Humor, action, suspense, romance all rolled into this underrated Truffaut film; circa 1972 and probably was not well received during the titles' release. Starting out as a research project for female criminals, to "saving" an innocent prisoner then onto getting imprisoned yourself( The Professor) and the ultimate betrayals from the ones who are charged to protect people from such evils, the Attorney.

Bernadette Lafont stars as Camille, the imprisoned woman who has had bad luck since childhood( and she does not help her causes along the way at the most inopportune times), shines and carried this movie the entire way. Her beauty and expressions are at the highest levels ever seen on the silver screen.

Yes, many plots and twists, but they are all spaced and placed in order, via flashbacks in the very beginning, and the sequences of subsequent events throughout this film make sense. The audience is not quite sure if Camille deserved her fate in prison and what her true character is like; will she repay the Professor for freeing her as he freed her in kind? Did Camille have what it takes to be faithful to a man or did the continuing bad luck and survival force her into the "easier way out"? The audience cannot possibly expect how this movie turns out, thus achieving the rare quality of total suspense.

Cinematography is excellent for a 1972 film, and getting an Exterminator, Western-style Saloon washed-up whiskey-soaked wanna-be and the other characters were all a credit to good writing, and finally, fantastic directing by Truffaut. Part of the French New Wave of Cinema was the exclusion of Studio sets and backgrounds, and it is evident that Truffaut was a Master of locations as he selected unforgettable places and structures.

Many say Truffaut was an overrated director. I say not so. Truffaut was brilliant and left this world too soon. If you want to see overrated, keep seeing the Hollywood cookie-cutter promoted-to-the-hilt templates that are the cash-cow machine for the industry.


By any hack American filmmaker, the opening narration where it goes into a repeating echo to lead us into a flashback, would be considered fine art, and legitimately treated "ala Harrison Ford's The Fugitive" and thousands of other films. By film historian Truffaut, you know you're in for a wacky, silly comedy, which is unlike any other film he directed. It's a crime this has never been released in the USA, as it's far better than many of his films which are. Also it again pairs Truffaut with actress Lafont, the two hadn't worked together since his and her first film 13 years before.

I can't recommend this film enough, it's so much fun, and highly offensive as well.


I must begin by admitting my headlong love for Truffaut's work. As connoisseur ratings go, this might not be his best film (Jules et Jim, Argent de Poche, Le Dernier Metro, Baisers Volés, Tirez sur le Pianiste, and Les 400 Coups are all at least as good and possibly better) but there is just so much life, tongue in cheek, unbridled pleasure in directing and in treating life as art, and the acting is so deceptively simple that I have to say this is probably my most favourite film by one of my most favourite directors. The initial sequence with the young dilettante's flatulent and cursing father kicking her rugby style sets the tone for the rest of the film, consistently pitting the stupidity of the male against the instinctive and openly unscrupulous intelligence of the leading female (there is hope yet in the typist but she is not the one all the men fall in love with...) Glorious comic touches sprinkle the film but if I had to select the cherry on this cake that would be the sequence where Denner, the rat exterminator, is waiting for Bernadette to come back from her visit to the singer. Look at how he tries to establish where the racing cars are that he hears but cannot see on the open road! Oh you must see this!


Pastiches in the noble sense of the word, Truffaut's B movies, semiserious and intelligent, are constructed on an unusual reportthe delicious contrast between the finesse and the brutality/ brusqueness. Finesse of conception, of treatment, of methods; brutality and brusqueness of the primary literary sourcestestifying of Truffaut's decadent attraction towards the brutal and the sordid (Truffaut himself had a rather naughty adolescence, and his physiognomy shows a certain human stuff, there are Lombrosian traces that somehow are at odds or seem to contradict his reputation of a gentle, emasculate human being and his high and refined intellectuality; he obviously wanted to look like the angelic leadsLéaud ;he did not).

From this juxtaposing of finesse and brutality issue a nonchalance and a delicious contrast. The respective pictures are not _epigone flicks, they are not pastiches in this pejorative sense, they are not derivativebut ingenious, ironic, and contradictory. They are also highly cultured productsthe same vacuum pomp found at Godard as well (with an entire different function in Truffaut's cinema, etc.). This artificiality might seem at first disconcerting; yet it is of a Hitchcockian efficiency, and strictly functional. This artificiality bears valuesseveral values, either human, personal or artistic. It can not be dismissed as a defect. It is part of the charm.


It's too bad, too, because the idea had a lot of potential. It just needed a better script, better songs, actors who could actually act and a director who knew what he was doing.

Mostly though, this movie is an exercise of ego for one Joe Brooks. He directs, he acts, he sings, he produces. Presumably, he also cast Shelley Hack, whose last name pretty much sums up the state of her acting ability, in the lead female role.

Where to start? The acting, if it can be called that, is an abomination. Shelley Hack is leaden and Joe would be lucky to be so good. He plays a jingle writer who aspires to greater things. Judging from the music, he's found his niche with jingles. It has a certain Barry Manilow light quality to it. Imagine hell being trapped in an elevator for all eternity with muzak playing Joe Brooks greatest hits, and you'll begin to get a taste for just how bad it gets.

Especially when Joe starts to sing. When Joe made "You Light Up My Life," the first decision he made was to dub Didi Cohn's voice with Debbie Boone's. Would that he showed as much sense here. Somewhere out there, cats start to howl when Joe sings.

The bottom line, watch if you must, but remember to bring a book to read. It's two hours of your life you'll never get back


I first saw this movie when it came out in theaters in 1978. I was 19, in the Marines, stationed in Hawaii, and liked... no, make that LOVED this movie so much, I saw it 12 out of the next 13 nights. I bought the double album that went with it (now if only Columbia would make it into a CD as well as a DVD of the movie - HINT, Columbia?)

Perhaps the thing about this movie that appealed to me the most was the fact that in most cases, you really can go home again. Whether it be a lost love to a time past in your life or family members from whom there have been past difficulties, the fact remains that doors always open in your life, and sometimes you have to just rely on faith and go through that door (or window) of opportunity and see what awaits. Having done that myself, I know firsthand of the exquisite joy that has brought to my life and that of others who I love more dearly than words can express.

Now that I'm in my forties, the storyline is nowhere near as far-fetched as some would think. Having a few friends and a family member lose their wives to death, and having to start over again in that department myself due to divorce, I can identify with Brooks' character a great deal. Perhaps this is why the movie has retained and even deepened its appeal so much to me over the years.

I was able to bid for a copy (and get a BRAND NEW copy) of this baby on ebay on VHS and seeing if I can get lucky in time for Christmas or New Year's. It's great for a 'chick flick' as well on date night in front of the fireplace.

If you get the chance to rent it, you'll have to look for it as a number of video stores may no longer have it in stock, it is WELL WORTH the time and effort to find this little jewel. You will indeed find yourself well-rewarded.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I give this classic a 10/10. ***


This movie has a GREAT soundtrack. The title song is pretty but the others used are outstanding. "California", which we hear whenever the hero goes after his old flame, should be adopted by the state.

Our hero is a top jingle writer for ad campaigns in New York with a desire to move up to movie scoring. This takes him to California, which is where the college sweetheart who walked out on him now lives. He wants to relive the past with a happy ending. This movie will resonate with anyone who has old memories.

There are especially nice touches here about male friendship and intercommitment. James Brooks seems to have done everything: story, music, directing, lead role, and it does seem very personal. But this movie has a number of interesting elements in it. Some bits about working with advertisers to produce a musical spot are marvelous. Jimmy Breslin has an interesting side role. There is a lot of warmth to this movie, and don't forget the wonderful music.


finally! this film gets no respect, which is unbelievable to me...i saw one review by a member who commented on the beautiful score and how romantic this film really is! this movie had a huge impact on my life, as it's pretty much my life story...

i too had a sweetheart in my youth who lives back East and i live in California just like Jennifer Corly...his name is even similar to Bob Morrison's! i can't watch this movie without becoming totally entranced and still think about my lost love often...the music is just beautiful and so moving and joe brooks is funny and charming...shelley hack is very lovely and does a great job with her winning smile and poignant tears as she says goodbye instead of goodnight in LA...

well, i'm going back East in March and we'll see if maybe one can go back again...i may even move there, since i can't seem to get him out of my heart...it's been a part of me since i was 16 and the strangest thing is the movie came out a few months after i met him in Disneyland and i flew back to Boston to see him shortly thereafter...we've been trying ever since off and on...


I love this movie! It's the one for Christmas Time and contemplative hours. Wonderful music, snow, a charming Joseph Brooks! The romantic song: "If ever I See You Again", which Bob Morrison once wrote for his first love Jennifer,leads you through the whole film.( I wonder whether this lovely song is available on CD?) Sometimes you think, that the uncharitable Jennifer is not good enough for Bob! But, in any case, keep your handkerchief ready!


I've seen this in 1978. I've really been there and done that, myself. How True! Lost a Soul Mate at age 17 (1967). Found her in 1976 (age 26), Lost again in 1986 (age 37), found again in 2001 (age 51). We both saw the movie in 1978, again 1980 (HBO). We'll see MY video from HBO, soon. We both know the real story, it's us. We agree, this is it. WE won't loose each other again (both age 55.5). Each time I see it, since 1986, I always get choked up. Even tonight at 9:30 PM (EST) (12/19/2004), It was harder to relive the truth, of the plot and lyrics. It wreaks, of ME. Facts are Facts. You don't realize, until you loose it. In the meantime, we share the same feelings and a 22 yr. old Daughter. That will help us all be together. we NEVER say, "Goodbye". WE SAY, "GOODNIGHT". Questions? Feel free. joecoscia2000@yahoo.com or joecoscia@cox.net. Or, 860-432-1821. Manchester, CT (USA)

JOE


Loved this movie and watch is every so often. Superb sound track that I wish was available. Good romance movie, but not too "mushy" or a tear jerker. Has a good plot which ends on a happy note. Somewhat believable. Would recommend.


