new and touching faith in the power of his own will. Chittenden's Pete is just as convincing. Lanky and soulful, he moves to a slower tempo than his cousin but his seeming passivity is deceptive. Behind it lies a deep reservoir of anger.

Krige's grasp of the narrative slips occasionally to make you wince with an inconsistency or a lapse in logic but his talent for the elliptical saves him at every turn. He has a flair for the kind of moment that can sum up a lifetime. He doesn't have to use words to spell out the contradictions in the bond between the cousins, for instance. He catches it in a single shot of them as they lie around smoking and talking in the bedroom they share in Jerry's mother's house. It's in the way the light falls across their bodies, forming sharply edged shadows that both link and separate them.

West is life in the bell jar. You may not want to be there but you can't deny the potency of the experience. Even so, I'm still hankering after East. For the right filmmaker, it could turn up narrative gold.

- Sandra Hall, Reviewer


This movie has little to recommend it. The characters look and act like people from the Eastern Suburbs transported to the West (where is Melldale? No guts for a real suburb? Villawood and Merrylands are some filming locations). The writers of the film script obviously are not in touch with the Western Suburbs of Sydney - and it would be a gross over simplification to homogenize it all under the label WEST.

The film is very negative, full of negative characters which do not reflect the hard working folk of the "West". Another reviewer, ironically, suggested a movie script for Easties ... as if a decent movie wasn't possible about the Western Suburbs - which are more diverse and multicultural than the relatively homogeneous Eastern Suburbs.

That said, the movie is interesting as a fantasy in its own train wreck sense - the characters spiral into darkness and despair, get murdered, suicide or end up in jail - though is this all the West can lead to? (I, a proud Westie, along with Harry Kewell, must be an exception) One senses the writers have an ax to grind.


This film was absolute dross. The subject matter was not entirely irrelevant - I am sure that there are people out there like these people and I don't believe that cinema has to be representative of its country of origin. That said, dialogue was stodgy and stilted and it was full of unlikeable characters (save for the stuttering Michael Dorman, who was the only actor worth watching). Khan Crittenen, who was superb in Clubland, was as dull as dishwater (though I concede that it was more the script at fault than his actual performance). As far as entertainment .... well it's not at all.

By all means go see it, if you want to waste your money. Better to wait till its DVD launch - it will lose nothing on the small screen, though it would be better to lose the show entirely.


Another film made about Sydney's so called 'disaffected BORING youth, who apparently are uneducated, mean , self indulgent, lazy and completely unrepresentative of Australia. Nobody in the public asked for this film to be made and when released in 3 cinemas... none of which were in the western suburbs because the distributor knew already nobody West would see it... it was a compete financial failure again again again wasting public taxpayer funds which were spent 'creating' this turgid drivel.. This film has NO market. The public will not leave their homes and pay $16 to see this boring ugly junk in any cinema anywhere. It did not work in 1978 with THE FJ HOLDEN , nor again with MALLBOY in 2000 and anywhere in between... so why is it here again? dunno. and there it goes... west. Waste. Insulting waste to Australia and the taxpayer funded film finance scheme. This film needs to go to "Brat Camp".. and as even 5 year olds say in Australia:.."bugger off".


As someone who has recently begun delving into the genre of exploitation movies of the 70's and 80's I must say this ranks as one of the best I've seen. The sleaziness in this movie is excellent! Three gorgeous babes that bare it all! A erotic masturbation scene that is more arousing than 99.9% of the porn seen today! A truly exotic death sequence! A sexy catfight! A sexy babe in love with dogs! Hilariously funny dialogue (see Patrick's fathers' explanation of the first death) and scenes (see Mr. Lewis' death by hook). All this makes up for a truly outrageous and entertaining movie for any fan of the sleazy exploitation genre. The filmmakers here fully achieve what they set out to do and deserve congratulations.


Mario Landi's PATRICK STILL LIVES is a weird little film that is weak on pretty much every level - but still manages to be entertaining and pretty fun to watch...

Patrick is the victim of an unfortunate (and kinda hilarious...)accident: while standing by the side of the road, he's randomly hit in the face with a bottle that a passing motorist chucks out of his window, leaving poor Patrick in a coma, but with telekinetic powers (!!??!!) Patrick's scientist father owns a villa with a lab in the basement where he conducts experiments to strengthen Patrick's mind powers so that he can one day seek revenge for his condition. Dad lures several people to his villa with the intention of letting vegetable-boy wreak some havoc. This eventually does happen and the results are pretty rewarding...

PATRICK STILL LIVES is a pretty good example of classic 70's/80's exploitation sleaze. Plenty of tits and ass (including a pretty hot masturbation scene from a sexy - if a little too "bushy" for my taste - blonde), and some decent gore, including: a man hung by his throat from a hook, a woman eaten by dogs, another woman decapitated but a car window, and the "famous" graphic vaginal-impalement-via-fire-poker. This one in particular is a keeper, as I was surprised that they showed this scene as "up-close and personal" as they did. PATRICK has some of the most ridiculous dialog ("It's obvious that Mr. Cough's cause of death was from a fatality..." (?????)), a retarded and threadbare plot, pretty stupid FX (the "floating-hypnotic-eyeballs" come to mind...), and atrocious acting. Regardless, or possibly because of these things, I still got a kick out of this one. I have a soft spot for these types of 70's/80's shock/schlock films - and this one is another perfect example. If you're looking for high-art, you can leave this one on the shelf. If you like tit's, ass, furry bush, and gore - I'd recommend this one pretty highly. 8/10


Mario Landi's "Patrick Still Lives" has to be one of the sleaziest exploitation sickies ever made in Italy.It's filled with incredible amount of nudity and masturbation.Gianni Dei plays Patrick,a young man who is sent into coma as the result of the random act of violence.He lies in his bed looking into space for the most part and killing people with his telekinetic powers.The script is pretty bad,but the gore is mildly shocking.Still the scene where Maria Angela Giordano has a long metal pole pushed into her vagina is a real jaw dropper...Another offensive murder scene involves a lovely black-haired woman killed by her own dogs:they chase her all over the grounds before biting,licking and chewing her around the genitals,eventually killing her.The masturbation scene of stunningly beautiful Anna Venziano is also worth mentioning.Like earlier Mario Landi's sleazefest "Giallo a Venezia"(1979),"Patrick Still Lives" is cheap,shoddy,misogynistic and gleefully disgusting.It's just a pure exploitation film,so you should enjoy it as such.Highly recommended,if you like sleaze and extreme gore.


