Written by Ligiah Villalobos and directed by Patricia Riggen, "Under the Same Moon" is a bit like what you'd get if you crossed "El Norte" with a heart-tugging tale by Charles Dickens. Nine-year-old Carlitos lives with his grandmother in Mexico while his mother struggles to make ends meet in Los Angeles. Despite the harsh conditions of her life, Rosario is saving as much money as she can so that eventually Carlitos will be able to come and live with her. When his grandmother dies, Carlitos decides to make the dangerous trek to LA on his own, encountering numerous obstacles and assorted colorful characters along the way. (The plot is highly reminiscent of "A Boy Ten Feet Tall," a British film from the 1960s in which an orphaned boy travels thousands of miles from Port Said to Durban, South Africa in search of the aunt who lives there).

Sentimental in the best sense of that term, this crowd-pleasing tearjerker is a simple but touching tale of the undying love between a mother and a son and of the resilient spirit that allows people living in difficult circumstances to carry on and endure. The movie shimmers with lovely performances by the exquisite Kate del Castillo as Carlitos' devoted, long-suffering mother; Maya Zapata as her no-nonsense, pragmatic best friend; Eugenio Derbez as a cynical day laborer who finds himself unexpectedly saddled with a pint-sized companion who always seems to get the better of him, and, above all, young Adrian Alonso who, as Carlitos, lights up the screen with his authenticity, sincerity and warmth. (America Ferrera also has a small role as a college student from the states who smuggles babies across the border to help reunite them with their patents).

In the tradition of "The Bicycle Thief," "Forbidden Games, " "Sundays and Cybele," "The 400 Blows" and countless others, "Under the Same Moon" is a small, heartfelt film that artfully conveys a child's-eye-view of the adult world.


I would highly recommend Under The Same Moon aka La Misma Luna, at first I was not sure whether this movie would be a movie I would watch but after watching it, I had a different perspective. I think this movie did not get as much credit as it should have for the simple fact that it was filmed by a Mexican production company even though it was released by 20th Century Fox. The majority of the film is in Spanish with some English dialog.

Under The Same Moon deals with the sensitive issue of illegal immigration, whether for it or against this film will have you thinking. There are many Mexican actors as well as known actors in the United States such as America Ferrara. The little boy who plays Carlitos does an excellent job at portraying his character. The movie is about a mom who is working hard in the United States and her son is back in Mexico. The child than decides he will cross the border illegally facing many dangers. As I said before this film will open your mind and will be enjoyed that is why I recommend it.


I was truly moved by this movie even though there are many parts that are simply unbelievable. One rarely is hitchhiking and gets picked up by a van full of really famous regional and perhaps international musicians. One cannot smuggle someone across the border under the rear seat of a van. Not going to happen. Not now. Not if you are driving and do not look 100% gringo. The INS would never allow someone to simply drive away from a raid in a truck with compadres scrambling in the back to get away. Even though there are these "errors" one must realize that this a work of fiction and these sort of incongruencies do not detract from the overall power of the film.

Here in California there are thousands of women from Mexico and Central America trying to make some money to get ahead in the world. They are often away from their children. Opportunities are rare where they are from. This reality is true and that is where the movie's force comes from - the reality of these illegal immigrants.

The acting is excellent and the pace of the story is perfect. The transformation of Enrique played by Eugenio Derbez is marvelous. The young Adrian Alonso as Carlitos is great. I would highly recommend this movie. Compared to all the pure rubbish out there I was surprised this movie did not get a ton of promotion.


It's been a while since I experienced in the movies, a mother's love for her young child, and vice versa, being the primary focus of the film, especially with one that dealt with distance and longing. The last one that truly moved me was the Japanese film Be With You, and no prizes for guessing that this Mexican number Under the Same Moon will join its ranks.

The title is nothing new though, as with movies as far back like An American Tale, where its theme song played on that exact same premise, of having to gaze up at the moon knowing that the person in your heart is probably doing the same thing and thinking of you too. Yes, such saccharine sweet sentimentalism, but it worked wonders here.

Directed by first time feature helmer Patricia Riggen, the movie follows both mother and son characters in separate threads, having been separated for many years, but keeping in touch through weekly Sunday telephone calls from public phone booths both sides. For Carlitos (Adrian Alonso), despite the gifts that mom sends back home to him, he misses her much and prefers that she is back in Mexico rather than working in the US. For mom Rosario (Kate del Castillo), she smuggled herself illegally to Los Angeles for work in order to raise their lot. But when his guardian grandmother passes away, Carlitos begins to plot his way to get himself to the LA within the week, to look for Rosario lest she calls home and worries that he's missing.

So begins the adventures of Carlitos as he begins to learn that the world is indeed full of unseen bad folks who will not hesitate to traffic him to child smugglers. And many of the scenes for his character have him interact with a reluctant surrogate father figure in fellow illegal Enrique (Eugenio Derbez). For Rosario, her character piece becomes like a showcase of the much generalized exploitation of illegal workers, as well as going through the usual aspirations of being a naturalized citizen so that she can finally bring her son over for reunification. Otherwise for the most parts she's often debating within herself whether it's high time to return to Mexico since her intention and goal seem to slip by every day, given being swindled as we are told, by her previous owner, and of course making sense of the love that a fellow Mexican has for her.

Some might complain that they can probably see how the story would develop as it wore on, but you have to admit that Adrian Alonso's charismatic Carlitos will still have you engaged throughout with that cherubic face of his, brimming with faith and confidence. While he might have started off pondering a lot on why his mom did what she have to do, soon he will learn, and we accompany him on this journey, a thing or two about love and concern. Given that he doesn't share the same screen for the most parts with his mum, it sort of became key that he constructs and builds upon his initial dislike for Enrique much like a parallel contrast with that relationship with his mother, up until the final moments which was probably a bit deus ex machina, and felt a little rushed somehow.

But on the whole, Under the Same Moon serves its purpose and delivered itself well thanks to its great casting. And it also makes for a perfect date movie too, with a reminder to bring along some Kleenex for the finale. Highly recommended.


Patricia Riggen's "Under The Same Moon" feels like a fairy tale because it eschews reality in favor of neat drama. A Mexican boy slips out of Mexico to be with his mother in Los Angeles; the film depicts his adventures on the lam. The boy, played by Eugenio Derbez, is natural and believable, never pushing his performance too hard. Kate del Castillo, who plays the boy's mother, draws us into her plight with subtle focus. The script feels a little too calculated at times and glosses over a sequence involving a border crossing. It is a strong character piece that explores the the price of sacrificing one thing for another. Coincidence plays a major role in the unfolding of the drama, but it never becomes too cloying. Aspects of the journey that involve the impoundment of a vehicle, the employment of a minor (!), and a brutal raid on an illegal workplace, come across more as fanciful than real. Still, this is an interesting angle on the immigrant experience.


Greetings again from the darkness. Charming, touching story of a very lively 9 yr old Mexican boy who goes on an interesting road trip in search of his mother who sneaked across the border four years earlier with the dream of providing a better life for her son.

Kate del Castillo is terrific as Rosario, the boy's mother. Hard working and determined to bring her boy to the U.S., she fights the constant emotional battle of whether they might both be better off together. Wide-eyed Adrian Alonso plays Carlitos, the courageous and equally determined little man. Many will remember Alonso from "The Legend of Zorro". He brings much more depth to this role and displays a certain quality that just forces us to pull for him.

As good as those two performances are, they aren't the film's best. That belongs to Eugenio Derbey as Enrique, the reluctant hero. He is just tremendous as we see Carlitos soften up his crusty exterior and even teach him a few lessons along the way. Just a fun performance to watch.

Director Patricia Riggen kind of skirts the immigration issue with a weak border crossing featuring a brief performance from America Ferrera. This part just never felt real. Still, that doesn't reduce the entertainment value of this charming story ... and neither does the fact that we know very early on how the story will end. As with any road trip, the fun part is in the travel.


This film, despite obvious attempts by the director to create a piece of art, comes off as an incredibly one-sided, contrived sob-story in its portrayal of illegal immigration between Mexico and the US. Examples of the film's shortcomings: all of the characters are extremely stereotypical (the hard-working, proud, honorable, heroic mother; her foiling party-loving, less intelligent friend; her gallant but shy suitor; her determined, precocious son; his tender-hearted rogue guardian; the ball-busting smuggler matriarchal with a heart of gold; the patronizing, unfeeling Caucasian socialite whom they un-creatively nicknamed Cruella Deville; the happy-go-lucky mariachi musicians), many of the scenes were equally stereotypical (the boy and his guardian's airing of grievances through an impromptu karaoke scene in the back of the Native-American run diner; the cathartic sacrifice of the once-gruff guardian at the end, complete with face-in-grass-knee-on-back cuff shot with the cops; the cornering of the boy at his own birthday party by his money-hungry,aggressive relatives; the bated breath scene of anticipation at the border patrol station), and finally, the amateur, over-the-top performances given by nearly all of the actors in the film. But perhaps most disturbing (and disappointing) was the complete villainization of the entire US law enforcement organization. The border patrol officials, in doing their job, come off as sassy and harsh. The INS officers storm into a tomato plant, chase down the workers, beat a few of them mercilessly, and then line them up in the dirt outside execution-style. The police at the end, though only expressing concern for a young boy sleeping on a park bench alone seem like the bad guys. Even the soundtrack often points the finger at the all-elusive "white man" who is supposedly oppressing all minorities alike. The white American characters in the film are rich, snooty, oblivious, or a combination of all three. It is ignorant to make films that not only show one side of an issue, but don't even show it well. Movies like Maria, Full Of Grace, are much more effective because they include an aspect of objectivism and force even the most staunch believer to examine the opposing viewpoint. This film, however, polarizes the two sides of the issue instead of exploring the ways in which they intersect. White people, Americans, America, rich people, and law enforcement officials are NOT the enemies, despite this film's insistence. No one is intentionally trying to break families up or ruin lives. America has laws to protect its LEGAL citizens, just as every other affluent country in the world does. The changes to this issue will have to come from Mexico's government in a serious attempt to reform the country. When it can offer its citizens a higher standard of living, they will no longer feel compelled to risk their lives and be exploited in a neighboring land that is trying to deal with its own economic and social issues. Until then, we can only hope filmmakers will have more integrity when exploring such territory.