The acting was so-so at best, the direction plodding and the songs sounded like an off key version of "You light up my life." In fact, I thought some of the score was a rip off of that song until learned it was written by the same guy. Perhaps the worst part was the "romantic time together" montage...we see them running, walking on the beach, riding horses on the beach (can you rent horses in LA?), eating, going to the park, etc. etc. It reminded me of a similar scene in the first "Naked Gun" only this was supposed to be serious. It came across as a movie designed to sell a soundtrack...and too often, the soundtrack won.


While this movie is slow in some scenes, I highly recommend this movie for anyone who loves romance, light humor, and music. If you remember hearing the lyrics "You light up my life," then you should also enjoy the soaring lyrics "If ever I see you again" by the same composer. Of course there are other pretty songs to hear. The story line of this movie is clear, a widower with two children who is tired of his work as a "jingles" writer. Meeting a former very beautiful lover is a romantic way toward change. It's certainly nice to watch a movie that people can calmly talk without yelling at each other. The movie also encourages you to fly coast to coast without fear.


I was dumbfounded at how bad this movie is. So bad it's good. My brother thinks this is the worst movie ever and watches it over and over again for the camp appeal. SEE THIS MOVIE.


Saw this movie back in the mid-80's on HBO just as I'd gone to work for a medium-sized advertising agency. The best parts of this film are the ones where Joe Brooks has to pitch his music to clients and deal with them in the recording studio along with their ignorance and complete lack of knowledge. As a jingle writer and producer, Joe knows this dynamic very well, and as portrayed here, it's dead-on - the most accurate and honest part of the film. It's extremely relatable if you're in the advertising business. Joe Brooks probably has a hundred stories that are just as funny and inane as the ones presented here, maybe enough for an entire film. That might wear thin pretty quickly, but it would more entertaining than the bulk of "If Ever I See You Again."


First of all, let me say that I am ASTONISHED that in 2008 anyone is still aware of this movie and further taking the time to comment on it on IMDb! Now let me tell you why this is an important, groundbreaking and momentous moment in film history: pivotal scenes were filmed at CAZENOVIA COLLEGE in lovely, tiny little Cazenovia NY in the snowy winter of 1978 when I and my classmates were tapped to be extras in the "college scenes"! Little did we know that those fun couple of days would turn into one of the most forgettable movies in cinematic history! But hey, for those days we were STARS - taking direction, re-shooting scenes, learning not to look at the camera and each deciding that it was perfectly reasonable to expect that a Hollywood Director would see one of us in the background crowd, jump to his feet and yell FIND ME THAT GIRL!! It could happen, we'd seen it in the movies, after all.

OK, so the movie was a little on the sappy side, the song was on the radio sung by the incomparable Roberta Flack and we got to attend a Premier Screening in Syracuse when it opened. Now, as we look to our 30th Reunion Year in 2008 (yikes!) we will be treated to a special screening of the film again as part of our Reunion Weekend festivities.

So here's to Joe Brooks and the rest of the cast and crew who ended a long day of shooting in the Central New York snowbanks by sharing drinks and laughs at the Caz Bar - i still have my "autographed" napkin and swizzle sticks taped into my scrapbook along with review clippings and snapshots of our Hollywood Moment together! CHEERS!


Piece of garbage about a widowed man (Joseph Brooks) who finds new love with a college flame (Shelley Hack)...but will it last? You seriously won't care.

Badly acted (Hack is so bad you stare at the TV in disbelief), poor direction with some really terrible songs (although the title song was a minor hit). I heard this movie was a good one for romantics--I'm a big romantic myself but I HATED this thing. It's done so poorly in so many departments it boggles the mind. If you want to see a good movie about a man finding love after his wide died get "Chapter Two". THAT one is fun, romantic and believable with a knockout performance by Marsha Mason. This one lacks everything the first one has.

When it first came out they actually had an advertising campaign telling guys to take someone they loved and lost to this movie--it might bring them back together (!!!!) My guess is if anyone took a woman to this movie she probably still hates him to this day!


There are different types of bad movies.

This falls into the pretentious bad category, which is the most fun. It is the sort of movie created by someone who takes himself far, far too seriously. He has a degree of talent but not nearly as much as he thinks he has so his strivings for Meaning and Significance and Truth are as clichéd as .... a commercial.

Joe Brooks, a jingle writer of the era, was the 'creative genius' behind this effort. Director, writer, star, teeth grindingly sappy ballad writer. Hey, it was the 'auteur' era so why not get in on the action ? Fortunately, the summer special effects blockbuster was discovered at precisely that time so the threat of Joe Brooks, auteur, was nipped in the bud.


I still can't believe a film with this many fine actors could be this poor, I had a fight with woman I was dating at the time. 1978(she thought it was wonderful)haven't seen her since.This is the only reason I still remember this clunker... Other people told me not to waste money. I guess I should have taken advice!! I haven't over the years seen any other other Joe Brooks productions. I don't even remember seeing Jimmy Breslin in this production, One redeeming quality was it actually was rather clean by todays standards and probably wouldn't have upset a church group. The bed room scene left 99% to the viewers imagination


I liked this role for Hack. She needed to play it low speed because she did not trust people, and she did just that. The music was sensational and the concept of finding a love years later was very romantic. Hack has a wide range. There was also a good match of Hack as a college student (another actress) while in some films it is not believable at all. The California coastline is a great backdrop for this love story. You also get an inside view of the music jingle industry and that is a riot. I am a big Hack fan. She has a vivacity that shows through and that is refreshing to see. She plays an artist, and I understand she did her own painting for the role!


This movie has to be seen to be believed. It fails miserably on every level. Fortunately, Joe Brooks handled the direction, writing, and lead acting role himself, so there are fewer people to blame for it.

As a romantic lead, Joe has about as much appeal as a potted plant. His leading lady, Shelley Hack, acts as though she were posing for the picture on front of a box of All Bran. It's pretty bad when the most professional acting performance in a movie is delivered by a little girl (Danielle Brisebois).

Joe plays a jingle writer who dreams of being a serious musician, even though all of his "serious" songs still sound like extended jingles, and the classical piece he composes to show off his true talent would be better suited for a group of musical saw players instead of an orchestra. Watching his dramatic gestures as he conducts this ear-splitting opus in the recording studio, as the dazzled Shelley Hack grins at him like a stuffed loon, is one of the most unintentionally hilarious scenes ever filmed.

Joe was obviously hoping for another big chart-topper like "You Light Up My Life", but its inexplicable success was not to be matched by the cringe-inducing dirge that is this film's theme song. I don't know who performed it, but he doesn't sing it as much as he suffers through it. He seems to be battling his way through a particularly intense bout of constipation as he strains to expel the stomach-churning lyrics. But I doubt if even Debby Boone could've made this song any more tolerable.

When I saw this movie on HBO several years ago, I just had to have it. I watch my tape every so often just to gape in wide-eyed amazement at how truly awful a movie can be. As a bad-movie lover, I hold this perversely-entertaining cinematic messterpiece in high esteem -- it's the PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE of romantic movies, and truly one of the worst films ever made.


Dull, predictable lifeless story about a widower who gets a second chance at love with an old college flame after a chance meeting. Good thing his wife died, huh?

Joseph Brooks probably figured "You Light Up My Life" packed 'em in to theater's so why not build another film around another one of his syrupy songs? Problem is the song is even worse than "You Light Up My Life" and Joseph Brooks doesn't make for the best leading man. There's absolutely no chemistry with Shelley Hack who looks bored throughout.

You've been warned.


As a Mexican, it is very exciting for me to find new proposals for Mexican modern films.

Unfortunately, must of the current Mexican movies are taking the same Hollywood recipe: beautiful actors, violence, soundtracks of well known Latin groups... Batalla en el Cielo does not follow this. The director, Carlos Reygadas, is a person that really wants to show what he has in mind, and does not care about considering distracting elements for having a greater impact in the audience.

I am against the use of sex for attracting audience to a film. However, I really think that some (not all) of the sex scenes of this movie were really part of the story. Also, showing sex as it is (not always as idealistic and esthetic as Hollywood has taught us) is an interesting proposal!

I consider that one of the main achievements of this movies is to show many cultural traits of my country:

-The view of the Catholic religion as a resource to erase the mistakes one has made: "you can do whatever you want, don't worry about the effects because God will always help you"

-The notorious gap between rich and poor people: when Ana refers to Jaime's servant as "la gata" in such a despective -but common- way.

-The double morale managed by Mexican: how can a prostitute, as Ana, can be a moral leader over Marcos's acts?

-The informal commerce (Marcos and his wife sold merchandise in the subway).

-The love for soccer (what can I say about that, if I love it?)

-Cheating on your partner

-The lifestyle in Mexico City, with its traffic jams, way people behave in the subway, neurotic people, kidnaps.

All the issues above are part of the Mexican life.

Personally, I consider the following opportunity areas:

-Not all the music that was used was OK. Sometimes it was too "belic" for me , but at least it is according to the scenes and most of it does not follow the marketing intentions to make you buy a soundtrack

-The audio quality should have been improved (it was not easy to understand, even for people used to the way people from Mexico City speak!)

-Some (very few!) parts were too slow... but considering Reygadas's style, I might think that it is part of his professional charm.

I like to see a different proposal. I would recommend this film to people that, at the time that they leave the theater, really want to think about human nature, rather than thinking if it was an erotic or violent film.

I hope my comment has been useful...


