I really enjoyed this movie, even better than No, which was also subtle and quirky. The dialogue is flawless. Both Lepage's sibling portrayals are spot on, the cinematography tricks are engaging and perfectly pitched, as is the supporting cast. My only quip is... boy, aren't there any literate Russians in Canada? There are at least two major misspellings, one above the entrance to Tsiolkovsky Institute in (presumably) Moscow (there is no such institution in real life). The other is on the poster at the airport towards the end of the movie. And the Aeroflot announcement on the plane to Moscow sounds just a little bit accented and un-Aeroflotish. Again, this is a great movie and should be widely seen.


What Konstantin Tsiolkovsky said of the moon also holds for this movie: it's the perfect escape for those who lead a heavy life. Small surprise 40-something Philippe (Robert Lepage) idolizes Tsiolkovsky, mathematician and pioneer of space exploration. Philippe is a dwarf in life, but a giant in his dreams. In one scene, we actually see him looming over his Montréal neighborhood like Gulliver in the Land of Lilliput. There's a frozen goldfish named Beethoven, a self-righteous younger brother (also Robert Lepage), and a loving mother who never speaks a single word (Anne-Marie Cadieux). The way Robert Lepage treats fact, fiction, dream, memory, and fantasy as aspects of the same, seamless reality are reminiscent of Michel Gondry, but in a minor key. "La Face Cachée" is a quiet movie, moving through the darkness with the solemn gravity of a heavenly body, in tune with the celestial harmonies of Benoît Jutras' original score. It's for you if you liked "The Science of Sleep", "Igby Going Down", "The Life Aquatic", or "The Man Who Wasn't There".


This Quebecois film is a charmer that redeems much else of dubious merit coming out of that bit of Canada which persists in its French-ness. I'm sure the director/producer/acting talent behind this film benefited much from the experience won producing the stage version. One can only wish him well in future endeavors, as this offering speaks well of his talents in each afore-mentioned area. As you've no doubt gathered from surrounding reviews the story line centers around a coming-of-age confrontation with family realities in a family none too conventional. Sex is central, as in seemingly all Quebec films, but is here more subtly handled. Approach this cinematic experience as you might any "art" film -- and then be prepared to be pleasantly surprised by its substance.


I could not understand what this picture was about. It has something to do with the relationship between 2 brothers and their deceased mother. One brother is interested in outer space and the other is a weatherman on TV. If there is a plot to this picture it went over my head and apparently others as well because some of the audience walked out during the picture.

This comment requires 10 lines of text but there is so little to say about this picture that I can't think of that much text. Certainly this is one of the most boring films I have seen in years. It is hard to understand how this film made it into any movie theater.


2012 the economy has hit bottom, broke through and has kept on descending. Along the way prisons have been handed over to the private sector that have chosen to make a profit by broadcasting gladiatorial style death matches starring the inmates, with the reward to the inmates after 5 victories  FREEDOM Enter Jensen Ames (Jason Stratham) a recently unemployed steel worker and former race car driver who lost his license but no matter how bad things are, he's a happy man as long as he has his family.

That is, until he's set up for the murder of his wife, imprisoned, and forced to compete in Death Race if he ever hopes to see his daughter again.

But enough of the plot! A paragraph blurb at the start and 8 minutes of character development is pushing the limits of this flick and that's not why a person would see a W.S. Anderson/Jason Stratham action flick and besides, a plot would allow "plot holes" and who needs to deal with that headache? The rest of the movie takes place in the 3 days of Death Race. The first 2 days are competition/elimination rounds reminiscent of Mario Kart as if it was designed by some rogue member of GTA on a disgruntled day but who loved the hidden short cuts and power-ups.

Amongst all the adrenaline filled action, Anderson makes sure to toss in the occasional character development or when he's feeling really daring he'll toss in some pseudo-dramatic realization our hero comes across which helps remind the movie-goer that the movie has a plot rather than just a string of explosive action sequence. All of this is done with the utmost use of cliché and designed to inspire the excitable little 12 year old boy in many of us to stay riveted in our seats as we wait for Jensen to strike with angry revenge for all he's been through.

The movie is everything a modern day movie aficionado should not like. It's brainless, sexist, ridiculously violent, and lacks any redeemable qualities. These are also all the reasons why I had so much fun with the movie. I went seeing what I expected and that's exactly what I wanted to see!


I always hate it when all those high class critics from the newspapers and journals bash a film for not being what THEY want it to be and not looking at it for what its SUPPOSED to be.

The title is "Death Race" after all. No-one ever expected it to win any golden trophies in the first place. So what if the acting was a bit bland and the plot was a little weak. That's not was the movie is supposed th be about.

It's not a Martin Scorsese film where you sit back and think "Oh, that is very thought-provoking and I feel that I've truly learned something inspirational today." No. This is a film where you sit back, look at it, and think "Holy ****!! Did you see that ********** explosion?!"

This is a film where you have fun in. Don't worry if you walk away with nothing meaningful to talk about at the end. Go ahead and laugh at its stupidity. I guarantee you you'll still have a much better time that watching something like Capote


Now here's an exploitation film that knows what a solid B-movie is supposed to be: an action-dense, amped-up, gore-soaked killfest. It's the cinematic equivalent of eating that entire box of Red Vines you bought at the snack bar, using them as candy straws to suck down your extra-large Coke.

As a fan of the original "Death Race 2000," I was pleased to see just enough of a shadow of the original movie inhabiting the skin of the new one. Roger Corman's name on the producing credits gave me hope at the start, and his seal of approval seemed to mean something, perhaps as counterweight to Paul W. S. Anderson's track record of shooting mediocre video game adaptations. Surprisingly, Anderson rises to the occasion, effortlessly elevating a cliché-rich but fast-moving script to the level of a satisfyingly adrenalin-fueled confection aimed like a bullet at the A.D.D.-addled brains of the short-attention-span generation.

Set in an "Escape From New York"-style dystopic prison-culture (that sounds suspiciously like current American society), slaughter happens, stuff blows up, and the weak are culled like bunnies caught in the headlights of gas-sucking American muscle cars. Fans of the "Twisted Metal" video game will love the newest wrinkle in the race, the addition of weaponry  a needed bloody bump for version 2.0. And what a bump it is, with each car's chugging machine guns indiscriminately spewing hot rounds at every foe, shredding Detroit steel like it was used Kleenex. It's unabashed gun fetishism at its gleeful best, and it makes you want to strap an M60 to the hood of your Prius in order to cut your commute in half.

Jason Statham does his standard tough-guy job as the scowling Frankenstein, Joan Allen plays a ball-busting warden (perhaps a bit in the mold of Louise Fletcher's Nurse Ratched), and Ian McShane of "Deadwood" has a solid cameo as the prison-wise mechanic, Coach. Even Machine Gun Joe gets a new incarnation in the form of Tyrese Gibson, who thankfully is nothing like Stallone's blustering Italian meatball.

I loved it, and can't wait to see it again in a theater with enough bass to pump up those impact crunches to the bone-jarring level they deserve.

Yeah!


Definitely better than the ridiculous "Righteous Kill", that we had the doubtful honor to view today also, at the same press screening, here in Bucharest, Romania.

"Death Race" is a honest to God action movie, without any bigger-than-life pretensions. The script follows correctly an old tested and tried recipe, everything is at its place, and although you can easily plot out the whole course since the beginning, somewhat even this sounds good - you simply have the guilty pleasure of savoring again a story that you know from dozens of other movies.

The influences from the racing video games are explicit, and well mastered - me, I fully felt as while playing "Death Rally". Even certain aerial shots are obvious quotes from the computer game imagery. The narrative is nervous and thrilling, the effects professional, the violence degree precisely balanced. Maybe the main virtue of the movie is the cinematography, with admirable chromatic and plastic values. All in all, what it promises, it delivers: a cheap show, well done.


I wasn't looking for anything deep, I wasn't looking for anything serious, no Oscar winning actors, no award winning script, I just wanted an action movie, this summer we got Death Race, a movie where the script and characters are just never explored, but the action is non stop and so exciting. I don't know why, but we just need action movies like that and one of the things that I did enjoy about this was that it reminded me of those old grind house films that have quick editing and fast paced stories that are just awesome stories to watch because of the stunts. This is a different form of The Fast and The Furious, only just not with all the fancy gadgets which I like. Also, Jason Statham, this guy is just awesome in action movies, he makes such a great lead in any action role and is such an awesome tough guy that you don't want to mess with.

Based off the 70's film "Death Race 2000", it's 2012, the economy is in bad shape, employment is down, but entertainment is up, especially in prison where racing has become the new gladiator fights. Jenson's wife is murdered and he is framed for it, landing him him in prison, where he is approached by the leader of the Death Race program, Hennessey, and she offers him to race for his freedom if he can make it out alive. But there's something a little deeper when it seems like he was put in prison on purpose so he could race.

Death Race is just pure entertainment, it's nothing original, we don't really know the characters that well or what their motives are, but the reason why this movie is enjoyable is just the awesome action that is endless. I loved the editing, it made the race scenes that much more exciting. I would recommend this movie if you are looking for fun, like I said before we just need a pure action movie sometimes and Death Race is a perfect film on that level. I had a great time watching this movie and am looking forward to seeing it again for a good time.

7/10


I just saw this film last night at a premier in Portland Oregon.Im not gonna give away any of the story because there isn't much of one which is fine in this case. Explolsions and murder and hot women plus Jason statham equals good movie. I went into this film expecting it to be disaster,and i say this only because I'm anonymous... it was good. Plenty of wow moments to cringe at and not just me but the whole audience. The driving does get a little repetitive but kudos to the director Paul w.s. Anderson for mixing it up. Plus it is a revenge story which everyone loves. BOTTOM LINE if you want to be entertained and don't mind a some violence see it it is worth the price of admission.