If this movie was intended to make me feel sorry for the illegal Mexicans flooding this country, well, it did not. Many years ago I saw El Norte and I was deeply touched by this movie.

But in the meantime 30 years have passed and illegal immigration has become a sport. A competition in between Mexicans, who can falsify documents better, find a new way to cross the border and screw the system in the US better.

I know plenty of illegal Mexicans, who live since years in the US, own houses, cars and phones and have good paying jobs. I have never seen any raid anywhere they are working. There are hundreds of day workers on the streets every day and nobody cares. The only thing they have to be afraid of is being robbed by other street people.

The tear jerking story of the mother, who leaves her child to clean toilets in the US and sends back money for sneakers and birthday parties, did at no point convince me that there was any necessity for her to leave her child and come to the US.

The whole movie makes fun of the immigration problem and is actually misrepresenting the situation to get tears.

If Mexicans would put as much effort in creating jobs in Mexico as they put effort into falsifying documents and crossing the border illegally, maybe Mexico would be better off. It is a beautiful country and I always wonder why people want to leave their families, culture, tradition and friends to clean toilets for other people and live in crammed quarters in usually ugly neighborhoods. The American way of life does not mean quality of life and at least the mother in the story sees that point.


A Southern woman (Julia Roberts) finds out her husband (Dennis Quaid) is cheating on her. This sets off complications that involve her whole family-her fiery sister (Kyra Sedgwick), gruff father (Robert Duvall) and understanding mother (Gena Rowlands).

This plot has been done many times before and there are no real surprises--but it has a good pro-female script. That's no surprise--it was written by Callie Khouri who also wrote "Thelma & Louise". The dialogue is sharp and adult and the stars give it their all.

I've never really been a big fan of Roberts but she is very good here faking a credible Southern accent. She has a GREAT scene when she confronts her club about her husband's infidelity. Sedgwick is just fantastic as her sister--full of fire and having a great time. Surprisingly Rowlands wasn't that good at first--way too muted but she eventually got better and is wonderful in a scene in which she tells off Duvall. Quaid and Duvall are lousy in their roles...but they're given NOTHING to work with--this picture is about the women. The only male character with any depth is Jamie (Brett Cullen)--very handsome, intelligent and caring--a real great performance.

A word of advice--this movie is VERY R rated. There's tons of swearing (especially from Sedgwick) and VERY frank sexual dialogue--it is NOT for the kids (unless it's an edited for TV version). It's an adult movie.

Predictable but well-done. Worth catching.


First let me start off by saying that Julia Roberts is from Georgia...Her accent is real! This was a disappointing movie. Julia Roberts and Kyra Sedgwick have great chemistry as sisters and they LOOK like they could actually be related. Dennis Quaid-check, Robert Duvall-check, Gena Rowlands-check...Cast is awesome. Writing is sassy and on the money. The problem is the way the story turns on it's head. When Grace poisons her husband it is not at all funny..and takes the story in another direction. We think we are watching a movie about this lying cheating lout who does his woman wrong and her questioning her life and her choices afterward. We feel bad for HIM when he makes it sound like she drove him into another woman's arms because she didn't give him enough affection. She actually feels bad, but it is already too late, as she has already made him sick from the poison. He decides he doesn't want her back after all and goes ahead and gets a nasty lawyer.

Along the way her mom (Rowland)decides to take action on her husband (duvall) who has been fooling around for years. Not making much sense here. All this surrounds a equestrian competition that is supposed to bring these people together. Kind of stupid. I also want to bring attention to the fact that Julia Roberts was about 27 when she made this. Too young to have this older kid, and Dennis Quaid looks a good 10 years her senior, and they were in college together?? Kyra Sedgwick is going for over the top sassy here...We get the point after she knees Quaid in the jewels early on..yes yes she is a tough cookie. All that said, I will watch Julia Roberts in anything. I am her target demographic after all. Her most unwatchable movie is still watchable to me on a snowy Sunday afternoon such as today.


1st watched 1/18/2003 - 7 out of 10(Dir-Lasse Hallstrom): Well-played drama about being in love, making mistakes, and trying to stay in love. This is a heart-breaking movie to watch because it is so much like real life and it is played out so well by those involved. The Direction by Hallstrom is magnificent because of the way he lets the story do the talking and doesn't hurry us to conclusions. Basically, this is a story about a woman(Julia Roberts) who finds out that her husband(Dennis Quaid) is cheating on her and then everything gets mixed up from this point on. There are many other relationships that are also very vital to the story just like they would be in real life. There are parents(who struggle with some of the same things), there is a sister(who tries to lend a helping hand) and there is a child in the middle of everything just trying to survive. By the end, we believe that everything is going to be all right but it is very obvious that much damage has been done. Roberts is superb as usual and everyone plays out their parts very believably. This is one of those movies that is one of a kind, but not one you'd want to watch very often for it hits deep within our souls(especially those who have gone thru similar experiences) and therefore I think it failed when released because the exec's didn't know how to sell it to make money but none-the-less it is a classic in my book on relationships. The choice of the title also didn't make sense because the song really has nothing to do with the movie. Again, I think this was a marketing mistake and not the filmmakers.


This is a delightful film about a Southern belle, Grace King Bichon

(Julia Roberts), who chafes under the domination of her

brook-no-dissent father, and is cheated on by her husband. Grace

works for her father on his horse farm, and her suppressed

resentment of his iron rule has likely helped derail her marriage to

Eddie. In any event, the film is ultimately about the love and

strength of family relationships and the power of forgiveness, as

well as finding one's own path in life. All actors turn in great

performances: Julia Roberts as the heroine and wronged wife;

Robert Duvall as the family patriarch; Gena Rowlands as the

beautiful and devoted spouse and mother; and Kyra Sedgwick as

the transgressive sister. Dennis Quaid as Grace's philandering

husband is very appealing, so it's hard not to be rooting for he and

Grace to reconcile. Finally, good cinematography and a portrait of

gracious Southern living make this film an enjoyable view.


This is a great "woman's" picture that is also very entertaining for anybody. Someone mentioned that Julia Roberts offers up a convincing southern accent. Well hell's bells, she's from Smyrna, Georgia. How convincing does she have to be!

Set in Kentucky horse country, Julia Roberts plays a young wife and mother who runs her father's (Robert Duvall) horse business. She's a fine wife and mother, and a good business woman. One day while driving in town, she sees her husband (Dennis Quaid) kissing a pretty woman in a red dress outside his office building. Busted, Quaid finds himself kneed in he groin by his potty- mouthed sister-in-law (the adorably gusty Kyra Sedgewick) and thrown out of the house by his furious wife.

Her husband infidelity turns her contained and comfy world upside-down. Daddy (who has his own issues with infidelities) is uncomfortable with his daughter's anger and insensitively insists that she overlook the problem and get on with her life. Mama (the great Gena Rowlands) who has been looking the other way for years, and is not in a position to offer any advice, tells her daughters that southern woman have been putting up with their philandering husbands for years. Sedgewick can only offer her own withering scorn to her parents (she lives in a house on her father's farm with no visible means of support and therefore is beholden to her parents), while she clucks sympathetically with her sister.

Meanwhile, Robert's character has to move on. Her daughter, an excellent young rider, is nudging her to compete in horse competitions, which is is reluctant to allow. She's confused about her parent's separation. Julia is running the business, but her father constantly interfere, making her management decisions. The women in her local Junior League are condescending and smug in the knowledge that their marriages are safe as hers is not. Roberts has a brilliant comic moment telling her sisters that their husbands are cheating on them too!

A contrite Quaid is on a mission to reconcile with his wife, but she is resisting. Taking the advice of her beloved Aunt, she mildly poisons her husband's dinner in an attempt to "teach him a lesson he won't soon forget." You know it's only a matter of time before she forgives him, but you enjoy her insistence that this is a serious breach of trust in their marriage, not to be ignored lightly, or forgotten.

The film reaches a very satisfactory conclusion. Daddy is finally made to pay the consequences for his own extra-marital dalliances when Rowlands finally locks him out of their house. And he finally learns to respect his daughter and realize the psychic damage his flagrant misogyny has caused.

This is a quiet gem of a movie and one of Julia's best. The cast is expert and Hallstrom's direction is fluid and detailed. Khalie Couri's screenplay is alert and adult. An earlier review chastises the Robert's character for "poisoning" her husband. She didn't kill him, nor did she intend to. But I think it's quite appropriate for her to make him feel some of the pain he's caused her. At the very least, he should have been discreet. Acting out his affair in public is just asking for trouble.

And the women in this family make their men grow up. A throughly enjoyable movie.


"Something to Talk About" is one of those movies I can watch time and time again and never tire of. It appeals particularly because it has so many elements I love in a movie -- dancing, powerful women, horses, sexy men riding said horses, humor, fighting, making up.

Not to mention a cast, writer, and director that imbue the film with a sense of high quality. Relationships between a myriad of characters are explored and to satisfaction. Even minor characters turn in great performances; for example, Grace's Aunt Edna, who shares a secret that leads to a hilariously dark moment for Grace and Eddie. Kyra Sedgewick steals every scene she is in and makes me wonder why she isn't a bigger star. She had chops in this film. She was thoroughly enjoyable.

Callie Khouri and Lasse Halstrom made a memorable movie with "Something to Talk About." Worth watching and laughing over and over.


Pretentious and a huge waste of talent.

Julia Roberts is a great actress and has a fantastic smile – a smile so un-really radiant that it becomes unreal pretty soon. That’s the risk she runs. And so does the movie.

Dialogues for the single sister are good while the movie is quite pretentious and a drag at times.

Dennis Quaid is fantastic. The story borders on the most idiotic generalization – southern men think with their southern asset and the women don’t have brains at all. Pretty idiotic fare.

