The story is about a young man ( Yuppie)who falls in love with a woman who is 15 years his senior. A beautiful love story with lots of passion. They live in two totally different worlds. he's rich , she's poor.It doesn't work. So she moves to NYC But his love is so true an deep. So when he finds her they come back together. A perfectly happy end.

The reason why I watched this movie was because I'm truly one of the biggest Susan Sarandon fans. She shines absolutely beautiful in this movie.And James Spader has performed one of his bests roles ever. my favourite scene is when Nora (Susan) meets one of Max(James)'s Friends, Sherri.She asks Nora "you know our max is quite a catch. How Did you manage it?" and Nora says:"I give a good b***job I guess" Sherri : Hmmmmm.. I bet you do"and Nora answers: "And I bet you don't" You must see the look on Sherri's face

I think it's a great movie because normally hollywood is afraid of a love story about a young man and an older woman.There should be more of those movies because some people think it's strange when a older woman has a love relation with a much younger man. ( I've never thought it was strange and I'm only a fifteen year old girl) But most people find it absolutely normal when an old man has something with a much younger woman. So I think this movie is really important.

We can all learn something about it.


Wonderful romance and character study between two people who live on the opposite sides of the tracks.Two strong but stereotypical people pair up and evolve into very un-stereotypical unit and try to function in a hostile enviroment. The acting in the movie is so good it surpasses the diologue. The loss and love Spader communicates with just his eyes is a sight to behold and Sarandon projects a dichotomy of neediness and strength.

This movie contains one of the best endings in movie history, right up there with Green Card. A truly uplifting movie that conveys joy, hope, and victory. What more can a woman ask for? And James Spader is a hunk!!


Having already commented on this one once, I had to comment again as I just watched it again for the umpeenth time. I had rated this about an 8, it's actually more like a 9 and one of my top 50 movies ever. I know everyone has a right to their opinion but this movie is so little known I truly hope at least one person reads some POSITVE reviews on here and gives it a shot.

I do NOT think Sarandon looked unattractive here as people have said but if she did, it really doesn't matter because the focus of the story has little to do with physical attractiveness. The theme here is love-and loving who YOU want to love versus who your friends, family and society wants you to. It's also about identity and about finding out that the person you truly are maybe quite different then who you always thought you were. The film brings to life the characters in the amazing book(I'd recommend the book version of this as well, it's even better then the film). Sarandon gives a luminous performance as Nora, she's the only actress I could ever see in the role anyway. The film is tragic, touching, gloriously acted and brings up some interesting issues of love and identity. I'm amazed this pic isn't better known, I agree very much with Ebert's review particularly(SPOILER)

The last scene that kind of does take credibility away fro the rest of the pic but then again-it maybe a little to Hollywood but the movie did (somewhat) follow the book's ending which was also positive although nowhere near the film's last scene.

I would recommend this to everyone particularly Sarandon fans, fans of the romance Genre, fans of Dramas in General or just people who like to dig up films that are kind of little known. Every time I see this I like it just a little bit more.


there are very few romance or romantic comedies, which strike a real note for the audience, or anyone who appreciates reality and decent acting.

This film does have that. Sarandon is very good; she is a "down-at-heel" waitress, almost twenty years older than the character portrayed by Spader. Some of the interactions are amusing and sad. Her drinking, her loss of a child. Spader's background is respectable, white-collar but bored, he meets Sarandon after missing his deceased wife.

Films like this are sometimes underrated. There was not a lot of hype about this film, which is one of the reasons I like it (We do not need Hollywood to tell us what's good, i.e. "The Break Up", which was actually not good).

While the scenes with Spader's relatives were a bit stereotyped, overall there are a few good messages here. Life doesn't always work out how we want, "perfect couples" aren't necessarily happy, and the Spader character was actually quite good, not being the negative insensitive character here. Definitely worth viewing. 8/10.


While I don't believe the end result for a second, this film will do whatever it takes to make us believe the relationship between 44 year old Nora Baker and 27 year old Max Baron can work. The age-gap isn't as difficult to accept as their ethnic and financial differences. Baron is a wealthy, successful Jewish business exec and Nora is a waitress at a hamburger joint. The film, though, with all it's might, tries to make us believe that, yes, they can still maintain a loving relationship despite all the certain trials that lie ahead. Both have had loss in their life, both find each other attractive, and when they are together the chemistry and passion is simply magnetic. It's the idea of who and what they are outside the personal relationship.

Susan Sarandon's performance as the waitress is a winner because she shows her as fearless, dynamic, and flawed..but she doesn't ask for pity and accepts that life doesn't always deal everyone a great hand. She goes after the younger man, loves him, she is thankful he continues coming by her house to stay. That aggressiveness to go after what she wants without worrying about what others might say(..though, she is very vulnerable and doesn't have faith in the strength of the relationship lasting). Spader finally has a chance to portray a likable character who just wants to feel something again. With Nora, he has that joy and the stars are aligned.

I will say that this film has lots of things going for it. The dialogue does allow Sarandon to expand her character beyond a cliché. You like her despite whatever faults you might see glaringly. Spader is able to expand into uncharted territory as a person we can care about instead of loathe. There's also a marvelous supporting cast which fill the film with color. But, startlingly, this film is also sexually passionate and pulls no punches showing the animal attraction these two have for each other.


I liked James Spader's performance; demonstrating as it does a vulnerable quality I didn't know he had. All those wistful looks off into the distance, and the general aura of a man beaten down by life make for something that  I have to say - is pretty touching! This softer element he brings to the part was a nice change from seeing him do the sleazeball routine for the umpteenth time... The movie itself is reminiscent of Pretty Woman in spots, and is a pleasant surprise. An offbeat sleeper on Sarandon's resume.

It's got that whole 'you can't rationalise who you love' motif, which I'm all too aware of, in my everyday living... (of course)

The whole 'keeping things around for show as an empty token of status' philosophy of some of the protagonists pals is a nice comment on the world of yuppie superficiality that James Spader's characters themselves have often been found immersed in. The movie could easily have been just another bland melodrama, but these themes provide a refreshing and unexpected counterpoint.


This is a straightforward and touching film, and a treat for anyone who enjoys watching actors - especially either of these two - playing small scale scenes recognisable from every day life. They play well together and I suspect the way the director enabled them to work had a hand in this. Unusually, the film is set in St. Louis.

The film is often under rated and its central relationship derided as implausible. I believe this is unfair and misses the point of the film.

It's a simple tale of class, differing social milieu and how people's social circles influence the choices we make in life. This couple resolve these issues by moving to another city, but not all of us can so readily choose this option.

Is their relationship implausible? Well aside from the obvious point that Susan Sarandon (Nora,) looks radiant most of the time, and probably never looked better on film, Spader's character (Max,) is not quite as preppy as he appears, and has more in common with Nora than first meets the eye. There is of course, their shared grief, but Max's mother(Edith,) appears in two scenes, and she is, I believe, a key to understanding their relationship.

Edith has a Brooklyn type accent which points to Max having something of a working class background himself, and further, he has ambivalent feelings towards her - for one thing, she is uncomfortable in formal social settings. I think these suggest that Max's attraction to Nora is not nearly as left field as it may appear. Further, I see a facial similarity between the actors, especially around the eyes and mouth, which social psychologists often cite as a predictor of couple attraction.

As to whether the film is any good...? I think it portrays the joys, tensions and compromises of the early stages of a relationship very convincingly. They have a lot of sex, they have rows, they make up, they meet each other's friends, they annoy each other, they work their way through issues. It's not War and Peace, but it does reflect every day life quite consonantly. It has some inspired comic touches - "the sandwich" springs to mind - a solid chemistry between the two stars, and some touching pieces of observation such as when Max tenderly explores Nora's belongings reminiscently of Garbo in Queen Christina.

If you fancy a touching love story, well acted, with stand back and don't get in the way direction, and with gentle undercurrents of social commentary, then The White Palace is worth a shot. If you check the voting for it, you'll see that quite a few people agree with me!


This movie is, I think, extremely well-acted and produced. As for the comments about the extreme differences between the characters, have they not heard the old adage that "truth is stranger thatn fiction?"

I love this movie, pure and simple. The comments I've read about the scene on the table in the diner turn me off. I think it's great and it's one of my favorites.


I just watched the movie and I felt I could really relate to it personally. I am engaged to a woman that is ten years older than me, (I am 22.)besides the outlandish first meeting and the night cap, my fiancée and I had much of the same trial and errors that they experienced in the movie. She didn't run away to New York though, but if she did I would have chased her down like Max did. Long story short,a great movie. The realism in the relationship throughout the movie was superb. Also I liked how Nora stood her ground during the Thanksgiving dinner, much like my fiancée's defensive attitude was towards my family. Definitely a movie worth watching.


Who says love has to be a certain way? This movie doesn't. "White Palace" is a very moving and sexually energetic movie that shows you can be happy in your own way. Max(James Spader) is an executive in advertising who was brought down by the death of his wife. After a raucous bachelor party, he goes to a bar on the wrong side of town, and there he meets Nora(Susan Sarandon), a worker at White Palace, who refunded Max earlier, asks him what he's doing at this place. Both go home smashed, but as Max dreams of his wife, Nora makes her move on him. Man, she's 43, and he's a 27-year-old yuppie. The sex gets good there. Both of them feel alive, and the tension start to mount. His friends want him to be happy, but Max wants to be happy in his way. His friend at the bachelor party Neil(Jason Alexander), wants to set him up with some that had the hots for Max. He declined. His friend's wife will do anything to play matchmaker. Playing matchmaker will either bring happiness, or cause misery. Neil, his wife and all of Max's friends needed to learn one thing, is to mind their own businesses. Those folks need to stop running people's lives. If it haven't been Nora's sister Judy(Eileen Brennan), those two wouldn't been any happier. I enjoyed this movie very well, it was close to "A Tiger's Tale", only more intense. Rating 3.5 out of 5 stars!


