Dragonblade (Chinese Version) is great success; the fighting scenes are filled with excitement, tension and romance. I was invited to the Dragonblade Charity Premiere (in Hong Kong) and I watched the movie before it was released in the cinemas. The sounding could have been so much better, however, we watched it in a lousy cinema, but if you watch this movie in a good cinema, the sounding would be so much better.

The movie is filled with a great deal of Hong Kong humor and however the language is awfully vulgar (especially for kids, but they wouldn't understand those jokes). This movie is spectacularly hilarious, and I would like to watch the English version of Dragonblade. Apparently, the English version of Dragonblade is much better than the Chinese version, because the movie was originally English. This movie is going to be released internationally, and it is going to be a very successful animation movie. I am truly impressed by the standard of this movie; you would not expect such a good movie made entirely by Hong Kong animators. This film should be internationally recognized, because the standard of this film is definitely high compared to other Hong Kong movies. Although it may not be as good as 'The Incredibles' or 'Monsters Inc.', as in storyline, the fighting scenes are completely worth watching, and the jokes will definitely crack you up!!! The story is quite basic and straightforward, there are no complicated or confusing scenes, which is good in a way. I would recommend this movie to everybody, especially Hong Kong viewers, because they should be proud of the Hong Kong animators, this film is produced and made in Hong Kong. I would recommend this movie to animation lovers and mainly teenagers, because the language to quite vulgar for young kids.

Dragonblade is a fantastic sensation! Congratulations to Wendy Choi!


I watched this movie at about 3 am one night, and perhaps it was just the late hour, but I was pleasantly surprised by this film. Aside from the aesthetically pleasing aspects of the movie (I'll leave that to your imagination), I actually didn't know who the killer was right up until the end. A feat most better movies can't pull off. I recommend renting this on a lonely, late night, if you have nothing better to do. This movie also contained a brilliant cameo by a flawless look-alike of an aged Dave Jourabchi.


The plot's irrelevant, really. It serves the purpose - which is to provide a framework for the eye candy.

What this movie does really well is to realistically depict a strip club atmosphere. Most movies get it all wrong... Extravagant costumes, Vegas style lighting, and elaborately choreographed dance routines. The only thing questionable about the club in MT2 was the fact that every gal is drop dead gorgeous...

The lead actress does a nice job with her role (outside of the dancing), and I'm surprised she hasn't done more with her career.


This movie is so god-awful! There are literally only four scenes! One scene: the unseen murderer killing strippers with a plastic bag over the head. None of the victims even seems to attempt to tear a hole in the flimsy little plastic bag. They just die. Then it's on to scene two: unattractive women with huge fake knockers dancing topless to a seemingly endless array of pop tunes which were never popular or indeed heard outside of this movie, as far a I can tell. The third scene is the "suspense" scene at the club as the new stripper (ex-penthouse pet Kimberley Kelley) who, you see, isn't actually a stripper at all, but is actually undercover investigating the smothering death of her sister, another stripper (these events presumably took place in Midnight Tease 1, which I haven't seen) snoops around for clues. The fourth scene is the scene where the Macguffin character, and artist (played by Paul Douglas) who likes to go to the strip club to find his muses for his paintings (P.S. Unintentional laughs abound when his work is shown, and is of a very low quality.) Take these four scenes and repeat them over and over again until you dash in a dramatic conclusion. Very boring, bottom of the barrel sleaze from Jim Wynorski and his buddies. Absolutely nothing to recommend.


Mucha Lucha is a really good and difrent series made by Lili Mort and Eddie Chin. It's not everyday that the wrestling style of Lucha Libre is showcase like the way it is in the show. The fact that anyplace at anytime a ring would pop up and the wrestlers do slick, unreal moves. Other than that The Flea and Snow Pea make this series a hit. I hope Kids WB' keeps this show on for quite a while.


This epi certainly poses a good question: what happens when evil collides with evil, as Serling himself puts it. I grant you that I was sort of bothered by some nitpicky details-- the uniforms the SS were shown wearing were wrong for the period and the Halftrack was an (obviously) American one. However, the use of the small staff car and the Mercedes-Benz six-wheeler were very good touches.

Francis Lederer was a man totally devoted to his craft, still teaching Acting until the end of his very long life, and I was amused by the fact that Dantine was himself a former concentration camp inmate!

All in all, this is one fine episode, thanks primarily to the acting that is on display here.


I truthfully have a hard time believing that this is an independent film. The dialog is both witty and very original, Ron Lazeretti clearly has his own style of writing, i constantly find myself quoting this film! I'm still trying to find out what color my parachute is! A film Is nothing if you leave the screen and you cared nothing about what happened to the characters, but the opera lover is filled with people you grow to care about throughout the film, and thats not a very easy element to capture in truly good film making. Although this film lacked known actors, the Chicago cast really pulled it together. The chemistry between the bastounes brothers is hilarious. TOM! hey buddy I'm rooting for ya, what are you up too now? shed a few pounds and get out their man, you've got the look. As for Bebe, i've constantly seen her in commercials but i would love to see her in a main stream comedy. I like this group of Chicago guys, i hope you have something in the works.


Sure, this film is a classic romance, but the treatment is refreshing. The acting is splendid (especially by at least three of the Bastounes family), the witty dialogue rings true, and it's a pleasure to get involved with characters who aren't Ken and Barbie clones. However, it's the music that is especially beguiling. Even non-aficionadi of the opera will surely enjoy it.

I also liked the way the blue-collar background of the main character, George, is juxtaposed with the high-falutin' milieu of the art (i.e., opera) world. Scenes featuring the opera house's gorgeous stage sets and five-star hotels are nicely contrasted with Southside Chicago neighborhoods.

The filmmakers are obviously from the indie scene and received help from movie notables. (I noticed Woody Allen is thanked in the credits.) But this film was made three years ago. What are they up to now? (I hope the Weinstein brothers are listening.)


Very entertaining, with an actual story line that made sense and even a surprise happy ending. Loved the dialogue too. Tom Bastounes is too cute!! Sorta a Bill Pullman type but with a great voice. Hope he does more.


What a wonderful film! Basically unknown actors who can act and write and direct!! This film was a pleasure to watch and it made me wonder why they haven't put another film together? The dialog is superb. Such lines as the lead, Tom Bastounes, who also co-wrote the script, saying to his long lost love, played by Monica Zaffarano, "You've haunted me for 15 years. Why don't I haunt you." I saw this movie on Showtime. If you get a chance to view it, do so. As it did me, it will make you say, Bastounes, Zaffarino. Who are these people? Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful!!!


This is a wonderful movie. The dialogue is among the best, many quotable lines that I will not spoil. This film reveals a plethora of talent. Though it's about an opera star who meets an old love (now a produce man), singing is confined to a few dramatic moments, including the climax.

Here's one great line. An ex-husband says to his wife who's about to remarry, "I give you a wedding gift of four words: 'he had his chance.'" If it comes around again (on Sundance Channel), please see it.


I discovered this awful flick on imbd by accident while doing a search for Ken Russell's "The Music Lover". When I read the "storyline" (a generous characterization on my part) for "The Opera Lover" I recalled seeing it (or portions thereof until I turned it off in agony) on probably the same late night cable channel another reviewer did. This flick should really be picked up by MST3K (Mystery Science Theater 3000) as one of the really bad movies the poor souls are forced to watch as they drift endlessly through the cosmos.

The acting...be that as it may...is laughable and wouldn't even cut it for 3rd rate community theater. The "tenor" and star of the joke is an overweight trucker who rediscovers a lost love (I'm guessing it's a spoof of an opera diva) when she comes to town during an undefined concert tour. Along the way we see the "star's" family trying to fill in the blanks while they stumble through this tedious waste of film. The only somewhat...tolerable...character is the alcoholic dad who mumbles unintelligible words of encouragement to the star struck son. Yes, it's a mishmash of an undertaking to say the least. If you're a total masochist and/or related to the would-be actors then by all means watch it.if it ever emerges again on late night TV. If none of the above, save your time and watch a Petticoat Junction rerun; you'll find it infinitely more professional and still worth a chuckle.


I caught this amateurish effort on late-late-night Showtime when the only alternatives were infomercials. This apparently home-made video rambled on with a barely discernable plot and featured a family of losers who have something to do with a fruit market and an opera singer who looks like a Saturday Night Live parody of an aged Maria Callas. I watched with disbelief as the amateur ensemble of would-be "actors" stumbled through the film as a lesson in bad ad-libbing.

Either those on IMBD who claim they liked it are related to the video's producers or rank the Cartoon Channel as great TV. What a waste.

Mark Pearlman


Not just low-budget films, but all films. This is a real sleeper. If you don't love opera, you probably won't like this. The story is entertaining and amusing. If you know and love opera, the final scene will leave you crying. If not it will leave you bored.

I strongly recommend this film. It's a good romance and a good story about people in general. The only shortcomings are from an obviously low budget. It's too bad. This could have been another low-budget classic.


I was amused by American reviews of the "Brat-2".

Americans were taken by surprise: how dare those Russians to make a film that depicts Americans as evil gangsters? How dare Danila to shoot Americans? This is not politically correct! It was clearly assumed that Russians are always the bad guys, whose only role in any film is cannon fodder to be shot by American Rambo.

Now "Brat-2" arrives, uncovering the horrifying truth: the bad guys are Americans! And it is OK to shoot them.

After years of Hollywood films depicting Russians as bad asses (no single Hollywood film showing Russians at least from a neutral point of view), the Russian cinema finally strikes back.

This movie delivered a long-awaited entertainment for Russian viewers.

It also proved complete lack of sense of humor of American viewers.


I just watched Brat 2 after ordering a copy from a Russian video store in New York and I was not disappointed.

I saw Brat on the International Channel a couple of months ago and was blown away. Ever since I've had been trying to hunt down a copy of Brat 2. While these films are not technically perfect they have a rough hewn charm that no longer exists in most American films. (The lone exception from last year being Spike Jones' Adapation.) Then there's Sergei Bodrov Jr. it is a damn shame that he died last year (along with his film crew in an avalanche) because he was a major talent. He is so damn watchable and the unrelenting honesty of the Danila character makes for a compelling anti-hero in the brother movies that reminds this viewer of the great days of early Brando and Paul Newman.

