Charming gem of a film has been unfairly lost to the world a mere year after its release, which is a real shame. This is a powerful statement about people and life.

The plot of this film has a crashed American flier, two South Korean soldiers and three North Korean soldiers all ending up in a small remote village that seems untouched by the civil war that raging in the rest of the country. At first there is tension between the two waring sides, but the slowly the two sides begin to see eye to eye. Unfortunately beast of war takes no sides and it isn't long before the violence threatens the peaceful village.

Yes its clichéd, and yes you'll probably know where its going, but this is still a charming little film that touches both the heart and the head. There is magic in this tale, both on screen and off as the simple story wins over the audience like the village wins over the sworn enemies. The film makers seem to feel that there is a magical quality to living and they have infused their film with some truly magical moments, how else do you describe a hostage situation that falls apart because the hostages wander off to do other things? This is a movie for the head and the heart. You will be touched by some wonderful characters and the world they live in. As some people say there is magic all around you and in a film like this you'll believe it. It begins with the crashing pilot noticing a moth and it ends with the final image that is both heartfelt and bittersweet. For the head there is another meditation on the stupidity of war and the pointlessness of it all. And while it may seem to be yet another warning that war will destroy all that we love, its a warning we can not hear often enough.

If the film has any real flaw its that its probably too long at two and a quarter hours. I don't know what you'd cut, but it just seemed a bit long to me.

Still, I can't recommend this film enough. Its a charming off the beaten track sort of film that deserves a bigger audience. Those looking for a change from the stereotypical Asian horror or action films should look here. The same should be said to anyone simply looking for a good film to see.

8 out of 10


I love almost every single moment of the movie, however all the "Americans" including the "Korean-Americans" were horrible actors! c'mon.... wth??? I think they were limited on selection "We CANNOT, Lose THIS, important, LOCATION!" the general speaks in segments, emphasizing at the wrong times, making it just so fake. The air squad that sky dived was also bad actors. So it just wasn't the main American actor from Dongmokgol. Speaking of actors/actresses, the others were excellent! Well anyways, I watched it with several others and they had the same opinion as I did, and I was really disappointed in the American actors. Besides some of the horrible acting, there was a weird part in the plot that I didn't particularly like.

The squad that went to same Seu Miss (smith, lol still cracks me up), got killed by butterflies? These guys are supposed to be pros. Not only that, they didn't even bring radios either??? Not one of them had a radio or some way to contact their commander? Not very likely... and bombing an area with little information about the terrain. I don't know too much about military tactics, but it seems odd to me.

Don't get me wrong though, I gave this a 9! I loved the movie and music, just some cons that bothered me.


This movie wins the 8th edition of the "Udine FarEastFilm Festival". I saw it in this occasion. The music by Joe Hisaishi has made me dream. The director says he was inspired by two Italian movies:

"Mediterraneo" directed by Gabriele Salvatores because both of them talks about war and soldiers who lives in peace;

"La vita è bella" (Life is Beautiful) directed by Roberto Benigni in fact both of them introduce some people's sacrifice to save the innocent ones.

I think it's beautiful, and I recommend to whoever to see it. Life would be more beautiful if the war didn't exist.


This Movie Is Very Funny Like When That NK Soldier Dropped A Grenade And The S Soldier Layed On Top Of It. The Villagiers Were Like What The Heck ARe You Doing? The Grenade Didn't Blow Up But When The S Soldier Threw It Backwards The Grenade Blew Into A Corn House And POPCORN CAME OUT! Laughing Out Loud! Its Pretty Sad When That Scared Medic Dies After He Gets Mad When His friend dies and at the beginning when all those innocent NK Soldiers die especially that wounded soldier.

This Is A Truly Amazing Movie That Anyone Should Watch. I Give It A 10 Out Of 10. Its Tae Guk Gi Comedy Style! This Movie Is Really Comedy And Is The Best Movie Rated In Korea.


Someone else in here mentioned how naive the movie is about the North-South Korea relations.... Forget that. How about "How naive the whole movie is" ??? The idea the whole movie is based on is cute, and thats the only reason I wanted to watch it anyway, but besides that, it doesn't deliver at any point. Predictable story, childish lines, uninspired digital effects, boring characters, ridiculous foreign actors and so it goes. I see here its director's debut film, so I hope next time, he will find a better way to express himself and spend the production's money.

I love Korean Cinema, but this one is a bad movie. Really!


If we give up the realism on the movie, this title shines. Three North Korean soldiers and two South Korean soldiers join the care-free villagers whose life is totally out of concern about the war and politics. The message of this movie, in my opinion, seems to be the recovery of humanity via companionship based on the naturalism.

Some scenes are very brilliant and mesmerizing in the middle of the cruelty of war. However, what lacks in this meticulously carved anti-war flick is the actualities of war, and the director purposefully neglected it in sole order to provide the third opinion on the war- companionship between enemies against the dichotomy of winner/sinner and/or victory/defeat.

But why on earth should we seek for the companionship that is hard to imagine between enemies during the war? The movie adumbrate a cynic message that the Korean War is not declared by Korean folks, but by any other external races, represented by UN troops in the movie. Too naive perspective on the "enemy turns friend" issue spoils its own value as a report on the actualities of the Korean War, and it is really hard to dispute that the image of war and peace in this movie is totally based on the populism toward the North Korea which gains currency in South Korea now.


When I review these very early films, I cut some of them a lot of slack because of when they were made. Really modern looking films with plots, decent acting and good camera-work were still just a couple years off when this film was made. The norm was a one to two minute film featuring a very mundane topic such as babies smiling, someone nailing a nail or a lady cooking. So, when this film features a prankster nailing two ladies' dresses to a fence, it is an absolute laugh riot FOR THAT TIME PERIOD. If made just a few years later, the film would have surely merited a 3 or 4. But it still is a mildly funny and watchable short.


From my personal experience, most independent films these days tend to be overly preachy and showoff-ish. It's almost as though the new blood directors are shouting "look at me" rather than "look at my story." When I had an opportunity to watch "Praey" I was pleasantly surprised. Refreshing young director Tiffany Sinclair has laid out a fully developed story with mostly fully developed characters. I won't bore you by trying to tell the plot, quite simply the tale centers on a woman with a mission, seeking revenge on a sordid villain, while meeting all kinds of creepy and/or angelic characters along the way. Somewhat derivative but never rote, the story mixes unequal amounts of drama, terror, gore and the supernatural and winds up mostly satisfying to fans of each genre in the end. Sinclair adds just enough spooks and scares and unexpected twists to make the proceedings feel fresh and inventive. Sinclair herself and Prawin Adhikari are the actors to watch and both give excruciatingly believable performances that should have you cringing in pain right along with them. The rest of the cast is not as memorable but are about par for these shoestring productions but rarely, if ever, negatively impact upon the audience's enjoyment of the story.

You may not recognize the name Tiffany Sinclair just yet but she has put plenty of potential on the screen with "Praey" and you should hear a lot from her in the near future. Her deft use of an intimate but non-intrusive camera and her ability to get compelling performances from her cast should make Sinclair a hot commodity.


I travelled across the country to the NY Independent Film Festival and caught this amazing little film there. Made on a shoe-string budget, this proves how a lot of imagination, talent and creativity can make a great film even without pie-in-the-sky Hollywood budgets and ultra CGI effects. The plot may seem familiar, with elements of THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME (1932) and perhaps traces of EVIL DEAD (1981) woven into the story of a woman on the search for her kidnapped daughter; but director/lead actress Tiffany Sinclair takes what might seem rote and turns it into a compelling affair. Some might nitpick that it runs a little too long but whenever Sinclair is on the screen you will be riveted. I wish there was a complete cast list on the IMDb because I wanted to note the great supporting performance by the guy who plays Baker - the "john" who takes Sinclair's Sara on the ride of her life (or death). With a great performance by Sinclair and spectacular camera and editing work, PRAEY should be a film that will delight horror and suspense buffs for years to come either on DVD or late night television. Please try to find this film when it goes into distribution.


Caught a screener of Praey but wasn't expecting much. To my surprise I was thoroughly entertained for an hour & 1/2. The plusses: good story, compelling lead actress, enough plot twists & turns to keep me interested, a strong ending, a middle eastern guy who reminded me of great bit players from the 1940s and an overall professional look about it. The negs: dragged a teeny little bit, somewhat weak villain, a very slow couple of opening scenes that could lose you if you don't hang in long enough. I don't understand the title and maybe that could be changed. Some scenes play like thrillers and some play like horror. The director managed to bring it all together and make it very easy to follow and the plot was engrossing once things got started. Should this director make another film I will certainly look for it and watch it.


I saw this film at the New York festival last June and was impressed by the intensity of the narrative: with a small cast and a small budget Ms. Sinclair draws the viewer in and never lets you rest as the heroine has her life destroyed and then is thrust in a circumstance where she has to confront the monster who has made her life a living hell. It takes a side trip into ghost story that, while unexpected is right on in keeping it from being just a take on M.D.Game. Her low budget works for her in keeping things tight and paranoid, it never feels cheap, only focused. It is one of the best woman in jeopardy films Ihave ever seen.


I was lucky enough to catch this one during a visit to Manhattan earlier this year. I sort of forgot about it but seeing it listed on the IMDb jogged my memory. This is in the spirit of those 1970s films with a wronged woman out for bloody revenge. In general you can tell that this is a low budget production all around but there is a genuine spark with the director/star and most of the acting. Since I don't have it on tape or DVD to check the character's names, I'm sure if I remember who was who. But the lead villain was kind of weak, there could have been a better casting choice there. He came across too soft to be real and like he was reading the script as he was going along and overall not very believable. It would of improved the overall quality if they had someone better in that role. The lead actress, Tiffany Sinclare is strong and gives a very interesting performance. When she is on the screen you are drawn like a magnet to watch. The Turkish guy who plays one of the bad guy's henchmen is also very good and you can tell he should have a good career ahead of him. The scenes with the police are also not too strong and could have been better done. There is a lot of violence, violence towards women especially, so steer clear if that bothers you. But there's a good tight story with a touch of the ghostly supernatural. This would make for a good Halloween night film showing.