Italian 'sequel' to the 1978 sleeper hit Patrick isn't so much a sequel as it is a very lurid remake.

Road-side prank leaves young man in a coma. Now, his doctor father has lured a band of suspects to his isolated house so that the comatose victim's telekinetic powers can reek some bloody revenge upon them.

To say that this film is trashy is simply an understatement. Patrick vive ancora drives both sleaze and gore to extremes that are rarely seen in the genre. In fact the story and the cast take a back-seat to some of this ballsy action! Our cast is obviously not afraid to show some skin. The telepathic murders are gruesome indeed - who could ever forget that scene with the fire poker, talk about your phallic imagery!! Need I say more?

For those seeking an intelligent and brooding lost thriller, watch the original Patrick (1978), but those that enjoy sleazy B horror must see this film to believe it! Adults only, and I mean those that are exploitation fans!

** out of ****


This inofficial sequel to the "über-boring" Australian wannabe-thriller "Patrick" is one of the sleaziest movies ever made. Hardly surprising if you take a look at the director's name: Mario Landi, the director of the even sleazier "Giallo a Venezia". Landi delivers lots of naked (female) flesh, lots of senseless dialogue and plenty of gratuitous gore-scenes. The dubious highlight: A woman gets impaled from her genitalia upwards through her mouth. Sounds sick, eh? But the effects - the afore mentioned one in particular - are so badly executed that their impact equals zero. All in all a tedious waste of time, even in the rare uncut version. 3 out of 10, though.


Patrick Still Lives is a curious piece of cult cinema; not for its content, but merely for the fact that it was made. Patrick was an obscure (and rather boring) Australian thriller released in 1978 and I doubt even the makers of it would have planned a sequel; but for some reason Giallo a Venezia director Mario Landi saw fit to direct a (presumably) unofficial sequel to it anyway. I have no idea what the actual reasons are for this film being made; but given Italy's film-making record, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that this film started life as merely a thriller about a comatose patient with telekinetic powers and ended as a 'sequel' to Patrick simply to cash in on the title. Anyway, the plot here is just as thin as it was in the original film and focuses on a comatose patient named Patrick. He may be in a coma but this doesn't stop him killing as he has telekinetic powers, and the guests staying at his father's spa soon find themselves becoming victim to Patrick's murderous rage.

All in all, it really has to be said that Patrick Still Lives isn't very good. However, it is fun in places; and Mario Landi has proved once and for all that films about murderous comatose patients are much better when they feature a bunch of gory death scenes. Most of the death scenes in this film are ridiculous, but at least the director doesn't hold back and we get treated to a range of grisly ways for the main characters to die. As anyone who has seen Giallo a Venezia will expect, much of it is of the misogynistic variety; with one death scene in particular, which sees one of the ladies have a poker rammed up her vagina (in a really rather bizarre scene that has to be seen to be believed!) being a major standout. Nudity is strongly featured also, most of it from the female cast members. Outside of the nudity and gore, there's not a great deal to like here to be honest. The film is not badly put together and the director shows some interesting use of colour, but the plot is pretty much nonexistent and much of the film is just padding for the death scenes. But hey, I love this stuff and despite its numerous problems, I'm going to give it a thumbs up anyway.


Those Italians. You gotta hand it to them. When they decide to do (unofficial) sequels or shameless rip-offs, they always have to exaggerate things. Look at, for example, Fulci's ZOMBI 2 or the countless JAWS rip-offs. But in a way, to us horror-buffs, that's a good thing. So here we have PATRICK VIVE ANCORA, an unofficial sequel to the effective but bloodless Australian(!) psycho-thriller PATRICK. You can say that it's a sequel in name only, 'cause the prologue to this completely retarded plot shows us Patrick's suddenly living in Italy, having a freak accident and going into a coma. The film-makers not only completely ignore the events in the previous film, they also replace Robert Thompson, who originally played Patrick, by a different Italian actor. I expected no less, to be honest. The rest of this insanely demented plot goes like this. Patricks lies in a coma in a big mansion. Daddy invites a bunch of strangers into the mansion. Patrick uses psychokinetic powers to kill them all. Why? Supposedly one of the guests was responsible for his accident. Do we find out who? No. Does the story have a point? No. Does this movie end? Yes. How? They ran out of film.

But I gotta tell ya one thing: This movie hits 10 out of 10 on the sleaze & gore-o-meter. Director Mario Landi succeeds with only one film in what Jess Franco couldn't even accomplish throughout his whole career: The perfect mix between sleaze and gore. You gotta see this to believe it. If you're under 18 years of age, you have to stop reading NOW!!! All the women run around naked for apparently no reason. One chick even gratuitously masturbates under the mental influence of Patrick. Then there's the gore. There's plenty and it looks cheap but it's loads of fun. The highlight is undoubtedly the 'impalement-through-vagina'-scene. And since all you sick puppies liked it so much ('cause I read about it in almost every single comment), I'm gonna list you some other movies containing scenes which show different ways on how to mutilate a vagina: Lucio Fulci's THE NEW YORK RIPPER, Ruggero Deodato's CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, Buddy Cooper's THE MUTILATOR, Pierre B. Reinhard's THE REVENGE OF THE LIVING DEAD GIRLS and Andreas Schnaas' VIOLENT SH!T II. Lucio Fulci's RIPPER and Deodato's HOLOCAUST are the only "good" movies and Andreas Schnaas piece of excrements should be banned, 'cause that guy's so deranged he belongs in a mental hospital. Woow, I'm getting pretty offensive here. But so are those movies.

Anyway, back to PATRICK VIVE ANCORA. Like I said: Highly recommended for sleaze & gore-fans but also for lovers of extremely bad and pointless movies. Because it's insane and hilarious. Just look when those big eyes on a green background with the psychedelic sounds come on. Ooooooooh scary! Unbelievable! So much fun, but a cinematographic masterpiece this ain't. But, excuse me now, I'm off in search for Landi's GIALLO A VENEZIA.


Sleazy, campy spaghetti sexploitation/horror gem that's a lotta trashy fun. The beautiful Mariangelo Giordano struts her bare box around as does every other woman in this thinly plausible supernatural giallo about a comatose boy whose scientist father has given him telepathy and telekenesis in his altered state of consciousness.

The women in this film are mostly gorgeous and great to look at naked. There's also some very campy effects illustrating Patrick's (the telekinetic one) use of his mind's eye, a lame score, and about four really nicely gory deaths of the sleazy variety--including a bitchen power window death and the implausible spit through the snatch scene. Recommended--8/10.


