This blatant "Day Today" rip off promised a new, cutting edge BBC comedy. It's nothing of the sort, rather a tepid satire on the banality of television news but without the biting humour and insight that Chris Morris and Armando Iannucci provided for "The Day Today" and "Brass Eye".

Where does "Broken News" fail where the older shows succeed? 1) It's made itself a one trick pony: In episode one it shows the headless chicken style of modern TV news reporting, where no actual information is reported and presenters just love the sound of their own voice. Fine, after half an hour we get the joke. Then it's repeated week after week. Same joke, same premise. The show doesn't progress, introduce new elements or play around in its own rigid format. The American news desk will always be the same, the "Look Out East" crew will have suggestive banter in the same manner and Standing News was great as a one off joke, but it's repeated again and again.

2) The cast. It must have seemed like a great idea in the planning stages to have quality dramatic actors such as Benedict Cumberbatch, Pip Torrens and Claudia Christian in a satire/sub-sketch comedy show but these things are best done by comedy actors...even a team of them. There's no chemistry between the cast, which is huge (what a waste of money) and what made "The Day Today" and "Brass Eye" so good was the caricature like characters created by a smaller but gifted comedy group. Can any of the "Broken News" characters stand out like Alan Partridge, or Peter O'Hanrahahanrahan, or Austen Tasseltine or Ted Maul? The cast are playing it too serious, too real and the result is a flat comedy.

3) Blatantly stealing from "The Day Today". We're not just talking about the concept, but the actual material as well. Frozen urine, death penalty reports by glamorous American journalists, nonsensical captions, fake football team names, overwrought graphics...all done on "The Day Today" and done much better.

The BBC comedy department is at one of its lowest points at the moment. It's overly dependent on "Little Britain" and Ricky Gervais to keep it afloat for one thing. It thinks by re-hashing old comedy concepts such as "My Family" and "Broken News" it will count on getting viewers who have put much better equivalent shows out of their memories and it is fiercely loyal to character based sketch shows which can spin out episode after episode of 8 characters and their stock catchphrases. This is hardly a recipe for growth and surprise.


Agents Secrets is not only a spy / contra-spy thriller but also one of the best portfolio examples french cinema has nowadays. With few words and dynamic fast camera movements the actor-couple Monica Bellucci & Vincent Cassel are very well fitted in this story of spies & secret agents. Not the most original story, but the story sequence is.

It is a joy to watch these two professional actors, there is no question about if they are acting: the just ARE the two secret service agents. No doubt about it. You will be touched by the movie and once you will see the credit rolling by, you still be in your chair thinking about all the impressions and story line.

I think this one is a high ranker on your list if you like spy-games.


Frederic Schoendorffer directed 4 years ago a great serial killer movie with a realistic point of view, "Scenes de crimes". And now he does it all over again with "Agents secrets", a sharp, always surprising look at the world of spies. Like, a James Bond movie directed by Ken Loach (well, sort of). Of course, when you decide to take a movie genre and break all its rules one by one, it helps to have two major movie stars by your side. Our American friends may not realize how big Vincent Cassell and Monica Bellucci are in France. They're, like, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston, only more rebellious and real and glamorous and daring and hip. When you look at their respective filmographies, you know for sure that "Agents secrets" won't be a "Troy" or a "Along Came Polly" (though I do respect and love Brad and Jennifer, their career moves are sometimes, well, surprising). Now, Vincent and Monica are a real life couple and they do not play a couple in "Agents secrets", but two spies who pretend to be a couple on a mission that will go awfully wrong. Don't expect too many visual effects here : the suspense is intensely psychological and the cast does deliver, even though the screenplay sometimes doesn't (to be honest, the story is not always clear). When I saw the movie, most people in the audience were very angry by its ending. Without giving it away, I can tell you it is daring : the director wanted to make a movie about the extraordinary life of ordinary people who have no choice, once they've chosen such a lifestyle, but to live this way till they die. Their whole life is a mission, and it has no end.


Hi! First of all I have to say that I really enjoyed 'Agents secrets'. I wasn't disappointed as many seems to be because I knew what kind of film I was going to see... By this, I would mean that it is a 'Schoendoerffer movie' i.e. a movie that is not focusing on a special mission or on action but rather on people, what implies their job, on their daily life...even if they are spies. It was the same in one of his prior movies 'scenes de crimes'. So, don't expect to be staggered by special effects or by an unexpected end. You're not in 'M.I.1' or in 'The Usual suspects' - even if I also appreciated these movies- , what matters is people, their relations, their perception of their job... It was really a good moment and it does not really matter if at the end everything is not fully explained. It's not the the director's main purpose at all...


A team of secret agents  Raymond (Sergio Peris-Mencheta), Loic (Ludovic Schoendoerffer), Lisa (Monica Bellucci) and their leader Brisseau (Vincent Cassel)  is assigned by the French Agency in a mission called Janua to sink the general cargo vessel "Anita Hans" in Casablanca. The ship is transporting weapons for the rebels in the civil war of Angola that are using diamonds to pay the dealer Igor Lipovsky (Serge Avedikian). Brisseau and Lisa are advised by an American agent to abort their mission, but their superiors order them to ignore. When the mission is successfully accomplished, Lisa is framed and arrested in the airport with 150 g of heroine. When Raymond is killed, Brisseau realizes that they have been betrayed and he tries to release Lisa from the prison.

"Agents Secrets" is a bitter and realistic original story of manipulation and betrayal, showing the dangerous, lonely and empty lives of secret agents, where the interest of a nation is above any principle of ethics, as Machiavelli observed and wrote in the Fifteenth Century. Vincent Cassel and Monica Bellucci have excellent lead performances, well supported by a great European cast, and the action scenes are really very impressive. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Agentes Secretos" ("Secret Agents")


I saw the movie last evening and I think it's a very competent thriller. Nicely shot without being too stylish. Crisp and to the point. The interest never flags down. The plot is realistic and the characterization has the existential overtones the French so much love: agents doomed to obey orders and never ask questions living a lonely life of lies without any friends(while blowing up ships and routinely jumping down planes). The film manages to find new ways to thrill and narrate the story; and that when the espionage thriller field has already been saturated with Hollywood super-productions; so for a French movie to succeed with half the budget and with a European sensibility is great going. Part of the action moves in Casablanca and Geneva but these locales are used in a refreshing way not the usual Hollywood exotica "elsewhere"; if you see this movie try to compare it to say Bourne Identity and you will know what I mean. I love thrillers but for a long time hadn't seen a movie that really kept me glued, but this was it. There are minor gaffes like the makeup in places, the panicky way the agents are always looking around (why are they being so obvious in a crowd when they are supposed to be secret, eh) and some flat actors. But overall the movie is fun and well worth a visit.


(WARNING: SOME SPOILERS AHEAD) I'd like to vindicate this movie, since many people seem to have disliked it. And I'll tell you why: this is one of the best spy movies I've ever seen. I'm no expert about the world of espionage, but according to what I've learnt about real-life spooks, this movie is based on reality in many aspects.

The plot is based on operations conducted by the real-life French spy agency (the DGSE) that really occurred: the bomb attacks on a German weapons trafficker in the 1950s who was supplying rebels in the Algerian War of Independence, and the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, a ship owned by the environmental organization Greenpeace in 1985 in Auckland, New Zealand. In the latter case, just like in the movie, a French female spy infiltrated Greenpeace and stole plans of the ship to be bombed, and the actual bombing was carried out by French "nageurs de combat" (combat divers, more or less the French equivalent of Navy Seals), some of them posing as a couple of Swiss tourists during their stay in New Zealand.

For what I know about the subject, the movie authentically depicts the modus operandi of real-life field agents, e.g. George (Vincent Cassel) avoiding being seen with his contact Tony (Eric Savin) during the operation in Casablanca; spy agencies hiring foreign mercenaries to do their deniable ops (i.e. dirty jobs) to make sure such ops will be deniable if discovered; agents being betrayed by their own hierarchy for reasons of "higher national interest"; the dirty tricks spy agencies of yet allied countries do to each other; and more specifically to the DGSE, the rivalry between the military officers (represented by Cassel, Bellucci and the Colonel played by Andre Dussollier) and the civilian technocrats (represented by the no-name black-haired cigarette-smoking guy in his early forties played by Bruno Todeschini), the former ones having lost control of the agency to the latter over the years (the DGSE was originally run by the French military).

Many people found this movie boring, but that's because the lives of real spies are exactly like that! The director stated that he wanted to depict accurately the state of mind of real-life field agents (i.e. their solitude, the fear they perpetually feel etc.) and he has exactly achieved that, and his movie must be seen more as a documentary look on real spies, not as a James Bond/Jason Bourne-like action thriller. Those Hollywood movies aren't even remotely true to the real world of espionage. Even the British TV spy show "Spooks" seems unrealistic in comparison with this movie.

I hope I have given some facts that will give a clearer perspective to some viewers, in order to better appreciate "Agents Secrets", which may indeed seem a bit difficult to understand for those who are unaware of the real-life background it is based on. And on a purely cinematographic level, this movie offers brilliant writing, directing, editing and acting. Vincent Cassel and Monica Bellucci convincingly portray two spies having to pose as a couple and always working professionally during their mission, i.e. they're always careful never to allow an ounce of sexuality in their relationship. This is all the more remarkable acting, as they were actually already married in real-life at the time of the shooting!

A definitely memorable movie.


It's not often that you come across a film in which, for the first eleven minutes, the only words spoken are: 'On the left!' Couple that with an opening sequence that begins on the dark side of the moon, slowly zooming down to earth  almost like a Google Earth video -- and to a ferry, somewhere in the Mediterranean Sea, to finally stop upon a man's eyes at extreme close-up. And, all done with only two almost seamless dissolves between the computer wizardry and the real McCoy... And all the time, the pulsating sound track from Bruno Coulais hits you almost as forcibly as three assassins forcibly and gruesomely dispatch the hapless agent returning to base...

Such is the combination of cinematic and directorial skills as evidenced by the director, Frederic Schoendoerffer and cinematography by Jean-Pierre Sauvaire. Add to that the consummate acting by the likes of Vincent Cassel -- unforgettable in La Haine (1992)  and Monica Belluci, probably best known to US audiences in The Passion of Christ (2004), and you have a cinematic thriller treat that the French do oh-so-well and oh-so-often.