I decided to watch this movie on a whim with absolutely no expectations and I was completely charmed by it. Sure, the plot is your usual 30's rom com hogwash where a bad girl meets a good boy, but the script is unusually well-written for a B-picture and provides many laughs and cute romantic moments you'll sigh over. The 2 leads, Dixie Lee and Joe Morrison look unbelievably cute together, though Joe is a bit of a wooden actor. His main purpose in this movie is just to stand around looking cute and sing love songs, which he does remarkably well, so we can forgive him that. Dixie Lee, Bing Crosby's unfortunate first wife, does very well here as she cracks wise and sings. What makes this B movie extra-special are Burns and Allen as supporting characters, and all their gags are not to be missed. Another thing that makes this movie oh so lovable are the marvelous 30's tunes. My favorites were Dixie Lee's solo "You Got Me Doin' Things" and Joe's midnight lullaby to Dixie, "Let Me Sing You to Sleep". Joe also gives a very lovely rendition of the Tchaikovsky's "Nur Wer Die Sehnsucht Kennt".

Unfortunately, the movie suffers when it takes a melodramatic turn in the last 10 minutes but the ending is happy (it's a comedy after all!) and Burns and Allen save the ending somewhat with their antics. Despite all the film's small faults, it's terribly charming, and if you like 30's comedies or musicals I highly recommend it. It'll leave you with a warm, fuzzy feeling inside.


This is a very pleasant little romantic comedy, similar in storyline and tone to a lot of other unpretentious films of the 1930s. What distinguishes it, in my mind, is the acting of the two romantic leads, Joe Morrison and Dixie Lee. While Burns and Allen receive top billing, the film really belongs to this romantic couple. George and Gracie are always lots of fun, as they are here, but, to my surprise, I found myself enjoying the love story more. When you think of the love interests in 30s comedies, such as in the Marx Brothers films, you can't help but think of the words 'sappy,''bland,' and 'obnoxious.' But Morrison and Lee are actually very charming, and give a poignancy to the story that lesser actors couldn't do.

Morrison has an easy manner, a nice voice, and an appealing personality. He really makes you believe in this nice guy. A popular radio singer, he seems to have made few films. He is good in "The Old Fashioned Way," 1934, with W.C. Fields, and in "Four Hours to Kill!", 1935, among others. It's a shame he didn't have a longer career.

Dixie Lee is sensational. Aside from being incredibly gorgeous, she has a beautiful voice, an even more appealing manner, and is an excellent actress. It would be easy to coast through a part like this-- that of the hard-boiled (but softhearted) dame, looking for love in the big city. But she invests the part with real tenderness and pathos, and one feels the tragedy of her attempts to shake off her seedy carnival past. She is a very sensitive actress, and uses her face, body, and voice in very effective ways. And watch how expressively she uses her eyes. She has beautiful eyes, and you can really feel her emotions in them. Not always an easy thing for an actor to do. She is so wonderful in this part, that one can't help regretting that she didn't make more pictures. I imagine she was pretty busy being Mrs. Bing Crosby, and raising a family. But she would have been good in some of the other light romances Paramount made so well, perhaps even co-starring with her husband.

Dixie reminds me of those other early 30s stars Nancy Carroll, Ann Dvorak and Mae Clarke, whose careers also petered out by the middle of the decade. Perhaps along with Carroll and Dvorak, Dixie has been largely forgotten by people today. Clarke is remembered for her more famous movies, like "The Public Enemy," "Waterloo Bridge," and "Frankenstein," and Carroll and Dvorak do have some similarly memorable films. But Dixie Lee only made a handful of films, as leads and second leads, and some of them have been lost. So she doesn't have a large body of work to study. A few of her other films are around- the Fox all-star musical "Happy Days," 1929; "No Limit," 1931, as the sidekick of Clara Bow; "Night Life in Reno," 1931, in a small part as a sexy husband stealer; "Quick Millions," 1931, in an unbilled bit as a secretary, (in a scene with George Raft), and a couple of others. She sings a charming song in "Manhattan Love Song," 1934, which is available on DVD. It's interesting in that when she married Bing Crosby, she was a bigger star than he was, and by 1935, he was a superstar, and her career was over. But she was good, and she shines in this film.

Actor/director Elliott Nugent made a number of good films, including five Bob Hope movies (such as "My Favorite Brunette)," as well as "She Loves Me Not," 1934, starring Dixie's husband Bing. His father, J.C. Nugent, plays Vi's father here. He also acted in a number of films, including Lon Chaney's last film, "The Unholy Three," in 1930, and "The Last Flight," 1931.

"Love in Bloom" isn't a major film from that stellar year, 1935, but it is an appealing one, and it has real heart. In a story that could have just been clichéd and sappy, it manages to make you care for this Depression-era couple. And there is just enough humor to keep it from getting too maudlin. Burns and Allen fans might be disappointed that they don't have bigger parts, but they are also good here, and help advance the story. George in particular is quite sympathetic, and plays it straight in a number of scenes. And Gracie, zany as usual, has some wonderful bits as well.

So don't be put off by this film. Give it a chance, and take it for what it is. And watch Dixie Lee. She really was a wonderful actress. And, reportedly, a wonderful person as well. You can understand why Bing was so smitten with her. She was adorable.


Even though this is 'just' a TV movie, it has the look and feel of 'real cinema'.

The lead roles are played by Dutch stage actors (the movie is based on a successful stage play with the same name, featuring the same actors), but most of these actors were in motion pictures and TV films before, so they know very well (or even remarkably well) how not to play to the balcony.

The cinematography is simply beautiful and the editing is what I would call 'fluent'. A nice rhythm of long, medium and close-up shots and some dolly work at the right times. Some Dutch movies try to look like a reality-TV show, but this one has cinematic qualities.

Since the main theme is friendship eroded by ambition, secrets, and betrayal, it does not really matter that the storyline and settings are a bit 'overburdened' (I mean, a future cabinet minister, a stage director chasing the lead actress in his play, a homosexual civil servant accused of stealing paintings, and an attorney with a cocaine addiction and a tendency to cut himself up - that's richer than Holland's Golden Age ..).

The supporting roles are fine, with Laura (the 18-year old daughter of one of the friends and femme fatale for one of the other friends) delivering some magnificent Lolita eye candy.

Well done, and good news for Dutch cinema. This movie deserves to be on wide-screen celluloid in a theater near you.

8/10.


2003 was a good year for Dutch Cinema. Not only did we see the success release of 'Van God Los' and 'Phileine zegt sorry', 2003 also saw the release of Cloaca. This movie will appeal to a smaller audience than the other two i just mentioned, but if you read this, go see it. The movie is about four former student buddyies who meet each other in their mid-40ties. One just left his wife, another was a top lawyer but had a nervous breakdown. The 3th guy has a legal battle with his boss, and the last is a director of a stage play, and he is screwing his main actress, the 18 year old daughter of his best friend. The 4 meet and see that their dreams in college have not exactly come true. The question is, is there still a way out for any of them. This may sound like the beginning of a feel good movie, but it isn't. cloaca is funny, dark, depressing and ultimately without mercy. A must see.


The play "Cloaca" was, in the year 2002, one of the most succesful plays of that year. And because of the fact that in Holland, we don't have lots of issues we want to film, 'they' decided to make a movie of "Cloaca", with the same (great) actors as in th play. 'They' succeeded. The movie is one of the best Dutch movies ever, if not THE best, I'm still thinking of calling it that. The story is about a group of men, who are all 40 years old. Back when they were students, they were best friends, but after several years, the relation between these men went down hill. One of the guys, Pieter (Pierre Bokma), has a problem, and to solve this problem he needs the help of his friends, in special the help of Tom (Peter Blok) while he is a lawyer. But Tom en his two other friends Joep (Gijs Scholten van Aschat), who is running for minister, and Maarten (Jaap Spijkers), a director, have enough problems for themselves. And the only thing they can focuse on, is there own problem. This delivers some great scenes, like the one in which Maarten is trying to tell Joep that he had sex with his 18 year old daughter, when they were preparing Maarten's latest play. When Joep enters the room, he tells Maarten how wonderful he liked the play, gives Maarten a hug and gives him no chance to tell his story.

This is typical for this movie; no one listens to the other, and this is brilliantly played by the best actors we have in Holland. Gijs Scholten van Aschat (who had the chance to play the raper in Lars von Triers "Dogville", but didn't do it because he wanted to make "Cloaca") plays Joep on a wonderfull way, and also the other die hard theater actors Pierre Bokma, Peter Blok and Jaap Spijkers give a fantastic performance. If you like good acting: GO SEE THIS ONE!!!


Calling this movie one of the best Dutch in recent years is perhaps not enough. It certainly deserves a spot among the best Dutch movies of all time as well!

If I had to compare this movie to any other, I would say that this movie is the Dutch "Glengarry Glen Ross". It has only powerhouse actors in it, the movie doesn't just have one main character, it follows multiple story lines from all the different characters and it has an excellent written story. Don't let the fact that this is just a 'made for TV' movie scare you of. The only reason the movie didn't got a theatrical release is because Dutch cinema in general is not very popular by the main stream audience and besides movies like this just don't do well in Dutch cinema's, regardless of the language spoken. A shame because that also in a way means that not too often Dutch movies like "Cloaca" will ever be made and released. This movie however truly screams for more.

The story at first starts of rather simple but just like in real life things are more complicated than they at first seem. Every character in the movie has problem(s) on their own and the one thing that connects everything is their friendship. The four old college buddies, now in their forties, try to help each other but have to cope with their own difficulties as well. By helping each other out they discover the true meaning of friendship and start evaluation the way their lives are progressing thus far and where things went wrong for them and they let the 'good old times' revive as well. It's a real character movie and a movie like this always requires some extremely good actors. "Cloaca" really has this. It makes the movie, the story and the situations in this all feel very real and understandable.