Gene Rowlands mom lacks depth and looks like she is on prescriptive medication - she takes a 180 degree turn in the middle of the movie. And Duvall's character is so foolish it hurts.

The only saving grace is the dance sequence - but then I can bet there have been infinitely better results than this.


Good movie about gracious southern life mixed with a lot of behavior that is anything but gracious. The movie couldn't seem to decide between being a drama and a comedy, but is nevertheless more than worth watching because of the character played by Kyra Sedgwick. She has at least 2 or 3 of the greatest lines ever uttered in the movies that will make you absolutely fall out with laughter (unless they offend your delicate sensibilities too much). I loved this movie. It shouldn't be taken as seriously as some seem to want to take it. The title indicates to me that they were really aiming at comedy here, and it some places, they really, really hit it.


Odd to term a 1995 film as an 'older movie', but SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT was rather dismissed in its initial release as a bit of fluff: looking at the film now reveals a tight little message movie garnished with a fine writer (Callie Khouri - 'Thelma and Louise', 'Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood'), and first class director (Lasse Hallström - 'Casanova', 'An Unfinished Life', 'The Shipping News', 'Chocolat', 'The Cider House Rules', 'What's Eating Gilbert Grape' etc), and a cast that has not only grown in importance from the time of this film but has also become acknowledged as the creme of the cinema.

The story is rather slight: Grace (Julia Roberts) is a Southern Belle horse trainer married to handsome but womanizing Eddie (Dennis Quaid) who discovers to her amazement that Eddie is dating other women. This throws Grace into a rage that affects her family, her family's typical Southern response to appearances, and ultimately awakens not only Grace but also every member of her family to secrets that allow them to take charge of their prettified hollow lives! Grace's sister Emma Rae (Kyra Sedgwick, in yet another of her sensational roles) is a perky, spitfire of a woman who seems to be the only member who has her act together; her mother Georgia (Gena Rowlands) and father Wyly (Robert Duvall) are both able to reveal the old South and the new individuality they achieve; Brett Cullen, Haley Aull, and Muse Watson are all excellent in their roles.

One of the most entertaining aspects of this entertaining film is the confrontation between 'old manners' and new reality - with some heady lessons for all of us to observe and allow chuckles. It is a tight little film that deserves another visit on DVD.


As a resident the Carolina Coast, one sees the appellation "Lowcountry" on many things including a goodly number of businesses and other entities both public and private. As a descriptor, it is both ubiquitous and quite accurate.

Thus , my wife and I were quite surprised to see "Lowcountry Locksmith" on a vehicle in a film that was set in the Kentucky Horse country. I try to catch incongruities and goofs in films as hobby, but my wife spotted this particular one. Knowing that a good portion of this film was shot in the Beaufort, South Carolina area, we enjoyed a quick laugh during that scene.


I was very entertained by "Something to Talk About." I didn't consider it a big, important movie, I just took it as light fun. I have read some of the other comments, and it seems not everyone reacted to it that way.

I thought this was a great cast. Robert Duvall and Gena Rowlands were fabulous, as was Kyra Sedgwick. Dennis Quaid is beyond adorable - and there is one of the flaws in the film. How could you trust that man for one second and be surprised when he cheats? The other flaw is how he managed to be in college with Julia Roberts, unless she was a child wunderkind. As for Julia Roberts, I prefer her in this kind of film rather than heavy drama, because I don't care for her very external acting. She was more believable in this and, especially at the end, she sparkled.

I personally loved the ending, and for all you who wonder, I absolutely think they get back together. I think infidelity hurts and yes, it maybe even hurts enough that, in the heat of anger, you might try to poison your husband. I also think you can get past it, and I think this character did.

I agree that often, when women cheat in films, it's somehow justified and the man who cheats is vilified. In life, that's not always true. Life is a lot more complicated than that. Obviously, this was written from a woman's point of view. As I said, I took it for what it was. It was entertaining. I had to think when I watched "Camille Claudel."


I am loathe to say something this negative, but must. One of the worst movies I ever have been dragged in front of the VCR by my fiancee to watch. It is not enjoyed but endured, especially, I would think, by males - as you will see for yourself (or, I hope, not). What was Robert Duvall thinking when he agreed just to go through the motions for this dud? And Julia Roberts?? The one note of hysterical she maintains throughout is not acting. At least the scenery in Beaufort, S.C. (also the location of "Big Chill") is interesting. Overall, what a disappointment.


Julia Roberts (Notting Hill, Runaway Bride) plays Grace Bichon, a working woman who works for her dad and keeps leaving her only daughter behind every place she goes. The casting by Marion Dougherty is brilliant. Mother/Julia Roberts; daughter /Brett Cullen; and sister/Kyra Sedgwick have the same speech pattern and same lips! There is something about their mouths that makes them really match. The cast is full of pros: Dennis Quaid (The League), Gena Rowlands (Hope Floats), and one of my favorites Robert Duvall (Wrestling Ernest Hemingway, The Apostle). He is of the top actors of the American Cinema, Oscar winner and many times nominated for all the prestigious awards available.Two treasures! Dennis Quaid and Robert Duvall. They can surely transform themselves! Eddie Bichon, played by Dennis Quaid, is cheating in his wife and she raises an uproar. She gets the entire family, friends and town are all involved, and Grace makes a point of going out of her way to spread the news of who is cheating and with whom. The movie gets funny as Grace takes vengeance at her own hands including giving Eddie a near death experience with her special chemistry in cooking helped by a special recipe from her Aunt. Kyra Sedwick (Singles, Phenomenon) has so many funny lines. She is my favorite character in this movie. Kyra Sedwick was nominated for Golden Globe for Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture for this part. I think that those supporting roles are really good and many times the actor can explore his or her craft more than the actor who has the lead. I have the tape and enjoy watching it. I love: the customs, the stable, horses, and equine competition atmosphere in the movie.

My favorite line: "Sometimes a near death experience helps to keep things in perspective" Emma Rae is in bed almost falling asleep: Grace "Are you up?". Emma Rae: " Not technically!" My favorite Scene: Emma Rae kicking her brother -in -law after she helped him to come in the second floor of the house through the window. Nice looking movie! Good for the eyes! Full of fine lines!


Average family comedy/drama movie that had a great cast but average story/screenplay.The script was above average though and the performances was also good.The cinematography was bad and so was the lighting.Story deals with adultery and the trials of fixing a marriage after the affair.Nothing spectacular.Only for family soap comedy/drama fans and big fans of the lead actors.....


There are some films that move you. There are some films that make you laugh. There are some films that make you cry. And then there are some films, that mislead you with the tagline, cover of the film and in some cases the preview. This is one such film. After waiting eleven years to finally see this movie, I wondered why I had anticipated it so much. What a let down this film was. I was expecting some cute, romantic comedy with Julia Roberts and Denis Quaid, who would argue, and make-up every other scene, and share equal screen time. Wow, was I wrong. No wonder Quaid's name came last on the credits at the beginning of the film. He's hardly worth mentioning.

The film is circled more or less on a horse ranch that Grace (Roberts) works on, which is owned by her rich father. She finds her husband (Quaid) one afternoon, cheating on her, and the whole movie is dedicated to her being angry with him, and refusing to forgive him for having cheated on her. However, the reason the tag lines and previews are misleading, is because the movie is more focused on the horse ranch, rather than on her personal situation.

I found the movie quite frankly boring, and really of not much interest. Kyra Sedgwick was excellent, and I think I liked her the most out of everyone in the film. I'm not a Robert Duvall fan, so don't ask me what I thought of him, I don't know why he gets casted for any parts, in any films. Gena Rowlands was good as usual...and well what can you say about the sexy and terrific Denis Quaid? He was his usual charming self, and how could you blame anyone for liking him? Julia Roberts, was certainly not at her best, but then better than her non-deserving Oscar award winning performance in "Erin Brockovich."

The movie was flat, and lacked so much that it had potential for.

I highly not recommend this film, and suggest you check something more along the lines of "Notting Hill" or "Pretty Woman" if you're looking for a good Roberts flick. And if it's Quaid you're interested in, go with, "Innerspace" or "In Good Company". You won't go wrong with any of those, however this one will let you down right from the beginning, and the end won't do you much good either. Because that was not you're typical ending to a film like this. Good luck with it...you're going to need it.


Senseless plot, forgettable characters, and no redeeming value. The only reason it gets a three in my book is because I saw it on a date with the love of my life. Indeed, this is proof positive that even bad films can spawn relationships that last a lifetime! The very idea that someone could actually forgive someone for cheating simply because she sees him riding a horse is simply crazy at best, if it were that easy I'd have bought a horse eons ago! Also, some of the camera angles were interesting at first, but as the plot and the overall content of the film left much to be desired, the angles began to really get on my nerves after a while. Had the film given more in the areas of plot, content, and believable, likable characters, I probably would saying what a innovative genius the director was. Anyways, pop this this one in at 2am after you've missed several buses to dreamland. I guarantee you'll be on the the next bus.


It was nothing to talk about. Just a sorry chick flick that made no sense at all. Robert Duvall cheated on his wife and she took him back because she watched him riding a horse. Huh? And more senseless stuff like that was all through this thing.

I found only two interesting things about this movie. There was a weird camera angle on the staircase using a fisheye lens. They used this shot a lot. The camera angle was mildly interesting for a while. And there was a guy in the movie named Frank Lewis. This was only interesting because I worked for someone named Frank Lewis at the time I watched it.

Guys - don't let some girl make you watch this movie!


Let's see.. in a large bowl, mix together effortless acting, extremely overlit sets, a made-for-tv, afterschool special script, cliches about how all men are either pigs or ineffectual and all women know what they want, obligatory, gap-filling scenes involving an easy listening pop tune where all the major characters get to dance together and, finally, the inevitable soft ending where the world gets back

together, somewhat changed but somehow still the same, and you'll have this

"home ec" project of a film. I'm not sure which was worse; the film's existence, the money I paid to see it or the fact that Julia Roberts was actually paid $12 milllion to act out of this bag. That money should have gone to the "continuity department" to do its job and actually pay attention tot how many hairstyles Julia Roberts goes through in each and every scene.


