Rian Johnson's debut feature 'Brick' was appealingly offbeat. It applied the style of film noir to an American high school, with the always-interesting and audacious young actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the young private eye. However intricate -- perhaps contrived -- the action was in Brick there was a constant sense of something being discovered that was already "there." There's much to like about Rian Johnson's sophomore effort, an imaginative, character-based caper movie called The Brothers Bloom. But it sags in the middle because, for all its charm, it feels like an artificial construct from first to last. Sometimes it just gets a little too clever for its own good.

In a jaunty opening prologue, the brothers are shown as cute little tykes in dark suits and bowler hats being rejected by one foster family after another due to their misbehavior, which early on drifts into larceny. They con a group of well-off schoolchildren into paying them for the privilege of entering a magical cave, and though they get caught and have to return the money, they profit from a kickback deal with a dry cleaning establishment because the kids get coated with mud in the cave. This whole sequence has a nice nostalgic-movie-flashback look, though the idea that children's clothing goes to the dry cleaners is far-fetched.

Brothers Bloom follows the "one last job" premise. Jumping ahead to the present, we find the brothers have become thirty-something veterans of many jointly executed con jobs. Mastermind Stephen (Mark Ruffalo) lures back disenchanted younger brother Bloom (Adrien Brody) for an absolutely final, this-is-it caper involving ransom to be paid by a lonely, bored, very rich young woman called Penelope Stamp (Rachel Weisz).

Johnson used his budget on explosions and locations and elaborate stagings of things. There are quick run-throughs of earlier cons, and in a brief speeded- up sequence the film shows us Penelope's dazzling accomplishment level at her various "hobbies." To while away her time she has mastered ping pong, half a dozen musical instruments, martial arts, tumbling, juggling, pinhole cameras, and so on. For some reason she can't drive worth a damn and keeps wrecking a stream of new yellow Lamborghinis. As the last one crashes, a truck is already driving up to deliver the replacement. Johnson is reveling in a budget that allows him to wreck Lamborghinis, but most of all delighting in the artificiality of the movie game.

Bloom and Penelope meet cute when the brothers arrange for her to run him over with her current yellow Lamborghini. Once ensnared she's further lured into an elaborate gambit that takes them from New Jersey to Prague to the Mediterranean to Mexico and back. The trick is they make her think she's in on the con, not aware that she's the one being fleeced. Wouldn't you know it though, Bloom falls for her and that gums up the works.

Wiesz, who is English, really gets into her role and enjoys not only seeming totally American but alternately remote and childishly enthusiastic, as the character of the spoiled, inexperienced Penelope requires. She's so good even when she's jumping for joy it doesn't feel overdone.

One of the greatest pleasures of a movie that comes to seem increasingly over-elaborate and self-involved is observing Adrien Brody's tall, lean, fashion model body enveloped in a succession of immaculately tailored suits. He may have signed up for this movie expecting something on the level of his previous project, Wes Anderson's ingenious, stylish 'Darjeeling Limited' where he was one of several eccentric brothers. Brody has an appealing, soulful presence. He does the soulful sad thing very well, but isn't capable of striking many other notes, which may explain why his soulful-sad wasting-away walk-through in Roman Polanski's The Pianist got him an Academy Award, but he's not lived up to the expectations that triumph aroused. The Pianist may be his one great role; but I like watching him model beautiful clothes.

Ruffalo is a funny kind of brother for Bloom, since he's always rumpled-looking. The best suits are wasted on him. So is the role of a con mastermind, because he is best at playing weak people. His high point may have been the no-account brother in Kenneth Lonergan's 'You Can Count on Me.' He's an energetic, supple actor who can do more different roles than Brody, but he somehow lacks the wiliness and energy of an ingenious grifter.

The film has an fanciful Sixties flavor, and is adorned with eccentric characters. The Curator (Robbie Coltrane) is book expert who's Belgian (or may not be), Diamond Dog (Maximillian Schell) is an old mentor, and Bang Bang (Rinko Kikuchi) is a nearly mute Asian pal whose specialty is nitroglycerin. Banig Bang's explosions get out of hand, though again as with the car crashes it's hard to tell if this serves the plot or is simply Johnson playing around with his bigger budget.

Apart from the pleasure of Brody's outfits and how well he wears them there is further eye candy in the film's intense color, especially its rich reds and blacks.

With its intricate plot replete with classic Hollywood and also literary overtones, Brothers Bloom might profit from re-watchings, if you'd care to sit through the movie again. I wouldn't, because Johnson doesn't' get the fundamental aspects of con jobs right. Watch Stephen Frears' classic 'The Grifters 'to see what I mean. You've got to have actors who project meanness, energy and smarts (Angelica Houston and John Cusack fill the bill; Brody and Ruffalo don't). And you've got to convey a sense or real mystery and danger; this mostly doesn't. It's only when the real starts to overwhelm the make-believe that Johnson's pervasive sense of romance takes hold and the real purpose of Stephen's contrivances -- to make his brother happy -- becomes touching.


This film is about two brothers executing the ultimate scheme to con a rich attractive woman.

I never thought a Rachel Weisz movie could be dull and senseless as this, but "The Brothers Bloom" really takes that trophy. The plot is dull, and it fails to engage me at all. The pacing is so slow, that I felt so bored after the first twenty minutes. They could have at least cut fifteen minutes of that and not affected the story. It's just far too long, with so many uninteresting and unimportant scenes in between the useful scenes. I feel so sorry for Rinko Kikuchi's character, as she is delegated to a replaceable prop, which actually could be deleted entirely without affecting the story.

As a con movie it is too slow and winding, as a romantic comedy it lacks the uplifting factor. In short, "The Brothers Bloom" is a dull mess.


A pile of pompous, pretentious c**p. Oh, wait, it must be "artistic" then.

There is no story as such, just some lame, shallow claim that two brothers are con-men. The only evidence of which is at the beginning of the movie when we are subjected to a long and lame story how they tricked some kids out of $30. Those painfully boring 10 min are supposed to be intro to the story, and to set suspense into character building... It does that, because it prepares you for the rest of incredibly shallow, stupid and devoid of any logic "creation" (can't really bring myself to call it a movie).

This thing doesn't have a story. The writer is not intelligent and/or educated enough to put together more than 3 sentences that relate to each other. Oh, wait, then it must be "art", right.

As for characters, most cartoons have more believable and explainable characters. It all goes something like this: "he is a con men... never mind how and why, just go with it because I say so, I'm not clever enough to think of a good con to corroborate the story... just go with it or else I don't have a movie!" The same applies for any other character trait you can think of.

Logic and story flow... oh, wait, this "art", you are not suppose to have that. The mere fact that I'm mentioning those things must mean that I don't understand "art". This whole thing is so mind bogglingly stupid and shallow that you can just hear all those "artists" oooh-ing and uuuuuuh-ing about it. As for me, all I see are pathetic throws and twitches of a doped idiot who is trying to make a "deep" movie and is as good at it as a chronic alcoholic is at running 100m race.

The mix of places, clothes, behaviour etc is another gem. The gang is going to Europe on a steamer (!) and our heroine arrives in her Lamborghini. And she lives a castle. In New Jersey. Ooooh, so deep and artistic.

The trip from USA to Greece leads you pass the many snow-covered mountains. As we know, the ocean is full of them, as is the Greek coast.

Our heroine is also very beautiful, incredibly rich, and lonely. As you would be, when you are young, beautiful and rich.

The title suggests that the brothers last name is Bloom. Yet one is called Stephen (or something) and the other is called Bloom. So what is his full name - Bloom Bloom? Apparently it was too much of a mental effort for the writer to come up with another firs name. Oh, wait, it is artistic...

The whole thing is just a slide show of mind flashes of some idiot who doesn't have enough imagination, education and life experiences to make it even mildly entertaining. Imagine your 50 year old spinster aunt showing you postcards of places she would like to have gone to and romances she would like to have had.

Etc, etc, etc... one could write about how stupid this thing is for a long time. But that would be just more waste of time and life, discussing somebody's pathetic, impotent attempt to be "creative" and "artistic". Compared to this, even certified c**p like Paris Hilton movies is more entertaining and logical. Scarry thought, I know, but if you manage to sit through this pile of brown stuff as I had to, you will see what I mean.


My subject sounds a big gray there, but so is the film.

I saw this last night at the New York Film Critics screening in New Jersey and I came away with very mixed feelings.

First the positives:

1. I loved Bang Bang. She was hilarious. Sadly, I think I was the only person who laughed at her antics. The theater was surprisingly quiet during her wacky moments. Shame.

2. The acting was phenomenal. The actors really fit into their roles and I enjoyed them tremendously.

Now, the negatives:

1. When does this take place? I know this was an homage to old con films like Paper Moon, but I felt like not only was Penelope someone shut out of reality, but so was everyone else involved in the con. I know Stephen wanted to put Penelope into an alternate world with the steamer ship, but even the scenes that preceded her involvement were from another era.

2. The plot got lost somewhere in Prague. If you find it can you put it back into the film, please?

Rian Johnson omitted a plot point because he said (at the Q&A afterward) that he couldn't come up with a clever idea for it. And so we're left wondering. Is this a good way to leave an audience guessing? I disagree. Instead he should have had Bloom and Stephen marvel over what had happened and not question it, for it raised a question in my head that will never be answered.

3. Johnson also omitted a scene because he felt it changed the mood of the film so dramatically that it didn't fit. I can totally understand that, but to not reveal the cause of an event that was kept in, removed me from the film. I found myself stepping backward by the last act, because I no longer felt connected to the story. In the end I felt like the one who had been conned.

I understand that it's nice to discuss a film and have something to talk about with people, but to leave gaping holes in it because you couldn't come up with an idea on your own or because the scene filmed changed the mood just isn't the way to do it. It really ruined the climax for me.

4. Why did someone else narrate the film? Who was he?

In the end I felt conned by the movie: It tugged at my heartstrings, but in the end left me empty.