Once again I will remind people to look at the actual vote rating for this film and ignore the silly IMDB weighted total. (The weighted average seems to be based on the strength of the Top 1000 voters whoever they are - it is not however a true weighted average in a classic math sense.) This film may not be perfect but it is one hell of a ride.


I have read all comments and realised that not many western people got the message from the film. Probably that was because film's poor subtitles or translation and lack information or knowledge about real life in Russia and post Soviet countries. Maybe following explanation will help to clear couple of things.

Firstly Danila went to America not because of money but for revenge of his very close friend with whom he was in the army and was killed by Russian gangsters who misunderstood an order of their boss. Russian mobster was not killed because Danila liked his son.

Secondly film try to show that like in Russsia in America there are a lot of good and bad people and their nationality and race does not matter.

In my opinion Brat 2 is about life and life is different. You can not make opinion about people because of their nationality or race. In this film Danila speaks his mind and his opinion of other people is based on what they do not on what he thinks about or what other people think about them. If people are bastards he will treat them in the way appropriate way if not he will treat them as well in the appropriate way. This film is not about bad Americans and good Russians it is about life.


POSSIBLE SPOILER INFO BELOW

This film has a simple plot - although, in my opinion, it is not a plot oriented movie. Danila and his friends have returned to civilian life after a tour of duty in Chechnya.

Danila, after an excursion in Saint Petersburg (watch the original film "Brat" for more info), travels to Moscow, where this movie begins. Danila's army buddy's twin brother (and professional hockey player in the U.S.) is having problems with the Ukranian/American mafia in Chicago. Danila's friend is killed for having requested an influential Russian "banker" to intervene on American brother's behalf.

This leads Danila to travel to the U.S. to help solve the hockey star's mafia-related financial problems. There are essentially two phases to this film: the preparation to go to America (which occurs in Moscow) and carrying out the business in the states (mainly NY and Chicago).

I enjoy this movie immensely, but I can see how it is not for everyone. I was living in Moscow at the time this movie came out - I saw a matinée at the Pushkinsky theater in the center of Moscow. While many of my Russian friends consider this movie to be extremely low-brow, I still can't put my finger on what I like about it so much. Danila and his brother are great characters. Like I saw another reviewer write, Danila cares about others' lives more than his own. I think there are brilliant shots of Moscow and many are picturesque. I recognized most of the locations in the movie, including the inside of Sanduni banya (located behind TSUM) where Danila and his friends party with some pretty ladies. The soundtrack is great - I even bought it on CD (although some of my more hip Russian friends refer to it as "otstoy" or "lame"). Generally, the film is action-packed, funny at times, nostalgic, and one of the more commercialized Russian movies that I know of.

If you have some connection to Moscow and enjoy gangster-type movies, you will probably like this film.

I have seen several critiques of this film, some of which are valid. However, I haven't seen a criticism that overwhelms this movie's appeal.

Brat 2 is a nationalistic movie, but not in a bad way. The basic message is that life in Russia is NOT really worse than the un-realized American Dream that many Russian immigrants experience.

Although I read many reviews that deemed this movie "racist," I haven't seen a single reason presented. I'm sure some viewers from Los Angeles cannot comprehend that Danila's use of the Russian term "negr" is not to be confused with the extremely offensive English "n word." In Russian, "negr" is the appropriate and non-offensive way to refer to a black person - although it is very harsh on American ears.

In response to Danila's statement to the police, an American (non-Russian speaking) cop hears Danila use the word "negr." The cop confuses this statement as being racist and uses it to segway into a truly racist comment of his own. Just because a character makes a racist comment in a film does not mean that a movie's message is racist. This is a critique of race relations in the U.S., not a reason that this film is "racist."

The soundtrack is cool. I like most of the music on it, which includes some commercially successful Russian groups like: B2, Zemfira, and Krematory.

My only real criticism of Brat 2 is that many of the Americans are either portrayed as evil or stupid. This is most likely in direct response to how Russians are repeatedly portrayed in American cinema - either as gangsters or stupid (Yakhov Smirnov-esquire characters).

Overall, this film has a very positive message - one of loyalty, anti-materialism, honesty, and friendship. How is that negative?


This is the sequel to Balabonov's Russian blockbuster Brat, or Brother for our English speaking fans. It is a different movie, a little bigger in scope, but the formula stays the same.

Danila returns this time to take on Moscow. After his friend is killed needlessly, events take him to America to make things right. I really liked this film too. The thing that differentiates Brat and Brat II from a typical film is that it is real, you can feel it. Balabanov shows a talent here for screenplay that has no false pretenses, the same as he did in the first film.

Is America all about money and Russia all about Truth? In the best sense, yes. Seeing America through Balabonov's eyes is an nice reminder of where popular American values stand. Danila asks, "What is in English 'How are you?' Answer: "How are you?" "What, is everyone interested in how I am?" "No." "Then why do they ask?" "Just like that. In America everything is just like that, except for money." Isn't this ze truth?

There is something intangible that makes Brat and Brat II magical. It very well maybe that you have to be Russian to understand it. The Russian and intelligent viewers will understand, also, that Danila comes back from a war. I don't know why it is written that he saw no action, but as usual, when a soldier comes back from war, they have seen men killed as a matter of course and have likely killed people themselves. This fact, along with the economic situation in Russia at the time would seem to mitigate somewhat Danila's propensity for killing. The fact that he is such a calm soul while murdering people left and right, ironically, also ads to his charisma. I am reminded when Margarita in Bulgakov's classic says, "I like it when someone does things well."

All in all, it is uncanny how a story of a killer taps into the best of our emotions. Maybe it's the elliptical style, maybe it is the heartfelt motive, but more than not, I think, it's Sergei Bodrov.


This film is not a spook for Americans. Don't worry, America isn't going to be flooded by Russian gunmen. Russian girls who have emigrated to the U.S. will also stay there. Afro-Americans can also live peacefully, God bless them. This film reflects the present-day mood in Russia. When the euphoria caused by the openness of the country of great possibilities vanished, everything settles. That's why the song "The Farewell Letter" (Good-bye, America) which was written more than 10 years ago turned out to be prophetic. It expresses the main idea of the film. At last Russia has produced an action movie which can compete with western thrillers, the only hitch is Russia has its own idea of the good and the evil. That's why "we are not gangsters, we are Russians." One really hopes that some traditional Russian moral values still stand. Some can find the film low-brow, some can find it patriotic. It's for you to judge.


Near the end of 90s Russian cinema market was full of cheap gangster-related action movies. And, of course, there were comedy films - laughing at different kinds of fraud. People were buying it, because of the similarity of situations depicted to the real life. Economy collapse of 1990s in Russia when criminals were ruling everything played it's role. Even the original "Brat" was influenced by these ideas - to depict how artificial this life of "raw power" was. Today you are great and in power but tomorrow you're dead and no one remembers about you.

Brat 2 appeared in 2000, when everything in Russia started to change. And this film is a milestone declaring the change in Russian cinematography. Raw violence was utilized to show that it isn't an ultimate power.

You may say that Danila uses violence to prevail as well. But the following monologue show the main idea of the whole film: - Say me, American, what the power is? Money? My brother says that as well. But TRUTH is the power. You may steal from someone or lie, but that other person will have the truth behind him. And that's why he is stronger.

Raw power is nothing when it's used against the TRUTH. To get money or recognition. There always would be something taking the offender down.

The secondary value of this work is to respond to immigration problem of 80s-90s when "Iron curtain" broke down. Life abroad is not that good. African American ghetto gangsta, Ukrainian mafia of Chicago - that was of course a hyperbole showing to Russians that it isn't good to run from their problems to other country either. That's why so many Russians value this film so much. It was the first film in decade with such big patriotic value.

So, summing up, the film was fit for its time. In fact, that's why I'm watching it once again and again - to relive all my emotions of 90s. That is one of the few modern films that I'm willing to show to my future children along with classics of 60s/70s.


The second installment (well, you don't really expect Balabanov to stop milking this storyline, do you?) in the Brat series is more expensive and it shows. The movie is glitsier and the guns are bigger, as is the body count. Basically, the plot is as simple and formulaic as it gets - an unlikely Russian Duke Nukem Danila Bagrov goes after the killers of his war-time friend. Reunited with his "brother" from the original Brat, played by Victor Sukhorukov, Danila runs, shoots and blows up things - now THIS side of the Pond. This is dynamic movie, done much better than most contemporary Russian imports, and is anything but politically correct - be it the mounting body count or the amount of racial slur. In the first movie Bagrov's contempt of the "dark-skinned" people was evident in one small episode, in this one he really gets going at - what's the word? - African-Americans :) But unless you are that deep into PC go see this movie - it's like watching somebody really good playing Doom, over his shoulder.


I thought that this film gave off a somewhat one-sided look of Americans. And while that is probably no surprise, what got me was the constant examples of how we were portrayed. From the beginning, we're labeled as conniving swindlers who are just out to cheat people any way we can. From there we are given examples of pimps who seem to rely on foul language (however Americans do have some extremely colorful metaphors), prostitutes, crooked cops and truckers who are more goofy than anything. I liked the film, I enjoyed the plot and the action, and thought that overall, the movie was solid. It just nagged at me the way we were made to look. That's the filmmakers discretion, I know, but I just wanted a chance to say it.