"Cloaca" has the best acting you'll probably ever see in a Dutch movie. All of the actors in this movie are well taught and established actors, who appear mostly on the stage. It's too bad that Dutch movies not too often give the chance to let actors like this shine on the silver screen. Ductch cinema doesn't often offer roles like these to actors of this caliber. Pierre Bokma, Gijs Scholten van Aschat and Pierre Bokma are all probably the best Dutch actors at the moment. It also definitely helps the movie that the three of them are real life friends and went to college together (along with the movie its director Willem van de Sande Bakhuyzen), it definitely shows on screen, since they all have such a great chemistry and share some great anticipation and reaction with each other. It lifts their performances to an even higher level and makes the timing spot on.

The movie is deliberately kept low key. No fancy tricks are used and the movie mostly relies on telling its story purely through its characters. It's based on a stage play by Maria Goos, which starred for most part the same actors that also appear in this movie. It means that the movie also feels 'stagey' at times, with its characters and dialog. This doesn't always work out well in movies but there are exceptions and when there are exceptions, they are always brilliant ones. "Cloaca" is a wonderful example of this. It's a real shame by the way that the British Kevin Spacey stage play version wasn't an huge success.

The movie is extremely well directed by Willem van de Sande Bakhuyzen. Of course the storytelling is slow but van de Sande Bakhuyzen's directing keeps the pace always high and the movie interesting. The movie also has some beautiful cinematography and a suiting musical score. A real lost for Dutch cinema, that Willem van de Sande Bakhuyzen died in 2005 of cancer. He made the best movies in his last years and I would had definitely been interested in seeing more movies of him, definitely if they were like "Cloaca".

10/10


The story about four men in their mid-life crisis is well written and does not loose focus at any moment. Convincing actors. I did not like the scene with the prostitute. All scenes are realistic and seem to come out of really every-day life. The psychology of the friends is well described by strong dialogue.


Any man should recognize himself in one of the four male characters in this picture. The way these men try (!) to open up to each other demonstrates the difficulties men always had and will have to deal with emotions, friendship, loyalty and relationships. With some (hilarious) subtle jokes, intertwined in strong dialogs and acting, these topics are clearly not men's favorite. Yet, this picture demonstrates that men are eager to to be sensing creatures, even if nature did not make them that way. Women should see this movie instead of any Oprah-like show about understanding the opposite sex. At least one woman has these insights and she wrote this wonderful story!


It's been a while since I saw this film, but the one thing I remember best is the fact I was so unimpressed by the acting. While I was still living in Holland, a friend of the family said: 'if you want to see the creme de la creme of Dutch acting, rent this film!' So I did and I wasn't impressed in the least by the unconvincing Dutch actors. Seeing British and (fair enough) a few American actors on screen, you believe they are the people they're portraying. But in this film, I'm sad to say, I had the feeling that the four main actors were very uncomfortable, undoubtedly did their best, but the outcome is nothing much... If you like arty films and are a fan of any of the actors, go and rent it... But if you really want to see a good Dutch film, rent 'Van God Los'. That was far better than this, (this was, to sum up: a rather weak effort to make it feel like a good film). and based on real events.


If you like Mary-Kate and Ashley's previous movies than I'm sure you'll enjoy this one as well. I gave it a 10/10 because it is what it is and shouldn't be judged for anything more.

The Olsen's produce family friendly movies which are enjoyable for what they are. I'm 22 and love their movies because they are fun and innocent. They don't run around in the film in cleavage/midriff bearing shirts or ultra-mini skirts, acting like complete bimbos in order for guys to think they're sexy, like most teenage actors do. In most movies of theirs, one plays a very upstanding, conservative person who dreams of academic achievement and the other is more wild and likes to enjoy life to its fullest.

Why bother seeing it if you hate these kinds of movies? It makes no sense at all why most people who have voted or commented here at imdb even saw it in the first place (most I find didn't go at all).

Think about it... if all you read are sports magazines, why would you pick up a Harlequinn romance?


Ashley and Mary-Kate Olsen play Jane and Roxy Ryan, twin sisters who couldn't be anything more unlike each other. Jane is a studious over-achiever while Roxy is a wild trouble making rocker. Despite their differences, the two of them spend a wacky day in New York City being chased by a truant officer {Eugene Levy}, a Chinese bootlegging ring, and a couple of cute guys.

I honestly don't understand why the Olsen twins decided to work on this film for their first big screen picture in nearly ten years. The film is very cheesy and very stupid just like their straight to video stuff. It's pretty much a thin story tied together with a bunch of scenes of the Olsen twins running around. Unfortunately, the Olsen twins are really not that interesting or talented. So watching them run around for 90 minutes is not a good thing. They're not funny and all their jokes fall flat. Their jokes don't work because the set up lines are very clunky and the jokes are just so awkward and lame. You would think that after 18 years of acting they would be able to handle it but I guess not.

The supporting cast aren't much better themselves. Eugene Levy was not funny and it was kind of sad watching him in this movie since you know he is way above this material. Andy Richter gives an embarrassing performance as Bennie. His character is such a stereotype and kind of offensive as well. The rest of the cast don't add anything as well and they just look embarrass to be there. Director Dennie Gordon is no stranger to success. She has some nice hits under her belt but this is one project she shouldn't have made. Her direction is kind of lazy and unfocused. She doesn't really tell a story and just moves the film along kind of messily. I actually used to like the Olsen twins when I was younger and I have just outgrown them. I can understand her fans liking this film but everyone else not familiar with their work should skip New York Minute. In the end, New York Minute is a waste of time and it's a film only the kids will like. Rating 2/10


My girlfriend has a thing going for the Olsen twins (no, not that kind of thing), and I decided to go along with it and watch New York minute with her. What I got? An easy to digest, easy to forget, silly and rather stupid little movie. Just what I expected.

The twins are divided into the extremely original barbie-wild girl types who decide in the end they truly love each other. You know, after 90 minutes (oh, if it only lasted 1 minute!) of arguing and stuff.

Everybody's happy in this one, so the girls meet some cute guys and even the bad guys have a certain charm (it's Andy everybody! Man, where have you been?). And when the girls get lost in Harlem they're just gonna get their hair cut. Uh-huh.

Only watchable because of Levy and our main man, Mr. Andy Richter. Otherwise: ouch. 3/10.


Two of my friends and i watched this last night at my house. We dubbed the night "Teeny bopper movie night", because we watched this along with 3 other movies with tryhard teens thinking they can act. Between Waiting for a dog to go to the toilet and having to watch the Olsen twins run around wearing nothing but towels, we didn't know which one would kill us first. The thing my friends and I laughed about most, however, was the lame storyline with the girls each meeting a "super hot guy". This was most unoriginal as right away the girl falls for the guy after knowing him for 5 seconds, and what brought them together? Her getting caught on his bike. Wow. Romantic.....


OK about a month ago, the cable company was advertising the crap out NYM and to my surprise, it was a funny movie. What was more amazing the Olsen sisters aren't bad actors. NYM minute wouldn't be the type of movie I would pay $12.00 at the cinema (besides the shame factor), however if you do take the time to watch it, you might be amazed.

I know there are going to be a lot people asking me why do I like this movie? The answer is simple it is easy to follow and it's down right hilarious. Sure NYM wouldn't last a New York Second during the theatrical release, but it is suitable for a quiet night at home.

New York Minute may not be in the same category as House of Sand and Fog or Donnie Darko, but lets not forget it is a comedy.

7/10


Since I get unlimited rentals from Netflix, I often mix in some stupid movies, sometimes because I feel like watching a lighter movie that doesn't require any thinking, and sometimes just out of morbid curiosity. It was the latter that compelled me to rent "New York Minute" starring the Olsen twins.

"New York Minute" has gotten universally bad reviews from critics, but I considered that the mere fact that the movie starred Mary-Kate and Ashley invited ridicule from people who haven't even seen it. Despite a traumatic experience in my teenage years, when I was repeatedly forced to watch "It Takes Two" (an Olsen twins version of "The Parent Trap") by some kids I frequently babysat, I gave this one a chance. To my surprise, it was even stupider than it looked. Even stupider than the critics led me to believe. Even stupider than "It Takes Two." So stupid that I hardly know where to begin The interchangeable Olsen twins play, you guessed it, twin sisters. Although they are identical in appearance, they have completely opposite personalities: Jane is the conservative, overachieving twin, while Roxy is a messy, truant punk. Eugene Levy plays a truancy officer who's obsessed with catching Roxy.

Jane and Roxy are both taking a trip into the city -- Jane to deliver a speech for a scholarship contest, and Roxy to go to a concert -- and a predictable case of mistaken identity leads to both twins getting kicked off the train. While they're at the train station, FBI agents descend on a guy trying to hand off what turns out to be a computer chip with pirated music (leading one to wonder why they didn't just e-mail the files or something), causing him to slip said chip into Roxy's purse, resulting in a Chinese-wannabe limo driver chasing the twins through NYC to recover the chip.

During the bizarre chase, Jane accepts a ride from the limo driver because she can't wait 3 hours for the next train, even though she has more than 6 hours to get to her speech. Then Roxy tosses the important chip onto a tray of food, which the dog proceeds to eat. At one point, the twins end up in a sewer, but the scary black people-turned-nice at House of Bling give them multiple free makeovers (despite Jane's tight schedule to get to her speech, she takes the time to try on half a dozen outfits and dance around in each one) and a cab to drive. Meanwhile, the truancy officer commandeers and subsequently wrecks a tourist couple's RV to chase down Roxy, but then gets promoted for busting the pirated music ring.

It all comes together to create possibly the stupidest movie ever made. What's really sad about "New York Minute" is that it was supposed to be a vehicle to show that the Olsen Twins are serious actresses, but it ultimately just shows how undeserving they are of their fame and fortune. (1/10)


I don't care what anyone has said negatively about this movie but it was a very wholesome family movie. My two daughters and I watched it and thought parts of it were hilarious. It reminded me of one of my old time favorites, "Ferris Buellers Day Off." I don't understand how anyone can give it such a low rating. The movie never was boring and if you thought parts were far fetched, "it is only a movie. Not real life." People should lighten up and sit back and relax and enjoy a good film with their children more often.