Sweet con comedy that has so much charm and charisma that you will leave the theater overjoyed and wondering what you have really saw. Rian Johnson's shell game is a story is a attention grabber and boy does it grab you with captivating story telling and Oscar caliber performances. Adrien Brody and Mark Ruffalo play well as brothers and cons and display that affection with ease and style. Rinko Kikuchi is fantastic as their sidekick who always know how to make a scene even when she's rarely says anything and the real scene stealer here is the Oscar caliber performance of Rachel Weisz who not only manages to steal the movie but manages to steal your heart as well as a lonely heiress who craves adventure and she's gives the movie the same kind of adventure and fun that it deserves. She makes you follow her and have fun with her character as well, which makes going to this film all the much fun.

If you want to waste your time and money on the so called "Blockbusters" with no heart and no sense of adventure, then by all means waste it. But if you want a movie that is intelligent, funny and have characters you care for, see "The Brothers Bloom". You will leave the movie theater with a huge smile on your face.


I thought that this was a very fun film with interesting characters involved in an interesting plot.

"The Brothers Bloom" reminded me a lot of a Wes Anderson movie. Wes Anderson is one of my favorite directors, so I did enjoy the fact that this movie struck me as one of his.

The movie not only showed good character development, but also had an interesting plot. It kept the audience with the action the whole way through. The cons also added to the interest of the plot. We were never really sure if what was happening was fact or if it was yet another con.

I liked the setting of this movie being in Europe as well. It seemed like this movie could work being set there a lot better than if it had been set in the United States.

This is a fun movie and one that I would really like to see again.


I wondered why I haven't seen that movie before... Because we are very familiar with movies with leading actors... Prestige or illusionist... Except those are much better and exciting as it is difficult to predict anything in the movie... That's why I think they are one of it's kind somewhat unique movies...

This movie is about 100 minutes long but I felt like 2 hours or more... Because there is story going on but it's not very successful in catching the audience...

The character of Rachel Weisz (Penelope) was the most interesting one... I wish there was more about her skills in the movie because her abilities and specificities as a character were the most exceptional and unique parts of the movie...

We see the big brother in the beginning as a cool and promising image, the brain of their smuggler team... But during the movie and especially at the end of the first con on Penelope he was very passive and he lost lots of credits as he is just about to fail during the play of the con and actually fails in the end... That made the character and the movie look very soft... disappointing for me... After all I thought that the character is not cool at all... Thus less excitement...

Oh and there was that Diamond Dog, appearing for 1-2 minutes during the movie but the end of movie was based mainly on him... where I was expecting some scenes that involves him too as a leading bad character but we can't see even his face in the end... Not even sure that the actor was the same one...

this movie could be one of the best in right hands... Not very satisfactory but not that bad... Despite all the shortcomings you can watch this movie on DVD and spend nice evening time with your family...

7 from 6.5... :)


I thought TBB was a good movie, not what I expected though. Overall I think it deserves the 7 out of 10.

My 'problem' with the movie is that they sometimes tried to hard to make the plot mysterious and twisting and turning. I also get the impression that there are too many ideas in the screenplay, good ideas though but i think they overdid it near the end.

Also the con in the story wasn't always that credible - as far as con films are very credible - The con(plot) was too self-evident to really amaze me at times... Like Stephen could really predict every single move.

Still it was a good plot and a good movie in general. Good characters, good actors, not the corny end I feared but not the end I hoped to see though.

In the end I do advise you to go see it for yourself and make up your own mind, it's certainly not a waste of time or money.


[ * CONTAINS SPOILERS * ]

This is a Japanese animation film, or as some call it, animé, based on the character of Dracula. I don't particularly like animé, but it's not as bad as you might think. In fact it's pretty good. It is much more of an adult's film than for children.

In modern Boston, there is a Satanic ritual being performed, and a young woman by the name of Delores is to be sacrificed. Count Dracula crashes the ritual, and takes off with Delores. Because he has so much love for her, Dracula cannot bring himself to drink her blood, and instead fathers her child, named Janus. Some of Dracula's enemies try to kill him, but, accidentally kill the newborn Janus instead.

Meanwhile, Dracula's enemies are preparing to finish him off. A team of vampire hunters including Frank Drake (one of Dracula's descendants), and Hans Harker (who is in a wheel-chair). And to top it off, Dracula has been stripped of all of his vampiric powers by Satan, whom he supposedly betrayed in a deal. He desperately needs another vampire to restore his powers and to avenge the death of his son, Janus.

I won't tell what happens at the end, just so I don't spoil it TOO much and you decide to watch it. This is a pretty rare film, no one I know has even heard of it. It's pretty different, to say the least. If you can even find it, I recommend it to any vampire fans.


This Japanese adaptation of the classic 1970s "Tomb of Dracula" American comic book series is pretty much forgotten today, and it's easy to see why. At 89 minutes, this TV-movie (with the usual fade-ins and outs for commercials) seems made out of several different sagas cobbled together, as Dracula, essentially a good guy here, faces different enemies (from the usual vampire hunters to his own son turned God's agent, to Satanists, to Satan himself, to a new King of the Vampires...) without much character development whatsoever, and through plot holes so big they could contain a whole graveyard each. Plus, it has all the worst characteristics of late 70s films and cartoons, including the obligatory disco soundtrack. The animation is far from the greatest anime films, with fine backgrounds but terribly drawn characters that seem to come out of a Saturday morning cartoon of the era (despite the occasional brief nudity). Not that it has not its interesting points, like a vulnerable Dracula becoming human again and trying to recover his vampiric condition, but everything is so underdeveloped that it's ultimately worthless. Also, I could have done without those shiny fangs, and without that son of Drac right out of Thunderbirds. And, alas, despite it being based on "Tomb of Dracula", no Blade here, just the usual descendants of Van Helsing, Harker, and Dracula himself (and it's obvious from the beginning which one of the vampire hunters will eventually bite the dust). It could have been a good TV-series, but, in its absurd condensation, (sorry for this old awful pun) this Dracula sucks. 3/10.


This is one of two movies I have ever seen that should be under the category of "So Bad It Is Good." People say "Plan 9 From Outer Space" is one, but I don't. You can only watch Plan 9 once or twice then you realize it just sucks.

This movie, and I speak of the English Dubbed version, was so amazingly bad that it was GREAT. And I mean GREAT.

I have NEVER laughed so hard in my life. This is the greatest comedy ever, of all time ever.

The other movie you should try and find is Litzsomania. While it doesn't have the high re-watch value this movie does, it is amazing.

Movies like Meet the Feebles and anything by John Waters strive for what this masterpiece gets to.

CHECK IT OUT! 9/10


Julie Gavras is famous politically committed director Costa-Gavras'daughter and it shows. But be reassured "La faute à Fidel", her first fiction film (coming after a pair of interesting documentaries) isn't a carbon copy of a Costa Gavras movie in any way. It is much more exciting than just that in that it examines thoroughly the pros and the cons of leftist involvement, mainly its negative repercussions on family life.

The plot revolves around little nine-year-old Anna( played to perfection by tense, brooding, occasionally warming to a welcome smile Nina Kervel), whose life is turned upside down when her parents abruptly change from well-to-do upper middle class people to leftist activists, with a feminist inclination concerning the mother. The whole film will describe the difficulties of a little girl who loses all of her privileges out of the blue, how she understandably rebels against such injustice (even rich kids have a cause to defend!) and who very slowly gets to understand her parents' choices, eventually coming to terms with the situation and growing mature (more mature than the standard brat) in the process.

The movie really charmed me from the beginning to the end, ringing true all the time (the early seventies are well captured, whether when it comes to the production values or the depiction of the mentalities of the time). And Julie Gavras knows her subject on the tip of her fingers. Her parents  just like Anna's ones  have always been leftist activists and wasn't her dwelling-place invaded by Chilean "barbudos" while her dad was preparing "Missing"?

The viewers share her empathy for the central character and appreciate her refusal to resort to caricature. Of course Anna's grandparents are "grand bourgeois" but they are not horrible persons. On the other hand, a leftist activist is not perfect by definition. Those ambiguities give depth to the characters and make them believable throughout. And Julie Gavras has a knack for unexpected details enhancing the viewer's interest and involvement in the story. I was particularly amused by such features as Anna adoring her catechism class, the presence of a violently anticommunist Cuban domestic worker (hence the title), the succession of nannies exiled from different countries torn by ideological conflicts, Anna singing "Ay, Carmela!" to protest against her parents quarreling and many others.

All in all, a wonderful initiation movie that augurs well for Julie Gavras' future career.


this is no ordinary coming-of-age film. this is the transition story of nine-year-old Anna de la mesa (played by Nina kervel-bey) who's life changes forever when her parents begin an ideological sea-change. her Spanish-born lawyer father Fernando (stefano accorsi) is inspired by his family's opposition to Franco (you later learn he is from a rich catholic royalist family and that his uncle is fighting in Spain) and allende's victory in Chile, to quit his job and become a liaison in France for Chilean activists. her mother, a Marie Clare journalist turned writer documenting the stories of women's abortion ordeals, supports her husband and climbs aboard the ideological bandwagon. as a result Anna's french bourgeois life is over. she must adjust to refugee nannies, international cuisine and a cramped apartment fully of noisy revolutionaries.

the film is filled with a dizzying array of philosophy and ideology - everything from communism, to Catholicism to Greek and Asian mythology - which Anna must reconstruct from confusion to her own set of beliefs. as she negotiates her way through this ideological maze until ultimate internalization of her parents' admirable (all be it ad hocly administered) objectives we are exposed to a witty analysis of stereotyping, misinformation, the potential hypocrisies of ideologies and the potential false-hopes of idealism.

for example Anna's mother makes a comment that she can get the kind of issues-political writing she is turning her repertoire to published in Marie Clare, but later throws out a copy of the magazine when her article isn't published, proving that just because you want to save the world doesn't mean Marie Clare does.

an example of stereotyping and misinformation around beliefs is the number of reds under the beds comments and Anna's grandmother's comment that the commies want to take all of Anna's toys. she also says that all radicals have beards, which, when repeated later by Anna, is met with an inquiry as to whether Santa clause is a radical by her kid-brother Francois (played by Benjamin feuillet).

another witty example at one point her parents take her to a rally to demonstrate solidarity, but later in the film, when 'exercising solidarity' with her classmates who all believe Rome to have existed before Greece despite her knowing better, she learns that solidarity and being a sheep are two different things. but when her dad tells her that is being a sheep, she asks how he knows that what he is doing is solidarity, not just being a sheep.

i really like the film's human side. the film is constantly filled with usual family goings-on  mother-daughter tiffs, routines, sharing meals  which illustrates that these militants are real people, with families and commitments. Francois is as real a little boy  will all the bounce and energy and impulsiveness  as any other which makes his character totally believable.

the first-time director Julie gavras is the daughter of militant filmmaker Costa gavras, peppering the film with a sense of lived history. added to how delightfully self-aware the film is, la faute à Fidel is a smart film that takes on the role of exposing the ways in which children may be victimized by the ideas of their parents, even when those ideas are well- meaning and progressive.


