Player 5150 is a great film for the authenticity it brings to screen. A rare gem in the rough. By comparison to all the special-effect driven overblown budged movies being released today, Player 5150 is a character-driven story that takes you through every range of emotion. David O'Neill (Writer/Director) does a great job inviting you, no daring you, to identify with the main character Joey, (Ethan Embry) who is a compulsive gambler and whose life is about to spin out of control. As you do, you experience a taste of that "unique rush of excitement" that a real gambler feels when they are up and are winning, but when luck runs out, the finality of what it means to lose hits home and the darker side of gambling emerges.

Enter Tony (Christopher McDonald) a ruthless no non-sense loan shark. In my opinion, I thought McDonald delivered an award winning performance along with Bob Gunton (Nick) in showing the raw, gritty, and sadistic reality found on the losing side of the coin of gambling. Where gamblers gamble for the thrill and the rush, loan sharks are about greed. As you travel along at 200 mph with Joey in the fast-lane of a gambler's life, McDonald is the proverbial brick-wall-reality-check smiling sadistically back at you as you slam into him. A gripping performance was delivered also by Kathleen Robertson (Ali), who played Joey's wife giving us insight on what it is like being in love with someone who has a self-destructive addiction.

My only criticism would be about the ending. I felt that this movie could have had any number of endings and it would have been alright, but it seemed like an ending couldn't be decide upon so they creatively worked them all in somehow. For me, it made the ending fuzzy and gray instead of a bold clear contrast which made the rest of the movie gripping and powerful.

As an overall experience, I enjoyed watching the movie very much. It kept you constantly leaning forward in anticipation of what would happen next. If you enjoy fast-pace action-drama and character-driven stories, then highly recommend Player 5150 as it delivers.


First off, I never take the time to actually write a review of any of the movies I have seen, but I felt the need to do so to prevent others from having to waste their time with this film. I must admit that the fact that this went straight to DVD and starred Bob Sapp should have clued me in to the fact that this movie was less than stellar, but I went against my better judgment and watched it anyway. I am actually a bit embarrassed to admit that I was actually looking forward to seeing this since I tend to like movies that deal with plot lines centered on investing/stock trading (of which there was very little in this movie) and gambling (the main focus).

The acting in this movie was terrible and it was painfully obvious that this was a pretty low budget film. There were a few somewhat notable actors in this film though which causes me to wonder what they were thinking since there is no way this job landed them a big, fat paycheck. Granted, Ethan Embry isn't exactly the first name off of a casting director's lips when discussing a potential lead for a huge blockbuster, but his talent surely merits him better work opportunities than this.

If you choose to watch this movie despite the numerous red flags it has (straight to DVD, low budget, K-1 fighters attempting to act, etc.), seek solace in the fact that you will not waste too much of your time. The one redeeming quality that this movie had was the fact that it clocked in at just under an hour and a half. So, after you shake your head in disbelief at the ridiculous ending, you can at least look at the clock and thank the editors of this film for the fact that they could have wasted even more of your time.

Proceed with caution.


Avoid this movie at all costs, everything about it is bad, especially the ending which is almost comical.

Here's a hint to American film makers who want to make a movie about the world of the gambler. Gambling is legal in many countries, in fact betting (bookie) shops were legalized in the UK in 1961 ! This means that to many audiences the whole notion of the penniless gambler running away from a bookie who wants to break his legs is just an archaic stereotype.

The gambling world should be a fountain of stories for movie makers to film. Instead we normally get the dumb and dumbered down type of nonsense that Player 5150 represents.


Hal Holbrook is excellent. Martin Sheen is excellent. The story line is very touching. Hal Holbrook's son does not know his father is gay when he first comes for his annual summer visit. His live in lover, Martin Sheen, moves out during the visit and moves in with his very liberal minded sister and brother-in-law. One of the most memorable exchanges for me, takes place between Martin Sheen and his sister when she tells him how much she understands his lifestyle. His response is unexpected but very right on! The son learns accidently about his father and runs away but befriends a cablecar operator who helps him sort things out. Hope Lange is the perfect ex-wife. Great movie. I wish ABC would re-release it!


Well-made TV-movie, largely acknowledged as the first made-for-television film to tackle the subject of homosexuality, has divorced San Francisco contractor Hal Holbrook looking forward to a visit from his fourteen-year-old son who lives out in Los Angeles with his mother; things are shaky when the kid meets his dad's new male friend, and once he figures out that Pop enjoys this male companion more so than eligible women, he runs away in anger and confusion. Levinson/Link production won raves upon its first network showing, and indeed it is smart, focused, and without stereotypes. Still, when the kid runs away (for a large section of the film), precious time on the clock is wasted as the adults search for him and worry. The film isn't melodramatic, thankfully; it's brave, it has a thoughtful, melancholy undermining, and the gay theme is served well (only some of the dialogue dates it). But more courageous the whole thing might have been with more hearty talk and less shame and tears.


"That Certain Summer" was more than just one of 1972's best productions made expressly for television. It was an outstanding presentation by any standard and for any medium. The entire cast, crew, and production team worked in fine ensemble fashion to create a memorable and significant achievement. This deserves to be revived and widely offered on video.


That Certain Summer must have been ground breaking for a 1972 audience. Today I saw the film for the first time, and am duly impressed. Too bad it's not available for sale on DVD, or video. Well done stories about homosexuality are difficult to find. This one is well worth seeing! As That Certain Summer was done before the intrusion of AIDS, the film can only focus on homosexuality itself, not on the complexities of gay people reacting to crisis.

Fortunately LOGO is showing That Certain Summer, and other similarly good films. That Certain Summer is comparable to the qualities found in Long Time Companion, and As Is.

I recommend it!


I am reminded of this serious 1972 TV movie as a result of the newly released film, Brokeback Mountain. I was only 18 at the time, but the Holbrook/Sheen/Lange movie stayed with me for all these years. I think I still have a crush on Martin Sheen in his turtleneck sweater. All three leads in the movie did an excellent job. The movie seemed so serious and rather dark at the time. I just wish we could have talked more about the subject matter back then. It was one of those TV movies that just "disappeared" from site or discussion group comments. (Thank goodness for VHS and DVDs!) I am not aware of any reruns of this movie...ever. I'm sure someone will use it in a documentary some day.


I saw this at the Museum of Radio and Television (don't think it's available on DVD). I had first seen it as what now called a "questioning" young man in 1972 (the son's character was 14, I was 13 at the time) and remembered it being very important to me as the first sensitive, non- judgmental portrayal of gay men on television. I particularly remembered the poise of a very young Martin Sheen. Viewing it again after 35 years it was almost as affecting, with wonderful acting by a very strong ensemble cast, with Hope Lange a stand-out as the mother/ex-wife. I enjoyed the early-70s touches (shag carpeting in the bathroom, 8-track cassettes) but realized that -- despite so many advances in gay rights over the years -- it could almost be re-made today and still make sense. Cross your fingers that this someday is available on DVD.


That Certain Summer is way ahead of it's time for the year 1972.I did not see the movie when it originally aired in 1972. I had not even heard of the movie until I received this movie on VHS tape from a collector.I watched it a couple of nights ago, and I was amazed at the subject matter for the year 1972.First off, the cast was excellent. Hal Holbrook, Hope Lange, Martin Sheen, and Scott Jacoby were just right for their roles.The scenery and setting of San Francisco added to the film's atmosphere.What I like best about the movie is the way that the story ended. The ending did not produce any certain answers for the family involved.The viewer can decide whether the family will make it through the heartache and hurt that all of them are experiencing.This movie was very well done,and is very tender and touching.I recommend this movie very much.I have this movie.


I don't know if I would still think this movie was worth 8 or not. I have tried to find it for years, to view it as an adult and see if I would like it as much! I can't imagine how it was stuck into anybodies lineup. The letters must have come pouring in from all the far right fundamentalists! It seemed to be a TV movie way ahead of the pack with it's sensitive angle, from son's perspective. Nobody was a bad guy. I was following Scott Jacoby's career at the time and thought he did a great job! While portraying homosexuals was a brave career move (back then) for both Hal and Martin, I thought Scott stole the show! I think this may have been the best thing he did as an actor.


I saw it when it was first broadcast--and some of it again when rerun a year or two later. It made me very squidgy. The principals and producers weren't really comfortable with the material and it showed. The only thread of the story that was credible was Hope Lange's distress at having her son (or adopted son?) suddenly find out about his father's (or adoptive father's?) live-in boyfriend.

Scott Jacoby was horrendously miscast. The only way Hope Lange and Hal Holbrook could have had this ugly, obnoxious kid was to have taken in the child of some (unrelated) friends. Perhaps the other couple got killed in an auto accident--who knows? Anyway, it would make sense for Hal and Hope not to have had any kids of their own, so this created a whole new backstory that was not explicitly dealt with in the script. Here they were stuck with this pushy brat, and bending over backwards to be nice to him and smooth over his ruffled feelings, and they always got bupkis for their trouble.

The pivotal scene was Martin Sheen bringing out the birthday cake ('but it's noawt moy boitday!' kvetches the brat) and then Sheen has to swallow endless abuse and innuendo from the little creep, who (let's face it) knew the score from the moment he saw his 'father' living in the same house with this other guy. This is another example of disjuncture between the actual script and the story as portrayed: the Scott Jacoby character is an up-to-date, crudely aware little wiseguy, but the director and adult actors are going around pretending he's this delicate flower who's had a sheltered life. I imagine that the kid was a past-master at subtle psychological blackmail. This new 'revelation' just gives him more ammunition. His poor adoptive parents!

And the moral is: Don't adopt a kid who's obviously not yours. You'll get no thanks!