Boy, is this movie lame or what?

Any interest in the movies' characters is SOLELY provided by Krya Sedgwick as the wise-cracking, potty-mouthed sister of the lead actress..can't place her name right now.

Anyway, the lead finds out her husband (Dennis Quaid) is cheating, and this comes as a surprise to her even after it was pointed out that his nickname in college was 'Hound Dog'.

Possibly she thought it was her duty to not see his indiscretions. She was raised in a town very concerned with two things - doing the right thing, and talking about it when someone else is caught doing the wrong thing. Her parents (Robert Duvall and Gena Rowlands, who make any movie they are in better than it normally would have been) are in denial as well, about life in general but mostly about their own relationship.

Nothing much really happens. In that way it reminded me a little of 'What's Eating Gilbert Grape', but that was never boring for a minute.

Soundtrack is distracting - each new scene begins with a swell of music, so if you're falling asleep, just listen for the music..that's the start of the next, and hopefully better, scene.

But take my advice - it doesn't get any better. My heart goes out to Kyra, whose work is wasted in this boring vehicle.


This is not a movie for Julia Roberts. She is one of my favorite actresses and she shines always (wherever she's in). I, just, think she should play in better roles. This movie doesn't suck but it is nothing special (at all). This one and "Runaway Bride" are the worst movies of her. As I said before they're not awful but Julia Roberts deserves more than this. The best movies of her are: "Pretty woman" (of course), "Nothing Hill" and "Erin Brockovich". I'm looking forward for more of her brilliant movies. 4/10


SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT, in my opinion, is one of the best comedy/drama/romances I have ever seen. One thing about this movie that made me feel good was when Grace (Julia Roberts) confronted Eddie (Dennis Quaid) for being unfaithful to her. There was only one person I couldn't stand at times, and that was Emma Rae (Kyra Sedgwick). This was because she kicked Eddie in the groin. Plus, she said some things about him that were not very nice. If I caught my husband red-handed with another woman the way Grace did, I would probably get a divorce, especially if my daughter had seen what was going on. I thought the scenery was beautiful, taking place on a farm with horses and whatnot. In conclusion, I highly recommend this film to all you Julia Roberts or Dennis Quaid fans who have not seen it.


There are only a handful of movies I have evr walked out on because they were so dull they were unwatchable. Something to talk about is one of them and though not the MOST boring movie I have ever seen it certainly comes close.

The movie sounded interesting when it first came out but somehow I missed seeing it when it came out and, years later when it came to television was really looking forward to seeing it. Unfortunetly, the feeling was fleeting...

This movie moves at a snail's pace. Nothing ever seems to HAPPEN and the more seconds that tick by the more bored one is watching it. I have seen most of Julia's work and with the possible exception of "Sleeping with the enemy" thought her movies very well made. This is a major exception. I am also a big Kyra Sedgewick fan so I hung in there hoping something(anything) would happen.

I think the subject matter was interesting, it's been done many times but that doesn't mean it can't be done again if it's done well. The problem is when a movie's THIS slow going on action it runs the risk of losing it's audience when something DOES happen. That was the case with me and others I know have expressed the same feeling about this movie.


To me, most TV-movies seem like they are made by the same production company, with all the elements shoved into a big blender and the results poured into various standard molds. They may look a little different, but the taste is usually bland and generic. Over the past couple of years, several TV flicks with a rock & roll theme have been especially disappointing. Happily, 'The Linda McCartney Story' is not one of them.

This movie about a well-known contemporary love story manages to be effective and moving without being overly sentimental and cloying. Elizabeth Mitchell does a decent job in the title role. She's not a double for the real Linda, but that's OK, and she's always believable. Gary Bakewell, on the other hand, does look a lot like Paul McCartney (he played him in the excellent movie 'Backbeat') and he does a thoroughly convincing job. Most of the real-life characters portrayed here resemble their counterparts, but the thrust of the movie is on the story rather than slavishly recreating the look of any particular time period.

The movie wisely concentrates on the couple's relationship and doesn't spend a lot of time trying to duplicate the music of the Beatles and Wings. Its greatest success may be its pacing, as it is able to crowd thirty years of story into a little over and hour and a half, giving attention to most of the important events in Paul and Linda's lives without making the film fell too rushed. All in all this is a good movie for fans of the McCartneys and one that more casual observers might be interested in.

One other note: Allen Klein, the Beatles' ex-business manager, must still cast a mighty fearsome shadow. He's never depicted on camera in this film and is referred to as "Bruce Grossman."


Gary Bakewell is really trading in on his resemblance to Paul McCartney being as this is the second time that he has played the man. He also does a credible job at it.

The title of this movie is a little deceiving as it doesn't really tell the story of Linda, but more about her marriage to Paul. There is only one mention in this movie of her famous vegitarianism and no mention at all of her animal rights advocacy. It is a shame as these are some the things that defined Linda as a separate entity from Paul.

The love story between them is, as always, inspiring and Elizabeth Mitchell does a good job as Linda. While the flow of the story is a bit disjointed, there are some funny moments in the script as well as some revelations about her pre-Paul life (sexual encounters with Jim Morrison and Mick Jagger) that are interesting none the less. If you want the real Linda story though, you may have to get it from one of the bios written about her but not this movie.


SEE! Mick Jagger portrayed by a Canadian actor whose accent moves from London to Ontario in a single sentence! SEE! Linda McCartney and Jim Morrison have a tasteful sex scene that looks like it belongs in a Skinemax 'erotic thriller'! SEE! A bunch of 're-staged' Linda snapshots of The Beatles (or a less than amazing simulation)! SEE! Why Gary Bakewell's Paul in Backbeat was reduced to a secondary character! SEE! Paul propound on the dangers of breast cancer and come up with a song title at the same time! SEE! Yoko take the blame! SEE! John be a complete and utter ass! SEE! Paul collapse into alcoholism (though we never see him inhale any wacky tobakky)! DON'T HEAR! The dreaded Hey Jude soundboard tape! TRY! To forget you ever watched this dreadful biopic!


This was such a great movie, I am left speechless. Elizabeth Mitchell and Gary Bakewell (once again portraying Paul with sheer brilliance) make this a movie not to miss! The love these two people shared is so brilliantly displayed by these two leads as is the conflict in the later years of the Fab Four. You do NOT want to miss this one!


I was expecting a real puff piece and it was actually not too horrible.

It did not gloss over the fact that Linda Eastman was, no polite way of putting it, a groupie in the mid-60s. It didn't try to smooth that over and say she just "dated" guys like Mick Jagger and Jim Morrison -- it came right out and admitted, she went to bed with them.

It did not attempt to pretend she had great musical talent. She admitted she was "just an amateur up there," but Paul didn't care, he wanted her up there anyway.

FWIW, I am a big, BIG John Lennon fan, and I don't think he was really depicted all that inaccurately in the film. He was always blunt and outspoken, and by his own admission got very nasty with Paul during the course of the band's breakup. Yoko DID cause problems in the studio by saying things very similar to the script.

The movie did include the scene at the Dakota, apparently set in 1979 or so (shortly before Paul's pot bust in Japan) which depicted that John and Paul had made up most of their differences. When Lennon was killed, J&P were on semi-decent terms -- they hadn't talked for a while, but not because of any big feud.

One big problem, of course, was that very little actual Beatles (or even Wings) music could be used in the movie, undoubtedly due to legal clearance issues.

The Allen Klein references were hilarious. "Bruce 'Gross'-Man." LMAO. If anything, Allen Klein managed to do what nobody else could -- reunite the Beatles, since by about the mid-1970s, Klein had screwed over Ringo, George and John too, and they were all suing him too.

If the Beatles never got back together to play music, they certainly agreed that Allen Klein was a MF-SOB. In interviews just before his death, Lennon said he "couldn't even talk about" things like the band's breakup "because it is still in court." I don't think the Allen Klein mess was finally solved until the 1990s. He'll probably track us all down and sue us now. :-O


This is the story of Linda Eastman McCartney. Her early life as a music magazine photographer. Her meeting and 30-year marriage to Beatle Paul McCartney. Her becoming a member of her husband's band, Wings; her publishing cookbooks as well as books of her photos. Linda's rich and famous, but simple life ends with her losing battle with breast cancer.

It is odd that most of the music is non Beatle/McCartney fare. The story is not too candy coated: and there is just enough spice to keep the story rolling.

Elizabeth Mitchell plays Linda. Paul McCartney is aptly played by Gary Bakewell. Tim Piper portrays John Lennon. Chris Cound is cast as George Harrison. Ringo Starr is played by Michael McMurty. Veteran actor George Segal stars as Linda's father, Lee Eastman.


Any of today's generation not knowing anything about Linda McCartney other than a name on a veggieburger packet in the supermarket would not understand this horribly jumbled story.One minute Linda is seen on stage the next in chimotherapy. This movie just shows what a truly great film McCartney made in Give my regards to Broad Street. Key players during this period were missed altogether-Denny Laine for instance.Yet what had Bill Wyman to do with anything? The music heard was pointless-what had the Association song NEVER MY LOVE to do with anything Beatles or McCartney. No mention of animal rights anywhere-which is what Linda McCartney was all about and the Wings years were summed up in a "blink and you miss it". No mention of Give my regards to Broad Street in which Linda had a starring role. It was really forcing a quart into a pint pot and is really unessential. What next? Yhe Heather Mills Story? The Yoko Ono Story? The mind boggles


Well, Gary Bakewell looks a lot like Paul McCartney.

Other than that...