BLAME IT ON FIDEL! ('La Faute à Fidel!) is an enlightening film from France's fine director Julie Gavras, a story based on the novel 'Tutta colpa di Fidel' by Domitilla Calamai that addresses the effect of major political, philosophical, and activist effects on children. What makes this fine film unique is the child's stance on the adult politics: what may seem like exciting challenges for change of an existing corrupt system for the adults may indeed be an unwanted rearrangement of the wants and needs of children whose political acumen is less advanced than the need for order and consistency in everyday life.

The story takes place in Paris in 1970 - 1971. 9-year-old Anna de la Mesa (Nina Kervel-Bey) is a bright child who loves the divinity aspects of her Catholic school and enjoys the wealthy bourgeois elegance that surrounds her. She and her little brother François (Benjamin Feuillet) are informed that their aunt, an anti-Franco activist from Spain, will be moving in with Anna and her parents Fernando (Stefano Accorsi) and Marie (Julie Depardieu). This critical move incites a change in philosophy for Anna's parents and soon they become enchanted with the rise of Allende in Chile and embrace the Socialist mindset and the promised feminist movement changes, moving from their elegant house into a small apartment and demanding that Anna give up her divinity studies 'because the are against Communist thought'. As liaison in France for Chilean activists, Fernando holds strange and frequent meetings, disturbing further the life Anna loves. While little François is able to go along with the life changes, Anna rebels and refuses to alter her goals and needs merely for the 'fad' of her father's frequent trips to Chile while leaving behind her mother to continue writing articles for the ('bourgeois') French magazine Marie-Claire! As the political upheavals increase Anna is more pugnacious in demanding her rights and the finest moments of the story demonstrate how a child can respond to political change and still find her 'place' in the world that she chooses! The pacing of the film is fast and captures the exhilaration of the foment 'round the world in the early 1970s. The cast is excellent, especially the children who have not had prior exposure to acting. The message is a potent one that deserves our attention both as informative of a political era and as a piece of veritas cinema from a fine director and crew. In French and Spanish with English subtitles. Highly recommended. Grady Harp


This debut film by Julie Gavras, daughter of famed Greek-born director Costa-Gavras (e.g., Z, 1969), was nominated for the Grand Jury Award at the Sundance Film Festival in 2007. In addition to directing, Julie Gavras also collaborated with Arnaud Cathrine on the script which they adapted from a novel by Italian novelist Domitilla Calamai. What is striking about the story is the way it reconstructs how girls become social, how they learn about their world, how they question it, and how they reconcile the contradictions, and how they grow up.

Doing the growing up is nine-year-old Anna de la Mesa, played with fidelity, wit, and skill beyond her years by Nina Kervel-Bey. She is bourgeois to the core, following the lead of her maternal grandparents, who own a vineyard in Bordeaux, and her favorite nanny and housekeeper who lost everything to the Communists when Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba. Her parents, however, are infatuated with the Left, especially with the rise of Allende to power in Chile. The year is 1970-71.

Anna loves their house and garden and going to Catholic school. She is proper and sensible. When they lose their house, and have to let the nanny go, and end up renting an apartment in Paris, Anna is upset and demands to know why things have changed. When it appears that they don't have as much money, Anna begins turning off the lights and turning down the heat to save money. When they want her to transfer to the public school, she demurs and a compromise is made: she can continue to go to Catholic school but she is not allowed to take Bible studies. So when that time of the day comes, she has to stand up and go outside the classroom door and wait.

But Anna is strong emotionally and intellectually. She questions everything and is not self-conscious about being singled out. The other girls may laugh, but when she gets into a fight with one of them, she manages to win her over afterwards so that they are friends, even though their parents are not.

There is in the background the political disputes between the Right and the Left, between parents who change the subject when the question how babies are made is brought up, and those who tell the truth, in short between the bourgeois and the bohemian. One gets the sense that Gavras and Anna are wiser than the disputants, and that there is something to appreciate in both ways of life.

It is impossible not to identify with little Anna, partially because she herself is so fair, and partially because it is such a thrill to see the psychology of the socialization process displayed so well and true in a movie, but also because Nina Kervel-Bey is such a powerful little actress who was so wondrously directed by Julie Gavras. This is one of the best performances by a preteen actor that I have ever seen. Kervel-Bey simply dominates the film and commands the screen.

Will Anna shed her petite bourgeois ways and embrace the politics of her parents? I highly recommend that you see this film and find out.


Hard social facts are faced from the perspective of a little and very smart and inquiring child, although there's no violent scene on the movie the political tension is well expressed by the parents and friends, to the very confussion of the girl.. i don't remember her name, but her performance is outstanding, its very interesting how she interchange her wasys from childish feelings and behavour to thoughtful and even worried attitudes, being all the time very credible, the picture has a sad background, but the bright of the girl as the protagonist gives the element of hope, being the picture not sad but quite interesting and rich, with a lot of joyful funny moments. I really recommend this great movie.


Set in the politically turbulent Paris of the1970s, "Blame it on Fidel" tells of a sheltered young girl who has her comfortable bourgeois existence ripped away from her after her staid, conformist parents (Julie Depardieu, Stefano Accorsi) suddenly become born again leftist radicals. Anna is forced to give up the home she loves and the nanny she adores when her father quits his job in order to dedicate himself full time to fighting for the proletariat against the repressive corporate powers of the world. The family moves from their spacious home in the country to a cramped apartment in the city, which is often filled with bearded revolutionaries who utter strange catch-phrases in barely audible whispers.

Thanks to a thoughtful script and sensitive direction, "Blame it on Fidel" manages to provide a compelling child's-eye view of the adult world. Incapable of grasping the "big picture" as her parents see it, Anna knows only that the family is now woefully short on cash (she runs around the house flipping off light switches and heaters to save electricity), and that her mother and father are so preoccupied with their "cause" that Anna and her little brother (the adorable, scene-stealing Benjamin Feuillet) seem to have been relegated to mere afterthoughts in their parents' tremendously busy lives. In a performance rich in insight and wisdom and utterly un-self-conscious in tone, nine-year-old Nina Kervel-Bey brings to life a character who often doesn't fully understand what's going on in the world around her but who never gives up trying to figure it all out. For a good part of the time, Anna is torn between childish curiosity and an indefinable sense of shame regarding her parents' newfound activities. Yet, through keen observation and endless questioning, and the eventual piecing together of the many unfiltered fragments that come floating her way, Anne is finally able to come to some kind of understanding, however imperfect, of the much larger world community of which she is only a very small but crucial part.

Despite the inherently ideological nature of the material, writer/director Julie Gavras, the daughter of famed filmmaker Costa-Gavras, keeps most of the political stuff in the background while she concentrates on the strain the grownups feel as they strive to juggle their save-the-world activities with their duties as parents.

Add to this some excellent performances by a talented cast and a rich, flavorful score by Armand Amar and "Blame it on Fidel" becomes a film well worth checking out. In this her second venture as a director, Ms. Gavras has done her old man proud.


La Faute à Fidel centers on the life of an indulged nine year old girl, called Anna (Nina Kervel), and her adverse descent from the luxuries of a bourgeois life to the cramped, destitute conditions of her parents new found belief. Situated mostly in Paris during the early 1970s and among the aftermath of the collapse of the De Gaulle government, the film tells of a change of prosperity that occurs after the death of her father's, (Fernando; Stefano Accorsi), brother-in-law. The death compels Anna's parents to readdress their political complacency causing Fernando to become part of the active opposition to Francisco Franco (of Spain) and Salvador Allende (of Chile). Consequently Anna's life is transformed and this is demonstrated through her constant bewilderment, intellectual expansion and amusing misinterpretations.

During the film the family's new apartment slowly grows hectic due to an encroachment of the "barbudos" (bearded men; or Chilean Activists) and as most of the story takes place there, the director (Julie Gavras), is able to create a feeling of invasion in Anna's life. This is played-out in a scene when the young Anna awakes to find her home swarming with "barbudos" and no parents. The camera here, and for most of the film, is at Anna's height. At this point the audience is aware of Anna's worry and concern. Gavras superbly complements this with her camera-work, as a lot of the shots are orientated around Anna. The shot reverse shots are either pointing down at Anna or up at an adult, the framing of her achieves narrative centrality and the film is littered with child like symbols (most notably the frequent shots of her sandals; perhaps an invitation for the audience to place themselves in Anna's shoes).

Through the eyes of a nine year old child the film manages to show us the problems, difficulties and effects that extreme political transformation can have on a family. Not only are the parents going through a period of enlightenment but so is Anna as she is bombarded with an array of terms and ideologies, including communism, activism, capitalism, Catholicism, conservatism, mythology and abortion all of which she tries make sense of. Despite this Anna is treated like an equal when among her parents and the "barbudos", because they make the effort to explain and reason to her the things she doesn't understand. The manner in which these adults talk with Anna is short-lived, because as soon as she dons a uniform and becomes part of the strict and religious system (that is her school) she is no longer that free-thinking individual. She is unable to question the system once she is a part of it; this supported by emphasized further when she questions her teacher over a story involving the dilemmas facing a goat.