"The Dunwich Horror" is the second H.P.Lovecraft adaptation from art director Daniel Haller("Die,Monster,Die!")is actually another flawed attempt to capture the unimaginable darkness of Lovecraft's literature on film.Sandra Dee plays Nancy Walker,a young college student who is lured into the mysterious house of Whateley by the creepy young warlock Wilbur Whateley(Dean Stockwell).The local community has long suspected that the whole Whateley family-Wilbur,his grandfather(Sam Jaffe),and his mother,who is in an insane asylum-is unholy,and soon their suspicions are confirmed.Wilbur intends to use Nancy as a human sexual sacrifice that will unleash dark powers-represented by his monstrous twin brother,who exists in another dimension-across the earth.Occult professor Dr.Armitage(Ed Begley)discovers what Wilbur's up to,and with the aid of Nancy's roommate (Donna Baccala),he tries to stop it."The Dunwich Horror" is a psychedelic little horror film that offers some interesting visuals.The film is slow-paced and there is absolutely no gore.It relies more on suggestion than shocks,so if you like old-fashioned horror give it a look.7 out of 10.


I have always loved the theme and title sequence to this film. The film itself is only okay at best. The late sixties, early seventies style, lighting and some scenes are descent along the way, but the overall film just doesn't involve the viewer. However, this movie has a great little gem at the beginning with its animated title sequence and theme, which is so different and eerie, yet rockin' at the same time. I used to just rewind the tape and watch the title sequence because it really is interesting and moving. I wish the good parts of the actual film could be put with some scenes and sequences that are as moving and intriguing as the title sequence - then they would have a really memorable film! Instead, there are too many parts that are just bizarre and irritating. I get what they were going for, but some of the sequences were just too prolonged and not connected enough.

I did however like much of the lighting in this as it is interesting, hues of purple and blue illuminating back rooms and entering windows. The bizarre color schemes of the creature that appear as attacks of flapping wings are strange, but somewhat effective if only there were more to those shots.


Another movie featuring Gothic horror that collides with late 1960's psychedelic/Hippie clothing, fashions, design, etc. It makes for a potent combination that is somewhat silly but great fun to look at.

The rumor is that Peter Fonda was supposed to play the lead but Dean Stockwell stepped in at the last minute. It would have sure been a different movie with old Pete. Stockwell gives the role a creepy yet seductive intensity. Could Fonda have done the same? Not so sure about that. I tend to think that Peter Fonda would have been a little too "slick" for this role, that is, too much on the side of the sleazy seducer and too little on the side of the menacing necromancer. But, who knows, that's just my silly idle speculation, as Peter never did the role.

This would make a great double feature with "Simon: King of The Witches," also currently available on DVD. Filmed shortly after this film, also has a warlock, and a lot of trippy psychedelic visual effects. Also great fun to look at and quite entertaining performance in the lead role by Andrew Prine.


Interesting film about a young college coed who becomes involved with a young man who has connections that extend well into the underworld and who only needs the right book to unleash them. Sandra Dee in a surprisingly sexy role as the young student and Les Baxter's very nice soundtrack just about save an effort where the actual film doesn't do justice to its title. Nonetheless the production design creates creepy atmosphere especially in the seaside alter where Dee is nearly undressed while Stockwell prepares her for the arrival of Satan himself. And there is a certain amount of imagination involved in the film that combines a nice mixture of classic horror themes with hip sensibilities.


Sandra Dee, out of all people, portrays the endangered protagonist, a college student seduced by the hypnotic(..key word)charms of warlock Dean Stockwell who wishes to to open the gateway for unleashing "the old ones" from another dimension and needs the Necronomicon, in possession of Professor Ed Begley who tours campuses lecturing on the book's content and origins. He wishes to use Dee as a sacrifice to the demon gods on the cliff-side ruins of an ancient alter. Sam Jaffe hams it up as the loony grandfather of Stockwell and Lloyd Bochner is the village doctor Begley confides in to stop Stockwell from what he plans to do regarding the gods which await re-entry into our world and to Dee, sexually! I found the film, at times quite atmospheric and moody(..mainly the first 45 minutes), but the ending is sh!T. Loved the score by Les Baxter, although it seems, at times, to resemble the background music of a Scooby Doo episode. My favorite shot has a camera looking out from a burial plot after the death of a specific character as Stockwell attempts to perform a ritualistic ceremony. The film's night sequences at the end as a band of angry villagers, following behind Begley and Bochner, are attacked by a creature( that looses itself from a locked room in Jaffe and Stockwell's home), within the woods drove me nuts..you can't see a damn thing unless the director lets loose those color schemes which operate loudly as the monster's "sight" when it confronts possible victims. And, the face off between Begley and Stockwell as Gidget lays on the sacrificial alter in orgiastic(..under an induced hypnotic state, although one might use that as a description of Dee's performance)bliss is laughable. I loved the opening animated credits sequence. Considering this is an AIP production, I was disappointed. At times moody and interesting, other times painstakingly dull.


I have had this film on tape for many years, but had never got around to watching it until last week. I am very interested in horror films, and in particular some of the fairly obscure 70's productions. After having watched this film, i can't understand where the 'horror' part of the title actually occurred in the movie - maybe some other imdb users can enlighten me. Why wasn't it simply called 'Dunwich'?. This was an incredible waste of what was actually a good cast - i mean a film based on an H.P.Lovecraft work must surely have maybe a little tension, suspense, or terror?. To make matters worse, the story was not even presented in a very coherent manner - maybe that's a bit harsh as i did fall asleep once or twice - ok maybe that's when the 'horror bit' happened before anyone tells me!!.


There are plenty of comments already posted for this film, by fans of H. P. Lovecraft and of horror films in general. Here's my take on it: The only reason I rented this film was to look at Dean Stockwell. And no, this is not his worst acting job....have you seen Werewolf of Washington? Dean is actually NOT a very subtle actor...it took years of maturity to turn him into Tony in Married to the Mob...and the delightful Al in Quantum Leap. There are very few films of Dean in this time period (1971). The other one I managed to catch was The Last Movie - Dennis Hopper's self-indulgent quirky film made in Peru. Dennis Hopper and Dean Stockwell are friends. This explains a lot of things. So I sat back and enjoyed looking at Dean...at a time when he was a skinny, pale curly-haired (no, I don't think it's a bad perm...it's Dean) tripping little dude in a long black coat and bell-bottom pants. Heck, I just love looking at his beautiful hands with the slender fingers. I kept wishing that he and Sandra Dee could just live happily ever after in their little gothic mansion on the hill...sipping their tea and being stoned together forever. The plot really got in the way of this film, you know?


Lovecraft is gothic, provoking, and disturbing. This movie is weird, boring, and the ending is poorly done and laughable. The story is faithful, but the cheesy effects and lack of suspense make it lose any credibility. Compare this movie with "Blair Witch Project" or "Twin Peaks" and see how suspense is supposed to be done (I would like to see David Lynch do a Lovecraft movie by the way). But maybe this is just one story that should stay in written form? I would recommend this only to the most diehard of Lovecraft fans. Maybe not even then.


This movie is a HOOT! Unintentionally, of course--which makes it all the better. Dean Stockwell moves through most of the movie like he's heavily sedated (or maybe in shock at finding himself in such a bad movie), only coming to life in the film's climax.

Poor Sandra Dee--the eternal virgin--has to learn the hard way never to give strange young men a ride home from the library.

Psychedelic "special effects" complete the experience...all of it taking place in the accursed hamlet of Dunwich...but I won't spoil the fun by saying any more. Let me just add that I am a fan of Lovecraft's & should have been miffed at this botched attempt...but I was too busy laughing.


at bringing Lovecraft to the screen, something that is notoriously difficult to do.

The movie follows the story much better than most attempts, although there are certain changes to make it more accessible. One of the main problems in bringing Lovecraft to a movie is the lack of atmosphere created by his word choice in his writings. The makers do a fair job in creating it by the sets, music and lighting. They also avoid the most elemental mistake in Lovecraft adaptations, they never really show the "brother" who's part Old One until a quick shot at the end. They cut to some quick shots of tentacles but the main sequences only show wind and sound to suggest something being present. As Lovecraft knew a person's imagination is capable of creating something much more terrifying then anything that could be created by someone else.

Stockwell comes across as kind of a space cadet but then again he's allegedly only part human so that may be forgivable. Sandra Dee seems to be in a different movie entirely. Watching her performance makes me think she was coerced into doing this movie for little money. She seems to only be a part time presence. Sam Jaffe of course does a wonderful crazy old codger. Watching it there's no question that it was made in the 70s from the bad hair to the bell bottom polyester clothes. But hey, it *was* the 70s so it made sense.

All in all one of the better adaptations and worth watching. Not terrific but enjoyable.


Although this film has hints of the chillingly mysterious horrors that are conveyed in Lovecraft's stories, in is incredibly boring, awkward and stilted. The best performance in the film is turned in by Sandra Dee, which may give you a clue about the low quality of the acting by such generally competent performers as Ed Begley and Sam Jaffe. Dean Stockwell phones in what must be the worst job of his career. The dialog is at times incoherent. The special effects abysmal. The editing, non-existent. I lay the blame for most faults squarely on the shoulders of the director, a former designer and art director on some classic horror films who seems to be well out of his area of competence here. The film clearly must have had a lowest of the low budget as well. Alas, we have yet to see a really good treatment of any Lovecraftian tale on film.


First off, I love the opening credits of this film, with the stylized animation and the music. As for the rest of this, well, it is beautifully filmed, for the most part, with wonderful sets and yes, somewhat of a creepy story, tempered by Dean Stockwell's somewhat hammy performance as Wilbur Whately. Some "dream sequences" (as dreamed by the still-lovely Sandra Dee) are kind of silly, with people in makeup, who actually look fairly sinister but on the other hand they look like a bunch of hippies who ate acid for breakfast. But in the Whately house, there is a room that houses a secret, and I have to say when that door is opened that it may actually provide one of the better depictions of one of Lovecraft's "unspeakable, unnameable, un-whateverable" creatures than any other film that I've seen. Lots of color reversals and busy movement, as in, maybe, tentacles? I've read a lot of Lovecraft in my time and haven't seen a film yet that "accurately" portrays any of his "monsters" very well, except for perhaps this film. A lot of what one sees after that as this "thing" moves about the countryside are nothing more than color reversals and nothing great, though. I've seen this film only twice now but I like it a lot, despite Stockwell's somewhat goofy performance as a low-key but "sinister" Wilbur. If you're a Lovecraft fan & you've not seen this yet it's worth checking out. A classic 70's film. 8 out of 10.