Take a team of five agents from an unspecified secret French agency, add a notorious gun-runner from Russia, mix with the intrigue and settings in and around Casablanca, in Morocco, stir it all up with CIA mercenaries trying to spoil the fun, and top it all off with betrayal in the midst of the French team and you have 109 minutes of dirty dealings, and some break-neck action that might just leave you breathless. Some of the stunts were simplystunning; in fact, I just had to re-view  again and again  the last car chase with the most spectacular head-on impact I've yet seen. But then, I'm a sucker for a good car chase ever since I saw Bullit (1968). What! You haven't seen Bullit yet...? Tsk, tsk...

The plot is straightforward and the director uses visuals to show most of it with a bare minimum of dialog. It is, however, a relatively complex story, with a number of sub-plots: the French agent who wants to quit, and who pays the price for trying; the degree of collusion between government and dirty business; the nature of the arms trade and why it continues. But, hey, we all know that it's a dirty world, and there are dirty people in it, always ready to do their bit for...for...oh, yeah, democracy.

To some extent, I was let down by the final scenes. On reflection, however, it was appropriate, if a bit flat  especially after all that blazing action. You be the judge when you see it.


2 combat divers, send to blow up a ship with time bombs, accompanied by a back up team posing as a pseudo couple ? Rather watch "The Rainbow Warrior Conspiracy" from 1989. Illegal arms-for-diamond-trade ? Done several times before ! American agents clearly informed about what the "Frenchies" are up to (Echelon ? Moles ?...) Déjà vu ! Someone framed by 150 gr. of heroin hidden in his or her luggage ? How many times has this not been seen before ? Also used in 20, 30 other movies: the main character gets kidnapped by the "opposition", but somehow miraculously manages to cause a traffic accident, after which of course he's the only survivor I'm not even mentioning the somewhat unbelievable sideplot of Brisseau finding extremely quickly the professional (???) killer who shot one of the combat divers, and making quickly in between a trip to Spain to kill her. Strangely enough however, even if Schoendoerffer really used all the wrong ingredients to make his spy flick, this isn't a bad movie at all. Not because of the plot nor because of clever dialogs about international security or about the loneliness or the dangers involved with the spy business. In contradiction with some other comments, I didn't found Agents Secrets a particularly good psychology study about secret agents So don't expect a Simenon-like experience, with a relatively bleak plot as an excuse to paint vivid psychological portraits. There aren't even beautiful locations, superb cars or there needs to be something for everyone- breathtaking bathing beauties à la Bond. So, what is it, that makes me not calling it a "bad movie" ? The quick pace, the interesting camera movements for sure. But mainly because of the excellent cast, with exception of the cliché looking villains who kill a French agent in the strong first minutes of the movie: they look like the stereotype gang members of Pablo Escobar. Maybe the film would have been much stronger, if the killers were not known, if there was more of an invisible threat looming all the time over the shoulders of the French secret agents team. Indeed, a 7/10 seems to be an honest score.


Again a french blockbuster! I had in mind "Largo Winch" for our national action / thriller tries and the feeling that something was lacking in comparison to James Bond, "Mission Impossible" or the recent "Traitor".

My opinion hasn't changed: action isn't unforgettable, the story is boring, and the characters dull: even before the troubles come, the spies are depressive, mournful!

I know the director wanted to show the crude reality of undercover action but he failed to tell something interesting. Even his commentary is lethargic. It's a pity because some sequences show that he is talented with a camera!

The best moment of the movie is their "vacations" in Casablanca, because it was almost like mine in Oujda, another Moroccan town: streets filled with people, red and whites taxis, pool,

And another french DVD without subtitles!


French non-thriller Agents Secrets aka Spy Bound (a completely meaningless title) may be the only picture to give Timbo Hines' War of the Worlds a run for its money in the most walking scenes in a single motion picture stakes. Frodo and the Fellowship of the Ring didn't spend as much time walking as Vincent Cassel, Monica Bellucci and co do in Frederic Schoendoerffer's exercise in designer tedium. Admittedly it's glamorous movie stars glossily photographed walking in exotic locations, but it's not even walking to anywhere, it's just purposeful but gratuitous walking. Even when two frogmen slip into the water to plant a mine it cuts away to  you guessed it

When, after 40 minutes, Bellucci reveals she's planning to quit the French secret service, you think: her legs must have got tired of all the walking. Unfortunately for her, she fails to walk through customs with 150g of heroin her employers have planted on her and it's not long before she's walking down the endless pristine and very white corridors of a prison that looks like it was designed by Louis Vitton for a Gap ad. Luckily Vincent Cassel is able to walk past them by putting on glasses, a scarf and a bit of cardboard in his mouth, but he's really cut up about it: he goes for a walk to his old girlfriend, them, after feeding her cat and trying to write, goes for a walk to see another friend... Even when he's tailing a suspect, he gets out of his car to... do I even need to type the rest of the sentence?

It's a big-budget picture for a French film, but it really does feel like the picture started without a script - of any kind - and since they had the crew and the actors they had to film something, anything, but the only thing they could think of was... walking. You can't help wondering if Schoendoerffer was trying for a pared-down Jean-Pierre Melville-style minimalism, but for most of the picture there's even less than meets the eye going on here. The characters are blank slates, the cynicism standard issue and even the reliable Bruno Coulais' score never develops a real theme.

Which is a shame, because the plot isn't bad when it finally kicks in - in the last twenty minutes. Very loosely inspired by the sinking of the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior, it revolves around a plot to persuade an arms dealer to use his influence in Africa to suit French interests by blowing up a ship carrying his latest consignment. Naturally things go wrong, ulterior motives are revealed, everyone becomes expendable, Monica gets her tits out and the tone becomes completely schizoid as if the script finally arrived a few days before filming finished and they rushed to fit it all in. While for the first 90 minutes it's a film that equates boredom with realism, walking with paranoia and monosyllabic scripting with profundity, for the last couple of reels we get a half-hearted car chase, an impressive car crash (that leads to a moment of utter absurdity as a third viewing of the scene suddenly reveals a previously invisible survivor running across a motorway in plain sight), silly disguises, unarmed combat with a lesbian CIA hitwoman and the obligatory symbolic falling off a building dream scene as it ticks off the genre staples to throw in enough action to put together a decent trailer (certainly a parachute jump and the opening CGi cosmic zoom from the dark side of the Moon to close-up on a ferry with an unfortunately ridiculous sense of scale seem designed more for marketing than narrative purposes). There's a good but all-too-brief moment with some sharks and a neat touch where the victim of a setup by the French secret service has to pay the cost of the operation but while no film that begins with Charles Berling being killed can be all bad, this pretty much manages it. The fact that the film boasts a surprising number of rave reviews from one-time-only reviewers with no posting history from French-language territories tells its own story.


Very well made, intense, but probably not for the average American stupid pang bang movie lover. I would love to see this movie again, and not just for Monica. The story is original, and portrays very well the real complicated side of doing illegal business, which again is not always James bond 007. All characters are in a state of depression, which thinking about it, appears quite natural. As so often with french movies you need to live yourself into the characters, and not just watch. Of course it has some minor defects, such as a car crash, which no human would ever survive, but these are only details. Probably this movie will have a later US remake.


1-It's a spy movie. 2-It's not a James Bond.

Follow a team of cold-blooded, adrenaline-addicted of french secret agents on what seems to be a "simple" fire and forget mission.

Forget about sub cars, laser pens and kinky secret bases, this one is more about living a spy life, stuck in what smells like a "rainbow warrior" secret op. Frederic Schoendorffer and his crew made an impressive work on showing the pressure upon the characters, their loneliness and the void of their lives. A really clever choice is made whenever it comes to action : what they show us is not another dragon-ballish ballet, but short scenes that just tell that these people know what they're doing. There are lots of details, not the usual visible evidences that lead to colonel Mustard, and the real name of the game is planning. Get all that wrapped in a strong technical treatment (filming, editing and the sound work!) and you've got a movie that's not your usual popcorn spy flick but a real reflexion about what drools in the shadow of politics.


As he reached the status of French cinema's »mandarin«, and by proving to be the undisputed commercial ruler of non-American cinema, Luc Besson retired form directing and began writing and producing a whole serial assembly of rather simple French programmers which were set to compete with mid-budget Hollywood efforts. Some of those films like »Taxi« or »Crimson rivers« (Rivieres pourpres) managed to score amazing box office. And yet, Besson's employees failed to deliver anything more than middle-of-the-road of half-baked products. However, each of those titles managed to either reach or surpass Hollywood products in certain set-pieces. Thus, Besson's productions cured European fear of Hollywood's technical supremacy.

The other line of French lust for Hollywood, unlike Besson's superficial clan, is represented by frontmen of the Newest Wave of French Cinema consisted of extremely talented and educated auteurs like Gaspar Noe, Christophe Gans, Jan Kounen and Olivier Assayas who use the rethorics of genre cinema in order to create brave and edgy body of work and blend of art-house.

The acting icons of the Newest Wave are Vincent Cassel and Monica Bellucci, the couple who defined four most important films in the last ten years of French film history  Jan Kounen's »Dobermann«, Gilles Mimouni's »L'Appartement«, Christophe Gans' »Pacte de loups" and Gaspar Noe's »Irreversible«. The two of them star in »Agents secrets «, the film which tries to use the fourth method in order to tame the energy of commercial cinema.

The explorer of the Fourth Method is Frederic Schoendoerffer, a classicist among contemporaries, son of famous Pierre (Dien Bien Phu), whose body of work mostly includes documentaries and chronicles of French colonial presence in Indochine. Frederic gained attention by grim and very serious police procedural "Scenes de crimes". In his debut the absence of stars prevented it from being an important title in the Serial Killer Film Pantheon.

»Agents secrets« is a thriller partly inspired by a recent incident when French secret service (DGSE), which belongs among the most discrete, sank the Greenpeace ship. That event caused a backlash and DGSE eventually abandoned some of its' operatives.