I went into Death Race with really no idea what to expect from it. I am a big fan of Jason Statham movies but the concept of this movie hadn't really made me too excited to see it. Nevertheless this is a great movie, the humor is spot on throughout the movie, though this is definitely no comedy. The action is fast paced throughout and they come up with some pretty creative ways for characters to get killed. I found the story to obviously be a bit far fetched with it being people racing in a prison and all but never that didn't ruin the movie at all and I ended up loving the storyline. Overall, the acting was great, and it had great effects and a good storyline. I consider this a must watch for those who love action movies. 9/10


"Death Race" puts me in a moral dilemma. Its deliberately trashy, shallow and inept, and for some reason I still like it. Making my feelings even more conflicted is the fact that it was directed by Paul W.S Anderson, a director who tries to turn movies into video games, and always fails. But as they say in Hollywood "you're only as good as your last picture" so Anderson is as good as anyone right now.

Not too far into the future our economy has collapsed (maybe McCain won), poverty reigns supreme and crime has become unstoppable. The prisons are filled beyond capacity, and Americas number one form of entertainment is watching the inmates fight to the death. The fights to the death got old and America needed something new. Death Race was invented. The concept is the same as death fighting, only you slug it out in an armor plated car with machine guns. The last man alive wins, and if you win enough races, you win your freedom.

Enter Jensen Ames, a former Nascar driver prior to his prison conviction, who loses his job when the local steel mill is closed. He goes home to his wife and infant daughter, only to have a masked man break in and kill his wife. Ames is framed for the crime and sent to prison.

Ames is sent to prison, where the warden Hennessey, played with excellent restraint by Joan Allen, informs him that he must replace Frankenstein, the most popular death racer, if he is ever to leave the prison. Ames agrees, and the games begin.

As a satire "Death Race" completely miss fires. The opening prologue informs us of the downfall of American society, and its never brought up again. Were informed that Death Race has become more popular then the Super Bowl with more then seventy million viewers but we never see one of those people watching. For some reason the drivers are paired with sexy women to navigate, even though they have a pit crew to do that. The women are in it for ratings, to make a statement about our own for sex as well as violence, but the viewers cant see the women inside the cars, so how do they help ratings? Just a few examples of the missed satire.

But this isn't an Oliver Stone movie. When you buy a ticket to see "Death Race", you want to see some death and some racing. And you get both, but mostly death. The racing scenes are electrifying. The combination of great stunt work, special effects and art direction give this films action the boost of adrenaline it craves. Andersons vision is to immerse us in a "Twisted Metal" video game, and he pulls it off with magnificent results. He captures the sadistic mentality of "Twisted Metal" perfectly. One driver turns his car around just to shoot another driver.

"You cant drive backwards" his partner remarksI beg to differ. That scene will remind "Grand Theft Auto" fans of many rampages.

Anderson keeps his eyes on the finish line and "Death Race" moves towards its conclusion in a heart beat. Despite my immersion in the story, it was way too predictable. The framed for murder set up is too obvious, and before you can even figure it out for yourself they give it away. And as for the ending, only a few things can happen at the end a prison movie, and you know what they are. But despite the twists you can see coming a mile away, they're still satisfying. "Death Race" is one of the few examples where a bad script can become a good movie.

The acting is wonderful all around. Jason Statham is a read deal action super star. He's got the physique of Van Damme and a million times the acting ability. His character's quest to see his daughter gives the film its only sliver of humanity, and all a prison movie needs is a sliver.

Joan Allen as the warden plays her character so tightly she could probably crack a cashew with her but cheeks. Hennessey is so tightly wound I often wondered is she was going to implode. And towards the end she gets a chance to deliver some perfectly timed profanity. Maybe the last four letter words you;; ever hear out of her mouth.

Newcomer Natalie Martinez has infinite sex appeal as Case, the sexy vixen who rides in the passenger seat beside Ames. But more then a pretty face she gets a chance to act, and proves shell be around for years to come.

Ian McShane is perfect as the simply named Coach. His job is to coach. His weathered face and gravelly voice perfectly fit's the prototype of a man who's spent a long time in prison. But he was good in a stinker like "Hot Rod", so its no surprise here.

Director Paul W.S Anderson has always attempted to make his films into video games, and "Death Race" really does play like a video game. That's the films intention and it works. It satisfies the blood lust lurking deep within us all. Society hasn't gotten to the point where we watch snuff films but watching fictional people kill each other is still loads of fun, and so is "Death Race".

¾ stars


Regardless of the politically-correct finish to this film and the predictable prison stereotypes, this was a fun film to watch simply because it entertained. It was a good diversion, filled with total nonsense mayhem and testosterone-gone-wild. In other words, this was a typical Jason Statham film. No matter how many of these ultra-macho men he plays, he gets away with it with charm and likability.

In this story, Statham as "Jensen Ames" is like David battling Goliath but with no slingshot and Goliath having a flame thrower and AK-47, too. Yet, you just know "David" will a find to defy all odds! Here are some movie clichés of today. See if they sound familiar.

Not only has our hero suffer with his beautiful and loving wife murdered, but he's framed for the kill. Sent a brutal prison, he finds the female warden is responsible, and the killer of his wife also is in the jail. Too add salt to the wounds, that guy taunts "Jensen." Filmmakers haven't made a nice-guy warden since the 1950. Here, the sadistic boss is a woman: "Hennessey," played by Joan Allen, who I thought had some class before I saw this film. Spewing the f-word, "coc-sucker" and a few other choice words, sort of ruined that image I had of her.

Anyway, the mean old warden got our hero in prison there so he can be the new "Frankenstein" race driver. The races at her prison, it turns out, are filmed live and are big internet moneymakers for her. "Frankenstein" is the favorite driver of the computer-audience but he's too injured to go on, so "Hennessey" recruits Mr. Ames, whom she knows is a great driver.

Mostly there are nothing but bad folks in here and a lot of ultra-violent scenes, one-after-the-other. You also have other cliché prison characters, the kind you see in all prison films since "The Longest Yard." Beware of jiggling hand-held camera scenes, if that kind of thing gives you a headache.

Having said all that, I admit the film is interesting start-to-finish, the racing scenes terrific, the film effectively manipulative, and overall qualifies as a decent means of entertainment. Statham is the new Steve Seagal, Jean-Claude VanDamme, etc - but that's okay; some of their movies were fun to watch, too.


Ah, Race cars. Gotta love 'em. I'm not a huge fan of NASCAR myself, but hey, whenever I'm over at my Grandpa's house sometimes, I'll sit and watch. It's fun, and it sure is better than being bored when your laptop can't get any internet (which is true, though I'll use their desktop sometimes). Watching those shiny little cars race down the racetrack at full speed sure is exciting, and is an edge-of-the-seat pastime activity, because it sure gets your adrenaline going.And it's also nice to see every single tiny space of the seating capacity packed 'till there's no seats for more people is nice, because it's interesting to see how many people would have spent hard earned cash to see this big event. I've never been to a racing course myself, but I sure as hell hope that next summer I can go to the Edmonton Indy. Sure as hell looks fun. I'll see if I can check it out!

But now that I got my NASCAR crap out of my system, racing cars can be fun. But has anyone ever thought of racing cars... while in prison??? With extra guns and shields added to your car, so you can kill any son of a bitch that gets in your way? Well, if anyone has ever wanted to see that, come one come all to DEATH RACE- the new film from Paul W.S. Anderson. That sounds dumb, doesn't it? Well guess what- IT AIN'T DUMB TO ME!!!!!! Having wanted to see it since the trailer showed with Wanted, I was excited when I walked into the theater to see it because it looked fun and cool. I think Jason Statham is a great actor. He has given us performances in some of my favorite movies like Crank, The Transporter Movies, and Ghosts of mars.

*WARNING: The following may contain spoilers* Jason Statham (Crank, War, Ghosts of Mars) stars as Jensen, a hard-working construction worker whose company has been shut down for good. When the SWAT team arrive and start forcing people to get out, Jensen comes home to his beautiful wife and baby, and his wife is just making dinner when the baby starts to cry. Jensen goes upstairs to calm the baby down. While this happens, Jensen's wife turns around and sees an assassin behind her. Oh noes! This doesn't sound good! When Jensen comes down the stairs, he finds that his wife has been murdered (and I tell you, it ain't a pretty sight). The assassin is still in the house, to make things even worse, if that's possible. Jensen is knocked out and the police mistake him for the killer, and is sent to prison on charges of murdering his wife. It's sad, isn't it?

Prison ain't such a fun place. Especially when getting your food spat in. That is made true when he gets into a fight with some tough guys there, and after that spat, he is sent to Hennessey's (Joan Allen, The Bourne Supremacy) office, where he is told that he has one chance to get out: DEATH RACE, a game in which you win 5 races to get out of prison for your own life. A previous racer, Frankenstein, has played and died. Jensen takes Frankie's place, and joins Coach (Ian McShane, Shrek the Third) and 2 other people, who help him get set up and other stuff. While racing against 14K, Machine Gun Joe (Tyrese Gibson, The Fast and the Furious), he gets a hot chick named Case, (Natalie Martinez, breakout actress) who is his partner, and together they race and try to find a way out of there. However, what Jensen finds out is that the man who killed his wife is in there, and he'll do whatever it takes to get back at him while still in there!

Death Race is a fun-filled romp through violence, blood and gore, and so many other things. Jason Statham is great and well cast in the movie, and he is a great actor too. Tyrese Gibson gives a great spin to the film himself. Joan Allen is pretty scary as Hennessey, and even has the movie's best line: "OK, c-cksucker, f-ck with me. See who sh-ts on the sidewalk." How that line was conceived, I don't know. But it sure is a great one liner. The race scenes are edge-of-your-seat fun. Great camera-work, and great explosions as well. The only thing I didn't like was that the movie was too short. It felt like it was only 40 minutes to me really, but otherwise that must be a good sign, because it's a fast paced thrill ride that will have you on the edge of your seat the whole time. If you ever wanted to see cars racing in prison, this is it, baby!


I saw this today when going to the movies with my family. When it said rated R for strange violence and language, I was anticipating really heavy blood and violence like when I saw the new "Rambo," which I didn't expect to be like what it was...