Bearing little of no relation to to the late 70's flick 'Patrick', this exercise in exploitation tries to deliver the goods, only to be impeded by it's own intentions.

Patrick is a kid (by kid I mean a guy who looks to be in his 30's) stuck in a kind of waking comma, unable to move or speak, yet fully sentient of the world around (and not around) him. His mostly insane father seeks to avenge/rectify the condition his son is in and sets up a secret laboratory for research and invites a group of people to his estate to test the powers his damaged son now possesses.

Pretty much from the start it's clear this isn't going to be a good movie per say, but should work fairly well as exploitation. It gives it the old college try, but consistently comes up short.

Problems begin with the script, which keeps afloat about as well as a brick. Plotting is wrong headed and scenarios never approach believable, even by genre standards. The characters are stupid, and I don't mean the average garden variety horror movie retards; I'm talking about some of the most brain dead specimens in all of film. So inept are the characters that even with full motor control and verbal abilities, they still seem more dysfunctional than poor crippled Patrick.

Writing has never been the strong suit in these kinds of films, so that could be forgiven if the fan service is up and running. It is, kind of, but not enough to save this effort. Clever and creative deaths are marred by all around cheesy FX and gore. The film's key-note shock scene, a bit where a woman gets impaled through her genitals, sounds more shocking than it really is, as the cut-away dummy used looks so fake as to induce chuckles rather than shrieks. The rest of the deaths suffer a similar fate; creatively staged and imagined, poorly designed and executed (pun not intended).

The rest of the technical aspects are par for the course; schlocky acting, cheesy dialogue, and acceptable if all together limp direction. The only saving grace is the notable presence of gobs of full-frontal (mostly all female) nudity.

Serious fan of exploitation will garner the most mileage out of this puppy to be certain, everyone else should just pass right by.

4/10


MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD

The Plot: Patrick is comatose, his father tries to cure him by giving him the chance to kill using supernatural powers (exactly what one would expect); the victims are invited to a beautiful house in the countryside, Patrick kills some of them - with the major exception of a blonde women, who masturbates in front of him. (which is btw the sole way to survive, in case you see green eyes - big like tennis balls - wobbling in front of you, you know)

Patrick vive ancora is a quite uninspired movie. There are several killing scenes, mostly below the giallo standard, the only real climax is the controversial staking (vagina to mouth), which is very explicit and not cut at all (mediablaster/shriek show DVD edition).

See this scene, be shocked or amused, call for the censor or the Chinese delivery, and skip the rest of the movie.

Except you are the sole fan of supernatural-sado-porn-scifi-giallos.

If so - get it at any costs.

3 black gloves out of 10.


With this movie and Giallo A Venezia, I think Mario Landi attempted to do something outrageous, black humored and gory as Peter Jackson`s first two movies, but failed to gain such popularity because he aimed these elements at the sexual, to which most of the audience is very sensitive. The fact that most of the violence is inflicted on real human beings instead of zombies or aliens may have also contributed. This way, Landi took the risk of being considered vulgar and misogynistic, but was definetly making something for the adult audience: That being mostly male. It is very hard for me to agree with almost everyone who reviewed this movie and Giallo A Venezia, because the question arises how did they sit through them in the first place since they have always been movies with such bad reputations. I in particular consider to be Landi very successful in exactly what he aimed for: Adult entertainment.

Neither Giallo a Venezia nor Patrick Lives Again tried to be suspenseful but disgusting, but I think they could not stray too much from their initial premise ( Patrick Vive Ancora being some sort of sequel or remake of the excellent Patrick, a thriller by Richard Franklin), and manage to build if not overall suspenseful athmospheres, at least some pretty good moments. Landi was a skillful director who had experience in the field ( Adapting George Simenons novels to TV or cinema) and managed to make me at least surprised as they were creative with some of the deaths depicted at least in his version of Patrick. I loved the scene of the hanging, after the guy deals the cards. I didnt understand the animal in the refrigerator ( maybe he was trying to repeat a similar scene in his previous movie, the giallo), but It made me jump, and it definetly has the same spirit as Peter Jacksons goriest ideas.

Most people say that Giallo a Venezia is also technically flawed, but watching a better edition made recently on DVD of Patrick made me reconsider this. The only editions of Giallo that are still around are like from the early eighties, and it is logicall that by now they are worn out, and at least the one I watched has editing errors that look more like they were made at the time of preparing the video edition. Patricks Edition looks fine as far as the technical in the DVD, speaking in terms of the movie itself. Much, much worse or stronger movies have been put out on DVD ( let us take for instance Saló, by Pasolini, or Emmanuelle in America, from Aristide Massaccesi), and I dont see why Giallo has not come out, and that they made an " edited" version of Patrick.

Also, if you notice, in both movies people is always smoking or drinking to specific brands of whiskey and cigarettes. I even suspect sponsorship from them as the characters cannot stop drinking or smoking from them in almost all the scenes, and if so, I would not think that brands of such products will sponsor a child movie, either.

Both movies look like they were put together very quickly, which not necesarily make them bad, either. They share the same starring cast, and the locations of movies from the same producer as well as Mario Bavas. This gives them the look of Fulcis movies. Both Landis And Fulcis styles are very comparable. Only Landi is much more cynical and dark humored, and relies a little more on the acting than the camera angles and movements of Fulci. A little more old fashioned.

Well, I think this movies have been spoiled enough to be surprised by the " outrageousness" that they are considered to have, but this way if you have not seen them, you will know what to expect. If you are in for some viciousness, dark humor ( which is the main ingredient) and political incorrectness, this is for you. They really are pretty much like Peter Jacksons movies. And remember, forget about it if you are under 21!


I had heard so much about A Day Without A Mexican before its release, but I never got a chance to watch it in the theaters. Now that I've seen it on video, I get an idea of why it was gone from theaters so fast. They took a great idea and went nowhere with it. In fact, the movie is so unambitious that in retrospect I'm amazed I ever thought it was an interesting idea at all.

It is no secret that the immigrant workforce in California and indeed of much of America is the foundation of our economy, which is why it should have been so obvious of how little there was to do with the premise of Mexicans disappearing and leaving all of the poor, helpless Americans to pick their own lettuce and tomatoes. The result that we get is a preachy joke of a mockumentary that takes America's tendency to look down at immigrants and turns it around, augmenting the snobbish tone that this places on Americans so much that it removes any sense of realism from the story and turns it into a schoolyard lecture peppered with stupid jokes and shallow stereotypes.