I thought everyone involved did a great job and I would watch it again. Maybe I am just an immature 42 year old but I was cracking up at parts, and for someone my age that is unusual for a kids film.


The Twins are growing up and are doing quite well for them selves. Lets not forget the pressure teen actors/actresses are under. They have been involved in TV series and movies almost from the day they were born. We all know how much pressure Hollywood can put on these young performers. Overall I give the Olsen Twins a 10. You don't find many movies these days that are clean cut. No sex or violence and no swearing which has to be a first these days. Lets not forget these girls are still very young and as they make or get into more movies there acting skills will only improve, but still they deserve a lot of credit. I'd like to see them make more movies and keep that clean cut image, which is very hard to find these days.........


I just loved this movie! Like Ashley Olsen said in an interview, "it has something for everyone"! It is a movie which should appeal to everyone between the ages of 8 and 80! It has child-like fantasy aspects to it (with lots of special-effects included) and it has more adult overtones and undertones as well. They couldn't have made a better movie (IMHO). If you love Ashley Olsen and Mary-Kate Olsen and their "brand" of comedy you will absolutely love this movie! It has everything a great movie should have! It has more adult "themes" than their past movies but it was all very tastefully done. It contains nothing inappropriate for kids to see. You should see this movie at least once (or twice) because it is absolutely awesome! Rick Morris


The first time they made it when they called it Ferris Bueller's Day Off http://www.imdb.com/Title?0091042

Clueless Parents = Dr. Drew

Eugene Levy = Me. Rooney

The Concert = The Parade

Both movies have school cutting, and it goes on and on.

The big difference is that in Ferris Bueller, John Hughes managed to capture the essence of teenage angst and create a film that has endured for almost two decades.

New York Minute will be long forgotten in half as much time as it's name.


If you are not a girl under the age of ten, New York Minute will be a head ache inducing waste of 90 minutes of your time. The interchangeable Olsen twins (who cares which is which) star in this rip off of Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Ferris Bueller was likable but these two girls have no personality. Their series of misadventures are not funny. Eugene Levy has a nothing role as a truent officer obsessed with catching the two girls. This character is incredibly stupid, not funny, and very obnoxious. Then there are non acting guys who fall in love with them. Don't get me started on Andy Richter's embarrassing role. Definitely one of the year's worst movies. 3/10


I saw this on a date back when this first came out. Afterwards I figured out what Hell must be like, constantly showing movies starring Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Hillary Duff, Hannah Montana, and the Olson twins.

I couldn't have expected anything from a movie that starred 16 year old millionaires who had a successful TV show ("Full House") and a couple of videotapes for nine year old girls. In this stinker, the Olson twins play two twin sisters (Wow! what a surprise!) who are completely different and get to explore New York for a day and come into some kind of run in with Chinese criminals and truant officers.

All I have to say like idk, omg! this film is like so annoying! What on God's green Earth did I do to deserve to be shown this film. It had without a doubt, the single worst plot in the history of mankind. The acting was shoddy, half of the dialog was stuff you would hear on instant messenger.

I certainly hope that al-Qaeda doesn't get a hold of this movie, because it's New York and it's a bomb. With every NEW YORK MINUTE that passed, I could feel by IQ drop quickly.


OK I have a secret pleasure: I like Olsen twins movies. Shhhhhh! ;-) It all started when I was on a bus to NYC, they ran Mary Kate & Ashley's School Dance on the TVs. At first I groaned but then to my surprise I found myself getting caught up in it! While I thought that was a fun movie, New York Minute took it to a new level where a 27YO like myself can enjoy it on a more adult level. I think the plot was witty, original and refreshing. And the girls can really rock too! The concert scene was a lotta fun (trying to find MP3 files). People these movies are all about the fun so don't judge! It's nice to see that as the twins get older their movies adopt more of a "tween" edge. I encourage other post-tweenies ;-) to give MK & A a chance. For my money they are better than Lindsay Lohan...and that's coming from a Lindsay Lohan fan!!!


Whats wrong with this film??? Nothing, I completely enjoyed watching it. There are some lamb bits but its a movie for young girls so if you don't like that kind of stuff of course your not going to like it, but you must have known what it was about before you went to see it? Its a girlie film, with comedy and romance just like all there films. The boys in it are cute and Mary-Kate and Ashley are very talented so really any thing there in is going to be well produced. It was very predictable but it was still good viewing, and i would see it again. So if you have young girls this film is perfect. It got a lovely ending and has a good moral about sisters and shows you how to get along etc etc. So rent this film (or buy it) cause its good, funny and sweet!


I watched this movie at my friend's house and I quite frankly found it more than a little boring. I mean, it wasn't BAD, it started out well but then it just bored me to wherever. And another thing, Mary-Kate's character, Roxy. Eh.. she was so gung-ho about the Simple Plan video-shooting-concert-watchamacallit. Simple Plan and Metallica are very different genres. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Simple Plan. Its just that it seemed that her character wasn't current-like-mainstream, at least at the beginning it did, and that would've been a lot more interesting, maybe for some people, if it'd been a less-mainstream band and such. I mean, it HAD to be Simple Plan, didn't it?

Overall, the movie could've been a lot better than it was.


"New York Minute" is a summer movie for 10 to 16 year-old girls. The Olsen twins film tells the tale of twins who have many mis-adventures during a day-time trip to New York City. The sisters have very different personalities and very different reasons for going to the "big apple". Neither one has a boy friend when the film starts but both end up with a boy friend when the film ends. Supporting cast is basically window dressing so your reason for seeing this should not be to see them, but rather to see the maturing twins.

GRADES = For target audience, "B"; others, "C"


I have read many reviews of this movie that state that it is not good.

IT IS A VERY GOOD MOVIE.

Comparing it to other movies that are not in its genre is an unfair comparison. It's apples to oranges. You must compare this movie to other movies of its genre.

It's cute, action-packed, exciting, has a plausible story line, beautiful lead actresses, quirky characters (and each main character has a focused personality, not just shied upon), great cinematography, great editing, great directing. And it's set in New York City. What more could you want?

IT IS A VERY GOOD MOVIE.


HOOOO Boy, did they bite the bullet on this one! I can really only comment on the first 20 minutes of this abysmal film, as that's all my wife and I could stand - we were laughing so hard at the God-awful acting! Is Eugene Levy having a hard time, that he should have to stoop to appearing in trash like this? I would rather coat myself with fresh blood and swim through the Amazon River lengthwise (it's infested with Red Bellied Piranha). Don't they make enough money from their questionably silly investments already? Why did they have to butcher the film industry with this example of celluloid pollution? This movie sucks WORSE than a Barney Frank Fan Club Convention! The only nice thing I can say about those two is that it's a good thing that triplets didn't run in their family! This film is just a 2 hour, slightly STUPIDER version of Full House!


Well, the best thing about this movie was that it featured Simple Plan, 1 of my favorite rock groups.But it is absolutely beyond me why they would want to be in an Olsen movie.also Jared Padalecki was REALLY hot!! watched it bout a year back but as far as i remember the movie was pretty lame!! I have disliked the twins ever since their full house days but this movie was vaguely better than the rest. in fact the Olsen fans(thought i will never know why they have any) must b in heaven at the fact that they made an actual watchable film. it was rather moronic not to mention racist and extremely unrealistic . but some of the jokes were amusing and unlike most of the movies, the tension between the twins was something that a lot of teenagers can relate to. i think Eugene Levey's character was kinda lame as well as being obnoxious and unrealistic. the twins don't have a lot of acting potential(to be polite)but this movie might be a stepping stone towards slightly better movies. it was still pretty pathetic i'll admit but which Olsen movie is not.i'd give it a 2 or maybe a 3


This was an 'Olsen Twins Movie.' It seems like all of their movies are the same. Twins with different personalities, a basic plot that was probably created by a 5 year old, and a mushy ending with the girls loving each other. Same old thing. They should have just called it "Yep, another movie by us with the same story, but we have different names!" Okay, enough on how they are total repeaters. My favourite part of the movie (besides the credits indicating to me it was over) was when Simple Plan was in it. Simple Plan are one of my favourite bands, but I was really disappointed that out of all of them, there was only one line and that was

"Lomax?" said by Chuck. Come on! Really now, and did anyone notice that security was so tight, even though Levy's character had a police badge that he couldn't get it, but Jane got in no problem and the security lifted her right on to the stage? Come on. Once I found out the basic plot to the story I knew how it would end. And Roxy with the the whole Avril Lavigne speech. Lame. I would have given this movie a 1 out of 10, but I gave it a 2 because Simple Plan was there to take the spotlight off of MK and A. Seriously, anyone notice with the more movies they do, the less other characters they have in them? (Barfs in mouth) 2 out of 10


It wasn't as corny as I thought it would be. "Something's Gotta Give" was *much* harder to sit through! However, the first half of the movie is a giant plug for the band "Simple Plan." There's a performance scene where the band members even get lines! Lucky for me, I love them, so I enjoyed getting to hear a new song in it's entirety and see all their close-ups. I did find it very strange, though. I'm wondering how much money their publicist paid to get them plugged like that in an Olsen twins movie??? And what's with Dr. Drew as the dad. He's a sex doctor, man! There's something just unwholesome about that! There's also one seen in a black hair shop where the twins have many outfit changes and everyone is dancing. It is the most ridiculous movie moment ever! It's completely out of place. Especially since the end result is their hair being straightened. If they removed that scene from the movie, or at least took out the wardrobe changes and dancing, then it would be better.


This movie was great for Mary-Kate and Ashley's peers and especially their fans! Also as a come-back in theaters since their last theater movie "It Takes Two". Yeah, some things in the movie probably wouldn't happen in real life (i.e. towards the end - I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen it yet!). I also liked how the title went with the story - Jane Ryan (Ashley) was running out of minutes until her speech presentation in New York, and Roxanne (Roxy) Ryan (Mary-Kate) needed to get to the Simple Plan's music video to promote her band - and they both were being chased down by all sorts of people! Cute boys were also a plus! I can't wait until it comes out on VHS/DVD so I can see special features and deleted scenes!