I just bought the movie because it has James Spader in it. He's hot, and the movie you can see his nice buttocks 'wink'. Cute story, funny quotes (i.e. 'How can you be out of coffee?' 'There's no dust in her dust buster!'), not quite as good as Secretary, but it will fulfill its purpose when I put it in my DVD player. He's cute when he plays drunk, and even better when he's being molested by Susan Serandon... sp. By the way where was Jeremy Piven in this movie and if he was in it why didn't they try to put him in it more. He's a lot hotter than Jason Alexander, who by the way is really annoying. I know I don't watch movies because of people's looks but if it wasn't for Spader I'd have never seen this one... It was cute. Thanks and farewell.


Well, let me just get this out of the way -- I sure as hell hope I can look half as great at "40-something" as Susan does in this film! I actually tuned in because of James Spader... having just seen him in "Secretary" renewed my curiosity. I thought it was a very good movie, a classic example of money and a big house (and the "perfect" wife) not always bringing happiness. Mostly a feel good but definitely not just fluff -- wondered if I would find those two believable as a couple and ended up thinking they were a great match... Enjoy!


I had no trouble believing the May/October romance. It was Sarandon's rude, crude, arrogant, and tacky behavior at the Thanksgiving dinner that made me wonder how the hero could stand her. (Sarandon so often seems to play that kind of a self-righteous character.) Spader was compelling in this film--at least until the last ridiculous scene. That was too much, and killed the glow of the ending for me. Still...an engrossing movie.


I will be frank: if Susan Sarandon had not been in this movie, I would not have watched. I will happily watch almost anything she appears in. James Spader's acting ability is marginal at best, but here, he does a very effective and surprisingly understated job and he and Sarandon do make sparks (although Sarandon could make sparks all alone in a full-force hurricane!) as a couple in this. Very good romantic drama, despite the occasional mis-step. Recommended.


The couple Spader-Sarandon works well. Max (James Spader) is a 27 yrs old yuppie Jewish. He has recently lost his wife. He will get trapped by the mature but really attractive Nora (Susan Sarandon), who is not so sophisticated and educated than his family and friends, but she can conquer him with her rebel spirit, and wild nature. Nora shows to Max a new way to live the life based on her She has not an academic or professional background so impressive, but she has experience and intelligence. She resists everything except lies and hipocrisy. She show her pride, when Max try to give her a vacuum cleaner like a gift. The erotic scenes are a valuable part of the film. Nora will have difficulties with the friends of Max. The talks in the bathroom are very descriptive about how is she feeling that. Some political issues are pointed during the Thanksgiving party. Nora cannot control herself and standing up gives a speech in defence of the working class in front of that rich and powerful jewish family. The worst scene is almost at the end of the film, in a friend's house, when Max discovers the same model of vacuum cleaner without dust inside. (it's a bit pathetic) In fact it is a recommended film, specially for Sarandon fans (like me).


"White Palace" is one of my favorite movies, and I am amazed at the negative comments about Susan Sarandon's armpits. They clearly are part of her character, and she is to be commended for going to the extra effort to fit herself into the part (exactly as Demi Moore did in "We're No Angels"). Gillette created the woman-shaving fad in the 1930's as a successful effort to double their razor sales. Then in the late 60's, young women stopped wearing makeup and stopped shaving as part of "the natural look." In the early 1970's, the cosmetic companies unleashed a media blitz to get women away from this natural look.

They were successful, and heavy makeup (even cartoonish) and shaving became a fad again. The current advertising in the U.S. is designed to make women feel insecure and unattractive. Then it tells them they can be acceptable and beautiful if they wear the latest (and most expensive) gunk, and scrape off every bit of body hair below their eyebrows. Women have completely bought into it. Personally, I like women to look natural and not wear thick makeup (or any, in fact); I feel that they are much prettier without it.


Am I missing something here? A trashy 40-something waitress picks up a cute, drunk younger man in a bar. She takes him home, basically rapes him, ( I know, I know....he seemed to be enjoying it, didn't he?) and then all of a sudden he can't do without her? I'm not buying it. There is not one word - not one line - not one shred of respect, admiration, fondness, or friendship between them. There is not one scene that convinces you that they really are compatible in any way. You get the feeling he doesn't even LIKE her very much. They have great sex - no question. But this is supposed to be the basis of a life-changing relationship for him? It is so totally unbelievable. I like Susan Sarandon and I like James Spader. But they should have gone back to the drawing board on this one before they ever released it. The older woman/younger man story is great. But let's get some better dialog and at least a couple of scenes to convince us that there might be a real relationship here.


I love James Spader - that's why I sat through this movie - not once (years ago), but twice (very recently). Sure, he's gotten sort of doughy in recent years, and is now in that awful TV show, but in this movie he is just so damn appealing: the most expressive eyes, those succulent lips. Yum! Susan Sarandon, OTOH, is way overrated as both an actress and a sex symbol. First, she's not at all attractive physically. The big, baggy bug eyes bothered me most. I found her character repulsive, crude, pathetic and incredibly annoying. Her crackling laugh in the bar scene made me *so* want to smack her. Her desperate "trapping" of him at the bar was painful to watch. How sad that she had to get him plastered and dupe him into coming home with her. Then, she just about rapes him. He resists, but later decides it'll take less energy to just let her have her way with him. He seems disgusted with her the morning after, and leaves callously, saying he won't be back - YET, we're to believe that within the next day he's become smitten with her and discovered he can't live without her? PLEASE!! Age is not the issue. She's crude, classless, unlikeable, a filthy slob, a drunk and a disgusting chain-smoker, yet this handsome, wealthy,young, successful, opera-loving, and impeccably neat "catch" falls hopelessly in love with her. ABSURD!!! It James Spader weren't in it, this movie would have gotten a -10!


I hated this movie. First of all, because Susan Sarandon is so unattractive in this film (yes, I know she's supposed to be unattractive) I had no rooting interest in seeing these two characters get together. This movie's plot line can be summed up in one line: 'Rich guy falls for white trash woman for no reason.' Completely unappealing.


Although the romantic, suave and serene Rajesh Khanna has other big hits to his credits like AMAR PREM, ANAND, SAFAR and ARADHANA but in KATI PATANG, his inherent and innate acting prowess shot to that vintage point from where, the exact reflection of his acting skills that were imbued in mystic, elegant and romantic gestures emerged supreme.

Coupled with great hit songs and excellent direction of Shakti Samantha, KATI PATANG is a memorable landmark in the filmography of Rajesh Khanna. Being her last lead acting performance on the silver screen, Asha Parekh has also consummately portrayed the pensive image of a forced widow lover.

The real to life turbulent story of an innocent girl who was betrayed by her clever boyfriend, had to bear the brunt of a lifetime stigma. Shakti Samantha's direction, R.D. Burman's choreography of songs and majestically soothing cinematography by Gopi Krishna made "Kati Patang" a toast for the eyes and a sublime stimulant for the spirit of audience. The songs and the wording transcends the true beauty of pure love along with the flow of tumultuous events, thereby captivating the audience to stick to their seats till the end.

Folks ! they don't make it like Kati Patang, any more ........


Entertaining Hindi romance is really an unauthorized remake of Cornell Woolrich's noir novel "I Married a Dead Man." No matter; it's a good story and works well here, with fine perfs by Rajesh Khanna and Asha Parekh in the leads. A little longer than it should be, but it doesn't drag, and the situation is a hook even though contrived. Then again, it was pretty contrived when Woolrich wrote it. This version avoids the depths of cosmic bleakness in Woolrich's vision and makes for a satisfying entertainer. On the IMDb scale, 7/10 from me.


Kati Patang a movie from Shakti Samanta's stable was released when Super Star Rajesh Khanna was at his peak and was churning hits after hits and it appeared that there is going to be no end to his giving hits. This movie written by Gulshan Nanda had excellent music by R D Burman and had top of the charts songs sung by Kishore Kumar - ' Ye jo Mohabbat hai"," Yeh Shaam Mastani" etc. The holi song " Aaj na chodenge" has become a part of the culture of India. These songs are remembered even today. The movie revolved around Super Star Rajesh Khanna's character who is in love with a forced widow Asha Parekh, whom he was supposed to marry but she had run away due to the fact that she was misguided by the playboy and bad man Prem Chopra. The movie revolves around these character until the hero and heroine unite. It is a classic hit and is a must see for viewers as a movie as this movie is evergreen and easily available.


Kati Patang is a big hit from the 1970s and its success was purely on merit. Rajesh Khanna and Asha Parekh teamed for the first time in Kati Patang and the result was some powerful performances and great screen chemistry between the two. After, Aradhana, Shakti opted for Asha Parekh despite his regular Sharmila Tagore. Asha Parekh takes the place of her dead friend and starts living with her in laws -in her friend's identity. She is a widow. Rajesh Khanna falls in love with Asha Parekh and Asha hesitates to reciprocate his love thinking as to what the society will think and say. She is framed for murder by Prem Chopra and Bindu and how Asha with Rajesh Khanna's help comes out of the frame up forms the climax of the story. She eventually marries Rajesh Khanna. Its a lovely film and the film engrosses the viewers for its entire length. The music is superb with all the songs being hits. The highpoint of the film is the dialogs by Vrajendra Gaur. The dialogs are hard hitting, sensitive and heart warming. VRAJENDRA GAUR is no wonder one of the most gifted dialog writers of the Hindi film industry. His sensitivity came through in his dialogs and he penned dialogs for films like Sharmeelee, Lal Paththar, Anuraag, The Great Gambler, Dulhan Wohi Jo Piya Man Bhaye, Geet Gaata Chal, Teen Deviyaan, etc.etc. I became his greatest fan after watching Kati Patang. The contribution of the versatile Gaur is very big in making Kati Patang a classic hit. Very few know that Shakti Samanta was Vrajendra Gaur's assistant in the only film directed by Gaur called "Kasturi". Gaur passed on all the subsequent offers to Shakti and returned to his first love writing. He subsequently wrote most of the films made by Shakti. The dialog penned by Vrajendra Gaur in innumerable films will always be remembered as they make us value the true worth of great dialogs.