Jason Statham plays Jensen Ames, an ex-NASCAR driver who finds himself framed for murdering his wife in 2012 United States. He's sent to prison, but not just any prison. It's the jail used for "Death Race," a popular race where convicts race for their freedom -- and kill or be killed. The warden is this cool, cold, sadistic in a smooth way woman who wants our poor guy to race as "Frankenstein," a popular convict who won four out of the five wins needed to get free. But will Ames be able to win? This is a pretty good movie to be honest. I'm not a huge fan when it comes to gore. Yes, it has gore people. How else will convict play on the track? If you like Jason Statham and 89 min action, then see this movie. highly recommend it.

A total of 8/10 stars.


Before watching this movie, I've never heard of it. I watched this title because it was a spur of the moment kind of thing. I had no idea what this movie was going to be about, and no idea what genre it is. This movie was action packed, thrilling, amazing in every shot. Every scene and every shot is purposeful and totally meant to be there. The cinematography is flawless. The only flaw is that it was too good. It seems like a movie that seems worth watching again, but when you do watch it again, it seems kind of repetitive, kind of like transformers. It seems like it would be a good movie to watch if you're going to reminisce.


When you know you're going to see another pointless action movie, and you know it will have little to no redeeming value minus the action, and it STILL sucks, the problem has to be the action.

From start to finish, the movie was bland and boring. I wanted to leave after the first 5 minutes as it was, and after that it was like sitting through one of those bad documentaries at school for the other 2 hours. The action was predictable and just downright boring, generic, and pathetic. Add to that the utterly ridicules dialogue scenes that told you things you already know from the credits mixed with clichés from every single action movie ever freaking made, and it felt like I was watching a made-for-TV drama, not an action movie. You've seen this movie before. Hundreds of times.

The acting, as well, was horrid. The chick they got to play the cliché "bad prison woman" reminded me of Martha Stewart . . . dumbed down and made even more cliché than the real woman. At one point when a "bad man" character came on screen I had to say:"Look, it's Mr. Evil!" as he cackled with his huge nose casting a cliché shadow. Everything that could have been menacing in this film was laughable.

There is no more blood in this movie than PG-13 fares like Cloverfield, and it wasn't as violent as the PG-13 The Dark Knight. Every scene was a cut-off scene without anything graphic happening, and at some points even the fist fights were cut-off scenes. I cannot think of any movie with "violence" as utterly pathetic as this one. It barely earned its R-rating through a minimal amount of blood, and the rest was PG all the way.

I do not know why anyone would find anything in this entertaining. There was maybe a couple action scenes, and the rest was your mother's cliché TV drama. Am I the only one who wishes action movies were, you know, action-packed anymore?


Synopsis - In 2012, the United States economy collapses and life for everyone is not the same. Once a NASCAR champion, Jensen Ames, (Jason Statham), hits rock bottom and spent several years in prison. His life was improving and changing for the better after meeting and marrying Suzy (Janaya Stephens) and having a baby girl. Then the steel mill closes, and he loses his job. But that was not the worst thing to happen to Jenson that day. Suzy is brutally murdered, and he is framed for her murder. Jenson is sent to Terminal Island, the worst and toughest for-profit prison in the country run by Warden Hennessey (Joan Allen). She has created the country's most popular pay-per-view sport, a kill-or-be-killed car race where the inmates race to win their freedom from prison after 5 wins. Every inmate driver is driving a monster car that they built which is loaded with machine guns, missiles, flamethrowers, napalm, and no rules. Warden Hennessey convinces Jensen to secretly take the place of the late 4-time superstar winner, Frankenstein, and wear his metallic mask in the race. If Jensen wins just one race, he can go home to his baby daughter. To get to the finish line, Jensen must kill his competition before they kill him.

My Comment - This is kind of a remake inspired by the 1975 movie, "Death Race 2000," in name only. This movie stands on its own. The title "Death Race" tells it all. If you want to see an action pack race where all the drivers go through a gauntlet of death, then this movie is for you. There are some scenes that take the race to the max. If you ever had road rage, I am sure you would love to be driving one of these cars. You can see why the for-profit prison puts on these races, because I calculated that they would make a tremendous profit of $12.5 billion for 3 pay-per-view races. Jason Statham played his usually part as the tough kick-ass Jensen Ames very well. I know everybody will like the ending. (Universal Pictures, 1:39 minutes, Rated R)(8/10)


Jason 'one-dimensional' Statham appears in another film of brainless action and mind-numbing car races. The script is cheap recycled material, which exploits the unimaginative crash-bang-wallop of the film.

The films key audience is the young-gamer, gizmo's generation. The film is created as a fast-paced action computer game hoping lots of crashes, burning cars and weaponry will entice. For the majority Death Race is way too brash, ugly and destructive to appeal, indeed the car scenes are messily edited and repeated.

If the stereotypical and annoying characters are not enough to halt proceedings the endless one-liners should do the trick. This is where I can give Statham credit, he does have the ability to churn out cheesy and ill-opportune 'one-liners' with an ounce of believability and authority, which his co-cast cannot do.

Death Race is unashamedly one-dimensional and the idea that placing a few guns on tops of cars will appeal and make this an engaging film is hard to fathom. However, nowadays if you want to make money throw in some cars, guns, girls and booming hip-hop and you seem to generate an odd following.


Death Race is an action movie masterclass that stays very true to it's genre. It's fast, brutal and painstakingly brilliant. From the films opener to it's drooling and exceptional ending, Death Race is a man's movie. Jason Stathem, Ian Mcshay and Joan Allen also make this action movie worth watching. Watch for the humour, and believe me there is some, the fast paced story line that develops very quickly but without being rushed and of coarse the thrilling and viscerally brutal action.

Jason Ames(Statham) who is wrongly accused for the murder of his wife is forced upon to take part in a deadly race that takes place over three days on a remote island. He and the other in-mates must fight to the death in a brutal style of fast paced explosive action If Ames wins though he is granted his freedom

Girls, Guns, Cars and Action. What more could you want!


Jason Statham plays one type of character, but he almost always plays it to perfection: the suave, stubbly, and sometimes smarmy would-be Bond from madcap B movies like "Crank" and "Ghosts of Mars." Casting him as the lead in any film brings certain expectationsbasically, that our muscled mofo will deliver a smackdown to the badguys while delivering some catchy one-liners.

Paul W.S. Anderson is a director who makes one type of movie (granted, his "Mortal Kombat" is my only point of reference): the uber-rotten video game warm-over shot like something even more ADHD than a music video. His masturbatory editing makes the works of Michael Bay look patient and subtle by comparison.

So, after a year of being perpetually disappointed in Hollywood blockbusters and franchise revivals (oh, Indy, how could you?), "Death Race" has given me something worthy of hate, and deserving of the dishonor of being the worst film of 2008. When Statham is stripped of his predictable (yet consistent) charisma, someone has messed up something awful.

Inspired by the cult classic "Death Race 2000," this is a prime example of a remake done wrong, where ear-splitting sound and migraine-inducing camera moves make one feel trapped inside a two-hour earthquake. The action doesn't thrill, and the characters are developed through egregious one-liners and cliché events. In 2012, the economy has collapsed, and an American public (the upper-class only, I guess) eager to let off some steam finds their opiate in "Death Race," a pay-per-view event where prisoners condemned to die on Terminal Island vie for the ultimate prize: freedom. It's an old premise, but one that has been retooled to entertaining effect in other films.

Even lousier than the dialog and Anderson's attention-deficit technique is the characters, who are not only a catalog of bland stereotypes (Family Man framed for a crime he didn't commit; Stuttering Nerd; Hardened Old Sage; and the token Hip-Hop Styled Badass), but utterly fail to convince us for a second that they're hardened killing machines deserving of their sentence. As a result, the bloodshed that ensues is pedestrian and ineffectual (and even worse when played for ironic effect); while the outcome of "Death Race" is as predictable as you would expect, the total lack of B-movie charm (and fun) is simply unforgivable.

Stranded in this murk is Joan Allen, who, as the black-hearted warden Hennessy, seems to be channeling an androgynous cross between Louise Fletcher and Keanu Reeves, but is relegated to standing around watching monitors while delivering Anderson's subpar dialog. What should come across as icy, methodical menace (with maybe a bit of tongue-in-cheek irony) is instead sleepwalking boredom, proving that great actors cannot always salvage terrible scripts. When even the head villain is a cliché devoid of personality (to the point where her eventual fate elicits total indifference), you know you have messed up something awful.

For all its efforts to pummel on a miserably superficial level, "Death Race" left me feeling nothingnot empathy for the characters, not excitement at the alleged "action" (which is cut so rapidly it's next to impossible to tell what's happening, and where), just a void left unfilled by anything resembling experience. It's a waste of time and talent, plain and simple.


A Lot of Dumbheads try to say look like ...... look like these idiot always love to look like something now mario kart idiot Mario kart bla bla was made after Twisted metal and Vigilante 8 these are basic car combat games like snes Rock and Roll racing D: relearn them then try to say look like ......

And I m the fan of vigilante , twisted metal and Rock'n roll racing But death Race is a TV Show before all we said made it SO STFU DUmbheads İt's a awesome action game not like the others but You all IMDb's idiot knew everything better then others so U gave 6.4 or ~ like it Please don't watch movie may be you could read book your IQ will be upgraded SO go relearn all things go to the kindergarten


Paul W.S. Anderson doesn't disappoint. Death Race is his goriest film since Event Horizon and definitely right up with his most impressive looking films. Compared to some of the more serious films he's made (Shopping, Event Horizon, Soldier) Death Race perhaps falls behind in its substance but makes up for it in texture.

The driving sequences were varied and colourful to watch. The atmosphere is excellent and the fact that the movie doesn't take itself too seriously helps you accept the film's ludicrous setup. The gore definitely also makes the movie stand out but luckily not in a bad way. All the Paul Anderson trade-marks are here: the look, the sound and even the slightly over-the-top dialogue.

Where the movie manages to pull through definitely is the closure. The casting also proves interesting and satisfying and the performances luckily have a little bit more colour to them than in some of Anderson's past films.