Maybe it's because I live in California, but I like to think that the vast majority of Americans with two brain cells working at the same time already knew everything that this movie had to say. The only way you could not know the importance of the migrant workforce in this country is if you've lived on Mars for your entire life. In a cave. With your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears.

It's clear how strongly the people behind the film felt about how overlooked migrant workers are in America and especially in California. I completely agree with them, but it doesn't change the fact that the movie is an absolute mess. It's badly written, badly shot, and full of cheesy caricatures of Americans, each one designed around a single common prejudicial view that so many Americans tend to have towards Mexicans, like that everyone who speaks Spanish is Mexican or that anyone who refers to themselves as "latino" is Mexican.

The people behind the film feel so strongly about the points that they're trying to make that they can't help scrawling little factoids across the screen like this is an informational film or an educational film or one of those Pop-Up Videos on VH-1. Remember those?

The problem is that this extra effort to slap the audience over the head with individual facts that point to a larger truth that the vast majority of the audience already knows causes the film to fall on its face.

I've always said that I'm amazed at how the migrant workers are forced to work brutal, manual labor for wages that barely allow them to survive, while people like lawyers and actors are paid millions and millions of dollars. It's not that I think actors are overpaid, on the contrary, really, I think their salaries reflect the amount of money that they personally are able to generate, but if every actor in the world went on strike or if every lawyer went on strike, the vast majority of us would be unaffected. But if migrant workers all went on strike or all decided to go to their home countries (like so many bigots in America stupidly wish they would), the country would almost immediately fall apart.

Look at it this way, if truck drivers stopped driving, Los Angeles would be out of food in six days.

Maybe that would have made an interesting movie, to have all of the migrant workers band together and decide to do something active to benefit themselves and each other. To leave the country that so misuses them and leave us to figure out how to fill the jobs that, ah, what was it Bush said? "The jobs that Americans won't take."

Instead we get this stupid, stupid premise about all of the Mexicans simply disappear without a trace, only to magically reappear at the end unaware that they were ever even gone. It's a ridiculous way to bookend what could have been a valuable, introspective film.

And don't get me started on The Fog That Surrounded California. No phones or Internet or even short wave radios could penetrate it, so Californians were left completely on their own. What about cars? Could those penetrate the fog? How about airplanes? Oh wait, the talking heads on TV told us not to approach the fog, so I guess that was out of the question. The movie places that little warning in there just as conveniently as it forgets about how many millions of people are entering and leaving the state of California at any given moment by countless methods of transportation.

Sadly, the movie has a great point to make, but it is a point that needs to be made in a way that can't be so easily written off as a stupid, childish joke. And a mysterious fog and the mysterious disappearance of millions of Mexicans is a stupid, childish joke. The only good part was how the movie showed that if millions of people disappeared all at once, those jerks in the little toy carts would still be driving around putting parking tickets on the windshields of the mysteriously disappeared.

Evidently the filmmakers had a bone to pick with meter maids, too.


Finally, a movie that says so much that needs to be said about the relationship between latino and anglo-Americans. A few people seem to thinks it's racist, but I don't see how. Some people may not agree, but I think most people will find it to be an enlightening experience. Even as a person who is half Latin American, I was surprised at how many inaccurate stereotypes I accepted about my own people until I saw this movie (the little pop up facts on the screen were both entertaining and informative).

Also, the film's star, Yareli Arizmendi, was in "Like Water for Chocolate", so it's worth it just to see her again. And Eduardo Palomo makes his final appearance in this film, if your a fan of Mexican TV. Despite the controversial ad campaign, this is actually a fun, entertaining movie that I would recommend to most people. See it and decide for yourself.


A Day Without a Mexican contains, quite possibly, the most unique and effective employment of a fantasy element I've ever seen.

While I'm not sure how much impact this film has on people who aren't from, or at least very familiar with, life in California, I think it speaks massive volumes all while maintaining a very witty and fun sense of humor about itself. While it gets over-dramatically silly, it is SPOT ON about the capability of Californian behavior (and I say that as a third generation Southern Californian who was raised, in part, by a German/Mexican stepmother).

I've noticed complaints about bad acting and/or writing in this film. The writing itself is strong, the dialogue is funny, and the cultural jokes are bordering on perfection. The acting did leave room for improvement, but that's standard in independent films that boast such a major societal commentary.

This is not the kind of film that's going to mean everything to everyone. It's geared toward a specific audience, which seems to include me, as I quite enjoyed this picture.

If you want a movie that'll, at the very least, raise some discussion, check it out.


It's no Casablanca, or a Godfather 2 for that matter, but it's not that bad either. In that mockumentary taste that has been made popular by movies such as "Waiting for Guffman" and "A Mighty Wind", "A Day Without a Mexican" chronicles the state of California through a short period of time in which all Mexicans (Mexican Americans, Illegal Mexican Immigrants, etc) disappear. Actually, they're gone for more than one day, but hey who's picky about the name when the idea itself is pretty strange.

California comes to the realization that Mexicans are here to stay and that they are needed just as much as anyone else. The movie itself provides some interesting informational tidbits throughout, and plenty of lighthearted laughs, such as a scene where the Los Angeles Dodgers will be handicapped because of the number of Latino players they have missing, but the NBA says the Lakers will be fine. Lots of one-liners in this movie, and you don't have to be Hispanic or speak Spanish to laugh or appreciate this film.

This also marks the last project of the late Mexican Telenovela actor Eduardo Palomo, whom most recently was seen by an American audience played the role of Cpt. Lazareno in the television series "Kingpin".

Not an Oscar winner, but worth taking a look. Especially if you're in California and you want to see many different parts of our cities on the big screen.


The idea behind this film is quite good, actually, but its execution leaves something to be desired. A mysterious fog surrounds the state of California and communication to the outside world is cut off. With that strange fog comes the disappearance of the entire Mexican population. Which, some actually think is great, until they realize the consequences. The idea that a group of people that are taken entirely for granted are suddenly gone is very good, as in no one realizes how good things were until they change drastically. All of a sudden, there's no fresh fruit or vegetables, crops are rotting because there's no one to pick them, and there are plenty of other jobs that there's no one left to do. Including missing school teaches, INS workers, etc. Just in case anyone thinks that they only jobs Mexicans can do is pick produce. The problem with this film is that in some ways it tries to come off as a goofy comedy but doesn't really succeed there. There are a few good lines and situations though, like the wife of a state Senator that says "Why does everyone think that a rich white man that votes against a minority is a racist?". Yeah, why? I lived in California for 23 years and having Mexican people around is a way of life, they're just other people, they have lives and feelings and YES they do a hell of a lot of the work, so I get the idea behind this film, very well, even though that a lot of the work that is portrayed is work that no one else will do. What's really funny is when welfare recipients and prisoners are brought in to pick oranges on one farmer's ranch, they're absolutely worthless. Like I mentioned, the idea behind the film and some of the "statistics" thrown out at the viewer are good, but the film isn't really strong enough to be awesome, it's merely only good. 7 out of 10.