Rajesh Khanna and Asha Parekh as the lead romantic pair , are quite endearing, in this combination of a little romance, mystery, villainy, and cabaret numbers, plus wonderful music, with meaningful lyrics, and this otherwise commercial movie , succeeds in engrossing you in it's plot line. Film's casting with Prem Chopra as a woman chaser, cheating, two timing villain, Bindu as a vamp, and a cabaret dancer, with that famous number, which includes a dialogue, Tumhara Nam kya hain, ya Madhu, and Rajesh and Asha in their hey days, is satisfactory. even Nassir Hussein as the father-in law, in love with his grandson, and compassionate to his widowed daughter-in-law, who is actually an imposter,by the strange twist of destiny, caused by an unfortunate train accident , delivers a sensitive performance . This movie is pleasant on the eyes too, with it's cinematography, and shooting of outside locations of a hill station, covering beautiful lakes, and greenery around the place, where the story takes place. Asha is a good actress, and her performance as a torn young woman, between her love towards Rajesh, and realization of the unfortunate role of a widow that she has to enact, in a prestigious, wealthy family, is really touching. Rajesh , in his usual stylized mannerisms, and some everlasting songs by kishore Kumar for him to enact on the screen, is adorable. Dialogues are well-written, and poignantly delivered . However, if only we overlook the clichéd situation, that Rajesh was the one, to whom Asha was supposed to be getting married, and elopes for the love of Prem Chopra, who is a bad man in the story, as well as the train accident, The father-in -law, who hasn't seen the girl to whom his son was married before, and Asha entrapped in a situation, to abide by the oath that she would take care of that orphaned baby etc. and finally, the truth dawning on her, that it's Rajesh, whom she had wronged unwittingly, but loves him now deeply, the movie is a passé. This movie made a fairly good business at the box, and most of the songs are still fresh in the people's memory. it also indicates to the problem of young girls eloping from their homes, and landing in trouble eventually. The idea of widow remarriage wasn't acceptable even then, as one can observe from the attitudes of the older generation shown in this movie. Worth watching at least once !


I am always at a loss of words why so many terrible films are made...this film is no exception. In every single way, this is an embarrassment. Don't get me wrong I love good ol' fashioned GOOD Sci-Fi. (Alien, Aliens, Matrix Trilogy, so on and so forth) But this is embarrassing. The plot is terrible in the worst way, all the characters are cardboard cut-outs, and I would rather watch a High school student film than this piece of garbage. I don't know if the people involved are really trying, or it is all just one big inside joke, or if they get some kind of tax break for bringing in business. I remember when Stephen Baldwin was part of a great film called "The Usual Suspects." I always wonder when actors turn to films they must know are bad going in, and yet still are part of them! I can't imagine that he is paid very well doing this, or maybe the shooting schedule is so short it is worth the money, or if they even care that this So called "Movie" will permanently be on his resume forever. I thought "Bio-Dome" was bad, but at least it was bad in a good way. There is no excuse for this ludicrous waste of space. I shouldn't have watched it, and through most of the movie I felt bad for all of the actors involved. I know they have talent. Hell the General was the great bad guy (The Cigarette Smoking Man in the X-files for many years) and yet he chose to do this ridiculous obviously cheap film anyway. I don't know if it is just the paycheck, or the promise of a theatrical release, or good special effects, or if they just want to keep on working that makes these people do this. Please everyone who reads this (hopefully you don't bother the "Movie" is that bad) why don't you stick yourself w/needles under your fingernails instead; it's less painful. I know that here on IMDb they rate on a scale to 10, but I prefer out of 4 stars. I would give it 1/4 of one star it is that bad, and I only give it that because Stephen Baldwin was so good in "The Usual Suspects" and his brother Alec is so good on the show "30 Rock." Avoid at all costs, you will be glad you did.


I had to stay up with my young son last night and thought Dark Storm looked vaguely interesting compared to the other pap on offer.

No.

It was the aura of car crash TV that kept me watching. A fat Stephen Baldwin acting worse than my armchair does. My word, I've never seen anyone so bad in a film.

His scientist sidekick and the villain at least were professional and I could believe they were actors, but Mr. Baldwin gave the standout worst "acting performance" I have ever had the misfortune of sitting in front of. Whatever you do, do not waste an hour or two of your precious life on this utter shower of *&^%. Spend the time more fruitfully in staring at a blank wall, or cutting your toenails.


I have to admit I watched it to the very end - barely -without falling asleep!

This is not a repulsive bad movie, but an annoying one! The acting is so universally horrible, I said to myself, "I could do a better job - where do I sign-up?" This thought entered my mind so often I started wondering how much these godforsaken actors where paid for their severe lack of skills! For them it must be a thrill to know you at least made it to DVD, even if you never made to the big screen! But for the rest of us watching Darkstorm it was terribly distracting!

The special effects were enjoyable and the fantasy element was interesting. It's a shame who ever directed and produced this film didn't pony-up some more bucks to get some real acting talent! This could have been a half way decent sci-fi/fantasy film!


While I'm not sure what constitutes a spoiler, I can tell you that 'Dark Storm' constitutes a really bad "Sci-fi original" mini-movie. Stephen Baldwin looks and acts terribly- as a protagonist, it is quite difficult to relate to him at all as his performance is beyond flat. The special effects are better than most made-for-TV movies but do little to capture the imagination. There are bad guy minions in this movie that look like ninjas and a fair amount of scenes in which the character's voice inflection is completely inappropriate, not to mention the fact that instead of at least attempting to fake scientific jargon, lots of questions are answered with, "I can't tell you that, it's classified," or "it's so complicated, you wouldn't understand." Try me...


It doesn't get much sillier than this for the serious sci-fi buff, but as low-expectation, old fashioned "Saturday afternoon matinée" diversion, it's entertaining enough.

A slightly overweight Stephen Baldwin, in a follow-up to an even sillier 2006 sci-fi opus, "Earth Storm" about using bombs to put a crumbling moon back together, invents a weapon using "dark matter" (apparently a more photogenic, controllable version of anti-matter) and generatable thunderstorms. Naturally, things go awry, foolish military men make stupid, ill-considered snap judgements causing even greater problems, traitors steal the weapon and (reaching the heights of "Marvel Comic silliness") Baldwin absorbs some of the "dark matter", making himself a self-generating (but only defensive for some reason - until the villain does it) weapon! The big screen Spiderman films made as much scientific sense (why can't screenwriters give us entertainment with stories JUST as exciting that gets the science right and doesn't insult our intelligence!?) but had more consistent characters and motivations.

If you can ignore the basically incredible weapon which is the McGuffin which gets the plot rolling, the piece is fun on its own terms - no worse than Disney's 1979 "Black Hole" (which famously made its title dark star a glowing whirlpool). The Disney had firmer scientific underpinnings but worse acting and special effects, so it's sort of a fair trade off.

The always engaging Rob LaBelle makes a fine scientific sidekick (who actually does most of the work - not to mention acting), and Gardiner Millar as the chief villain is solid - even when the special effects have him reenacting the last scenes of the first Indiana Jones film.

Undemanding fun, but keep your expectations low.


Sci-Fi Original written and directed by Jason Bourque. Don't take over-seriously, but enjoy some decent special effects. A group of scientists on a top secret military base make a discovery that may even be bigger than the Atomic bomb. Code name Eruptor, a device that supercharges matter and changes its molecular structure of its target. The project malfunctions and a top notch scientist Daniel Gray(Stephen Baldwin)is personally effected by 'Dark Matter'...infected is more like it; and it allows him to at will change weather and surrounding atmosphere. This project also has the ability in the wrong hands threaten the entire world. Is Armageddon far away?

Maybe guaranteed boredom. Baldwin shows effort, but just not enough to change this stinker. The cast also includes: Carrie Genzel, Gardiner Millar, Camille Sullivan and William B. Davis.


Here are some things that are a better use of your time than watching this film:

Cleaning the toilet with a toothbrush.... Reciting Neil Diamond lyrics.... Vaccuuming your entire home twice.... Watching dust collect on your coffee table.... Sitting at your doctor's waiting room just for practice.... Calling an elderly female relative.... Listening to static on your radio.... Watching flies mate.... Doing any paper mache project.... Blowing bubbles.

I admit that I could not watch this one to the end, and I've made it all the way through some really bad Sci Fi Originals. This one lacks substance at every turn, with characters having about as much personality as a doorknob. It made little sense to me, not because of a complicated storyline, but because I could not bear to pay much attention to it. This film is brutal in its boredom, and you would be wise to stay away!


I love all of Linda Howard's books, and was thrilled to accidentally run across this film on WE. I couldn't have been more disappointed. Not only was the plot completely different from Ms. Howard's storyline, the acting was mediocre at best. I was dismayed at the complete lack of chemistry between the two lead actors. I am a big fan of escapist romance, and I can forgive a lot of schmaltz and cheesiness in a low budget film if there is a credible connection between the characters and the plot is even halfway believable. But this movie embarrasses a genre that to begin with does not have much to recommend it in terms of higher artistic value. Don't waste your time watching this movie - especially if you are expecting it to resemble the book in any way whatsoever. But do check out some of Linda Howard's novels. She writes quality romantic escapism without forsaking skillful character development and interesting, suspenseful plots. She is a talented writer. My sympathies to Ms. Howard for having her name attached to such an embarrassingly sub-par movie.


I love Linda Howard's books, (although I found 'Loving Evangeline' less likeable than any of her others, and the lead character Robert Cannon an unredeemable rake) but as the previous reviewer said, this movie is crap. There is absolutely no similarity between the book and the movie. Even in it's own right this movie has a total lack of redeeming qualities. I feel like Ms. Howard deserves an apology from the producers for doing such a thorough hack job of her book. If you have the option pick up another Howard book instead of watching this nonsense.


I was very excited when I saw Loving Evangeline was going to air on WE. It's one of my favorite Linda Howard books and I couldn't wait to see it 'live and in color'.

I only wish I would have come here first and found out how horrible this movie really was.