Death Race is an interesting, action-packed film with enough serious weight behind it to keep the film's more ridiculous aspects from distracting the viewing experience. If Anderson was looking to make a great homage to a cult film, he's done it, but he's also managed to crunch out one of my personal cinematic highlights of the year.


Honestly at first I had serious doubts about this movie. I've always been a big Statham fan but he can be in some horrible stuff. And being a fan of the original 1975 version I knew this was going to be a though bullet to take. Of course after the trailer and poster my expectations were getting lower and lower. And then came movie night. And what I can say is this movie started out right. It gave a good introduction to the game and a good tip of the hat to the original by having David Carridine reprise his role of Frankenstien. The rest of the movie followed through accordingly. The filmmakers did make sure that the highlight of this movie was the race not so much in back story or answer but it picked them up as it went along. All and all if you like Jason Statham, Fast and the Furious and Gladiator you're sure to love this modern B-movie remake of a classic B-movie.


In the beginning of 2000, everyone waited impatiently, the release of the movie "the beach", mainly because Leonardo DiCaprio was in the main role. You thought that he was going to carry on with dignity, following the huge commercial and artistic success of "Titanic". But sadly, it's not the case. This movie that is a new variation of the lost paradise is a disappointment.

 As far as I'm concerned, I saw the movie at the cinema when it was launched in February 2000 and I thought that it would focus only on DiCaprio, Ledoyen and Canet's efforts to discover this beach. Actually, my expectation was justified but it only lasts half an hour. When they discover the beach and they adhere to the community, I think the movie could have ended there. The second part (which starts with the three Swedish bitten by a shark) only plays the role of fill-in and spoils all the movie. Moreover, Danny Boyle eyes a bit too much towards the bloody.

Otherwise, to put it mildly is that the dialogs of "the beach" are few inspired sometimes silly and too convenient with the situations. Sometimes, the movie turns out to be too predictable: before the love affair between DiCaprio and Ledoyen, you guess that a love story will start between them. And, inevitably, it will cause Canet's jealousy but this jealousy will spread to Ledoyen she learns that DiCaprio had sex with Sal during their stay in Bangkok. Besides, the performance appears quite mixed: Ledoyen and Canet are paling into insignifiance next to DiCaprio. Another thing I noticed: DiCaprio' voice-off doesn't succeed in making the movie gripping as it was the case with Edward Norton in "Fight Club".

Then, let's admit it: the end of the movie seems too easy and conventional. You guess before the end that the perfect paradise doesn't exist on earth and certainly not in Thailand: there are sharks, it's not always shiny and Sal, the leader of the community reveals herself to be despotic and finally cruel. Let's add that the "paradise keepers" will do anything to protect their territory, even to kill...

Nevertheless, the movie enjoys a shiny photography that reflects brilliantly the color of the sea and the beach. Landscapes are magnificient and there's a good original soundtrack which includes Moby's porcelain. But these qualities aren't sufficient enough to save the movie. A disappointing and predictable movie and somewhere unfinished. You can blame Boyle for not revealing the reasons of Daffy's suicide.


Well - Where do I start... A classic story written by Alex Garland - Destroyed by Danny Boyle & co. It would take a long time to pick my way through the debris of this particular shambles so I shall narrow it down to what I see as the main critical flaws that sank Leo's latest water borne epic 1. The movie has been aimed squarely at a teen market hence you get style over content - The beautiful people in paradise hanging out with a highly commercial soundtrack and a Top Shop tie in on the fashion side

2. The removal of the deep cynicism evident in Garlands novel - Read the book - you will find it very hard to find a sympathetic character.

3. Richards(Leo) fascination with the whole 'Nam pop culture - this is throw in as an afterthought in the last 25 minutes of the film(apart from a fleeting glimpse of Apocalypse Now in the opening reel)and falls completely flat - what we get is comical( check out Leo as he does his best Cat. Willard impressions - hilarious!

4. The love interest. Okay - this I can understand purely for its commercial reasons - it has a bums on seats factor. But it damages a vital part of the book - Richard never gets it together with Francois let alone Sal hence there is an unspoken tension in the air which adds to Richards isolation and his descent into 'Nam paranoia. Enough! If you want the real experience read the book - if you want a very cheap facsimile go see Leo and the gang...3/10


:Trust Me, Its Paradise

'The Beach' is a kinda of movie the feel of which surrounds you slowly and completely.

I'd say Danny Boyle has done complete justification to the book. The movie captures the essence of the book. I watched the movie first and then read the book. The beach can be better experienced thru the movie. The music (by Angelo Badalamenti) is excellent, but unfortunately not popular( which is why I believe popular is not always the best ;-)). DiCaprio proves how versatile and powerful he is as an actor. A must watch for DiCaprio fans. Purchase an original DVD and you'll get to see alternate beginning and alternate climax of the movie with director's comments. You will like this movie especially if you are a crazy traveler and like to explore unseen and untouched places.

Direction, location, music and DiCaprio are the strengths of the movie. 'The Beach' is not just a movie, its an experience.

:never refuse an invitation, never resist the unfamiliar. Just keep your mind open and suck in the experience........


Ever since (at least) the eighteenth century, with its cult of the "noble savage", tropical islands have frequently been seen in Western culture as the nearest that it is possible to come to Paradise on earth. This view is often reflected in the cinema, in films such as "The Blue Lagoon" or the various versions of "Mutiny on the Bounty", in which the idyll of Tahiti is contrasted with the rigours of life on board a British warship. The two versions of "Lord of the Flies", like the William Golding novel on which they are based, offer an ironic twist on this theme; a tropical island is used as the setting for an anti-Utopian story in which an attempt to found a new society ends in a relapse into barbarism.

"The Beach" has certain similarities to "Lord of the Flies". The main character is Richard, an American backpacker travelling round Thailand, who has heard tales of a co-operative multi-national community of idealistic young people living on a beach on an island off the coast. Richard has dismissed these tales as mere urban legends, but changes his mind when another backpacker, Daffy, gives him a map showing where the mysterious beach can be found. Undeterred by the fact that Daffy commits suicide shortly afterwards, Richard sets out to go there accompanied by Etienne and Francoise, a young French couple whom he has befriended.

After a number of adventures, the three succeed in reaching the island and discover that the fabled community is no urban myth but a reality. At first they are welcomed into the group and spend their days leading a seemingly idyllic lifestyle, consisting of a small amount of time spent in fishing and large amounts of time spent in playing volleyball or beach cricket, lazing about smoking pot, or (for some obscure reason) translating various English phrases into Serbo-Croat. As with all films of this type, however, we quickly realise that this life is less perfect than it seems. Sexual tensions arise when Richard finds himself increasingly attracted to Francoise and she deserts her boyfriend Etienne for him. More seriously, there are flaws in the basic concept of the community.

The main flaw is that travel narrows the mind wonderfully. The community, mostly Westerners, have dropped out of their own societies and travelled halfway around the world to Thailand, but find Thai society no more congenial than those they have left behind. Their solution is to drop out of that too and to set up a "beach resort for people who don't like beach resorts" where they can live their own hedonistic idea of the hippie life. The community is not, however self-sufficient; they produce little for themselves, apart from fish, and have to import many of their supplies from the mainland, which they pay for by growing and selling cannabis. The island, in fact, is owned by a group of Thai farmers, themselves involved in a much larger cannabis-producing operation, who are happy to tolerate the newcomers provided they keep their community a secret and do not try to attract new recruits.

As in many anti-Utopian parables, the community is dominated by a sinister dictator-figure. "Lord of the Flies" had the choirboy Jack, "Animal Farm" had Napoleon and "The Beach" has Sal, an upper-class Englishwoman who is accepted as the leader of the community (although it is never clear how she attained this position). Sal is obsessed with protecting the community's privacy and secrecy, and in order to achieve this end she is prepared to resort to violence, even murderous violence. (She is deeply suspicious of Richard, who she suspects may have distributed further copies of Daffy's map). One of the film's most chilling incidents comes after Christo, one of the group, is seriously injured after being attack by a shark. He can only be saved if he is taken back to the mainland for immediate medical treatment, but because this might result in the community's existence being revealed to outsiders, Sal refuses to permit this and Christo is left to die.

There is some good acting in the film, especially from Tilda Swinton who gives a nicely judged performance as Sal, a woman with steely eyes and a cut-glass accent who for most of the movie can seem threatening without ever issuing any direct threats or even raising her voice. This increases the impact of the scene at the end where Sal finally does lose her cool. The beautiful Virginie Ledoyen makes a charming and unaffected Francoise, and I also liked Guillaume Canet as Etienne. Originally seen as a loser, the man who loses his girlfriend to Richard, Etienne later emerges as the community's voice of conscience, the one man who refuses to abandon the dying Christo.

It was, however, unfortunate that the director Danny Boyle, who wanted Ewan McGregor to play Richard, was overruled by the studio, as Leonardo di Caprio, although he is better here than he was in "Titanic", tends to overact. The film tends to deteriorate in the second half, with the plot becoming difficult to follow as Richard, alienated from his fellow-members of the group, starts to become mentally unstable. The style of direction was excessively hectic for my tastes, and the sequence where Richard imagines he is a character in a video game was particularly eccentric. Despite its potentially interesting themes, "The Beach" falls just short of being a very good film. 7/10


Entertaining in parts, but as a whole it's pure manure.

This movie is generally about the sociopath Richard( DiCaprio),in his elitist pursuit of pleasure, sex and holiday paradise. He goes to great length in pursuing this, using lies, deceit and violence to get what he wants. He gets to know about a secluded Thai beach, and makes friends with a french guy and his girlfriend in order to steal the girlfriend from the guy.. The trio finds their "paradise" on an island that's part occupied by some armed and crazy Thai marijuana farmers, and the other part; a crazy hippie collective . The hippies are driven by a collective fear of getting their tropical paradise discovered, so they use fascistic methods when silencing members of the society to not reveal the secrets of the whereabouts of their beautiful beach/self made tropical paradise "community".