This movie lacks substance. The film is set up as a series of flashbacks while Linda is coping with breast cancer in the 1990s, so the ultimate doom of Linda kind of puts a downer on the whole movie. But the biggest problem is that it rushes up to the parts where Paul is courting Linda, then loses it's steam pretty quickly once Paul and Linda get married and the Beatles break up. The years spent as a photographer, with Wings, as an animal rights activist, even her time spent as a mother are barely skimmed over, so we the audience, are left feeling kind of gypped of at least 25 years worth of valuable information. Granted, a happy and stable marriage does not make much juicy filler for a movie, but we really don't get much of a feel for who this woman was, but rather who she was for Paul McCartney.

That said, I thought the actors did a decent job, considering the lack of material; there was a nice chemistry between Bakewell and Elizabeth Mitchell. And if you did know anything about the real Linda McCartney, watching her portrayed in her final days was touching. A nice film to have on in the background while you're busy doing other things. But as a film in it's own right, it's just not strong enough material to hold much interest.


Touching. Very nice. A story about both Paul and Linda---their courtship, family and marriage. Not only her story, but what would be her story without his. I never realized what a romance, a love, a bond these two people had. They had a glorious, romantic, and privileged life. They suited each other and you really see, I mean, if this movie is based on facts, the deep person she was. Not a glamor type, a real person, in love with her husband and family. Very sad at the end, very sad indeed. The acting by all was superior and I recommend this movie. The story is realistic, the acting, the dialog, the direction, the photography, all are well done. See it.


Was that it? Linda McCartney was one of the best advocates for animal rights and vegetarianism for years, the film barely mentioned her cooking skills and cookery books devoted to vegetarianism. She was so high profile in the UK for just this reason [she just so happened to be married to a Beatle]. The film concentrated more on the bickerings between the Beatles than on the supposedly title subject. She was so much more than Paul's wife. Incidentally I am a Brit living in the US and the portrayal of people and life in the 60s/70s over there truly sucked. One good point - I do concur that the casting of Bakewell as Paul McCartney was good - he was a credible lookalike, otherwise the film was utter rubbish - it take it Sir Paul hasn't seen it.


I just saw the movie for the second time yesterday and I liked it even more than I did the first time. I don't know that much about the real Linda McCartney although I am a Beatles fan but that didn't make the story any less beautiful. The movie covers over 30 years of her life with Paul from how they met in the 60's to her struggle with cancer in the 90's. The story itself is beautiful. The simple fact (or at least presented as a fact in the movie) that they never spent one night apart except for the short period of time that Paul spent in jail makes it an incredible lovestory. The movie does have some major flaws including the whole character of Paul McCartney but Elizabeth Mitchell does such a beautiful job as Linda McCartney that she saves the whole movie and definitely makes it worth watching.


This was so well made, to be so horrible. I'm conflicted over this M4TV fare. About as conflicted as the movie was with itself. It was the content with which I had the problem. This is one convoluted one-sided mess of a biopic. I cannot agree with this version of the "truth," nor did I find it entertaining.

In this telling, John was a brutal antagonist, Paul was a drunkard who was weak without his woman, and George and Ringo were meaningless to the group. Yoko and Paul jointly take the blame for John's decision to leave the Beatles, and Linda was a faithless Goddess.

This is about the most disgusting display I've seen in a long time, and was in no way entertaining, endearing, or amusing. All in all, this sucked pretty hard.

It rates a 2/10 on the M4TV scale from...

the Fiend :.


The entire Linda McCartney Story is a complete shambles; it is historically inaccurate, the script is poor, it is superficial in the extreme and the attention to detail is dire. There is very much more to Linda McCartney than two short periods of her life with Paul  what happened to the Wings' era? As others have said, the film totally ignores the most important things in her life, namely vegetarianism and animal rights. Linda was instrumental in bringing about a change in the way supermarkets treated vegetarians and she got them to stock suitable goods for the first time. This was a major achievement. Her battle with cancer was another important episode in her life that this film barely touches on.

The production values are on a par with Attack of the Killer Tomatoes' but not nearly as funny. The accents are terrible in the main characters, and the relationships between the characters are simplified (and over dramatised) way beyond the reality. I could go on, but it would serve no useful purpose.

There were two reasons why I voted 2' for this film; one is the excellent Morgan car that Paul drove, and the other is that it was filmed on colour stock  I like colour! Finally, will someone tell Armand Mastroianni that the roads in the UK have white lines in the middle, not yellow! That just about sums up the quality of this work, I reckon.


Excellent t.v. biographies of the Beatles abound...this one's out of bounds. This one starts out as a sexploitation movie and goes downhill from there. It portrays Linda as a sleep-around slut on the rock scene, who, allegedly. jumps into the sack, first thing with Paul - whether or not that's so, it's none of our business. The original Paul, himself, has far more charisma than the guy who plays him in this movie. The original Paul would never have deigned to appear in a piece of work like this, indeed, if he sees it, he'll probably squirm in embarrassment and fury, as did I at the depiction of this couple - and I'm not a Beatles fan. Elizabeth Mitchell's not bad, nor is the music, but if you really want to know about the Beatles, wait til one of the many fine documentaries on them appear on your t.v. screens.


On low budget Aune Sand made this (50.000 $) terrible film about love over 4 years - meeting people randomly. There's no dialogue, but only the young peoples thoughts. The film is full of totally comical parts like:

When the film opens with a REALLY long sequence with Siv Stubsveen tossing and turning in the bed for 5 minutes - and then she tell us in her thoughts - "I couldn't sleep". The cinema audience just HAVE to start laughing after being so bored!

And e.g. later, when they think (not talk) about the American car which has been driving on dusty American desert roads since the fifties, and it is a mid-sixty car!

The most fun part is actually noticing that Aune himself wear the same pair of ripped jeans for the 4 years the film is covering.

You'll love the comic in France when Aune enter a coffee shop, randomly running into a former girlfriend, while wearing Rollerblades. It's REALLY far worse than anything Ed Wood would have made.

OK! I've seen this film 3 times on the cinema, and is probably one of the reasons it became a box office hit. All the reviews did set bottom 1 for this film.

A masterpiece for a film-club, if you want something really bad. Beware. Aune sand has been filming his Russian girlfriend for the next movie. They split up after the filming!!!


This movie probably would give an impression of coming from the mind of someone like Ed Wood - completely idealistic and with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. This really is the Ultimate Turkey if you ask me.

Aune Sand would probably be best described as Norway's answer to Ed Wood, a young idealistic filmmaker who thinks his movies are a great work of art. No matter what anyone else says. And ironically enough this movie has been one of the biggest domestic commercial successes for a Norwegian film ever.

About the plot and characters there's not really much to say except: terrible, dreadful, boring and involuntarily funny. See this movie at your own risk...


'Dis', meaning fog, supposedly refers to the director's cerebral condition at any stage of the production process. This cannot possibly be called a piece of work as the intra-skull fog is miraculously transmitted directly to the screen. If there is any content at all in this thing, apparently deserving the label film because there is movement on screen, it is garbage. No kidding, garbage takes actually up the screen in a pivotal scene, a love scene actually. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't mean that this is a peak, because there are no peaks, no pace. In line with the title this is an endless piece of uninteresting sceneries, desperately seeking excitement in so-called exotic places. You have to be prepared for it, because you will be bored and at best bewildered if you're not watching it for the purpose of entertaining yourself by the ridiculously crappy lines (or lack of them), direction, photography, cinematography, edition, idea. The masterpiece is that this low-budget film got any funding at all. My vote must be 1, but with this remark: The bottom end of the scale is way too kind in this case, but by all means: this is absolutely fascinating.


I really don't like leaving comments about movies which are better left in a dumpster, but sometimes it's ones duty to warn others. Well....This is my warning! Please do not waste one moment of your time watching this "film". Your time would be better spent turning on your TV in order to watch commercials. It's really that bad - Trust me.


I will keep this short. Think of the worst Indian Bollywood film ever made, plus the worst Finnish TV theater ever made, and add a few Troma movies. Then multiply how BAD they are together by 100 and you have how bad "DIS" really is. Nazi Germans Dr. Mengele could not have tortured me worse than this movie did, in the time I watched it. If you still do not get the point...maybe this movie IS something for YOU anyway...

What is even worse is this movie is made in my Home Country. And I am in Shame! Shame that my country could turn out such a horrible movie!


The Bergen (Norway) Cinema director in 1995 had the sense - at the time when this ghastly film was first (and never again!) sprung upon unsuspecting audiences in Oslo and other major Norwegian towns - to refuse to show it in Bergen cinemas. He stated when interviewed that to show this to an audience of adults would be adding insults to the injuries already inflicted on other unsuspecting cinema goers.

How right he was! Of course, in a country like ours, this one-hour-and ten-(???!!!)-minute piece of pure rubbish was immediately given its (undeserved) cult status. Whether it has ever been shown again - in cinema clubs or on late evening trash programs during film festivals, one does not know. I was lucky to be spared the embarrassment of walking into a cinema, paying the exorbitant price for a seat there, only to walk out again after 10 - 15 minutes of sheer and utter boredom.

Instead, I cunningly waited until the "director" (who was hot news for the usual "5 day wonder-story" during the newspapers' silly season in July) came to this town where his (hrrrmmm!!!) masterpiece was not to be shown, to sell and sign video versions of "DIS". I couldn't resist the temptation (who would?!) - and collected enough money from friends and colleagues (the equivalent of a bus ticket from each) to be able to queue up and buy a copy. The price of the video then was approximately the equivalent of two cinema tickets. The video was duly signed (and perhaps blessed?!) by Mr. Aune Sand himself) since I was about 40 years older (then) than the very young female teen-agers who had lined up to buy their copies.

Some weeks later, the donators were invited for dinner, and a showing of Mr. Sand's masterpiece. My wife - who had entered the wrong cinema in another town and already struggled through it - gracefully left the group after dinner, and went to do something useful elsewhere.

We, then, were left to watch it. None of us had seen it before - and as we gathered courage, refilled glasses, had some coffee and lit a few cigars and candles - we finally sat down to watch it towards midnight.