After watching this farce I couldn't help but feel disappointed. I realize that sometimes the movies have to take liberties with the books; but the writer, director and producers completely ruined a wonderful story.

In fact the movie is NOTHING like the book aside from the title and the lead characters' names. The acting was sub par, the storyline was ridiculous and the characters were NOWHERE near as great as their book counterparts.

Bottom line, don't rent this flick. Don't buy it. And if you see it on TV change the channel. Don't bother to waste your time.

Instead, get the book and see how the story's really supposed to go. You won't be disappointed.


I can't even tell you how horrified I was to watch this awful movie. The book and the movie are NOTHING alike. The secondary characters and even the plot are not from the book. If someone truly wanted to make an awful movie, fine, but why use the title and lead characters from Ms. Howard's book when the story is completely different? There is no Grant Shaw in the book, Grant Shaw is the actor from Melrose Place. And who is Mrs. Beacham? She is not in the book, either.

Anyone who has read this book and may be tempted to watch this piece of cheap filmmaking, don't bother. It is not worth it. Even if it wasn't based on a Howard book, this movie is not worth your time. Paint your nails, hammer some nails, eat some nails, anything other than watching this drivel makes more sense. And I hope Ms. Howard has more sense than turning over her work to producers who will butcher it.


Okay, I admit it, I approached this from the perspective of a Nick Mancuso fan. I'd never read any book at all by Howard, let alone this one, so I have to take the movie at face value. Beautiful scenery, appealing heroine Rowan, nice moments between her and Nick. I took the movie more as a study of how he changes throughout -- he starts out so stiff and rigid (Ultra Businessman) and ends up relaxed and charming, particularly in their dessert scene. Was it a cinematic masterpiece? No. Was he meant to be a dashing hero? Um, no; he got knocked out cold the first time up to bat with the bad guy, and in the end the police did all the hard work. Bad guy (creepy and menacing up to that point) gave up too easily; Shari Belafonte was oddly stiff -- and there were a lot of things left unclear, like how Cannon's brother figured out what was up in the first place. It was lightweight, yes, but it was hardly hate-worthy. I did get pretty tired of Nick pushing up his glasses, but on the other hand, was highly intrigued by the Mars Bar dessert. Hey. Take what you can get. And Nicky, well, he's still got it. So if you've never read the book (I still haven't) and you like Nick... g'wan. Try it. Hardly hurts at all.


The first thing I must say is that I have not read the book so I can only go by what I saw on the small screen and at this point a further introduction is necessary. Loving Evangeline appears to be one of twelve Mills and Boon/Shilloute romance novels that have been brought to the small screen. I have seen 10 and these are:- Another Woman, A change of place, The awakening, Broken Lullaby, Hard to forget, The Waiting game, This matter of marriage, Diamond Girl,Recipe for revenge and Loving Evangeline. So to get the best out of these movies or to see the worst you must view them in the context of this being a romance novel brought to the screen. It is a pity if these movies do not follow the course of the original book but still view it as a mills and boon brought to film nonetheless. So how does loving Evangeline rate? Well I liked it! Out of the ten that I have watched I would put it at position 5 and to explain this I will run down what is needed to bring a mills and boon/shilloutte romance to film. First of all the couple must look the part the man must be strong and handsome and the woman beautiful and their must be the chemistry! The background story must not overshadow the romance so to overcome this our couple should be seen together in 70% of the film. The Mills and Boon man must have integrity. For example in Broken Lullaby there was a seen where our heroine was shot at now she was understandably upset and as a result got close to our Mills and Boon man and one thing led to another if you get my drift. The Mills and Boon man should have checked with the lady and made sure it was okay to proceed but in this case he just got down to business. Points lost. Another thing that is essential for a Mills and Boon man is that if he is going to get into a fight he should win. In broken Lullaby and Loving Evangeline both mills and boon men got into fights and lost!! Finally there must be a marriage resolution at the end of the film. Loving Evangeline did not have the marriage resolution and I would not have pegged our hero as a typical Mills and boon man but the film did keep me going because of the competency of the actors and a none too taxing storyline so I did like it!! Now if you are wondering what my top five films are I shall tell you. 5th Loving Evangeline. 4th Recipe for Revenge. 3rd Another woman. 2nd The Awakening and my number one Mills and Boon film is DIAMOND GIRL. I managed to get nine of these films via ebay at extremely good bargain basement prices so you could check out all ten and even get the ones that I have not seen yet and these are Treacherous Beauties and At the Midnight Hour.


Loving Evangeline:

I have seen this film a number of times and I think it's a good one, unlike one comment that did not like it at all and wished others not wasted their time on it, I also think that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

People should make their own minds up if they like or don't like something, in this case a film. If someone says, don't watch the film because....! It is their opinion and their dislike not yours. make up in your own mind if you like or don't like. Critics most always try to get you to change your mind and sway towards the negative aspects about a movie. Reminds me of the news we see on TV, most always it's about bad things 90% through out the news cast. What about the good news !

I like it! what about you..

Dave THP


I've met Linda Howard a few times. I know Linda Howard's writing. And this movie is NO Linda Howard plot. In the true tradition of Harlequin Romances, their movies strip any semblance of passion, pacing and plot.

Linda Howard is known throughout the womens' fiction world as being a writer with very tight plots, slick and sassy words, and the hottest, most erotic love scenes.

How they managed to strip ALL of this, including the original story, from this movie, I don't know. But it must've taken a monstrous effort.

We have Cannon, the hero, who is no Alpha male, by any stretch. He's so New Age, you can smell the Brie on his breath. Which is sad, as Nick Mancuso is a fine actor and capable of so much more. If only it had been written for him! And the heroine... what can one say about the heroine? The eponymous heroine, Evie, has about as much sizzle as an uncooked rasher of bacon. Part of this is due to the lamentable script which never met a cliché' it didn't like. Part is due to the actress, Kelly Rowan, whom I've never seen before. She's petite, meek, and, even when angry, makes you wonder where the fire went. During the climactic scene, where you might think she'd be in fear for her life, she acts as if she's shopping for bread and milk.

The story here bears little resemblance to Ms. Howard's story. The main protagonists have been dumbed down to the level of ho-hum. There's no real pacing, in fact, the entire movie feels more like a stroll in the park. Where is the emotion of two people falling in love, yet not trusting each other? Don't look for it here.

Oh, why go on? Any tension is in the viewer, wondering when it will all end.

The result is a film not worth viewing. Please don't judge Linda Howard's work by this film. It's lamentable that her name be attached. I do hope they paid her a truckload of cash for this travesty.


Sorry it wasn't like the book, but by not having read the book, I wasn't restricted by what to expect or compare. It had a little of everything (scenery, plot, dessert scene) to keep a guy sticking around past a zillion commercials on WE to find out what happens in the end. "Why did you move from California to - here?" is a question only found in a typical Canadian TV production like this. But hey, less crying than most Lifetime movies offer. Also, when you consider what is out there in the theaters these days at $10 dollars a head (plus, all the other "necessary" expenses - food, soda, etc.) this is inexpensive fare for the eyes and the brain. The popcorn at home was fine. The author should have sued anyway.


Daniel Bernhardt is totally wasted in this lame attempt to duplicate the success of the HIGHLANDER series. It has the feel of a made-for-TV pilot and with some of the loopholes in the script it may be better to be viewed as such. It even tends to draw on some elements from JCVD's LIONHEART. Bernhardt obviously has true ability, but he is better suited for other films like BLOODSPORT 2 & 3 and TRUE VENGEANCE


One of the worst movies I've ever seen. No idea what to write about it to fill in the (minimum) required ten lines... Don't ever watch it, don't try to understand it - there is no plot, no action, so sense... Compared to this, B movies deserve an award.

Yes, there is a remote idea from Excalibur and some poor, unfortunate resemblance to Highlander, but... they should better use those ideas in an episode of South park or Family Guy, I bet we can have a lot of fun. Somehow I got hooked, I had to see it 'till the end... Bad, bad mistake, it was a waste of time and it ruined my evening. Next time I want to kill my time, I'll switch to Cartoon Network.

Again - don't bother watching, there is no movie.


This has to be one of the worst movies of all time. It is a mix between a Jean-Claude Van-Damme movie, Mortal Combat, and the Highlander. In the background you can hear music playing and it dosn't stop once during the whole movie. It seemed to get louder and louder and it just won't go away. This movie is almost as bad as Puma Man. At least Puma Man was fun to watch. This movie was like having your fingers broken one at a time.


This movie seems to make people think of Highlander. I disagree. It's as much Highlander as it is Excalibur. The plot is nothing spectacular or original, and does remotely resemble Highlander, but it certainly ain't no Highlander. Heck, even Star Wars looks remotely like Highlander. It's all a case of level of abstraction from the story. But enough about that. It was sorta disappointing that people thought it normal when the "immortal" (actually reincarnations) died with a lot of lightning.

So: it ain't no classic, but it certainly is worth watching.


G2 has a pretty good idea (albeit though original one) with Daniel Bernhardt as a Macedonian warrior who is reincarnated 200 years later to do battle with a sinister Mongolian clan led by James Hong. The action sequences are fair at best and I found myself trying to decide if this movie was a "self-contained' film or the pilot for a possible series. Overall, it wasn't really that bad and who knows now that HIGHLANDER is off the air here......


This a well made movie with a fresh, young cast. Corrigan shows great enthusiasm for dialogue, especially one liners and double entendre. The plot twists are fun and totally unexpected. I also thought that the technical aspects of the movie were great-- especially the sound and music. My only criticism would be that the flashbacks at the end became a little repetitive. Otherwise an excellent first movie.


There are many directions an independent film may take in it's life. I found out this film was produced on a shoestring budget and the best thing you can say, if you're lucky enough to view it, is "you'd never know". The story may seem familiar, but a few twists and turns gives the spectator a nice little ride through deception. There are many reasons to give this film a look from the fine performances by some rising stars to the photographic angles which brings life to the background. I am not trying to say it's the next best thing to peanut butter and it's time for an Oscar; I am saying it was a fun ride and worth the E-Ticket!