The hippie commune, is still a slave to consumerism society, and not the alternative society that it is set out to be. Just like Richard, the members of the community goes to great length in defending their right to "fun" and "pleasure", taking a blind fold to the ones that get hurt and killed in their pursuit. The goal of the commune is elitist and fascist, the means of using violence is motivated by keeping out other tourists and people the commune doesn't want out of this beach-resort. Richard makes everything he can to do the same things. He is everything that goes bad with the commune inpersonated.. He's not able to feel any empathy or understanding for anyone, the only time he openly questions the fascism of the commune is when his own life is on the line in order to save it. In other cases he walks away, and still "feels good being in paradise".

Well the movies meaning wasn't supposed to be about this. The director somehow thought that we should see any kind of sympathy and actually care about what happens to Richard, and forgive him for his actions, instead he is the only guy in this movie that is actually disgustingly inhumane. Maybe he thought we should have been blazed by the star quality of Di Caprio. But truthfully, He is nothing more than a stupid parody of idiotic travellers who think they can behave anyhow they like in any foreign exotic location. The unintentional satire is exaggerating this, making him a total psychopath. He is not just a someone who quietly takes orders, the nazi-like leader of the commune; Sal is his peer. The same person, but with power.

DiCaprios character is somebody you would want the director to have shot off early in the movie. Even if it was the meaning of the director to show DiCaprio as a total a-hole, this a-hole definitely isn't good company for the two hours. This is not the only bad thing about the movie. It's slow scenes, extremely bad computer animations and the horribly outdated brit-pop soundtrack makes it an equally painful experience to watch.

The movies ending is nothing but Richard being nostalgic about his beach adventures in his normal-life setting, not having learned any lesson or gained any emotional strength. The viewer is also encouraged to join his nostalgia for his blood stained paradise.

Why go to such great lengths anyway to get away from the mass tourists? Go to the Philipines or any place that isn't as crowded as Thailand. Stupid movie.


Once again, Hollywood has managed to lower the benchmark for a bad movie even further. This was such a bad movie that I felt myself constantly looking at my watch. I didn't even have to pay for it - but I still felt as though I had wasted 2 hours of my life.

The plot was terrible, and was so over the place that sometimes it just wasn't clear what was happening. The character development was non-existent. It was not clear why the characters did what they did and why they had become what they were.

**** Little spoiler ahead****

And when Leo went "wild", I was totally confused. Why? How? He just sudden;y turned into a savage and started running around the forest making traps and eating bugs. Plus the flash backs to the guy who gave him the map - were they dreams? Drug induced? Or did he have some tropical fever??????

The whole thing was so unrealistic that is was just pathetic. Leo can act, but it seems that all the budget was spent on him, and that they just pulled some backpackers off the street of Bangcok and said "Do you wanna be in a movie?". The only redeeming thing about this film was that the cinematograpgy was pretty good.

****Spolier ahead!*****

Another thing that bothered me was the shark scene. I'm sorry, but a whole lagoon would NOT fill up with blood if a shark attacked 2 or 3 people. Plus the shark itself was HORRIBLE! I haven't seen such a bad shark for ages!! The whole theatre laughed!!! It looked like a piece of painted foam. They should have borrowed the "Jaws" set from Universal or something.

This movie was so bad that it is not ever worth seeing. It was like MTV meets "Lord of the Flies" meets "Apocolypse Now" - taking the worst elements of each. You'd be better off using 2 hours of your life in any other way.


Has anyone actually paid to see this movie? whether in the theater or renting the movie? I caught it channel surfing one night and paused only long enough to figure out what I was watching and recall why I hate Leo. The only reason I am even wasting my time to write a review is because someone needs to counter the endless stream of 9s and 10s on this sight. If you ask me, this only degrades the quality of IMDb.

As for the reality, it is not even close. I spent two years in the tropics and life is very hard. You are sunburnt all the time, not tan, and sick from the monotony of the food, tropical diseases and storms. ***Spoiler follows*** watching Leo spear a dozen fish on his first try followed by a macho, "I provide!" moved something within me that I didn't know existed :{D= ***End of Spoiler***

What else is on!


Brilliant!...Leonardo pulled off a stunning performance. A really good, mixture of category's, horror, mystery, drama, adventure... Although It was not too realistic at times. Good acting, good story, and a good setting. It was a real paradise, It made me want to stay in my seat and I could not move!

But like all movie stars after one big film hit they get a funky haircut, put some glasses on and go shopping for clothes in the second hand store. This is what Leon' done... He now looks like Daffy duck with plastic surgery. Theres always one explanation: to get into a magazine!

Although, this isnt the first crazy trend he's tried to start, he really did confuse me in the Beach, I liked him in Titanic better. But still a stunning performance in the Beach.\4****star rating/


This movie is not considered to be really worth watching, but I disagree. It does have some parts that don't really work, and a couple of bad actors. It had the potential to be really excellent. The story is really unique, and intriguing. It's also quite scary - especially the start, in the scene with Daffy. It also had really good effects - the computer game bit freaked me out. Leonardo DiCaprio did a pretty good job in it. Especially in the part where he has to retrieve the map. Everyone will hate Sal, which means she's a good actress, because you're supposed to hate her. Overall it's a pretty good movie, and you should see it.


Critics didn't like this film. Roger Ebert, whose reviews I generally find insightful and on target, gave it just 2 stars and called it "seriously confused". On the IMDB hit parade, it only rates about 6 stars. Because of this, I didn't go and see it at the theatre, and have been ambivalent about renting the video, even though I like DiCaprio's work, and admired Danny Boyle's previous "Trainspotting". Then my teenage daughter came home from a party where she and her friends had watched it, and she said, "It's brilliant! You HAVE to see it, Mum!"

So, we rented the video, and I'm glad we did. The Beach is an interesting and solid film that tells an intriguing, if somewhat episodic, story in a stylish way. DiCaprio is, indeed, excellent as a young man searching for life's ultimate experiences, and getting more than he bargained for. This is a loss-of-innocence story, a sort of cross between Lord of the Flies, Apocalypse Now, and the musical The Fantastics. Director Danny Boyle leads us on Richard's journey to the Heart of Darkness in an energetic, stylish way--filming is interesting and beautiful--and he gets excellent results from his actors. The use of Richard's voice-over as narrative--often a distraction in films--here offers a certain amount of adolescent profundity and acuteness of observation, and it works.

I've been a traveller in Thailand. Although Richard's quest and Richard's scene wasn't mine, I've seen it...the beaches, the bars, the snake blood, the dope, the parties. I've also been a high school teacher, and have worked with adolescents hungry to discover "the real world", to bite into Eve's apple with gusto. Many from New Zealand head off in their late teens/early twenties on "The Great OE" (Overseas Experience). The same is undoubtedly true for many Australians and Brits, if not so commonly for American youth. So there's a strong element of "truth" in this story.

Don't listen to the critics. This is a good, solid film with an interesting perceptive story, fine performances, and a stylish presentation. Four stars out of five.


This is one of the few times that I have been badly mislead by the reviews on IMDb! I avoided this film in the past because of this, but thought it would be a good "soft" film to watch on video with with a friend and his wife (she doesn't like difficult films).

What a revelation! I understand that people who have read the book may be disappointed, but as an uneducated viewer this is a fantastic film! Novel situation, novel location (beautiful images, even though the beach was re-modeled), novel plot, novel characters (all of whom are wildly different yet possible to sympathise with - except maybe for Bugs)... this film has everything in it that I find so desperately lacking in the average Hollywood pulp I'm forced to watch with friends.

And I *liked* the fact that the film made a few surprising changes in style... I hate knowing the end of a story at least an hour before it finally grinds its inevitable way there (see any "action" film).


I have not read the novel that this screenplay is based on, so I cannot comment on that respect.

As a film in it's own right, the direction was rather interesting. Pop culture was left behind for an alternative culture. But then, at what point does alternative culture become popular? This is much the same with alternative musics/culture today. Perhaps, the spiral into savagery and madness could have been more dark.

The cinematography was breathtaking and the soundtrack well selected for the above mentioned theme. One criticism is that the direction seemed to almost flagrantly look 'arthouse'.

7 out of 10. Less if you have read the novel.


I thought the movie was quite good, capturing the high of being young in big bad wonderful world. The acting was believable enough for me, and also I thought the use of pop (and not so pop) music was done well. As for content, The Beach raises deep issues on how we deal with our own existence, experience, sanity and commitments to other people: there did seem to be more noble purpose than just speculating in the emotions of the viewer. Although many find fault with the film, I think - at very least - it deserves credit for the choice of material, and credit for having brought this material to fruition in the form of a Hollywood movie.


Well just seen it for the 3rd time DVD format. I like this movie a lot, the plot is great, the weirdness admires me and i love the ending. The other seens cut for the movie for time reasons are great and should have been there, no problem if the movie was to be some 30 minutes long.


DiCaprio fever seems to have obscured the worth of this film on its own merits. His celebrity seems to have overshadowed and killed serious criticism of this film, I believe. If "Lord of the Flies" is seen as a reference, I think a case can be made that this film makes some very powerful and effective statements about classic Utopianism among the children of the jaded and bored richer classes. DiCaprio plays his spoiled American very well. The young man is a great actor. The role of Tilda Swinton is well written, but I think she made her character too intelligent and complex with her excellent, but intense, acting. The jockish and superficial tribe members were much more convincing. I loved the international casting. The cast and the setting are visual knock outs. Robert Carlyle brought his "Trainspotting" insanity to the film, but I think his character was written over the top. Paterson Joseph, as Keaty, was a stand out. Guillame Canet, as Etienne, worked well as the tortured cast off in his particular love triangle. It took two viewings of this film for me to see past its stunning visuals and over-the-top highs and lows to appreciate it for its intelligent themes. If you disliked it the first time, you might give it another try.


Although this movie received a lot of negative press, I was pleased to have seen it. The plot, as with the book, is in my opinion a little dull but the acting I thought was great. Di Caprio and Carlisle can always be expected to do wonders with any part they play. Although I have watched the movie several times, I will be adding it to my DVD collection.