To cut a long story and an even longer stretch of boredom short: those of us who did not fall asleep (it was after a 5-course meal) or made frequent trips to the "bathroom", or went out for a quick, quiet smoke on the balcony, valiantly sat through it - all trying to stay awake during an hour where time really dragged its leaden feet through the mires of an amateur production that ideally belongs to, and should never have left, the wastepaper-basket where it should have been thrown together with the parts and scenes which were (one hopes!) discarded. One has, though, a feeling that nothing has been discarded, the way the film appears to work its way through its four endless scenes!

The video has "a bonus"... A short film (lasting 8 or 9 minutes, I think) called "Kysset" ("The Kiss"). Anyone who can sit through that without yawning 5 or 6 times or more may have a chance to sit through the first one or two sections of DIS without getting fidgety. Others, though, may feel that 60+ minutes of one's life could be spent in a better way than watching this - which is about as exciting as looking at a glass of cold water becoming lukewarm - such as, for example, sleeping comfortably in one's bed as opposed to dozing off in a chair in front of a TV-screen.

I hardly ever do the latter - life is too short and too exciting for that! - but watching this film is the closest I've come to do so.


This is probably the worst movie ever made, the worst about it is that it's norwegian. Norwegian moviebuisness isn't exactly the best in the world, which by the way is perfectly illustrated by this dreadful, lame no-good piece of "art". A disgrace for all mankind!


I only saw a portion of this particular "movie" but what I saw looks like it was made in France. Oh, I pine for the days when that mighty Viking, the Swedish Chef, still roamed Scandinavia, stamping out all such crap with one swing of his frying pan.


"Dis" might be the worst Norwegian movie ever made, (it have some really hard competition), but at the same time it have something else, it was a box office smash hit, not for the movie, but for the laughs, if I remember correctly, over 300,000 Norwegians watched this movie at the cinemas, and that more then the avarege movie here gets, it packed full houses for weeks.


What else is there to say?

"Dis," or better yet, "Haze: A Love Story" is a very romantic and very dark film that has come to us all the way from Norway! The things that I like most about this film is the romance from beginning to end. I know I'm a man full of action, but who doesn't want to sit on down and see a whole lot of kissing, huh? Watching this helps encourage lonely people (regardless of age) to learn how to find that "special someone" and whatnot. Also wonderful are the various scenes which take place in various parts of our planet. The first date scene was at its best, also.

Even better is the fact that this movie is European. "Dis" shows us the pros and cons of dating and life, and that if you want to see a foreign film, watch this one!


I caught this movie on TCM during a tribute to the director Le Cava and was stunned and surprised by its trenchant wit and charm. The movie focuses on the obvious fact that adolescents and teenagers and kids in college spend an inordinately high portion of their waking hours thinking about sex. This is a wonderful breath of fresh air and shows that teen sexuality need not be told on screen by the use of a deus ex machina like the pathetic loser Lucas in "Lucas" and, alternatively, by genuinely depraved social deviants as in "American Pie" or "Porky's". Though this movie is about sex it is suitable for family viewing and even by pre teens. There is also to me a bigger message about the danger of censorship in our society. In an era where prudery and censorship are more and more being viewed by politicians as a way to protect ourselves from ourselves it may be useful to consider how much damage was done to our posterity by the Hays code and the Catholic League. Watch this movie!


At State College, while most of the young men are more interested in "free love" than marriage, handsome Michael aka "Mike" (Richard Cromwell, an exact cross between Leonardo DiCaprio and Jude Law) is full of old-fashioned ideals and he loves to get advice and talk things over with his favorite "Prof", a real sort of mentor to our young heartthrob. Meanwhile, Mike's girl Betty seems to like to flirt around, mainly with a hotshot named Duke who has a snazzy new car. As Betty chirps "I'm not my Grandmother - I like to have FUN - I'm modern!". Well - Mike and Betty really *are* in love, so he gives her his fraternity pin and proposes quitting college so they can be married. But when Betty says they should wait until they graduate before they marry (two whole years!), a "frustrated" Mike turns to flirtatious Dora, waitress at the local diner/college hangout, who he ends up getting drunk and spending the night with. Problems ensue for Mike as Dora's angry father walks in on them, then pushes marriage or prison onto poor, poor Mike (seems our little waitress was underage).

This film, at first glance, seems like it is going to be a light piece of college romantic fluff, with all the college kids drooling over each other and the guys trying to convince the girls to "drop some of their morals". Instead it takes a turn toward the quite serious, and with an emotional wallop, really comes off to be quite an excellent film. There is a lot of discussion in this film about "what's right, what's wrong" and other morality issues, and most of the performances are pretty top-notch here, I thought Arline Judge especially good as waitress Dora.


Even for pre-Hayes code cinema, this one is particularly smutty. Not to say there's nudity or whatever, but the sexuality positively drips off the screen, and very little is said which doesn't have to do with intercourse of one sort or another. They probably had fun making this one. Highly recommended if you can find it. Thanks to the American Film Institute for their preserving this film.


Quietly beautiful Dorothy Wilson first started work as a "secretary to the stars". She was taking dictation from Gregory La Cava, who was preparing to cast "The Age of Consent", when, giving her a second look, he organised a screen test. Surprisingly, she won the lead role and embarked on her short though interesting career.

This was one of a series of films that purported to give the real "low down" about youth of the day (ie "Confessions of a Co-ed" (1931), "Are These Our Children" (1931)). Set on the campus of State College, it tells of the lives and loves of Nigel, Betty and Duke, plus one father figure professor of Biology (John Halliday). Nigel (John Cromwell) is a conflict of emotions - a dedicated student who feels that the youth of today has gone to the dogs. His moodiness is driving Betty (beautiful Dorothy Wilson) into the arms of campus romeo "The Duke" (Eric Linden) - so he decides to quit school and marry Betty. Before he can put his plan into action, he is caught in the clutches of Dora (Arline Judge) a mercenary waitress. He walks her home. she plies him with liquor - he wakes up to find he is charged with corrupting a minor and faces marriage to girl he doesn't love or jail!!!

After an emotional scene with Betty - she decides to "go to the Devil" herself - with Duke, if he'll have her. He just takes her for a long ride and proclaims "you couldn't be bad if you tried". The ending is pretty dramatic - Nigel and Dora are waiting for a preacher, when word comes of a dreadful car accident - Duke is dying and Nigel rushes to Betty's side. When Dora sees the love and devotion Nigel shows to Betty - she tells her father that for once she wants to do the right thing and calls the wedding off. There is also a subplot involving Professor Mathews and Barbara (Aileen Pringle), a teacher and confidante of Betty's , who had faced the same dilemma when they were young, decided not to marry and lived to regret it.

John Halliday made every part he played interesting viewing. The rest of the top billed cast were young up and coming stars on the threshold of fame. Arline Judge was often cast as floozies and left films (late 30s) to concentrate on matrimony and divorce. Artistic Richard Cromwell had found fame in the remake of "Tolable David" (1930) but it was with "The Age of Consent" that he found his niche, as the good looking (almost ageless) young hero. Eric Linden was definitely the most talented of the bunch and he was excellent in a variety of roles ie the hysterical young father in "Life Begins" (1932), a boy who gets into bad company and goes to jail in "Are These Our Children" (1931) and the weak mother dominated younger son in "The Silver Cord" (1933).

Recommended.


This was another interesting, fast-moving Tarzan film with plenty of action and even a little more humor than normal.

The action scenes are hokey (shots of wild animals on a screen in back of the live actors) and even the background scenery is obviously painted but, hey, it's an old film. That I can put up with, but not the vast amount of "darlings" uttered by "Jane" (Maureen O'Sullivan). That gets really annoying

However, the rest of the film is very entertaining, very good and even very clever at times. The story is about Tarzan and Jane acquired "boy" (Johnny Sheffield) when the latter was five years old.

Overall: entertaining and one of the better Johnny Weissmuller-Tarzan entries.


Tarzan and Jane adopt a baby boy, the sole survivor of a plane crash. The boy's parents perished and so Tarzan and Jane adopt the little tyke. A few years later and he's a boy grown into the guise of Tarzan...complete with Tarzan's abilities to swing vines and talk to jungle animals. Only unknown to Tarzan and Jane, this "Boy" they made their son is actually a wealthy heir and his relatives have come to their jungle hideaway searching for him. Now Tarzan and Jane are faced with a most difficult choice..let "Boy" return to civilization and lose him forever or hold on to him themselves and have him remain in the jungle at all costs and despite the many dangers.

This one is powerful and moves the viewer through a wide range of emotions as the plight of Tarzan and Jane over Boy really puts one through the wringer. Suitable for family viewing for the most part although a scene or two may disturb more impressionable kids.


What is it about the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films that seem to be as entertaining today as they were when first released. In this installment a plane crashes in Africa and the only survivor is a baby which is rescued by a gang of Chimpanzees. Old Cheetah quickly gets control of the infant and swings back to Tarzan and Janes place and presents his find to the man of the treehouse. Tarzan and Jane adopt the child naming him simply "Boy" and quickly he is grown from baby to a five year old in the form of Johnny Sheffield complete with his own jungle yell. Outsiders from the civilized world who are boys blood relatives show up and that means trouble. Jane, Boy and his (evil) relatives wind up as captives of a hostile tribe and Tarzan with Cheetah and the help of most of Africas Elephant population arrive in time to save the day. This film is now sixty years old but doesn't seem dated or tired. Perhaps it's Weissmullers simple dialog and acting which did it. "Cheetah find" is his answer when Jane questions where the baby came from. "Food" is what he tells his guests who have lunch in the treehouse and asks him what the name of the fruit that they are enjoying is. When the baby won't stop crying Tarzan sticks an over sized (what looks to be) chicken leg in the infants face thinking maybe something to eat will do the trick. Perhaps it was Weissmullers swimming scenes which did it or the antics of Cheetah or maybe the classic Tarzan yell. Whatever it was the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films seem to be the best and this is one of them.


