Probably history was after all, meant to be a study of human consciousness in guilt. Of course, there is always a need to realize something valuable out of the past, that a study about the past is after all a human being's reverse-troubleshooting guide. Probably that's the reason why there are beautiful pictures of stoic, stiff-lipped people in our high school history text-books. We like to think of ourselves as the descendants of glorious generations, men and women valiant in their own right, contributing their bit to the proud bloodlines we carry today. We read on these people, associate ourselves with the affairs of their lives, judge them for their actions, name calendar days after them, hate them, worship them, write books on them, film biopics on their lives, name our babies after them The reason we can't forget these people could be because they've either given to or taken from this world in proportions far greater than what you or me have.

Between the years 1933 and 1945 one man changed our world because he believed in something that seemed stupid at first. As time rolled into horror-fest mode, it turned into mankind's worst ever mistake. Something that psychologically stopped time and spun it backwards. We remember that man either because he took away from this world a chunk of our moral fiber, the scars forever etched in our minds, or probably because he gave this world freedom from the ideologies of mankind's vilest prodigy when he hanged himself.

Today, history attests the importance of this period of madness with facts and figures that might seem absurdly horrible for our generation. We've all probably read enough to forget about a past like this. Biopics and documentaries have already dry-choked our tear glands at the horrifying experiences recounted by Jewish survivors. Pictures of gas chambers and mass-graves have already made us numb. And just when we thought that we knew too much to burden our consciences, comes a movie about this small group of men who disappeared off the face of the earth because of something that disturbs, intrigues and thwarts us till this day: Love, and all the stigma it carries. And for something so simple and subtle as love to take place between two people, there lies an even more absurd reasoning as to why the two people shouldn't be of the same sex. That's the Nazi regime's code of stigma, also known as Paragraph 175. And no, your fat, dog-eared history text book does not consider the lives of one hundred thousand men who lived during that time, loving others worth mentioning. These men died unnoticed and in secret captivity, so secret that even those labor camps within which they died are today not preserved for posterity. Few of those numerous men survived. Fewer live today. And fewer still are willing to come out of their dark closets of tears and share their experiences, unscripted and undistorted to a camera crew determined to make known to us such a vital, forgotten part of man's history.

It's pretty obvious what the contents of Paragraph 175 of the German Criminal Code contained, judging by the number of innocent lives it consumed, it would be more appropriate if you'd watch the movie and learn rather than have me explain it to you in a website review. What's most unsettling is interestingly, not Paragraph 175 itself, considering the circumstances under which it took form. Rather, it's the fact that a law that was so fatal took a hundred and twenty three years from the time it was adopted in 1871, to be finally revoked in 1994. Even after the fall of Hitler in 1945, it still took close to fifty whole years and six amendments to finally strike it down.

Nazis killed plenty of men, women and children. You certainly wouldn't expect the most powerful and conservative army in the world to go soft against gay men and women and suddenly endorse mutual love. Not at a time when your first-duty towards the people you love was replaced by the pride of the country. So in short, Nazis did what Nazis do best: kill. But, even after we thought the horrible era of an insane ideology was over and done with, heads of government still remained conservative and chose to ignore the ills of their pasts, dragging their feet through the marshes of sludge-bureaucracy.

Rob Epstein conveys all of these truths with anger and emotion, throughout while interviewing these survivors. Some, among them is a half-Jewish gay resistance fighter who posed as a Hitler Youth member to rescue his lover from a Gestapo transfer camp in an ultimately futile effort; Annette Eick, the Jewish lesbian who escaped to England with the help of a woman she loved; the German Christian photographer who was arrested and imprisoned for homosexuality, then joined the army on his release because he "wanted to be with men" and Pierre Seel, the French Alsatian teenager, who watched as his lover was eaten alive by dogs in the camps.

The statistics are staggering: Between 1933 and 1945, some 100,000 men were arrested for homosexuality, roughly half of them were sentenced to prison, and from 10,000 to 15,000 were sent to concentration camps. The camps were used for re-education, slave labor, castration and sadistic medical experiments. It's believed only about 4,000 survived their ordeal. It is interesting to note that the penal code didn't cover lesbians. The Nazis considered lesbians to be "curable." Women were regarded, as vessels of motherhood  increasing the German population was top priority  therefore, they were exempt from mass arrest. Most lesbians went into exile or quietly married gay men.