Pride and prejudice, betrayal and revenge, lust and purity, kidnappings, tournaments, and ransoms... what better ingredients could be assembled in one film? This retelling of Ivanhoe has many exceptional qualities, including first-rate cinematography and chivalric music. But the quality of this Ivanhoe lies in the casting. James Mason plays an excellent Isaac of York, and Olivia Hussey's Rebecca is every bit as passionate as Elizabeth Taylor's. Lysette Anthony has all the ingenue quality of a Saxon princess; yet one wonders whom Ivanhoe would have chosen to marry if race and religious prejudices had not been the order of the day. One of the strengths of this film was, to my mind, the triumvirate of villains Bois-Guilbert, de Bracy, and Front de Boeuf. Sam Neill is brilliant as the knight torn between his order and his obsession with a "Jewess heathen", and Stuart Wilson shines in the supporting role of the besotted de Bracy. This film was released on video at one point, as I rented it from a video store. I highly recommend it.


If you have the chance, catch this splendid Ivanhoe remake on the tube or on VHS (it is a crying shame that this doesn't come on DVD, Amazon). It punches several well deserved holes in the tedious, pompous and dire 1952 version with the two Taylors, each performing worse than the other. Come on, Robert Taylor as Ivanhoe?? The 1952 film is clearly a case of a movie being made at the wrong time in Hollywood history.

Anyone questioning the acting capabilities of Anthony Andrews clearly hasn't seen Brideshead Revisited. He is a great, believable, and may I add, gorgeous Ivanhoe.

The film boasts a great, thought provoking script (which granted does take some liberties with the source material although much of the lovely dialog from Scott's book has found its way into the film), great performances (especialy by Neill, Mason and Hussey and the incomparable George Innes as Wamba) as well as beautiful production values and photography.

And, as an added bonus, it is a virtual babe fest (Wilson, Neill and Andrews are all at their physical prime here)!


This is one of my favorite movies of all times. And the best version of Scott's tale as of yet. A+ for the professional and highly convincing cast, the costumes, the beautiful scenery, and the 'rich' plot. A good drama, a great epic, and a romance in times of chivalry and honor (i.e., in extinct times!).


Just like in " Romeo and Juliet " Olivia Hussey takes place in front of us. She makes all the difference. An extraordinary actress with a very special beauty takes this classical movie and place it very, very high...

The music, the scenery- and the acting... It all ends up in this beautiful movie. Sadness. Frustration and a lot of love.

You got to love it...


Ivanhoe: A nice experience for a romantic fan

This was a TV-movie I liked when I was a child, I still think it is okay, but maybe not a realistic end battle between Brian and Wilfred, and the same with the make up, some of the costumes and hair styles. But you will find a lot of good joustings between the knights. Some of the actors are better than average, I liked Sam Neill as Brian de bois Builbert and James Mason as Isac of York.

Rating: 7 of 10.


I guess all countries have a few strange traditions and this film is connected to one of ours in Sweden. Every New Year´s Day the last twenty years public service television have showned this movie in the afternoon, the perfect time for dragging yourself up, buying a pizza and maybe forget your extreme hangover for a while. Everyone knows the film inside out but are still watching it year after year; fills in on every funny line (like when de Boeuf shouts "Striiip him!"), laughs once again over great characters like Athelstone and Tuck and gets annoyed over how Ivanhoe can choose the boring Lady Rowena before foxy Olivia Hussey. I can´t really say anymore if it´s a good movie or not but I guess it´s perfect for a day after...


We watched this movie in school. We also watched Spartacus. I definitely prefer Ivanhoe to Spartacus. I think that Ivanhoe was more interesting with all of the jousting. Though, as I was watching it I kept thinking of "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" by Mel Brooks. "Its King Richard back from the Crusades" Though at the end of the film, our teacher take a vote and the boys thought that Ivanhoe should choose Rowena and the girls wanted Ivanhoe to choose Rebecca!Overall I really liked this movie. I really want to read the book now. Though some parts are boring. The jousting is wicked cool though. If Sir William Scott was still alive, I think that he would of been very proud.


"Ivanhoe" is one of the best historical movies I've ever seen! I would recommend this to anybody because it's full of romance and adventure. I didn't like the ending though, only because Sam Neill's character didn't end up with Rebecca (Olivia Hussey), which was really sad.

I don't know what else to say besides the fact that I fell in love with this movie after I saw it the first time. But the fact that they portrayed Rowena as the beautiful girl that everybody was supposed to like was kinda depressing. Between Rebecca and Rowena, I think Rebecca stole the movie because of her courage and will to help Ivanhoe even though they have different backgrounds. So if you have read this, go out and buy the video.


I must admit I've always liked this one. There are many reasons, but the chief one is the cast, which is brilliant in all parts.

Playing a hero, especially a naïve goody-two-shoes one, is probably the most difficult job in show business (just ask anyone who's played Batman) but he solves it very well, and sometimes annoyingly so (when he remains faithful to the beautiful, but dull, Rowena (also well-payed by Anthony, who does the best she can with Rowena).

From a post modern, jaded opinion, the more interesting characters are the three villains; the egocentric Front de Beuf (Rhys Davies), the amoral Maurice the Bracy (Stuart Wilson) and the cunning Brian de Bois Guilbert (Sam Neill). Also, the wise Rebecca (Olivia Hussey), the bitter Isaac (James Mason) and the stubborn Cedric (Michael Hordern) are good, and even Wamba and Robin Hood. In fact, while the book/film is called "Ivanhoe", the interesting parts are the dynamics between Brian Guilbert and Rebecca, or between James Mason and John Rhys-Davies (classic!).

Summing up: The film portrays Medieval England as both civilized and savage, and the castles and costumes are plausible rather than costly. The film has an epic battle scene, as well as really good jousting, intelligent conversation and interesting character development. It's definitely worth watching.


As a classic storytale it has it all. A great plot, characters you fall in love with, evil bad guys etc But the film has aged well as a drama also, I reckon now way later... The cast is excellent. Top quality actors all over the place. And Olivia Hussey in this role, breaks my heart every time. I'd say this is one of those classic films that you can watch as a kid, with your parents and their parents and you will all enjoy it (for the same or different reasons) It is a crying shame if it's not available on DVD. My VHS copy is falling apart, but I'm lucky since Swedish National Television airs Ivanhoe every Christmas....


Courage, revenge, love, combat, victory, honor, defense, reconciliation...those ideals deeply hidden within the human spirit have long been considered precious targets of human life. Not only poetry and literature but also epic movies attempted to promote the virtues and depict humanity in the spirit of reason and heart. The question was: historical time. In this respect, there was, perhaps, no better period in history than the 1,000 year-long Middle Ages, both controversial and spiritual with a flair for darkness and exceptional enlightenment. Among many other epic movies that depict the period is IVANHOE based on Sir Walter Scott's novel being at the same time a remake of the 1952 classic Hollywood production.

Keeping in mind that remakes usually face high expectations in case of their classic "predecessors", I watched this movie without much referring to the older version and that is how I intend to comment on it underneath.

Let me say at the beginning that IVANHOE by Douglas Camfield is a very good movie at multiple levels. It makes a perfect use of historical material supplying us with a clear and pretty accurate insight into Medieval England, and, more specifically, its late 12th century situation with savage conflicts, difficult political situation, Anglo-Saxons vs Normans relations, prejudice as well as those visual aspects like costumes, feasts and baths. In this respect, the movie may constitute for a viewer a wonderful journey into those distant times and bring out some pearls out of prefabricated negative opinions about the Middle Ages. There was, indeed, something good about the period, too. The aspect of interest highlighted in this case appears to be Ashbey sequence where the savage combines with the glamorous or the deep psychology and morals of characters expressed in many scenes throughout. Here, it seems necessary to mention Lady Rowena (Lysette Anthony) and Rebecca (Olivia Hussey), two women of different backgrounds who face similar emotions.

Besides, IVANHOE can boast very good cinematography, wonderful shots, stunning locations. Consider, for instance, the subtle images at the scene when Ivanhoe visits Lady Rowena at her castle with Wamba (George Innes). The extraordinary locations and interesting shots make the film not only a historical work but also a rousing adventure. Moreover, to these artistic features, I would add a very accurate sense of humor (consider the scene of a bath or Wamba's Pax Vobiscum) and subtle musical score. The tunes are filled with the spirit of chivalry and the spirit of romance which, alone, can resemble the very essence of the story. But, the core of art is acting.

The movie known for a number of famous and talented cast could be falsely assessed as a vehicle. Yet, it does not have to be a "promotion" for anybody. To the contrary, it is a film that proves the importance of talent first and foremost. All the cast take great pains to give something truly great of themselves. Anthony Andrews is a perfect Ivanhoe as described by Sir Scott and as imagined by modern viewers. He clearly portrays a character of courage, nobility and gentleness. Sam Neill and John Rhys Davies appear to give powerful performances as "Norman dogs" people not so much afraid for the good but rather absorbed by savage brutality. James Mason does a fine job as calm, good Jew, Isaac of York, whose destiny appears to have brought more wounds than cure. The female roles are brilliant. Here, however, I would not praise that much Lysette Anthony: I admit she is beautiful, she gives a memorable performance. Yet, the absolute top notch is Olivia Hussey, the famous heroine at Zeffirelli's appears here as a gentle, subtle, beautiful Jewess whose "individually formed spirituality" conquers "externally organized morality" of many "pious men of God." She gives a brilliant performance as a flower of peace fearfully surrounded by the thorn of war and the light of tolerance surrounded by the darkness of prejudice. Absolutely great role! Consider, among many, the scenes depicting the trial.

In the end, if you see this IVANHOE, do not compare it with the older version. These are two different films focusing on different aspects. If someone insists on me to say which one is better, I'd rather say both are good films. Thorpe's IVANHOE is a typical epic of the classic Hollywood era while Camfield's IVANHOE stands out on its own as a movie filled with remarkable psychology and adventure. Great tribute to the real Courage and the Chivalrous Spirit!


Every new years day 14:10pm it's tradition that our whole family sits down in front of the TV and watch Ivanhoe. I just love this classic film of knights and virgins. The story is beautiful and the fights is great. it's a real treat if you are like me a fan of medieval story's. A fun scene i never will forget is when Robin Hoods priest Tuck punch king Richard the Lionheart right in the mouth, not knowing who he is. A great moment for me was when i in a Dungeuns and dragon game meeting stole Sam Neils Line after i was challenged by another knight. "Prepare your self then. Look the last upon the sun!" If you like Anthony Andrews as Wilfred of Ivanhoe i recommend his Other TV movie The Scarlet Pimpanel.