In »Agents secrets «, agents are ordered to sink the ship used by the notorious Easteuropean arms dealer. When the ship is sunk, agents consider mission accomplished. Suddenly, it transpires that they provoked CIA by this act and DGSE abandons them.

This exciting yarn is adult-oriented judging by robust pacing and character portraying. Unlike (as exceptional) "The Bourne Supremacy" which grabs the viewer, »Agents secrets « attempt to seduce you. Thus, if "Supremacy" is the model of what 007-franchise should have been, then Schoendoerffer's film threads in legacy of John Mackenzie's "The Fourth Protocol". On the other hand its' Hollywood counterpart is Tony Scott's "Spy Game", another fine film about the dynamics of espionage reality. All of these films were directed by Europeans even if some belong to A-List Hollywood milieu, meaning that Europeans, especially Brits, are the go-to guys when it comes to spy yarns.

»Agents secrets« is a fine espionage thriller that delivers efficient and disciplined roles of two authentic, and probably greatest contemporary French film stars. This film marks the return of adult-minded espionage film where espionage finally became a subject instead of being an excuse for action mayhem. Simply put, in »Agents secrets «, the device is also the goal, and this is why it stands out as a calm and articulated commercial film in the age of hysteria.


I saw this film because of monica and vincent to be honest. And because Bruno Coulais had done the music. The trailer seemed pretty good, and I needed something strong that day. It was either this or taking lives. Please notice I had read imdb reviews that warned about the nature of this film : not good at all. But, it was monica and vincent and bruno... So I said what the heck.

(***minor spoilers)

The movie begins with a couple of nice shots. Then the story unfolds. We meet the agents and get to action. And here's problem No.1 : how and where did those two get to meet each other, how was the contact made.. We watch them separately and then bang! on the plane. I was left kinda blank on that. The same goes and in that scene where she has to kill that woman in the prison. One minute she's in and the next she drops the pill and out she goes. But then again, some might say whats there to show. Anyway... And then to the action. Or to be exact, more action less talk. That seemed to be the director's motto. Which was good, I assume. It was something you don't see in spy films, so I appreciated it. At first. Because later it gets just a bit annoying. What I appreciated even more was the fact that there were no shootings and explosions every 10 minutes. And here's problem No.2 : you can't follow a "minimal" structure of showing things and action and then take the main character alive out of a blaster car accident. You just can't! Even though I liked the way it was shown, silence while car on air, and then crash! boom! bang!, the way it turned out, the hero with just some scratches, it reminded a lot of that hollywood staff. And finally, problem No.3 was monica's acting. I don't know what is wrong, I actually adore that woman, but here... I don't know maybe she was tired from the "passion", she seemed completely out of the movie. She had the exact same look on her (beautiful) face in the entire movie. Why?

I don't want to admit that I have get used to hollywood stuff and that I am not in place to appreciate something different, because I watch more "different" movies than Hollywood movies. But when different gets so out of line...I wouldn't say it is a spy thriller, because I don't think it is. Also, this film gave me a hard time, because never before had I consider rating a movie below 5. I added a "point" for each 'thing' I liked : the guy who played the contact man, vincent and monica and some nice shots. I think you all know how much is 1+1+1.


There is a lot of walking in this movie, that's for sure. But it isn't a thriller, it isn't an action movie - it's a boring piece of work. At time it is hard to understand what's going on. Not that the story is complex - there hardly is a story - but it is hard to understand because it's directed very, very poorly and at an infuriating pace that seems to be wrong for every scene. I felt really disappointed after watching this one. I can't believe they make this kind of crap. The only good thing is that the always enchanting Monica Bellucci once again shows her two best, breathtaking assets. Cassel on the other hand is not that charismatic. But he gets by better than in his awful role as Blueberry. If you like Cassel and Bellucci, you will be better off if you watch Irreversible.


I wonder what this movie was all about. I failed at grasping the story - assuming there was one. The characters just showed up on some locations, doing hell knows what. The whole movie is so damn incoherent. At the beginning they explain what will happen next. I don't know if the director wanted the following scenes to be as mysterious as the secret agent business is to normal people. Despite from being as unrealistic as I'd expect from a movie like this, it's painfully incoherent. Did I mention this? At one scene the characters are doing their job for whomever at the next they are doing something else. I never knew why they did all this. The only thing I got was the revenge George took in Madrid. Everything else remains a mystery to me. And while I was still looking out for a conclusion that would've given the story any sense the credits started rolling by, leaving me very disappointed.


I went to see this film with a fairly international group of film goers. . . and we all hated it. Apart from some interesting cinematography (eg. the tandem swim at sunset) this film is absolutely empty. I can't remember a film where I felt so cheated out of my money and my time.

On the yahoo cinema site for the film it said that the director did an enormous amount of research:

"Frédéric Schoendoerffer s'est énormément documenté sur le métier d'agent secret en procédant à un tri méthodique des informations recueillies à ce sujet".

If this is true then the spy business has to be the most boring profession on earth. Granted I realize it isn't all James Bond in real life, but it has to be a thousand times more interesting than the film, because someone could pay me to be a spy, but they could never pay me enough to have to watch this film again.

It should be pointed out, I think, that the director didn't do an enormous amount of research into car accidents. The main character suffers severe injury to his head and hand from a relative fender bender, while walking away from a car accident in which the car he is in, going at full tilt down an expressway, flips over a median and land upside down hitting another car, which then causes them both to blow up within a matter of seconds...

yet he escapes unscathed...

Please, don't waste your money on this film . . . go watch classic Hitchcock. . . he also did an enormous amount of research on the subject but he also knew how to tell a good story.

Watch the zoom-in shot at the beginning from outer space to the Meditteranean, it is alright, though a bit cliché these days, then go demand your money back for those of you who have accidentally bought your tickets in advance.


1. I must care about the hero.

In James Bond, for example, I know he is a vain, brainless army officer with a line in feeble sexist jokes, but I know he is going to get involved in some spectacular antics fighting a mad villain before he's off. In AGENTS SECRETS I couldn't be bothered with the hero at all. He was cold, uncaring, without gaglines or any other idiosyncracies. He might as well have been the villain. The attempt to set the French government up as good guys was laughable.

2. The hero must encounter a major hurdle and overcome it.

AGENTS SECRETS has no hurdle to speak of. At one point he is kidnapped, but his escape is over within half a minute. I was utterly indifferent to his fate.

3. Boy must get girl.

The girl said at the end she was "Empty, utterly empty". In other words our hero bought a bill of goods. No warm cuddles and dozens of babies for him. The two murderers drive into the hills and leave me unmoved.

Break these rules and your film will be a total turkey. Like beyond pathetic, however much money you throw at it.

Zero out of ten. Sorry.


I am an unabashed fan of Mr. Leconte. In fact, I have never seen a bad film from this director. Every film of his is completely unlike the others, and yet they all have his unmistakable stamp.

Rue des Plaisirs takes its sweet time setting its story up, but it all moves very quickly, pace-wise, and the simplicity and beauty of the images is wonderful, and the little fable is ultimately very touching. Mr. Leconte rarely overstays his welcome - his films have reasonable running times and they say what they have to say and then they're done. If you don't know this director, you should seek out his films, especially Monseiur Hire, Intimate Strangers, The Widow of St. Pierre, Ridicule, and the great 1 Chance Sur Doux, with Belmondo, Delon, and Vanessa Paradis.


This movie caught my eye while I was channel surfing. I don't know what kept me from changing the channel despite the slow, unstructured plot - but I'm glad I stayed with it. The story is highly predictable, but I think they didn't try to avoid that. Instead, they tell the story in a very creative way. I can see why it would annoy those who like a very structured movie. But this movie is kind of like listening to a song without really caring about the words. Likewise, the story isn't really the point here, it's about the characters in the story.

Midway through the movie, I was pretty sure the lead actress was Casta, but I didn't even know she had an acting career. I look forward to seeing more of her. She was very graceful, above obviously beautiful, and helped center the rest of the cast. I really loved the sets and the costumes as well, and I believe this is the first time I've taken a line to mention this in a review. All these little things put together made it an enjoyable viewing experience, as long as you believe enough in the characters to want to know what happens to them.

You'll probably never seek out this film unless you're already a fan of Casta. But if the mood fits you right, or you simply like movies set in the '40s, this can be a very rewarding film.


The plot of this movie is cliché. The characters are at best one dimensional. The way the gay-scene is pictured borders on the ridiculous, and would be insulting if it weren't so stupid. The dialogue is beyond bad. The photography has the quality of your average home movie. The acting is wooden. The direction is direction-less. Why do the characters switch from Dutch to bad English all the time in the dialogue? Why was this film made? Why? But: I enjoyed watching it. To see just how bad a really bad movie can be. Compared to this, "Intensive Care" (another Dutch gem) is a masterpiece. "Gay" is unbelievably bad, bad, bad. Rent it, just for a few laughs. and who knows, maybe Mr. Six will come up with a new movie! Could be fun!


As a Dutch gay man I am ashamed that this movie was made here. There is not one good thing about it. And the other review here is simply nonsense. This movie isn't even worth mentioning in the same sentence as the other movies referenced there, and I won't.

The acting is horrible, the story is retarded and the poster art is offensive.

Please do not watch this movie, you might get a very wrong impression of the Dutch gay scene. Also please do not think anyone involved with this movie has any respect in the Netherlands.

This might just be the worst movie ever made...


I saw this movie at the Amsterdam Gala Premiere and although I didn't have high hopes for it, it turned out to be even worse. The film, which is supposed to be a reflection of normal gay life in Amsterdam, is filled with stereotypes, clichés and stuff that no gay man will find recognizable.

The story is bad (the main plot a total rip off, as the main character has the same kind of problems with the words I love you too as Patrick Swayze's Ghost character), camera is bad, lighting is bad and guess what acting is bad.

If you are into "bad" b-movies, gather your friends, open up lots of alcohol and you will have a night filled with laughter. Especially the more dramatic parts of the film brought loads of tears (because I was laughing so hard) to my eyes.

I heard Tom Six is planning a sequel (this time with lesbians), but after seeing his first, getting the feeling of crawling back into the closet, I hope he reconsiders before he damages gay acceptation even more.


i watch whatever gay themed thing comes out and i tend to enjoy even the slated ones. This movie is awful, it goes no where and there was absolutely no point in making it or in anyone of us watching it.