Okay what do you expect. This isn't the best comedy ever made but it has its moments. The twin sister that can't get along with her sibling story has been seen before in several movies. But face it there are not that many `new' stories out there. Mary-Kate Olsen & Ashley Olsen have been in the business for just about all their lives. This is their first major movie as just about adults (nearly 18). They do a good job in this movie but sometimes it seems they try a little too hard. Eugene Levy is really funny as semi-cop. If you go into to this movie knowing you are going to a Mary-Kate Olsen & Ashley Olsen movie you will have a great time. The girls are really fun to watch and the look like they are having a good time making the film. So go and have a few laughs and watch Ashley trying to hold her skirt down throughout the movie.


this is one of the stupidest movies i've ever seen - so unrealistic. puts a bad name to new-york. just really awful plot.

it's about twins Roxy and Jane, one is smart, and the other is a smart-ass. after their mom died, they kind of grew apart.

the movie is really bad, not an ounch of realism. they make a city like new-york, who's larger then life, like it's the smallest city with just 10 people.

anyway - u don't wanna watch this.

i cant wait for this 2 actresses to finally shoot a serious movie, with a serious plot, not childish.


If New York Minute were just that, a minute long it would still be a waste of life. I can't believe Hollywood continues to waste money on making retarded films. Who the hell read/wrote this script and thought it was a good idea? I saw this movie free on HBO and it still felt like I was ripped off. The Olsen Twins should stop making crappy ass movies. Aren't the billions they've made from crappy ass products with their names slapped on it enough? God bless the poor souls who see this movie. The Olsen's are money whores and should be jailed at once. If God really does judge us on things we do on this Earth, well then Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen are going straight to hell!


Okay, Upfront this is more about the psychology of the Twins than a review, but on the scale I did rate the movie at an 8. It is more entertaining than a lot of the crap you see these days.

But back to the subject, why people love the twins. It's basically the same reason that they were such a hit when they jointly played the character on TV. They are your average kid, with an odd look that makes you interested in their faces and facial expressions. This is the same quality that makes a true beauty stand out from a line of Miss America contestants. They don't quite fit the mold, and this makes them unique enough to attract your attention, and KEEP IT.

And their young fans love this aspect of their fame, whether they understand it or not. The attention of the media on these two faces underlines the fact that the less than perfect face can be more beautiful than all the models on the TV ads rolled into one. This is a positive reinforcement to all the fans, that maybe they too, could be seen for their inherent beauty.

I have read reviews that have referred to the Olsen Twins videos as "child porn", and that the "New York Minute" film pushes the envelope on this aspect of the girls popularity. This is of course, nonsense.

What has happened to this country, when the appreciation of child beauty is simply written off as "child porn"? What terrible thing has happened to the sensibilities of U.S. citizens that simply must look at the writer/photographer Lewis Carroll as a deviant because he acknowledged and tried to portray youthful beauty?

There are forces in the U.S. that find it politically expedient to point fingers at things they do not understand, and brand it "child porn" in order to draw headlines to further their ambitions. Heaven help us if these forces attain the upper hand they so wish to use to control media and all of our choices.

The Olsen Twins are cute, they are pleasing to look at, end of story. Also they possess a quality or talent, that very few actresses in the history of our media have possessed. The reason Lucille Ball became so famous, (also Carole Burnette) was that she was willing to look slightly foolish, and do pratfalls and physical humor in order to make an entertaining movie or TV show. People loved that! They weren't particularly great dramatic actresses, they just riveted our attention with their visual and physical comedy. This is the gift that the Olsen Twins bring to their work as well.

To those who have commented that New York Minute wasn't funny, I sincerely think you need to have your sense of humor examined. It was great fun.


Let's be honest with ourselves. Did we truly expect Mary Kate and Ashley to become Oscar winning actresses overnight? No, of course not. So I'm really surprised to see so many people commenting on the girls' acting ability and unoriginal plot. But we've known for years what they're capable of. Cute, but corny, movies is their calling and they do it well. While I would love to see them stretch their wings and blow us away with fantastic comedic performances, they're not quite there yet. But New York Minute is fun, it's sweet, and it's what we all should have expected. I recommend it to the tweens and other youngsters who will get just what they expect. Maybe the Twins' will someday surpass all the sceptics' expectations, but let's not be surprised if they don't.


Let me start out by saying, I like the I like the Olsen twins - smart, cute girls, but this movie blew. They should stick with the straight to video flicks that have made them so rich and famous.

The bling scene was so unbelievably stupid, it was hard to comprehend that they weren't retching as they were filming it. Where are these merchants that give away free service, clothes etc.???

The unnecessary wrap up at the end where the guys end up going to London...the butchering of David Bowie's song...the lame dancing...the list of reasons why this movie sucked is absolutely endless.

Poor Reynaldo.


This film is not awful - it's "god, how awful". Everyone can see now that the Olsen twins can't act a little bit. Not even that but the plot is always predictable, too. Girls don't like each other, girls want to go to town, girls get into trouble, girls meet cute boys, girls get out of trouble, girls start to like each other again, girls stay with cute boys - crap like that was shown dozens of times before. Not necessarily in that order but who cares. So it's a complete waste of time and money - except you were invited. Then it's just a waste of time.

So if you can avoid watching that film do so. For me the film is worth two out of ten, and just 'cause there are films which are even worse - which is hard to believe, 'cause this one sucks.

By the way: Oxford = London? Man, whoever made this up, check your knowledge in geography.


One of Melies' elaborate story productions, ranking with VOYAGE TO THE MOON, using camera tricks, sleight of hand, elaborate costumes and interesting model work. Technically it will look primitive to the modern eye -- the sets are clearly sets, the models clearly models -- but it is all done with Melies' verve and dedication. Certainly, the grotto and underwater sets are beautiful; he knew how to draw stonework.

Melies, I feel, remains the most accessible of the oldest directors, in large part because of the sheer sense of showmanship and joy that is evident in these works. His scenes, when they are not sleight-of-hand magic, are essentially tableaux, punctuated by acrobats. His tableaux are much more elaborate than other directors who use the form, providing a feast for the eye. Working, as he does in this movie, with familiar images, he elaborates them, whereas in VOYAGE TO THE MOON, he invents them and suggest them. The effect is -- there is no other word for it -- magical.


In 1946, Stalin invites Russian émigrés to return, in patriotic fervor, to help rebuild from WWII. Unbeknownst to them, all returnees are considered imperialists and spies, and are to be treated accordingly. "East-West" explores this nightmare scenario through the eyes of a family who returned; a Russian doctor, his French wife and their young son. Because of his doctoring skills he is spared the Gulag or execution, but his life in Kiev is certainly not what his wife is used to. The collision of cultures, the hardships, and the Stalinist tyranny all take a deep toll as they struggle to survive and escape.

Dark, and claustrophobic, this is a gripping tale from beginning to end. And it is in the end a great love story, of devotion and sacrifice. At the showing I attended the tears flowed freely in the audience. I recommend it highly.


***Possible spoilers***

In 1946 Stalin invited all russians living abroad to return to the Soviet Union in order to "rebuild" their country. Among others, the young doctor Alexei (Oleg Menchikov) and his french wife Marie (Sandrine Bonnaire) succomb to this siren-song. In their credulity they quickly become victims of Stalins persecution complex. The first thing they see when they leave their ship in Odessa is a father separated from his son, the son executed on the spot. In Stalins eyes, 9O% of the people married to russians are agents for the CIA, enemies of the people. And she, the french woman, is no exeption for the soviet authorities. They take her passport, interrogations and beatings follow.

Her husband follows the party line and works his way up. Soon he becomes a "trusted" member of the party. But Marie can not live in this atmosphere of permanent surveillance, where she has to watch every word and people "disappear".

The couple gets a new subtenant, the young Sacha (Sergei Bodrov Jr.)whose grandmother was executed as "traitor" because she was too friendly to Marie. More and more Marie suspects that her husband has not really the intention to leave the country as he promised her. She implores Gabrielle (Catherine Deneuve) a french actress on tour in the Soviet Union to help her. When she discovers that Alexei has a liaison with a neighbor, Olga, she begins an affair with Sacha. Her hope is, that, as member of the national swimming club, he will be able to defect to the west and help her escape too...

You may think that this film fulfills every stereotype about life in the Soviet Union. Shabby factories, where the works manager shows no consideration for the health of his workers, torture, labor camps, friends who spy on each other (Alexei:"Have you read this letter?" Olga: "No, it's in french." Alexei: "In my youth I learned that you're not supposed to read other people's letters." Olga:"We must have had different childhoods:").

Yes. it sounds like a cliche, but all this really happened. It is a true story, filmed on the original places in France, the Ukraine and Bulgaria. There really was a KGB, there really were athletes who defected to the west, and - believe it or not - there were even prominent persons like Gabrielle who commited themselves to freedom - and succeeded.

Many will find this slow and depressing film a chore to sit through, but it depicts an era that should never be forgotten. Catherine Deneuve has only a small role, but Sandrine Bonnaire is just excellent in her part, honest and straightforward. But it's her partner, Oleg Menchikov who is a real revelation in this film. When the viewer has arrived to the point of really mistrusting him, he suddenly proves his real intentions by a sacrifice so immense, that the viewer barely dares believe it - and all is true! If you think that you can do without glamour, special effects or super-heroes Hollywood-style for once, you will be richly rewarded with a gripping story, first-rate performances and the feeling that you have seen something worthy.


I sat in the cinema after the credits had rolled almost unable to bring myself to leave, get in my car and drive home. I was completely overwhelmed by this intense film and its in your face storyline. Whether the story the film was based on was true or not, I thought the performances of all the actors and actresses were exceptional, the photography was excellent and overall though not a film that could be called 'enjoyable' because it was so sad, I was intensely moved and gave it 9/10.