The fact that the adults endeavor to relate to Anna on their level demonstrates a liberal upbringing and the understanding of children as equals. This is seen through her mother's (Marie; Julie Depardieu) explanation of abortion, her discussion on Dad's "dickie" and the Chilean activists attempt to discuss their ideologies with Anna. Furthermore, the family's abandonment of "Sundaying" is a metaphor for them resisting social constraints and re-appropriating them by, as Anna's brother points out, "Sundaying" on a Wednesday. This is interesting because it serves as visual allegory for rebellion as it's in direct contrast with the notorious aspects of Franco's fascist regime and his renowned focus on traditional values. This notion is furthered by Anna leaving the confinements of her school, dropping her uniform, mixing with another gender/race and being embraced; this sequence of events is her liberalisation.

As the title suggests, it is packed with political and literal metaphors and through centering on a child the film keeps itself amusing and fresh. But, ultimately and at its heart, the film is a fine family drama that utilises the backdrop of political angst and cultural change to help tell its story.


What impressed me most about this film was how you always know what Anna is feeling. This is partly because of the wonderfully expressive actress playing the part, and partly because it is easy to recall how we felt about things as children and recognize how we would react to the clearly drawn situations of the film. It is also remarkable because while most French movies let you know what characters think simply by having them talk endlessly, Anna keeps her words short and to the point and the adults around her never seem to explain things as much as they ought to.

It is interesting to see how people here respond to the film. One review described it as a movie about adults balancing child raising with world saving, which is certainly a part of the film but to me wouldn't seem to be the focus. Someone else saw the film as an example of how activists can be bad parents.

But really, this film is so focused on Anna that I tended to feel whatever she was feeling, and as her feelings and understand evolved during the film, mind did as well. The movie feels very balanced, showing everyone's strengths and weaknesses, kindnesses and cruelties, honor and stupidity, and it feels very authentic; I don't know if this is fiction, a memoir or somewhere in between, but it feels very realistic and believable.

This is a quiet, thoughtful movie and it took me a while to get into it, perhaps simply because I approach French movies with a certain amount of suspicion, which is why I gave it a 7 instead of an 8. I became more and more drawn in as I watched, and found the final scenes especially touching. It's a lovely little film.


If you remember being a child confused about the 'grown ups' around you, then this film is worth watching. I thought it was going to be a heavy dark film - and it might be on one level - but it's not at all on the other, mainly because it is about seeing the ('grown up') world from a child's point of view. It reminded me a bit of Pan's Labyrinth in that way, i.e. the way there is an 'adults world' and a 'child's world', although Pan's Labyrinth focuses more on childhood escapism, but 'Blame in Fidel' is more about childhood realism. That is to say this film focuses, in a really lovely accurate way, on a child struggling to understand the real world around them, especially when the adults around her don't tell her the full story. There is no fantasy here. It's all very real. Anna clearly wants to understand what's going on. She hears snippets of conversations and tries to put it all together, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly. Definitely worth a watch!


Wonderful movie that clears out your mind and leaves you purified when feeling so dirty. Wonderful little girl! Wonderful little boy! So amazed by how they are that I don't feel like saying more on the movie in general. Anna de la Mesa is so real. All that phases she goes through and all the complication of her mind are beautifully harmonized with the politics. It's not a story of a changing family (life); it's rather the display of a huge load on the shoulders of a little girl. It's worth it; watch it.

(By the way just because I watched the two in a row; I must say that "La Faute à Fidel" is much more effective than "Persepolis" in order of viewing the world from a growing child's point-of-view. Good directing there by Julie Gavras.)


The family of Anna DelaMesa come from bourgeois backgrounds. It is then, surprising, the path both decided to follow politically. The father, Fernando, a Spaniard, had lived in France as an exile for many years, never returning to visit his own family in Spain. The mother, Marie, is the daughter of wealthy parents who live in some splendor in a rural part of France.

When we first see them, they are celebrating the wedding of Isabelle. Fernando, a brooding man, has recently been joined by his sister Marga and her own kid, Pilar, something they did to avoid being taken into custody by the Franco regime. Marie and Fernando agree in letting them stay with them for a while, something that Anna doesn't appreciate since her cousin only speaks Spanish.

Anna, who attends a catholic school in Paris, taught by nuns, sees the world around her from a grown up point of view. She can't say much about what she perceives, yet a lot of things affect her. Take her parents' involvement with the leftist Chilean regime of Salvador Allende. Fernando and Marie have been instrumental in his election, having even left the children behind in France to work for the cause. Anna, is a highly sensitive girl whose life is deeply affected by the way her parents act toward her and Francois, her younger brother. To make matters worse, Anna is told to stay away from religion classes at her school. She becomes the center of attraction as the other girls can't grasp why is Anna different, something that she tries to cope with, but to her young mind, is never solved.

Julie Gavras, the daughter of famous director Costa Gavras, tried her hand at directing before. This is her second try behind the camera. We have not read the novel which served as the basis of the film, which is misleading, since one expects to refer to a Cuban situation, when in reality, the DelaMesas work to help the regime of Chile's former president Allende.

Ms. Gavras must be congratulated for the work she got from child actress Nina Kervel-Bey, a girl of maybe seven years who does an amazing performance, and through whom all the action revolves. Others in the film, Stefano Accorsi, who has been working in France lately, plays the father of Anna. Also notable, Julie Depardieu, daughter of Gerard and Elisabeth, in the role of Marie.

Although the film is based on an Italian novel, one wonders how much is autobiographical, given Ms. Gavra's own background. Maybe she was meant to be the right person to bring the story to the screen.


This is an exciting film from Julie Gavras, the daughter of Oscar winning writer/director Costa-Gavras (Missing, Z). The effect of a rise in consciousness on the part of Anna's (Nina Kervel-Bey) parents, played by Julie Depardieu and Stefano Accorsi on the family is examined with humor.

Giving up her comfortable bourgeois life so her parents could fight for social justice against fascists like Franco was a real adjustment for Anna. It didn't help that her nanny filled her head with nonsense, but her sacking solved that problem.

It was a beautiful tale of a girl growing up to think, and to think about someone other than herself. She learned about solidarity and freedom and the pain of escaping one's past.

This little girl has a real future in film.


A child's point of view is a nice way of seeing ugly and distant political and social facts. Julie Gravas updates the style of her father for a new age, treating austerely political repression and social innovation which served the interest of many at the cost of harming most. Those who lived in those modern dark ages, in countries like Brazil, Chile , Argentina, Uruguai, Greece, Spain, Portugal, and several others, which are now democracies, will have a new look through the eyes (with a biographical touch) a lovely young girl and her little brother. Sometimes funny, other times dramatic, even tragic, but throughout well-conducted and subtly inspired. Not to be missed.


It's a fact that Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy did their best works for the MGM studios. Their later works for the Twentieth Century-Fox studios aren't exactly the most classic ones around. This is one of those typical Twentieth Century-Fox Laurel & Hardy pictures, that in style and humor quite differs from their early work but still has its certain charm and entertainment value, although the movie is far from an hilarious or great one.

Once again Laurel & Hardy are in the army. This time the movie focuses on their mishaps in boot-camp. Laurel & Hardy don't really get to show the best of their qualities in this movie but the provide the movie with a couple of entertaining moments nevertheless. There are a couple of sequences that are still are of comical greatness, such as the scene in which the boys ride in a jeep during a combat exercise but like often was the case in their later movies, there are more misses than hits with its humor. The movie isn't consistently funny but yet it always remains perfectly entertaining to watch, although I would definitely had prefer some more slapstick from the two boys.

Reason why this movie still works out quite well, is due to its well written story. It makes the movie flow well and also is the reason why this movie is such a perfectly entertaining one. It makes the movie consistent and provides it with some good comical moments and dialog.

The love-story of the movie, between the Sheila Ryan and Dick Nelson characters, is quite enjoyable and not as distracting as often had been the case in other Laurel & Hardy pictures

The movie is a great looking one with good costumes and sets. It's obvious that they spend quite some money on this movie. The movie ends with quite a big battle sequences that is well fitted into the movie and makes sure that the movie ends with a blast.

Might not be so hilarious be very entertaining nevertheless.

7/10


This wartime comedy is one of Laurel and Hardy's first movies for Twentieth Century-Fox, so it isn't nearly as consistently funny as the ones they made at MGM. However, I found this to be very amusing and enjoyable, with many good laughs. The first half is very slow, but once they get involved with their Sergeant Hippo, it picks up a lot. Try not to laugh when Stan shoves a crow down Ollie's pants during an inspection, or when Stan and Ollie are forced to build a pontoon bridge (I liked Stan's choice of wood). All in all, this movie is ten times better than any of the comedies they come out with today and is definitely worth any L&H fans time. 8 out of 10.


It's time to modify the scathing history of Laurel and Hardy's post-1940 films made for 20th Century-Fox and at least give some of them a break. It's always been written that the classy Fox studio just didn't understand the comedy of Stan and Ollie, and that every film the duo did with them in the '40s is plain unfunny and a disgrace to their talents. Well, not so in my book.

GREAT GUNS was the first Fox feature for Laurel and Hardy and it was inspired by Abbott & Costello's huge army hit, BUCK PRIVATES, which had been released early the same year and made millions at the box office. Here, Stan and Ollie play two concerned mentors who decide to enlist in the U.S. army to keep an eye on their wealthy but sickly young employer, who's just been drafted and insists on serving duty against his doctor's orders. Once in uniform, L&H must contend with their classically nasty sergeant, a firing practice that goes amusingly wrong, and all sorts of other zany mishaps, the topper of which involves a black crow that winds up nesting inside Ollie's pants during a drill!

Yes, things certainly were modified a bit for Laurel and Hardy's characters in these later Fox feature films. But only we most dedicated of followers would even notice this, and even then some of us don't mind as long as we can laugh a bit (which we still do). The boys are not boys at this point, and time has marched on. We'll always have the best of their classic '30s Hal Roach talkies to fall back on when we want the cream of the crop, but there are moments to be enjoyed in the Fox films too, if we can let go and stop comparing them to something else.