Much has been made of the gratuitous opening sequence in Reygadas latest picture. Allow me to dispel any fears, this is the most beautiful and resonant pre-title sequence in the past decade. We see the nude Carlos' head and chest and sense it's the prurient cliché of the study of a man's naked soul. Reygadas lulls us into this feeling and then slowly pans down to dissolve our preconceptions. The beautiful music beats giving a real sense of emotional turmoil and we pans down to see the almost child-like (in terms of size beside Marcos) Ana administering fellatio. What could have simply been dismissed as shock tactics is undermined by the unsexiness of the sequence and the music which reaches crescendo as the bored Marcos attains orgasm. The black screened title sequence comes at the peak of the music, we are hooked entirely and excited by the emotional resonance produced by the two protagonists about whom we know nothing about. The film is littered with moments wherein the music reaches such a pitch that we cannot but feel for these ostensibly detached and remote characters, and therein lies Reygadas skill. The film works on a number of levels, parallels are drawn between the rife kidnapping problems in Mexico City and Jesus experiences spent in Hell in the 3 days following his Crucifixion. In Edinburgh Reygadas and his actress Anapola Mushkadiz talked and it was interesting to find how autobiographical his film is. The characters retain their own names and the lead Carlos actually was Reygadas father's chauffeur for many years (and an untrained actor). Anapola Mushkadiz, who is a quiet little phenomenon, has never previously acted and showed little ambition to do so again, attributed her performance entirely to Reygadas. Clearly one of the best current directors with influences of Antonioni and Tarkovsky, he curiously reflected that his next film would be happier, curious his sure touch for the darker reaches in everyday life. Rarely does so subtle and out-right thought-provoking a film get made.


This not an easy picture. It requires Patience and commitment. It's a poetic movie about the urban heaven. About real people. About love and about madness. Reygadas is truly an author. He turns a conventional history in to a great ride through emotions, feelings and in to the overwhelming city of Mexico. Either you love it or hate it, no one comes out of the theater without a comment or a reaction. The movie has the power to move you in a positive or in a negative way. And i guess that something to be thankful about. Mexican films, in recent years, are mostly easy going urban comedies. This totally different. A prove that we can make different stories that reflect the sometimes surreal life of our country. This is one of them. With no professional actors, the movie feels honest and. The cast it's in a very natural level. The Sex scenes are not as important as they seem. Sex is finally a part o who we are, and we are use to see great bodies making love on the screen. It's not easy to see real people doing it, because we may see ourselves in them. And when someone throws your reality at your face, you can hate it. But Batalla En el Cielo does that and even more: Takes that reality to another lever and turns it in to poetry. And that it's just fantastic.


I saw Battle in Heaven at this year's Cannes film festival, and though I had trouble sitting still and keeping my eyes on the screen, the end result was an incredibly interesting movie that experimented with new ideas, while most of the films at Cannes this year were just recycling the same ideas and techniques. The film begins and ends with a blow-job, which may be too much for many viewers to handle (one theory is that they'll delete the first and last scenes for an American debut). There is a lot of sex throughout the film; it usually involves overweight people (overweight is putting it nicely), and it's always very awkward. The music and the sound effects are very clever. I hope the film opens in the US... but go see it at your own risk. If you can make it through the first few minutes, you'll love the rest and you'll be amazed by what can be captured on film today.


Battle in Heaven is an epic adventure in film in the urban world. It thrusts the viewer into many small worlds without fully explaining each world or how they are connected. You must be open and receive this film or you might be frustrated. The camera-work is radical in style yet actually slow and simple. It's just that nobody takes this truly panoramic approach. The use of music is also powerful and moving. Reygadas has really proved himself a force in cinema with this film.

Thematically, the film touches on many views -- one example if the fact that almost everyone looks ugly in this film, yet not repulsive. There is also a sense of raw sexual abandonment despite the lack of eroticism.

As well, the film deals with Mexican nationalism, and its Catholicism, and the army, in ways that will have relevance for Mexicans. There is beauty in this movie and the feeling of life's inherent tragedy. Decadence is present and evil casually introduced as an aside. You will also be awed by the bravery of the actors and moved by the raw and close-to-real sex acts.


"Batalla en el cielo" is one of those inert, enervating art movies that comes along from time to time and has highbrow critics reaching for the superlatives. By using amateur actors it masquerades as naturalistic, but it is in fact as artificial as a piece of modern conceptual art.

**Major spoilers ahead**

Set in present day Mexico City, what little story there is revolves around a chubby middle-aged chauffeur named Marcos (Marcos Hernandez), who together with his even chubbier wife, seems to have kidnapped a baby who has subsequently died. All this drama happens off camera, as does just about everything else that might be of interest, except for the sex. Indeed, Marcos has quite a lot of sex, both with his wife and (separately) with a much younger woman named Ana (Anapola Mushkadiz), the daughter of his rich employer. Marcos, who may or may not be guilt-ridden about the infant's death (it's anybody's guess, since all the actors have clearly been directed to refrain from anything resembling emotional expression), tells Ana about the kidnapping and she encourages him to turn himself in to the police. Later on he stabs Ana to death and then joins a religious pilgrimage, dying on his knees in church. As has been well documented, the sex in "Batalla en el cielo" is very explicit indeed. Director Carlos Reygadas seems to be garnering praise for the mere fact that he has filmed overweight and not very attractive people naked and having sex. But really, so what? It's been interpreted as some kind of laudable corrective to the cosmetic eroticism that Hollywood and the porn industry peddles. It isn't, of course, for the simple reason that the movie overall isn't remotely good enough to mediate the intended visceral impact of lengthy depictions of actual sex. In the context of the story the extended and graphic nature of these scenes is simply as unwarranted as it would have been if the actors were beautiful and glamorous. Admittedly the sexual imagery does provide momentary glimpses of the raw and vulnerable humanity of these people, and had it featured in a more emotionally rounded and professionally told story it might have carried a much greater resonance. As it is, just about everything that happens feels meaningless and remote, because Reygadas evidently has no interest in supplying his audience with any interpretive hooks, and unsurprisingly none of the amateur actors is skilled enough to fully inhabit on screen the bodies that they have so boldly put on display.


This movie is a shameful example of the Mexican industry. We have so many great movies, I can't understand how this film has managed to be shown in the theaters at an international level. the beginning was well made, it caught my attention the unusual message it portrayed, but it went downhill from there. The story was terribly narrated, the sex was awful, it just failed to transmit the message I guess it has: how decadent life is. I know there are ways to show sex scenes in an artistic way, it was great to show normal looking people in their intimacy, but this was just horrible. It seemed as if the director thought: OK, here is an open scene of some roofs, why don't we add some sex here? Oh look! a bedroom, let's have the two fat actors have sex here! OK, the movie is ending, but we have extra film, I know, let's have her give him a blow-job in heaven and declare their mutual love after he stabbed her to death. The acting was so obviously forced that it is ridiculous. The director tried to show how common people are in Mexico, but this is just bad. Even the accent the actors used in their speech sounded false. The camera angles, the supposedly artistic scenes were so repetitive and badly done. All the movie seemed to have been done forcibly. It was terrible, but I guess it got a decent rating here because of the free sex and the shots of a man's erection and a girl's vagina.


Boring. A plot that doesn't move, but rather seems situational. Instants of good cinematography, but you see them all in the trailer. Acting that could be portrayed by dead people. Sex that you wish was done by dead people. I thought I was over 2 hours into the movie and checked the clock - just past an hour. Yeesh! Avoid, unless drinking with friends.

(OH! I see IMDb wants more review than that - okay, **spoiler warning**)

A physically gross guy getting a BJ from a cute thing. She sheds a tear - why? You won't find out. Offscreen, his wife and he had stolen and accidentally killed a baby - why? You won't find out. But she was tired of hearing the mother, her friend complain. Callous (and not so bright to boot) -- Why? You won't find out. Ultimately the guy seeks redemption through religion - and gets it! Why (even though murder is a "deadly sin" and cannot be redeemed)? You won't find out.

Don't waste your time.


There are many redeeming qualities about this movie, and I think it's better than most people are making it out to be. I really hope the idea of a struggle for redemption comes through. It did for me. If it does, then the film, in my view, succeeds in telling the story that it should. I should mention, the opening scene really pulled me in. How could it not, being graphic and striking? Some people might think it was gratuitous. I think it was integral to the story.

Element after element, plot event after event set the tone for a story that is being told. I could really appreciate the commentary about the extremes some people may go to (kidnapping) in Mexico. It's not an ordinary topic, and it's treated very well. Very creative. Including the title which I thought was very suitable for the film.

Give this a try. It's good if you're in the mood to get a slice of life of Mexico. I think it does just that in a creative and entertaining way!


Battle in Heaven stops being interesting to watch every time the director decided to put in a scene or shot that doesn't add up to the hard-to-be-found storyline.

The tragic life and the somewhat perverse feelings of belonging that Marco has is clear from the beginning of the film. And in the first few scenes this state of being is depicted very clear and immersing.

Yet as soon as the film starts developing towards the point that Marco's unclear conscious starts to conflict, and his desire for Ana get's more troublesome. The movie loses track of a storyline and every time you think you grasp what is going on, the director put's in another shot that absolutely doesn't make sense and raises questions. (Why o why did they put in the close up of Ana's vagina, it was pretty though).

The problem of this movie is not that it lacks constituents for a storyline, but that it has to many undetermined parts that explain the "why?" especially in relation to Marcos. Too much is left to the viewers interpretation resulting in me not really knowing what was going on.


Walking around IMDb and I realized that there're many good movies are being shamefully underrated . To be honest this's one in a few movies that in my view are perfect . Thoughtful story, well direct, genius camera arranging . There're some guys here said it's had a bad ,going-to-nowhere story then they can't get the message , the reason blah blah blah , some others complained about its slowness , then some avuncular naturalist point out that these actors can be compare with a wax statue of Paris Hilton , some "critics" bring King Kong (OMG) and LOTR (WTF) to intimidate this movie , so, kiddos , go home and leave indie spirit alone !


This film is about a man and wife, who kidnapped a friend's baby for ransom. However, the baby died, and they have to live with the consequences.