Yes, it does "period" in the same broad sweeping comic-book gestures as the Hollywood of yesteryear. Yes, saying Sam Neil is over-acting in this one is like calling Lassie merely a good dog. Yes, we've so done the hero-who-actually-IS-a-good-guy bit. Yes, the overly French-Horned theme reminds me of the satirically self-important music from Young Frankenstein. It is cheesy, yes! But you start out with a classic romp of a tale that happens to (as a little bonus) dig a little deeper and discuss some pretty important stuff. And  my god  Olivia Hussey was a babe.

And what is really great is that as this book was written, your interest doesn't have to be maintained by the titular character because there are supporting folks heavy-laden with their own fascinating tales  and that's the way this movie was cast; the most interesting actors are playing the most interesting characters.

And Robin Hood is in it. That just rocks.


This remake of Ivanhoe suffers from several things: changes in the story line, incongruities in the historical aspects of the period and Anthony Andrews's inability to portray anything beyond a prig middle class playboy. Good performances by Sam Neill, James Mason and Olivia Hussey can't save it. The costumes are fine but Andrew's wincing and facial contortions along with John Rhys-Davies's over-acting and emoting ruin it. Too bad. This one had potential. Hey, if you want a costume drama fix, go see the 1952 Robert Taylor and Liz Taylor version: it's much more satisfying.


The story is a bit cold-blooded, but the dialog between Millard the mediocre writer and Lucky the demonic dog is some of the wittiest ever you'll hear in American film. And the sparkling cast does the dialog justice. A minor morbid gem along the lines of "Eating Raul" and "The Honeymoon Killers."

The writer, Stephen Sustarsic, have a long and extensive background in television sitcoms, but here he seems to have let his unbridled id indulge in the sort of Rabelasian humor that the networks would NEVER allow. As it is, this movie's take on every writer's nightmare when facing creative paralysis cuts a lot deeper than anything Stephen King has managed.


To be humorous on a low budget feature is often a very difficult task. To blend humor and horror is an even more arduous task. But director Steve Cuden does so with such imagination and creativity. With a feature that can best be described as daring, Cuden has created a jet black comedy that will chill you. With great performances and a distinct visual style, this hybrid film will thoroughly entertain and sit up and beg for repeat viewings. Definitely, check this film out!


Millard Mudd is a down on his luck cartoon writer whose fortunes change with the arrival of a cute little dog named Lucky. Murder and mayhem ensue.

Lucky is not a good movie - it's too wordy, the "hero" is completely unlikeable, and the pacing is off. But it's filled with more disturbing stuff than most movies: necrophilia, sex torture, and chainsaws among them. Plus it really seems to hate women. SIDEBAR: I'm a chick horror fan and get really upset when people point to horror flicks as nothing but misogyny. But this movie really doesn't like women.

It kept me watching right up to the dumb ending because I had to see where it was going. Has some darkly funny moments but nothing special. No animal cruelty though - the car wreck that introduces Lucky excepted.

Best Line: "Perception is nine tenths of the law."


I happened to be one of the few, very fortunate people to see this at a recent screening during the "first annual" NYC (Independent) Horror Film Festival, and let me tell you, it was a real treat! It was far and away the favourite-of-show (winning Best in Show by the judging panel, and - ballot tabulation not having been posted, I can only guess, but probably - audience favourite as well). Pray that some distributor has the good sense to overlook its idiosyncratic, non-mainstream nature and recognise it as must-see cinema. This is one hard film to describe without ruining surprises or giving away too much. The writer, Stephen Sustarsic, has done a great job of summarising it without including spoilers, so I will try to give you a feel for the movie instead of a synopsis. In Hollywood Speak, it would be The Secret Life of Walter Mitty meets Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, with dashes of Amelie and Twin Falls, Idaho (and possibly Crumb) thrown in for flavour. But it is definitely much more than the sum of its filmic predecessor parts. First and foremost, it has a loopy, loony, don't-take-me-too-seriously quality, augmented by the music (one almost expects an accordion from some French cafe to be playing in the background, as in Delicatessen or Amelie, but it's a bit more restrained than that), which absolutely belies the seriousness of what's actually taking place. But it is this deludedly, deceptively droll approach which helps take the audience by the hand and lead them willingly along to the abhorrent shocks that await.

It also has similarities with films like Eraserhead - NOT the dreadfully slow pacing, but the way in which it takes an absolutely pedestrian look at a life filled with increasingly bizarre occurrences. Again, it is this dichotomy of style and substance - the absurdist, banal storytelling method used to describe horrific atrocities - which helps the audience accept and even welcome each new level of insanity that develops as the film progresses. This dichotomy is even further augmented by the casting. You have all seen the lead, Michael Emanuel; he is perhaps most recognisable as the guy who "lowered his cholesterol" in those ubiquitous TV commercials (and was also the husband in the McDonald's commercial in which the son gets the mother and father to believe each wants to take the other out to dinner by way of apology). He is the absolute, quintessential Everyman, the down-on-his-luck, wouldn't-hurt-a-fly kind of guy you wouldn't look twice at on the street. He is so normal, and so much the secret us, the part of us that "knows" we're doomed to failure and mediocrity, that you can't help rooting for him when he begins to succeed, no matter what the cost. And it is our belief in and acceptance of him as our own most prosaic self that helps us exonerate his actions and empathise with his plight.

This isn't exactly entirely new territory, nor is it mind-bendingly innovative or inventive. Certainly there have been dozens of other films to explore ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances, as well as the nature of sanity, the dual-edged sword of creativity, and the ways in which perception is more real than "reality." There are even numerous directors who have taken similar approaches to the story telling found in Lucky - Jean-Pierre Jeunot, the Cohen brothers, and Woody Allen (in their darkest periods) all come to mind. But this is good company to be in. And it has a smallness, a personability and charm to it, that makes you feel as if you've discovered the movie yourself, and want rush out and tell your friends, as I am trying to do here. So if you like absurdist serio-comedy with a sting to it, please, please, please be on the lookout for this movie, see it, and support it the best you can. You won't be disappointed!


Wow! Attended a local film festival where they were showcasing horror / sci-fi films. This definitely caught our eye being the basis about a talking dog and how it drives his owner to kill. After the film, my friends and I were shocked and disturbed but we were so enthralled that we can't stop talking about it. This is one pet you don't want to forget to walk or feed!


Well...i rented this movie only because i needed a second movie to rent at the video store and this one promised a dollar back if returned the next day...now i know why..they knew no one would want to keep this poor excuse of a movie in their house for more then a day. I believe it actually lowered my intelligence. The funny thing is, the main character rambles on as if he is supposed to be intelligent with a bunch of 50 cent words at best...and funny enough the only reason i rented this movie was the fact that the box description claimed a dog<which looked a little like the taco bell dog with a mohawk with an african american accent> actually talked, and told him things to do...well the dog never physically talks, it just talks TELEKENETICALLY...i would tell you more..but half way through the film my eyes began to close as well did my fiances...so at least this movie serves as a sleep aid...That sadly however is its only purpose. Please dont do like i normally do and rent the movie despite the bad review, when i say this movie sucks worse then having a dog p*ss on the leg of your best dress slacks...i mean it!!


I saw this at the San Francisco independent film festival, and it was totally contrived and boring. It was intended to shock the audience, I was just shocked on how slow and unimaginative this supposively innovative movie was. I won't give it away, but will only say that you will be disappointed if you decide to watch the whole movie through. It certainly does not get better as it drags on.


I saw this at NYC Horror Film Festival and was shocked to read that it won for best feature!!! This film was boring and lackluster and by no means was compelling. I do not see why it is labeled as a horror film. Maybe because it is horrific.


This movie must be viewed with an open mind - realizing it is a spoof, I believe - and not to be taken seriously. Carrie Barton (as Sadie Pray) in the blonde wig was just too funny and completely looked different than her pix on this website. I believed her and wanted to see more of her. Even though Carrie's part was small, she continued to be impressive with her subtle portrayal of a character difficult to portray, in that it was a character that could easily be "overdone." While the movie does have some disturbing scenes, overall those scenes were not so objectionable that I turned away. It was funny. I look forward to following her career planned for the future.


Here it is. Out the thousands of movies I've seen over the decades, this one BITES. I could always find something to like about every movie, but this one is totally disturbed. A bad writer in a bad situation makes some bad decisions with bad results and creates more bad situations that snowball into more bad situations with bad dialogue and bad filming and bad screenplay. The dog is bad, even before it dies. The characters are bad. The music is bad. The smell of the DVD is bad. The art work is bad. There is no suspense. The gore is bad. The special effects are bad. I had to take some Pepto in the middle of the movie, but like a trooper I choked the entire movie down. That night I even had a bad dream about the movie. Guinness Book is looking at this one right now as the worlds badest of the bad.


Thats not a joke, If you like this movie you are not safe in your own company. Don't wait call the doctor now, 72 hour evaluation might seem painful but the sooner you get it over with the sooner you can get on with your life which is probably not worth getting on with at this point so you can start a new one. Seriously, if you like this movie you are heading for trouble, there is help. You know what happens to mu-dd at the end, don't be that guy. The term of use on this site are really stupid, I've said every thing there is to say about this movie and I have to keep typing until I reach ten lines to post it. Also it thinks mu-dd is a spelling error, That is a guys name Idiot robot. almost finished, lucky sucks. and so does this site, we cant even emphasise things with capitol lettering? Gayness!


This movie is complete garbage. I didn't think it was funny or anything. I could find no redeeming value in this movie at all. Do you think it would be okay for someone to make a movie about a child molester killing kids and raping them? Neither do I, and I also don't think it is okay for them to make a movie where the killer does this to women. When is the world going to wake and realize that this kind of stuff is not okay?

This movie supposedly won awards. So did Eminem, the guy who sings about raping his 10 year old sister. Well, I think it is very misogynistic and Hastings should not be carrying this kind of movie. Next time I'll be renting at Blockbuster.