Great movie. Funny and good twisted plot. You don't know what's real and what's not until the end which ties it all together. Entertaining movie for those who don't like the majority of average Hollywood movies you see with dull plots and you already know what is going to happen after watching the first 10 minutes of the movie.

Highly Recommended


Humor, suspense, deception and intrigue! Insignificant Other is Fun. The camera work is effective and the sound track original and well done (Where can I find that music?). The plot takes some interesting twists.

Never a dull moment


This is a movie that sadly most people will never get the chance to enjoy. A digital independent feature that is more ambitious than most Hollywood products these days. The script is smart, funny and original. If you get the chance check it out - it has twists and turns that will keep you guessing and some great dialogue between the characters.


They're probably friends and family of the filmmaker.

I was very disappointed in this film. It has all the visual style and production value of an amateur softcore, but there's not one breast to be found...NOT ONE. Corrigan needs to stick to writing, but only after taking a few more classes in story structure. You can't just come out of left field with a crazy twist at the end of a movie and call it a potboiler. You gotta build up to it. The dialog is pretty good, but unfortunately, the people reciting it are not. It's painful to watch some of these performances. The one saving grace is Brandon Howe. Here's a guy

just bubbling over with potential. You can see in his face that he's having

trouble swallowing the crap this film is offering, but he manages to deliver an impressive performance.

I know this film was shot for practically no money, but that doesn't mean the filmmakers deserve a pat on the back. This is a prime example of just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Now, put a couple pairs of boobs in there...maybe some girl on girl action, and you got yourselves a movie my friends.


What an unexpected treat.Long before Pricilla and all the others, there was Craig Russell. His impersonations remains vividly embedded in my brain because besides the look and mannerisms, I perceived the soul of the characters in question. They are not caricatures but tributes. His Judy Garland is heartbreaking and his Mae West hilarious.As if all that was not enough we have a screenplay of such intelligence and wit that I'm surprised this film is not a classic. When Holly's doctor finds out she lives with a man, he tries to warn her about the risks (she's bi polar) of an emotional, sexual entanglement. She reassures him telling him "Don't worry, we sleep in separate worlds" Lovely.


The late Craig Russell is the star of Outrageous! It was a cult favorite here in the Boston area, playing for weeks at the late lamented Orson Welles Cinema. I had a bright red T-shirt with the movie logo on the front that I treasured for years.

First and foremost, the film is a document of his brilliant performances; he not only got the look and mannerisms of his subjects down cold, he also spoke and sung all the voices himself!

The plot, such as it is, is a tale about his attempts to become a successful performer, and about his schizophrenic friend and how he and she support and heal each other. It's not bad, but the performances are the heart and soul of the film.

Outrageous! was long out of print; happily for the world, it's available again. Get it while you can.


Both leads are spectacular. Unlike most early (pre-AIDS) gay films, this still hits the spot. I've been ruined for life by these (actual, not lipped) impersonations. All by themselves, the impersonations are worth renting/buying this film, but the rest of the story is also superbly done. This should prove to those who get their kicks out of ridiculing Canadian films that they were wrong.


I first saw "Outrageous!" on Channel 4 in 1985,I'd read a glowing review of it by Danny Peary in his "Cult Movies"book,so I was all prepared and taped it.I really loved it,and it has become one of my favourite films ever.Unfortunately the tape I recorded it on was'nt very good quality and it snapped.I thought I'd never see it again and even wrote to C4 begging them to re-show it.Luckily I got a VHS copy from the US,but it really is about time it got a DVD release,maybe with some personal recollections from surviving cast members,especially the delightful Hollis Mclaren. It would take so much more than 1000 words to say what this film means to me.It really transcends its medium and is a lovesong to friendship,warmth,humour and Tallulah Bankhead. As Danny Peary wrote,the films title should'nt be "Outrageous!",but "Courageous!".

Update: The DVD, yaaay!! But no Hollis MacLaren on the commentary, which is a pity. Never mind,still an absolute delight to see after all these years.


It's low budget shows in its grainy print and poor sound, but the quality performances by the entire cast make up for the films shortcomings.

The late Craig Russell pulls out all the stops as he displays his talent for female impersonation. Hollis McLaren is the ideal nut case. And Helen Shaver, in one of her earlier roles, is ideal as the friend who is accepting of people for who they are, embellishing their positive traits.

My one criticism of the film is the costuming. Not Russell's drag apparel, which matched each of his impersonations perfectly. But other wardrobe choices in the film were distractingly awful, especially during the Christmas party scene. Russell's jumpsuit was about 3 sizes too small, and Shaver's dress was something out of Ringling Brothers' clown reject closet.

Still, students and lovers of independent film will admire this one for its style, its daring, and its overall effort.


Outrageous is a very special film. Imagine you live in the 70s and you were in a club or theatre anywhere in Canada or the USA. The announcer says: Ladies and Gentlemen. Mrs. Judy Garland. You think by yourself. Judy Garland? I thought this woman is dead. But the women on the stage is not Judy Garland but Craig Russell (a Canadian), one of the best female impersonators of our century. Because he was not only able to imitate the look of his idols (many great actresses and singers from the 30s to the 60s). He could also imitate the voices of the women. In the film he plays a gay character (which he really was) who shares a flat with a schizophrenic woman and makes his unbelievable shows at the evening. Craig Russell died too early of AIDS and he made only two films: Outrageous and the sequel. Craig Russell was a unique person and after his death Canada and the world had lost one of its greatest idols.


This has been a favorite for years and years... it's touching, and basic, and about love and acceptance: multi-layered, it professes a simple lesson. Hollis Mc Laren is AMAZING in her role: she rips your heart out. Definitely should be part of any "gay" movie collection. (I question the label... this is 2006, after all, and personally I am tired of labels. Why can't we all just love? Let's have a Whatever Pride Parade!) Craig Russell demonstrates the bravery inherent in the early proclaimers of the gay movement, but his message speaks to everyone: be yourself, and society be damned! This is an unforgettable film, and highly worthy of your attention.


Thankfully one of the producers was there at last night's Inside Out screening, so I got a chance to untangle some of the tendrils of this incredibly complicated movie built up around the unbelievable Craig Russell, whose performance and drag impersonations just stand on top of the thing. It is not told from the inside of the queer community. But in the white-guy-ends-apartheid role, they have mind-bogglingly put in a Crazy Woman. (this is firstly a function of Margaret Gibson's source story, which is told from the author's POV) At first you get squirmy and expect that the parallel this character articulates between her and drag queen Russell - "We're both crazy" - will be used as an excuse for the good old queer self-loathing, but in fact this is in a different tradition, that King-of-Hearts, madness-as-sentimental-symbol-for-nonconformity thing that was in vogue then. The problem is that Hollis McLaren plays this woman very theatrically - she actually STARES THROUGH HER FINGERS at one point - and in general she probably inspired Catherine O'Hara's turn in "We're Gonna Be All Right You Creep Leaving Home And All, Eh?" But even though wr/dir Richard Benner was apparently far more interested in this theme than in the gay scene, and even though Benner seriously does not know how to point a camera, this actually does end up giving a pretty good time capsule of Toronto's 70s gay scene - and not just the hairstyles! We're also presented with a scene that is tiny, remote and claustrophobic, with drag queens at the bottom of a rigid internal hierarchy, everyone's on the skids, and dykes are harpies from another planet. Financed with cash from friends, not Alliance or the CFDC, this movie has to take responsibility for its own neurosis, but it also must be credited with the brilliance of the impersonations, and nb: apparently Russell was Mae West's house boy, and the routines he does are all impersonations of MAE WEST'S impersonations! Like I said: complicated.


I've seen this film more than 10 years ago and am thinking about it regularly. For me it is one of this films about what it means to be a human being and how precious every individual is. Like Dodes'ka-den from Kurosawa.


The acting was superb. A sleeper film if I ever saw one, more people should see it. It needs to be re-released and published for sale.


Brick Bronsky stars as an intellectual muscle man who ends up protecting the girl of his dreams (Translated the only girl who will sleep with him) from corporation lackeys as well as a group of fat bikers who dominate the college. Oh and there are subhumanoids who are created and melt down with little of explanation, although the professor(Lisa Gaye) who sports a Marge Simpson haircut has a cure and being that Bronsky's girlfriend is a subhumanoid, he wants the cure. Of course education takes a backseat to non-stop bizarre set-pieces. Because last month was Halloween I did a non-stop binge on horror movies (AKA movies found in my horror section)and I saw this with the first. The first movie was made with gross out humor but also with restraint that things never got too out of control. Not so here, as Class Of Nukem High II is so bizarre and surreal that it's a non-stop assault on not only your senses but also your common sense and your physical being in general. You will not find a more weird film and yet I admit some of this went a long way, just not enough to be worth putting money down on. Reviewing this movie is hard because it's meant to be bizarre and there is tons of imagination and moments where the humor works but it's just so weird. And my taste in movies is hardly mainstream.

** Out of 4-(Fair)


This is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. It is incredibly stupid, incredibly bad acted, and includes incredibly bad special effects. So, what's not to like? I mean, this movie also includes an award winning number of melon heavy breasts...although many of these chicks are bald...but hey, they got large knockers! Yes, this is Class of Nuke Em High 2: Subhumanoid Meltdown. It has near no relation to the original Class of Nuke Em High, but that is okay. This film is about the T.I.T: Tromaville Institute of Technology and all the wacky things that happen on campus including a giant mutated squirrel who likes large nuts, peeing on nuclear power plants, and sneezing on innocent civilians. At the same time, subhumanoids have lived on campus, they are like humans only they have a mouth instead of a belly button, so they are better at making love. Sound simple enough because we also got a dolphin-sophomore who is belemic and a professor with a 9 foot hairdo. Dear, I have said too much. Just make sure to hear the rocking theme song, which is one of the film's best qualities. Just check this movie out nuff said. It is dumb, tasteless, and incredibly bad, but also it is hilarious! Check it out!


i saw the bad imdb-vote of this film and thought, it would be worse than class of nuke em'high 1. but actually i occured to watch it and

all i can say is :GREAT GREAT GREAT!! this movie is a real masterpiece of entertainment!'! it has everything a movie should have: mutant monsters ,sex ,gore, incredible fat people, bikini girls ( and non-bikini-girls ), crazy looking punks , radioactive waste , a great rock soundtrack , a toxic avenger guest apperance...