In one respect, this is Laurel and Hardy's best movie, particularly in terms of comic timing. No longer are there silent era delays in the action and no longer are there long set-ups before the comic act. In this film, the comic timing is quick and precise. A 1941 release before the attack on Pearl Harbor (by only two months), this is another of the pro-Army non-specific enemy movies. War had not yet been declared by the United States. However, the draft had been operational in expectation of war in both Europe and the South Pacific. What this film does is to try to illustrate that the draft was fair and equitable, and that the rich were also being called to serve. The movie suggests that the Army was a relatively nice place to be, as Dan Forester (the rich boy) says: "I like the Army more and more each day." Stan and Ollie had joined to protect Dan from the pitfalls of Army life, but who is to protect them from themselves? All in all, it's a funny movie, especially the "first breakfast in the mess hall" scene and the "wrong side of the target range" scene. In war and comedy, timing is indeed everything.


Despite a trite script, Stan and Ollie, like two jewels, rise above all and provide some great laughs.

I wouldn't recommend this to anyone who wasn't a fan of the great duo, but seeing it for the first time was a revelation after all the negative things I'd read and heard about the Fox movies.

The direction and photography was of a high standard while the supporting cast was adequate if not in the same league as our pals.

Of all the sequences, I have to vote the 'bird down the trousers' sequence as the most memorable. No other comic team could have pulled off that gag so well!


By 1941, the boys - Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy - were getting "long in the tooth" and their films showed it. Sadly, they kept going for awhile after this movie.

This film simply wasn't funny, and these guys were supposed to provide laughs. That is what I learned to expect from them, having watched a few of their 1930s efforts. That's why I purchased this on tape. However, I never found one thing to laugh in the first half of this film, got discouraged and brought the tape back to the video store.

The physical slapstick is okay, not too bad but all the one-line jokes are horrible, just not funny, nor are a number of the skits. Neither are the "fat" jokes, which are overplayed. Those are at Ollie's expense and one might have been good once or twice, but you hear it throughout the movie. I did laugh early on as Stan was trying the mow the lawn with a pair of scissors, but there weren't enough crazy-funny scenes from that point to make this be a recommended film.


As often as I dismay that our high-schools and colleges are churning out people who cannot read and write, I am regularly heartened by the pro level of writing in so many online reviews. In this set, I found "The beginning of the end" by Jim Griffin, a particularly thoughtful and well-written mini-essay, and I agree with all of his specific observations. On the other hand, as accurate as I find all objections to the way this movie was made, the negatives still do not outweigh the positives. "Great Guns" is very entertaining, mostly briskly edited and funny enough to make me laugh out loud.

Granted, I felt a sort of cognitive dissonance while watching. It was embarrassing to watch L&H play-acting through the dopey one-liners, saying things they would never say in their own world, and the forced emotional responses dictated by the script; then right after a poor moment I would be charmed their perfect timing and naturalness with a bit of physical comedy or some of their own dialogue. So all the way through I was about to cover my eyes, and then I'd have to laugh. For me, the most irritating characteristic of the script is it demands that L&H continue to (maddeningly) coddle the Nelson character, whereas I wanted to see them become sympathetic allies early on, and use their special brand of clown-resourcefulness help him have a little healthy adventure and romance. Dang; could've been a good script...

Folks, Great Guns is not a Hal Roach L&H movie. Forget about it. This is a 1941 Military Service movie with Laurel & Hardy. Accept it that way and you'll enjoy it. "Swiss Miss" and "Chump at Oxford" weren't much better.

Imagine that someone asked two inveterate clowns to take leading roles in an army film, and they agreed to do it. Stanley still gets a few magical moments, like clipping the grass with tiny wire cutters and a bird on his shoulder, and trying to shave with a (lit) light bulb in his mouth. Oliver shows off his physical deftness dancing with a crow, and he can still begin to run without getting anywhere. And he's not so fat! See how incredibly dapper he looks in a tailored suit, about 49 minutes into the film.

Both comedians look in excellent health; a little older now, for sure, but age happens. If Stan played the same otherworldly empty-headed character of the Hal Roach years, he would seem retarded; here he seems a little more like a normal guy who's been a little too- -well, sheltered in life, and has a number of interesting eccentric mannerisms. A bit like a prototype Ed Norton. If L&H are more paternal than usual, I think it's a logical attempt at developing their personas to fit their age. It is regretful they did not get the chance to really work out the appropriate alterations to their characters as time altered their appearance.

The last 20 minutes or so are a little slow, but L&H make it worthwhile with all their engaging little gesticulations and their excellent partner-timing. Only the last 7 minutes becomes boring with too much stock footage of war games. Cute ending though.

To misquote another viewer's comment, it's not a bad movie, just not real L&H movie. It's a little like L&H agreed to impersonate themselves, and if you don't mind that for 75 minutes, the movie is a good 7 out of 10: that is, a pleasant and better-than-average diversion for a Sunday afternoon. For comparison, I suppose I would rate the Hal Roach "Chump" at 6 out of 10 (maybe a little higher because of the background music), "Swiss Miss" 7 out of 10 (I'd give it 7-1/2 if it were in color), and I'd rate "Bonnie Scotland" 8 out of 10 because L&H so thoroughly sustain the integrity of their personalities, and because they dance.


I've been a fan of Laurel and Hardy all my life, but there came a point in their movie career where their distinct style of humor simply ceased to be. In their earlier films, you had Stan with his endless Malaprops, prompting Ollie's looks of disgust into the camera; the physical comedy was brilliant, and often led off by the duo selecting the most illogical and idiotic course of action possible for the bizarre circumstances in which they found themselves.

Example: You are delivering a piano. The door of the house is locked but you can get in through an upstairs balcony door. Do you put one person in through that door, then have him come downstairs and open the main door for you to bring in the piano? No, you try to bring the piano in through the upstairs door, using a flimsy canopy as a mounting point for a block and tackle hoist! That is just an example of the kind of humor which made Stan and Ollie famous.

Well, all that seems to be gone in this movie. I got halfway through watching "Great Guns" and realized I had wasted as much time as I had spent watching it to that point - and I turned it off. (If I have to watch more than half-way through a movie to get past the part that is an utter waste, it's too far gone to redeem itself for me.) While Stan and Ollie still looked much like their old selves in this film, it's like they were almost afraid to be those two zany characters from their GOOD movies, like they didn't feel like they could pull it off... like maybe they didn't believe in themselves anymore? Laurel and Hardy had a period in which they made brilliant comedies, where you couldn't help laughing out loud at the sheer lunacy of their antics and the disasters which resulted. Like Stan trying to move a dump truck so Ollie could get his wife's new convertible out of its parking space, and Stan works the lever that makes the dump truck unload tons of dirt onto the car. Or Stan visiting Ollie in the hospital and sitting on a hypodermic needle full of tranquilizer, and Ollie ending up hanging out the window by his cast-wrapped leg. Those were Laurel and Hardy films which made them popular and famous, deservedly so. This movie, Great Guns, is all talk talk talk, most of that not very funny, and little else. Yawn. I'm a big L&H fan but I know I will never bother watching this film ever again. Phew! It's a sad movie, not a comedy. It's simply not very funny, and very little like the earlier films they'd made.


Great Guns takes us back to war days, a period when people were having to tighten their belts because times were hard. The great comedy drought of '41 saw jokes in movies placed on a ration of just one per 75 minutes. Unfortunately Great Guns lasts for 74.

Notwithstanding the brief step away to RKO in 1939 with The Flying Deuces, this was the first of the duo's nine post-Roach movies. To be fair, while most of them are wretched, this one isn't so awful, despite the almost total absence of anything approaching a gag. While Laurel and Hardy had begun to decline since hitting an-all time peak in 1937 (Way Out West), this was still only four years on, and just a year after the reasonably amusing A Chump At Oxford. So it is that, despite having no back-up on the writing front and being acted off the screen by a crow, they still manage to find some last residual laughs in the tank.

Highlight has to be the parade line-up where they order the General to take their photo. Ollie's cry to Stan of "Give it a little dignity" briefly recalls some of the glory days, as does Stan's earlier self-parodying [We haven't eaten for three days] "Yesterday, today and tomorrow." In the main, though, Stan and Ollie were living on reputation alone. The guest cast (the leads of which are picked because they're photogenic, and virtually none of them display comic timing) react against L & H as if they're a couple of bozos, but not because the duo are acting in any way strange. Even just being glanced standing perfectly normally in a line-up will produce outrage and some cranked-up incidental music to cement the gag.

Yes, Stan and Ollie are rarely seen doing anything genuinely funny in a film past 1940, but we're led to believe they are by goodwill and past knowledge alone. Yet what if someone had never seen a Laurel and Hardy film before this? Surely it would fall down as two averagely amusing men lark about in third-rate vignettes joined together in an approximation of narrative? If this was the first Laurel and Hardy film you'd seen you'd never know what the fuss was about, something lost on Fox who promote their Stan & Ollie output on home video with a trailer announcing "four of their best-loved movies". Isn't that against the Trades Descriptions Act?

The humour is sometimes a little unsettling, too. When a Sergeant has his face blackened in an explosion, Stan and Ollie pretend not to recognise him, Stan suggesting "Look, they've assigned us a porter." Much 'hilarity' ensues, after which the General demands, "what are you trying to do, put on a Minstrel show?" For their 20s and 30s output it was a naïve gesture, a world away. But this is far too close to home not to be uncomfortable nowadays, particularly as the 'joke' comes not from Stan's ignorance but from cognisant racial mockery. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, just as 99% of the jokes about the boys seem to be solely related to how thick they are. ("Maybe they'll put me in the Intelligence Corps." "Brother, you're with him, right now.")

Thankfully, as poor as this is (and there's a reason that a crow down your underpants never became a comedy staple) Stan and Ollie are the more-or-less the focus all the way through, rather than playing support in their own movie. Jokes like Ollie checking the time and spilling his drink down his shirt seem old now, but were possibly reasonably new then (and still considered good enough to be homaged 43 years later in The Young Ones). Having said that, the film drags on lifelessly for the whole second half, so the best that can possibly be said is that it's bearable.