The premise for this movie is actually very interesting. The title alone drew me to watch this movie. What the viewer is left with is cheap production, boring idiotic "jokes" and mundane repetition of news scenes with bad acting. Some of the actors seem like they were picked off the streets or from community college acting classes.

The movie doesn't draw the viewer in, instead it psychologically irritates and alienates the viewer by butting unrelated scenes together (which one would think might have some overall meaning in the end, however this is not the case). Viewers are more so alienated by the constant fake news cast scenes. The movies banks all it's value on the fact that viewers will be able to relate to ignorant racist white Californians. Many scenes of this nature are played out to exhaustingly boring exaggeration.

Don't waste your time on this movie as it has nothing to do with the reality of the Hispanic/white culture of California.


This movie was awful, I cant describe how bad it was, looks like some student film lighting was only so-so bad movie bad story bad acting I hated it. There are sometimes jokes that just are not funny, like how people are always eating burritos. And there is some connection to Area 51. WHY just WHY movies like this make me wonder how DV movies make it, that and bad green screening burned my soul. I think that the director lacks the basic understanding of how to use music in a movie, he always has things in Spanish. Also the large about of "" Video Effects only shows this films lack of creative vision and lack of technical vision. Other then that the story with idea of all the Mexicans just disappearing from California makes a poor poor idea for a movie. Also the random transition to news casts and random PAUSE and written random stupid Latino facts. Horable just horrible they tryed for a satire but instead they came out with crap.


When I first saw the ad campaign for this movie, I couldn't wait. Then I saw the trailer which made this film look like a great satirical film. Then I saw the film. All of the best (and pretty much only) funny gags are in the trailer, and what we are left with is a preachy, poorly acted, heavy handed PSA. There are too many storylines and many of them go nowhere and make a viewer wonder why they were there to begin with. This would have been much better as a short film. Shishar Kurup who plays Alex, the cameraman, is one of the few bright spots in this flick. I saw skip the movie and just watch the trailer.


OK, it did run a BIT too long, but other than that, I thought this was a fun mockumentary that also made it's point - if all the Mexicans suddenly disappeared, here's what would happen to the California economy. The suppositions presented seem logical, and based on fact.

Minor "spoiler" follows: As for the plot, well, they COULD have done a bit more with the fog than just "stay out of it". That was really the only bit that bothered me afterward - no one seemed to be doing anything to figure out just what the fog was.

Wow - I just came here to email a link to some friends, recommending this film. I was surprised at the nasty, racist comments left by many IMDBers. Shame on you!


There are times when you just have to take a movie for what it is- a movie. Instead of worrying about racism and social commentary-enjoy the idea of the movie. I liked the movie as a whole because it had an original idea for a script. It gives you an idea of what an important role each of us plays in this big old world we live in. At the very least, the music can be appreciated. It was diverse, appropriate, and fun to listen to. It wasn't the best movie I've ever seen, but if you've ever lived in Southern California, this movie will make you laugh (at least a couple of times). And if your really lucky, it will also broaden your mind.


Not only did I see the movie twice already, I must say this is a very original version of the "usual". By usual I mean the fight fought for so long between black and white, South and North...Latinos and Americans. Sergio Arau and his wife Areli envision a LA with no Mexicans, just like the title say. Their sense of humor is fantastic to say the least. I never laughed so hard. They not only succeeded in portraying a truly "lonely" city, chaotic and all but they could also capture the true essence of Latinos which lies in these three words: Tenderness, care and RESPECT. This is not your "typical" movie. You will also love the closing scene and the nice final twist. I think both Latino and Americans alike will enjoy this. Thank you Cristina


I am a California native and Mexican-American. I lived in California for most of my life and I know how dependent we are on ALL Hispanics. Some people seem to misunderstand that this movie was only about Mexican's disappearing and what the result of that would be. If you watch closely, you will see it was about ALL Hispanic's in California (both central and south America, Puerto Rican's and whoever else). Initially it zero's in on a phenomena that occurred as a fog envelops the borders of CA and Mexican's initially disappear but as time goes by you realize all Hispanics from the well educated to the poor disappear. Most people don't want to realize that much of what is portrayed (Latino's in 'worker bee' jobs from nannies to field workers to grocery workers) is TRUE and don't want to be reminded that if something like that should happen, California and many other areas would be affected. I now live in Maine for the last two years and was shocked to realize that illegal Latino's are shipped up here from the border to do the field work for the blueberry and cranberry fields (the largest producer of wild blueberries in the world is here in Maine) and of course they are 'invisible' in every way possible in a 99% white community (look it up). This movie is a satire...a dark comedy that initially looks silly and superficial but that's the POINT...to exaggerate in order to get a message across. Fabulous movie!


For a low budget movie, I thought it was excellent!

It equally exposes racist attitudes from some Asians (the scientist who had no regard for Lila's life), some white and African American people (as heartless) towards Mexican's, sheds light on the misused generic term "Latino" (a people and culture)as opposed to the more specific one of Mexicans which is just a nationality. It also shows us even other minority groups can become racist when they are not target themselves.

It stirs history of who occupied those lands before the United States (Mexico), although there is no mention the same land was in turn, taken away from the native American Indians. If most people are going to learn history from Hollywood, then Hollywood should tell history right or not at all (partial, selective and biased segments don't count).

Although it also sheds some light on Mexican-American relations and contributions that greatly outweigh welfare costs, this movie fails to address more basic and deeper issues, such as:

1. Why aren't people who employ illegals forced to pay consequences for their actions? Why aren't they the ones to be named as dishonest employers who require long hours for low pay? If any illegal gets hurt, there is no insurance, they just "dispose" of the illegal somehow and replace them. This qualifies as slavery in my eyes. They are the bad guys; not the poor immigrants.