Two well-known titles in the noir cycle are The City That Never Sleeps (1953) and While The City Sleeps (1956). Before them, there was the less familiar The Sleeping City. In this last (or first), what seems asleep is not so much New York as a city-within-a-city  the huge old fortress of Bellevue Hospital, where, at night in its wards and among its staff, skulduggery is afoot. Bellvue opened its doors to the film's cast and crew, perhaps not wholly grasping that the resulting portrait might be less than reassuring to prospective patients. But it's not a story, at least explicitly, about malpractice.

A jumpy, distracted intern on his break goes outside to grab a smoke. He ends up with a bullet through his brain. Since the murder appears to be an inside job, an undercover department of the city police plants a detective (Richard Conte) in the hospital among the interns. He's had some medical training in the army and so should pass casual muster. Taking lodging in the building and going on rounds, he makes acquaintances. Among them are his bitter roommate, Alex Nichol, nursing some resentments about not being rich, either by birth or through wedlock; ward nurse Coleen Gray, raising a young son from an unhappy first marriage; and chummy elevator operator Richard Taber, who bunks down off the boiler room  where he runs a book where the cash-strapped interns can play the ponies.

What Conte's after is not just the killer but the source of an infectious but non-microbial malaise that will claim Nichol, too, the night before he was to marry. Conte finds himself the prime suspect in his roommate's death and comes close to blowing his cover before his own superiors intervene. But Conte's suspicions about Taber's bookmaking operation aren't quite on the mark; it turns out that a 'white-stuff job' is the real racket....

Light and portable equipment developed during World War II made location shooting finally feasible, and the low-budget second-features in the post-war years pioneered its use. The Sleeping City affects a pseudo-documentary style that also came into vogue as a complement to the new cinema-verité look (a chase through the bowels of the massive institution stays particularly sinister). Despite a nifty shot of the new interns descending an endless stairwell en masse, the vast hospital looks underpopulated, especially during the graveyard shift. But the claustrophobia (the whole picture is shot in and around the hospital) pays off. The main characters aren't many, but not so few that they can't deliver a final twist.


A bleak, atmospheric movie, filmed entirely on location at New York's Bellevue Hospital. Fine performances by Conte, Gray, Alexander and a slew of New York stage actors. Note the brief but significant appearance, at the beginning of the movie, by Hugh Reilly, who went on to star in the Lassie TV series.


A detective (Richard Conte) goes undercover, posing as an intern at New York's Bellevue Hospital, in order to solve the murder of another intern. What he discovers is a rather sophisticated operation of gambling and drug dealing. Desperate interns, a seductive and crooked ward nurse played by Colleen Grey, and a rather demented hospital maintenance man (Pops) played by Richard Tabor, together call into question the very integrity of the famous hospital. Conte works his way through to solve the murder and to learn the circumstances around it in some unusual film noir settings amidst darkened hospital wards and empty hallways.


This is the first time I have written a comment on IMDb in all the years I have used it avidly to search for worthy videos to watch. I am writing it not because there is not enough comments already for this wonderful series, but to additionally help you decide if you should invest a whopping 54 hours of your life on watching one drama! Since this is aimed at convincing you why you should watch it, I will keep spoilers to a minimum.

So how did I get involved with it? I was searching for worthy Korean TV series to watch after having seen the more contemporary setting drama such as Stairway To Heaven, which is highly recommended. When I came across this, although rated highly by others, I shy-ed away from it for the same reason above ... I just couldn't imagine how this kind of drama can entice me. But...someone I know asked if I have it to lent them due to the fact I told people I watched Korean Drams. I did not in spite of my collection of top DVD titles. I decided to get it just to find out what it was all about. At the time, IMDb did not have this title rated to assist in my decision.

Episode one was interesting. Not hooked but enough interest to keep me going...same with the next one...and then when I finally got to the part when the little Jang Geum became orphaned and out-shone the other little girls in the palace in her determination and diligence, that is when I really got hooked, which brings me to a suggestion ... watch the first 3 episodes in their entirety. If you are still only on the sideline not sure to continue or not after watching episode 3, then you should probably stop watching (really unthinkable to me but I suppose it is possible). The actors/actresses are handsome/pretty, but that is not why I continued.

The first set of DVDs I purchased was made in China and had OK English translation. The problem with the English translation, while subtle, surfaced more in the second half, as one can tell they are not done by the same person(s). An anal movie-buff that I am, I sold it and bought the YesAsia edition, more expensive but has much better translation (a very prominent example would be: Palace Girl in the China Edition is Court Lady in the YesAsia edition -- while Palace Girl is the "literal" translation, the proper equivalent by title is Court Lady). The picture quality is also better. In fact, my wife commented that Jang-Geum (grown up) is not as pretty as in the China version now that she can see the imperfections on her face close up.... So I ended up spending yet another 54 hours re-watching...but it was worth it...because the translation clarified things that otherwise would have been lost as "cultural differences." This is the set that will remain in my library as one of the rare "worthy" TV dramas to collect in its original form. By the way, the China edition in the green box has bonus materials of interview with some of the cast members as well as the last 7 days of filming -- even though there is no English subtitle on the bonus materials, it was still quite enjoyable to see how the cast looked in "modern" attire and their reaction to the questions! :)

With so many TV programs trying to "buy" an audience with "sex, violence, and improper language (lack of respect)" screen time nowadays, it is truly refreshing to see something that not only serves to entertain but also educate at the same time without emphasis on sex and violence! It is little wonder that this series has swept away audiences all over and realigned some of the younger generation to the ideals that seem to be eroding away in the modern world.

In closing, none of the episodes disappointed and they were all enjoyable, but it is just a small few minutes here and there of extra details that seem to drag a bit in the first 10 episodes. In fact, I have a feeling that if you are KOREAN you will probably not feel the drag due to your ability to relate those details better than non-KOREANs like me.

The quality of research that has gone into making this production (the cuisines and the medicines) is impressive and educational. The music - excellent. Combined with the singular vision of one director and one writer for this drama, it is a COMPLETE experience that, in short, will enrich the lives of anyone who is open-minded and willing to invest the time to watch it.

Please let me know if my comment is helpful to you. Thanks!

P.S. Here are some additional research sites that has helped me to connect and enjoy the drama more:

* stillwatersca.blogspot. com/2005/04/dae-jang-geum-background-information. html (please take out the spaces for it to work)

* wikipedia.org

* Lee Young Ae (lead actress) 2006 New Year Message to fans @ http://mydjg.blogspot.com/

Copy and past it into your browser.


The very first time I first heard of this hit Korean drama here in my country was when it was reported that many in Hong Kong watched the finale and it broke the record in terms of viewership ratings there. From then on, it had got me intrigued.

Based on the life of the first ever woman royal physician in the now Korea, it will definitely pull your heartstrings and move you. The age-old philosophy of perseverance and facing whatever adversaries no matter how big or small is dominant in this drama serial.

Lee Young-Ae plays the role of Jang Geum very well. So do the other cast members as well. Those who play the evil court ladies are really so convincing that it made me forgot for a moment that it is only just a show.

The spread of food being shown in the drama serial can really make you go mouth-watering. You will be surprised as to why each dish has its own significance and all that. The medical knowledge that Jang Geum has later on in the serial is really impressive but then at times, it got her into trouble as well. But she always persevered and save the day. The scenes with Lord Min are always very sweet and romantic.

In this current age and times where the traits Jang Geum possesses really make people try to understand more of the world they are in, this show is definitely a winner. Virtually almost no sex is involved here and this is something Asian societies has been waiting for a long time, given our culture can be conservative at times. But as long as anyone is interested in checking out this drama serial, you need to find out first whether there's dubbing and/or subtitles involved if your local TV station is showing it. Chances are there will be, given the original language is in Korean. As I watched this drama serial through DVD, the dubbing and subtitles really helped me understand what is happening.

After finishing watching this show, I understand why so many love it. I do too.


Jang-geum's story is engrossing, as other comments have noted, for all sorts of people. Very inspiring for its central moral drama, it is also full of great incidental historical and cultural information. The lead, Yeong-ae Lee, as Jang-geum, is a fine, subtle actress; here's hoping she will appear in more films. Since she apparently was part of the jury at 2006 Berlin Film Festival she should have a wider world cinema audience. Also, the English subtitles are exceptionally well done, but I regret that they don't give English language production information. Those writers, directors, producers and actors deserve to be honored. It is good that IMDb lets us fans research this, though. Thanks IMDb and commenters, too!


(Just finished the series in S.F./Oakland bay area channel 32 - KMTP (KMTP). On the 4th of July.) WOW! I was always reminding myself that she'll be OK, so calm down. (I looked up two sites to help me):

1. The Chicago Korean Drama Fan Club at:

http://deiner.proboards48.com/index.cgi?board=daejanggeum - excellent site!!

2. http://hkadb.net/info/Jewel_In_The_Palace - details of each hour.

The subtitles are fantastic and clear. The details of all the characters is again fantastic. The cooking and medicine details are amazing. Her adopted parents and friends are priceless. THE WHOLE SHOW IS FANTASTIC!!!

Being 2006, I'm sure, I'm the last to find this "jewel" (sorry - could not resist) it did first come out in 2003. Hope more are as lucky as I am, and find this great series.


i only watched jewel in the palace out of curiosity. it was highly advertised as "phenomenal" and "record breaking" in the Philippines. i watched the first few episodes and got interested enough but a rival show got my attention more.

but my mom, dad and brother were hooked! it finally came to a point where my mom borrowed the disk set from a friend so she can catch up on the episodes she missed. well. they were there and i had nothing else to do so i watched it.