'Est Ouest' is an impressive production based upon the true story of family comprising a Russian émigré husband, French wife and a little boy.In the heyday of Coldwar, Stalin invites all émigrés who left the country in the time of 1917 Civil War.The émigrés are promised a heaven once they promote to the restoration of order and rehabilitation of the war-torn economy.This demand is no surprising in view of the fact that Soviet Russia was the country hit by the war the most in terms of human and material resources. Once euphoric, the returnees find themselves disillusioned by old-fashioned, paranoid and corrupt political and economic fabric.

The story is capturing sometimes thrilling. I have shared the excitement, fear and hope of heroes and heroines vividly. The music of the film pulls you vividly to understand how precious one's freedom can be.Unlike some criticism that the film misdirected reality,I would confidently maintain the belief that the story of the film is only one of the hundreds of tragedies in the Iron Curtain. Stalin's notorious reputation in employing violence and pressure is nothing but a historical truth. Eastern Europe is so beautiful..Kiev and Sofya..I shall never forget the dance scene at the hotel in Sofya. What is also worth-seeing is the entry of heroes to the Greek-Bulgarian boundary on the mountains capped with snow.This is the Balkans.. I must admit that I spent much time in trying to find this film as DVD.Swedem,Norway,Denmark,Germany,Belgium..nowhere..I did not have chance to request it online.I did not have credit cards..:)) Finally,I found it in mega store Virgin( Thanks Virgin)in Paris. I have soundtrack album of this unforgettable film too. If you haven't seen this film yet, you have missed a lot! By watching and- if possible- purchasing this film, you will have done a great contribution to movie industry which suffers from prevalence of crap movies. I am still under the influence of 'Est Ouest'.I hope u shall feel the same..


"East/West" ventures into a time (post WWII) when the Iron Curtain shrouded Stalin's Soviet Union and a curtain of suspicion and distrust shrouded every soviet life. The film follows a French family of three as the patriarch returns to his Russian homeland where he and his family are held prisoners of conscience by communism. The film focuses on the characters, their silent suffering and yearning for freedom while living in a state of constant paranoia as it tears husband from wife, mother from son, and heroism emerges from the most unlikely places. "East/West" is an entertaining watch for all and, though fictional, offers a sense of what the Cold War was about.


The cathartic nature of this film was such that found myself unable even to cry until the credits began their long slow march across the screen, and even then getting up out of my seat was not an option. I don't think any other film has made such a profound and immediate impact on me.

Set in the years following Stalin's invitation to former expatriates to return to their native Russia a call many answered, blissfully unaware of the dire consequences their decision would have- it is filled with the Russian spirit that sees people stubbornly persevering, and touched with the French one that not only looks for escape but insists upon it.

Some films would be rendered incomprehensible simply by the sheer amount of quiet action that here, thankfully, only adds to the audience's investment in the film, without losing focus. It was unquestionably the best film I have seen in recent memory. It is the closest I have ever felt to experiencing a Gesamtkunstwerk in a movie theatre.


For a guy who was a French communist until the age of 35, it was a hard movie to take, but it is a superb film, well acted and very realistic. My father was a french communist (the heart on the left and the wallet on the right) and he actually contempleted emigrating to the motherland of socialism when I was a kid, thank God, his wallet was heavier than his heart... Go to your video store and rent it, you won't regret it !


I went to this film without realizing that it told a story which had parallels in the history of my own Russian-emigrant family. My grandmother's brother repatriated under Stalin, had his goods and land confiscated, died in Siberia, and lost his two young sons to the Soviet Army.

The film is absorbing and disturbing. The most shooting is done at eye level. There is a true sense of witness for the viewer in a very elemental, unavoidable way. Strangely, I think this improved the experience of the predictable horrors of life in Stalin's USSR. It made the experience seem, for me, much more present and less sentimental.

The performances were very good. Ms. Bonnaire was totally believable and very likeable, despite the naivete and hysteria of her character. Mr. Menshikov played Alexei with great complexity and nuance, which allowed me to be less judgmental and to see his irrational need to belong among his own people as a very natural inclination. Mr. Bodrov, a Russian Brad-Pitt-alike, was very magnetic in his role as Sacha.

I simply love to see Ms. Deneuve in any role, but her playing a mature French actress with admirable values was very moving for me. She carries her own maturity so regally. She was perfect for this role.

I think this film is a wonderful model of cross-cultural cinema. I would like to see more films of this type in the US.


Alexei, the young doctor who decides to go back to the Soviet Union after a generous invitation of Josef Satlin, should have had his head examined! After all, as a professional he seemed to have been doing well in France. With all the best intentions, he takes his wife and young son to the old country only to find himself trapped in a totalitarian system that made him and the family virtual prisoners.

"Est Ouest", directed by Regis Wargnier, shows in vivid detail what Alexei and Marie, his wife, have to endure when they are taken to Kiev, where he is assigned. Little did Alexei and Marie knew about the dismal housing problems of those years when the family is given a large room in an apartment that is being shared by five families!

The film concentrates in the eventual break down of the marriage caused by the environment. Alexei ends up having an affair with Olga, another flat mate, and Marie falls in love for the poor Sacha, a young man who is left alone in the world when his grandmother dies. Marie blames Alexei for all the misery they have to endure; she is regarded as a foreigner, but she can't even go back to her native France.

The film has an ironic end when Marie, helped by Gabrielle, a French actress, who is sympathetic to her fellow countryman. Marie realizes at the end of Alexei's tremendous sacrifice and ultimate punishment when she and her son are able to escape the communist hell that has imprisoned them.

Great acting in general by Sandrine Bonnaire, who as Marie, is totally credible. Oleg Menshikov, makes the best of Alexei, at times appearing uncaring and selfish, but who deeply cared for his wife. Sergei Bodrov Jr. is also excellent as Sacha, the young boy in love with Marie.

The film was shot in drab color, perhaps to emphasize the hard times during the Stalin regime. One gets only glimpses of some of the splendid, and opulent interiors, whenever the action takes place in one of those buildings or theaters. Unfortunately, the principals of this story never really had a chance to enjoy anything because the nightmare that became their lives under that totalitarian regime.


Despite the fact that I was completely ignorant of the circumstances under which the characters suffered, I was swept away by this movie. All of the actors gave amazing performances, but I was most impressed by the way that Sandrine Bonnaire(Marie) and Oleg Menshikov (Alexei) were able to age their characters ten years using only their faces. Sergei Bodrov, Jr., was excellent as Sacha, the teenage lover of Marie. At the beginning of the movie he was scared and immature, but as the plot progressed I saw him evolve into a strong, determined man. The scenes of him swimming in the river involve some of the most captivating cinematography I've seen. I hold Bodrov's performance to be the best in the film. Not to be ignored is Catherine Denueve; though her role as a French actress, Gabrielle, determined to save Marie was small, it was critical, and she pulled it off brilliantly. East-West is a sweeping, engaging epic that will captivate even the most historically ignorant viewer.


Most people reviewing this excellent film by Regis Wargnier (Indochine) clearly understand the backdrop of a Soviet Union in the grip of a national paranoia that flowed from Stalin himself and infected everything from the highest positions of Party power to the most banal and mundane aspects of daily life. The film explores the destructive force that a monstrous ideology can have on ordinary people, artists, athletes, and even on love itself. Stalin's Soviet Union in 1946 was everything this movie portrays it as and worse. This is not some "anti-Soviet" propaganda film by any stretch, and people who think it is need to attend to some history of the time and place. Literally millions of returning Soviet émigrés and soldiers were either executed outright or sent to the gulags on various trumped-up charges like 'actions detrimental to the State' and espionage. There was no one as paranoid as Stalin, and he either believed his own fears, or he wanted everyone else to believe them. Probably both are true. That is why I welcomed this film which tells the story of a Russian émigré physician and his French wife and child who accept the deadly invitation of repatriation to the Motherland. Against this background of terror, repression, and despair we are made to watch what the pressures of the system can do to one family.

Alexei, Marie, and Serioia go from what must have been a comfortable, bourgeois life in France to a nightmare when they end up, thanks to Alexei's being a physician, in Kiev. The story goes into detail about how Alexei has to behave against his wife's expectations  unrealistic, it turns out, and very dangerous to boot  in order to fashion the possibility of escape. The film has a very real feel to it, and one can believe that what we are seeing is what really happened. I am a bit astonished that people today either know nothing of this period, or they actually think that the film is unfair to the Soviets. The preposterousness of this idea can only be cured with information, but the willfully blind will remain so regardless of hundreds of thousands of archival pages to the contrary. This film is true to its subject, and if you can sit through the nail-biting drama - where an NKVD agent seems to appear on every corner - you will be rewarded. An excellent movie full of the pain, heartbreak, and eventual triumph over evil.


This film reminded me of going to the zoo. Here you have a community of individuals that are captured by the thought of a longer life, freedom, and food, only when they arrive (like animals in zoo); they are shocked by the realism that it is not a vacation. Food will be served at your captor's convenience, your captors determine the chain of command as well, and finally, nobody can leave once they arrive. After WWII, under Stalin's regime, Russia invites all defectors back to their homeland, but it is a trick. Est-Ouest tells the story of one family's plight to escape a country that has transformed into a wall-less prison. With the KGB watching their every move, our heroes must risk everything to see the light of freedom once more. Living in a post 9/11 world, one cannot help but begin to see the similarities between what Alexei and Marie and the Arab world in America. While not quite as harsh, we constantly are reminded about the vengeful eye of our government and the illustrious Patriot Act.

Est-Ouest is one of those films where you could either be excited and happy by the results or be bursting into an emotional sea of tears. From the opening credit sequence until the darkened words crept back on the screen, this film captivated me. With the powerful acting, the intense story, and the brilliant work behind the camera, Est-Ouest will pull hard on your emotions and not release you until the very end. Director Régis Wargnier has done a superb job of bringing the history of the characters, as well as the land, straight into your hearts. He does this with some of the most common techniques and a very simple story. This is a story about love and freedom. He uses these simplistic structures to keep us focused on the overall depth and tone of the film. There is this feeling of being in a non-barred cage, unable to escape, unable to be free due to the vengeful eye of your comrades. Wargnier forces you to feel for these characters, from the beginning until the end, because they are no different than you are I. They are placed in a situation like no other, yet somehow so real that we could witness it happen even today.