''##!!GO AND GET THIS ONE !!##''


I love the original Class.... and also love the original Toxic Avenger. It's a fine line, but but they crossed it and went to cheesy and annoying. The lead is VERY annoying as is most of this movie. The Toxie sequels are kind of on the same lines as this...but back on track now with Toxie 4. I wish they'd do a sequel to Class like they did with Toxie 4 and disregard the crap fest sequels. Again there's a fine line between cheesy fun and annoying crap. This is annoying crap. Lloyd hit the mark again with Toxie 4, and I wish he'd do Class the same justice!! He can do it, I have faith! The second and third of this series are no fun stinkers. There's all the stapled of great exploitation here, but it's just not fun. Lloyd please make this right!!!


This is the kind of movie I never thought possible. Fast and furious, this movie's infectious energy makes double espressos seem like tepid water. Cornball humour and an affectionate feel for the truly bizarre are just two elements that propel this over-the-top meditation on the human condition.


That is not exactly a great feat. I did not care for the first one much at all, and I did not like this one all that much either. I did, however, like it more than part one. As stupid and gross as it was I did snicker at a few of the jokes so it gets a couple of points for that. This one plays more like an "Airplane" or "Naked Gun", so that helped it with me a bit as well. I liked how they opened by recapping the first one and then basically telling you it had nothing to do with this one. There was a part where they had this squirrel investigating something and talking in a chipmunk voice. There were a couple of other good jokes I liked as well, like the guy that could not get a girl yet he looked like the type of guy girls chase after. All in all though most of the jokes were stupid and fell flat and the movie just tried to gross you out for the sake of grossing you out. Like when the two people are making out and melting at the same time. Still though, was better than part one, but it wasn't good enough to make me want to see part three.


At first I thought this would be a Santa Clause rip-off, but after seeing it, I would recommend it to anyone.

Despite the plot similarities, this movie stood on its own merits. The casting was perfectly done, and the actors did very well in their roles. Charles Durning and Katherine Helmond made a nice pair as the outgoing Santa and Mrs. Claus. Who better to play the role of a "young" Santa struggling with identity and relationship issues than the actor who played Frasier all of those years. No good story is complete without a good villain, and Elaine Hendrix -- who played the gold-digging fiancée in "The Parent Trap" -- again played the part to perfection.

I especially liked the subtext of how the power and love of the holiday spirit can overcome the cruel, corrupt world surrounding us.

Give it a look...with the family!


The movie was too fast paced,not much in the way of a plot that hasn't been done before & the actors could not act to save their lives for an exception of Kelsey & even he couldn't save this picture. It is so cliché it isn't even funny. The dialogue is also not that great nor is it into going into things explaining things for an exception of a few secs here or there. I wouldn't even recommend it. kelsey can & will do much better.

I wasn't expecting a block buster here but come on some crappy low budget film could at least try harder. The effects were so overly cheap its not funny.


I normally wouldn't bother writing a review for a made for TV movie, but I got stuck watching while at home for Christmas. Christmas movies are supposed to be kind of cliched, they have to be because Christmas has become a cliche to most people. This movie took that idea and ran with it.

First you have the reluctant Santa Claus, which has only been done a few dozen times in recent years. Then there is the rich man falling in love with the hired help, coupled into man being engaged to one woman only to realize it was a mistake and that he is really in love with girl-come-lately. Then add some cookie-cutter characters, like the proper butler giving sage advice. Or how about that the hired help has a mystery son. I say mystery son because it is never explained if the son is from a bad marriage, out-of marriage, widowed, etc. At least I don't remember it being explained. I won't even go into the goofy cop, the swindling best friend, incredibly sappy happy ending, etc.

I think there are people in the world who would relish a movie like this, but if cliches, and telegraphed plot twists turn your stomach, then avoid this movie.


I rented the movie "Double Jeopardy" one evening and was skipping through the previews when I saw the trailer for this movie. I had heard about it before from a few friends who had seen it and had read about it in TIME magazine, not knowing much about the movie. Growing up in a household where being "different" in that sense is not acceptable, it has been hard for me to deal with my issues without support from my parents. I went to the local video store a few nights ago and immediately picked out "Get Real" to watch and enjoy. What I didn't expect was how true to life this movie really is!

"Get Real" is the story about a 16-year old gay teenager named Steven Carter (played by the boyishly adorable Ben Silverstone) who has known about himself since he was 11-years old and is perfectly fine with it. Although he is dying to be accepted for who he is and not for who he pretends to be, he is afraid to tell his peers and his parents about his true nature. Only his best friend Linda (Charlotte Brittain, who delivers a terrific performance) knows and is worried about Steven, due to his sexual adventures at a gay men's restroom in a park. But one day, he unexpectedly has an encounter with the "straight" high school jock John Dixon (Brad Gorton, who plays his role of someone with much sexual confusion with complete realism) and the two boys fall in love. Steven wants to be open about the relationship, while John wants to hide his love for Steve. These differences, along with many others than I will not spoil for those who have not seen this, lead to one of the most tear-jerking endings I have ever seen in a movie.

Bravo to everyone involved for creating such a realistic story! Being gay is not easy these days, especially for teenagers, but we all wish we were as brave as Steven, who matures as the movie goes on and we all hope the best for him as he embarks on his emotional recovery after the end of this movie. Way to go Steven!

If you haven't seen this movie, see it soon! It is worth your every buck!

RATING: 10 out of 10!

Rent this m


I'm not biased or anything (being gay myself) but gay themed movies always seem to be better than most of the standard Hollywood fare that's churned out year after year. Gay themed films always seem more uplifting and fun to watch, and always stay with me long after I've watched them. Beautiful Thing, Stonewall, Grief, Priscilla, and now Get Real, one of the best films (gay or not) that I've seen in ages.

Get Real is brilliant on so many levels. Firstly, it's a film that's realistic. It paints a picture that doesn't necessarily have a happy ending but still leaves you with a warm feeling inside. It's not apologetic, and shows some of the not always appealing aspects of gay life (cottaging, vicious gay-bashing, etc). But it transports you into it's charming world of first love and that feeling you get once you become infatuated with someone.

The cast of Get Real are amazing. Ben Silverstone is a genuine star as Steven, pulling off the right mixture of pride and confusion excellently. Brad Gorton is equally good as John, making you genuinely believe he is a confused soul in a confused world. Charlotte Brittain is fabulous as Linda, and the rest of the cast are all perfect in their roles.

Get Real is funny, moving and totally engrossing. A perfect movie for anyone who remembers their first crush, in fact, a perfect movie for any occasion. Quite simply, perfect.


Could a more realistic demonstration of what it is like to be young exist than this film? Don't think so.

A lot of talk centers around how hard growing up is for teenagers. Yet seldom is it mentioned that however hard it is for straight kids to grow up, it is a million times harder for gay kids, who have no one to turn to for help - not friends, not teachers, not parents, not the church, not books, not counselors, not ANYONE. This film shows what it is like. And it further shows the horrid situation that a young gay athlete finds himself in, torn between being able to do what he enjoys (sports) and being able to be himself. When you're gay, you can't have both, thanks to the homophobia which still rules athletics with an iron fist.

The two main characters of this film struggle to maintain a relationship, because they are in love - yet ultimately the homophobic attitudes of the world force them to part. Tragic, yet it is a tale that plays itself out in every little town on the globe. In spite of this, it is a tale never before told on film. It's about time. This should be required viewing for all high school students.


Intelligently scripted, well-crafted and exceptionally acted story of a young gay man finding his way through the adolescent wilderness. The situations that arise, when one finds themselves serving too many masters, are portrayed in a moving, heart warming manner. A great balance of relevant humor and teenage emotional tribulation is struck, without so much as a gram of maudlin melodrama, which normally crops up in films of this nature (especially American ones). In the good ol' USA, teenage development in movies tend to be played for laughs or for mawkish sentiment, which could propel whining into an Olympic event.

In a short summation, Steve Carter, the main protagonist, finds the path to love strewn with thorns. His friend and counsel, Linda, walks the same road. Steve in discovering himself, discovers that anguish is also a companion to love.

GET REAL does just that in such an honest, disarming way, that it exudes originality. The performances and characterizations, are far ranging and finely realized. There's not a weak link in the chain, either in performance, script execution or direction. Innovative and fresh from start to finish. A contemporary classic that is highly recommended.


A move that hits the heart in so many places. Two teenagers, one knowing of his homosexuality, and one refusing it. This is a move that I think everyone should watch. It opens up ones' mind into the complications and implications involved with the entire circle around someone who is gay. Mostly it provides an understanding into the pain and confusion one faces when they are gay. This movie will stick with me forever, and no doubt moved up to my top favorite movie of all time because of its similarity with my life and my own homosexuality. The actors, especially Brad Gorton, aren't that bad either :) He's a terrific actor with an incredible capability for realism.


If "Get Real" chronicles anything, it is that messed-up jumble of a time that gay men have as teenagers, trying to be true to themselves without giving too much offense to those who abhor them. The mixed-up measures they take to express themselves and give expression to their feelings of desire and adolescent lust, suppressed by community morality and repressed by personal fear and self-hatred, unfolds over the London suburb of Basinbroke where a stick figure of a 16-year-old--Steven Carter--sits in or outside a public bathroom, trying to make contact with someone. He finds it unexpectedly with the big man on the high-school campus who garners immeasurable pleasure from their private meetings, but cannot bear the thought of being outed. The story passes through a grist mill of situations that leave the viewer with the simplistic notion that everything will be fine, if you just have the courage to be yourself with others. If it were that easy, I'm sure Brandon Teena would still be alive today.