The plot outline describes a promising start of an emotional drama. It could have been a captivating story if it was elaborated well. However, the plot ends there. The filmmakers ran out of ideas of what to do, and hence film a car driving around the city for minutes, or film the urban apartment blocks from a rooftop. Or throw in some sex scenes to keep viewers interested.

There is almost no portrayal of Ana and Marco's states of mind after the kidnapping goes wrong. There is no description of the victim's family's grief. Instead, the film wanders around aimlessly and pointlessly. It fails to engage, captivate or evoke any emotions. "Battle in Heaven" describes no battles. It lacks any redeeming value, and I strongly suggest staying away from it.


At first I was engrossed by the first minutes of the film. But having analysed the narrative structure and I came to the conclusion that in fact the beginning of the film is the vital part of the film which makes up the middle and the end of the film. There is a psychoanalytical perspective to take into consideration. One has to take into consideration the Latin American culture and the role of the man, to understand the pressures that revolve around the main character's psyche. The burden of his actions, both in having kidnapped a child and the consequences of his infidelity. This film at first seemed boring and slow, but once reflected upon can be added a few extra points. Aesthetics and psychological analysis within the narrative are strong points to look into...but didn't love it...But please bare in mind this is not a Porn film as supposedly wished in the previous critique.


-likely there are no real spoilers here, but I do hate all spoilers, so erred on the side of caution.-

I'm not sure if I am happy or sad that this film was so beautifully shot - had it not been, I would have stopped watching it pretty quickly.

I found many elements of the Marcos and Ana plot really annoying (the conceits and the situations both). Although I appreciate a beautiful body, the contrast between the actors felt more exploitative than honest. A "truer" actress playing Ana (that is, not quite so fetching and physically perfect) would have made it less annoying. As for the sex, it was not as awful as some made it out to be - or perhaps reading the comments before watching made me expect much worse (that and I'm not fat phobic). Some scenes struck me as just right and way over done at the same time (the onanistic football watching scene is a perfect example, too much but there was something about it that I just loved).

The comments here by Spanish speakers that the acting was just atrocious made me realize how much can be forgiven when you don't speak the language of the film, but even I cringed at some of the performances. The scene in the countryside between Marcos and his wife for example. Ouch.

During one scene we watch Marcos walking, walking, walking through the countryside, with that dead look on his face. It would have been excruciatingly dull to watch but the landscape was breathtaking. Like I said in the beginning, the photography saved this film for me. Mexico City looks amazing in this film - I feel as though I have really *seen* the city in a way I never have previously. And the sound (so heavy on the ambient) was enjoyable as well.

On a philosophical note, I tire of the notion that women's bodies are for wide consumption, and of seeing violence against women as portrayed in many films (as routine), but even with those predispositions, I could enjoy the film - well, aspects of it. The last 20 minutes or so... meh.

But it was a beautiful film, for all of the flaws I saw in it. So, there you go.


I live and work in LA. Here's the reason for my rating. First you take a random porn movie off the shelf, then you replace the physically attractive but creepy-brained human beings with the super ultra low rent versions of the same people. Only now they're large and less attractive, save one gravel-voiced sex cat, and they really truly believe they are making art. This causes every action and thought and move of the camera to s l o w w a y the f * * k d o w n. Then you take out most of the sex and replace it with documentary footage of, well, Mexico City.

It creates a drugged-out kind of sensation watching it, by planting actors like stiff cardboard cutouts in scene after scene, usually staring into space amid saying a line or two like "I just kidnapped a kid" in subtitled slang. Then we're at a whore house to dangle the would-be sexual carrot for a bit, and it's back to staring at a fat dude in a cloud of farm dust. As though it's in the same metaphysical dimension as watching City of God or Capote... or Harry freaking Potter. It blows my mind that there isn't a 14 year old in Quebec with a digital video phone that hasn't put together a more compelling film to replace one like this in the indie theaters. Adults having sex and all.

The true offense of Battle in Heaven isn't that it's a transparently disguised mindless self indulgence which only has common-thread relevance in a world that doesn't exist in reality (a 2006 world thirsting for high-art-concept low budget motion photographs of naked central casting hopefuls). It's not that you can see the actress' head tracking the camera and then relaxing when it landed on her, or the splicing of the edit in the bell ringing scene, or the totally scuzzy texture and manipulatively depressing guiding hand of the story and of its director. The real burr under my saddle was the potential I thought was there from watching the first scene, which seemed so erotic and new and animalistic and folksy and deeply visceral. It was arousing. Then, the movie seemed to relentlessly punish me, pummel me for hours and hours into a Latin America submission. The movie made me embarrassed to have been turned on at the beginning. More than that, it made me feel a little repulsed even at the thought of sex. When I got home I told actually told my pet parrot that a piece of me had just died. That hormonal piece that gets excited at the gates of Heaven even though what awaits me is just another Battle. Watching this film aged me. I grew up more than I wanted to today. It was icky.

I'm normally one to shun mean spirited criticism of other people's art, but obviously this is where I draw the line. These filmmakers deserve many things, but participation in Hollywood isn't one of them. I should know, I was in Gigli.


I went into this film without realizing it was by Carlos R. I won't explain the storyline as you may have read it already by now - I will however try to rationalize why it may be loved/hated.

This "artistic" film is not meant for the regular masses of people - that much is clear. It however goes a step ahead by trying to create a niche group amongst the "sophisticated" critics/viewers as well! It's a "short story" shot in exaggerated long moments of nothingness. You will be viewing the (deliberately) expressionless actors looking into space like zombies in addition to the Mexican landscape, roads, people, roads, sun rising, (did i mention roads?) etc with no coherence. It was during these long shots, I realized this film was reminiscent of another rather *boring* Mexican film I had once lost 2 hours of my life to.

It wasn't until the much talked about "Real Life people" sex scene that I paused, checked and found it was indeed a film by Carlos Reygadas! At least he has succeeded in imprinting his style even on normal audiences! Once a director does it (ie Geriatrics Sex in Japon) in a movie, its considered artistic by the niche critics but to do something like that again in another gloom of a film? I call it a disturbing fetish crying out for media attention! Let me get this straight - the film is not about sex primarily - it also is *supposed* to be about human dilemmas of morality, class divides etc.

However we never get to see it, comprehend it or actually feel for it. It's a film which will fulfill those niche audiences and allow them that seat of authority which they can have and enjoy.

PS. This film will be enjoyable in 4x Fast forward.


Well, I felt watching this movie that it is sometimes very pathetic and in the same way very Catholic or 'fundamentalistic' in any sense of believing. However, it was interesting to watch for me until Marcos kills his real love. This scene wasn't real for me at all and I couldn't understand this scene except for throwing in Catholic believes. However, the movie tries to be 'shocking' by it's explicit sex scenes - which are just one thing: REAL. I would summarize this movie as 'One guy fells in love with the one he took care since she was a baby and is lost in his daily live'. This means he doesn't have so many emotions for his family any more and his love for the 'strange women' becomes stronger and stronger and he adores her. At th end, he knows he did something or many things wrong and kills himself by going on a pilgrimage. It's worth to watch you, because it let's you dive into a unique and different world. At the end, it didn't tell me very much about life but it gives you a different angle of view.


Dealing to be impartial and generous with the last work of Carlos Reygadas, I could recognize its effort to obtain a different film, cradle absolutely in personal convictions and without considerations for the Box office. But that "effort" is also what bothers me: Too many pretensions for so miserable result: 1)Its pretension of veracity like a documented reality or more likely a "cinéma vérité" work, using real people and non-actors, impostors of emotional states for a very diluted script fails resoundingly: A script exists. And it is perceivable that their individuals or "characters" are acting, and as is expected with nonprofessional actors, acting poorly. Their dialogs are unbelievable. And contributing to the feeling of unreal and falsification, the director uses abundant sequences in fixed positions where the characters seemed to be forced dummies, nothing that corresponds with the naturalness of the human body in the plotted situations. Everything is false, artificial and unreal.

2)I think questionable that the "authenticity" had some aesthetic merit, or therefore, any "Big Brother" or Real TV would be equal to the last work of Reygadas: In them there is no plot, and the people are real either. I do not believe that Carlos Reygadas finds in "The Real Cancun" some aesthetic merit, nevertheless, this one has the same characteristics that he looks for in "Batalla en el Cielo". Both fulfill with his simplistic belief in "real cinema": not directed by history at all, being something unreachable, similar to music experience, been perceived of different form by each member from the hearing. Semiotics does not come to the case, but considering image and a spoken language similar ways to obtains diffuse effects like the music experience, without considering the implicit qualities of precision of those means, has not hit the target.

3)Its pretension of reflection and depth with its long pauses like Tarkovsky did, doing a film totally rate devoid is disturbed, breaking any calm or reflexive feelings, with some real jewels of involuntary humor, as the gross and shocking moves in, any deep feelings or reflections on the human condition moves out. Crazy laughs or repulsion stays.

4)When the film has finished, I felt to be the filthy accomplice of a director without scruples, with has so much passion for create, but very little to say. That his work is fundamentally based on the value of ordinary people who were used to expose themselves in cinematographic sessions of explicit sex in a film with many artistic pretensions, but where the only art were the sounds and music of the sound track.


I didn't know this film-maker, Reygadas promises much to me now. I'm looking for Japon now. But.. why I love this? To be short, to me is a total, human, deep film. Simple... and this is a quality, a great one in this case. Beautiful photography and music, very good actors. Maybe is only a 9 film... I need other plays, maybe in original language if I find it, seems that in my idiom (Italian) it less many. In doubt I give it maximum vote I can, it is one of the rare work that catch me totally e in my deepest sensations and emotions. Also the famous "scandalous" scenes are very sweet, kindly, true... most true that in hollywoodian rappresentations. But who is that find fellatio scandalous in 2006 AD?? or in generally making love? war, hypocrisy, loneliness are the real scandal of humanity... like seeing in this beautiful film work.

and a nice little thing: Anapola is a portrait of female beauty and energy , I knew her in Hate 2 O, another beautiful imaginative film, by Italian film-maker Infascelli.