A fairly decent adaptation of the Lovecraft story of the same name, this film is more true to the original story than most other H.P. Lovecraft inspired films.

Dean Stockwell is totally believable as the strange young Wilbur Whateley who's family has a history of being just a bit odd. The rest of the cast is decent, even female lead Sandra Dee is tolerable.

The only thing that some viewers may find distracting is the fashion in this film. The film was made in 1970, and it REALLY shows - in the quality of the film stock, and also in the hair styles of the characters (Dean Stockwell's perm is absolutely awful) as well as their dress (remember those bell bottom pants?).

If you like Lovecraft, you'll like this film. You don't get to see many of his stories kept nearly intact once they reach the screen, but this is certainly one of them. Sure there are differences in the story and the screenplay, but all in all an enjoyable film for Lovecraft fans.


OK, this film & story are a bit cheesy, as HP Lovecraft stories tend to be. The dramatic dread his stories are known for has become a very dated storytelling device, but this adaptation was nicely made, and by golly, Dean Stockwell makes it worth seeing.

There are a few predictable plot twists, with a decent performance by Sandra Dee. The nurse is played by Talia Shire - it's only her 2nd film, so it's not her greatest performance, but hey... and this was also notable as one of Ed Begley Sr.'s last films.

But Dean is truly the star. His creepy intensity is at once funny & intriguing, but completely memorable. The location was also memorable, but the sound staged sets were a bit weak.

There are horror films that have been made with MUCH larger budgets that are not even half as entertaining as this. You really must see this film.


Daniel Haller directs this adaption of a H.P. Lovecraft story. A young warlock(Dean Stockwell)steals a one-of-a-kind book of spells and is determined to conjure up a way to bring back a society of witches and warlocks to earth. A strange and sometimes boring story to follow. The background score by Les Baxter is haunting and keeps the movie drudging along. Also in the cast are Sandra Dee, Sam Jaffe and Ed Begley. I expected more.


OK, I haven't read all the comments yet but I was kinda disturbed of the low rating this movie got. I think it's one of the best Lovecraft Adaptations ever made. Yeah, "Re-Animator" was much more fun, but it didn't stick to the misanthropic atmosphere old HPL used to build. "The Dunwich Horror" is much more disturbing, although it bears all characteristics of a seventies movie like the soundtrack and the clothing, but it still works. Yeah, it's a B-Movie, but It's very well made, from the great title sequence to the vague depiction of the "Monster". I don't think any subsequent movie got closer to the insinuating style of that fascinating weirdo called H. P. Lovecraft.


Nancy Wagner (Sandra Dee in her last movie role) is a librarian at the Miskatonic Univ where the only copy of the Necronomicon (an evil book) is kept. Sinister Wilbur Whatley (a young Dean Stockwell in a hideous mustache and hair do) uses her to get access to the book. He then invites her to his house in Arkham. He gets her there and drugs her to make her stay...he has plans for her! Also there's someTHING in the attic banging at the locked door. Two of Nancy's friends come to get her and all hell breaks loose!

First off, this is NOT a faithful adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft's story (I should know--I just read it a few weeks ago). Some scenes are taken from it but the script is very different from the source. That said it's not a bad film. It's elaborately done (beautiful settings, eerie sounds and rich deep color) and is mildly engrossing.

Unfortunately it's far from perfect. The script is OK but there are far too many plot holes (for instance, Dee tells Stockwell she can't stay the weekend...in the very next scene she's saying she is!). Also the acting is really bad by the two leads--Dee seems uneasy and unsure of how to play her part; Stockwell (who is a great actor) is, surprisingly, terrible! He acts like he's stoned half the time (maybe he was) and is just horrible.

There are scenes of a monster stalking about (hey, it's an AIP film!) and attacking which are very psychedelic (lots of flashing lights, negative film, different colors, loud sounds) and quite effective. Look for Talia Coppola (later Shire) as one of the victims. However, there's no graphic gore or blood. Also, a real cool ending. Also, there's an odd somewhat homophobic line in this--a friend of Dee comments on her staying with Stockwell--"If he were straight, I wouldn't be worried." ??????? Is that supposed to be funny? It's pretty stupid and offensive today.

All in all, an OK film. It's been reissued in VHS and DVD in a beautiful new print with great color and sound. Try to see it that way--it really helps the film.


I just finished watching "The Dunwich Horror" a few minutes ago. It's the second time I've seen it in several years. I very well may be in the minority about this. Maybe not. Anyway, I think this movie stinks. S*cks with a capital S.

After reading redrabbitbone's review of this disaster on film I had to chime in my two cents. And as I said, I very well may be the lone person on the island about this. Or maybe one of a few - or a few hundred - but, the bottom line in my opinion: "The Dunwich Horror" is a terrible movie. Absolutely horrible. Definitely not a "horror" or scary flick worthy of being shown on TCM, Halloween or not.

. . . sm


We all know Sandra Dee as the cute teenybopper who always gets the handsome dudes. Ah, but here, she shows a different side of herself. Don't get me wrong, she's still cute, but the man whom she gets...he's not what he seems. Maybe it's just his interest in the Necronomicon, but the people of Dunwich consider his family to be a bunch of demons; might they be right? A certain strange ritual might explain everything.

OK, so "The Dunwich Horror" might seem sort of silly. But in my opinion, it's impossible not to like (and I don't just mean because of a certain scene with Sandra Dee). The movie has the real feeling of an H.P. Lovecraft story. Along with Dee, Dean Stockwell, Ed Begley Sr, Sam Jaffe and even a very young Talia Shire all do a really neat job with their roles. So watch this movie; it just might save your life.

And I tell ya, Sandra Dee really does look hot in that one scene! And who ever would have guessed that Connie Corleone would have had a connection to Satanic rituals?


I write this principally in response to the critical comments you print under this title from, "Chuck V", who appears to have missed the point of this film entirely...I have seen "Volver a Empezar"--in parts---both on the Sundance Channel and TVE (the Spanish Television Network). Since then I have been hunting for it high and low here and in Canada so that I could see it from beginning to end, without interruption... It is a brilliant and affecting film, probably best appreciated by mature audiences with some grounding and sensitivity to literature and history and a cinematic background that antedates Cineplexes and four-wall stereophonic sound...It is a brilliant and pointed film, winning the Foreigh Film Oscar for that year...Yes, I love Pachelbel's Canon; and I could hear "begin the Beguine" endlessly--whether it's the Artie Shaw version or Fred Astaire and Eleanor Powell dancing the hell out of it in "Broadway Melody of 1940...One may care not a whit about the tragedy of the Spanish Civil War, loss of one's love and country and long exile, or, lastly, the illusion of triumphant return and recovery in late middle age, but there has to be admiration for sensitive direction and montage, and graceful and impacting performances by mature actors.


Besides, the story told is very sensitive and real. It reflects the situation that a man faces when he comes back to his homeland after living abroad many years. All the characters, the photography of this beautiful city, the Real Sporting, and the story, make this movie a real pleasure to watch. I am not surprised that it was awarded the Oscar to the Best Foreign Film in 1982 from the National Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.


This movie is one of my ten favorites. I have seen it so many times and it still touches my heart. The plot is realistic, the director is unique and the actors are really great. If you haven't seen it yet, don't wait any longer. It's a piece of art, it's a true classic.


I stumbled upon this film, and was tempted not to watch it when the first minutes were so quiet. However, I was slowly drawn into the life of the characters and the reasons why Antonio had returned to his home town. There was a sensitive balance between what was being communicated in words, and what was being said through the cinematography. This is a film that some will not enjoy. It is a gentle film, where matters of the heart are more important than the acts that made Antonio the remarkable person he is. It is a film full of understatement, with so much being said in so many small ways. The exception is the role of Agustin Gonzalez whose has to be over the top in an old world way and who plays his part to perfection. Have we not all met people like him - obsequious, yet trying so hard to be the perfect concierge? Elena, played by Encarna Paso enters the film out of nowhere for the viewer, but we learn she has been with Antonio for many years, out of sight but not out of mind. Again, playing an understated role to perfection. This is a film for anyone who is in a relationship, and who has a heart for the future.


The film is a life reaffirming statement of one man's choice of his final farewell to the people, places and memories that sum up his life's work. The film works well because of how little is actually stated by the principals. The film's focal point appears to be the indirect answer Antonio gives for the reason for his visit. Antonio recounts the story of his colleague, a professor, who during a lecture looks out the window and starts humming a tune from his native country and his youth after which he suffers a heart attack.

When Elena says her goodbyes, it is evident that she knows about Antonio's health condition.

The final scene with the theme music playing in the background simply restates the life reaffirmation.


...almost invariably do a miserable job picking the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar? This is exhibit "A", front and center. A man finally returns from Spain from decades of self-exile during the Franco years, and reunites with an old flame. Could have been good in the hands of a Mike Leigh, but with this script and director it was a snoozefest. Almost nothing happens. For some reason, "Das Boot," which had more drama in any given two minutes of its running time than "Volver a empezar" in its entirety, couldn't be nominated and then selected. Huh?

Oscar did it again this year (2005), when it again picked a dull Spanish movie few will ever see out of the best pool I can remember, with "Der Undergang" (Downfall), "Un long dimanche de fiançailles" (A Very Long Engagement), and "Shi mian mai fu" ("House of Flying Daggers). No, I do *not* need to see war explosions or airborne cutlery in all my foreign movies, but com'n, how elitist can you get?

Note that "Volver a empezar" is not readily available on VHS or DVD. The marketplace knew better than Oscar. And if you do find it be warned that, yes, it will kill any enjoyment you have of "Pachelbel's Canon."


I am not following the voting crowd on this film. I loved it as much as the original-Nikita. I just have a thing for films where women take a hit and keep coming. If more women were like Black Cat men would think twice about abusing them. This movie is continual action. And unlike Nikita the action is even more violent. Cat is almost scary in her quest to reach her objective. If you like full on action, I highly recommend it. This is better than any of that Cynthia Rothrock stuff; and I like her for what she does.