Adapted from Patrick Wilde's play "What's wrong with being angry," "Get Real" sends a manifesto to parents and teachers about the supposed pressures they may be putting on their children, gay or otherwise. If you're willing to accept it on this level, the movie functions as an emotional release for all those pent-up gay teenagers who couldn't vent their anger and frustrations at the forces that impose on their burgeoning dreams. But if you try to take it any deeper, then you'd have to consider the internal struggles of John Dixon, the object of Steven's desire, because that is one of the few places in this movie where something is at stake. Johnny (as Steven likes to call him) travels a thornier road, and although Brad Gorton doesn't quite seem up to the challenge, his self-conscious jock does not seem so much a coward in the end as someone saddled with all the trappings of his gentrified upbringing who doesn't want to let go of them. Johnny Boy's smart, but like all teenagers, he's thwarted by desires that defy his good sense.

And that is a shame, because if there ever was reason to give up everything for love, Ben Silverstone would be it. He is the real find in this picture. He's the most elegantly constructed scarecrow to touch the silver screen (Seeing him, Conrad Veidt and "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" come to mind.), and it's amazing what calm he brings to the center of this movie. Unlike newcomer Gorton, the camera loves Silverstone, and it takes him in as if he were born to be in front of it. If that weren't enough, this young actor (He is about the same age that Steve should be.) has a voice that rivals Jeremy Irons for expressiveness and majesty. Imagine him as Hamlet or Edward II or in a remake of "Brideshead Revisited" and that sultry sound pouring forth in velvety plenitude. Why, it's enough to make you stand up and salute the Queen Mother.

With Stacy Hart as the iridescent Jessica whose dance with Steve is probably the sexiest scene in the entire movie.


I have just watched this film as part of Film 4's British Connection. I felt this film was an excellent exploration of homosexuality in the heart of Middle Class Britain. I lived close to the film's location Basingstoke when this was made and am the same age (give or take a year) as the main character, Stephen. Whilst never being as confident in my sexuality as Stephen, I really connected with the story told, his relationship with his parents and the scatter-shot but inadvertently appropriate use of homophobic abuse by the bullies.

Also thought the excellent flashes of dialogue uplifted the film such as "Whenever I see that badge (Head Boy) I wish it were an invitation." Priceless. The performances are almost perfect through out (I was a little unconvinced by Jon the Head Boy to begin with but warmed to him hugely as the film and love story progressed.) The cinematography is suitably understated and this is not the most cinematic film ever shot, which I feel helps with the realism. Some of the symbolism is quite fantastic, especially the closing shot, which I wont spoil.

I found it to be a much more recognisable film for me than Brokeback Mountain, Not to that films detriment, it is a masterpiece but I may feel closer to this because I have regularly been to the Odean in Basingstoke, but have never herded sheep on a snowy mountainside with Jake Gyllenhall.

It is a simple effective narrative about a subject close to my heart and I recommend it highly.


I loved this movie when I caught it late night on a cable channel and am not sorry I stayed up most of the night watching this saga of two boys in love (or, at least one of them played by Ben Silverstone). Few movies have the power to move you, and this one did me.

I felt Steven's pain as he pined for the Brad Gorton character, John, especially after the two hooked up. John was the macho and popular jock, and had to keep up appearances, even if it meant humiliating Steven publicly with his friends.

The scene that meant the most to me and that resonated the most with me was the scene in the gym where Steven was dancing with his best girlfriend and John was with his "girlfriend". The two barely took their eyes off each other. I, myself, have experienced such a moment. Not quite the same as that where I wasn't dancing with anyone at the time, but the girl I loved and still love was, and we maintained eye contact despite her dancing with someone else. That scene ripped at my heartstrings.

I don't know if John was in love with Steven. Possibly. But Steven was in love with John. Steven came out at the end in a most dramatic way at a school assembly when he accepted an award with John looking on, but John never came out at all. John, in my estimation, was bisexual or bi-curious and not a confirmed homosexual like Steven. Maybe I am wrong about that. We don't know. It seems that the two of them did not get back together by the end, and we as the audience were left hanging and left to guess what happened after the dramatic school assembly coming out.

The movie is funny, charming, somewhat kitschy, and poignant. I recommend it to any young person, straight or gay, and any "old" person who wants to re-live the pangs of youth and unrequited (or requited... if temporarily as here) first love.


I first saw "Get Real" in mid-May 2006. Looking back at this film and when it was released (1999 in the USA) it is startling that the sexual repression that is so prevalent in the film, can still exist in this day and age. The film "Maurice" (1987) took place in 1910 and the repression was worse and yet that film had a much more positive ending.

In 'Get Real' the two characters, Steven Carter and John Dixon couldn't be more different in their sexual experiences. It's Steven Carter the younger boy who has had more sexual contact with men and its John Dixon who is unable to deal with his sexual feelings.

I find that the character, John Dixon, is the most fascinating of the two boys because he is living a double life. He presents an image of strong, athletic and smart, but he is also filled with anxiety, confusion and doubts.

Like the most of us. John Dixon's greatest fear is that people will find out about his true sexual identity. In the end John Dixon is in severe denial, he is blind to the reality of his sexuality and but it cannot be denied. Is this love these two boys are experiencing? This is a newly discovered sexual companionship, and a very deep emotional connection that neither one has ever experienced before.

It is all new and exciting. This intensity clouds what is really happening to them.The only way they can express honesty to each other is for the boys to reach for some booze, that is the only way some very painful truths will surface. There are two very powerful and revealing scenes that are key to the whole film and that are emotionally raw and memorable.

Yet they make promises they never can keep. John Dixon was so afraid of any one finding out he was gay, that he piled on needless lies, to his parents and friends and then he began to resent Steven and despise himself.

These two boy's were very dependent on one another and the result was they became very needy, which then had the effect of suffocating one another. They needed to come up for some air.

Sadly, John Dixon doesn't realize that a lot of Steven's friends and family know about him. John's friend's suspect the truth and so does his father. He could of said something to them, but that is easier said than done.

John Dixon is so consumed by fear he can't see 'straight'. John strikes back at Steven Carter in a most vicious way. John Dixon tells Steven Carter that he loves him but his actions reveal the real truth.

It's not how you 'feel' towards someone that shows you love them. It is how you treat them, and that is with respect and decency. Is this love or hate?


I cannot say enough about the power of this movie. With my own struggle with my sexuality, as well as the hiding that so many like me are forced into, this movie brought me to tears. There are so many things I wish could be different, both in my life and in how the movie played out, but both are surprisingly pleasant even as they are. I cannot say that this is the greatest piece of cinema ever created, from dialog to production values, many parts of the movie are askew (not to mention the often indecipherable British mumbling!), but it has given me hope that as a gay teenager I will someday find the type of love I am looking for.


A prostitute and a young girl on the run, that's the basic set-up here. But who exactly are they running from and why? Well, these two things are explained rather quickly for us before details are revealed that start to make the whole thing more intriguing, complex and a little bit different from the gamut of British crime movies that we've seen since the turn of the century.

I don't want to, even accidentally, reveal any more about the plot or details that add to the well-paced story so I will just compliment the acting, look of the movie and soundtrack before leaving you with some random thoughts on the essence of the film. Every part of this film oozes quality, the two main female leads are excellent and the males are more than just stereotypical tricks/pimps/gangsters/etc. The movie looks suitably "everyday" and yet not ugly despite the subject matter. And the soundtrack is superb, with a definite highlight being the use of "Moonlight Sonata" in a scene that will forever meld itself audio/visually in my memory thanks to the expert execution.

Finally, I'd just like to add my general thoughts on the essence of the film and how it rises above it's individual scenes of bleakness and pain to become something rather . . . . hopeful. The whole movie comes together in a way that shows, to sound cheesy, that there is even light in the darkest of dark places. Even a muddy puddle will quench the thirst of the most desperate human. I don't want to sound pretentious or to seem as if I saw something that wasn't really there but that previous sentence just popped into my head immediately after viewing this film. And I hope you see what I did.

See this if you like: Mona Lisa, Dead Man's Shoes, Nil By Mouth.


I saw London to Brighton recently on DVD and I just had to voice my opinion. It really is one of the most exciting films I've seen for a long time. It's gritty, hard-hitting and never dull. Not only does London to Brighton triumph as a great British film but also as a gripping thriller, and one of which I can safely say new comer Paul Andrew Williams should be proud.

London to Brighton tells the tale of young runaway Joanne and prostitute Kelly who's lives collide and consequently take a turn for the worst. The film is told mainly within flashback sequences that slowly reveal the sinister reasons for Joanne and Kelly's hasty departure to normally colourful Brighton (this film couldn't be further from that happy seaside town). It all starts when Kelly's pimp Derek asks her to locate a young girl for one of his clients; Kelly refuses at first but eventually gives in. It doesn't take long her to locate hard talking 11 year old Joanne wondering the streets of London. The two then visit the house of Derek's wealthy and well-connected client, the result of which forces the pair to flee London in fear of being perused by Derek and is mob of amateur gangsters.

At times it really is quite a painful film to watch. The very idea of prostituting a girl that young is sickening yet 13 year old Georgia Groome stands alone as the disillusioned runaway. Her portrayal of a homeless child ushered into prostitution is particularly hard hitting and often heart breaking. One scene I found particularly shocking sees Kelly, Joanne and Derek in a greasy spoons café; Joanne is awkwardly smoking and acting tough though it is clear she is out of her depth. The setting itself is grim but it was the conversation that made me squirm, asking a young girl not yet a teenager weather she is virgin is or is not a virgin made tense uncomfortable viewing, her innocents shining through by the fact she appeared to be unaware of what was being said.

I was amazed at the films tiny budget; Paul Andrew Williams is definitely a gifted director to produce something so gripping with such little money. I even heard he gave out minor parts in film to friends in exchange for the use of their cars.

All in all this is defiantly a step in right direction for British film. Hopefully with films like this, Red Road (Andrea Arnold, 2006, another I recommend) and home-grown talent such as Shane Meadows we can prove we Brits are not all about predictable romantic comedies and Jane Austin adaptations.