There are only about 10 homosexuals left from this tragedy, and they interviewed eight for this special film. It was incredible and moving and, if you are not touched by their stories, then you are cast in stone.


The German Penal Code of 1871, Paragraph 175, states "An unnatural sex act committed between persons of the male sex or by humans with animals is punishable by imprisonment; the loss of civil rights may also be imposed." The law was widely disregarded, and the post-World War I Weimar Republic saw a flowering of gay and lesbian culture, most particularly in Berlin. When the Weimar Republic collapsed and the Nazi party rose to power, few gays and lesbians felt any reason to fear: was not Ernst Rohm, head of the SA, well known for his homosexuality? On 1 July 1934, later known as "The Night of Long Knives," the Nazi party conducted a bloody purge of their ranks. Rohm was among the victims, and as the Nazis swept to full power over Germany they moved to broaden the scope of Paragraph 175. The glory days of gay and lesbian Berlin were over. Somewhat oddly, lesbians were not regarded as a threat to the Nazi party, and many lesbians either left Germany or simply withdrew from public life, thus escaping with their lives. Gay men, however, came under full attack. A special branch of the Gestapo was formed to identify gay men; once their lists were established the arrests began.

With many records destroyed by the Nazis as the Allies swept through Europe at the close of the war, it is now very difficult to estimate how many homosexuals were arrested. Most historians agree there is hard evidence to support a figure of 100,000, but many note that the total may have been well in excess of that, possibly to the extent of 600,000 total. Of those fed into the Nazi meat grinder, perhaps 4,000 survived--a much lower survival rate than that found even among political prisoners. There is considerable evidence that homosexuals were regarded as the "lowest of the low" in the prison pecking order and suffered not only from Nazi atrocity but were also sometimes savaged by their fellow prisoners as well. And to them was given a final curse: the victorious Allies retained Paragraph 175 as law following the collapse of Nazi Germany. Fearing possible re-arrest at Allied hands, homosexuals who survived the prisons and concentration camps dare not speak of their lives and experiences. Most would remain silent until their deaths.

The documentary PARAGRAPH 175 does not attempt to examine the full scope of Nazi atrocity or even Nazi atrocity against the gay community. It instead focuses on the memories of a handful of men and women who recall their experiences. Perhaps the single most famous of these is Pierre Seel, who saw his lover killed by dogs in the death camps and who closeted himself to a remarkable extent after the war. "I am ashamed!" Seel cries at one point in his series of interviews. "I am ashamed for humanity!" It is a memorable moment of pain echoing across the decades. Seel died in 2005.

While most of the interview subjects are male, lesbians are represented by Annette Eick, a remarkably charming woman, and while their stories vary considerably in detail they are the same in content: I was there, I saw it, and I bear witness for those who cannot speak. At times the film seems excessively languid, but overall it does justice to its interview subjects, who emerge as fully-depicted individuals, sometimes passionate, sometimes restrained, but never without the dignity that should belong to all mankind as birthright.

The DVD contains several extras. Although it contained several points of interest I was not greatly impressed with the audio commentary; on the other hand, I was greatly impressed with two bonus interviews and particularly so by subject Kitty Fisher, a Jewish woman who recounts how a homosexual prisoner came to her aid--and whose advice ultimately saved her life.

These are painful memories, all of them, and all the more so because the Holocaust has been increasingly downplayed over the past few decades--downplayed to a point at which some few now attempt to deny that it ever occurred at all. But facts remain facts no matter how many misguided people attempt to change or refute them, and in the name of humanity itself we owe all those who have suffered in the killing fields of the world the dignity of truth. PARAGRAPH 175 is a part of that truth.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer


I would imagine that 99% of those questioned would think that only Jews were killed in the Nazi death camps. In fact, gypsies, homosexuals, politicals, and Jehovah's Witnesses were also given special stars and faced extermination.