Black Cat is directed by Stephen Shin and it stars Jade Leung, in her first feature role. This is the Hong Kong "remake" of Luc Besson's classic La Femme Nikita, which is one of the greatest action pieces in the world of cinema. Black Cat fails to be great even though it is made in Hong Kong, where action films are usually unmatchable. Erika/Catherine/Black Cat is a violent young female who goes to jail and has the same offer as in Nikita: to become an assassin to the government. She starts the training and once she's ready and skilled enough, the killings may start. What follows is tired scenes and nothing special in the whole movie.

 The action scenes are okay and stylish at times (especially during the credits) but they are so few and can't save the whole film. There is absolutely no depth in the characters (Leung, Simon Yam or others) and the film is pretty irritating to watch because it offers nothing more than just gun fires and action, which are nothing special considered this is made in the land of Woo, Lam, Mak and other great directors.

 So I can't recommend this too much but Hong Kong fans will want to check it out and so did I. This could have been far far worse and due to the few stylish scenes and images in the film, it is not too impossible to sit through, and in fact, I've watched this two times now.

 4/10


Black Cat (1991) was an unofficial remake of the international French hit "Nikita". Unlike the first film, Black Cat has everything you thought Nikita had (hardcore violence and gritty realism). The film follows a young female drifter (Jade Leung) who gets into trouble whilst in Canada. She's deemed uncontrollable and unfit for society. After a speedy trial she's condemned for life. That's until a suave C.I.A. agent (Simon Yam) gives her a second chance at life, but with brutal consequences.

A dark and dreary film with no light at the end of the tunnel. Jade Leung (a former glamor model) is perfect as the Black Cat. A hit man who has no feelings or emotions, just a tool for the government. But like all machines they break down, will she give into her emotions or will she go through her missions like a good slave? Check out Black Cat!

Highly recommended.

Followed by Black Cat 2: The Assassination of Boris Yeltsin.


Tagline: Trashy HK entertainment at its best Review by Neo: HK in the 90s is known for creating just as much trash as classic movies. Black Cat does not qualify as a classic, but as far as trashy entertainment is concerned, it is really pure guilty pleasure. Imagine, someone who killed a police and in the process being recruited by the CIA and somehow become a CIA agent. As bizarre as it seems, it didn't really matter, as the film is ultimately fun in a trashy way.

In the early 90s, it is almost truism to say that any movie that look trashy, sleazy and with some degree of sexual tension, there will be the ever dependable Simon Yam. Yam is easily an underrated actor, whose talent is still yet to be recognised within the HK Films Award. It is a shame as Yam is certainly someone who has come a long way since those Cat III days and one just need to glimpse at recent films like Eye in the Sky and Election for any indication. Here he is the typical early 90s Simon Yam, whose screen presence alone allows him to ease through his supporting role.

Playing the title character of the Black Cat is Jade Leung, her raw and uncomforting acting makes her perfect for the role. The opening scene may seem a bit too staged, but Leung's facial expressions when she kills the guy and the cop is just priceless to endure. However, due to not fault to Leung's effort, one must wonder why the director Stephen Shin didn't bother developing her character further. While the Black Cat succeeds in being trashy yet entertaining, it is once again another case of what could have been. With the ending perfectly panned out for a sequel following, Black Cat 2 is already on the list of upcoming movies Neo is going to watch.

All in all, the Black Cat isn't really trying to do too much, nor is the director aiming for such lofty ambitions. Still, somehow, the flick manages to succeed all its trashy goals and the result is giving the audience some guilty pleasure. Perhaps, Neo is just abnormal, but in all truthfulness, Black Cat isn't going to win any awards. Still for mindless entertainment alone, you can probably get a lot worst than this and for one last time, Black Cat is just plain trashy fun (Neo 2008)

I rate it 7.75/10


Takva - A Man's Fear of God is one of those films that playfully enact conflicts of fundamental importance for the world we live in. Takva starts off with humble Muharrem, an introverted single man living in Istanbul, being drawn into the inner circle of a Muslim brotherhood he has adhered to ever since his childhood days. When the erudite and strikingly pragmatic leader, Sheikh Cemal, appoints him as his financial organizer, Muharrem gets endowed with all the amenities and trappings of a modern world businessman. He has to collect rent and administer the order's finances. His naive will to live a life according to what he thinks is the will of God clashes not only with his unfulfilled sexual desires, but also with the mechanisms of power within the order. The brothers' lifestyle may be conservative, but they run an organization that is fully intertwined with the present day social, political and economic life of Turkey.

For Muharrem, who hardly understands any of this business, this means that every step he intends to make for the greater glory of God draws him ever deeper into the quagmire of corruption, lies and hypocrisy. The authority he is endowed with now makes him haughty and difficult to deal with, while his accumulated frustration increasingly throws him into literal fits. Everything escalates when he comes face to face with the woman he desires...

The plot for this great film is based on an old folk tale from Turkey about a man who refuses to marry the daughter of his spiritual master although he clearly loves her. In Onder Cakar and Omer Kiziltan's adaptation, the narrative serves to expose the inner mechanisms of puritan Muslim orders and throw light on the mental set-up of its loyal members. The film is pure fun to watch due to countless instances of great irony, a remarkable love for detail and breathtaking scenes of ecstatic rituals. While the filmmakers were very careful not to ridicule the milieu they're depicting, their critical approach accounts for a film that substantially helps understand the way political Islam "works".


I would like to mention a different side of the movie that sheds light on Sufi or Mevlevi orders in Turkish and Islamic history.

Why Muharrem is selected for this task to perform financial affairs of the order? The answer is related with the stages of knowledge or purity that one has to qualify to become a "Perfect Human Being" or "insan-i kamil" in Turkish. This concept or ideology is rooted with Islamic tradition. Many Sufi or Mevlevi order has this process for their dervishes which may take a lifetime to achieve this goal or even never be able to reach that level of "perfection".

Different than being nun or monk which requires leaving mainstream society and living in the monastery with prayers, last step of this difficult and lengthy process of purifying one's soul from earthly desires, is to be able to return to the real world after so many years lived in contemplation and yet not being disturbed with its appeal to commit sin. I believe in the last few minutes head of the order explains this a little bit. And apparently Muharrem failed to accomplish last stage before achieving "perfection".


Saw Takva last night at The Sydney Film Festival 2007, utterly compelling, driven by Erkan Can's fine performance as Muharrem, a devout Muslim in contemporary Istanbul. Previous posts outline more.

I was fascinated by the way Takva engages with contemporary Turkey, a notionally democratic and secular society since the 1920s. Yes, Muharrem has an existential crisis, also familiar to audiences of Shrek 3 in another way ... dare I mention it, by profane comparison.

I suspect Takva has a satirical streak, once you imagine the dervishs's lodge could be the current government of Turkey.

Am I right? Responses from Turkish members most welcome.


I think it goes much to far to call this excellent film a documentary about the life of a Muslim sect or a critique of political Islam or even the role of the religious orders in Turkish economic life. Rather I would like to claim that it gives just an impression of the life Turkish religious orders, society and the mind of a devout religious man who previously led a uncritical life without real challenges and without deep thoughts about practical life and religion. Therefor he's unprepared for both of it.

I would guess that one could find his "state of mind" also with a range of uncritical believers of many religions who, although ardently believe stay shallow in their intellectual penetration of their believe and worldly life. They stay rather caught in conservative dogmas, which where made to control man and are far away from a healthy human experience.

Not everything shown in Film should be taken at face value. The depiction of the ritual life gives an impression of the ecstatic quality of such gatherings but is exaggerated in their frenetic appearance. There may have been reasons for this depiction but one should rather try not to confuse it with the an authentic account; this account one should rather get in contact with real orders.

The protagonist has high values which he fails to satisfy. This puts him in a moral dilemma which is very instructively set in contrast on one hand to worldly every day people and merchants with their cheating and accommodation with an imperfect world. On the other there is a religious order, which although is directed towards spirituality is of course also involved in worldly enterprises and has of course it financial interests. Nothing gets euphemised but the problems of both - profane and spiritual - get expounded in a way that a psychological profile of shallow but devote believer meets social criticism (not only hitting the Turkish Islamic milieu of its setting but also similar ones in other regions and religions).


Like all great works of art, Takva is a simple story: a man corrupted in an incorruptible world of a religious order of Sufi ecstatics. And like all great works of art, the story is at once utterly banal and profound beyond measure. A humble, self-effacing Muharrem, a devoted member of an Istanbul dargah is brought into a seemingly irresolvable inner conflict by the humility of his spiritual leader Cemal who acts on a dream that came to him from God, and appoints Muharrem the order's property administrator. The man's simple world and relationship with God is destroyed by an incomprehensible chasm that develops between his understanding of his faith and the leaders' whom he deeply respects and depends on. The story told by lesser masters than Cakar and Kiziltan, would probably end up a silly remake of a Forty-year old Virgin in Istanbul. But in their hands, Takva, God's omnipresence in the lives of the protagonists, is not just a believable story, but a masterful narration of a self-assured purpose, told at once with a great deal of human care for, and at the same time with a stoic detachment from, the predicament of a simple man's soul. The end effect is a brilliantly balanced irony. On the level of the plot  there is the unconditional respect for God's will in the two order's leaders which forces them to appoint and keep Muharrem against their better judgment observing his fear of God is that of an eunuch, and there is the unconditional respect for God's will by Muharrem based on his straightforward demand for purity and compassion. On the micro level, the writing has dashes of clever insight into human interiors: a sigh from master Ali, Muharrem's employer: "now I am the idiot's secretary" , and the order's counsel Rauf's revelation in "take this watch, brother; it keeps time precisely; it is made by the heathen". The ecstatic chants and movements of the dervishes' dhikr as a background make the movie an extraordinary experience.


the movie and it's consistency with,the reality of such kind of religion originated community, is marvelous since you feel familiar most of the stages with the man you recognize which is rigidly religious.It is rare and very difficult to create such kind of complicated film especially for a director which had directed only moderate TV series in Turkey.He surpassed the expectation thanks to his talent and observation.Besides director, the casting and performance of the actors is impressive since they really overcame the difficulty of the performing the characters who are rare in community and which differs from society by small details.The way pilot flows is satisfactory but on the other hand,the simplicity of some parts of the movie, especially in final minutes,does not meet the expectation of the audience which expects the ultimate end.The issue director criticize is imagined untouchable for the conservative parts of society.according to me we should congratulate the courageous and objective view of director.it is a good film for whom are open minded and opposing.