From our initial meeting with Alexei and Marie on the boat heading to Russia, we are bombarded with a sense of pride, love, and fear all at once. We are unfamiliar with the relationship between Alexei and Marie, but immediately take it as a loving one. Perhaps we are too haste with that decision, because as our story unfolds, as does the bond that connects these two individuals  or at least that is what Wargnier would like us to think. Est-Ouest is more than just a story about escaping to freedom, it is a contrast between patience and immediate self-sacrifice. Marie wants to escape the cold world they inhabit immediately, she wants to see Paris again and taste its freedom, while Alexei does as well, just not quite as quickly. He understands the rules of the nation, and slowly sets in motion a plan that will give his wife all that he has promised. It took me until the end of the film to see this contrast between immediate escape and patience. While I thought that it was a great message to show, I felt as if the timing was a bit off throughout the film. I had trouble following the timeline, while I did realize that several years had passed between these horrific events, the only person that seemed to age was Alexei's son. I needed a stronger connection between these riveting scenes so that I could keep track in my mind the time that had passed.

The acting was gorgeous. Oleg Menshikov and Sandrine Bonnaire had such a powerful connection on screen that I could not keep my eyes off them. When they were together you wanted them to be, and when they were apart, you dreamt of them being back together. You cannot say that of many film characters. The late Sergei Bodrov Jr. reminded me of a Russian Brad Pitt. The way he carried himself and acted in this film was similar to that of Mr. Pitt. Together these three key players brought this film to life. While somehow Catherine Deneuve received top billing as well, she didn't seem to carry as much of the weight that I had hoped that she would. While she was vital to the story, I felt she could have brought more to her character. The depth behind her words just wasn't there or just didn't seem to match the emotion of everyone else.

The only other negative aspect that I have with this film was that I felt the story seemed incomplete. There were moments where we were given a nibble to enjoy, but never fully developed those nibbles into bites. There were elements of the story that needed to be developed further, such as the relationship between Sasha and Marie. While I did see some evolution when they were in Russia, it was later that I needed the follow-up. It just felt as if some strings were not tied at the end, but instead left frayed with questions looming in the air.

Overall, I thought this was a very tight drama. There were some flaws with may have caused it to loose its Oscar win in 1999, but nonetheless, the good did outweigh the bad. The characters were intense, the story (outside of the loose ends) was captivating, and being able to see a darker side of the world was thrilling. Simply put, this was a story about freedom and love, and those are themes that transcend throughout history. Est-Ouest is a story for seeing the destructive nature of Stalinism and its impact on humanity.

Grade: **** out of *****


The first thought was: "why would a successful doctor with the French wife decide to return to Stalin's Russia?" Nostalgia?. But then, when I was watching the movie, all events seemed so realistic. I'm truly believe that that's exactly what would have happened to them. No life, No escape, No future! The story is about sacrifice we all make for the people we love, but the price Marie and Alexei paid was too high.


Having spent some time in Russia from 1973 to 1995, I was relieved to find that the details of the everyday life in the Soviet Union presented in the film mostly counteracted the stereotypic quality of the harsh interrogator. I found the scenes of the interaction among the inhabitants living in the communal apartment to ring the truest. The ability of the Russians to suffer and celebrate at the kitchen table also seemed humanly authentic and prepared me to accept the Dr. Zhivago story line. I found myself questioning if I or my wife would give up the comfortable life the family had found at the end for the freedom of one of us separating.


It seems fair to say that the title "Falling Angels" is plural so as to include not only the baby brother who somehow fell over Niagara Falls and whose picture is later given wings and enshrined behind wood paneling in the Field family's basement. It also describes the mother, Miranda Richardson, whose spirit has been gradually destroyed by her volatile, controlling, husband, until she is reduced to a morbidly depressed alcoholic with no life beyond the couch and television. Each of her three high-school age daughters are falling as well, away from the insular family where no outsiders are allowed to observe the sad dynamics, no help is asked for or accepted. Each family member is alone in coping with their emotions and longings. Still there is always the sense that this is a family with strong ties and feelings for each other.

The three sisters gravitate (fall) into outside relationships, whose merits and wisdom are not judged by the movie, but simply shown. The girls' future lives are being formed, and will always have been influenced by the events of the past -including forced confinement in a bomb shelter by their father as an exercise in preparedness. Even that act of well-intentioned cruelty is not judged too harshly by the film. It's a misguided deed done for the sake of the family. There is no angst or acting out or weepy reconciliation drama in this family. Instead there is some anger, some sadness, and some unspoken love.

The acting is first rate by all. Miranda Richardson is excellent as the fragile porcelain-like mother, drained of spirit, quietly detaching from life. The portrayal of the late 1960's is the most realistic I have ever seen. It's achieved not by the musical score, or the pop-culture icons of the period. Instead it is the 'feel' of the house and furnishings, the neighborhood, the clothing. And also, it shows how life then was somehow different than today  quieter, more private  at least for some of us and the families we grew up in during that time.


an absolute dream-like beauty to this film. It possesses the best of say a Wim Wenders masterpiece, coupled with the narrative of a whacked-out indie great. Every moment is fully realized........never forcing the viewer to "feel" anything. heartbreaking and hilarious, with art direction that is a knock-out! The direction and the acting were gorgeous (especially the stunning Katharine Isabelle!). Both the narrative and pictorial silences in this film say so much more than most films do in the entirety. So much is left to the viewers politics and prejudices, it almost feels interactive (granted I grew up during this period, so that probably has a lot to do with it). If you're a child of the 60's / 70's (or a dysfunctional home.......and who isn't.........) this is a must see.


Basically, the movie is about a family (parents and three daughters) in the 1960's as they deal with issues from the past and the present. There is also a secret that is eventually revealed, and sort of explains why things are the way they are.

The casting was good, everyone played their character well (mostly), except I sort of agree with the other reviewer when they said that you really don't 'dislike' the father, even though his acts can sometimes be inappropriate.

There are some scenes I liked with some of the individual characters, and the cinematography is nice. I especially liked the opening and the closing scenes.

Overall, I didn't like some of the story. But if you like any of the actors or are just somewhat interested, it is probably worth seeing.


First time director Yau Nai-Hoi's Eye in the Sky gets the two thumbs up from me. It's an excellent movie with a strong storyline that gets zoned into the moment, with no room spent on unnecessarily bloating the movie beyond what it should be. Director Yau, a frequent collaborator and scriptwriter for Johnny To classics, brings to Eye in the Sky, a taut 90 minutes cop-robbers story on surveillance, of the men and women who do the thankless anonymous tasks behind the scenes on following suspects and trawling the streets for them.

Surveillance is never easy, and trust me I know, from work experience. While there are countless of CCTV cameras and various technologies, nothing beats having up to date field intelligence. The opening film of the HKIFF, I had hoped to have watched this on its first screening, but it turned out to be a blessing in disguise, as I had one week to trawl the streets of Hong Kong and Kowloon, and being able to identify the locales used, was an added thrill.

Although this is a cop thriller, it doesn't have the usual car chases, explosions or fancy gun battles. It's quite muted in these aspects, however it brings about a refreshing realism to the story, a great departure from the days when action has to be stylized (flying through the air shooting two guns anyone?) The way the surveillance team operate, with its arsenal of disguises, tricks and vehicles, and the skills that one must possess - keen observation, alertness and an elephant memory, makes it like a cross between The Recruit and Mission: Impossible.

Eye in the Sky tells the story of a new recruit, nicknamed Piggy (Kate Tsui) by her mentor Dog-Head (Simon Yam), as she undergoes an on-job training of sorts in their case to track down some armed heist robbers, led by "Hollow Man" (Tony Leung Kar Fai). It becomes a tight cat and mouse game as identities are attempted to be established, and the team comes up against a villain who's truly aware of his environment, turning the tables as the hunter might become the prey.

There are strong performances all round, led by the veterans Simon Yam, in a change of alignment given his outings last year as villains, and Tony Leung, as a chillingly observant, cool and methodical sudoku-playing mastermind. In her first movie role, I thought Kate Tsui did remarkably well in her role as Piggy, the newbie lacking field experience, yet being thrown in the deep end of the pool to sink or swim. Perhaps it is truly her being new to the scene, that eased her comfortably into a role which is similar to herself, but the story does allow her room to showcase some of her acting chops, and she holds her own well against the veterans. Maggie Tsui too added some comedic moments as a foul mouthed police madam.

Eye in the Sky is a recommended Hong Kong cop thriller (time to let go of mole stories) which is tight, and keeps you on the edge of your seat as you follow the surveillance team through high angles (akin to CCTV camera angles), tight teamwork and features an incredible soundtrack as well to keep it fast paced. You must watch this when it makes it to our shores in Singapore, tentatively scheduled for mid April.


I'm finding that I like the Milkyway Image movies where Johnnie To is just a producer more than the ones where he is the director, though Breaking News was pretty good. Eye in the Sky starts off with Kate Tsui on a training mission to see if she is good enough to become a cop in a special surveillance unit. She has to study Simon Yam and be able to give every detail of what he did during the day. And just like every Milkyway movie I have seen, they connect a certain scene at the start of the movie with one that happens towards the end. So she gets the job, but just barely. Simon Yam thinks she has potential, so he decides to let her on the force. Tony Leung Ka Fei plays the leader of a gang of bank robbers. He sets everything up, and the rest of the guys do the roberies. So now of course this is where Kate Tsui and Simon Yam come in and try to catch him.

This is a pretty standard story, but well done. I enjoyed the movie a lot. Kate Tsui does a decent enough job in her role, Simon Yam is good just like he usually is, and Tony Leung gives a magnificent performance. I thought the last couple of scenes were kind of disappointing, but the scene towards the end with Tony Leung and Kate Tsui in the restauarant, and the scene where Simon Yam struggles to finish his joke makes up for it.

If you are looking for a good cop movie that has a couple of well done sudden violent moments, then there is a good chance you will like this. If you are looking for an action packed or highly stylized movie, look elsewhere.