I'm kinda young so i thought it most probably wouldn't float my boat. but surprisingly, i saw myself waking up day after day watching at least 3 episodes of Jewel in the palace.

it was interesting cause no one ever dislikes watching prodigies at work. and that's what janggeum is.. it's just a plus that she's really pretty and has a good heart etc.

seriously, if i watched this on TV it would've driven me crazy. good thing for DVDs! :D the universal appeal that it claims to have seems to be in the fact that it is entertaining, educating and practically without sex and violence. a few fist fights here and there and a truckload of back stabbings, schemings and conniving but not very much blood, gore and general things-that-would-make-your-kid-hit-other-kids.

i haven't finished the entire series but because the TV show is ending here in the Philippines, i already know what's going to happen.

it's a great show to learn from: cooking, medicines, values and standing up for what is right.. all that blah.

apparently, it was well researched and is based on true events.. and who doesn't like that? dae jang geum was the first (and possibly only) personal physician to the king. and that was even after a few death threats and several frame ups. mostly, it's an inspirational story about not giving up

"She is like wild grass. No matter how you pull it, that plant will return and return." -Geum-young


I am a fan of DJG/ Dae Jang Geum/ Da Changjin. A huge one! Last year, I watched those movies on ch 55, avoiding DJG at all costs, because one of my friends told me,"So ancient...don't watch!" One night, I was bored out of my brain. I switched to ch 55, and guess what was playing- DJG. Since I was so bored, I decided to watch anyway(This is the one when the miso tastes funny; in a bad way, so Jang Geum and Han Sang Goong investigates). And holy crap: I was drawn to it. I stared at the TV until the end, and I was officially HOOKED.

Every night, I watched watched watched... even 'preaching' to my friends about it. The friend who told me not to watch it was also hooked. In fact, practically my whole class was hooked.

This drama series is both funny and soul touching. Lee Young Ae is a great actress; it is undeniable. Choi Pan Sool, the merchant who monopolized the palace's goods, has such solid acting that every time I see him angry, I feared that he would burst a blood vessel! Truly memorable.

This is about the story of Jang Geum, a palace maid who is an orphan, but adopted by Kang Dook Gu and his wife, 'Qiuxiang', I assume (It is later mentioned that when Jang Geum's house was raided by Yin Mojie's men, all letters were taken, and all of them were love letters from Kang Dook Gu to his wife, and the letter always starts with 'Blah blah blah Qiuxiang'. That part is HILARIOUS). She is exceptionally bright and goes under the wing of Han Sang Goong. However, due to Chois' meddling, the two were exiled to Jeju island as slave-servants, in which Han Sang Goong died on the way. Jang Geum then trained to be a Medical Lady, because it was the only way a slave-servant can enter the palace. After much work, Jang Geum manages to re-enter the palace and meet up with her old friends. But when Choi Sang Goong and her gang find out, they try in vain to drive Jang Geum out. During the time Jang Geum was a Medical Lady, she contributed much, and in recognition of her work, King Jungjong bestowed on her an official title. She was the first and last woman to gain an official title and be the King's principal physician. However, in the end, she chose the path of a commoner. Waaaaaaa.......I wish she didn't.

Leaves you wanting more, doesn't it?


This is my all-time favorite drama! The OST is absolutely amazing. The plot is captivating, the acting is outstanding, and the actors are well fit for their roles! This drama is so colorful and inspiring in every aspect, and it represents, especially to me a different Korea, a different way of life. The storyline displays Korean way of living in the 16th century, and emphasize an ancient culture. The culture of royal court cuisine, traditional medicine and outfits. Dae Jang Geum's determination, courage and kindness make her a model for imitation. A girl that becomes a woman, a chef, a first female royal physician and a mother despite all hardships. Min Jung Ho's devotion and faithfulness throughout the whole drama, make this to be one the best love stories ever!

If you have yet to watch this drama, make sure you do so!


this series is stunning in every way..the story of Suh Jang Geum, the first woman to ever become the personal royal physician is a gripping story with more plot twists than a plate of spaghetti. the series follows Jang Geum's life in and out of the royal palace in 16th century Korea. Without giving anything away, i just want to say i found the characters very inspiring, as well as entertaining. from a production point of view, the beauty of the sets/costumes, art-dept stuff, the acting from all the major characters was incredible, the story was completely fascinating and the characters were just awesome. if this is the stuff they get to watch in Korea, i'm jealous. i'm thinking of moving. Also, on the DVDs i got (3 box set Korean produced) the English subtitles were really good. which, as someone who mostly watches non-English language movies, is a HUGE point in their favour!!


I watched Dae Jang Geum from DVD. I was more convince by my best friend Jory . i had always associate Yeong-ae Lee with a sort of saccharine , sweet piety but watching it showed a different side and made me admire her deep humility, a virtue that is strange to us now a days, Yeong ae Lee infuses her character with beauty , wit, and intensity. I personally enjoyed the period of settings, customs, " Cooking demo" colorful costumes, etc. as well as finding the character believable and engaging. I recommend this film to anyone of any age, who is looking for uplifting, true story , that will make you laugh and cry ones in a while..Mabuhay!!


This movie is a lot like the movies High Tension, and Creep. It revolves around a lighthouse with a killer on the loose, knocking off every few minutes one more casualty. Although the story is nothing original, the writing, and directing are top-notch and worthy. The movie looks, and feels like a high-budget, blockbuster movie. From my Country of Origin, this movie has a very thrilling and is one of the best slasher films I have ever seen.

This is the first lighthouse type movie I have ever seen, and I think it will remain the best for a while (in my perspective!).

For the overall work and amazing atmosphere, I give this movie a cheering 9/10.


England's most notorious serial killer - the fictional Leo Rook - stalks castaways at a desolate lighthouse in this surprisingly eerie chiller from Britain. Very atmospheric and very gory, as the gaunt killer (Charles Adamson) hacks his way through the supporting cast, comprised of his former keepers and cellmates. Pretty scary stuff despite director Simon Hunter's formulaic "stalk 'n' slash" approach. Heads will roll (a total of six, I believe) before the explosive ending.

Even a jaded horror fan like me found plenty of nerve-wracking sequences to enjoy -- especially the lighthouse toilet scene. So, by all means, grab your rowboats and head for the mainland before Leo Rook catches up with you.


With all this garbage they call horror coming out these days, you almost automatically become skeptic and negative-minded towards smaller productions before you've even seen them! My expectations on "Lighthouse" were very low (actually, I had none) but it turned out a pleasant surprise and it's really not that bad at all. This even is  do I dare to use the word  a GOOD chiller with a no-nonsense plot, some atmospheric tension, impressively staged set pieces and even a couple of authentic shock/gore sequences. Don't expect originality, of course, as the screenplay is primitive horror material with a psychopath stalking and butchering a small group of people in an isolated setting. This setting, however, is very appealing since it's an island with only an ancient lighthouse on it and the people are survivors of a sunk prison ship. Following the old-fashioned Jason Vorhees traditions, the killer carries a machete around which makes the murders nasty and body country fairly high. Every cliché you can name features here, but I personally couldn't care less because this is a fun and unpretentious thrill-ride and nothing more. The Leo Rook character is the closest thing to a scary psychopath we horror fans have seen in years and writer/director Simon Hunter deserves some praise for knowing his classics. There are a handful of terrific sequences, like the actual shipping accident and the 'Vertigo'-like camera-work inside the lighthouse. The extended sequence in the loo is damn close to brilliant!


It's not that this is a terribly awful film, but it would take at least some effort to view it at this point. I tried numerous download sites, checked websites after i read favourable right ups. It is not worth the effort.

A sub standard, weak, predictable and at time plain awful plot, bad acting, no real threat. Save your time and do something more productive.

I would recommend that rather than watching this you spend the time looking for other, better, films to watch.

If you've somehow stumbled upon this title, the odds are you will find another one that's much better in no time.


It has to be said at times our British film industry seems to only cater for lovers of middle-class romcom action. However, there's a nice undercurrent of vicious, tense horror movies with a little touch of something different coming out of the UK as well. I've been thrilled by My Little Eye and Creep this year, and just as I thought the year was drawing to a close, I watched this little gem.

I love the slasher sub-genre, so it's nice to see some of my fellow countrymen getting in on the game. Lighthouse is quite similar to 80s classic Maniac Cop, in that you see Leo Rook constantly but not in ways that reveal anything of him until the end. He's a nasty fella as well, decapitating all and sundry and collecting their heads in a boat. So, top marks on creating a memorable villain.

One of the hurdles slashers normally fall at is that they're now too restrained. Scream made it okay to be clever as opposed to scary, and while that's okay, some recent movies have felt more like an x-rated version of Lizzie Macguire than a slasher. Not a problem here, Lighthouse is in possession of tension you could cut with a knife (no pun intended) and loaded with excruciatingly long, nerve-wracking and drawn out chases, often finishing them with sequences of shocking violence.

It's odd that the movie that most encapsulates what the slasher sub-genre is missing is British, given our history of faintly operatic vampire/devil worship movies, but it's the truth. Hopefully our native directors will continue this tack of releasing taut, nightmarish horror thrillers and I'll no longer have to put up with the slew of US teen-horrors and overblown SFX pieces coming from the other side of the pond.


After looking at all of the comments, regarding it as an awful slasher, I must say in my opinion they are totally wrong.

This had all the gore you need, maybe it could of had more, but still has a bloody edge, and the effects wern't all the terrible, even though towards the end when the woman is being grabbed by her hair when she's hanging off the Lighhouse does look a little bit stupid. This actually had above average acting, the characters arn't as wooden as some actors. But it is a B-Movie, and this has proudly made it's way into my top 5 in slashers.

I'd give The Lighthouse - 7.5/10

God bless British horror...now go watch Cradle Of Fear (Ultimate cheese, awful acting and terrible dialogue = a must for any horror fan like me)


Could probably be summed up as reasonably entertaining, predictable nonsense.

Every scene moving one to the other was so predictable. In fact you could say everything that happened could have been foretold within the first half hour.

It would be wrong to judge the acting as there was none, but in fairness the film did not need to be acted out. Rather than acting, basic motions were more than adequate given the plot, the location and the fact that it was pitch dark all of the time.

However, it did entertain in a fashion. Whether this was down to the predictability of the storyline or whether it did really entertain I'm not sure.

I'm glad I neither specifically paid to see at the movies nor paid for it at the local DVD hire shop (watched it on a TV movie channel). But why do I still have this weird notion that I quite enjoyed it??