Although this film has been trashed terribly, there are some of us who actually really liked this film.

Maybe it's the traveller in me, but this film about the search to find, and create the ultimate paradise, is actually quite affecting. From personal experience, I find the colony of backpackers that live in the Beach community to be very realistic. I've met these people! Di Caprio is actually quite good as a frat boy kind of American and Swinton is great as the community's dictatorial leader.

Don't see this film expecting a repeat of the book. Few films are as good as the book, we all know that. But for those of you with a traveller's heart and for those of you who dream of finding the perfect paradise, I'd say this film is an exotic and refreshing and worth your time.

Sure there are some parts, like the video-game sequence where Richard goes all Lord of the Flies that is a bit ridiculous. But all in all, it's escapist and rather sad and examines the downfall of a paradise.


Fair enough this film has superb scenery, a great plot, and decent actors, however I cannot help but to be disappointed with the adaption. It is in Boyle's style but it isn't suited to the film, if you have read the book then I'm sure you will agree that it could have been much better - the viewer should watch the film and then fail to understand how they could ever leave such a place. Too much time is concentrated on Daffy and Richard following his path, unlike in the novel. Also, I think it is appropriate to mention here that it is left open nicely to either a sequel or prequel. This film could have been an epic!


First, i´m not Leo`s fun. I think he is one of very talented young actors, but after Titanic had no chance to prove it. Earlier i saw the movie, only after that i have red the book. What i like in this movie is that everytime i watch it i feel like Richard. It could be so funny to escape of civilization, find your own paradise island and live there until the end of my life /but only with a girl like francoise/. I also love exteriors of this movie, great work of camera, absolutely perfect soundtrack and acting of some of the actors/Robert Carlyle, Tilda Swinton - she is exactly as Sal in the book/. My dislike of this movie is that it doesn´t know what it want to say. Is it lookin´for a real life ? Or to show how interests of group are more than life of its member ? Eight stars is very much, but six for movie and two for beauty of Thailand and Virginie Ledoyen sounds better. You should certainly see it and make your own opinion.


**********THE BEACH**********

The Plot: Richard (Leonardo DiCaprio), a young American backpacker, is willing to risk his life for just one thing: that mind-blowing rush you can only get from braving the ultimate adventure. But on a secret, deceptively perfect beach, he'll soon discover that, as the level of intensity rises and the stakes climb higher, desire grows stronger...and danger grows deeper. 73%

The Acting: Leonardo DiCaprio pulls off another winner, his performance is electrifying and powerful. Newcomers Virgine Ledoyen and Guillaume Canet also put in amazing efforts for their debut feature films. Tilda Swinton and Robert Carlyle are among the more known people of this movie, and they are ultimately impressive. 79%

The Screenplay/Directing: John Hodge, who directed Trainspotting, has obviously decided to take a turn for writing. His screenplay is well-adapted from Alex Gardland's novel, and although it weakens near the end, he still keeps you wrapped up in all the brilliantly confusing plot twists. Danny Boyle, director, went to amazing hights to make this film successful, and he deserves praise. 80%

Other: Some chilling sound and mind-blowing cinematography. 70%

Overall: The Beach is an interesting, intriguing and different film, and although it is as times deeply flawed, it is still an immensly powerful and watchable film. Recommended. 74%

**********THE BEACH 74%**********


Some thoughts (for whatever they are worth)-

 - The Beach has several Trainspotting-like moments of inspired glee mixed within the overall darker elements of the story (Richard's dark dementia broken up with a little goofy video game bit, for example). It just doesn't seem to work as smoothly and perfectly as Trainspotting, altho The Beach isn't *that* bad a flick.

 - One thing another poster mentions is the Beautiful People mold that the Beach inhabitants seem to have been mass produced from. While there is a false sense of glamour and youth in the casting of thin/young/beautiful people, maybe that lends itself as a stark contrast to the very dire circumstances and consequences of their actions. These people are attractive and young and hip, yet they are proven to be ultimately silly and frivolous when faced with the reality of their actions. Well, maybe not - but it makes me feel better to think that, either way ;).


The Beach is a good movie but it could have been better. The movie is in two parts, the first being about a quest for paradise and the second one being about the price of paradise. And while the first one is good, it is the second one which makes this movie worth seeing. It was made by the usual Danny Boyle-John Hodge team, but someone is missing: Ewan McGregor. McGregor would have been perfect as Richard, but instead, it is Leonardo DiCaprio who got the role. While DiCaprio is not a bad actor, he is not a good one either. He can't ruin a movie by himself, but he can't make it better. He is okay as Richard, and in the second half of the movie he is even good, but he still lacks charisma. And that lack of charisma is made even more evident in the scenes between him and Robert Carlyle, which gives an awesome performance in a small role. When both actors are on screen, DiCaprio disappears. Virginie Ledoyen was chosen because she is absolutely gorgeous, not because of her acting talent. Her performance as Françoise is barely okay. The rest of the cast is good. Tilda Swinton shows the obsession of her character very well. There is, as in any Boyle movie, an excellent soundtrack which includes such artists as Moby, Blur, The Chemical Brothers, UNKLE, Asian Dub Foundation, Underworld and New Order. Sadly, there is also a song by All Saints(another proof that this is Danny Boyle's most commercial movie yet). The photography is Oscar-worthy. As I said earlier, the second part of the movie is the best one. Also, the love story is not very well done and too predictable. But despite some flaws, this is still an interesting movie. I also believe it is better to have already seen Shallow Grave before seeing this one, as it tackles similar themes shown in a very different way. It is fun to see how Boyle includes them in is most commercial movie yet(and hopefully, ever).

77%


Not a great movie but a delight. So many movies were made to lighten the mood of wartime, many of which we know and many of which were forgotten. This is a joy - the music is terrific, the plot so thin it's transparent. The pretext is that Kyser's band and singers are traveling from one base to another to entertain the troops. (Kyser married the lead singer after this show and she quit her singing career.) The musicians and singers are talented, and Kyser pulls off the kind of broad humor that Bob Hope made famous on USO tours. Joan Davis is a comedic genius - very physical, as extreme as Lucille Ball or Imogene Coca, but pretty enough to hold her own with the feminine stars. Interesting that she chose the clownish route. She's a female Danny Kaye.


Filled with striking characters and cunning plot twists, this film keeps you on your toes. Two romance plotlines, a murder mystery, a number of stalkers and an inheritance all hang in the balance..who will survive, and who will be changed?

Steven MacKintosh gives a nuanced performance as John Rokesmith/John Harmond, a young man with a past he'd as soon forget and an uncertain future. Paul McGann is also wonderful as the Dickensian lawyer Eugene Rayburn, a bored young man whose life is changed forever when he meets Lizzie, the daughter of a man who finds bodies in the Thames, and when he confronts Bradley Headstone, the psychotic schoolmaster who is obsessed with Lizzie. Also of note are the actresses who played Lizzie and the money-obsessed Bella Wilfer, since so much of the story hinges on their believability. Was Dickens ever so much fun before?


I've been recently seeing so many good adaptations of classical novels into mini-series, that I am becoming convinced they should never be made into feature length at all. I saw this on video all at once, which was almost six hours long. But, I could not stop watching. The character and plot developed so well, it was like reading a novel in one go. I don't often have the endurance to read a novel in one go. I must be honest I have not read 'Our Mutual Friend'. Often, when I see an adaptation of a novel, I want to read the novel. But this adaptation was so satisfying that I didn't really feel that need.

The performances were slightly varied in style, which seemed to suggest that it was the actors who had the control, not the director. David Morrissey's Bradley Headstone was very realistic, portraying him as a kind of ready to burst, angry and passionate man, as his face often changed color with anger, despair, passion and fear. So Keeley Hawes as Lizzie Hexam, being intimidated by and scared of Headstone was believable. I'd seen Keeley Hawes in the 'Begger Bride' before this, and I was fairly impressed by her portrayal of a completely virtuous character. She easily portrayed the mild, beautiful, and so very modest girl.

This adaptation also had the biggest TV role for Anna Friel at the time. And she was surprisingly good, and I always will expect her to play the feisty role, which is not a bad thing.

So, nice one.


This is a great adaptation. It is well cast and all the performances are excellent. I particularly liked the performances of David Morrissey as Bradley Hellstone and Stephen Mackintosh as John Rokesmith.

The script remains fairly faithful to the book, and the costumes and scenery give a very convincing Victorian look.


"Our Mutual Friend," is another well done BBC adaptation of a classic Charles Dickens story, set in the complex London of 1860, beset with the poor, overseen by the unseemly rich with a class structure at it's most delineated.

All of these stories deserve the mini-treatment, to allow us into the sprawl of the period and soak up its language and atmosphere and this is right up there with the best of them. The waterfront sets are magnificent as are the sets for the refuse dump where a lot of the action takes place. The cast is enormous and includes many recognised British names, from Timothy Spall, one of my personal favourites, to Margaret Tyzack, another favourite from the original "Forsyte Saga" series.

Each character is well drawn and complex in all its humanity and struggle for survival. Keely Hawes shines as a woman ill suited to a life on the river, retrieving drowned corpses for their clothes and possessions, and as her counterpart, Anna Friel is sparkling with wit and beauty as a poverty stricken woman striving to acquire a rich husband.

The script is authentic to Dickens and the era, underlaid with a haunting musical score and overlaid with a cinematography that sweeps from the multi-layered greys of the slums and river life to the lush English gardens of the well-to-do and their sumptuous parties.

Much like the mini "Pride and Prejudice", all the plot lines sweep to a happy, clean and simple denouement in the end, but the ride is sure-footed with many interesting characters to bewitch and fascinate along the way and a suspenseful drama to hold interest.

9 out of 10 and not to be missed.


This is the best Charles Dickens' screen adaptation i've ever seen. As soon as i saw it i went out and bought it. I spend entire days watching. the characters are so involving you just have to put in the next tape even if you know what happens. The acting is amazing and the screen play is well written. My sister and I are in love with John. Part of the appeal of this movie is that it is uplifting. Something that i find unusual in Dickens'. the music is great as well and really adds to the emotions of the piece. Be warned it is six hours long, but well worth it.All in all a great movie and anyone who loves a good romance, treachery, or murder mystery should see it because it blends all three. If you haven't seen it see it! If you have seen it, see it again.