Don't bother even watching it to check how awful it was, just save the hours of your life for something else. Try, Beautiful Thing if your English or 'O Fantasma' (The Phantom) if your into something that you want to be left thinking about and you don't mind subs.

People have suggested that its funny but it really doesn't come across as that in the English bits or the subtitled bits.

I imagine that it was written by a gay dutchman who had experience of these most important things going on in his life. He sadly didn't think about the fact that no one would care cause there not important.


I saw the film in the Dutch cinema's and I liked it very much. It's controversial but that's exactly what I like about film, it does something with an audience. This film provokes a lot of different reactions. The movies feels like a extravagant soap episode and I can absolutely recommend this film to men and woman. It's funny, controversial and unique. I want to applaud Tom Six for this daring movie. I hope to rent this movie abroad and I also look forward to his next film about a lesbian love. I am sure it is gonna be even better than Gay in Amsterdam! Enjoy the movie and don't take it too serious like so many people do!


This film was given bad reviews by both the gay and straight press. I don't understand why as there are some terrible Dutch films that are rated more highly. (Karakter; Wilde Mossels; De Grot) These were truly awful films without ANY real narrative structure to make you want to continue from frame to frame. Unfortunately one of them got an Oscar and so the Dutch have continued to produce pretentious unwatchable films that even their own population run away from.

In this context 'Gay' had all the basic simplicity of a high class soap opera (think Dynasty) and over the top characters that with more intelligent handling could have come out of Fassbinder. In fact the first two thirds of the film were harsh in a way that could only alienate both heterosexuals and homosexuals. I mean what straight man is capable of sitting in a cinema and watching so much male kissing or so much gay sex? Not many! And for a mainstream homosexual audience self-criticism does not often come easy. The men lead shallow, selfish lives and seem to live on a diet of sushi and champagne. This was not 'Another Country' and neither was it a wish fulfillment fantasy about finding the ideal boy next door.

Unfortunately after this promising start the film fell apart in the last section as soon as one of the characters put on a dress and we entered 'La Cage Aux Folles' territory. It seemed to me that the director had suddenly thought ' Oh my God what of the straight audience and their reactions?' A man of course, in a dress, being hysterical is not a threat.

This was not a bad film and certainly given its limitations was far more watchable than most Dutch efforts. It had a few laughs which is rare in a Dutch film and it made you want to see how it would work out. The fact that the working out was a disappointment was just a pity. I think it's time the Dutch made another homosexual film but not call it 'Gay' which is plain boring and which leaves nothing for those who have a queer perspective.


It's a sleeper, a B movie, a thriller about relationships, obsession, and a million other things you should never do in your own life. Saw it on HBO, and it came out of nowhere; never heard of it before. It's a pretty good watch, good for renting. While not the best written film out there, it's got good performances and enough plot changes to keep you guessing. I thought Samantha Mathis stood out in this, as did Everett Scott. The rest of the cast were okay. I wanted to tune away, thinking it was going to really suck, but it kept my interest and by the end, I was terribly interested. Nice movie to see accidentally, especially, as others have noted, if you know nothing about it.


Radio talk show advisor finds himself obsessed with his ex girlfriend, stalks her and then begins to see one of her friends, to make her jealous. (?) Meanwhile his friend and co worker becomes involved with the ex and complications arise from their respective jealousies and compulsive behavior.

Smoothly done and fast paced with a good cast headed by Settle.

Worth renting.


I rented this movie at Blockbuster recently; I always rent movies instead of going to see them while in the theater. Too expensive; and usually are out too soon; but I'm sad to hear this one went right to video release; skipped release in the movie theaters. I'd like to know who decided to do that. There are so many stupid movies out there now, and this one is not one of those. That I just found out doing an "after viewing" search on Matthew Settle; betting I saw him in "I know what you did last summer" originally renting the movie because I am a "Samatha Mathis" fan. Oh well. Just wanted to give my vote as the movie's worth seeing; both Samantha Mathis and Matthew Settle are great in the movie; more impressed with Matthew's roll, but he had the lead roll too. Cheers!


This was a interesting movie that had a terrific turn of events at the end. The movie seemed to create true to life account of an obsessive love and the downfall it can take when you have your "friends" knowing every detail. It was interesting to see how the tables turned with the obsession but that all the "players" were given only one account of the obsession...not the fact that the object of desire ( Liz ) was creating the drama and actually "got off" on it but in the end ..she learned that playing two ends against the middle doesn't pay off.


Attraction is a melodramatic sleeper that never picks up. An obsessed ex boyfriend freaks out his old girl with stalking so what. This film is not exciting, entertaining, nor even interesting in the least. This movie is not scary; it even goes so far as to mention how harmless this stalker really is. So what exactly is Attraction? A waste of time. The characters are pathetic, all of them, and poorly acted to boot. This is one of those films in which you will catch yourself repeatedly looking at the wall instead of the screen out of sheer boredom. The worst part is that the whole time I was waiting for something cool to happen, but this film never picks up. Overall Attraction took away an hour and a half of my life that I want back. This movie sucks.


Perhaps first time director Russell DeGrazier will turn into something one day, but it's not going to be on the basis of this movie. Decent actors, but overall an uninvolving script with characters that I didn't care a fig about. The abrupt ending is blessed relief from the boredom.


The cast -- Gretchen Mol, Samantha Mathis, Tom Everett Scott, Matthew Settle -- are excellent. Since hardly anyone will see this movie, it won't hurt their careers. The movie stinks. It also leaves a bad aftertaste in the mouth. The cast makes it watchable, though.


an absolute piece of "drivel"...and BORRRINGGG!...yikes! No wonder this film went straight to video. Somebody must of suspected something. Total waste of time and money (even with video's being cheaper) A "1" vote is being generous here. Believe me...take a chance on something else and leave this mess at the video store,


I watched this film in a park on my laptop, and ended up attracting crowds of people staring at the hysterically laughing foreigner. I figured after having already seen it once, it would be safe to try again as I was waiting on a bus, but the same unrestrained hysterics ensued. As soon as the bus stopped, I made a beeline for the first dvd shop and bought my own copy.

For a film about a masked wrestler, there is surprisingly little cheesiness to this film. We follow a downtrodden banker as he invests his self esteem in the sport, and first see it treated in a very realistic, everyday way, without dramatic music or camera angles and are allowed to see the inherent ridiculousness of it. As the film builds up, and becomes more stylized, it hasn't made a grand statement about wrestling, but allows it to be seen as reality.

With this, the fight sequences become one aspect, while the real heart of the movie are the Mr. Bean like physical comedy bits where the main character tries to get respect in his everyday life. While a few key scenes take place in the ring, the best bits are in the office, on the street or in the park. In tone, pacing and style of humor, I'd call this film the Office Space of Korean cinema.


Kang-Ho Song is a genius.

He reminds me of Buster Keaton. What is amazing is to see the other films he is in. Once you have seen this, make sure you check out YMCA Baseball, and then for something completely different, JSA (Joint Security Area). It is clear that some of the best films lately are being made in Korea, and he seems to be a part of them. His gift for physical comedy is remarkable, and this movie keeps going in directions I did not expect.

Anyone who has worked in an office will understand this film. It is not only for WWF fans, in fact I HATE Wrestling...but this is something altogether different.

Do yourself a big favor, see Foul King, JSA, and YMCA Baseball, and then lets start the North American Kang-Ho Song fan Club.


This outrageous comedy was a box office smash in Korea for a reason. It was hilarious and poignant! The direction was terrific as the tone was always right on, and placed every event into the evolution of the story. The absurd slapstick humor hides the statement about barriers of social status and changes to one's life. The performances make this film even more outstanding.


This film was released only a few years ago, constructed from footage almost three decades old. One wonders why it had never seen the light of day before. "Message to Love" is an instant classic, a rock documentary that deserves to sit up on the same mantle as "Woodstock", "Monterrey Pop" and "Gimme Shelter". The Isle of Wight Festival in August of 1970 was the last of its kind, an event that was supposed to be an English Woodstock but descended into utter chaos as the Aquarian hippie ideal knocked heads with the emerging juggernaut of a corporate music industry ready to mass-market a "product" to the growing legions of rock fans. But despite the hypocrisy, mismanagement and unruly behavior that director Murray Lerner ("When We Were Kings") so keenly observes, he does not lose sight of the fact that a lot of great music went down during those five days. With an amazingly eclectic lineup that has Miles Davis and Tiny Tim as its polar extremes, Lerner and his crew captured many memorable performances from both the icons of the 60s and the rising stars of the 70s. If your memory of rock festival flicks is limited to the good vibes of Monterrey or Woodstock, you'll likely be taken aback by the unrestrained belligerence that permeated the air at Wight. Rikki, the so-called "Master of Ceremonies" is the lightning rod here, as he both patronizes and berates the hordes who have descended on the festival site. It turns out that some 600,000 fans have reached the island by ferry but only a fraction of those have any intention of buying a ticket. A tent city called "Desolation Row" sprouts up on a nearby hillside and is populated by folks who are determined to get a closer view at no charge. This tension is reflected in the selection of onstage peformances, like the Who (very much in their prime) ripping through an incediary "Young Man Blues" and the Doors' sinister versions of "When the Music's Over" and "The End". The Isle of Wight has long been notable for being the last performances of both Jim Morrison (he would be gone within a year) and Jimi Hendrix, who died less than three weeks later. Hendrix's appearance here only adds to his already large legacy--his music sounds as revolutionary as ever as he wails away on three songs with the Band of Gypsies, including an otherworldly "Voodoo Chile". "Message to Love" also opens a window onto the growing compartmentilization of rock, with three genres taking root at the start of the 70s. Hard rock (Ten Years After, Free, Rory Gallagher), singer-songwriters (Joni Mitchell, Leonard Cohen, Kris Kristofferson) and progressive rock (the Moody Blues, Jethro Tull and the audacious debut of Emerson, Lake and Palmer)are all competing for their slice of an increasingly large pie. With Rikki and the other promoters dubiously claiming that no other bands will take the stage without being paid in full with cash (in hopes of getting potential gatecrashers to pay up) the musicians are caught in an uneasy position. Trying to show they are "of the people" while knowing full well they are not going through life playing for free, it makes for some of the most interesting stage patter on record. Lerner lets the fans have their say as well, including one who notes that the bands are becoming "plastic gods" while another vividly describes the festival as a "feudal court scene"--with the stars as royalty, the groupies as the courtiers and the audience as the serfs. He may have gone one step farther and noted the moat-like double fencing with a dog-patrolled no-man's-land in between (actually closer in design to the former Berlin Wall) that serves to hopefully keep out the Desolation Row "barbarians". But as one of the promoter's people notes, in the end it doesn't matter if the music's good. This is true enough as the film closes with the Doors, Hendrix and the Who being edited in for one more song each. An uneasy truce is reached but when Rikki flashes a double peace sign at the crowd he only succeeds in looking like Richard Nixon. An era has passed before our eyes as the rose-colored glow of the 60s counterculture is smudged by the inevitable rise of the mass-consumer pop marketplace.