2. If every illegal could become "legal", they would have the right to be paid the legal minimum wage or more, have their share of taxes withheld and be equal in every way. Of course that would take away the competitive advantage of employing illegals in the first place which is not very different from how African-Americans were once treated with the exception of no pay and more whippings.

3. Smugglers are clearly in cahoots with officials on both sides of the border. It helps any state or country's economy to have a large cheap workforce that will cost nothing in future pensions, cannot vote, complain, demand better working conditions, get health care nor even admit they are there.

Speaking Spanish, being Latino has nothing to do with it; there are also Chinese, Filipino's, Polish, Russians, and dozens of others that are smuggled into the U.S., Canada and European countries each day for the same purpose: a legion of cheap workers that must remain silent and live in fear. How arrogant and insolent to say that in this day and age we have eradicated slavery. Slavery lives on and will never disappear as long as there are countries that turn blind eyes.

Kudo's to the Border Patrol for equal treatment: from what I know, most modern day American Police forces (with some exceptions) like to mistreat anyone they deem to weak to fight back, no matter what color, religion or race. All you need is someone to call 911 and down they come and unleash hell upon whomever they come across. When a system resorts to hiring thugs to protect us from thugs, anything can happen.

Dr. Martin Luther King didn't fight only for African-Americans, he fought for the right to equal treatment of everyone; white, black, Hispanic, Asian, Filipino and everyone else. To grant basic rights to a selected few is putting one culture over another.

For an employer to favor an illegal immigrant over a legal one or a local born is a crime not just against the government, but against that persons basic rights to fair pay, equal treatment, medical coverage and a retirement plan. Just because someone is illegal, that doesn't automatically mean it is permissible to mistreat and dehumanize them. Oh, and by the way, it is also a crime against humanity.

My message to everyone who considers others to be different just because of language, color, culture or anything else and who likes movies: go see the Gatekeeper, it might tell you against who you should direct your anger. As long as you keep blaming the little guy who only want to feed their families, you are just spinning your wheels for nothing. Don't let those at the top who commit these crimes against illegals brainwash you into hating Mexicans or anyone else.

Hypothetically: If I have to choose between a legal immigrant / local born and an illegal immigrant, the choice will always be easy if the illegal immigrant is cheaper. But if everyone is legal, then there will be no reason to favor one group over the other as the cost would change. Think what an impact this would have if the California Agricultural producers had to face this... wouldn't this be a radical and innovative utopia?

If we legalize the illegals, we will eradicate slave labor, slave traders and level out the playing fields. Illegal smugglers could re-invent themselves and become legitimate staffing agencies (a notch better than slave trader)located in Mexico who - for the same money they charge now to smuggle someone, - could hire hoards of immigration lawyers to arrange to bring in Mexicans - legally (with a job offer, matching residence and work permits for those diligently assigned jobs). It works for legal Europeans, Asians, and everyone else world-wide, why not for Mexicans?

I hope I gave everyone some more points to ponder.


As my girlfriend summarized it, "well... thats an hour we won't ever get back" It wasn't "It's Pat" bad but you really did feel like you wasted your time.

It was embarrassing it was so bad. I routinely felt my intelligence insulted and because they absolutely had to isolate California from the rest of the country they had to invent that dumb pink fog concept. Yeah I'd really like to see television and the internet work AT ALL without at least full country connectivity. Ridiculous.

Soooo Soooooo bad. I haven't picked a film this bad to watch in a long long time.

Lots of plots which had nothing to do with the film really, nothing really tied it together either. We just kept waiting for it to have some semblance of a plot, waiting for it to get better. It didn't.

Looks like they had at least a modest budget, they even got Evie from the old 80s show "Out of This World" who touches the tips of her fingers together to make time stop. I'm sure she was happy to get the work.

Honestly I blame the writers. They lacked decent writers. They lacked FUNNY writers. Of course funny comes at a luxury when you don't even really have a plot or cohesive story line.

Couldn't drop this one in the mailbox fast enough to get my next netflix rental. what a waste of a perfectly good netflix rental.

Oh and by the way, if you think I'm exaggerating - RENT IT YOURSELF.


This movie was hysterical. It mocks all the stereotypes and in a delicious way. I am sure Californians would rise to the occasion if ever put in this predicament but for the first 24 hours it would be this silly, ridiculous and tragic all at the same time. This movie only showed the hypocrisy and bigotry on the state and local levels. In real life we saw it all the way up the ladder of leaders after Katrina. The most significant line was said by the character that was Lila when the acting Governor asked her to tell the Mexicans "We need them" and she replies "They should have heard that sooner". I will continue to recommend this movie until all my fellow Mexicans have seen it.


This movie is not original material. Or maybe I should say it is not an original idea. After you view this movie and come to your own opinion, do me a favor. Check out a play written in 1965 by Douglas Turner Ward. The play is entitled, "A Day of Absence". The play was written in 1965, and precedes this movie by 40 years. The play was performed, at that time, by The Negro Ensemble Company, Inc. Ward was not only the playwright, he also performed in the play. A Day of Absence is a classic play written from a Black perspective. The plot is self-explanatory and the play itself is hilarious. But, as a warning. see the movie first and read Douglas Turner Ward's play afterwords.


Before I watched this movie I was actually excited on watching this comedy/documentary movie. However, I was led to a big time let down. I am a Mexican-American and I was thinking it was going to be a movie that jokes about our stereotypes, but it was not like that at all. It was based more on how "upper-class white" people heavily depended on the cheap work of illegal immigrants. The movie classified most immigrants of those who are very loyal and humble, and at the same time they appeared to be very weak with no character and their main purpose was to serve white people. Point is illegal immigrants are people and they do have feeling and are not just personal slaves. They do get mad and have other feelings. They also talk mess about their boss, like most people do, behind their backs. I felt that this movie did not give this illegal immigrants that chance to show that they are also people.

Even though there is still a lot of racism out there, they showed most white people as racists whom are helpless without an illegal immigrant doing cheap labor. I am not white and it might be true, but white people are people, they can easily adapt to changes in their environment. There are some white people that do cheap labor not all white people are rich.

One last thing that i strongly disagree with this movie is that what if there are not Mexicans around there is still a whole bunch of Central-Americans and South-Americans who are always classified as Mexicans. If you eliminate the illegal immigrant Mexican you still will have a lot of illegal immigrants of different places of this planet that will do that cheap labor work. Is not just the Mexican who is the cheap labor illegal immigrant in this nation. Finally, disregarding the rest, the movie was not funny, and I didn't even seem to get a chuckle at that. If you want to see a way better comedy movie about illegal immigrants I recommend you to watch Born in East L.A.