Set in Mexico City, Carlos Reygadas' provocative Battle in Heaven reflects the contradictions of the teeming megalopolis of 20 million, a beautiful city of stately old buildings and tree-lined suburbs, yet one in which 3,000 kidnappings take place each year with most perpetrators getting away with their crimes. In the film, a Catholic and a seemingly good man commits criminally perverse acts, a wealthy young woman engages in prostitution for fun, and a loving couple of limited means kidnap a baby for ransom from an equally poor family. Like French director Bruno Dumont, Reygadas' cinema is predominantly physical and there is little dialogue, narrative thrust, or explanation of the contradictions. Portrayed by non-professional actors, the main characters, like Bressonian models, show little emotion, and the film often feels like a study of flawed humanity shot by an observer from another planet.

Marco (Marcos Hernandez) has been a chauffeur for a General of the Army for fifteen years. His unnamed wife (Bertha Ruiz) hawks alarm clocks and pastry in a metro station. Both are middle-aged, unattractive, and overweight, the antithesis of Hollywood glamor. The film is framed by sexual acts, and explicitly realistic Dumont-like sex is sprinkled throughout, apparently designed to tweak our level of comfort rather than turn us on. As part of his job, Marcos chauffeurs the elite General's rebellious young daughter Ana (Anapola Mushkadiz) around town and he is the only one who knows about her secret life, turning tricks in a brothel. To clear the air and perhaps to receive some of her favors, Marcos admits to her that he and his wife kidnapped the baby of a friend and that the baby died accidentally.

Transcending racial taboos and class differences, Ana agrees to have sex with her driver but tells him to turn himself in to the police. Persuaded by his wife, however, he decides to wait until after the procession of Catholics to the shrine of the Lady of Guadeloupe. In Battle in Heaven, the brilliant cinematography of Diego Martinez Vignatti conveys powerful images of beauty juxtaposed with scenes of ugliness. Marcos, deep in concentration while driving on a beautiful day, is cursed and spat upon in a scene of road rage, the music of Bach's elegant Concerto in D minor blares at a tawdry gas station, and a scene of touching farewell is suddenly marred by an unspeakable crime.

Unique and disturbing, Battle in Heaven is full of shock and awe, but it is the awe that remains after the final credits. Amoral and violent, unfulfilled by sex, Marcos seeks redemption. In abject sin, hooded, crawling on his knees to the Basilica, he joins a group of marchers he once called "a flock of sheep" and, in the moment where pure light and pure darkness merge, we discover once again that grace is everywhere.


OOOOOhhh my God. This is the Worst film i've ever seen in my life. who told this guy he could direct???? art movies are one thing, but this piece of crap, does not qualify, the actors really cant act, except for Ana. If you think you've seen everything, you haven't, there is the ugliest woman in the world naked and having sex in this movie. she weighs like 300 pounds and is like a midget. now, why on earth will Mexico support a movie like this??? they say the director is a genius. this is exactly like the story of the stupid king, that was tricked in to paying to have made an invisible suit that only smart guys could see. really, whoever tells me that this guy has talent as a director or that this movie is a master piece is a real idiot. It is incredible that at this day in age, someone still supports this kind of crap. please, Do not see this movie, the images of its bad directing will haunt you forever.


"Battle in Heaven (Batalla en el cielo)" is a heavy-handed symbolic linking of class colonialism with sexual obsession and violence.

We get a lot of nationalistic symbolism as the central "Marcos", bodyguard to the General, spends a lot of time supervising the raising and the lowering of the Mexican flag (and I assume the various double entendres of up and down the flagpole and a lot more phallic images penetrating vulva stands-in).

We see sudden bloody violence spurred by sexual and other frustrations or just that writer/director Carlos Reygadas has seen a lot of Asian Extreme cinema with similar themes.

We get a lot of controlling religious symbolism, culminating in a self-flagellating pilgrimage. Cynicism about celebrity and soccer players is thrown into the mix as well.

Compared to "Bubble", the use of nonprofessional actors here seems like an exploitation of their faces and especially of their bodies, with very long close-ups of every part of them in unsympathetic poses, as the camera is almost as documentary-like static as in the work of Michael Haneke. Filled with tawdry, explicit male fantasies that could be construed as misogynistic, it wasn't a coincidence that I was the only woman in the theater, let alone that most of the older men were wearing long raincoats (though two did walk out half way through as even they could figure out it was much more political than erotic).

Other than as symbols, none of the characters make much sense as human beings, with the possible exception of Marcos's wife, who I felt somewhat kindly towards about her involvement in a bizarre kidnapping. The General's daughter's, "Ana"s somewhat older boyfriend "Jaime" was at least cute, but her sexual appetites seemed a lot more fantasy than even realistic as a criticism of the teasing of the pampered upper class leeches.

The sound design is intriguing, as sounds from a radio, a tractor, a religious procession and service all seem to set "Marcos" off in his existential acts.

Commendably, the subtitles were black-outlined for legibility, so one could focus on reading those instead of looking at boring full frontal nudity and sexual acts.


I don't disagree that this movie has great flaws. I mean the dialog could be more fluid, the editing could be more crisp, so on so forth.

But while the movie is choppy as a whole, some of the scenes are breathtakingly raw. Like the part where Marcos is driving Ana from the airport, you can see, even almost smell, the city's absurd contrast between its economic classes. When Marcos is just staring into oblivion, you know you're looking at a real person, whose sweat is his own sweat and the grease on his face is his own grease.

There is something mysterious and incomprehensible about the faces of every single person living and struggling in the city. It is not just a face of frustration, anguish, or despair, that a typical actor might give off.

It's a face that is unique to that person, one that you will never get to know probably, but when you take a glance of in the subway or the bus or the sidewalk, you know somehow you relate to them, somehow you know there's a story behind them.

This movie is just a mere glance of one person. It's not quite a study of Marcos, because we never got to be let in that deeply into his past, his motives, his whatever. It's simply presenting his situations and actions as they are, not pushing any particular perspectives the way most films do, not giving us any 'insights,' 'revealing monologues' or any of that.

letting us simply be the judge of him if we are judgmental, the observer if we are observant, the aloof bystander if we are one, and most likely we're a little bit of every one of those types when watching this film.

And that's very commendable for a film to let the viewers ultimately be the camera and the editor of the film. Instead of telling us how to view things.


The director is a stupid nerd who wants to make art films so he can meet cool chick , there are so many good movies to watch please stay away from this garbage, the only good thing is the blow job scene but any porn film had a better one , this guy just show his racism against Indian Mexican people like all the Rich people from third world countries does the bad guy is Indian and the victim is white , stupid movie I want my money back. I m so sad to see film footage waist in a horrible movie like batalla en el cielo I don't understand how people can see what this movie is about , is racism, and is also very poor make. I just see anything good about this stupid movie.


For two thirds of this film I was spellbound and then it suddenly span away from me. Listening to the director speaking afterwards, I think I know what went wrong and I shall have to view again some time to find out. It is all very watchable but slightly confusing towards the end, which is a shame and may be my fault, that of the director or even of Mexico itself. Whilst I have never been to the country it did seem that part of the lifeblood of this movie was the tangled city of contradictions itself. Even though not perfect in my eyes there was enough to show that this is a director of keen and original talent who will produce much more. His liking to work with non actors is welcome and his treatment of actual graphic sex is stunning. Very affecting, bitter sweet movie.


I'm a Mexican..and I'm a big fan of the Mexican cinematography./..but this movie really really blows it!! the scenes are too long!! there are like 15 minute scenes..!! the movie is slow..real slow and the acting is awful!! id rather watch this film with subtitles..though the artistic expression of the body and a way to reflect Mexico's problems. but yet the movie has no point!!! there's a scene where the driver is taking the passenger home (i cant remember her name now) and the scene is from Mexico airport to her home! thats like a 40 minute trip!! half of the movie goes there!!! now the nude scenes are great! though the idea of this film was good they didn't know how to put it together..one minute you're watching the entire process of putting gas to a car,walking the entire Zocalo DE Mexico.

the reason why I'm giving it 2 stars are because this film is based in a non-Hollywood ideology. the sexual content in this flick is pretty strong and that makes it great!...unfortunately once you see it you wont find it that exciting


Saw this movie after the hype surrounding the many nude scenes present in the movie.The actors and some emotion looked real but then when it came to acting it out, they weren't professional enough. Also the Mexican Culture and ways of life in the Mexican city also adds to the supposed plot.Some of the scenes was not needed (atleast to me) because they really dint add any value to the movie other than extending by a few minutes.Mascos looked good,Ana looked hot,Marcos's wife looked seriously obese and the marching soldiers looked fit and trimmed. I also saw a interview of Carlos and Ana which was taken after the Cannes shock treatment.He said he wanted to show real images and thats the reason he prefers débutantes in every movie.Also Marcos is supposedly a driver for his dad at the History of Cultural museum (that obviously explains his inclusion). Well the story could have been much deeper and plot a bit more refined. But its Carlos story so the verdict on this is definitely not very impressive.Still I like some shots of Mexico and the hot girl Ana.. 4/10....If you can watch it .. but don't worry if you have missed it.


National references and debates of explicitness aside, this film has some very interesting uses of photography. The director creates spaces with an unreal or detached feel to them (thanks in a large way to the way the sound is used), which perhaps allude to the unreal place the main character inhabits at that time in his mind.

Surprisingly, there are also a few touches of humour (two incidents in particular involving passengers in cars), which serve to break up some a monotony which could develop around what is a very bleak picture.

In conclusion, not spectacular, but a promising turn in the development of this director, in what is an interesting study on the extremes of desire.