I remember the AMAZING SPIDER-MAN from when I was a kid,it was one of the first memorys I have when we came to this country. Spidey taught me a lot for just being a fictional hero,I only wish I could get all the movies so, that I might share them with my son one day. Until then I have my memorys and the cartoon , for now that will have to do. thanks


This 70's Spider-Man series is one of my favorites. It may not be exactly like the comics, but it was impossible to do a live action Spider-Man on 70's TV like the one in the comics. In those days before CGI they could have stunt men hanging by wires, the camera could be tilted, blue screen could be employed, but no matter what they tried it just wasn't going to look like the comics. None of that stopped Nicholas Hammond from shining though. Hammond imbued his Parker/Spider-Man with a tremendous integrity and sincerity which transcended the limitations of low tech 70's TV and made him a great comic book hero in the classic sense. He was honorable, compassionate, and just. I had great admiration for Hammond's idealistic Parker/Spider-Man as a kid. I never missed an episode. Thanks Nicholas Hammond!


This is available on RCA CED Videodisc, RCA's videodisc format from 1981-1986. I am watching it right now with my son on CED. You can find the discs and machines at on the web at CED Central. Was originally made for TV, so it has a lot of actors that appeared mainly in television productions. The 70's standard of special effects may seem dated, but it has it's own charm for younger generations and nostalgia for those from the time period. Actually, I find the low tech special effects easier on the eyes than the computer wizardry of today. I look at the digital effects of today and the imagery seems thin and repulsive. Live action blue screen and low tech crawling up the side of the building when its on the flat simpler, but the imagery is richer and more full. I find that more appealing to suspending my sense of disbelief.


This is one of the coolest movies I've ever seen. So what if the special effects aren't that great, or if the origin doesn't stick to the comics. Nicholas Hammond does really well as the wall-crawler. The rest of the cast does good too. The fights are awesome and so are the stunts. This is definitely a must see for any Spidey fan, like me. I give this film a 10 out of 10.


I thought this film did an admirable job portraying most of spideys origins, although a lot of key events were left out entirely. This movie is a quick fix for all spideys fans out there until someone gets a clue and makes a guaranteed blockbuster of a movie, lets hope this time it gets done.


When someone mentions the word "superhero", many names will come to mind. Spiderman is one of them. What makes Spiderman stand out is how "unsuper" he really is. He's an unlucky loser in tights. While Superman and Batman were loved by one and all, and they were the All-American heroes, Spiderman was the big loser. His secret identity was a teenager who couldn't pick up girls. He was the nerd who seemed to lose everything...even his family.

But as if by fate, one day he got bit by a radioactive spider, and while that might seem unlucky, it gave him the strength of a spider if it was his size, and the ability to climb walls, and shoot webbing.

OK, now that you know about the web slinging wonder, Spiderman, let me describe the movie.

It's the year 1977, supposedly. Peter Parker is trying to make some money for scientific purposes, meanwhile, a man is using the power of mind control to get money. after making unsuspecting minions do his dirty work, he plans the biggest threat of all - if he isn't paid 50 million dollars by a Friday afternoon, 10 random people will die.

There's only one man who stands in his way...Peter Parker. Alias; Spiderman.

I found this movie very entertaining. i still do. the special effects were pretty good for the time, the music funky, the plot original, and everything else just great. if anyone says this movie is bad, no it is not. it's Probably one of the nest TV movies i've seen.

i suggest you see it.


Comic book movie adaptations have a terrible record overall, and Marvel comics has the worst record of all. This movie should be banned by the Geneva convention. The movie really seems to try to do credit to Peter Parker's comic book origins, but the budget, and effects limitations ensure that the movie looks cheesy and corny. For decent comic book adaptations look to X-Men, the first Batman movie, and (to a lesser extent), the Superman movies.


My Cousin Vinny is one of the most brilliant comedies ever produced. There is simply so much to love about this movie.

First, this is not simply a slapstick comedy. Sure, there is some of that, including a few hilarious moments in the Alabama mud. But the dialogue in this film is terrifically funny. The writers were able to turn a courtroom script into an incredibly funny exchange of dialogue between lawyers, judges and witnesses. And the whole idea of an out-of-work hairdresser knowing about Positraction is simply brilliant.

This dialogue is brilliant because of excellent performances by both Marisa Tomei and Joe Pesci. These two sell this whole load of nonsense so beautifully it should be mandatory viewing for first-year drama students. These two actors show how talented people can read practically anything and make it not only funny but wholly believable.

Even all the side characters, from the judge to the D.A. to the defendants to the jury and witnesses are brilliantly played. Some of the exchanges between a local Alabama judge and a NYC poser lawyer would be completely ridiculous in anyone else's hands, but these people make it so real and so funny it's truly a thing of beauty.

This is one of those rare films that I can watch over and over again for hours and not tire of it.

10 out of 10 Barky


"My Cousin Vinny," along with the megahit "Goodfellas," put Pesci on the map. Of course, he's been in the Scorcese's previous hit "Raging Bull," but didn't get a hell of a lot of recognition at the time. Joe Pesci's character of Vincent LaGuardia Gambini is a landmark character in comedy history. When his New Yauker street smarts collide with Southern hospitality--brilliant fish-out-of-water humor ensues!

Of course, Pesci should've be given all the credit. Marisa Tomei, who RIGHTFULLY won the Supporting Oscar for her excellent performance (please don't believe that urban myth about Jack Palance calling out the wrong name!!), is hilarious as Pesci's fiance with a foul mouth, a smart a**, the heaviest Brooklyn accent and an incredible expertise in automobiles. This was also the movie that made Marisa a star, and a performance I commend to this day.

What can I say? This movie has some of the most priceless bits of comedy. One, of course, involves Pesci's pronunciation of the word "youth" which sounds like "yute." One underrated bit is the one where Pesci first meets his cousin's friend (Mitchell Whitfield) in the jail cell. His cousin (Ralph Macchio) is asleep and Pesci suddenly pays the friend a visit. He doesn't know Pesci is the lawyer, and assumes he's some guy who...wants to make him his b**ch. The comic dialogue in that scene is so perfectly executed and I feel it's one of the funniest in the movie. I'm not going to give away any more of the film's slick, intelligent humor--You have to see it for yourself!!!

If you're in the mood for a smart, well-written, well-acted comedy that will have you on the floor--look no further! "My Cousin Vinny" doesn't disappoint in any of those aspects. This is a truly memorable piece of comedy, and though it was released in 1992, I'm sure comedy lovers will pay homage to this movie in the present day.

My score: 8 (out of 10)


Underrated. I won't belabor relating and describing the plot, because that's been recited nicely by numerous others. I'll simply return to my one word point. Underrated. Even though Marisa Tomei broke through and won Best Supporting Actress at the Academy Awards for her performance, an award she earned and much deserved, I still say underrated. This film really never got on the public's radar the way it should have, probably because there are no big-name actors featured as box office draw. Joe Pesci was as good as it gets that way. In 1991 he was the hottest name in the cast. But has Joes Pesci ever established himself as a leading man who could carry a movie by himself? I ask that in open-ended wonderment, and certainly not disparagingly. Just asking, is it fair, has it ever been fair, to expect Joe Pesci to carry a film?

Regardless of Joe Pesci's latent starpower, this cast of players as assembled possessed remarkable chemistry in the performances they gave, not only in their interactions with one another, but also in the creation of a final product that excels way beyond the sum of its parts, beyond any of their individual levels of genius, certainly beyond anything that could ever have been reasonably expected of them. Competent though they may have been, these were not thespian heavyweights or comedic savants. You ever wonder why this singular performance 15+ years ago and counting remains Marisa Tomei's magnum opus? That might be one big reason why. The Germans have a word for this. It's called gestalt.

My inclination is to give most of the credit for this winning final product to director Jonathan Lynn. It seems obviously to be his creation. Who else singularly deserves it? Along the way it would have been such a cheap trick and easy thing to surrender to the obvious, but Lynn didn't do it. This is a story built around stereotypes. New Yorkers. Ethnic Italian New Yorkers. Southerners. Small town southerners. Southern justice. Southern small town justice with New York Italians in the dock. It would have been so easy to traffic in those stereotypes, to over-the-top cash in on them, to submerge the movie in them and to exploit them for all they were worth. These people could have been made into cardboard cartoons of themselves. Surely the Englishman Lynn was thusly tempted, but it was a temptation he mainly resisted. Oh, almost obligatorily, he dances us over to that edge and gives us a big whiff of all that, but instead of jumping in and wallowing in the stereotypes, he deftly pulls it back and carries it all off and away in a new and different direction, indeed in an uplifting direction. Just as there are no cheap tricks in this movie, there are no cheap shots either. People are not ridiculed for who they are or where they are from. It rises above that. Lynn raises it above that. Yes, the regional differences that exist are juxtaposed. And yes, we get the fact that cultural differences divide these characters. But the beauty of it is that no one is treated unfairly. In fact, the viewer comes away with the feeling that these are all good people.

Joe Pesci and Marisa Tomei are given a broad canvas to create great humorous art, bouncing one, two, three liners or more off of each other, at the other's expense. It's the game they play with each other, the nature of their characters' relationship, and it's fun to watch. And this must be said: not only does Marisa give an exquisite performance, she is an utterly delightful feminine creature to watch here. As for the southerners, in not taking the bait to exploit the southerners as dumb hicks, Lynne actually captures part of the true but rarely portrayed essence of the south: polite gentility. Lane Smith embodies that essence. And Fred Gwynne? He practically steals the show, and would have were it not for Marisa Tomei.

What has been going through Joe Pesci's and Marisa Tomei's heads for the last 15 years? What is wrong with their agents? These two needed a sequel. If not a sequel, then more film(s) together. The dynamic between them was too good to just be abandoned. We should have been treated to much more of them together.