This would have been a great 20-minute short film. Wait, it already was that? Yes, it was. It was a very good and clever short film, but the powers that be fell prey to the idea that bigger just had to be better. Sadly, the extra 80 or so minutes adds absolutely nothing. The movie is slow, drags along and isn't as funny or clever as it could be. Way too slow introducing things, and the inept caucasians and uncaring African-Americans just aren't amusing after the third or fourth wacky misunderstanding. The ensemble of no-names is solid, save for a handful of "actors" who seem to have missed a few classes at acting school (the doctor and the border patrol officers to name a few). The rest, however are not given much to work with.


*****************spoilers****************** I'm not sure if anything I wrote is actually a spoiler, but better safe... *******************************************

Making a satirical movie about any tough issue like abortion, immigration, religion is bound to create some tensions. Monty Python's "The Life of Brian" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/ drew plenty of controversy in its day. I'm a Christian yet I really liked Monty Python's movie. Well, I'm a Mexican-American so my perspective certainly colors my view of "A Day Without a Mexican". That said, I enjoyed and laughed a lot in this movie. For me it's message was to remember that immigrants are human beings, deserving of acknowledgement for their efforts. The interesting question is, why would that need to be said at all? It seems obvious to me that they're people and deserve our compassion and respect, just like everyone else; but maybe it's not obvious to everyone else. The director said he was inspired in part by what happened in California some years ago, with the infamous Prop. 187. I'll certainly not touch that one here. My point is to stress that this movie is part of a historical and public dialogue about immigration in California.

I say it adds good points to that dialogue. Immigrants contribute 100 billion to California's economy yet take only 3 billion. Seems like a good deal to me. Now, maybe we can argue a long time about statistics but I'll tell you one point very clear to me, there's nothing wrong with people standing up for themselves. Seems like the American thing to do.

I also see other points, like white Americans being portrayed in a negative light. I can understand someone objecting that this movie would portray white people as merely racist or, at best, foolish. It's not a title anyone wants, I certainly don't. Today I went to volunteer (giving food, clothes and friendship) in a tough neighborhood and lots of the people on that bus were white Americans. The people on the bus were of varied ethnic backgrounds, so were the people we helped. I wouldn't want anyone insulting those kind people. I don't think this movie did, it had plenty of likable white characters. However, it's not easy to see from another's perspective so I'm sure there are more qualified opinions out there on that point. .

A satirical movie about a sensitive issue isn't going to meet everyone's expectations, but it's good to laugh and let your mind open. That's why I like Monty Python and that's why I liked this movie.


In order to enjoy this movie, you must have a very "out of the box" viewpoint. You also need to know something of Mexico's culture, and be able to understand it. If you've never been further than 10 miles from your home and went to the same school for twelve years, you will not like or understand this movie. I have lived in Mexico for two years, and I understood and loved the movie. This movie is in no way prejudice, as it is a COMEDY, and it is for the use of entertaining more than persuading. I also think that one needs to be accepting of the movie, and wanting to give it a chance before they will like it. This is why I enjoyed this movie.


There was this one time in high school when this really insecure skinny kid brought theses yellow-tinted "inside" shades into school. He was one of those backstreet, all-for-one kinda looking guys. Anyway, he brought his shades into school and they were all super-glued b/c he had previously broken them. Regardles, he had been rocking them all day. Well, he had set them down, in class, and the hot chick from school came and picked up his shades, which were in a sense a tangible reflection of his own true level of confidence (super-glued at best). Anyway, she picks up the shades and then they break. of course. HE gets up and starts yelling at her for like a good 10 minutes about how you don't touch peoples stuff and blah blah blah. Everyone else in the room was like "i see the point that you are trying to make, man, but they are just plastic shades." THIS guy, however, was on the verge of tears. It was as though the epitome of that which he lacked confidence around was the very person to destroy those shades. I stood there without a sound. I listened thru the entire 10 minute barrage as she did, basically staring at him with a dropped jaw. I didn't say a word. It was pain for me to listen to that poor bastard cry about plastic shades, but i couldn't stop it. That is EXACTLY how i felt when i watched this film.


I could barely get through this racist piece of crap. Let's see. Here's a poorly made film that abruptly stops to splash "facts" on the screen that are either half-truths or just outright falsehoods. What's so ironic is that the entire thrust of this film is designed to illustrate the importance of Latinos in California. Instead, it simply perpetuates the hideous stereotype that whites are privileged racists and that all Latinos are saints.

Above and beyond all that, it's boring as hell. If you want propaganda go watch something like "Triumph of the Will". At least Leni Riefenstahl could operate a camera. As for this, don't waste your time.

Oh, and for the record, I've seen white people work in fields, wash dishes and operate vacuum cleaners. They've been doing it in the south for eons.


"A Day Without A Mexican" is a great example of how low-budget films in independent cinema can broadcast a message without having to comply to the typical conventions of Hollywood. Sure, there are no big-name actors or actresses prancing across the screen, but that's exactly the point: as a viewer, you are not meant to be distracted from the moral center of the film by celebrities. And what a moral center this film has.

Part documentary, part comedy, part social commentary, "A Day Without A Mexican" successfully entertains the audience with seemingly blundering Americans ignorant of the extent to which Latinos contribute to the economy and society of California, while simultaneously calling attention to the alienation and discrimination hurled at this ethnic group on a daily basis. It may seem hokey to some viewers that in the end, after all the Latinos (not just "Mexicans") disappear, they come back and are embraced by everyone who finally realized how important they are to the society. Some of the jokes may also be cheesy and may not garner a titter from the audience, but the main point of the movie is not to knock you out of your seat with uproarious laughter. The pop-up facts enlighten the audience (such as reminding many Americans that those people from Honduras and Guatemala are NOT Mexicans) and add an extra layer to a complex film.

All in all, "A Day Without A Mexican" is, so far, an underrated film. Don't focus on how low-budget the production is, focus on the points being made and the situations presented.


I have seen this movie and I thought that it was good. Because it shows us how hard life would be if Mexicans were not in the United States. That is what is trying to show. It isn't saying that the Mexicans are going to disappear, but it is trying to show how life would be without them. I have only seen it once. But I would like to own it.I know the movie isn't for everyone. I liked it and I just wish people would watch it. because if they watched it they would see how hard life would be if Mexicans would not be here in the US. If you want to talk more about it just e-mail me.... mexican_soccer_chica_20@hotmail.com. I had never heard of the movie until I went to go rent some movies. I found it, rented it and watched it. At first I was confused but then I figured out what was going on.... So please just give the movie a chance.