TARZAN FINDS A SON (MGM, 1939), directed by Richard Thorpe, the fourth installment to the popular movie series based on the characters created by Edgar Rice Burroughs, marks a new beginning for Tarzan and Jane as they become parents and accepting the responsibility in raising a child. No, Jane did not have a blessed event in the traditional sense, nor did Tarzan start passing out bananas in place of cigars in the waiting room to other expectant African native fathers in the waiting room of a jungle cottage hospital, nor did Cheetah act as the midwife. Three years have passed since the last installment of TARZAN ESCAPES (1936), which provided enough time for the writers to come up with something original. While the plots and situations were starting to repeat themselves by this time, something new has been added, a son for Tarzan and Jane, with delivery not by way of stalk but by air delivery. Because no marriage ceremony was ever indicated since their union, the rulers of the production code couldn't permit Jane to become pregnant and bear forth a child of her own since Tarzan and Jane were obviously living together. So the writers have thought up a the solution to the problem:

A young British couple (Morton Lowery and Laraine Day), aboard a private airplane with their infant baby, learn that they are in danger when the plain acquires engine trouble. After the pilot (Gavin Muir) makes a crash landing, everyone perishes except for the child. He is later picked up by chimpanzee's before Cheetah takes the infant, offers it to Tarzan (Johnny Weissmuller), who in turn vine swings himself back to the tree house where he presents the child to Jane (Maureen O'Sullivan). At first Tarzan becomes jealous of Jane's full attention towards the child, but in time becomes fond of him also, and being the "father," names him Boy. Five years pass. The introduction of Boy (John Sheffield in his movie debut) is shown in full swing as he hangs on to the vine, doing everything Tarzan does. He even learns the ape call like Tarzan, and uses it whenever in distress, such as one instance as he is caught and being covered by a big web and nearly getting attacked by a flock of large-size spiders. But outside of that, all seems to go well for the jungle family until a searching party, (Ian Hunter, Frieda Inescort, Henry Wilcoxson and Henry Stephenson), enters the scene. Revealed as relatives of Boy's deceased parents, they learn the truth of the boy and try to persuade Jane into deciding to giving up the youngster so they can take him back to England where he belongs (especially since he happens to be the heir to several million dollars). While Tarzan has already made up his mind in keeping Boy with them, the scheming relatives, with the exception of Sir Thomas (Stephenson), now being held captive, have other plans.

TARZAN FINDS A SON is a grand scale production and the only one in the series set in a time frame of more than the standard months or weeks, in this instance, five years, although the movie itself gives the impression of taking place solely in 1939 instead of from 1934 to the present, especially since Maureen O'Sullivan's 1940s hairstyle is evident throughout, but otherwise, makes little difference to the plot since it's the story and action the viewers come to see. As credited in the opening titles, underwater swimming scenes were filmed in Silver Springs, Florida. What a pity it wasn't done in Technicolor to take advantage of the fine location scenery. But with its usual dose of elephant stampedes, Cheetah's comedy relief and Tarzan's race to the rescue and a one man fight against hundreds of African natives, is enough adventure and excitement during its 81 minute time frame not to be a disappointment.

TARZAN FINDS A SON, along with the other MGM entries, have become available on either the VHS or DVD format, and formerly shown on the American Movie Classics cable channel from 1997 to 2000. It later shifted over to Turner Classic Movies where its premiered June 4, 2004, Bob Dorian, former AMC host, once profiled this chapter as being the one in which Maureen O'Sullivan, who wanted out of the series, to have her Jane character killed off, but preview audiences objected and a new ending was substituted. It's also been mentioned that is was Weissmuller who personally selected little John Sheffield, out of hundreds of candidates, for the role of Boy. He must have made a great impression since he would reprise his role seven more times until he outgrew the part by 1947. Next chapter: TARZAN'S SECRET TREASURE (1941). (***1/2)


Fourth film in the MGM Tarzan sequence is a great step up from the last film, Tarzan Escapes (what a dog that one is).

Here the film has Tarzan and Jane having a baby boy brought to them by Cheetah. The baby, who they name Boy, was orphaned when the plane he was flying with his parents crashed in the jungle. The crying baby was rescued by some chimps not long before the plane is discovered by unfriendly tribesmen. (we later learn the parents fates). Five years later an expedition comes into the jungle looking for the plane and some sign of the people on board. It seems a vast fortune hangs in the balance of the location of anyone on board the plane. Will Boy return to civilization or stay with Tarzan and Jane? Good film is a nice step forward in the MGM Tarzan saga.The plot moves along at a good clip, has some great thrills and keeps the stock footage to a minimum. To be honest I can't really say that any bit of the story really stands out but at the same time I enjoyed the film the entire time it was on.

If there are any draw backs to the film it would come in two places, first the basic structure of some one coming into the jungle to find some one, Boy here, Jane in the previous two films, was cliché almost from the get go. the fact that the studio got three films in a row from the plot line shows the films have more to them then the well worn plot lines. The second problem with the film is the long sequences where Tarzan and Boy frolic. Its good in that it establish father/son bonding and their relationship, but it kind of goes on and one too long. Worse its all variations on the Tarzan Jane frolics from the last two films.

Ultimately the pluses out weigh the minuses so this is a great little adventure film. Definitely worth your time.

(Addendum and possible spoiler: I can't believe that MGM was going to kill off Jane. I'm curious has to how the final sequence was suppose to be played since the scene as it stands now is a bit silly with Jane suddenly better.)


With Tarzan (Johnny Weismuller) and Jane (Maureen O'Sullivan) nicely settled into their treetop des-res (complete with all mod cons), it was only going to be a matter of time before we heard the pitter patter of little footsteps (other than Cheetah's, of course). However, with the Hays Code in full effect, and our arboreal lovebirds not actually wed, they sure weren't going to be permitted to have a child of their own via the normal method.

The writers of the Tarzan series get around this problem by having a child delivered from the sky by 'the great metal stork'a plane that crashes in the jungle with a baby boy as the only survivor. Cheetah finds the wailing bundle of joy and whisks him off to Tarzan and Jane, who decide to adopt the lad, naming him Boy (Tarzan's second choice, after having Elephant rejected by Jane).

Five years of blissful family life later, and an expedition turns up at the escarpment searching for the plane and any possible survivors. But Tarzan and Jane have become rather attached to their little tyke, and aren't about to give him up, especially when they discover that two of the visitors only want Boy for his vast inheritance.

Aimed at the matinée crowd, this particular instalment features none of the graphic nastiness or raciness that can be found in the first two Tarzan films (the obligatory native killing at the end of the filmvia a huge skull-cracking deviceis brief and non-explicit); instead, we get mild peril as Boy is attacked by pipe-cleaner tarantulas and a back-projected rhino, comic relief courtesy of Cheetah the chimp, and a lot of fun interplay between Tarzan and his 'son', the best scene being an impressively shot moment of underwater horseplay.

6.5 out of 10, happily rounded up to 7 for the bit where Cheetah turns his lips inside-out to amuse the new arrival (which makes me laugh just thinking about it).


I first seen Tarzan Finds a Son when I was quite young and have seen it several times since. It is one of the best Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan movies.

An aeroplane crashes in the jungle and the only surviver seems to be a baby boy. The rest of the party look like they were taken away by headhunters, including his parents. Tarzan brings the baby to his tree house and shows it to Jane and they call it simply "Boy" and raise him as their own. The movie then goes on a few years and we see Boy swinging through the trees and swimming. A search party then comes looking for the plane and then discover Boy is the young couple's son. Jane reluctantly agrees to give him to his relations but they get kidnapped by headhunters but Boy runs to get Tarzan who brings with him a heard of elephants and the headhunters' village is trampled by these. Jane recovers from a wound after a spear went into her and everyone is OK at the end and Boy stays with Tarzan and Jane.

As well as Johnny Weissmuller as Tarzan and Maureen O'Sullivan as Jane, the cast also features Johnny Sheffeld in his first role as Boy, British actor Ian Hunter and Henry Stephenson.

Watching Tarzan Finds a Son is a great way to spend an hour and 20 minutes one afternoon. Excellent.

Rating: 4 stars out of 5.


What a wonderful Tarzan movie  in the classic Johnny Weismuller / Maureen O'Sullivan tradition.

I won't say much about it at this time except that I really love the sequence involving Tarzan and Boy in the water; followed by the Boy's near-death going over the waterfall. That really captures the special flavor (it that's the term) of the Tarzan household: delightfully domestic, but with danger always nearby.

Then there's the intermixture of serious things and humorous things: such as Tarzan disarming the men; while Cheetah disarms the Kleenex box of Kleenex, one sheet at a time.

And best of all the final footage of Tarzan's jungle allies  especially the elephants and the apes  once again saving the day.

All in all, a truly wonderful Tarzan movie. I would recommend this movie to anyone.


Throughout the seventies and early eighties, Tobe Hooper was widely considered as one of the greatest horror directors ever to grace the silver screen. If it wasn't for his 1974 video nasty The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, then we may never have seen movies like Slumber Party Massacre or any of the other slasher 'massacre' titles. We may not have even witnessed classics like Halloween. Sometime after his career redefining joint venture with Steven Spielberg (Poltergeist), Hooper fell into an awful run of consistently poor form. Later years saw uninspired efforts like Crocodile, The Mangler and Night Terrors completely ruin his almost peerless resume. It was somewhat ironic then that he decided to direct a remake of the 1978 gruesome slasher (The Toolbox Murders) at exactly the same time that New Line Cinema were renewing his very own masterpiece (Chainsaw Massacre).

The original Toolbox flick is a tough act to follow, let alone reproduce. What it lacked in style and quality, it more than made up for with brutality that has never been expressed in such a gratuitous fashion. Some of the gruesomely vicious scenes are almost impossible to forget and seeing a masked maniac use a nail gun to slaughter a naked teenager while he merrily hums away like he's changing a light bulb is a shock tactic has never been used as effectively since. I must admit I hoped for more of the same from Hooper and I knew that he had already proved that he had the quality to break the hex of extremely poor horror remakes.