This film chronicles the 1970 Isle of Wight Rock Festival from behind and on front of the scenes. Incredible concert footage of Hendrix and Jim Morrison (both of whom died just after the festival) as well as numerous other pop, folk, and rock artists make this film wonderful just as a concert video. Even more revealing, though, is footage of the festival's production and management, including riots, rebellious patrons, break-ins, and mordant commentary on why rock festivals don't happen anymore. Beautifully paced and edited.


I have perused the comments here and must say I have very little to add. Then again, I have to have a minimum of 10 lines here, or this comment won't get posted. Obviously, if you have taken the time to find this film and watched it, you are intelligent enough to pick up on all the nuances that a filmmaker like Murray Lerner puts into a project like this (as the comments here reflect). With all the shortcomings of the era being shown in full detail, we still have to also admit that the music then was great, and maybe even wish that music today could be so good. Then again, you can only invent a musical language once, and the process of doing it will always be remembered more fondly than when the music continues without the same degree of innovation. The issues of the 1960s may have lost their gravitas today, but hopefully a film like Message to Love might reveal a failure of methodolgy, not of purpose, and perhaps even allow us to remember that Vietnam and the assassinations of JFK, MLK and RFK were among the most important events this country has ever faced--which might be why the music was also so timely and good. If you want some more information, I did an interview with Murray Lerner:

"Murray Lerner's Film: Message to Love: the Isle of Wight Music Festival 1970. An Interview by Gregg Wager." Doors Collectors Magazine. Ed. Kerry Humphreys. Apr.-Oct. 1997: 11-15.

It's no longer available online, but ask me about it and I might be able to get you a copy.


Rory Gallagher & Taste - raw energy and talent - stole the Isle of Wight festival. They had 3 or 4 encores. Fusion of jazz and blues. Rory mixed all genres of blues - from acoustic, Mississippi Delta, Chicago.

He combined a guitar style with his singing - that made the guitar sound like an extension of his voice. Wailing away.

Eric Clapton was like a sheep in comparison to this Celtic tiger.

Some songs include: Bullfrog blues, Used to be, Cant believe its true. For the last time. Sinnerboy. Messin with the kid, What in the world.

Hes played with the greats - including Jack Bruce in Rockpalast concerts. Playing with Muddy Waters in London was the highlight of his career.


this is a great piece of the late 60's early 70's festival scene. It is a real moving tribute to a more free wheelin' lifestyle, being that it is one of the last major festivals.

Although, a lot of the festival turned out badly (cops being uptight about drugs, violence in the audience, performers threatening not to play because of money, on-stage fires, etc.), an underlying message of hope and peace prevails.

The film shows the dying nature of the ideal "hippy" spirit and marks a change in time from the revolutionary late 60's to the more straight laced 70's.

Performances by Joni Mitchel, The Who, The Doors, Joan Baez, etc. make it a great concert to watch.


It was great to watch this film and see live footage of the great Irish rock guitarist Rory Gallaher, performing with his band Taste. Sadly, Rory is no longer with us. Indeed, watching this film showed just how many of our famous and infamous rock stars have passed away since 1970. Hendrix, Morrison, Moon, Entwhistle, Gallagher - all gone to that great gig in the sky.


For fans of the musical acts that performed at this one of a kind concert, Isle of Wight is a must-see look. The interview sections are not of the high quality of those of Woodstock where you might have taken away something from what was being said. Here it's mostly a lot of ultra-hippie types (one who apparently gave his 3 year old son acid and pot), as well as some British fellows who run the concert. These interviews are OK enough on their own, and maybe the biggest liability from Lerner on this end as well as the music is in the editing. It's only a 2 hour film, which regrettably (like Monterrey Pop) is way too short in viewing such a monumental moment (and fleeting one like Altamont) in such a short running time. Still, almost every musical act is worth checking out in their limited time frame, and a little extra sadness comes along in seeing that a few of these people didn't live long after the concert ended. Some of the memorable acts include the Doors (all too brief of course), Jimi Hendrix (ditto), the Who, Miles Davis (in different form from his 50's days), Ten Years After, the Moody Blues, and Free.


I find it very interesting that it took 25 years to get this documentary seen. Meanwhile there are now generations who believe the Woodstock myth: That one should follow one's instincts and intuition minus logic minus reality. (Yes I know there are better aspects of the dream.) Even the more well known Altamont festival took years to be as known as it now is, which still pales in comparison to Woodstock. Everyone knows Woodstock. Just as everyone knows the flower power myth and the San Francisco dream. Yet the media didn't really cover the failure of the hippie dream. (The media also hardly covered the deaths of Hendrix, Joplin and Morrison.) I suspect that was for two reasons: One, it didn't mean that much to the straight media at the time; and two, there was a lot more money to be made off of the dream than off of its failure. And yet we all live in the fallout from that of that failure without really understanding it. Gimme Shelter, the film of the Rolling Stones at Altamont, is one essential document of the failure of that dream. And this film is another. I echo the words of the others here who recommend this to anyone interested in rock music. I would extend that to anyone who wants to understand why the present moment is what it is: Not as the final explanation but as a historical step along the way.

Yes there is brilliant music here. The Who's Naked Eye stands out as it does at the end of the film. And interestingly enough I'm sure it was placed at the end as a comment on the nature of such dreams. Pete Townshend understood fairly early on the failure of the dream. 'Won't get fooled again' is indeed the cynical motto of the years from Punk and Beyond. Now, however, even those words seem like a hopeless dream. I don't think we understand where we are until we understand that we will be fooled again and again, and until there is a major paradigm shift. As long as music is held in a divine light we will be drawn to it like locusts to a field of wheat. The new paradigm can't be left or right. Rather we need a view based upon intelligence over sensation. Yes Hendrix plays brilliantly here. But it doesn't make me feel good that he does. People worshiped him and let him kill himself. Ditto Morrison. Ditto the dream. See this film. Let your friends see it. Learn. Think.


Forget Monterry or Woodstock! This is 100 times better! First of all, the comments are like razor's edge! That was peace and love? Never! Money was everywhere! That was trouble? Some sort! This is a great film in a cinema point of view? Kind of. But where it stands in 2000 is about the music. It rocks hard in a way Woodstock had never done! Violent performances by The Who! Hendrix, Ten Years after, Free are great! Watch early bluesy Jethro Tull doing a fantastic number! But not really the Doors... More rare moody numbers are delightfull, like Leonard Cohen. See Joni Mitchell full of emotions, because a freak have gotten on stage to make music with her. To me, this is the truly early 1970's rock music. Not that hippie music from Woodstock.


This documentary takes a very honest and unflinching look at modern-day racism is suburban America, particularly how people like Bill Riccio take advantage of kids who have nowhere else to turn. The film looks at the inner workings of Riccio's home and group of neo-Nazis, from recruitment of new members to meetings of the KKK. In this setting, Bill Riccio and his followers recruit teens who come from bad home situations or have become homeless; they need a place to stay and someone to take care of them, but unfortunately, they end up with a racist extremist. Like a non-fiction "American History X," the directors were able to document the transition of several 'normal' teens into followers of the Aryan Youth Nation. The documentary filmmakers were allowed to view and tape events such as teens celebrating the birthday of Hitler and anti-minority marches taking place in minority neighborhoods. It can be difficult to endure, since many things in the film fall into the category of "Something I would never do," yet watching it is like seeing a train wreck; chilling and disturbing, but you just can't turn away from it. This is an informative and truly disturbing experience.


This documentary masterfully explores the world of Skinheads and the Klan in underground America. It is both entertaining and informative. I would recommend it to anyone who wishes to gain perspective on the topic of racial hatred.


"Skinheads" is a movie about good 'ole boys, who were never meaning no harm. Beats all you ever saw, they've been in trouble with the law since the day they was born. Straightening the racial curves, flattening the social hills, someday the mountain might get 'em but the law never will. They're just making their way, the only way they know how. But that's just a little bit more than the law will allow. Just the good 'ole boys, wouldn't change if they could. Fighting minorities like true modern day...Hitlers.

I very highly recommend this movie, because it sheds light upon a type of life that many cant see. It's a life full of burning crosses and the worship a long-dead political leader. I - of course - speak of the life of men with side burns. Jason Preistly depicted the side-burned male as a handsome, desirable person. but this movie shows these animals for what they are; hateful, flag-burning racists.


I was impressed by the non-judgmental view of Skinheads, as Cookson exposes the hatred you can find everywhere in the U.S. by simply turning on the cameras and letting these people reveal themselves to us. I'm sure some viewers will see this and think the opposite that I did about the people this exposes. There's a scene with people discussing different viewpoints on the streets of a city that I think illustrates the way this should be handled in America: open, non-violent discourse where each side listens to the other - I believe this is called "communication".

Very well done, and just after filming the skinheads shown here were arrested on weapons violation charges, which is another method the law has of getting rid of "undesirables" who otherwise may not be committing any known crimes.


unfortunately shows like these along the lines of American history X and romper stomper help fan the flames of hate for skinheads. in reality most skinheads are not neo-Nazis or neo-fascists. there are very few of these kinds of skinheads around and mostly referred to as boneheads. most skinheads are SHARPS (skin heads against racial prejudice) or really don't care. the funny thing about skinheads is that the subculture is from the Jamaican rude boy culture mostly a black subculture. so please just ignore this show and hopefully shows like these will go away and someone out there will finally make a non bias non ignorant show about skinheads. until then see the movie skin head attitude it's the closest you'll get to the truth through the media.