Yet another Mexican movie within the context of Mexico City, pretending to project what goes on there as a reflection of the whole Mexican reality. Film-making in Mexico hasn't changed a bit as far as content from the drug dealer and prostitute movies of the eighties, even though is a little bit more polished (to the point of being pretentious and exclusive). In this movie, as in most recent Mexican filmography, crime (kidnapping in this case) is the only choice for the main male character to get ahead, and the main female character is, yet again, a prostitute.

This movie abuses the grotesque element, and I think it's degrading for the main characters in the cast. The main actors must have been in much need of money to go through what they did, taking into consideration that he used non actors, mostly to accentuate, exaggerate and exhibit their physical shortcomings rather than to create and develop characters. You can see how much the director, probably a high class "junior" (because nobody finances his own debut with 50K out of his own pocket), despises and makes fun very sarcastically of the lower classes.

As for the rest of the movie, it's deliberately slow and aimless. Whatever meaning a certain shot could have had is diluted by its lack of movement, lenght and ambiguity. Besides, there are a lot of scenes that stop the rhythm and don't contribute to the development of a story a bit. An example could be the scene where he is watching the soccer match and is (seemingly) playing with himself while imitating the player who's talking on TV. I don't understand what the equally grotesque sexual content has to do with the tribulations of the main character. The last thing anybody would be thinking about is sex if they were in the position of "Marcos."

And the worst is that there's not much anywhere else to turn to in the Mexican cinema arena nowadays. Good photography wasted, as usual, in a movie without much content. Makes me miss my Mario Almada, or even Alfonso Zayas' movies, which had no more vulgarity than this movie had.


A refreshing piece for Mexican filmaking, that's how I'd described this movie.

Nowadays, Mexican films try to imitate Hollywood patterns with unfortunate results. Therefore is surprising and exciting to watch a film that walks away from all commercial stereotypes and proposes a new way for filmaking.

Though I liked "Japón" better (Reygadas first feature)this film is in many ways different to his past movie. This one is set in the city and an important part of it is the chaos; this one has more dialogs but less narrative structure. In fact Reygadas is not trying to tell us a story at all. His films are more of a contemplative nature rather than a story with climax and an established ending.

Highly influenced by Abbas Kiarostami, Reygadas characters are not played by professional actors, they're played by common people that had nothing to do with the entertainment industry. And unfortunately, here, the results aren't that good as they were on his past film.

So, you've probably heard about the explicit sexual content. This, I think, is Reygadas biggest contribution: Never before a Mexican film has gone this far on the sex issue. He demonstrates that sex scenes are not supposed to be provocative, erotic or stimulating at all; they can be grotesque and raw because the important thing is that they look real and are not idealized.

However I think the movie has a few weak points: the acting is terrible ( it looks like that was made on purpose), the sound design is horrible and it looks like Reygadas takes 100 min to tell you nothing; but oh! what a beautiful way of telling nothing.


This film premiers July 4th-17th at the Film Forum in NYC. It is going to be an exciting and groundbreaking film that I'm sure will create quite a buzz. I've seen the film and was truly awestruck by its profundity and brave exploration of women all over the world. The filmmaker, Jennifer, bares her soul as she uses herself as a tool to address the issues that face women no matter their background or ethnicity. It is a film that all should see, male or female, to better understand the world around us and the strides that still need to be taken to ensure equality and peace. Besides, its political and societal significance, Flying: Confessions of a Free Women, is also a compelling and soap opera like film that, despite its length, flies by in a whirlwind of emotional drama and hilarity. Thank you to Jennifer Fox for giving so many different women a voice. This film is a must see!


I could only watch the first 1 hour. Jennifer Fox has made junior high school girls look smarter than her. Come on, 42 years old, living in New York and behaving like it's your first crush. In these films she is clueless, and comes off very immature and childish. However, there are a few of her friends, who I say bravo too, through illness and divorce they show great courage, however somehow the films doesn't portray bravery and courage, it documents how little women have grown. Jennifer narrates the film and it is totally about her failure at love, it is easy to understand why she is not successful. All this giggling and laughing... Come on, grow up. It is a disappointment to see a women who is obviously talented still obsessed about having a man. Her lover lives in Africa and is married... I think that is all you need to know. She spends the entire movie agonizing over this. She visits all her friends and most of them are just as clueless. I was astonished , in disbelief she actually produced this film and thought that it told a relevant story.


How do films like this get selected by film festivals? I seriously question the programmers who allow such a blatant waste of screen time. I am quite certain there are hundreds of films more deserving. I found "Flying" to be self-indulgent drivel, undeserving of an audience. As she travels the world exposing herself as an "ugly American," the filmmaker ignores cultural differences, choosing instead to apply American values to foreign situations. I wish particularly disturbed by the way she exploits her own family. Often contrived, always boring, director Jennifer Fox should have spared us this painful cinematic experience by staying home and continuing therapy.


The story is simple:young Satanist and his female companion-they both go on the killing spree."Dreamaniac" is a typical 80's horror/adult movie trash full of sex and mindless teenagers.Atrocious acting,plenty of fake blood and stupid disco music.Some gore effects are interesting(for example drill through the throat at the end),but also very cheesy.Complete lack of suspense is hard to forgive.So if you find this movie skip it.


The movie is full of ugly women who are supposed to be hot, and nudity scenes where there aren't any female full frontals, but hairy weasel man-ass. Some of the gore is okay; there's a few scenes where a dude or two suffers genital injuries during oral sex, but the camera cuts to the dudes facial expressions of pleasure then pain, and then the chick spitting blood. Also there's a scene where a characters head is decapitated by an electric drill.

The movie's about this wannabe satanist, who gives incantations to Satan while sitting at his bedside wearing his Def Leppard t-shirt, then dreams of this ugly chick who is supposed to be Satan incarnate, or a succubus. Later, this evil horse faced succubus crashes his girlfriend's-sister's lame sorority party of eight people. Most of the film the power is out.

Not in the least bit entertaining. Wash your dishes instead.

The VHS cover's a laugh though, it says that is was too gory for TV, that's why it went straight to video-- yeah, try to prop up that fragile ego of your's Mr. Filmmaker.


Dreamaniac was David DeCoteau's first film, and it shows. But it's still entertaining. A quick summary of the plot involves a young, aspiring rock musician, and budding satanist. He conjures up a succubus during a ritual. His girlfriend (Kim McKamy), her sister, and her sisters' sorority sisters decide to have a party at his house, and the succubus begins to brutally slaughter the party goers, one at a time. Ultimately, it's up to Kim to save the day.

Yes, the film is very cheesy and the performances are god awful, with the exception of the gorgeous Kim McKamy, who knows how to react well in horror films. It also looks to be SOV, and given a "film look". Still, for all it's shortcomings, it's still a fun movie to watch. Especially with friends on a rainy night, when you have nothing else to do. The actress who plays the succubus, is so over the top! You'll be grabbing your sides, as they ache with laughter, as you watch her kill people and attempt to look threatening. Ah, David DeCoteau sure knows how to please his fans! This is another film that I got off eBay. It's rare, and very obscure. However, if you can track down another copy of it off ebay, and you like cheesy, tongue in cheek slashers, then give it a look. My rating 6/10.


On the box this movie claims to be better than or comparable to tiles such as A Nightmare on Elm Street and Phantasm when in fact it is a terrible piece of garbage. The special effects leave much to be desired although it claimed to be to gory for the silver screen, and the story line was boring and uninteresting. With the calibre of talent in this flick it is not hard to see why one of the actresses went on to an extensive career in the adult film industry. Basically it is about this Heavy Metal part time Satanist guy who summons a succubus from his dreams. This succubus women comes to his girlfriends party and begins to kill people off where it all ends at the very dramatic climax where he must meet her in battle and end the kookyness. This movie is not even good enough to be classified as a cheesy movie.


Really pretty boring shot-on-video horror movie ("too gory for the silver screen" boasts the distributor on the video box). A guy into heavy metal has dreams about a succubus, and he tries some kind of rituals to summon her. His sister has a party in their house, and a bunch of poorly differentiated characters arrive, and have a pretty lame party. The succubus kills people, and nobody seems to notice for a while.

Except for a few exterior shots of the house, I think the entire movie took place inside the main characters' house. The deaths were generally not terribly gory or interesting, except for a death by a power drill towards the end which was pretty well done. Apart from that, you have a bunch of actors who for the most part haven't acted in anything else. Despite some female nudity early on in the movie, and that all the characters are heterosexual, this movie does seem aimed at a gay male audience. There are lots of shots of guys with their shirts off, guys wearing nothing but white jockey shorts, guys completely baring their posteriors....

I would definitely recommend people not waste their time with this movie. Exceptions might be made for people who can be very forgiving of low-budget horror movies' limitations, aren't looking for anything original, have a soft spot for the 1980s, or really like director David DeCoteau's work.

Towards the end, there's a piece of paper on which is typed "SUCCUBUS" but part of the word is unreadable, so only "SUC" can be read. That about sums it up.


This was a rather cute film...a little slow at first, but quite amusing as it went along. Very good for kids, too (not to mention dog lovers...lots of funny elements throughout). I am hoping it airs again soon...hats off to PAX for making such a charming movie.


Great performances, funny plot. Ghost Dog A Detective Tail (DOG GONE) is a very fun movie. Cute and fun!

Jack Wagner ("The Bold and the Beautiful") and Daphne Zuniga ("American Dreams") Star.

**** / 5 Story: Kyle's a police officer, and his partner is his dog, Hunter. Hunter gets killed in the line of duty, and his spirit comes back in the body of a criminal named Howie. Howie, with the spirit of Hunter in him, helps Kyle and his friend, a police vet, Amanda, in solving a dastardly plot.

I love this movie because it's so cute to see Howie with Amanda & Kyle. Great performances of Daphne Zuniga and Zack Ward (Howie).

Dorien Wilson ("The Parkers"), Cory Parravano, Pete Antico, David Leisure and Todd Bridges also stars!