As a trial lawyer let me say that the portrayal of courtroom events, while certainly not perfect, is more than adequate and passable. One thing that is accurately captured is the fish-out-of-water experience of a city lawyer when subjected to trying a case in a far-flung rural county. This depicton conveys the essence of what that's like.

This movie deserves more recognition. It is clever, funny, and fun. I recommend it. If you haven't seen it, do yourself a favor and indulge yourself.


This was the best way for Joe Pesci to follow up GOODFELLAS and JFK. Those two were ultra-serious roles for him and to forray into comedy was perfect. It was a perfect role, perfect timing and a perfect opportunity to show people that he could play something other than the heavy or the bad guy. MY COUSIN VINNY is really just a distant cousin of his character in Goodfellas anyway. Just imagine one of the guys in Goodfellas that didn't want to follow in the footsteps of the rest of the gangsters and this is him. Vinny is a foul mouthed, sometime violent, insecure but smart man. He went to law school but took six attempts before he passed the bar. They are definitely similar characters. The difference is that Goodfellas was a serious film with a funny side and My Cousin Vinny is an absolutely hilarious film with a somewhat serious side.

What makes the film work as well as it does, is many things. First of all you have the fish out of water scenario with Vinny and his fiancee Lisa, wearing leather jackets and cowboy boots down in the south where it seems everyone is wearing overalls and they hang out in establishments where their best selling feature is chicken and pool.

You also have a great supporting cast that features Lane Smith as a very animated D.A. that has to hammer home every point to his jury like they were morons. He says the word "truth" is a word that comes down from England where all of our ancestors come, and looking at him incredulously is some of the black jury members. Fred Gwynne supplies some of the best comedy for the film with his constant badgering of Vinny. Everything from his suit, to his enunciation of words like "youts", to his court room impropriety to his just plain dislike of him. Gwynne and Pesci are so opposite as people. Gwynne being a giant of a man with a southern drawl and a long, virile face while Pesci is a short man with a distinct New Yawk slur and a pudgy, baby looking face. They are complete opposites and much of the hilarity comes from their inability to see eye to eye on many things.

It also has to said that Marisa Tomei is brilliant in this film. There are people out there that try to demean her Oscar triumph that year because the favourite did not win like anticipated. But her performance here is nothing short of Oscar worthy. She is a gifted actress and her comedic timing in this film is bang on, or as she would say, " dead on balls accurate. "

This is one of the funnier films to come out in the 90's and it is well worth seeing again.

9 out of 10


I can watch this film over and over again. Joe Pesci plays Vincent LaGuardia Gambini, a Brooklyn lawyer who is asked to defend his cousin and friend from a murder charge in Alabama. Marisa Tomei as Mona Lisa Vito, Vinny's girlfriend, deserved the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, rare for a comedy to even be nominated for anything by AMPAS. I really liked Fred Gwynne as the no-nonsense Judge Chamberlain Haller, a great foil for Joe Pesci's laid back, easy going Brooklyn wise guy. Even his name, Chamberlain Haller, evokes seriousness. A lot of fun, especially the courtroom antics of Pesci. Highly recommended.


Definitely one of my all-time favorite comedies. Well directed, well acted -- priceless comic performances by Pesci, Tomei, Gwynne & Austin Pendleton. And more than comedy -- there's also a lot of genuine pathos and real tension and drama, especially in the final courtroom scene. And I really don't understand the "controversy" or brouhaha over Marisa Tomei receiving the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her role in this movie. It's a crackerjack gem of a performance and a stellar comic portrayal. The only thing I can figure is that a lot of snobbery about serious dramatic portrayals somehow being more worthy of honor than great comic performances still very much lives on in much of the film community.


MY COUSIN VINNY is just one of those "feel good" movies delivering some grins that won't wash away. An excellent cast includes Joe Pesci in one of his best roles as a hotshot lawyer. Expect a few unbelievable surprises from the irresistible guy who's smart enough to make one hilarious movie after another. He is downright likeable, and so is Marisa Tomei, a sassy and stylish figurine who was amazingly superb to take home the Best Actress Oscar. Both Pesci and Tomei have the colorful wits and personalities to make a wild pair for themselves (almost like living in the 50s for sure!). Also, the movie's best moment arises when a freight train disturbs Pesci's sleep at five in the morning. The deep downside is the latter portion: a climatic courtroom scene that, while up to the point of interest, runs terribly long and weak....until one of the film's cast members gets into the act! Still, it's worth plenty of good gags and good laughs that aren't so bugging. Pesci would look terrific in a torn-up leather jacket in front of the judge, to his ultimate disgrace! Smart comedy is smart thinking after all.


My Cousin Vinny was a great movie. I borrowed this film from a friend but had no idea what it really was but just knowing Joe Pesci, Ralph Macchio, and Marisa Tomei were starring in it. After seeing it, I really liked it. It was a funny movie. There were tons of laughs and I never knew it was going to be this funny but mainly Joe Pesci as Vinny was hilarious. He had the best role in this movie out of anyone but Marisa Tomei as Vinny's fiancée and Fred Gwynne as the judge did wonderful. I was surprised how good the movie was and overall it really entertained me. I highly recommend the film.

Hedeen's Outlook: 8.5/10 ***+ B+


A couple of Yankee youths take a trip to the deep south and find themselves being charged for murder . Thankfully one of the youths has a cousin who's a lawyer

Did I say thankfully ?

I'm not a big fan of comedies since the premise usually over stays it's welcome by at least half an hour , but screenwriter Dale Launer has crafted a very funny , well paced script that succeeds because of the amount of obstacles for the characters . Lawyer Vincent Gambini is warned by the judge to get a suit , so he gets a suit only to find there's an obstacle in the way . Vincent stays at a hotel , but there's an obstacle in staying there . Every time a character the audience feels for looks like they're going to get a lucky break ( Vincent especially ) another obstacle appears barring their way . A superlative example of pacing a script . Launer has also written things that at first appear throwaway at the time like eating grits at a diner but then incorperates them into the plot later on . Not only that but Launer has written a script with gags that are both credible and funny , even the skit involving possible sexual abuse in prison ( They'd have to be one of course ) isn't as silly as it could have been

The cast are pretty good too with Joe Pesci showing that he's just as good as a comedy leading man as he is at playing Italian American wiseguys . Let's see you in another movie sometime quick Joe . I'm not sure if Marisa Tomei really deserved her Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her role here but if the choice was between her and Vanessa Redgrave I'm glad the Oscar voters made the choice . The only real problem with the casting is that it's impossible to believe the short middle aged Vincent would have a hot leggy girlfriend like Mona in real life . But maybe I'm just jealous ?


This is another of my favourite films and I never get tired of watching it again and again and always laugh at the funny scenes.

I can't imagine anyone else in those roles than Joe Pesci and Marisa Tomei, I don't think it would have worked as well as it did. They are one of the best on screen couples I have seen. They act like a old married couple. They just work so well together and have the right chemistry. They make me laugh more than anyone else in this picture, the scenes I particularly laugh the hardest at is when Vinny has been invited by the prosecuting attorney to go hunting and he doesn't know what to wear and Lisa goes into a tirade about the deer being shot and his brain lying on the floor and not caring what the "son of a bitch" who shot him was wearing. Another is when Vinny is trying to prepare for a case and she heaps on more pressure by talking about her biological clock, it is a lot more funny in the film and you should watch it for just those scenes alone.

What I find entertaining about Vinny's character is that he is not a practised lawyer, he hasn't had any cases and doesn't really know what he is doing. He doesn't even know about disclosure till Lisa tells him. He also has to convince his cousin, the cousin's friend and the judge that he knows what he is doing. On top of this, he hasn't had a good night's sleep because it keeps getting interrupted by loud noises throughout the night, the judge doesn't like him and keeps putting him in jail for contempt, a local idiot who wants to fight him for $200 that he owes Vinny so there is a lot of factors working against him. You cheer for him when he starts to do the right things in court and will him on to find evidence that will prove his cousin and friend innocent of murder.

I have to say one of the scenes that has me falling about laughing is the scene where there is a stuttering lawyer who is trying to do his opening statement but keeps stuttering through it and the jury's face is a picture and really it is their expressions I am laughing at.

I like that the film is unpredictable. You don't know how it will be resolved, you are in a way in the same boat as Stan and Bill as you watched them leave the Sac o' suds without killing the clerk and you wonder who could have done it and how the witnesses are so convinced that Stan and Bill did it and at least at the end, you have a satisfying conclusion when you find out they have caught the bad guys in another state.

It was good to see Ralph Macchio in something else other than The Karate Kid. I hardly recognised Fred Gwynne without the makeup of Herman Munster. He was such a treat especially when he couldn't understand what Vinny was saying when he said "yutes" and couldn't understand some of the other words Vinny said with his thick Brooklyn accent.

10 for the actors, 10 for the directing and 10 for the writing which makes this film a joy to watch.


This is the first film I have seen where Pesci is the lead role and he proved to sore beyond what his talents are, he's definitely one of the most under rated actors of all time, I feel like he's Hollywood's hidden secret weapon. :) I had heard a lot about My Cousin Vinny, I know this was the movie that won Marissa's Oscar and not to mention I heard how funny it was. My Cousin Vinny turned into a very intelligent and great comedic story.

It's about two boys who have been accused of murder, with a lot of pressing evidence against them that can get them executed, but one of the boy's cousins, Vinny, is a lawyer, well, just graduated and starting his first six weeks. Not to mention, he's never fought a trial or murder case. Vinny has also brought along his Brooklyn talking fiancée, Mona Lisa Vito. With little experience and getting into a web of lies, Vinny must learn that good arguing is not just what will help, but he also has to learn how to be a lawyer.

Joe and Marissa absolutely steal the show. I think my favorite part was when Mona Lisa was on the stand talking about which cars were involved in the murder case, she just got into a fight with Vinny and she refuses to help him, but she does and he kisses her hand and you can tell they made up, but it's just their looks that are just plain priceless! Everything about this film could make anyone laugh and make them fall in love with Joe Pecsi, he's just so awesome!