Fine adaptation of a powerful Dickens novel, full of the frustrating spectrum of strengths and weakness inherent in every Dickens story; from the powerful rage he expresses in documenting social injustice, to his goody-two-shoes pedestal-bound heroines. It's about class, love, the river, London, and it's full of great scenes and haunting visuals: witness a tormented Bradley Headstone stalking Eugene Wrayburn through the streets of the City at night. The length of the series does the work justice; the casting is outstanding  expect no less from any good BBC adaptation. The always excellent, underrated Stephen Mackintosh brings complexity and delicacy to his John Rokesmith; Paul McGann gets the best lines; and the entire cast brings the writing to life in a good-looking production - who cares if perhaps it all looks just a tad better than it should. A staple in my DVD collection, highly recommended.


I love this movie!!! The depth of love and devotion John Harmon has and also the courage Eugene Braburn uses in defying society for love has makes me wonder what happened to the theory of romance. The theme of society verses love is an old one but always fascinating because it is a true choice. I like the many twists and turns of the story. Also every character has a part in this movie, whether it be for example purposes (the wedding of deception) or to tie in some further plot to the story. I am not usually a romantic movie watcher but I loved this one and I will always love this movie...I admire Dickens more than I thought I ever would....I would recommend those who love a good romantic story to watch this movie...


This is a mini-series divided into four segments of about 1 1/2 hours each which tells the story of two couples who find each other despite the class system on 19th century Britain and against the background of terrible poverty. One is a lawyer who falls hopelessly in love with a young girl whose father made his living fishing dead bodies out of the Thames River, removing anything of value on them, and turning them in to the police. His family and friends are shocked and full of scorn and another man who also is smitten tries to kill him. The other is a man whose father leaves him a fortune providing he marries the girl of his father's choice whom he has never met and who is nearly murdered as he comes to meet her, another man who dies is mistaken for him, allowing him to assume a new identity and observe her from a distance. She is money-mad but he falls hopelessly in love with her and, later on, she with him. The story has its share of villains and many surprises. It is well done, well acted, and a delight!


Although I enjoyed the first few installments, slowly but surely a slight feeling of discomfort came over me. With such sentimental authors like Dickens it is difficult to know when you are criticising the director and when the author, and I find it almost impossible to keep them apart in my evaluation of this mini. This comes out best at the very end when all the loose threads are finally resolved. What a bummer! Eventhough I enjoyed the previous installments I felt completely cheated in the last. This is partly Dickens' fault, but some blame is due to the director as well. Throughout the mini he has displayed a marked tendency to concentrate on what would look good rather than on what would work well dramatically. Now I am al for pretty pictures, but as I was approaching the end it just all became a bit too much: the predictable switches between high and low society, the over-the-top staged settings (Bella Wilfer in front of her cottage in the last installment), the stilted switches between scenes. The acting on the other hand was good.

All in all, a bare 8- out 10 (for what is possible in the genre see the first rate mini _Wives and Daughters_ (1999) directed by Nicholas Renton. Then again, Elizabeth Gaskell agrees with me more than Dickens does).


This recent BBC filmed version of Dickens' "Our Mutual Friend" was a big budget project that fell far short of lofty ambitions. The film clearly wanted to be a grand sweeping epic of the Victorian Era, but ultimately this story did not have much to say.

Conceived as a massive 6-hour work to be presented in four ninety-minute segments, the plotting is so heavy-handed and obvious, even tedious, that lopping a full quarter out of the whole could only have improved the story and pacing. As it was, the primary plot elements were so unoriginal and timeworn that  even though previously unfamiliar with either this Dickens original book or other filmed adaptations of it  I found no suspense whatsoever to one of the two main plot lines to the story. What Happened was clearly implicit to me from the get-go. The timing of When this What later Happened thus presented comparatively little incentive for my interest..

The fatal script shortcomings of "Our Mutual Friend" appeared to me even more striking by contrast against another recent BBC release  "Under The Greenwood Tree" (2005)  which I had just viewed for the first time a short while previously. Where "Our Mutual Friend" squandered so much time and talent telling an ostentatiously complex story that proved superficial and obvious, "Under The Greenwood Tree" succeeded brilliantly in conveying ... (despite only ninety minutes, and a much smaller budget) ... a deceptively simple story that nonetheless captured layer upon layer of universal relevance and deep meaning.

By no means, however, should the failings of "Our Mutual Friend" be attributed to its performers, who were uniformly excellent from top to bottom.

In form "Our Mutual Friend" presents two separate but occasionally intersecting plot lines. Through the strength of their performances, Steven Mackintosh and Anna Friel brought to the Painfully Obvious half of the story more interest than the weakness of that storyline could otherwise have generated. Paul McGann and Keeley Hawes, however, were even better  though it must be confessed the beautifully modulated tones of Ms. Hawes seemed a long way from the docklands dialect her role suggested. Supporting performances by such veteran character actors as Peter Vaughan and Pam Ferris (as the inimitable Boffins) brought richness and depth to material that otherwise would have been completely forgettable, though if I had to pick one actor who triumphed far and above the limitations inherent in his role it would be David Bradley (best known as Argus Filch from the "Harry Potter" canon) creating a memorably rascally Roger Riderhood.

Sit through "Our Mutual Friend"  once  to enjoy exceptional performances from a great cast of exceptional British actors. Rent  once  but not buy.

3 out of 10.


The cast (except for Paul Bailey) was excellent, especially Steven Mackintosh, who did a wonderful job portraying John Harmon. I have never been disappointed by this top-rate actor. Anna Friel, David Morrissey, Timothy Spall, Dominic Mafham, and David Bradley also were wonderful.

The adaptation was also excellent. There were whole chunks of dialogue taken from the novel, and the story followed very closely to the novel as well. All in all an excellent film.

I am giving this a ten out of ten for the acting and the adaptation for film. Not the plot. I was disappointed with the ending of the plot of the book, and naturally, the film follows that plot. The ending is very lame, and I am sure Dickens could have thought up a much better closure. Still, a very high quality film all around. To any one who reads this, see the film in question! Especially to see Steven Mackintosh act...


I've always loved Annie Oakley. I've always loved Barbara Stanwyck too. I'm sure one is related to the other. This used to be one of those old, mid-morning movies that was shown fairly often. If you stayed home from school, (ahem) SICK, you got to see it. Cowboys, Indians, Buffalo Bill, his Wild West Show, sharpshooting, a (yucky) love story, and the charming and beautiful Barbara Stanwyck. Hmmm, what a way to recover enough to return to school!!! Barbara Stanwyck was a liberated woman playing liberated roles long before it was in vogue.

Great license is taken with history, but this film was made when heroes were bigger than life and legend ruled. It's a nicely told story, tracing the life of a young girl, from the backwoods to a life of world-wide celebrity (yes, and love too). "Annie's" skills were real, but she had lots of help learning "showmanship". There are a lot of funny moments, warm moments, and selfless (O Henry type) acts. These "flesh" out the story and lead you right into a joyous ending. (AIN'T LOVE GRAND!)

Very nicely done, it will please "new" audiences and old-timers alike. The younger crowd should especially like "Annie Oakley". They don't make movies like this anymore. It's a fitting tribute to Annie Oakley, American legend, and folk hero.....

PS--- I gave this a 9 out of 10 rating. I was tempted to give it a 10, after all, it was made in 1935 and is still good....


Barbara Stanwyck, as I have mentioned in other reviews, was a tough woman but a likable one, at least with me. I don't normally go for those tough dames but her voice and personality she brought to a lot of roles always attracted me. A case in point was this movie. I doubt if another actress would have made this a better-than-average film, which Stanwyck did.

Preston Foster's character in here, meanwhile, undergoes one of the fastest transformations I've ever seen on film, from arrogant pig to very likable good guy in no time at all. In fact, he turned out to be such a good guy that parts of this film, where "Toby Walker" was wronged, are difficult to watch.

There's a little humor also thrown in this western, mainly involving "Sitting Bull." It's been a long time since I've seen this film but I would definitely watch it again if it came out on DVD.


Annie Oakley (1860-1926)born in dire poverty and without spending one day in a school room, became one of the great feminist icons of all time. Talk about taking a man on in his game and beating him. It was not press agent ballyhoo about her prowess as a rifle shot. This romanticized biographical film captures the essence of her character and her love for the guy she dethroned as shooting champion.

In some spots of the film you can practically drop the songs that Irving Berlin was later to write for his hit show about Annie. But we get a different picture of Frank Butler than in Annie Get Your Gun. Butler is not even Butler, he's Toby Wheeler as played by Preston Foster. He's a kid from the mean streets of New York City who learned his sharpshooting in the shooting galleries on the Bowery. He doesn't near and endear himself to the westerners working at Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show. In fact they hate Foster so much that whatever qualms they had about Annie being a member of the female sex the crew gets over real fast.

Barbara Stanwyck captures the real Annie if not in height in spirit. The real Ms. Oakley was barely five feet tall, but by all accounts she was a modest retiring type who never forgot where she came from. She was not as raucous as Ethel Merman on stage and later Betty Hutton on screen portrayed her. She let her shooting speak for her.

Melvyn Douglas has the third lead as William F. Cody's business partner Jeff Hogarth. Melvyn usually lost the girl to bigger name players though he was always a gentleman as he is here. Personally I wish he had done better in this film especially.

Annie Oakley is a nice film, not as well known as the musical later derived from her life, but still easy to take with good players at their best.


While I am a history teacher and my friends and family HATE watching historical films with me because I often find fault with the way movies often handle the facts in a fast and loose manner, I still managed to like this film and kept my mouth shut about its many inaccuracies! Part of this is because when I watched the film I didn't know that much about Annie Oakley and another was because I was having too much fun to complain. I spotted a few errors but in researching more about her after the film was over, I found that most of the film was fiction. Despite this, I still am not complaining because I liked the film so much plus Miss Oakley is a rather mythic figure already and little impact on history (though she did a lot for women's rights--at least indirectly).