When I saw this movie, Ghost Dog: Detective Tail, I thought this movie was going to be a waste of time. BUT I watched it and I was stunned by the amazing acting and plot and especially the dialouge. I mean a dog that gets killed and comes back to life to solve the murder? That is genius. They chose the perfect dog for this movie. I cannot believe how great that dog was. The scene where he steals the car keys is the best scene in film history. I didn't know who I was until that scene. I am surprised this movie did not win best movie of all time, or at least an Nobel Peace Prize. If you have not seen this movie, do it now. It will change your life. It changed mine. Hunter- R.I.P. You were the greatest dog the police force has ever known. You are irreplacable and will be missed.


Kyle (Jack Wagner) is a police officer who doesn't seem to have any partner but his crime-fighting dog, Hunter. The adorable canine loves doughnuts as much as the next man in blue but truly is talented at sniffing out trouble. One night, Kyle and Hunter are tracking an outlaw when the dog runs ahead of his partner. With an evil glint in his eye, the bad guy shoots the poor dog and mortally wounds him. Although Kyle takes him to his usual vet (Daphne Zuniga), Hunter doesn't make it, making both owner and doc weep profusely. However, a short time later, Kyle is surprised and delighted to find that the "ghost" of hunter is haunting his digs and trying to communicate with him. Trotting off to a medium, Kyle participates in a seance that virtually drives the dog's spirit into the seer's adult male son. From that moment, the young man acts like a dog but speaks English and tries to offer advice on how to catch the villain who shot him. Can they find the evil one? This movie is just ridiculous. The idea of a ghost dog is not bad but to have him inhabit the body of a human and parade around like a character from the Jungle Book is simply stupid. Wagner, however, is a looker and so is Zuniga so there's that. Also, when the dog himself is on the screen or his friends, animal lovers will be happy as well. The sets, costumes and production values are fine but nothing makes up for the preposterous premise. That said, if you love animals and or cool looking guys, you might want to get this one for an evening's diversion. But, it is almost a certainty that you will never watch the blasted thing again.


We couldn't tell if this movie was designed for little kids or kids and undemanding adults. It was a mess for sure. Kiddie plot, grainy and cheap production values and a lot of very bad overacting. Daphne Zuniga and Jack Wagner actually looked embarrassed to be there. Even for PAX-TV this was a low-brow entry. It looked more like a Disney Channel Saturday morning show.


I was duped into thinking that this was an actual movie. Had I known it was a tv-movie I would have spent the $2.50 rental fee elsewhere. The jacket of the movie made it look like it'd be funny...but I was WRONG! I didn't even laugh once during the entire flick and I'm a person who laughs during a funny movie, even if its as stupid as watching Wiley E. Coyote blowing himself up!

Others may say this is a good family movie, but I wouldn't even let my own kids watch this movie!


This delightful documentary, directed by Patrick Creadon, is a dream come true for people that enjoy to solve crossword puzzles. It centers around Will Shortz, the current New York Times editor, who has revolutionized the way we do the puzzles today. The film was co-written by Christine O'Malley, who with the director, takes us to meet some of the people behind the scenes.

We must make a confession from the start, we are one of those addicted to solving the daily crosswords in the paper. The New York Times puzzles are the best of all the ones published by any newspaper. Of course, we are not in the league of the likes of Tyler Hinman, Trip Payne, or Al Sanders, who were the three finalist in the 2005 competition, but we are happy with just the idea of solving them every morning.

There are many personalities that speak about their addiction to the crosswords of the New York Times. Among them, we hear from former President Bill Clinton, a man that has always been notorious for his quick mind. David Okrent, the former public editor of the Times, makes a surprise appearance. Jon Stewart is also funny in the way he deals with clues and how he blames Will Shortz when he doesn't get them. Mike Mussina, The Indigo Girls, Bob Dole, and other celebrities also are seen.

The great fun of "Wordplay" is watching a master constructor of the stature of Merl Reagle creating a daily crossword right in front of the camera, and explaining the logic behind it. There is a funny moment when Ellen Ripstein, a former winner, tells us that in spite of having won, she keeps going every year to participate in the tournament. Her performance in the entertainment part of the competition brings a light and goofy moment to the film.

The only thing we don't get too much of is the master himself. Will Shortz appears all too briefly as the emphasis of the documentary seems to be the annual competition at the Marriott in Stamford. Some of Mr. Shortz observations are funny, especially when he shares his typical weekly correspondence from frustrated people that are "puzzled" by his clues.

"Wordplay" is a film that will resonate more with crossword puzzle lovers, but it is a fun movie to sit through because the witty material and the pace it was given by its creators.


You would never imagine that the evolution and story behind the New York Times crossword puzzle and the people who both create them and ferociously try to solve them, would be so darn interesting. This movie proves that a good theme, a sincere effort and some interesting, quirky characters can make even the most remote of subjects, a fascinating, moving documentary. Watching Jon Stewart, Bill Clinton and other famous people work at the crossword somehow humanizes them in a way that I have honestly never seen before. Everyone who attacks the puzzle is now on the same page, and the movie somehow made me feel a lot better about the human race. If there is anything that unites us all, it is the need to solve something - to go through the process of cracking it and to ultimately own it. By watching this movie, you almost have the same amount of respect for the people who are simply the best in the country at this particular thing, as you do for the Stewarts and the Clintons of this world.


I have such vivid memories of sitting in my kitchen every Sunday morning with my father doing the New York Times cross word puzzle together and this movie paid amazing tribute to everyone who has ever attempted such a feat. I loved the stories and the people that were filmed, and laughed at all the things these people did to get to the cross word championships. It was interesting the little nuggets of information that go into these puzzles as well as the commentary from the people who do them, celebrities and contestants alike.

I would suggest this lighthearted film to anyone who has ever enjoyed a good cross word puzzle. From beginning to end, I enjoyed every moment.


I really enjoyed this film. There is wonderful insight into the "characters" who participate in the crossword competition - a whole world out there that I was not aware of. They employ many different techniques to present the information and in the end it is just a feel-good documentary. Not sappy and a fun, short film. I think that people who live in New York City will especially appreciate this film, and I guess those individuals who take their crosswords very seriously will find some sense of kindred spirit in the people they see on screen.

A must see.


Crossword puzzles, and the many people who make them popular, are the focus in Wordplay, including the editor of the NY Times puzzle (the most notorious of them in the USA), celebrities and politicians, and the general public obsessed with them. As a documentary Wordplay is good, not great, film-making about its subject with a couple of montages and interlocking scenes that are weak. But the subject matter, and usually how its presented, sparks a fine interest even in a non-crossword puzzle player like myself. As words are all that we have to work with in communication and just everyday discourse, it's also attached here to the idea of testing, of competition, and how different and varying crosswords can get. Like the documentary Spellbound from a few years back, the director is also after the kind of irony of making such an isolated experience of finishing a puzzle into an event with hundreds of players once a year with friendships and acquaintances- a social event as much as a match-up.

Many parts are amusing as well; we get interviews from Jon Stewart, Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, and the editor of NY Times Crossword himself, Will Shortz, and they all give some insightful, funny little bits of interest into making the puzzles and playing them. But for the most part we're into the mind-set of several key players, real people whom will all come together for the tournament in Jaunary. What makes all of this work, and what actually makes crossword puzzles become good enough for cinema, is watching smart people, un-cluttered for the most part with problems, who can focus all of their attentions on this one activity, to the point of obsessive compulsive behavior. It's really fun, in a nerdy way, trying to guess some of these words (or rather watching them guessing the words) along with the players. And the way the puzzles are created sparks a little interest too, as it's one of those parts of life I myself could never, ever accomplish. Worth a look, though probably more so for fans of the activity.


This is the best movie I have seen this year. It has everything that makes a movie great, fun, memorable. It's funny, it's sad, there's angst, and tension, anticipation, there's "ohhhhhhh" and smiles, laughter and tears. It's interesting--and I learned something too (actually a lot). You'll cheer and applaud DURING the movie, you'll feel their pain and marvel at how SMART these people are.

The editing is the tightest I can remember. The movie flows like a roller coaster: never off track, always going somewhere, the highs fall into the lows, and it rises back to an even keel. It never leaves you bored wondering okay when will this over. It leads you to the edge, pulls back, and then climaxes. Superbly done.

Wordplay is a small independent that is more worthy of an Academy Award than many of the "big ticket" movies out there. Go see and tell your friendsyou won't be disappointed, you'll leave the theater with a smile on your face.


I have half-heartedly tried the New York crossword puzzles on occasion but had no idea what a devout following they had until I watched this refreshing 2006 documentary. Structured a bit like 2002's "Spellbound", the entertaining film that builds toward the 1999 Scripps National Spelling Bee, first-time director Patrick Creadon uses the 2005 American Crossword Puzzle Tournament as his climactic event where a group of nimble-minded crossword solvers vie for the championship. However, Creadon wisely focuses much of the film's initial attention on Will Shortz, the crossword puzzle editor for The New York Times who has gained renown as NPR's Puzzle Master. At his post since 1993, he has dramatically transformed the puzzle from an often frustrating, intellectualized exercise full of obscure clues to a more broad-based challenge that embraced popular culture and word games.

The change has engendered a diverse number of celebrity fans, several interviewed here in entertaining snippets - a particularly caustic Jon Stewart, Yankees pitcher Mike Mussina, the Indigo Girls, filmmaker Ken Burns in a somewhat zen-like state, a wry Bob Dole, and Creadon's biggest get, an ingratiating Bill Clinton who conquers his puzzle with surprising zeal. Once the film turns its attention toward the tournament, the personalities of the top contenders are highlighted with the makings of a classic showdown among three-time champion and professional puzzle-maker Trip Payne; Al Sanders, the middle-aged perennial also-ran who can never seem to rank above third; and prodigious twenty-year old Tyler Hinman, the potential usurper who could become the youngest champion ever. One of my favorites is Ellen Ripstein, an unassuming statistician who twirls a baton, but the true unsung hero of the piece has to be frequent Times puzzle creator Merl Reagle.