9/10


If would have been a travesty if Marisa Tomei hadn't won the suppoting actress Oscar for her role as the funniest, best character in a funny great movie. And is My Cousin Vinny hilarious!! Vinny Gambini, a budding lawyer from the Bronx comes to handle is first murder case in the South-with one of the defendants being his relative. Cousin, to be exact.

While a murder trial may not seem like the premise for a rollicking comedy, the way it is set up may make you bust a gut. Honestly, you made need a doctor after this movie. This is, in essence, not a courtroom movie as much as it is a fish out of water story. Gambini's cluelessness involving the entire scenario, as well as the aforementioned Tomei's acting are what make this movie.

The dialog between Joe Pesci's Gambini and Tomei's Mona Lisa Vito is so well written, I began to wonder if the writer was actually drawing on conversations had with a spouse. These conversations seem like a parody, and a very good one at that, involving both the happiness and anger involved in a marriage, or engagement.

The only thing I have to say against My Cousin Vinny, is that I least, think it loses something in multiple viewings. It'll still make you laugh continuously, but not as hard as the first time you saw it, when what was coming was a surprise. This can't really be held against the movie, though. Almost all comedies have this flaw.

All in all, this is definitely a movie to watch. On first viewing, it gets a 10/10. I couldn't stop laughing. The 8/10 is for what was lost in repeat viewings. If you haven't yet seen My Cousin Vinny, I absolutely recommend. This is a fabulous, hilarious, quirky comedy. If only all comedies were like this. Most are too busy trying to write risqué jokes that they leave out what really matters: the wit.


"My Cousin Vinny" isn't the great court room drama because it's filled with things that are simply against the rules of court, but since the film is told in such tongue-and-check fashion, it simply adds to the great on-screen chemistry of the actors involved and themes of the film. People may argue that's its contrived, ridiculous, and all that garbage, but this film isn't to be taken seriously. It's a comedy. It's a feel-good-story of believing in someone, and it is incredibly effective.

"My Cousin Vinny" delivers a ton of laughs, some great acting from Pesci, Tomei, and Fred Gwynne. Joe Pesci and Marisa Tomei have a ton of fun with this role and really do a great job acting off one another. We become so invested in this story and so invested with their determination that we're sucked into these characters. A smile is brought to your face just listening to them talk. The court room scenes are dynamite. "My Cousin Vinny" is a classic feel- good comedy that's enjoyable from start to finish.


"My Cousin Vinny" is a real gem, a perfect, funny, smart comedy, a very rare kind that I can watch and enjoy over and over again no matter how many times I've seen it and from what scene I watch it. This is one of my three all time favorite English language comedies along with "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" and "A Fish Called Wanda". When I think of it, all three share the same concept - playing the differences between the cultures, mentalities, ways of living, talking, doing things, even cooking - Europeans versus Americans, particularly British and Americans or New Yorkers versus Southerners in My Cousin Vinny. They also have in common a flawless, witty script with all pieces falling into right place, all guns firing, all characters developed and interesting. As with Scoundrels and Wanda, performances in "My Cousin Vinny" are simply terrific. Joe Pesci as a lawyer with no legal experience from Brooklyn whose first case just happened to be defending two "youtes" in a first degree murder trial, and Marissa Tomei in the dresses that are so magnificently out of place in the muddy Wahzoo City, Alabama but so deliciously fit her like a glove, make one of the best screen couples ever but I like the supporting characters and small cameos, too. Everyone shines in this delightful comedy. I remember three witnesses for prosecution - grits loving Sam Tipton (Maury Chaykin), the guy with seven bushes (Raynor Scheine), and sweet Mrs. Riley who just may need a thicker pair of glasses. Austin Pendleton as a stuttering public attorney was hilarious. Fred Gwynne, sadly in his last performance as Judge Chamberlain Halle, made his every scene (each of which he shared with Pesci) the double delight. Ten years after the film was released, Film critic and historian Mick LaSalle wrote in his article, "Half of what made Joe Pesci funny in this comedy was the stream of reactions of Gwynne, as the Southern Judge, a Great Dane to Joe Pesci's yapping terrier." The film made me root for Vinny, wishing him victory in his first case, and he won gloriously with the help of a lovely, lovely expert in the general automobile knowledge in this lovely, lovely comedy.


This is one of the rare movies in comedy that i could watch over and over again,, this movie is sooooo , freaking funny it's like a laugh a minute,, especially how Vinny,, "bag of donuts" is woken up constantly every morning,, first the train,, then the pigs i think the owl, and o yeah the steam whistle... i can relate to that stuff, and living relatively close to N.Y. for years i can relate to the accents in the movie,, very Brooklyn if i'm not mistaken,, i loved Joe Pesci in this movie,, this is one of his finer moments ever in a comedic role,, Marissa Tomei however stole the whole show for me,, not only is she sexy and pretty she can act too, her accent fits her like a glove, Ralph Maccio,, hmm well, not everything can be perfect.. i Loved Fred Gwynne the judge,, he is so hilarious,, i just bust out every time he gets Vinny on Contempt of Court or something,, and order him to some jail time,, overall the plot was simple... yeah some of it's corny,, i guess you kinda have to be a Pesci, Tomei fan to appreciate all the slapstick,, but hey it's one of the funniest movies that you'll ever see and you won't regret watching it that's for sure,,


I've replayed this wonderful movie so many times that I think I've memorized the script. The nuances in it, the performances of even the bit players, and the direction are incredible. Examples (without screwing this up for you -- and I hope I' ve got the correct actors' names for the parts): defense attorney Lane Smith's confident rapping of fingers on the desk as he departs from his abysmal defense opening; prosecutor Austin Pendleton calculated pronouncement of heinous "hy-eee-nus"; the grits cook's (Maury Chaykin?) blank testimony; the tough guy -- Chris Ellis? -- in his confrontations with Vinny; and the incredible southern judge Fred Gwynne who is irresistible with his fancy southern/back east background against Vinny's Brooklyn approach; and Marisa Tomei's incredible performance such as telling Vinny "you blend" and "the baby deah is drinking from the little brook and BAM...". No, this is a great movie and I can't let comments that it's anything less go unanswered.


This is one of those films, which if you completely enjoy, is as much fun to see over and over as it was initially.

It is simply a perfectly enjoyable and humorous piece of entertainment.

The two primary leads, the two young defendants, the main co-stars (judge, prosecutor, sheriff) and the other cast, are all excellent.

One of the best features as the story was presented is that every character seemed to contribute to its humor (e.g. the prosecutor, judge, other defense attorney, sheriff, witnesses) as well as Pesci and Tomei. So often in this type of film, there are either some characters/situations which cause lulls in the story, or the writers/directors give all the "good stuff" to the main star(s). Not so here.

The many prior comments here have covered the plot line amply.

For anyone who may come across this one, if you haven't seen this film, rent it, buy it or see it the next time it's listed in a directory.


Joe Pesci, Marisa Tomei, Ralph Macchio, and Fred Gwynne are very fine actors who make this movie a total success. Joe Pesci plays Cousin Vincent "Vinny" Gambini, a upstart lawyer from New York who goes to Alabama to defend Billy(Ralph Macchio, "The Karate Kid" and "The Outsiders") and his friend from being executed for a murder they didn't commit. First, they thought they were arrested for shoplifting, instead the clerk was shot to death. Vinny and his fiancée Mona Lisa Vito(Tomei) goes to motel to motel. Tasting hominy grits for the first time, meeting a judge(Gwynne) who doesn't play around, and dealing with his argumentative fiancée. Vinny's inexperience cause problems, yet when he does get the taste of courtroom drama, he gives out his serving of justice to the platter. When the pictures of the car tracks racks his brain, his sudden sense of getting the answers get his cousin and friend out of the hot seat. The judge was impressed with his work, yet he doesn't agree with his methods. A masterpiece of comedy, well done! 5 stars!


I give this movie a 9 because I've watched this movie a record 32 times (if not more in bits and pieces) and still manage to fall off the chair laughing through most parts of the movie.

I watched it first on a VCD and later found a featured DVD a few years later for a few extra quid. I would still pay for any material about this movie that I can lay my hands on.

The confusion at the cell with Stan, the sleepless nights and their many reasons, the break-in break-off relationship with Mona, the intimidating judge 'who's just aching to throw Vinny in jail', and the twisted excitement in the end; all give 'My cousin Vinny' everything a serious comedy needs. It's quite surprising that Joe Pesci has never been set in the lead role in a comedy till date. The reel-life chemistry between Marrisa Tomei and Joe Pesci has been quite appealing and could never be any better or even the same if any of the actors were played by anybody else.

The movie, however failed to get the recognition it deserves, but I'm glad I watched this movie soon after its release.

I recommended this highly for anyone who visits this page and for those trying to make a decision to watch.


I just watched "My Cousin Vinny" again on HBO. I can not count how many times I have seen it. I know the exact line that is coming and I chuckle every time. The reason I find it so watchable is the sensational performances by all cast members (OK maybe not Machio!). My most vivid memory of the movie was that after seeing the theatrical release and thinking it was hysterical, I rented it while on vacation with my folks. To be honest, I didn't remember the language being so... ah... harsh, and I sat there in shock thinking they would be mortified. Well, after 15 minutes my Mom was howling with every morning wake up, every confrontation with the judge, and we almost lost her when Austin Pendelton started his "stuttering" defense! She loved Marisa Tomei (who didn't?)! I will never forget that night.

The movie itself is the classic "fish out of water" tale. Joe Pesci, who I always found annoying in his Mafia roles, is perfect as the New Yorker who will "learn as he goes along". And Marisa Tomei, his long suffering girlfriend, creates a character so coarse, blunt, likable and drop dead gorgeous, I haven't seen her equal since. I am always amazed that people question her Acadamy Award credentials. The fact that comic turns are not often rewarded doesn't mean it wasn't a sensational characterization. And this was also a career capping role for Fred Gwynne. He captures the respectful Southern Gentlemen Judge, struggling to suppress his slow burn, perfectly.

So tune in if you haven't seen it, enjoy it again if you have. This is great entertainment, but remember, its rated R for language!!