Visually it looked great, but it fell into madman hacks people to death in unimaginative ways with no suspense or caring for characters crap video territory very quickly. It's all been done before and a million times better in loads of other straight to video slasher shockers. Tony Imi was too good for them!


LIGHTHOUSE (dead of night) is without question one of the best thrillers to come out in years. How this gem fell through the cracks I'll never understand. (Though in the states, blaming A-pix for it's forced, inappropriate title and amateurish B-grade box art is a good place to start!) Perhaps the film is just too sophisticated for the slasher set and too gruesome and effective for thriller fans. It deserves a genre all it's own. above all else it exists as an exercise in suspense and a very successful one at that. Sporting vividly realized, even brilliantly conceived scenes of terror visually reminiscent of Argento's best and pacing that could only be compared to that of the young John Carpenter, LIGHTHOUSE should be seen by anyone the least bit interested in Horror or good film making. One of my favorite scenes involves a flashback/dream sequence so beautifully composed it evokes the Great German expressionists in it's vague shadowy ambiguity. (When was the last time you rewinded a scene in a horror movie to watch it over again?...Sad isn't it?!) Before the film ends, it miraculously transforms genre yet again into full throttle action as the heroes find themselves dangling outside the lighthouse in a final showdown with the madman. The background sets in these scenes (orange grey skies, endless ocean) are as glorious as something out of old Hollywood or the films of the great James Whale. How teenage dreck is released into theaters while brilliance is shoved into a videobox with a generic skull on it is anyone's guess. This film deserved the same release as other harder to classify, Adult genre films like THE CUBE, RAVENOUS and EXISTENZ. Expect to find LIGHTHOUSE in years to come referred to as an overlooked classic and expect it's Director to be on the forefront of the next wave of horror.


First there was Michael Myers. Then came Jason. Followed by Freddy Krueger.

And now we meet Leo Rook, a psychotic killer who likes white shoes and to collect heads. On his way to prison he escapes from a boat which later crushes into a rock and sinks. A few survivors swim ashore on an island with a Lighthouse, unknowing that someone is already waiting for them.

Though an unknown cast and director, this is a very scary and most of all good movie.


This is the sort of film that gives horror films a bad name, not as a result of graphic violence or for exploitation of women. BUT simply becuase its such a rubbish film. Please Simon (Writer & Director - so you have to take responsibility) think really long and hard before attempting another film.

Why is the most dangerous killer in the UK being taken to an island prison on a rust bucket ship with just ten others. Why has thew ship only apparently got a crew of 1 ! Why don't they just fly him to this prison - we see a helicopter later in the film !

How come the killer manages to slip past people in the lighthouse - there's one stairs yet he manages to appear on different floors, by-passing those above or below.

Even though people are killed by having there throats cuts there's never any blood stains on the floor - just on light bulbs or toilet bowls

Why is everyone so stupid ... I'll run away for ten seconds then not be able to find my way back, even though I have a torch and a radio. And the island is illuminated by the lighthouse light. Instead I'll stumble on to the boat that the killer has hidden.


Very disappointing foray into slasher movie territory which misses one central pre-requisite for the genre, towit, if you're going to abandon your plot and characters you have to have blood and ingenious visceral carnage by the bucket-load. Which this film clearly does not. Bar one Argento-esque scene in which the ships Captain is stalked by the sloth-like killer in a toilet, the rest of the set-pieces are poorly constructed, badly lit and downright tedious. I hate to admit I actually fell asleep during this one (I can't imagine that happening during the best horror exploitation pics of Fulci, Deodata and the like.) The crashing soundtrack doesn't help our comprehension of the lame brain plot either. And is it just me who found the killer thoroughly unthreatening to look at? (maybe he should have worn a hockey mask or something....) Has all the directorial style of an end of term film project on a limited Arts Council grant, to which I have but one closing comment: must try harder in the future!


Even though Lighthouse doesn't exactly deliver a story that anyone would consider as original (some people are stalked by a merciless serial killer on a deserted lighthouse), it is a surprisingly watchable movie. Director Hunter adds nice twists to "classic" stalk-scenes, and the movie is chilling right from the beginning. The killer surely is a creepy figure and possibly makes you gasping for breath sometimes. The only letdown for horror-buffs like me is the fact that there's not much gore in this movie - but the few bloody scenes are staged very well and surely not for the squeamish. All in all a chilling and entertaining thriller: 7 out of 10.


The tension in "Lighthouse" is pretty unbearable. In fact, you don't even have to like or care for any of the characters (phew) to feel the danger as much as they do. I mean, this killer is just really creepy, for once I didn't want him to finish the job, he's not the funny, playful mass murderer like Jason is. There are whole bunches of exciting scenes in this movie, it's not exactly Hitchcock but it'll do. We get lots of typical scenes: the standard fat guy sequence, people splitting up for really vague reasons, the supposedly highly-educated stupid woman being stupid and annoying all over the place, a lot of fire, the works, filmed to perfection. Not written to perfection but it's a slasher, nobody cares.

The only thing that's really too bad is that the killer stopped being mysterious by the end. He was just like a Bond-villain after a while, even with the idiotic laughter and everything. That really spoiled things. I suppose I shouldn't make a big deal out of it but I do.


There was a movie. With a lighthouse. A serial killer is loose and the audience is agonising, and not because the film is terrifying. The film is terrifyingly bad with awful characters, awful acting and an awful end. The serial killer was the ugliest bastard I'd ever seen, and he does not utter a word throughout the movie!!!!The whole film has a strange surrealistic atmosphere, as if the actors had been teleported into a parallel bad movie dimension. The "traumatic scenes" of the movie were more like comedy than anything else, like some awesomely bad joke told by my sister. By watching this movie I experienced no feeling of being entertained at all, it is definitely good for the trashcan.


Where do you begin to summarise a film like this? The start I guess. Oh wait - there isn't one. You know you're in for a rough time when a film's opening drops you into a scene that feels like you've somehow already missed 10 minutes. Who are these people? Where are they and what hell are they doing? The director/screenwriter doesn't bother with any of that. They're people on a boat. With a bad man. Who escapes. That's about all you're getting folks. What then follows is some of the worst direction, acting, editing and photography you will ever have the misfortune to witness. It's truly mind numbing that a film with such horrendous technical deficiencies could ever pass muster. They should have dropped the final cut of this mess into a vat of acid and tossed the director in after it. That would have spared us this nonsense and any other ideas Hunter may have in his head.

0/10


It's a dark, stormy and foggy night when a ship transporting prisoners sinks. The survivors (doctors, officers, boat crew and jailbirds) crawl to the shore of a desolate island, find refuge inside a large lighthouse and have to fight off one of the escapees, who happens to be a psychotic killer. He burns up a rescue boat and the communication equipment and stalks the characters with a machete.

High-pedigree slasherama from England has the novely of above-average production values and acting and some well-done suspense scenes to go along with some pretty grisly slayings (neck slashings and decapitations being the killer's forte). They just forgot much of a plot, the b/w flashbacks linking the killer to one of the characters doesn't work (what a coincidence!) and it's all so dark, miserable and rainy the whole time. A few good set pieces, but a sense of humor and better-developed characters would have helped.

Score: 4 out of 10


Don't see this movie. I stopped watching after 15 minutes or so... This is terrible acting, there is no story and I couldn't figure out what was happening and why anyway. Just don't do it.


Unbelievable that a movie like this has been produced in 1999; if it had been from the sixties I wouldn't have been surprised at all. It is full of cliches, it is terrible predictable (I watched it together with a friend and told him exactly who would be killed and in which order by the time they arrived at the lighthouse!) and awful music - completely identical to the kind they used to use in the earliest horror movies I can remember. I really can't think of any reason why someone might want to see this movie.


LIGHTHOUSE

(USA: Dead of Night)

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Dolby Digital

Inmates and officials from a sunken prison ship become stranded on a storm-lashed lighthouse-island 300 miles from the UK coastline, along with a monstrous psychopath (Christopher Adamson) who stalks and kills them, one by one.

Writer-director Simon Hunter's powerhouse shocker - an award winner at movie festivals in Luxembourg and Rome - combines the setting of TOWER OF EVIL (1972) with the multiplex-friendly aesthetic of Wes Craven's SCREAM (1996), and improves on its source material in every significant way. James Purefoy (RESIDENT EVIL) and Rachel Shelley (CRUISE OF THE GODS) lead a small but talented cast of newcomers and veterans (including Paul Brooke and Don Warrington) as a motley bunch of hot-heads and cowards, forced to band together in a desperate attempt to survive the killer's rampage.

The film's narrative is linked by a series of Hitchcockian set-pieces (a potential victim cowering in a toilet stall as the killer lurks outside; a terrified character trapped in a boat with a two-way radio which could betray his presence to the prowling maniac at any moment; and two prisoners chained together at the wrist who are forced to make a terrible decision during an unexpected encounter with the bloodthirsty killer), culminating in a terrific climax at the top of the lighthouse, where Good and Evil collide in a welter of stuntwork and visual effects. Hunter emphasizes suspense and atmosphere over violence, and his clever script maintains an impressive degree of logic, isolating potential victims through careful calculation rather than narrative contrivance. Lovely, evocative music score by Debbie Wiseman, too.

Incredibly, despite being co-financed by BSkyB and the Arts Council of England, and despite a warm reception at various festival screenings, LIGHTHOUSE remained on the shelf for three years before creeping into UK cinemas to lukewarm reviews and poor business. It fared little better in the US, where the movie played briefly in theaters under a new title (DEAD OF NIGHT) before being consigned to video hell. It's commercial history notwithstanding, this is a small classic, ripe for rediscovery.


Saw it before, and watched it again last night, even though I normally don't watch films twice. Period.

I think this is a brilliant film.

The humour in it is great, even though I knew what was coming. I mean: the fact that I remembered some of the lines from watching it a couple of years ago, while I can't remember what I had for dinner yesterday, speaks for itself. In my book anyway. :-)

Regardless of the comments, by others or myself, this film deserves a chance, so if you've never seen it I heartily recommend watching it. I'm (pretty) sure you'll love it.