And one more note. This movie is a tight 90 minutes (actually more like 85 if you don't include the beginning and opening credits), which is one of the many reasons why I liked it. And it doesn't feel like it should have been longer. Movies to me are just getting too long these days.


I'm always a little bit suspicious of made-for-TV movies, but this is a good one. It's an excellent script and good directing--plus everyone turns in an excellent performance. Rudolph Martin is especially terrific as Vlad Dracula, and Christopher Brand makes Bruno a very striking character. Jane Marsh comes across as very delicately beautiful, and the kids are unusually convincing. Roger Daltrey does an excellent transition from middle-aged to old, and Peter Weller emits no clue to give away the ending. There's great support from the supporting cast.

The producers have handled the subject extremely well, considering how much gore they could have spilled, and it turns out to be an intense, dramatic movie. It investigates the characters and suggests how they were warped by the times and politics, and also touches on the metaphysical implications of such viciousness. They've let up a little too much at the end, I think, and tried to skew the whole thing so it looks like a romance--would have been better to end it with just a shot of the castle.


This is a very loosely biographical based movie on Vlad Dracula, and it was a very refreshing change.

Roger Daltrey is the weakest actor, and he is pretty good.

Rudolf Martin was perfect for the role of Dracula, what a mix of passion, and vanity.

The story is fact based and if you know your history you can see it weaved though-out this tale. The sets are amazing for a fairly low budget movie.The fight scenes are fair to slightly above average, but this movie is so strongly written you can forgive the weaker fight scenes.

One of the Best Dracula movies I have seen, and by far the best low budget historical(ish) Vlad movie I have seen.


The movie deals with the so-called historical figure of Vlad Tepes (phonetically that is "Tzepesh" and it literally means "Impaler"), not the vampire of Bram Stoker but the tormented Wallachian (Romanian) medieval ruler that stood against the might of the Ottoman Empire with nothing but a few trained men of his own and his reputation as master of psychological warfare by means of sheer terror and unprecedented scale of prisoner execution through impalement (Google on that for detailed info). Vlad's father, also called Vlad, was a member of the Teutonic knightly order of the Dragon, which had been established in Germany with the purpose of protecting Christianity against the rise of Islam at the gates of Europe. His affiliation with this order gained him the surname "Dracul" which is a Romanian translation for "Dragon" and also a synonym for "devil". Vlad the Impaler, that is the son of Vlad Dracul, inherited his father's membership into the order of the Dragon, but because he was the son of Dracul, he was named "Draculea", or "Dracula", which means "son of Dracul", son of the Dragon, and ultimately son of the devil. His reputation as a mad executioner would be well justified by today's standards, although he was just a babe when compared to other rulers of his time (his own cousin, Stephen the Great, ruler of Moldavia, "the Athlete of Christ" as he had been named by the Pope for having repeatedly beaten the crap out of the Turks, had reportedly killed many more people through impalement than Vlad but because he had always been politically correct, he never went down into history as a deranged butcher). Vlad Tepes had the Saxons of Transilvania account for their transgressions against the conquered local Romanian population and it was because of the vengeful literate Germans who wrote exacerbated stories about him that he was later on remembered as the sadistic figure we now read of in the history books. He had also been ruthless with the breaking of the law in his own land. The only punishment instituted for whatever crime committed, regardless of its seriousness, was the one and only impalement. It's because of this that, during his reign, crime had reportedly dropped to nil. That is why, for the Romanians, he's still, up to this day, considered a national hero of special importance, unlike any other, because his name is called upon in times of great oppression, when corruption and plundering of the national economy by the oligarchic political class bring the common, ordinary citizens on their knees. When confronted with such disasters, Romanians cry out the verses of Mihai Eminescu (1850-1889), the greatest national poet of Romania, who had even written a poem in Tepes's honor which, in time, became a sort of a prayer for those crushed by the arrogance of the ruling class. In a few words, it goes something like this (in free translation):

"Where are you, lord Tepes / So that, by grabbing them / You would divide them in two packs: / Lunatics and scoundrels. / And in two large jails / You would forcibly gather them / And then set fire to the prison / And the madhouse."

(sounds much, much better in Romanian...lol :)))


This 2000 TV film, which, I believe, originally aired on Lifetime for Halloween of that year, is excellently done.

It begins with Vlad (Rudolph Martin) meeting with his spiritual adviser, Father Stephan (Peter Weller). He is to appear before the authorities of the Orthodox Church to face charges that he has committed heresy/blasphemy by converting to Roman Catholicism.

Vlad tells his tale, which begins with the "folk-tales" he says he is familiar with: to-wit, an engraving of the Blessed Virgin wept tears of blood at the moment of his birth, a sign that he is an Antichrist. Also tales of hideous torture which he describes as "forgeries and lies", maintaining that only "those who broke the law" were punished.

Then we go back to when he and his brother Radu were children; they were captured by their father's enemy, the Sultan, to be held prisoner until their father, Prince of Romania, agrees to the tribute the Sultan demands. Radu, it is implied, becomes the Sultan's personal plaything, while Vlad is subjected to torture for refusing to comply with his (the Sultan's) desires. Eventually, as a young man, Vlad is released. He seeks out the King of Hungary (Roger Daltrey) for financial/military aid to fight Turkish oppression, as well as those in his own country of Romania who are complicit with the Turkish overlords. The king agrees.

At a banquet with the King, Vlad meets Lidia (Jane March) and her father, Aaron. He learns that Lidia intends to join a convent, but the two soon fall in love, and instead, she becomes his bride. The two soon have a son. One night, Vlad hosts a banquet for Romanian nobles, who he believes are in league with the Turks and are also responsible for the death (by being buried alive) of his father. The men, after a few drinks, are told the real reason Vlad has called them there; the are captured at swordpoint, soon to be impaled. But Lidia, upstairs in her bed, hears their cries. She comes out of their bedroom to see what is happening but goes into labor. Their son is born.

As the child grows, Vlad gains a reputation for brutality. His method of justice includes public impalements. At one point, a group of Romanian emmisaries who have come to make a final demand for tribute from his country - and are led by his brother, Radu, who has stayed with and decided to side with the Turks - refuse to remove their turbans when asked to do so. Vlad thinks of an appropriate punishment for this - their turbans are nailed to their foreheads. He spares only his brother.

Lidia witnesses this, and it is the final straw. She has already begun to be driven mad by her husband's methods, having witnessed impalement firsthand. She imagines that she hears the victims of such punishment crying out to her. She decides that she must leave her husband and take their son with her, before his father has any further influence on him. Instead, Vlad keeps their son and sends his wife to a convent. His battles with the Turks continue.

Eventually, he calls for his wife to be sent back to him and asks for her understanding and forgiveness for what he must do. His wife stays with him, but, after Vlad seemingly comes back to life after his soldiers were convinced that he was killed in battle, she becomes convinced that her husband is a damned soul; that is to say, that his spirit is doomed to remain in limbo on earth forever because neither Heaven nor Hell will receive him. She commits suicide, which, according to her own beliefs, will damn her own soul.

Lidia's father, who blames Vlad for his daughter's bad end, devises a plot against him; going to Radu, Aaron has given him a set of forged documents that indicate that Vlad was conspiring against the King of Hungary, his greatest ally. When Vlad appears before the King to ask for further aid, he is instead imprisoned for years. However, he is released when the King uncovers the plot. "Would you like to become Prince of Romania again?", he asks Vlad. But there is one condition; he must marry the King's daughter, which would also entail converting (even if in name only) to Roman Catholicism. And from now on, when he battles, it will be on behalf of the Catholic Church.

This is what leads to the trial Vlad must face before the Orthodox priests. They are determining whether to excommunicate him from their Church. Although he insists that he "accepted the Pope's money, never his religion", they ultimately decide to do so.

There follows a final revelation of betrayal (I won't give the twist away), a final battle with Radu, and Vlad's death. When Father Stephan does not want to bury Vlad inside the Orthodox church where he had worshipped in his lifetime, Vlad's son pulls a sword on him and says, "or you die with him".

But one night, Fr. Stephan hears strange noises coming from below his study, where Vlad's coffin his being kept. He goes downstairs and finds said coffin empty. Then Vlad himself, very much alive, appears before him. "I wanted to thank you", he says. You see, by excommunicating him during his lifetime, the Orthodox Church has supposedly damned him to remain immortal on earth forever by damning his soul. The final shot is what makes this a dark-tinged romance more than anything else; Vlad and Lidia, walking hand-in-hand through a thick mist, two souls, we are led to assume, that are now spending their eternal damnation together.

Well worth a watch, especially this time of year (note date of my review). And yes, if I neglected to mention it, Rudolph Martin is gorgeous! And for you gentlemen, Ms. March is still no slouch herself.

Cheers.


As an avid reader of Romanian history, I held great expectations from this movie. I understood the movie lacked the necessary resources to stage the great battles that took place, but I was still hoping for a fair portray of Vlad and his environment. I was therefore greatly disappointed when both Vlad and one of his closest servants wore skin pants, almost resembling the rock-and-roll days of the 80s. The movie enforces a Gothic impression of Wallachia, following the stereotype created by vampire movies instead of offering a true historical depiction of the country.

The battles are embarrassing to watch. In 1467, Mehmed II invaded Wallachia with up to 90,000 men. Vlad possessed over some 22,000 men, while 7,000 were sent to defend Chilia against his cousin, Stephen, who ruled Moldavia. In the movie, the battle is presented with the Ottomans skirmishing the army of what someone would believe to be Van Halen. Apart from the ahistorical depiction of the costumes, Hollywood added things that have no bearing to history. Vlad's conflict with the Orthodox priests is not documented, nor is it documented that he was to be killed by a priest when he was an infant. Vlad's brother, Radu the Handsome, is more accurately portrayed, but the two never fought a duel. The presence of other historical characters which had great influence on the development of Vlad's reign, are absent.

One could go on in an endless circle on why this movie is poor, ahistorical, and anachronistic; but it wouldn't be worth it. This is just a poor B-movie that failed in everything it set out to do.