The Lusman Arms is a run down hotel in Hollywood, which has stood since the early twenties. In the opening scene we see a young woman get brutally murdered by a hammer-wielding black shrouded menace in one of the guest-rooms. Her body is dragged into the shadows and it seems that no one notices her disappearance. Next up we meet Nell and Steve Burrows (Angela Bettis and Brent Roam), a young married couple that have only just moved into the Lusman Arms. Steve is a doctor and spends most of his time out of the house, which leaves Nell suffering with her noisy neighbours through the wafer thin walls. Having already mistaken two rehearsing actors for someone being slaughtered, the Local Police are less than impressed with the housewife's overactive imagination. But after hearing the dieing screams of her neighbour, she begins to realise that the complex has more to its history than first meets the eye. Nell eventually heads out to solve the mystery of the disappearing residents, and what she discovers is more shocking than she could ever have expected

Toolbox Murders is something of an impressive return to form from Tobe Hooper. Slasher Movies are always easy templates to unleash some directorial flair and the veteran horror icon seems to lap up the chances to shine with relish. You can tell from the off that this is going to be something of a step up from the typical post-Scream lowbrow trash. Joseph Conlan's impressive score keeps the tension running on a knife-edge, and the set locations prove that the feature has been slickly produced. Hooper does a great job of making an ordinary everyday backdrop like an apartment complex feel as creepy as a haunted castle and the conclusion is as exciting as it is enjoyable. The two lead characters are fairly well acted, and kudos to the scriptwriter for giving the viewer the option to sympathise with the protagonist. There are enough mysterious suspects to partake in a reality TV cluedo marathon and each of them will give you a good enough reason to think that they could be the masked maniac. I especially enjoyed the stuttering manager, who describes a tin full of torn out human teeth that Nell found in her bedroom wall as, "Part of the building's charm and character!"

At the time of writing, Toolbox Murders has not yet been released in either the US or the UK on DVD, which is somewhat inexplicable. I'm not sure what kind of business this took at the box offices, but I believe that it does certainly deserve a bigger status. There are a few flaws that perhaps undermine Hooper's experience. The use of stereotypes is beyond belief; and as soon as a creepy toolbox-clutching handyman popped up as a hackneyed red herring, the movie lost a touch of credibility. At times the characters behave with a knack of ineptness that was totally nonsensical and perhaps underlined a lack of effort from the screenwriters. Victims leave themselves open to the killer's murderous advances in such a fashion that makes you wonder if they were suicidal, and the director fails to add anything remotely different to the conclusion.

Questions will be raised about the numerous plot holes that are scattered throughout the runtime, but personally I feel that they add an extra layer of mystery to the synopsis. Audiences don't always need to be hand-guided hand through a story. Gaps can be filled by a creative imagination and that is part of the beauty of cinema.

Toolbox Murders is not so much a remake of its 1978 ancestor as it is a complete re-imaging. Yes there's a nail gun murder and a similar masked killer theme; but this time around we have an intriguing supernatural sheen, which makes the movie a tad more interesting. All in all this is well worth picking up. Gory (one guy gets his head sawed in half ala Intruder), suspenseful (the final stalking scenes are brilliant) and well watchable to boot, this is Hooper almost back to his best. Let's just hope that he can keep up the good work with his latest adventure - Mortuary (another remake?).


The original "Toolbox Murders" was a pretty shameful combination of "Halloween" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," lacking the atmosphere, suspense, and gritty charm of those films. At the time of its release (1978), the concept of gory death by hardware (regardless of how peripheral it was to the 'plot') allowed for at least one lasting shock (a nail-gun murder preceded by a very memorable bathtub scene), but otherwise, the film is dated and dull by modern standards.

As is clear from the first frame onward, Tobe Hooper's stylish update of "Toolbox" is determined to take the material in a supernatural direction, and for the most part, is successful. Whereas many horror films of late have been drowned in unconvincing CGI gore and calculated orchestral booms designed to elicit cheap scares from the audience, Hooper's film retains the subtle implication of TCM (the villain remains masked/obscured throughout the film) crossed with a jigsaw-puzzle plot that becomes more engrossing as the movie progresses. As far as ambition is concerned, it definitely surpasses the original film's shopworn, "Psycho"-familiar story, and Hooper's assured direction helps greatly.

Angela Bettis leads a cast of lesser-knowns who give fine performances (the more grating, clichéd characters are dispatched promptly) and make the premise believable. Similarly, the photography creates fine atmosphere when needed, with the picture often looking like a cross between the colorful sets of "May" combined with the slight grittiness of Zack Snyder's "Dawn of the Dead" remake.

"Toolbox Murders" is a quirky, suspenseful, and sufficiently gory horror film. In the third act, Hooper re-affirms the genius of his seminal masterpiece by building the tension to an almost unbearable degree, whilst capping the film with a deliciously ambiguous ending.

Definitely recommended.


In Hollywood, the young teacher Nell (Angela Bettis) and her husband, the resident Steven Barrows (Brent Roam), move to an old building called Lusman Arms. Some sixty years ago, the place was glamorous, but presently is completely decadent, inclusive many dwellers have disappeared along the years. While her husband is working in the hospital, the lonely Nell hears some weird noises and becomes afraid of the place. While jogging, she is introduced and becomes close to her neighbor Julia Cunningham (Juliet Landau) and they schedule a hike together on the next day. Julia never shows up, and Nell looks for her in the building, finding a hiding block behind the wall, where an evil being, which was born from death, lives with many dead bodies.

"Toolbox Murders" is a great slash movie. The gore story presents original deaths and is well tied in, and Tobe Hooper seems to have recovered his "old shape" of great and talented director of horror movies. Other attractions are Angela Bettis, the "May Dove Canady" of the cult-movie "May", and Juliet Landau, the "Drusilla" of Angel. I particularly was very impressed with the initial death with a hammer: without being explicit and only listening to the beating of the hammer, the scene is very impressive. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Noites de Terror" ("Nights of Terror")


Tobe Hooper's 2003 version of the Toolbox Murders is a fun little movie. It's a bloody good time to watch, although it's not scary, but the fun factor makes up for it. I haven't seen the original, but I'm sure it's better than it. The middle part drags a little bit, but once the main character stumbles apon the "hidden" portion of her apartment building, the fun and action begins! Props to Tobe Hooper for a great and well done opening sequence. Most films that have somebody killed in the beginning have the next scene take place somewhere else or on the next day, the scene after it takes place the second after it! I give it an 8 out of 10.


It's hard to believe that the man who 30 years ago gave us what is probably the best horror movie ever done, the powerful Texas Chain Saw Massacre, went through 30 years of movies with mixed results. Fortunately, Tobe Hooper returns with a decent movie that finally manages to live up to the enormous fame of his legendary debut.

Reimagining an obscure 70s movie, Hooper sets his story in present day Hollywood, where a young married couple moves to the Lusman, an old building. Angela Bettis, the actress who surprised the world in "May", stars as Nell, who is not happy with his husband choice of moving to the Lusman. She'll find a contrived plot and gory killings as Julia, her neighbor and new friend suddenly disappears without a trace.

Bettis carries the film with grace, and power. This young woman definitely has a bright future in films. While the rest of the cast is average in their performance, Hooper's direction is the star as he turns the building into another character. The locations are awesome and the atmosphere Hooper uses is very creepy and filled with tension.

The movie flows well as a mixture of a "whodunit" mystery and a gory slasher. The gore is an important factor here, and it is well delivered. Probably he is not a great director, but Hooper knows how to pull up great murder scenes from his actors.

The flaws of the movie lay in the script, it is filled with enough plot holes to be a problem. Fortunately, it's creepy atmosphere and the high tension it creates almost make up for this big flaw, although it is still noticeable.

Tobe Hooper may be an uneven director who had a very lucky debut with "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", but here he gives us a very entertaining movie that really makes up for the 30 years of average movies he did. A very pleasant surprise. 7/10


I saw this film in a room that's designed to play Horror films and that's all you can see there. This film was made with little money and Tobe hooper's skills show throughout the movie, his ability to play with us, to make our fear rise, our heart beat faster. I thought the atmosphere was great! Basically the story is: Every year thousands of people go to L.A. to pursue their dreams, some succeed...some not. Some end up in the Lusman Building.. The Lusman Building was once a luxurious building, with classy, rich residents. Today, it's an old, spooky and sinister building where you would not want to live and if you did live there, you would want to leave...but could you? It houses a supernatural evil. It's been subdued for decades - but when renovations start, a series of murders take place.

This film becomes a mystery as our heroine Nell(Angela Bettis - see her in "May") tries to unravel the secret of the Lusman Building and its residents...it keeps us guessing cause almost everyone is a suspect and Hooper doesn't need big special effects to keep us interested, the story is fast paced and the killings are inventive and gruesome.

It's not that kind of film that spends millions of dollars in special effects and scares us only with sharp and loud sounds and tricks like that, no! This film shows a great director, some good actors and a good sinister story that will really scare you in a way that only really good horror movies can...this is no cheap trick or horror movie for 16 year old boys with cheerleader type actresses that show off their assets...this movie is far more interesting and scary than most of the so called horror movies that go to theaters.

Like I read in bloody-disgusting.com, " Toolbox is a strong film likely to boost Tobe Hooper back into the top rung of horror directors along with names like Craven, Carpenter, and Romero."

Go see a master of horror doing his thing...you will not be disappointed!


This new remake is definitely one of my favorite Tobe Hooper films in years. Angela Bettis (May, Carrie) stars as the newest resident of an old apartment building, apparently housing aspiring actors for decades. Immediately, she despises the building with it's strange tenants, shady repairman, broken fixtures, and when she notices that the residents start disappearing, she investigates - discovering it may have something to do with markings engraved on the walls (forgive me for that long ass sentence). The sets are nice and creepy and there are plenty of good gory demises, of course resulting from the use of power tools. By the way, since most of these death scenes were heavily trimmed for the R rating, you'll have to check out the DVD for the complete scenes which is definitely worth it. The killer in here is cool, reminding me of that deformed oaf from The Funhouse for some reason. Must have been the grunting in one scene. Certainly worth a look, since it differs greatly from the original.