Having grown up in Brighton and then watched its development into a home of the stars I was intrigued to see what the critically acclaimed "London to Brighton" had to offer.

Elements of the story are interesting, but I hate to say it, having even a scant knowledge of the place, the plot and production was just wrong wrong wrong!

The writer seemed intent on writing a South London white trash classic. Despite the best efforts of Graham Greene to sound an alarm 60 years ago to the true nature of Brighton, the writer of this film seemed content to depict it as a sleepy whole night's journey (it's only an hour from Victoria) where someone who knows where to get "business" can spend the day snoozing on a couch with no fear of molestation, especially not from those ruffians from London (despite fact that the Brighton flat exterior scenes where clearly filmed in the uniquely brown bricked setting of London).

The acting was superb and I never doubted the performance of any of the leads, or even the direction, my problems are with the plot and production. It's just if you're going to call the thing London to Brighton I would have suggested some research on part 2 of your title, I was even a little doubtful of the first part.

I was left feeling that the writer had written a film for the sake of it. I was wondering what he'd written it for? I felt it was a middle class orgy of how unpleasant the working class can be.

Distracting flaws: **POSSIBLE SPOILERS FOLLOW** If you wanted someone to bring someone to you in 24 hours, would you really inflict a potentially fatal leg wound?

Very anal but: They jump on a slam door train and we see a shot of a replacement more modern sliding door Thameslink (*stoat alert - they don't actually run from Victoria) making its way down the line.

Why, if they were coming from the station would they arrive on the bus from Roedean?

If you were on the run wouldn't you turn your phone off if not throw it away? Instead it's left in the flat for someone to answer and give precise directions of where they are. We're not even sure what the relatives do... oh yeah it's Brighton.. no one has to do anything there!

As mentioned before, anyone who's been to London would know that Kelly's relative's flat was clearly in London, and couldn't have been anywhere else!

It seemed a very Dickensian ending that the young girl who "shouldn't be there" gets enough cash to make it to Devon. Where as the "Tart with the Heart" leaves Devon and goes back to London to go back on the game... "Well that's all she'd know isn't it!" ;->

Very disappointing but indicative of too much cash going to the wrong people for poorly realised ideas.


There aren't many films of this genre (the late night TV film/filmfour film) which will grip you like this film does. I think, literally, I spent about half an hour in the doorway to the lounge, trying to leave the room in order to make a drink... but my eyes were fixed to the screen, and my feet fixed to the floor.

I think this film speaks to you in a way you can't describe, you are along for the ride and you have bought 100% into the characters (save one 'baddy') - the director/cast/et al managed to produce something greater than the sum of it's parts. The film is fantastic and yet some of the parts really shouldn't add up to something so good.

Excellent for what it is. Those who like to go on an emotional journey, a journey with the characters, an unpleasant and sometimes pillow-gripping journey, but a rewarding one none-the-less.


London to Brighton is a superb slice of British crime pulp; a no nonsense, down and dirty tale of two relatively weak individuals, given the parameters of the genre, desperate to get away from the lifestyle they've grim-and-bared up until this point. Systematically, one particular character must balance evading capture with the taking on of the moral responsibilities that come with looking after a much younger individual they've unwittingly roped into this world by way of child-prostitution. If there is a distinct shrill ringing throughout us as the film plays out, it's because while conforming to gangster genre conventions, we see most of the world and most of the film unfold through the eyes and ultimately with two females: a very young girl and a middle aged woman, two people we feel are under threat and will have harm come to them if they're caught. This is in stark contrast to usual crime film fare; in which crime infused males can be on the run, or can owe a debt, or whatever  but do not necessarily carry the same vulnerability. Thus, London to Brighton, with its scuzzy and raw feel, comes across as scarier; more frightening in its depiction of a world, the characters within and overall attention to genre.

The girls on the run are twelve year old Joanne (Groome) and the much elder Kelly (Stanley), a prostitute. They're played by two actresses more familiar to televisual work and as low-down supporting roles in feature films, but here are given the chance to shine in lead roles, snapping up the opportunity in the process. Their predicament is a set up that can be pitched in little to no words, immediately getting across a sense of urgency. The film begins with the two in a public toilet; panic-stricken and acting in nervous manner; something's gone wrong and they're about to go on the run from a London based crime syndicate as those connected to the organisation chase them.

The film gets across a sense of the sort of danger they're in without ever really showing anything, instead opting for the talk of an off screen event or individual. On this occasion, the talk of potentially of going to prison for what it is they've done is most prominent an item of which plants seeds of great worry in our minds as we observe these relatively hapless, physically out of breath with their clothes torn and clearly in a bad shape, people stumble through the seamy, low-level based locations they inhabit. The introduction of Derek (Harris), Kelly's pimp, and the potential threat that he carries as a character is only brought into perspective when it is revealed he answers further still to an individual higher up than he is; the son of the leader of this organisation. Where Derek is more extroverted and animated; Stuart (Spruell), the higher up, is calmer, dresses more formally and talks in a quieter manner which quickly pushes the boundaries out further as to whom acts as more of a threat, without taking away any of the initial menace Derek inhabits. This minute, but observed ploy, captures the film's tone of getting in deeper; of assuming something to be of a specific nature but then having to recognise a new threat, or new predicament, which furthers feelings and emotions.

As an event which spawns the mess everyone finds themselves in, it is revealed that Joanne is a runaway wondering the streets of London, and is quickly picked up by both Derek and Kelly when it is made apparent a local crime boss, Stuart's father, wants a younger girl to feed some depraved sexual cravings. Joanne carries with her a mouth, an ability to small talk her way through conversations with adults that we truly feel she might actually possess. The locale in which she is required for whatever perverted plans are in store for her is presented by way of brilliant, white light; a blinding light that reflects off of seemingly marble walls; floors and white pillars dotted around the room. The mise-en-scene and colour gives it a disturbing sense of resembling ancient Rome, specifically in appearance; in all its rich, beautiful, robe-decked in-glory. The sheer contrast of locales between what we're presented through the cities of London and Brighton, the latter of which itself looked like a sunny; beach-housing; amusements displaying safe haven compared to London, is stark, disorientating and disturbing.

The film really is fine feature debut, amongst the best of last decade and sits alongside works such as Donnie Darko; One Hour Photo and Memento. There's a real sense of terror in London to Brighton; an immediacy which you feel is born out of the two female leads and their place in the film working within a genre which would usually, in terms of Kelly's role as a prostitute, see them relegated to a nothing supporting role or to act as mere eye candy. Its willingness to have its women act in an independent and strong manner sees them break away from orders in a very male dominated world, that of crime, and renders them characters whom have limits; morals and know that when the line is to be drawn, it must be drawn, no matter what the consequence or whom one is dealing with. London to Brighton forms an exciting passage of film-making out of a relatively routine idea, with guided attention toward mostly all of the characters, Stuart of which goes through his own series of frightening changes later on; awareness of how the film should 'look' at very specific points and gets the best out of a low-key cast. Director Paul Williams has triumphed.


I thought that London to Brighton was a great film it starts in London, a pimp called Derek assigns the prostitute Kelly that works for him to find a young girl on the streets to escort the powerful mobster Duncan Allen. Kelly finds the twelve year-old runaway Joanne in the train station, and Derek gives one hundred pounds for her service and the girl accepts. Kelly makes friends with Joanne and takes her to Duncan's mansion. When Joanne cries in the bedroom where she is with Duncan, Kelly runs and helps the girl. At 3:07 AM, a bruised Kelly and the tearful Joanne lock themselves in a public toilet. Kelly asks Joanne to stay there because she will raise some money for them to travel to Brighton. Meanwhile, Duncan's son Stuart Allen calls Derek and asks him to meet him in a night-club. When Derek arrives at the nightclub, Derek calls his friend Chum and they begin to chase the girls. It thought that this was a great and powerful film, which featured a lot of strong violence. 8/10


I was really looking forward to seeing this, and for the first hour or so I wasn't disappointed - good story, good acting, good use of flashbacks - but then... For me, this film seemed to paint itself into a corner as it got towards the end. Once we got to the scene in the field, at the end, we knew that he wasn't going to shoot Joanne, because of the heart-to-heart they'd had in the car. We also suspected that he wasn't going to shoot Kelly, if only because she'd been so sympathetically portrayed throughout. So we assume that he's going to shoot the pimp (because he'd been portrayed as thoroughly unsympathetic throughout). Which he does. Ho hum. At this point I was thinking "please don't cut to a shot of the girls on the train to Devon". Which he did. I really wanted to like this film, and I did at first, but then the story didn't seem to know what to do with itself, and couldn't find an ending to live up to its beginnings. To be fair, neither could I.


This is a very raw, rough first feature (BAFTRA nominated) by Paul Andrew Williams.He wrote & produced the film as well.

The film runs a very fast 85 minutes including 4 minutes of credits. It is a low budget film about some very unlikeable people, the sort nearly all of us would not bother with or would want know. They all are brutal & foul mouthed.

However we do care, to some degree for them.

The cast are mostly newcomers or featured players from TV) I never heard of any of them). I definitely want to see them in other films. Lorraine Stanley plays a working street girl. Georgia Groome (all of 14 when film was made) is new to the streets.Johnny Downs is the evil pimp, & Sam Spruell as the sadistic son of a client. They & the others in cast do fine jobs as these unsavory person.

Normally I stay far from this type of film,BUT this time I was mesmerized, The hand held camera work was not as annoying as it usually is & most of my readers know I eschew foul language. Here it comes across as natural. It is like a Tarantino movie without the humour. That part I liked.

Being a minor,low budget,no name cast feature from the UK It only had a short few theatre run in the USA.in Feb 2008.

Look for this on Cable or rent it,I am sure you will agree it is watchable.

There are some plot holes, but film moves fast & they are easily ignored.

Ratings: ***1/2 (out of 4) 91 points (out of 100) IMDb 8 (out of 10)