On the day of her wedding with Lex, Lana discovers the secret of Clark; Lex is blackmailed by Dr. Langston that threatens to reveal the truth about Lana's baby; and Clark finally confesses his love for Lana. When Lana decides to call-off her wedding to stay with Clark, Lionel forces her to marry Lex.

"Promise" is the worst episode of "Smallville", actually a boring soap-opera. The cinematography is magnificent, but the annoying Lana Lang and her "love story" with Clark Kent is awfully unpleasant, and I do not know why the authors insist in this nasty romance. The moaning Lana deserves to be part of the Luthor's family. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "A Promessa" ("The Promise")


This episode features huge climactic moments that have threaded not only through this season, but through the entire "Smallville" series.

The main story in this episode is the marriage of Lex Luthor and Lana Lang. However, many key moments happen that same day that culminate at the altar. Lex gets threatened by his and Lana's physician, Dr. Langston, to reveal the truth behind Lana's pregnancy. In return, Lex does something that most would regret. Lana has second- make that fourth or fifth- thoughts about marrying Lex, and in a huge revelation is finally convinced to back out before another menacing figure comes into play.

This episode was written so interestingly, telling the episode three times through the three main characters- Clark, Lex and Lana's- perspectives, following each person's experiences of the day from their individual point of view. The main question following this episode is: why did the "menacing figure" do what he did to Lana? This scene alone will need to be answered before the season concludes. Tom Welling did not act his part as well as he usually does; he seemed restricted because he had to portray a side of Clark (aka Lana-obsessed) that was the exact same five years earlier. Despite this, the storyline and revelations overcome any very minor discrepancies and sets a full table for the rest of the season.


Lots of gags and double takes by W.C. Fields dot this comedy. Fields does his normal shtick regarding the mumbling, sometimes mean-spirited insults, double-takes when loud noises occur, which was frequent; scheming people out of money, running from the law, etc. Fields was anything but moral giant which I suppose made him a lovable rascal in the eyes of many. It didn't hurt to have funny names such as this one, either: "Larson E. Whipsnade."

I enjoyed Edgar Bergen's performance more than anyone in here, including W.C., because he gave his famous dummy, "Charlie McCarthy," some of the best lines in the movie. That, and I liked Charlie's laugh.

Like a Marx Brothers film, this didn't have much of storyline, just a bunch of comedy bits by Fields and Bergen, plus a love interest between Bergen and Constance Moore, who played "Whipsnade's" daughter.

Eddie "Rochester" Anderson, from the old Jack Benny television show, also is in here, and sometimes feels the sting of W.C.'s racist remarks, which he could never say today on film, and justifiably so.

It was very entertaining, fast-moving and the best of the Fields movies, I think, even though Edgar and Charlie steal the show. I also think getting a DVD with English subtitles would make it even better, to catch all of W.C.'s lines, some of which are too mumbled to understand.


It is true that Edgar Bergan and Charlie McCarthy were far more effective in their national audience on radio than in the movies. This was due to the close-up affect of cinematography on Bergen's face - he could not hide the fact that his lips moved a little. When on a stage in a nightclub or in vaudeville he'd be too far away to be seen moving his lips. Not so on film.

But Bergan and McCarthy put ventriloquism on the map. Their act and radio show took the art of throwing one's voice and brought a biting humor to it, giving the dummy a real personality: a wise guy little man, with an eye for the ladies and an eye for making trouble for people he did not like (among whom was Fields). The feud of McCarthy and Fields mirrored the contemporary feud of Fred Allan and Jack Benny, except that Allan and Benny were both real. But on radio Charlie was as real as "Uncle Claude" was, so the fact that it was a block of wood that was manipulated fighting a real life man did not matter. The public just loved Charlie reminding Fields of his alcoholism, in particular his large red nose. And the public loved the threats of Fields to give Charlie a ride on a buzz saw.

Because of the strong personality of McCarthy, a movie audience even today looks at this film and tends to ignore Bergen's slight lip movements. Charlie is the real personality of interest, not Edgar - here playing a hard working young man who would like to marry Vicki Whipsnade (Constance Moore) but is resigned that she wants to marry a wealthy young wastrel instead. Bergen could act (look at his performance in I REMEMBER MAMA, as Ellen Corby's boyfriend/husband, and his comic scene there with Oskar Homolka regarding the dowry). But he did not have to act as Bergen here - all he had to do was let Charlie do his job (and, for that matter, let Mortimer Snerd do his work too in two scenes). The tricks used by the director to have scenes where Charlie appears without Bergan are just even more effective, as they enhance the idea of an independent comic personality coming out of the dummy.

For Fields there are many choice moments too. His walk, supposedly naked after a shower, across the circus grounds - hidden behind people carrying items, or elephants and other animals, until a lady screams and faints (and Fields is finally physically revealed to the audience) is a gem. So is his wrecking the Bel-Goodies engagement party, first by his mad ping pong match, and then by his insistence of telling the story of how his life was saved once by an intelligent rattlesnake (not realizing that Mrs. Bel-Goody hates even the mention of snakes). His interactions with the circus staff, with the idiotic Grady Sutton, with labor union organizer Edward Brophy, and with the various people buying tickets for the circus, or for that matter mispronouncing his name as "Larceny Whipsnake" are priceless. So is his own attempt at ventriloquism: he does it so you can't see his lips move, but you just can't believe he is throwing his voice. Well he is throwing dust or something else at that moment.

But it is his running confrontations with McCarthy, some of which he actually loses (he has one where he has to bribe Charlie at one point to keep quiet) that maintains the audience's attention. The film is one of Fields' best ones, and deservedly retains it's popularity to this day.


You Can't Cheat An Honest Man finds widower W.C. Fields running a second rate circus and trying to stay one step ahead of the law as he's creditors just about every place he goes. His children, John Arledge and Constance Moore attend a really posh Ivy League type school and you sympathize with Fields because you know this why he's probably not paying his bills. One also can speculate what his wife must have put up with back in the day.

Moore on a visit to Dad's show falls for the ventriloquist sideshow performer Edgar Bergen. But Bergen doesn't really get along with Fields or I should say his alter ego Charlie McCarthy doesn't.

The Fields-McCarthy feud was legendary on radio and it might seem hard to fathom how a ventriloquist could entertain on radio. But the characters he created were so powerful and had such a hold on the minds of the public that they were real. Charlie McCarthy and Mortimer Snerd were characters in their own right, they almost but not quite gained separate identities away from Edgar Bergen.

Anyway on Bergen's show, Bill Fields was a frequent guest and the repartee between Fields and McCarthy is still classic. Even without knowing that background, today's audience can still enjoy You Can't Cheat an Honest Man because the comedy is eternal.

There's not much of a plot except for Moore loving Bergen, but being ready to marry snobbish James Bush to help her father in his financial troubles. I'm sure you can figure out how that goes, especially when prospect in-laws Thurston Hall and Mary Forbes meet Fields at a little clambake they're throwing.

The circus offers a range of opportunity for some great gags including trying to pry Charlie McCarthy out of an alligator, an elephant who gives Fields showers on command and of course sawing Charlie in half during a magic act.

Still it's the repartee between Fields and Bergen and another of the unforgettable characterizations that Bill Fields brings us which makes You Can't Cheat An Honest Man a comedy classic.


1939 is considered to be one of the best years for filmmaking in Hollywood, and indeed it is,"Wuthering Heights","Wizard of Oz", "Gone With The Wind","Dark Victory","Ninotchka" just to name a few, all came out in that year. But one film seldomly mentioned along with these is, "You Can't Cheat an Honest Man," a fabulous comedy written by "Charles Bogle" is one W.C. Fields' greatest comedies. This one involves Fields (as Larson E. Whipsnade) as a crooked carnival operator, being constantly pestered by Charlie McCarthy, while trying to stay one step ahead of the sheriff. But it is all just an excuse to show Fields doing some of his best comedy routines. No real coherent plot, it dosen't need one! The barbs passed between McCarthy and Fields has them both in their prime. With Edgar Burgen doing some routines that made him famous. Mortimer Snerd even makes an appearance.And who can forget that ping-pong match! Watch then agree, that this is one of the best comedies of the time and deserving of being placed on the list of classics of 1939. Best Line: "Someone stole the cork from my lunch."


This has probably become Feild's most underrated film. It has a few clumsy scenes, probably the most questionable racial "jokes" (through, given the milieu, probably quite true to life), and a lot of screen time goes to Edgar and Charlie.

Still, it is quite a wonderful film; and it retains the fundamental wacko universe that defines top Feilds. Some of the circus stuff is pretty amazing too, and they get a fine performance from the Lion tamer.

I think the ending probably must have looked so bad in the editing room they just said the hell with it and went for the sort of non ending with Mortimer. No matter, it's a jem, and if not "A" grade W.C., it's very close.


In yet another variation of his "Poppy" role from his Broadway hit of the 1920s, Fields here plays Larson E. Whipsnade, owner of a circus. He has 2 children who have been off at school. The daughter, Constance Moore, feels compelled to marry for money. The son has no role.

At the circus, among Fields' attraction are Edgar Bergen and his dummies. Fields and Bergen had a solid chemistry and the radio "fued" between Fields and the dummy Charlie McCarthy were hugely popular. Their banter here is quite funny.

The plot is thin and revolves around the daughter's marriage and the financial troubles of the circus. But it's enough for Fields to build some hilarious routines around. The climactic ping pong game at the home of the groom's parents is very funny. Also funny is Fields dressed up as circus star, Buffalo Bella, the sharp-shooter.

Moore and Bergen have zero chemistry as the "lovers." But good support is provided by Eddie Anderson, Mary Forbes, Thurston Hall, James Bush, Grady Sutton, and especially Jan Duggan as Miss Sludge, the woman who starts the ping pong match. Duggan memorably co-starred with Fields in THE OLD FASHIONED WAY.