Saw this on WorldLink TV last night - gripping from the first frame. Wonderful journey into Turkish Sufi lives & the character of a simple devout person presented with difficult life choices. The story & character development is excellent. Interplay between the main character & his employer/benefactor and then with the other members of the sect is presented in a great way. I come from an Asian culture and could immediately connect to the protagonists struggle to solve a complex nature of problems and make them fit within his simplistic religious view.

Cinematically brilliant, great acting, wonderful cinematagrophy Catch it if you can.


"Taqwa" is one of those Islamic jargon which can only be loosely translated into English. It is the Islamic concept of "God-consciousness".Someone having "taqwa" has the constant awareness of God's omnipresence in his life and he is supposed to be in total submission to God.The movie tells the story of Muharrem,a simple minded,unobtrusive middle-aged man who lives alone.While he runs the errands in the place he works, he spends most of his time in the local dargah(a Sufi shrine built over the grave of a revered religious figure)by engaging himself with total abstinence and dhikr(a form of devotion,in which the worshiper is absorbed in the rhythmic repetition of the name of God or his attributes)Muharrem's uneventful life starts to take a bit different course when he is given to duty(by the leader dervish of the religious brotherhood)to take care of the financial matters like collecting the monthly rents for the religious order. Muharrem is obliged in the very matter he refrains from. He finds himself obliged to engage in worldly matters.The more he gets himself into this the more he vacillates because he notices that the religious order rented a shop to the men who take alcohol and in another example he oscillates to take the rent from a family who has barely any money. The more he gets himself in money matters the more dreams he has about sex alcohol and money. He wet-dreams of sleeping with the same woman every time.A day when he really feels suffocated he takes to the streets and he sees the same woman in a jewelery store. When he follows her, he notices that she is the very daughter of the dargah leader. At the end of the movie we see him pretty numb in his bed. Taqwa sheds a light on the inner-workings of political Islam. Religious brotherhoods surely provide unity among Muslims but most of these brotherhoods seek after only their interests. This is more like a business industry. They own shops, flats, private schools, courses. They do shopping at the places they own, they buy their own products, they commercialize their own system. The rest is actually the romance. Not so many of them really seek after total obedience to God or something. They just believe they do. That does not make them so harmful or something but this does not make them so different from their non-religious counterparts (either)like atheistic, uber-leftist-mason counterparts.


This is a rare example of an inner look at the Islamic sects and their organizations. Although the movie is a fiction, at times you may think you are watching a documentary of a Turkish Islamic sect and its rituals.

Tha main character, Muharrem is a devout and simple believer and a follower of the sect. He gets selected by his Efendi (sheikh of the sect) for collecting the rent money of the sect. This purely financial act affects Muharrem morally and psychologically.

Erkan Can plays an excellent Muharrem. Guven Kirac (Rauf the vice sheikh) and Meray Ulgen (the sheikh) are very very believable in their roles.

This probably one of the finest examples of the new Turkish cinema.


I watched this movie at the 2006 Toronto Film Festival, and enjoyed it.

However, I've been trying to work something out.

What did the people who were trying to bribe Muharrem want from him?

Did they want the Order to give them construction contracts?

Did they just want to get in his good books because he was a influential man in the community?

If anyone who has watched this has any idea, please post.

The director was present at the screening, and he was asked this question in the Q&A after the movie. He didn't really understand the question, I think it was lost in translation, as he only spoke Turkish.

Thanks.


The film is about a devoted man to God and his rise in a Way of Islamic society. The film focuses on an ordinary man's Islamic life to his interference with money affairs and the results of it. The psychological state of the man is analyzed from sociological way as well.

The film is great from two main aspects. The first aspect is Erkan Can's wonderful role play. Enormous acting performance. Just unbelievable. The other great side is, the film is shot at real historical places of Istanbul.

The only weakness of the film is the end part of it. The enormous entrance the psychological and sociological perfectness in the beginning was not given in as good as beginning.

Moreover as a philosopher I would like to comment that this film gives a side of Islamica philosophy both its sociology.


Why do we suffer?Do we need to?Cant we just pray to god and try to be a good person?Takva is looking for the answer of those questions.Muharrem is a very loyalty man to all.He immigrated from Algeria but after his parents death,he started to live alone.He works for the man which his father also used to.He prays a lot and he just tries to be a good people.He is one of the members of a well known sect.He always attends to the ceremony of the sect and one day the leader of the sect asks him if he can work for sect.Muharrem accepts it and starts to do material businesses of the sect.After that his life turns to a tragedy.Because he is not good at accounting and starts to have sin which he hadn't before.He also sees some unwanted dreams which are sexual.he thinks thats the punishment of life to him.The leader doesn't does not understand his situation and muharrem gets lost in the darkness of his soul.All the things are meaningless for him anymore.At the last sequence of the movie,he follows the hero of his dreams under the rain and he faces with the fact.The hero of his nightmare is his leader's daughter..


It's a good movie to get know a profile of the religious Muslims, to get know "sects" and the amazing, fascinating worship of them. To find answers to the questions like; "how does a sect process and what's happening inside of a sect?". But it doesn't give a political message, a movie that "sit on the fence". But I congratulate the director for at least his bravery to submit these kind of sources and to try to answer some questions or to ask some questions. The main actor Erkan Can has a great performance.

Besides the musics that are made by Replicas, (Gokce Akcelik) are great. Enjoy...


With Jack the Easter Rabbit (a drugged out, cool, jive rabbit if ever there was one) about to retire the gang decides to roast him (as in Friar's Club not on a spit). Each character gets up and tells a memorable moment in Jack's life. One of my favorite scenes involved another time Jack thought about retiring and auditions were held to replace him. All the animals came out and failed miserably in one way or another. The best was when a scrawny, nasally, high pitched sounding bat snatched up his little easter basket with his tiny feet and began singing "Here comes Peter Easter Bat.." only to face plant into a tree.

To this day I get strange looks from friends when I try to describe this surreal scene. A MUST see. Nelvana, Re-release the this comic cult classic!! Free Jack, Madame Melegg and Scrawny Chicken!!

I recently contacted Nelvana and they told me there were plans to do a DVD release but not for sometime. Like the comment below, we need to start a petition to move the date forward! Hupshuh, Hupshun people!


I have been searching everywhere trying to find this TV special I could not remember the name. My sister and I both remember it but no one else seems to. All we could remember was the line the bunny said.... and I did one last search and came across this. The line that struck me so funny was the one that someone else wrote "so people don't think I'm crazy" That's how we felt too. We were thinking we'd dreamed it or something. But I am so happy that I now know the name of it. It's funny because we would ask people if they knew it and they'd look at us like we had three heads.I also agree it should be on TV annually. It's a great easter special and should be enjoyed by all !! Cheers


I've been looking for a way to buy this on DVD for ages (I'd take VHS too).

I remember watching this every year when I was a kid. It's very well done, and probably even more funny for adults. I don't understand how none of my friends have heard of it, but I'd love to get my hands on a copy so people won't think I'm crazy when I walk around the office saying "hupcha hupcha quick like a bunny". Right now, they don't get it.

The premise is that Jack, the Easter Bunny has decided to retire. His fellow animal celebrities (and a few special guests, like Santa) are having a roast to send him off. The special goes through his life to tell the story of how he became the Easter Bunny. Very tongue in cheek, and very funny - I'd love to see it again.

I'm ready to sign a petition!


I loved this movie, and miss it so much, especially with Easter right around the corner. I don't know why they don't show it annually! It's a classic. I love the line "Hupshuh, hupshuh, quick like a bunny". My friends and I quoted the movie for months after seeing it. I, for some reason, thought it was a seasonal show, like Charlie Brown, or the Garfield seasonal specials, and every year would look through the TV guide hoping against hope that it would appear. I think it was only aired the one time? It's amazing how these things stick with you. I can, 25 years later (ouch!) still picture Jack and Skinny Chicken perfectly. Anyone know who to contact to "petition" to get this released? Anyone? Or does anyone know WHY it hasn't been released or at least re-aired? Anytime they want to release it, I will happily buy it. My son would love it for sure!


Yes! I could not stop laughing! Loved the audition scene: "Here comes Peter Easter Bat, Flapping ::wham::" (and he goes face first into a tree). Why did this hilarious show not make a reappearance? I was a young kid in grammar school at the time, but I do recall how funny, original, and unexpected the humor was. Why do I also remember something about: "It slices and dices and even chops, tomatoes and mushrooms and even old mops... but it won't work on steel girders..." How funny was that? I'll forever love Rankin/Bass's The Easter Bunny is Coming to Town, but this was a refreshing rebel. It would be nice if the producers released this show for sale on DVD.


i would like to see the DVD on this one too. I wrote, and helped produce and also threw in the voice of Ratso Rat some 27 years ago. There were a lot of talented people involved and I always thought it would be a holiday classic. Not sure what happened. But I've enjoyed the comments I've read. i do have a VHS copy of it from a series called NELVANAMATION. It's pretty messed up though. Nelvana itself was sold i believe to Corus and that may be the problem. Hup (sha) Hup (sha) quick like a bunny was a phrase of my mother's to move the kids along.

garret morris at the time of production as a member of Saturday night Live and had a famous catch phrase = "Baseball's been very, very, good to me. I adapted to "Easter's been very, very good to me" for the Jack Rabbit character.