Greedy is a film you may have passed on Showtime, or glanced at in the TV Guide and thought, "never heard of it". To be honest, I can't recall its stint in the theaters either. However, on the recommendation of my father, I gave it a chance.

The interaction between all of the characters is terrific. Phil Hartman gives comic brilliance, mixed with wit and sarcasm in his usual way.

This movie has a lot of laugh out loud moments for people who are into clever comedy with a slightly twisted mind. It is cemented in my comedy top 5 with Stripes, Planes Trains and Automobiles, Ferris Buellers Day Off, and Ridgemont. Highly recommended! 9/10


I was forced to watch this movie with a friend. I have never heard of it until then. I found out that Micheal J. Fox was in it so I decided to watch it. It started out very different and then I was shocked to see how the family memebers were treating each other. This movie was a comedy, but a drama as well and I loved it. The humor was different, but funny all the same. I really, really liked this film and this is a deffinate purchase.


Greedy has taken some of the plot situations in the Paramount classic If I Had A Million and carried them to incredible heights. It has a whole string of good performances topped off by one of the last performances by Kirk Douglas before he had his stroke.

Kirk plays the Richard Bennett part here, the millionaire who doesn't like almost all of his relatives, but gets a certain sadistic joy in seeing them perform like trained seals, trying to stay in his good graces. The only honest one of them is one of Ed Begley Jr.'s young sons who is just like that kid in If I Had a Million who started playing that record of I'll Be Glad When You're Dead You Rascal You.

Unlike Bennett, Douglas does not decide to drop parts of his fortune on eight random strangers. He just keeps putting his family through their paces until they decide to dig up Michael J. Fox, a nephew he actually liked when he was a kid.

Fox is a second string professional bowler who's got a TV producer he's involved with, Nancy Travis. The two of them invade Douglas's three ring circus of relatives and get put through their paces also. All the family is against Douglas's 'nurse' Olivia D'Abo who the family is afraid will get the whole inheritance.

Greedy is a nicely paced amusing comedy which I think most of us can identify with. I know I've had a relative or two I can't stand either, but am forced to be nice to for a variety of reasons. The relatives are all greedy, but Douglas is one sadistic creep as well. I'd catch it the next time it's on the tube.


Kirk Douglas,Michael J Fox and Nancy Travis star in this hilarious movie. Joe Mc Teague (Douglas) is an old man with a big supply of cash.His nieces and nephews have each followed a way to convince him he should hand the money to them. Along comes Danny (Fox) and his girlfriend,Robin (Travis) who Joe thinks should have the money.However,Joe's "nurse" Molly,(played by Olivia D'Abo) has her own plans! Everyone has their own plans to capture Joe's money.But he has his own plans and he's not gonna let it go easy! Look out for Colleen Camp as Patti.

Memorable scenes include the scene at dinner where all the family secrets are uncovered.

A Memorable Quote: (Carl (Joe's nephew) has commented to fellow sibling Patti,how he had the decency to be early to Uncle Joe's weekend party) PATTI:Well,at least we had the decency not to put Frank's sperm in a machine to separate the X's from the Y's!There is a line below which we will not go!(to her girls)-Joelene,Joette-come along.


I suppose saying that the end of this movie is great gives something away. Then again you don't know what that is so maybe not.

The plot of this film has Kirk Douglas dying as all of his relatives try to curry favor and get left his fortune. When every trick in the book fails they call in Michael J Fox as his long lost favorite nephew. Fox is now a down on his luck pro-bowler desperate for the cash the family promises him.

Some of what follows is sit-com material, some is highly inspired. The good part of it is that almost all of it is funny.

Certainly the film as a whole is not the best thing down the pike, but it has its moments, all of which make this film worth seeing.


Simply a great movie. Michael J. Fox trained with one of the greats, Johnny Petraglia for months in preparation for this movie. Fox went from a hack casual bowler to a respectable 175 average. Not good enough to actually throw the shots he was supposed to throw in the movie, though. The makers of Kingpin and Big Lebowski should have seen this one before making a mockery of the game. Any bowling lover should not miss this one.


A comedy filled with entertaining characters, Greedy fails to be a successful film due to a tedious plot.

Dirty old selfish Joe is rich and his snivelling greedy relatives want his money, so far, so funny. However, the structure of Greedy is badly done. The film starts with one of Joe's greedy relatives, Carl and his family. It is a mistake to make us side and sympathise with them, if ultimately they are not important or developed. Worried they are going to lose out on their inheritance to sexy young nurse Molly, the bickering relatives call in long-lost nephew Danny, Uncle Joe's favourite. Although Michael J Fox is a welcome addition to any film, and his energy, wit and compassion make him a watchable lead, he is introduced too late to be this lead. Danny either isn't needed in this plot of greedy relatives versus evil old man, or it should start with and focus entirely on him. It is very difficult to care about his failed professional bowling career, as it is boring, and the sappy music that follows Danny and girlfriend Robin around is far too overdone.

While child-Danny and Michael J Fox-Danny's impressions of Jimmy Durante are impressive, the need to show the audience who they are doing impressions of by starting the film with a lengthy clip of Jimmy Durante from Two Girls And A Sailor makes for a slow beginning that has little to do with the film.

Molly is a badly written character. She knows Joe is perving on her, but she likes the lifestyle he provides and eventually she nearly sleeps with him for money, and yet she isn't supposed to be that sort of girl. Well, she clearly is. Also Olivia d'Abo is apparently English so it is confusing that her English accent is one of the fakest I have ever heard. Exactly what part of England is she from?

The plot plays out pretty obviously, excluding Joe's insanely over the top ploy to discover who loves him, with bad people getting nothing and good people being rewarded, but it is the despicable Joe who has ruined his family's lives. Without him, they would never have become the people they are, so to see them end up with nothing, while he is still rich isn't satisfactory at all.

Amusing characters suffer an irritatingly twisty plot, dominated by a detestable patriarch and are buried under too much moral for this film to be as funny as it wants to be. It should have stuck with the idea of relatives who will do anything for their inheritance and dumped the morals of Danny and manipulation of Joe, which just hinder the laughs.


from the comments I saw here, I thought I was about to see one of those rare, forgotten comedic gems, the cast definitely offered hope. However, this was disappointing, there were a couple of good one-liners but this was more a drama than a comedy and a drama that seemed to drag and drag.

Apart from Fox and Douglas, everyone else was one-dimensional and seemed to be saying the same stuff over and over again. There was real scope here for a wittier script, instead it all got rather tedious, 30 minutes could easily have been lopped off the running time.

At least it was good to see actors like Douglas, Fox and Hartmann in their prime, its sad to see what has happened to that trio now.


Michael J. Fox, Ed Begley,Jr and the legendary Kirk Douglas are ALL likable performers- no question about it. Too bad they're stuck playing TOTALLY despicable and UNlikable characters in this movie! After being introduced to one greedy, scheming relative after another for the zillionth time, WE GET IT! The love of money is EVIL-DUH! Even those characters the audience is *supposed* to think are likable (Fox's too-loyal girlfriend and principled hippie dad)fail to be. The girlfriend keeps threatening to leave Fox if he doesn't walk away from this mess- again and again. After the zillionth empty threat instead of thinking he's risking losing a good girl (like the script would want us to believe), I got the idea she was JUST as unprincipled and manipulative as the rest as she definitely STAYS to the end. Oh, and his dad was portrayed too much like a utopian hippy to be believable.

I DO urge everyone who has the chance to watch the opening credits for the Late Jimmy Durante to sing his signature song of 'Inka Dinka Dinka Doo'! Durante definitely steals the show because he is the ONLY vaguely likable character in this whole movie! Yeah, Fox does a good imitation of Durante but is it worth going through the REST of the movie to see? I think not.


Though this movie was somewhat slow and predictable it brings out the worst side of Jessica Lange. She had an outstanding performance as the evil Mother-In-Law to Gweneth Paltrow. I have never seen her in a role as evil as this one. I believe that Gweneth showed the strength and heart of her character. She lost both her parents, was mugged in her own home and then stands up to her Mother-In-Law to prove to her husband what an evil person his mother is. Way to go!!! Personally I liked this movie. What the movie doesn't bring out right away is the lengths that "Martha" will go to take the baby and keep her son on the farm. This movie is one of the best suspense movies that I've seen in a while.


I am quite frankly astonished by the low imdb average for this film. I thought it was a more than respectable suspense thriller. It definitely kept me riveted throughout. Gwenyth Paltrow, who was offered Kate Winslet's part in Titanic at the time she committed to this project, devles into her role as the unsuspecting fiancee with grace and down to earth affability. But this is clearly Jessica Lange's film. Her psychotic mother-in-law is one of the most disturbing characters I have come across in any film. In my opinion this film rates an 8/10.


Jonathan Darby is credited with the writing/directing of this misconceived movie. As an auteur, Mr. Darby, doesn't bring anything new to the medium. "Hush" proves to be a total waste as it appears Mr. Darby had nothing in the way to control the over the top campy performance of Jessica Lange.

Ms. Lange is at her worst as Martha, the evil mother behind all the scheming in the film. Her love for her son, and hatred for her daughter-in-law, gives the actress an opportunity to do some of the worst emoting in any film in recent memory. Gwyneth Paltrow must be questioned for her choice of material. Didn't she smell the aroma in reading the script? Oh well, let's hope she was able to ask for millions of dollars for appearing in this turkey. Jonathan Schaech doesn't fare better. Nina Foch is the only one who comes out the best in her small role of Alice, Martha's wise mother-in-law who has seen right through what's going on.

This is a film to watch with friends after having a few drinks, then one might enjoy the "masterpiece" some avid fans thought "Hush" was.


This film is quite disappointing, especially considering the big names in its cast. Paltrow is good as always, and Lange is convincing too. But the weakest part is the plot. It lacks any coherence and cannot really convince, even if you watch the film without too much attention (like I did). **Warning: major SPOILERS ahead!** The end is the worst: Jackson got very close to his mother - then one morning Helen tells him she tried to kill her, and he immediately believes her, changes his mind and decides to leave. Even worse: having found out that the woman is a deranged murderer who already killed her husband, they just leave her there without doing anything about it (what about calling the police!?), and go on to leave happily ever after. I give it 4 out of 10.