Delving into the crossword puzzles themselves, the most interesting extra with the 2006 DVD is a featurette called "Five Unforgettable Puzzles" about how the five of the most challenging Times puzzles were constructed as recounted by the creators themselves. Naturally, the puzzles are included in the accompanying booklet as well as the DVD-ROM for printing. The DVD also includes an amiable and insightful commentary track by Creadon, Shortz and Reagle, as well as a bevy of deleted scenes, including extended versions of the celebrity interviews. There is a twenty-minute short about the film's reception at the 2006 Sundance Festival, including a Q&A with the top contenders, as well as a music video. It's a robust package for a niche-oriented film but one that is more entertaining than it has any right to be.


To me, a successful documentary teaches me about someone or something I didn't know. I am not a crossword enthusiast, but I thought I knew about crossword puzzles. It turns out there is a lot I didn't know, and what I learned in "Wordplay" was conveyed in an entertaining manner.

The film is rated PG, and the only mildly "offensive" language occurs when one of the puzzle constructors lists several clinical terms that he is not allowed to use in the puzzles. It's nothing you wouldn't hear at your annual physical.

Wordplay is one documentary with three interwoven parts. The first part introduces us to New York Times crossword puzzle editor Will Shortz and a number of puzzle constructors, primarily Merl Reagle. It shows how crossword puzzles are created and edited. It explains the "rules" of puzzle-making, how the degree of a puzzle's difficulty is changed by altering the clues, and how creators use themes throughout the puzzle. It also shows how there are often puzzles within the puzzle.

The second part is a series of interviews with six or seven celebrity crossword enthusiasts, and with a number of competitors in the annual tournament. One of the most interesting parts of the film is watching each of the celebrities work on the same puzzle at the same time. The filmmakers use split screens and animation to show the answers being filled in.

The third part (and the bulk of the film) covers the 28th American Crossword Puzzle Tournament held in March, 2005 in Stamford, CT. It features more cool puzzle-filling animation, and it includes a blunder of Bill Buckneresque proportions. The tournament is a nerd-fest of the highest order (not that there's anything wrong with that). It's a combination competition, convention, and family reunion. The participants seem like nice people who genuinely enjoy each others' company. There is one scene with an element of sportsmanship that is rarely displayed in competition on any level.

You MUST watch ALL of the bonus scenes on the DVD. OK, you can skip the music video, but watch the rest of them. In their entirety they are about as long as the movie itself (94 minutes). They include deleted scenes, extended cuts from the celebrity interviews, additional insight into the puzzle creation process, and more clips from the tournament.

There is also a short film about a group of people in a small Wisconsin town who read The New York Times every Sunday. This segment is a little out-of-place if not off-putting. It is not about the puzzle at all, it's just about people who read The Times. I found these people to be elitist and condescending -- not at all what I expected from a rural town in Wisconsin. One of them even admits to "playing at" being a farmer while not at his "home" in Chicago. The point of the film seemed to be that erudite urbanites love spending time in the country as long as they can get a decent cup of coffee and the Sunday New York Times. If I lived in that town I would buy up all of the papers every Sunday so these people would go back from whence they came.


Greetings again from the darkness. Pretty interesting look behind the curtain of the world of crosswords ... in particular the New York Times crossword editor, Will Shortz.

What is not really surprising is the combination of ego and insecurity that plague the top contenders in the annual contest. These traits rear their head at any and every competition, regardless of topic or sport. What is surprising is the sportsmanship involved when there is an apparent major scoring error in the semi-finals. Watching the competitors band together against the committee is something not usually seen in the sporting and gaming world. These guys want the competition to be fair ... no cheap wins. I wonder if Pat Reilly or Bobby Knight would feel the same way? As you might expect the traditional nerd factor is at play here and the filmmakers do a nice job of mixing in some pretty faces to balance the picture. Mike Mussina, Bill Clinton and Jon Stewart are all thrown in to show that all walks of life are addicted and not everyone that is addicted looks like the reclusive nerd we all knew in high school. The most fascinating character in what story there is, is the twenty year old hot shot that most think is too young and inexperienced to really compete at the top. Just as interesting though is the way the more traditional powerhouses react to his presence and apparent skill.

There is a nice peak at the collaborative efforts that go into the creation of the puzzle, even though Mr. Shortz leaves little doubt that it is his responsibility ... hate mail and all. Very nice look into a world that most of us give little thought to.


Patrick Creadon's new film is easily the best documentary to come along in years. It simply amazes one that any person could make a film about puzzles that can be so suspenseful, intellectual, and heartwarming all at the same time. It makes you laugh, cry, and pull your hair out, and doesn't give you time to catch your breath before starting this cycle all over again. I haven't cheered out loud at a movie since I was a kid and allowed to do so in a theater. It's one of those movies which you cry to yourself, "God, I wish I could make a movie like this." This brilliant director undoubtedly has a huge future ahead of him and what a way to start.


As someone who always likes to solve the New York Times crossword - I like crossword puzzles in general, but the NYT one is the most challenging - "Wordplay" was a real treat for me. I have to admit that I'm no match for the people involved in the tournament, but it's still great to see this all. Will Shortz has got to be one of the cleverest people alive. I was most surprised when Merl Reagle wrote in the answers to the theme and found words to fill in (I had always thought that impossible).

Moreover, it's neat to see Bill Clinton and Jon Stewart doing the crossword (I assume that George W. Bush never does crosswords). A really impressive documentary.


The commercial success of documentaries in recent years has led to a spate of money moving into various projects that would have never been seen in theaters five years ago. This rash has lead to many films that approach the method as novice polemicists that have little understanding of the documentary form. The presentations tend to feel more like textbooks than works of art ('Enron, the Smartest Guys in the Room', 'Outfoxed').

The best documentaries are those with oblique presentations of a world you may know little about. The goal is often to leave you illuminated, the best leave you inspired. Quality documentaries work either from the inside out or the outside in. The first type presents some source whose story offers up a world or view of a world that we never had the privilege to see before. The second category presents glimpses of various views of a subject and alters these viewpoints as it moves toward illuminating the topic. 'The Fog of War' and 'A Brief History of Time' are marvelous examples of inside out presentations. 'Harlan County, USA' and 'Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control' are amazing outside in story lines.

'Wordplay' is the best documentary I have seen since 'The Fog of War' and this came as a complete surprise. I expected a textbook presentation by a puzzle obsessor about those like him and their inspiration. I got a wondrous, understandable exploration of a world I knew little about from a guy whose major claim to fame to date was filming hot Maxim babes.

The film is an outside in presentation of the crossword world using four views from the edge. There is the history of the form that centers on its development by the NY Times and the paper's first and current Crossword Editors. Then you have the constructors, the guys who weave these puzzles into shape, the philosophers of the art. You see a view from the fans, the best of which are Ken Burns, Bill Clinton, the Indigo Girls, Jon Stewart, and Mike Mussina. And there are the fanatics, the pastiche of intellectual weirdos who make a science out of it and participate annually in the World Championship.

The film crisscrosses the edges of these oblique views toward a center of what could have been a pedestrian presentation of the 2005 championship. The director actually turns this into a meditation on the zing one gets from successfully doing puzzles while allowing you to take sides with one or more of the fanatics. I found myself utterly mesmerized by this, feeling exhilaration, disappointment, inspiration, appreciation, and most importantly, respect for this cast of zanies. The net effect of this experience was a huge smile that I felt on my face as the adventure wound down. The energy of this comes from the amazing use of juggling split screens that I won't even attempt to explain. Just see it.

And I haven't tried to do a crossword puzzle in years.

I certainly hope this guy has graduated to a new level of film-making and is given whatever he needs for future projects. I am so honored to have been introduced to him in this way rather than in a titillating Maxim video.

Not that there is anything wrong with .


The week after seeing "Wordplay", I solved the Sunday NPR puzzle, (name a famous American in eight letters, six are consonants, all of which are Roman numerals); I didn't submit my answer because I figured if I could solve it as quickly as I did, it had to be pretty easy...there were more than 1200 correct answers sent in. My interest in seeing the film stemmed from my curiosity about Will Shortz, unfortunately the movie just rehashed most of his CV that has been previously published, with nothing new added. Absent that, I think the film makers did an excellent job in choosing to follow some pretty disparate puzzle addicts. I attended the movie with two friends, one who is no longer able to do puzzles because of failing eyesight; the other for whom doing the Sunday New York Times puzzle has become a religious experience; we were all equally enthusiastic about the film, although we were all rooting for different people to win the contest. Caveat: people who do not do crosswords themselves, and have seen one or more of the recent movies about spelling contests may find this less interesting than those who do puzzles. A definition that's been around for awhile, "Optimist: A person who does a crossword puzzle in ink".


I'm not a fan of crossword puzzles. Despite being musically talented, and in one of the professions (IT) that the film cites as containing people who do well with puzzles, I just find them frustrating and annoying. If they're too easy, I get bored; if they're too hard, I give up.

That being said, I liked this movie very much, largely because I was drawn to the people from the film who create and work puzzles. These are not the beautiful people of the world, Bill Clinton aside. They're the geeks, the underdogs, the people who calculated Pi on their slide rules in high school for fun, the ones who could recite every ounce of baseball trivia, but never played a single game.

They are also a warm and loving community, even in competition, that support, nurture and celebrate each other. They believe in knowledge and success for its own sake; in striving to be better than you were -- not better than others.

The film does a great job of painting a portrait of that community, and treats each person with affection and compassion. It has a great structure, that surreptitiously built and drew me along to the climax without effort.

The film was successful in that it touched my heart, and challenged my mind. It made me want to be part of the community -- but only if I didn't have to work the puzzles.