I find it hard to believe that I could dislike any film starring Russell Crowe, but this one is a complete waste of his talent -- and my time. I'd like to say that his acting job was a "rose among the thorns" but I don't think that even he was convincing. He was a foul-tongued protagonist [with an ugly hair-style that even his character couldn't have thought was becoming] who over-reacted to everything in this tortured and unbelievable plot. In retrospect, I wonder why I even gave it a "3".


I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. It's a well-produced, good-looking action/thriller flick with sharp, witty dialogue and great performances from the lead actors. Russell Crowe is charismatic and very watchable. I especially liked the morally ambiguous tone - Crowe's character isn't a clean-cut good guy. Well worth a look.


"No Way Back" is your typical generic action movie. With it's typical generic plot, it's typical generic clichés and it's typical generic run of the book characters. I wasn't really expecting anything great on account on any of these things, but what I wanted to see was some good action and yet it failed even there.

There is really only one scene that could actually be worth seeing again and that is the shootout in the beginning. It lasted for about a minute, but it was nicely choreographed, with some relatively good use of slow motion and gun play. Leaving a good first impression. Sadly it does not last long as the movie apparently ran out of budget after that scene was shot and everything went down hill from then on. With some atrocious over the top acting, incredibly annoying female lead and a weak attempt at creating dramatic tension and development between characters. I understand that the filmmakers were running on a tight budget. But they could have at least tried to hide that fact. There are actually several moments when the main character is conversing with his superior in the FBI headquarters, and well it looked like they were shot in some abandoned warehouse. Problems don't stop there though. The movie's what could've been only redeeming factor namely the action scenes besides the one I've spoken of earlier aren't really all that good. It's like two completely different people directed them, with the quality of the latter ones being on the same level as a Dolph Lundgren film.

Going in to plot details is unnecessary because chances are you've heard all of this before and seen all of this before done in about half the action movies released in the last 20 years.

Besides it's decent beginning there isn't really anything entertaining in "No Way Back". A waste of time .


Different music : (I Am Onto You) is so sensitive piece of music. You don't run into anything like it in the usual action flicks. Its sad sense moved me memorably. And it deepened a romantic feel, not about the events but about the movie itself.

Different lead : well, sure Crowe isn't familiar with Hollywood fares. He's not Willis, Sly or Denzel. But the 31 year old actor at the moment had to do one to prove that he can be a star. He added much seriousness and toughness to the stereotype he was handed. It was his thriller, and it was good. Generally it is not rare to see Crowe playing a role in a thriller; but it is rare to see a usual role, as that, played by Crowe.

Different case : the Asian characters were always the same in the American movies, the bad same to be precise ! Certain shameful marks had been adhered to them for years and years. You'd feel another treating since the early 1990s. I think that the entrance of Asian funds in the Hollywood production game got a lot to do with the reason of this transmutation. Here, it's more than clear from the death of the Asian girl at the start like a martyr to the Asian evil guy who turns out to be an honest friend after all, and a criminal yet with a heart of gold (suits perfectly a 1995 movie !).

Aside from strange homage to Kubrick's (Clockwork Orange) at the movie's intro, the writing and the directing of Frank A. Cappello was fine. Although he just recycled the same old crap again but in entertaining and remarkable way. Everything runs so fast and thrilling but it lacked the big budget that could put some logic to the illogical matters (I didn't buy the fallen plane's sequence for instance, with dazzling special effects it would've been more effective). I loved the most the conversations of the lead and his little son; that was a bit different and amusing.

It is suitable for 90 minutes of fun, and it doesn't allege anything but that. It could've been another forgettable, averagely produced, B-movie. But its simple differences gave it a distinct character that worked.


'No Way Back' reminded me of were the original 'Die Hard' and 'Speed'. A cop who's job gets increasingly personal. A put-upon hero who gets his mettle tested to the limit and loved ones are in harms way. A white-knuckle ride all the way with all kinds of action, twists and turns in the plot. Before I saw it I asked around and read fan reviews. The predominating message was that you could skip it because a particular character is annoying and whiny. I wouldn't allow that to stop you - especially if you are a Crowe fan. In addition to being an action film, it's got a sense of humor and a sense of humanity. There are some wonderful performances by two Japanese actors in the film, and one shocking one by anyone who's seen 'Beverly Hills 90210'.


I believe the only reason anyone would have seen this film is because Russell is in it.

That was my reason.

Russell does well in his role.

Love his hair cut in this one.

A better script was needed.

But, we have to keep in mind, this was not a big budget film.

Helen's character Mary could GET on the audience's nerves as well, even though she was a good person & meant well.

You could tell why she got on Zack's nerves.

Course, she has not done much in her career. When you consider the best thing she ever did was her guest spot on "Seinfeld".

By the book, not really exciting action scenes.

To be seen only if you are a fan of Russell's.


Watching this movie was very boring to me because it's very predictable. There is always one cop, one lady and few bad guys that are looking more funny too me, then dangerous (Michael Lerner and Kristopher Logan). And of course we all know that ending will be happy. It is obvious that we are watching solid B-film with Russell Crowe. Even Crowe had to pass through this kind of action movie so one day he could become an established actor. It is nice to see the beginning of the career for Crowe but the whole movie doesn't presents anything new. Only Russell Crowe's performance is on top, cause he looks like ordinary cop, he's funny and he showed us all that one day he will be star. But path to the stars is always rough.


This movie is a technical Mess. The opening scene shows the villain holding a modern fragmentation grenade and two minutes later it turns into a WWII vintage "Pineapple". They must have shot these two scenes months apart and obviously they lost the original prop. The doctor doing the autopsy pulls a "slug" from the body and states, "Another shell is found in the lower spine". That would be the first time a bullet "casing" ever caused a mortal wound. How did they use for a technical consultant on this movie, some 22 year old Vassar graduate?


I had a negative bias towards this movie because of the description that I had read about it, but soon after it started I was impressed by the camera work and technical quality (including the special effects) of this movie. The fighting scenes were sometimes unrealistic, though the gun with two bullets actually had only two bullets in it. In general, I was positively impressed, though the end left a lot to be desired. The flight attendant caught in all the fighting acted quite well, even though her role was quite irritating at times.


The Story about a boy-genius who wants nothing, than being a normal boy, is a well played and charmful story. The Boy is played by a real-life-boy-genius who plays the piano amazingly. Grandpa is the same actor as "Hitler" in "Der Untergang" and shows herewith his incredible talent for various roles.

The Movie has no gunfights, carcrashes or nudescenes. Its a simple, heartwarming story, which takes you away from the fast and hectic daily life into a almost 2-hour-story, which is nothing but good and charming.

A silent movie, but nevertheless a real good one.


Sure this is a movie that everyone loves to hate. A foreign movie about a boy who is gifted on the piano. His parents notice this and immediately set about to make sure the boy is properly educated and makes sure he plays the piano. The boy just wants, you know, to be a boy. No one seems to understand except his grandfather. So you know, they have a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP. Sure, this is a predictable and syrupy feel-good fluff, but damned if I didn't enjoy it. I LOVED this movie. This is the type of movie that you could say the sum is equal to it's parts, as all the cast and the script combine together to make this as enjoyable as possible. A special nod goes out to the 3 kids playing Vitus, who are all quite great, and to Bruno Ganz who is quite marvelous here too. Again, this wont make any awards list, or be even nominated for anything (it's just a little TOO predictable), but this sure would make audiences cheer.


I saw this movie at the Palm Springs Film Festival and absolutely loved it. I didn't want it to end. It just got better and better. I almost didn't go to see it because there were so many other choices. I thought it was just going to be about a child prodigy, but it was about so much more. There were many stories besides the many one, and every one of them was unique and kept my interest. Screenwriters could learn a lot by analyzing the elements that composed this film and then writing more good ones like this. The acting was superb. I thought that the young piano player stole the show. He was perfectly cast. However, the real life piano player who played the character was also excellent in his role. It was so nice to have a complex plot without being in the middle of a story with family members screaming at each other. They may have had different plans for the piano player's life, but at heart they all loved each other.


We just saw Vitus at the San Francisco International Film Festival, with an audience that packed in the theatre and gave the director a round of applause at the end. In the context of Fredi Murer's career, this film address themes that he explored in earlier works such as Alpine Fire and Full Moon, but here with a lighter, less moralistic tone. Murer clearly has a great rapport with children and brings out a credible performance from the nonprofessional actor (but real-life musical virtuoso) Teo Gheorghiu -- especially considering that so much of the film rests on this young pianist's shoulders. Bruno Ganz, whom English-speaking audiences rarely get to hear performing in his own Zurich dialect, unsentimentally embodies the traditional Swiss values that are disappearing under a wave of American-style materialism and yuppie anxiety.

Parents, take your young geniuses to see this film, and take its humane message of love, self-recognition and forgiveness to heart.


What a great movie to come out of Switzerland, though for those who have followed Fredy Murer's career this shouldn't come as much of a surprise. His humanity truly transcends geographical and language boundaries and what he has to tell us about growing up, and raising children, in a funny, heartwarming but never condescending story that sounds true every step of the way, is simply extraordinary.

The casting is outstanding, too, from the two young real-life pianists to another subtly powerful performance by Bruno Ganz. Sony Classics will release it this summer (I just saw it at the Tribeca Film Festival) - go and see it if you missed it. Hard to believe that they apparently had a hard time raising money for this, but now it seems to have all been worth it. It was also the country's official Acadamy Award entry for best foreign language film (though it didn't win).

Got a chance to talk to the director after the screening, such a nice man, too...


I just saw this on a plane (and overseas flight) and I watched it twice, as it was so good. The acting was superb, the script very credible. This is perfect art-house cinema or Netflix material. So when do we get it here? Even just on video? (Is this where I whine that pleasant little gems like this go unnoticed by dumb Americans?) Besides, how many Swiss films will you ever see in your entire life? BTW, the piano playing fooled me entirely. I kept looking and trying to figure out how it was done (hence, the dumb American comment). It will be very easy for anyone who is smarter than the average bear to identify with this story.


Saw a screening tonight at Tribeca Film Festival - good news for American Audiences: Sony Classics will be distributing Vitus here beginning June 07.