The Fields universe rarely goes well but there is a happy ending.


Actually, for the short number of years W C Fields worked in Hollywood, this is one of his better films. It features Edgar Bergen & his dummies Charlie McCarthy & Mortimer Snerd. All these stars have good sequences. The idea of getting these stars together came from the old time radio show feuds they were having on the radio. If your into old time radio, get a hold of some of these classics.

The film itself is ghost written by Fields about a crafty circus owner, Larson E. Whipsnade who is always one step ahead of bankruptcy & the law at every town he stops in. He is trying to help his daughter go to college.

The best sequence is when Larson E Whipsnade is selling tickets to his shows & a couple of seedy characters give him a large bill to make change of to pay for the tickets. Whipsnade counts out the bills like he is giving them too much change by doubling the bills over. The cons don't realize this until they try to take off with the extra change.

They return indignant to the ticket window because they have been shorted. Then Larson E. makes his most famous quote when refusing their refund, "Count your change before leaving the window!" The film itself is solid except for the ending which is a little fuzzy as to where the film is going from here. If it was left that way on purpose, no sequel was ever considered.


Edgar Bergen, the ventriloquist, was a big star on radio. This film shows why he and Charlie McCarthy were so popular. Building on their radio feud with the great W.C. Fields, Bergen and McCarthy add their unique talents to this inspired lunacy.

Favorite line: Fields has thrown McCarthy into a pit of a dozen snarling alligators.

McCarthy: Help me, Bergen! Get me out! Bergen: Which one are you in? McCarthy: Who cares? Get me out of all of them!

If you are an old-time radio fan, check out this little


W.C. Fields in top form, but Edgar Bergen and Charlie MacArthy are just as prominent (and as funny). The best scene involves Fields playing ping pong - it's easily one of the funniest sequences in film history. Another great scene involves Fields BSing about his exploits as a big game hunter. 8/10


There is something both enchanting and disorienting about watching a Christopher Guest film that features conventional camera angles and a narrative structure. It is a brave, and ultimately, a rewarding choice for a director who has built his impeccable reputation on the strength of his mockumentaries.

Like its predecessors Waiting for Guffman, Best in Show, and A Mighty Wind, For Your Consideration is largely improvised, and reunites the same winning cast. Gone, however, are several of the conventions of Guest's previous films. For Your Consideration avoids the need to give every last character an extended 'interview' segment and instead weaves minor characters naturally into the fabric of the story. The narrative structure also prevents Guest from relying too heavily on cuts to b-roll sight gags that, while funny, are never more than gags. By challenging himself to tell this story in the absence of these and other mockumentary techniques, Guest is allowed to focus instead on scenes that show how his characters really respond to one another in the moment.

Half the fun of course is waiting for all the familiar faces to show up, and discovering what crazy character they have inhabited this time around. All the usual suspects are back in For Your Consideration, playing a colourful array of Hollywood types. Insecurities, foibles - and just a few quirks - are in full display.

Jennifer Coolidge is a brilliantly clueless producer, and Eugene Levy has a nice turn as a somewhat smarmy agent who has no faith whatsoever in his client (Harry Shearer's Victor Ann Miller). Guest himself is hilarious playing director Jay Berman, and one only wishes that we got to see more of his rehearsals with the actors, as these are some of the funniest scenes in the film. Mike McKean and Bob Balaban are a fun team as the cowriters of Home for Purim, the movie-within-the-movie. Making his first appearance in a Guest film, Ricky Gervais grabs perhaps the biggest laugh of all with a line that I won't spoil here. And while Fred Willard and Jane Lynch are dealt very broad characters, their send-up of Access Hollywood is laugh-out-loud funny, and provides the perfect vehicle for Willard's boorish shtick.

John Michael Higgins is in amazing form as Corey Taft, sporting surreal philosophies on actors and life that outdo even his colour-worshipping character from A Mighty Wind. And the doe-eyed and endlessly endearing Christopher Moynihan tosses off several absolute gems in response to the inanity going on around him. Much like his character in the film, he's likely to go unnoticed in favour of some flashier performances, but deserves accolades of his own. He and Parker Posey have a sweet, unrehearsed chemistry playing actors in puppy love.

While it is impossible to give due screen time to all of the troupe's mainstays, some deserved better. Jim Piddock is dealt a potentially juicier part than he's had in the past, as the irritable AD who is all too aware that he's surrounded by idiots. But his screen time is far too short to let it amount to much, and fans wanting to see him play against type are better advised to check out his brilliant performance in See This Movie. Meanwhile, Ed Begley Jr. is hideously miscast as the film's token flamboyant gay man. Furthermore, having such recognizable actors as Claire Forlani and particularly Sandra Oh show up for bit parts in For Your Consideration is more distracting than anything, and breaks the illusion of the self-contained world that worked so nicely in Guest's previous efforts.

Despite all of the comedic talent on display however, this is Catherine O'Hara's show, and she more than delivers in her role as fading screen star Marilyn Hack. Her insecurities, dreams, and vulnerabilities are handled with such poignancy and humour that O'Hara fully deserves whatever accolades may come her way in the months to come. She is luminous.

If For Your Consideration comes up a little short, it is in the story department. The outline devised by Guest and Levy suffers somewhat from a lack of focus. If, as Guest insists, this film is not intended as a satire of Hollywood but is rather the tragicomic tale of what happens to someone when they are told that they deserve an award, we should be spending less time on all the Hollywood in-jokes and parodies, and more time with the characters themselves.

We don't learn quite enough about our main characters  those portrayed by Catherine O'Hara, Harry Shearer, and Parker Posey  to really understand how monumental it is for them to be caught up in the Oscar hype. We see that, professionally, they desperately need the break. But we get no perspective on how this effects their personal lives, or changes the way that they relate to the people closest to them. Where are their families? Their friends? They don't seem to have any. And if that was the point in and of itself, it wasn't brought across clearly enough.

Whatever the film's shortcomings, it is the smaller details that are purely Guest which make this film a triumph and future classic: Guest's perfect intonation as he instructs one actor to deliver his line as though "Mommy is going now?", Jennifer Coolidge jumping in at the absolute perfect moment with "But what about me!?" in the midst of a heated argument that has nothing to do with her, or the sight of Harry Shearer suddenly wearing Rachael Harris' hat to help him get into character. These are the small moments that give Guest's works the rare distinction of being films that get progressively funnier with each viewing.

My hope for the next Guest film is that it continues to stretch the troupe in the way that these last two films have done. Ideally, we'll see an improvised, narrative comedy with some heart, all the expected hilarity and a little more plot structure. Until then, here it is, for your consideration


I'm surprised by the number of negative reviews here for what I thought was in many ways Christopher Guest's most developed movie yet. Granted, you either like his movies or not, but as someone who loved Waiting for Guffman, Best in Show and Mighty Wind equally, I was in no way disappointed by For Your Consideration.

Maybe some of the humor here is easier to appreciate if you're Jewish, but that can't account for more than 5% of the jokes, and all of the actors were great. Particular kudos to O'Hara (as usual), Shearer, Lynch and Posey. The ET/Charlie Rose/Ebert & Roeper spoofs were hilarious and dead-on. The ending of the movie was truer than that of his previous films, and the ever expanding cast of Guest players made the viewing experience more fun than in the past (Sandra Oh, Ricky Gervais etc.).

My theory is that it's hard to approach a new Christopher Guest movie without justifiably expecting a lot, and great expectations often lead to disappointment. I was anxious to see For Your Consideration, but found it to be rewarding, very funny, and a little more poignant than usual (a good thing). Give it a chance and it'll grow on you.


I truly enjoyed this film, as did most everyone else at the World Premier in Toronto. Firstly, I haven't seen Spinal Tap, but of all the rest of his films, this is my favorite. His decision to depart the mockumentary format worked wonders in his favor. He didn't change his format so dramatically that you're unaware you're watching a Guest movie, it still carries his stamp. What he's done with this format is find a way to shave off all the somewhat boring bits that his other movies had durring the middle. Every second of this film was completely entertaining and will have you on the floor with laughter. The way he pokes fun of the silliness surrounding the Academy Awards is hilarious.

Guest himself probably gave my favorite performance as the director of "Home for Purim", with Jennifer Collidge coming in second as the producer. I truly can't wait to see this movie again when it goes wide release.


I look forward to Christopher Guest movies in the same way Ralphie did for his much beloved Red Ryder BB Gun in "A Christmas Story". Drenched with his deadpan wit, Guest's mockumentaries have been such well-targeted show business satires that it's hard to know when the script stops and the improvised reality begins. But that's a lot of the fun with his films, even though his newest is easily the most structured of the bunch. Along with constant co-writer and co-star Eugene Levy, Guest picks a target ripe with possibilities in this 2006 comedy, the Oscar-baiting season prior to the nominations, and surprisingly foregoes the direct interview format in favor of a more traditional narrative. I have to admit I miss some of this dynamic because the on-camera realism resulted in some of the funniest moments in the previous films.

Gratefully, what has been kept from his other films is Guest's stellar ensemble company of comic actors, and this time an even larger cast has been gathered, none of whom disappoint in this outing. The plot focuses on the production of a low-budget studio-bound film, "Home for Purim", a WWII-era family melodrama about a Jewish family in Georgia coping with the mother's terminal illness and the daughter's emergence as a lesbian. Directed by an authoritarian nebbish with an Art Garfunkel hairdo named Jay Berman, the film looks to be an overly sincere piece of tripe, but a blogger on one of the movie sites has predicted leading lady Marilyn Hack, a resigned, over-the-hill B-actress, will be nominated for an Oscar. This starts an Oscar buzz that engulfs the two other nominal principals of the movie, hot-dog pitchman Victor Allen Miller and "serious" actress Callie Webb, and the tidal wave of publicity drastically changes the direction and marketing campaign of the movie even before it's completed.