This stands out as a camp classic of the Joseph H. Lewis variety: there's even a threatening gadget, in this case a steam cabinet. Don't go into this expecting a deep movie and you'll have a lot of fun with the deliberately over-the-top characterizations


An absolutely awful movie I watched only because of Gwyneth Paltrow who I had previously admired greatly. Not so much now. Shame on her for being party to this load of rubbish. It started off quite promisingly, well actually the wheels didn't start coming off until burglary/attack on Paltrow when it was blatantly and painfully obvious that the mother had arranged this. No explanation of the reason for this. Things went rapidly downhill from there, yes the scenery was attractive if you like that sort of thing but credit for that is due to mother nature not the cinematographer. I think the second worst aspect, after the terrible story line, was Lange's acting.

Incidentally, Oxytocin is rendered useless in the digestive system and is only effective if absorbed through the mucous membranes or given intravenously, and even then has a half life of 3 minutes I believe, so it would be totally useless taken in food. Also if my mother-in-law had treated me like that when I was in labour and then tried to kill me with a lethal injection I would not have stayed in the house even for a dramatic denouement the next morning.

Then the son, after being led around by the nose by the evil mother does a complete about face in the space of a few minutes on the strength of his wifes unsubstantiated accusations.

A rubbish movie best avoided.


Someone must have told Gwyneth Paltrow and Jonathon Schaech they're starring in a serious drama because they're no fun at all in this try-hard attempt at camp. On the plus side, Jessica Lange gets it right because she's as camp as a row of pink tents playing the MIL from Hell with a weird fixation on her cute-but-dim offspring. Hardly a scene goes by without her lighting up or hitting the bottle and her Blanche Devereaux accent is anything but subtle. Judging by the evidence on hand Jonathan Darby couldn't direct traffic but he certainly knows how to write genuine shockers: "Get up! You think you're an alley cat, dropping its litter by the side of the road?!" Jessica makes the most of the over-ripe dialogue so it's worth a look, but if you want to see it in a good movie check out Wild at Heart, with a deservedly Oscar-nominated Dianne Ladd as the ultimate evil, martini-swigging southern matriarch.


Probably neither. Difficult to understand all the negative reviews for this enjoyable and well acted movie. Domineering ambitious mothers do exist. Some of their sons, however good looking, are sometimes both stupid and heterosexual.


First let's get this out of the way. I have never been a fan of Gwenyth Paltrow, I never understood the fuss surrounding her. She has two expressions one with her mouth is pouting and one of bewilderment. The pouting technique is in high gear in this movie. Now that is over I have to say that for once I actually liked her character. She wasn't some dumb bunny who had to be hit over the head with a brick before she noticed something was up boyfriend/husband mom. Strange the first time I saw them as a couple going into their loft in downtown NYC they looked like John Kennedy Jr and his wife. I am not sure if that is the image we are suppose to get. Anyway there is grandma in the mix which we nothing about until the wedding. And we find out she wasn't invited, she mentioned something about chasing down catering trucks to find out about the wedding. It was hilarious. Right away that should give the viewer who has yet to see the mother is nuts that something is wrong. The new husband seems to be clueless. Actually they could of used anyone including a dead Orson Welles for the part because the hubby really has nothing to do but just be a plot device. He is hubby, son of a nut and that is his role. We find out that the the son also owns the ranch mommy lives on and runs. Another hint something was not right. THen we see that he blames himself for his dads death. It looks like they made that up while they were filming the movie. Because before that we just saw a perfectly normal guy with a nutty mom now we see a victim. Well before all of this she finds out she is having a baby and they get married. One day coming into her loft she get assaulted. This locket which had already been a conversation piece between mommy and daughter in law comes up missing from the assault. Her dead parents picture is in the locket. Now we know Gwennie is all alone without any family other then her future hubby. In other words a perfect victim. OH boy we all know that locket is going to show up again. Why do people in movies keep remnants of their bad deeds?? Throw the stuff out. In any case she is afraid to live home, mommy is threatening to sell the horse farm. So son decides to make a go of the ranch. They move into the house. The hubby is really not seen too much after that other for some occasional nookie and seeing running the ranch. Like I said a dead Orson Welles could of played the part. Mom starts doing some piggy things and Gweenie is astute enough to see what is happening. There is a scene at this horse show and Gwenie sees grandma, she wants to go talk to her and mom tells her she forbids her to talk to her. Well Gwennie turns around and mentions she hasn't been forbidden to do something since she was a teenager. Good for her I say!! She goes to see the grandma but mom yells her name and a horse gets excited and almost harms a pregnant Gwennie, Well Gwen gets off the ground and Yells at mom and tells her "You didn't have to yell" She is not letting up on mom one bit, I loved it. Oh before I forget mom hears Gwennie telling her son that she talked to his grandma and he should see her. After that mom makes a visit to the Home of the Hardly Living (what the grandma calls the nursing home). And warns her to keep away. I swear she was going to kill her in the heating machine but she didn't. Gwen goes for a visit too and finds out that mom was basically a gold digger SURPRISE SURPRPISE! She eventually lets her know that the son didn't kill the dad and he wasn't leaving the mom because of a affair. Well now we know that mom is letting her son take blame for killing his dad. Oh boy. Another thing it seems the mom is interested in male offspring's only. Why we never find out but it is very weird. Heck the whole movie is weird. Gwen who has been smart up to a point all of sudden gets dumb and eats this piece of cake mom insists she eats. The poison induces labor and we see her give birth as mom is talking about the pain. Something she talks about through the movie. Weird. Before that scene we see mom has already got a room ready for the baby and Gwyn is mad. That is why I thought it was out of character for her to eat that cake. Orson Welles shows up eventually after the obligatory wish washy scene and leaves with his wife. Nothing is done about mom and her criminal behavior. I guess they are leaving granny who is a tough nut to take care of it. It is one of those so bad it is god movie. Take a look if there is nothing on. One last thing I find Jessica Lange, who I think is a very good actress always uses cigarettes as a prop when she is playing sassy or devious women, she does it here. All you have to see is her bring that cigarette put it between her fingers hold her hand up and move it backwards palm up out and you know the role she is going to play.


I thoroughly enjoyed this movie the first time I saw it ten years ago. The film reminded me of some of my favorite Hitchcock flicks, namely Shadow of a Doubt and Notorious. The story builds slowly and generates just enough paranoia of impending danger to keep the audience interested. By the time everything comes together, the audience has an emotional investment in the main character and experiences genuine anxiety at her ordeal. This is so refreshingly different from the movies that slice and dice cardboard characters in an attempt to generate suspense.

After seeing how poorly people have reacted to this film, I revisited it to see if my memory served me correctly. My assessment remains the same. Jessica Lange gives a stellar performance as the homicidal control freak. Gwyneth Paltrow is easy to empathize with as the paranoid daughter-in-law. Nina Foch is hysterical as the cheerful old lady who knows all the family secrets. I have met each of these characters in the real world. The only reason I would hesitate to call this a masterpiece is because there is no Hitchcock cameo. Still, this is a worthy imitation of the master's work.


This movie starring Jessica Lange and Gwyneth Paltrow has great talent, but the production company obviously spent all its money on the stars' salaries. A film about Kentucky Thoroughbred racing should be filmed in Kentucky, not at a show horse farm in Virginia. The Kentucky Blue Grass region is uniquely identifiable, as is Virginia horse country -- and the two are not interchangeable, even in fiction. It is like making a film about New York City in Los Angeles. Did they think no one would notice? And there are plenty of Thoroughbreds in Virginia, so why did the filmmaker try to pass off big, fat show horses as racehorses? The scene at the horse sale and all its errors are even too ridiculous to mention.

The technical adviser on this film was either asleep or inept, because a scene does not pass without a glowing inaccuracy. Especially noticeable to anyone interested in horses who watches this movie (and I can't imagine anyone else would) are the dangerous ways in which the horses are handled, usually by people who are recognizable as amateurs at handling a horse. The most glaring fax pas surrounds the drug oxytocin that Jessica Lange's character removes from the cabinet: the label clearly states "erythromycin tablets." Again, did the filmmaker think no one would notice?

Literary license is one thing, but this movie goes way, way beyond that and into the depths of the toilet.


I don't know whether they give Oscars for casting, but if that is the case, the person responsible for casting for this film must be at least a nominee. I'm just amazed how such established actresses as Lange and Paltrow have been agreed to take part in this 'plot is thinner than silk-paper'-film (blackmailing? ;->). Every scene is predictable and the story itself has been told thousand times. There aren't any camera-angles that make you say 'wow, nobody thought of that before' either, so the end-result is very average. I'm all too aware about the existence of bad mother-in-laws, so this one just didn't cut it for me... 3 out of 10.


OK, the reason they called this movie "Hush", is so that you would be quiet in the theater while everyone was sleeping. What a dull film. It dragged on for the first hour, until Gwyneth was "ready" to have her baby, then you think the excitement might set in. yippee-ki-yi-yay. When the most invigorating thing in a thriller movie is a bitch-slap, you know something's wrong. Attractive leads do not mean a good movie... 2/10


True, the ending was lacking in continuity, and left one with a sense of disappointment, but my husband and I rather enjoyed this movie.Contrary to other comments below, Jessica Lange and Johnathon Schaech did fine jobs! Lange was very convincing as the mother-in-law from hell. There were times when it seemed like scenes had been cut because things didn't make sense, but it wasn't too hard to ignore that and fill in the blanks ourselves. Nothing great, but amusing to watch.


I just rented this last weekend and it is a bomb. I am so surprised to see Jessica Lange in something like this. This was totally predictable, but nothing really ever happens. The end is pretty evil, but why didn't they build up to it? Gwyneth Paltrow was so bland, and Jonathan Schaech, who smoldered in "The Doom Generation", was even duller(keep in mind, they have very little to work with). Would you believe a baby is born, yet no one bothers to call a doctor? HELLO, plot hole. Go weed the garden, watch a dog grooming contest, ANYTHING but suffer through this one.