Trying to conceive of a "Left Behind" style film happening to a specific race in a specific State is pretty out there. But director Sergio Arau does so admirably in A DAY WITHOUT A Mexican.

Part comedy, part mockumentary, the film's liberal leanings are sure to turn some viewers off. Taking consistent jabs at prejudices (and hitting their target more often than not), the film takes on the premise that a strange, magical fog has surrounded California one fateful day, blocking all incoming and outgoing traffic, internet access, and all forms of communication. And this weird atmospheric disturbance has also taken away all of the Mexicans. The disruption to the Sunshine State is evident as fruit rots on trees, vegetable aisles in grocery stores go empty, and car wash patrons have to dry their own cars! Lilia Rod(riguez) played by Yareli Arizmendi (LIKE WATER FOR CHOCOLATE) is a television news reporter who DOESN'T disappear. The supernatural phenomenon seems to have passed her by even though she's Mexican. Or is she? More unseen prejudices arise as we learn that most Anglos label anyone with a coppery-toned complexion as "Mexican." Lilia learns her true genetic heritage along the way but feels, in her heart, that she's Mexican and promptly vanishes in front of a television audience.

John Getz (BLOOD SIMPLE) plays Senator Abercrombie who has to take on the position of California Governor Pro-Tem, as the current Governor and Lieutenant Governor were Mexican. Thrown into the spotlight, the new Gov has to deal with all of the chaos caused by the disappearances as well as the disruptions to his own household when their maid/nanny/cook vanishes.

Other characters include two border patrol officers who are forced to deal with their prejudices when they learn that they no longer have a viable job. This is one particularly hilarious portion of the film that will really tickle audience's funny bones.

As California tries to deal with the loss of an entire race, the remaining folks come up with some great reasons for the Mexicans' disappearance. Some say that the sombrero is shaped like a UFO for a reason {wink!} Others believe it's a form of the rapture, and the apocalypse is upon us. Still others believe that it is because the other races didn't appreciate the Mexicans and so they just up and left. Regardless of the reason (true or not) the effect is felt throughout the State. Anglos and other nationalities turn to looting and diving into black-market fruits and vegies in order to save their restaurants. Talk shows swing from one extreme to the other, some saying their glad that the Mexicans are gone while others struggle to stay on the air with a skeleton crew (many camera operators were Mexicans).

The film's faults are that this probably won't be for those who live outside California. A Day Without a Mexican has a fairly specific target audience. But the great message, often funny and poignant at the same time, cannot be denied: we all need each other, regardless of race.

Special mention of the film's musical soundtrack MUST be made, too. The mariachi version of California Dreamin' is outstanding, as is the theme song A Day Without A Mexican.


There is a strong critical view of "A day without a Mexican" easily because it defends illegals and mocks Americans. Now, I love the fact that they are making fun of those piggy Americans and there selfish ways without giving a chance to let the Mexicans in for a change. Though one may be expecting a large amount of fantasy and bizarre weirdness-"A day without a Mexican" although has some good messages such as 'where your heart lies' and 'give peace a chance' there is no excuse to poor quality. I was expecting the film to be funnier, a black comedy when really you see the melodramatic overtones of human drama and a positive film. The plot is way to political, most viewers don't even why the Mexicans disappeared in the first place. The message is hard to understand and in order to truly like the film you pretty much have to BE an illegal. The poor quality of the film shows everyone individual in America as a sick, spoiled bastard. This may be true but how it's portrayed is so poorly done. If the film is also very slow and dramatic, the slowness of the film goes on so much that one wonders "is this still the film?" The plot, I admit, is interesting but only good enough for a short film; not an entire movie.


Sergio Arau is a Mexican artist whose main work has been done in the field of visual arts and in music, but in 1998 he along with his wife Yareli Arizmendi, wrote and directed a short comedy named "A Day Without a Mexican", a fake documentary chronicling the fictitious events that happened in California when suddenly all the Hispanic people disappeared without any reason. Their fake documentary was a satire about U.S. immigrant policy and the unfair treatment the Hispanic immigrants received. Their work was well received but the couple decided to take their message to the main audience by turning their short film into a feature length film.

Like Arau's original short, the movie's premise is that for strange circumstances all the Hispanic immigrants (not only Mexicans) disappear of the state of California and the state is surrounded by a mysterious fog that isolates the people leaving them without the work that Hispanics usually do. The movie chronicles the events happening in that situation and showcases how important are the immigrants for the development of California.

Writer Yareli Arizmendi plays Lila, a reporter hired for her Latin looks who later becomes the center of the attention as she becomes "the last Latin in California". John Getz plays Senator Steven Abercombie III, an anti-immigrant politician who becomes governor of California after the actual Governor disappears due to Hispanic heritage. Muse Watson is Louis McClaire, owner of a ranch who understands the importance of the immigrant's work but who has to deal with his overtly patriotic and racist son George (Bru Muller).

These three main stories as well as other minor subplots get together to showcase different situations of the immigrants in California. Arau mixes "interviews with experts" giving opinions on the Hispanics disappearance and noticing the importance of their presence for the country. Using comedy as a medium to deliver his message, Arau's film delivers good laughs and flows smoothly most of the time, however, at times it is notorious that the project started as a short as there are scenes that seem to be shot only to reach the runtime of a feature length film.

Being a music video director before, Arau can't help but to display the influences of his previous work, giving the movie a modern albeit a bit MTV-like look. Also, the movie has been severely criticized for its highly fictitious premise. While this criticism is valid in the sense that the unexplained disappearance and the comedic tone do diminish the importance of the subject matter, Arau makes his point clear despite the flawed conception of his plot.

The acting is good on the main roles, but the apparently undeveloped script makes it look a bit forced at times. Arizmendi and Getz shine in their respective roles and without a doubt they are the driving force of the film. The rest of the cast is also good, but nothing spectacular. This in my opinion is due to the lack of details in the script that leaves some characters at a very shallow stereotypical level.

"A Day without a Mexican" may not be subtle in its approach, and probably it forces its message a bit too much, but still raises very important points and delivers its message without problems. The Arau couple had a brilliant idea and raised very good points, however, the film still feels as if it could had been better. Hopefully the couple will continue making films that will be better than this first attempt. 7/10. Interesting film.