Director Muller says Vitus grew out of his own childhood fantasy: to be a genius. Other fantasies also play out in this completely guileless, charming story.

(Teo Gheorghiu is, in fact, a brilliant pianist. Now 14, he played in person before the screening and proved that, in fact, all the musicianship on display is real. The 5-yr old Vitus also plays.) Happier, and funnier, than Little Man Tate. IMO, what is thoroughly unpredictable about this film is the absence of nasty, bitter adults and children you'd have likely found in an American version ... except for the "boss's son" character, who is a cliché, but not one you have to look at for long.

Vitus demonstrates that fantasy can be a personal, human pastime, not just a cartoon or computer-generated effect. Terrific little film.


Vitus portrays a kid who struggles to choose between his parents dreams and his own. Anyone with over ambitious parents can relate! The acting is incredible. Seeing the grandfather in the role was excellent- I first saw him as Hitler in the German film Untergang (Downfall) about Hitler's last days. He does a marvelous job in both films. Anyone interested in foreign film should see it- it's stirred up a bit of chaos for directly portraying Hitler and evoking sympathy for him.

In Vitus, the young boy who plays Vitus at age twelve is an actual Piano prodigy. There was no need to fake piano playing- he really is playing in the film. The person who elected to do this was genius, they added and incredible amount of credibility to the entire feature. The movie is excellent and comes to the US soon. A US remake is already being discussed- a testament to the excellence of the film.


VITUS is a film from Switzerland that has garnered many accolades and nearly won an Oscar. And yes, it is that good! Written by Fredi M. Murer, Peter Luisi, and Lukas B. Suter and directed by Murer, VITUS explores the life of a child genius, a lad who from the age of five is obviously gifted in that he can play Bach et al after only a few months lessons and is able to read books and understand concepts that make his stance in a regular kindergarten class untenable. But the film is less about the gifts of a child prodigy than it is a story of how a genius child longs for a normal childhood. It is in the telling of the story that the audience is privileged to discover the joys and trials in a child's view of being extraordinary.

Vitus - played at age 6 by Fabrizio Borsani and at age 12 by Teo Gheorghiu - is referred to as a little Mozart by his parents Helen (Julika Jenkins) and Leo (Urs Jucker), and by the family friends who are amazed at Vitus' gift as a pianist. But as is often the case with gifted children, they are overprotected, not allowed to engage in the normal activities of being a kid. Vitus finds consolation in his grandfather (a brilliant Bruno Ganz) whose creative energy includes Vitus in his longing to fly and to build complex machines. While Vitus continues his love for the piano he also takes risks with his beloved grandfather. Vitus' intelligence serves him well in analyzing the complexities of his father's job and his grandfather's role in that position, and it is his genius that leads the family in a direction no one thought possible. And of course with every story of an extraordinary young lad adapting to a puzzling world, there is also a love interest: Isabel at age 12 (Kristina Lykowa) is his fun-loving babysitter and at age 19 (Tamara Scarpellini) is the queen of his inexperienced heart and fill a void in Vitus' life that otherwise would be empty. Fitting all of these subplots together is made magical by Vitus' constant playing of classical music - a feat the young actor is capable of performing on his own! The cast of this film is not only gifted but is also endearing. Bruno Ganz is a brilliant actor and he is matched by both of the young actors who play Vitus. The story is tender but avoids bathos. It simply is an uplifting, inspiring, entertaining film. A Must See! Grady Harp


I loved that this child was not only musically gifted, which I expected from the descriptors of the movie. He was mathematically a genius as well. But, the most amazing part was his understanding of psychology -- the ability to solve severe financial problems for his grandfather, the ability to manipulate everyone in his world into thinking he was normal for several years. The movie is one of the best I have seen in, literally, decades. And, then, there is the piano performance of a real musical savant. So, this is the story -- but the ability of the script and the director to move me into childhood, to remember what some of the issues of autonomy are, to see a family who loves and cares for their child, but also faces issues of financial pressures and job loss. This is a movie we can all relate to on many levels. What a great show!! I hope it becomes available on DVD -- I'll buy about 10 to give away. Dr. Margaret


Wonderful movie with a great storyline and good actors.

Vitus, a little swiss genius, starts reading books in kindergarden, drives his schoolteachers crazy with his unbeatable wit and turns out to be a piano prodigy at the age of 5. His mother is very keen on not wasting any time for him becoming a star, but Vitus has different plans and knows how to put them into reality. And how he succeeds in following his own path, becoming a star in the end anyway and manages just by the way to solve the financial problems of his whole family, is really worth seeing.

9 out of 10 for two hours of clever and heartwarming entertainment.


Vitus is the story of the "wunderkind" Vitus, a very talented boy who defends himself against the pressure of his parents to become a famous piano player. The movie is very moving and highly entertaining. Bruno Ganz finally manages to let you forget his turn as Hitler in his role here as the understanding grandfather of Vitus. The weakness of the movie are some of the child actors, who can not convince all the time. Theo Gheorghiu is excellent, though, and it is fun to support his character Vitus, once you have found out that he is fooling everyone. You will see things in this movie that you might have dreamed about as a child - such as showing the grown ups that you are smarter than they are and flying an airplane.


These two current movies both have boy protagonists (Joshua is eleven and a half and Vitus is ultimately twelve) who happen to be both intellectually brilliant and piano prodigies. 'Joshua,' a psychological thriller with horror overtones, is scary and depressing. 'Vitus' is an upbeat fairy tale children could watch, if they can read subtitles: dialogue is mostly in Swiss German and Hoch Deutsch (with a little English). Neither of these films is quite an unmitigated success, but both have interesting things to say about the plight of being super-smart and prematurely accomplished. Maybe Joshua just wants to be loved; Vitus says he just wants to be a normal boy; but fortunately, there's more to it than that in both cases. Together these are two poles of attitudes toward such young people.

Joshua's posh Upper West Side "haute bourgeoisie" or "über-yuppie" life takes a dive when a new baby enters the scene. His college-boy-jovial hedge-fund-trader dad Brad (Sam Rockwell) is videoing the infant, and when Joshua ((Jacob Kogan) plays one of his virtuoso pieces, they just ask him to quiet down. Also present in that first scene are his born-again grandma (Celia Weston) and his gay musical show-biz uncle (Dallas Roberts). The uncle is the kindred spirit in the room.

It's funny: both Joshua and Vitus wear little suits and have tidy mops of hair and seem a bit undersize for their ages. But Joshua is a bad seed who spins out an aura of evil and fear off the screen as time goes on, while Vitus is geeky and a prig (for a while anyway) and has a lust for his baby sitter that's at best nutty, but he's otherwise ultimately sweet. Joshua brings down his family, and Vitus saves his. Vitus becomes a successful entrepreneur, and learns to dress casually.

Joshua is like an incubus. He just stands there, sometimes scaring Brad or his mom Abby (Vera Farmiga) by popping up behind them. His face and voice are without affect. Even when he says "Mommy? Daddy? I love you," it's creepy.

Vitus is distant too, initially anyway. He doesn't fit in at school and insults his teachers. But as a small child he has a down-to-earth babysitter, Isabel (played by Kristina Lykawa, later by Tamara Scarpellini), and they enjoy hanging out together. She gets fired and replaced by his English mother (Julike Jenkins), who has blossomed into a controlling stage mom. But where Joshua only occasionally sees his simpatico uncle, Vitus gets to spend a lot of time with his wonderfully relaxed and entertaining granddad (Bruno Ganz, anything but a Hitler this time) , who makes things and goes on walks with the boy and talks about his dreams of being a pilot way back when.

Bad things start happening in Joshua's household from day one (the film takes us, rather harrowingly, through 70-plus). The baby is fine for less than a week when she begins to cry constantly, which brings Abby back to the shaky state she was in during Joshua's early stages--and then some. Perhaps if they'd found an older nanny for the kids, or just the baby, and paid more attention to Josh, the household would not have come apart. Joshua has some very suspenseful moments. You may think the boy will go for the baby, but that's a red herring. His methods are more devious than that and involve night vision film-making, Egyptian methods of mummification, and a performance of "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" that is redesigned as if composed by Bartok. (Like the two boys who play Vitus, Fabrizio Borsani and Teo Gheogiou, the boy who plays Joshua, Jacob Korgan, is a genuine piano prodigy).

'Joshua' has a good, ironic sense of its eastern urban white milieu, and though it may fizzle away a bit at the end, it does make you genuinely uncomfortable. This independent first film by Ratliff uses the conventional sound effects and disintegrating set devices of the horror film in fresh ways. But making Joshua into a monster limits where things can go. Rockwell, Farmiga, and Westson are good insofar as they avoid drifting into caricature. Ratliff previously made a documentary about fundamentalist Christians, and the grandma's attempt to "save" Joshua becomes a realistically creepy element. She gets her reward. This is an indictment of insensitive parents, but its picture of a wunderkind demonizes the type.

'Vitus' is a softer world, but this boy is suffering too. In a way his burly dad Leo (Urs Jucker), who creates hearing aids and becomes CEO of a company, is another version of the squash-playing yuppie represented by Sam Rockwell, but he seems more present. The problem is Vitus doesn't fit in in school and then his mom takes him from his childhood piano teacher, who he says he loves, to a famous lady who declares "a rational mind and a warm heart, those are what make a great pianist." "That's why I want to be a vet," Vitus answers, refusing to play for her or become her student. Eventually he contrives to stage an accident after which he seems to have lost his special talent and his high IQ. He precedes to carry out some exploits with his granddad that lead to the film's conclusion. This could be rather fun for a young viewer, though some American critics have found this charming story "simplistic" or "sappy." It does perhaps leave you a little flat because its feel-good finale is too fanciful. 'Joshua' is a film that's riveting and disturbing: its narrow horror focus makes for a concentrated effect. But it's much more fun to watch ''Vitus, which brings up the same issues--about how it's tough to be exceptional--without demonizing brilliance. Teo Gheorghiu may be a little but nerdy, but he has a sensitive face and delivers his lines in ways that are sprightly and nuanced.