It's interesting that Oakley (Barbara Stanwyck) is not the sole focus of the film. It's much more of an ensemble film and the movie is not about her entire life--just one small fictionalized portion involving her falling in love with another sharp shooter. Now the facts and the fiction aren't all that different in a few key ways, so it's obvious that the facts did at least inspire the film. According to the film, Toby Walker (Preston Foster) is acknowledged as the world's greatest shooter. However, when a contest is arranged with an unknown local girl (Oakley), she allows him to win but is invited to join Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show as a featured star. Then, her budding love for Toby is hidden by her and Toby so that they can foster a publicity campaign that they are rivals. In reality, the real sharpshooter was Francis "Frank" E. Butler and Oakley beat him during this shoot-off. However, they did marry and they did travel with Buffalo Bill, though they first traveled with a different and less famous show. The romance, at least the way the film portrayed it, is pretty bogus.

Another bogus aspect of the film is the involvement of Sitting Bull. While he did apparently know Miss Oakley and did nickname her "Little Sure Shot", he was only with the show a few months. Sadly, almost all the wonderful scenes featuring him in the film didn't happen and it's too bad, as he was the best character in the film! For an American Indian in the 1930s, this portrayal was amazingly sensitive and showed him as a rather decent and clever guy.

There's a lot more to the film that is bogus, but as I said the film is so well written and fun, I found myself uncharacteristically NOT complaining as the truth wasn't quite as fun and exciting as fiction. A lovely film thanks to good but distorted writing, excellent acting and brisk direction.

Interesting facts: Andy Clyde plays the hotel owner. In the 1920s, he was a big silent comedy star as well as director and writer. Also, Pert Kelton plays the lady who likes Toby at the beginning of the film. She was the first 'Alice Kramden' in the Honeymooner's segments of "The Jackie Gleason Show".


I was intrigued by the opening narrative introducing the story as it paid tribute to Annie Oakley, a legend who made her mark a 'half century' ago. Here it is more than seventy years since the film was made, and it still holds up as an entertaining if highly fictional Western based on the life of the sure shot artist and her days with Buffalo Bill Cody's Wild West Show.

Though Barbara Stanwyck is best know for her role as Victoria Barkley, matriarch of 'The Big Valley' TV Western family, it's easy to see how she naturally fit in with the Western genre as she raises her rifle to knock clay pigeons out of the sky. Historically, I'm not sure if it would have gone down that way, but Annie admitting she didn't have the heart to beat Toby Walker in the shooting contest because he was 'just too pretty', was a neat way to set up the rest of the story.

What adds a lot to the film in entertainment value are the humorous bits thrown in by a host of characters. I was surprised to see Willie Best as the second cook attempting to pilfer a quail for himself early in the picture, while Andy Clyde worked his expressive face for maximum effect as hotel owner MacIvor. The best though, was Chief Thunder Bird in his characterization of Sitting Bull; he had a couple of clever bits with the disappearing bed and the 'scalping' scene. I don't think the real Sitting Bull would have been as amusing, but it works here.

At the center of the story is the subtle hint of a romance on the part of Annie's manager Hogarth (Melvyn Douglas), and a more overt one between Annie and her big top rival, Toby Walker (Preston Foster). Toby starts out the story as the guy you want to hate, but manages to come through the story as a decent guy. The film's abrupt finish with Toby and Annie in warm embrace is the kind of ending that I'm sure made movie goers of the era believe they got their money's worth.


I visited the world premiere of this film at the Rotterdam Film Festival in The Netherlands, and I was pleasantly surprised. I didn't know anything about the film, except that it was from Peru. It turned out to be a very striking, powerful movie; mixing beautiful visuals with a simple story.

The film's about a young man, Santiago. He has served his time in the military, and the violence he has seen and experienced has affected him deeply. His whole generation has the same problem: they are veterans (but they're only 20-something years old) and have no work. Many of his friends turn to crime, but not Santiago. He starts to work as a taxidriver in Lima, and the camera follows him several days. (the movie translates as 'Days of Santiago') We see how he deals with the world. Santiago is extremely paranoid and doesn't know how to interact with people. He meets a lot of girls, but doesn't know what to do or say. His experiences in the army, although they are never shown in flashback, have left marks.

The film is visually original; color mixes with black-and-white. But this is no gimmick, it helps to illustrate the inner struggle of Santiago.

The acting is superb, especially from Pietro Sibille as Santiago.

The story is based on real life experiences from a veteran, and many things really happened. The director, Josue Mendez, who was present at the Rotterdam Film Festival, explained that there are lots of guys like Santiago in Peru, a whole 'lost generation', forced in joining the military at a young age, and having a hard time dealing with society when they return. However, a large part of the film focuses on Santiago's family, and that part is entirely fictional. Of course, you can't help but thinking about 'Taxi driver', Scorsese's famous movie, which also centers around a taxi driver who has emotional problems and can't deal with the world. However, the films are incomparable, because the style and substance are very different. 'Dias de santiago' will probably never be as well-known as 'Taxi driver', but it certainly deserves to be. See it, when you have the chance.


Peruvian writer/director Josue Mendez has made a brave little low budget film that deals with a subject currently burgeoning our hospitals in this country as the fallout of the war on Iraq and still plagues the veterans of the Vietnam War - Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (aka Battle Rattle). This is a difficult topic to dramatize without being preachy or maudlin, but Mendez has succeeded where others have failed.

Santiago (Pietro Sibille) is a 23-year-old retired veteran who was conscripted at age 16 and trained to be a killer - assigned to fighting in the war against Ecuador, against terrorists, and against the drug mafia. He returns to his family in Lima a damaged, broken, paranoid misfit who tries to leave his military past behind but mentally returns to it as the only time he felt important. Unable to work he finally begins to drive a taxi and encounters all manner of passengers - wealthy men, girls on the party circuit, disreputable people of all types. He tries desperately to adjust to the post-military life, but find his family in shambles, a wholly dysfunctional unit to which he can no longer relate. How he finds his 'place' in this chaos is the subject of Mendez' story (Mendez has based this on a true story/stories and knows his subject well).

Pietro Sibille as Santiago delivers a credible performance, one that consistently borders on fragmentation of a mind deeply scarred by war and fighting. The remainder of the cast is fine. Mendez uses a mixture of black and white film with color segments and this is distracting to annoying: if the choices of film related consistently to a tenor in the story (which is not the case) then this technique could be considered artistic.

The manner in which the story is related is very much in keeping with the fragmented and paranoid mindset of Santiago and for this the director is to be commended for successfully achieving the next to impossible! Many strong points to a film that is flawed by technical problems. Grady Harp


I'm a Peruvian person who has been living abroad for two years, and this movie came to me just a while ago. I would have to say that for someone who has not lived in Peru, it would be hard to understand the situations the character goes through, but for people like me who have lived all their life in Peru, and understand what the character is going through, it becomes an amazing experience. Pietro Sibille's interpretation of an ex-military who tries to live a normal life is simply amazing, counting that he had never had a lead before, and bringing realism to the movie. The director took the essence of real life situations and put them on the big screen, making the movie worth watching, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in independent cinema / foreign movies.


Recommended by a journalist from a communist country during a film festival I had some initial hesitation regarding watching this film. However after having seen this highly artistic film,I am ready to say that it is one of the most original films made in recent times.I find it difficult to swallow the comparison made with US film "Taxi Driver". By making such a weird comparison people are belittling this film.My favorite moments from this film are the confrontation scenes. They bear testimony to the fact that a person besieged with problems has to fight ferociously to overcome all troubles. Some of the sequences had a dream like air to them.To a layman the title of the film "Days of Santiago" suggests how he passes his days.But to a serious film goer it denotes the entire past,present and future life of Santiago. Peruvian actor Pietro Sibylle is a great attraction of this film. The troublesome feelings of anger,hopelessness, frustration, anxiety and despair are much too visible on his woebegone face.A truly valid reason to watch this film.


I just saw this on HBO in the US tonight. this film grabs you and pulls you along. the cinematography is competent and in no way flashy. but you feel like you are there. you can really empathize with the main character Santiago. this film simply rings true in all its aspects. this is one of the best movies I have seen in years. I don't know much about the actor who portrays Santiago (whether is very brilliant or brilliantly typecast) because I have not seen him in anything else. his performance in this movie was just excellent. frankly there were no weak performances from my perspective. Sounds like I really loved this movie doesn't it? I did.

PS: this will quickly be dated but if you are hooked up to adelphia/comcast cable in the US they are listing this movie inexplicably/erroneously as "a day without Mexicans"


this low budget flick is 10 x better than 80% of Hollywood films out there in every way. the acting is what i love best about this film the lead actor has to be good in a film like this since it focuses on his life and he is almost perfect. the film keeps you on the edge and my only disappointment was the end as i was sad to see it i was expecting a little more. another thing i liked about this is i never got bored even though there isn't that much action it keeps at a good pace all the time.

the script is good the directing is good i can find no other real faults with this film i recommend this film


"Dias de Santiago" is a disturbing film. We are taken by its creator, Josue Mendez, to the mean streets of Lima to follow a young man that works as a driver of a taxi. Santiago's home life is not exactly a happy one. The mother is a long suffering woman who doesn't do anything to rebel against her husband and what life has given her.

Santiago, we learn, joined the army at an early age. His tour of duty is over, so he came back to Lima, where he is not prepared to experience his new reality. While Santiago stayed basically a good guy, most of his former colleagues have turned to crime because the atmosphere they found once out of fighting the war with Ecuador.

The director, Josue Mendez, uses a mixture of black and white with color photography to emphasize what is going on in Santiago's mind as he faces different moments in his life. Mr. Mendez got an amazing performance from Pietro Sibille, who makes Santiago real throughout the film. This young actor, who seems to be a non professional is a natural and surprises us by the range he displays in the film. Mr. Sibille is the main reason for watching this film that shows the underside of a society where it seems no hope exists.