Guest and Levy fully capture the superficial pandering that occurs when the buzz is in full swing, and they particularly ridicule the ignorance and outdated thinking of those who find themselves in this lightning-in-a-bottle situation. There are acidic jabs at all the infotainment programs - "Entertainment Tonight", "MTV TRL", "The Charlie Rose Show" and "Ebert & Roeper"  but this is character-driven farce, and several stand out. In a brave turn as Marilyn, the wonderful and ever-dependable Catherine O'Hara superbly captures the almost overnight evolution from forgotten, timeworn actress into botox-infused, cleavage-squeezing A-lister wannabe. Harry Shearer gets his best showcase yet as the put-upon Victor whose mouthy agent Morley Orfkin refuses to take his calls until the buzz hits them. As Callie, Parker Posey is more in reactive mode here, though she has a funny Sandra Bernhard-like bit with her character's one-woman show, "No Penis Intended".

Everyone else gets less screen time, but they all provide memorably riotous contributions  Guest as Berman, Levy as Morley, Jennifer Coolidge as clueless producer Whitney Taylor Brown, John Michael Higgins as bromide-spouting publicist Corey Taft, Don Lake and Michael Hitchcock as the Love It/Hate It movie critics, Michael McKean and Bob Balaban as the academic screenwriters, Ed Begley Jr. as Marilyn's fey hairdresser (and biggest fan), Ricky Gervais as the oily studio honcho, and best of all, as the entertainment TV co-hosts, Fred Willard as mohawk-moussed Chuck Porter and Jane Lynch as gam-showcasing Mary Hart-knockoff Cindy Martin. I imagine Guest's reputation is the reason you see such high-profile actors like Sandra Oh and Craig Bierko in nothing more than bit parts here. The film takes a sharp turn toward the end that adds surprising vitriol to the laughs, and the vituperative tone makes the proceedings all the more devastating and resonant. More like "A Mighty Wind" with its dramatic undercurrents, this one is not as laugh-out-loud as "Waiting for Guffman" and "Best in Show", but it shows a continuing maturation in Guest's film-making technique that is most welcome.


I'm also surprised by some of the negative commentary around 'For your Consideration'. The satire seemed to me to be to be quite precise - particularly in its analysis of the average actor's life - which is a lot more like "For Your Consideration" or Ricky Gervais's brilliant "The Extras" than anything you're likely to see on Entertainment Tonight that is for sure.

Having studied method acting over several years (a long time ago), and having worked as an extra at different low points in my life (never ever again), I have to say that I laughed till I cried. Without giving the ending away,Marilyn Hacke's closing scene is so on the money - what a cracker!

Acting, actor training and film are all open to exploitation of the gullible because so many people are desperate to be part of it; consequently it's an area ripe for satire. For me, this was more on the money than "Waiting for Guffman" although I enjoyed that too. For your consideration has sharper edges. I think it's great that Ricky Gervais performs in this film. Gervaise is such an 'English' comic whilst Guest's sensibilities are very American - but in the shared fascination with human idiosyncracies, banalities and foibles, they both create a very contemporary form of the comedy of manners.


I love this acting troupe. They are a well tuned machine. Though this movie is perhaps a little "inside" of the Hollywood Movie Industry, and the publicity machine on which it is driven, all of the regulars and the new faces invited into the fold give wonderful performances and play their parts with just the right amount of camp with their tongues in their cheeks. I mean after all. don't many of us WANT to know about the inside of the industry? The duo entertainment reporters ( Jane Lynch and Fred Willard) are hilarious and Catherine O'hara's performance is masterful. (do I hear Oscar Buzzzz?) But that is not to say any of the cast's performances were not noteworthy. My whole family had a great time. This is not meant to be a Great panoramic epic, this is good clean hilarity from some of our favorite actors.

If you are a fan of "Best in Show", Waiting for Guffman etc, or you just want to get to know these gifted actors, DO go see this film, nap before you go so you can be happy and rested and hear the inside jokes that spark the guffaws heard throughout the theater. Zaina


Sooner or later, it was bound to happen. In an impressive string of wonderful mockumentary farces over the past few years, guiding lights Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy, and their brilliant comedic acting ensemble, have joyfully savaged the self-important cultural "worlds" of small town amateur theater ("Waiting for Guffman"), dog shows ("Best in Show") and folk music ("A Mighty Wind").

But a winning formula can't go on forever unchanged, nor should we expect it to. Inevitably, the group have hit a bump in the road with their latest film, "For Your Consideration," a send-up of Hollywood movie making and the assorted vanities of movie makers. Not that it's bad. But compared to those earlier works, it isn't inspired; it doesn't grab you with its efforts to lampoon; and the performances of the actors - always uniformly of a high caliber in most of their movies  is highly variable in this new movie. Perhaps the theme hits too close to home: it's hard to gain the distance necessary to properly ridicule your own ethos, your own cultural world. Or maybe it's just that the recipe Guest and Levy have used to such delightful advantage has just gotten old, for viewers and for Guest's company.

The plot, for what it's worth, concerns a film within a film: the making of a new movie, the ethnically freighted "Home for Purim," which is later rewritten and retitled "Home for Thanksgiving" to broaden its commercial box office appeal. All the stereotypes one expects are on hand: the avaricious executive producers; the harried director; the screenwriters, pained by the incremental decimation of their work; the aging stars in decline; the young up and comings; the vain chase after that holiest of grails: an Oscar, the hangers on  the parasitic, disingenuous talent agent, talk show hosts, film critics and entertainment reporters. They're all here.

Parker Posey (young actress possibly on the way up), Catherine O'Hara ((veteran actress on the way out), Jennifer Coolidge (ditzy producer), and Eugene Levy (actors' agent) provide decent turns but none of these superb talents gives a truly inspired performance here. Harry Shearer is better as a long-suffering actor who is glad enough just to star in a feature film after years of making commercials, Oscar or no Oscar. But the comedic scene stealers in this movie are three pairs of actors who play off each other to wonderful effect: Fred Willard and Jane Lynch as a TV entertainment reporting duo, Bob Balaban and Michael McKean as the beleaguered screenwriters, and Don Lake and Michael Hitchcock as Siskel-Ebert style TV critics. There are several competent cameo contributors as well, the best of whom is Carrie Aizley, a movie journalist.

This is decent fare, but I think Guest and Levy need to re-imagine their formula for successful farce. I never thought the day would come when I would regard a comedy written by David Mamet as superior to work by Guest & Levy, but here's a tip: if you want to see a good send-up of movie making, try Mamet's 2000 film, "State and Main." My grades: 6.5/10 (low B) (Seen on 11/15/06)


Lights. Camera. Satire! Such is the mantra of actor/director Christopher Guest's latest film, For Your Consideration, a parody of pretentious Hollywood ceremonies and the actors that suck up to them. With award season upon us, it would seem to be a very appropriate time for the release of such a film, and in fact, it isif only the film were good. Rather, the formerly hilarious Guest provides us with an interesting premise and not much comedy to back it up  only a myriad of underdeveloped and overly annoying characters.

Washed-up and nearly forgotten, Marilyn Hack (Catherine O'Hara) strives to gain recognition as a serious actress, barely surviving on mere crumbs of ambition. When she hears rumors of a possible Academy Award nomination for her role in the nauseatingly sentimental Home For Purim, she becomes obsessed with fantasies of fame and praise. As rumors of nomination begin to surround the rest of the cast, rivalry and obsession dominate the set, inflating the egos of the previously unemployed actors.

Since his 1996 film, Waiting for Guffman, many of Guest's films have achieved "cult classic" status and have been deservingly hailed as innovative comic gems by audiences and critics alike. His most popular films, Best in Show, A Mighty Wind, and the aforementioned Waiting for Guffman, all share a common bond they are "mockumentaries". Primarily dependent on the improvisation of their veteran actors, Guest's films are hilarious and often bizarre doses of comedy, thick with wit and absurdity. For Your Consideration, however, is not a "mockmentary," a simple descriptor that may be the cause of its failure. Substituting mere pity chuckles for full-bellied laughter, the film wastes the talent of its cast, providing them with a dull and dry script, and allowing no room for the celebrated ad-libbing that made Guest's previous films so successful. With talent such as O'Hara, Harry Shearer, Eugene Levy, Parker Posey, Fred Willard, Jennifer Coolidge, Ed Begley Jr., Ricky Gervais, and Guest himself, a film as chronically unfunny as this one is an absolute disgrace.

While the film successfully parodies "infotainment" television programming, the fickle entertainment industry, plastic surgery trends, and standard award season maudlin trash, it doesn't do so with any originality or inspiration. It seems as if even the cast were bored making this film. The performances are good, especially on behalf of the charming O'Hara, but are ultimately forgettable. Let's hope Guest either quits or finds a way to redeem himself, but regardless, one thing is for sure: there will certainly be no "consideration" for Guest this time around.


I don't have much to say about "For Your Consideration," except that I liked it, in spite of the negative reviews it received, and I wanted to say that here in case other viewers, like me, put off viewing it because the reviews put us off.

"For Your Consideration" is a small, brief (86 minutes), sweet, funny movie. It's not as laugh-out-loud funny as "Best in Show" (few movies are) but I liked it better than "Mighty Wind," which I also liked.

Christopher Guest's usual crew is in its usual fine form. Catherine O'Hara is funny in a whole new way, with at least one scene that is quite poignant and unforgettable, at least to struggling artists. John Michael Higgins does a very funny William H. Macy-like character. Jane Lynch is dead-on as an "Entertainment Tonight" style tabloid "journalist."

I even liked the ventriloquist Nina Conti -- and I normally run from the room when a ventriloquist comes on.


"Waiting for Guffman" was a little bit of genius. "Best in Show" and "Mighty Wind" expanded on the same concept: focusing on a sub-culture of people who take their little world entirely too seriously. Unfortunately, "For Your Consideration" lacks the subtle satire of Guest's recent efforts.

The beauty of the previous films was the bubble-world of the cast. The assumption of the viewer is, outside this microcosm, exists the "real world." That illusion is broken in "Consideration," with its all-too-broad send up of "Entertainment Tonight," "Wake Up L.A." and similar shows. It would have been funnier if the Oscar buzz was a complete construct WITHIN the set of "Purim", and then later, the realization there was no Oscar buzz at all.

The humor wasn't as sharp as previous efforts. For example, the handful of characters that were unfamiliar with the internet ... that didn't ring true. Worst of all, there's a cruelty toward the characters in "For Your Consideration" that didn't sit well with me. All in all, a disappointment.