There are only about 10 homosexuals left from this tragedy, and they interviewed eight for this special film. It was incredible and moving and, if you are not touched by their stories, then you are cast in stone.

The film did mentioned that this punishment was reserved primarily for men, but they did not explain why. I wouldn't take anything away for that, but it should have been discussed as they had many lesbians in the movie. Did they just want to show nude women? Gratuitous monties? I remember my visit to Dachau and the memories I have of this shame on humanity. This film will have to hold me until I can get to the Holocaust Museum in Washington to see more. It is not to be missed and everyone should be checking HBO to see when it plays next.


These comments apply to the version of this film shown recently on the Logo channel, which may or may not be the complete version.

I was not too eager to watch yet another documentary about the Holocaust, but had seen little on film about the Nazi's persecution of homosexuals, so decided to steel myself and give it a chance.

This is a beautifully made film, well constructed, and telling a compelling story. As a documentary film maker myself, I know I would have been tempted to try speeding up the pacing. That would have been so wrong, and the filmmakers here managed to avoid that trap. Instead we are given a chance to journey beyond the obvious "sound bites" and start to understand just a little of what those interviewed went through and who they are (while avoiding the maudlin Barbara Walters approach, which can so easily rob the subject of his/her dignity).

By careful pacing, skillful choice of materials, and beautiful editing, we are pulled into this little told story of barbarism and bravery. It is extremely moving without feeling in any way exploitive. Bravo!


I watched this movie for a bit of a laugh plus it had the Hoff in it and lets face it after Knightrider the Hoff is one cool dude! (I'll let u decide whether or not I'm being sarcastic there, on one hand I could be but on the other the truth is I may be a MASSIVE Hoff fan but won't admit it.) Anyway this tale is in usual Baywatch style, bad acting, bad story, bad script. Basically its just bad, but I have to think for something to be so bad then logically it must be good? I don't know but I found it pretty entertaining just for the fact that it was that bad! Most of the original Baywatch cast are in this one including Pamela Anderson who's acting is pretty much as fake as her chest, but we don't mind that, once again its Baywatch, it supposed to be muck.

Overall I would say if you are a fan of Baywatch then you will enjoy this movie and should definitely watch it. If you aren't a fan however then I would still suggest you watch it because it really is a bad movie, but because of that it's entertaining and fun so give it a go.

This movie deserves a.... So Bad its Good/10


Well Being a young fan I hope to get the young persons view over! I bought the film after a old flame for David Hasselhoff relighted and boy am I glad it did. This film has a great plot, where Mitchs friends are suspicious of a new flame and cant let him go through with the wedding that they have planned. And well Mitch is in so you cant really complain! Its great to see a lot of the cast back together and see everyone that bit older. The acting is good although Pamela Anderson can get a bit over the top! The other cast members manage to keep the film down to earth and its good how everything ties in together. Having the I'll be ready themes tune at the start brings back all of the memories from years of watching Baywatch. Overall a great film and its great that the cast came back together to make this film and fingers crossed that they will make another! or even a few on off episodes with some of the original cast members!


This is one of my very favorite MST3K shorts. Its ideas about women seem repressive to us now, but given the attitudes of the time, it was actually fairly advanced. Careers and even higher education for women were still viewed with suspicion by many. As the narrator says, "College for Kay would mean sacrifices for Mom and Dad." I wouldn't have had a clue about the "five pound potty" line, but for a friend who was the right age and had grown up in the south. She explained that the term is actually "Five Pound PARTY" and it was a quaint tradition where a sort of bridal shower was held and the gifts were geared towards helping the bride set up her kitchen: five pounds of sugar, five pounds of flour, and so on. It was a simpler time... "Will she smoke thin black cigarettes and reject the triune god?" "Look at my crotch! Look at my crotch! Look, look, look at my crotch! YEAAAAA!" "I'm going to major in Foods and Nutrition." *Yeah, you'll be a short order cook for truckers in two years... *


This short is pretty darn funny all on its own when viewed today, although the MST3k treatment definitely bumps it to a 10. This short was never shown in theaters, but was shown at high schools to girls to reveal possibilities for their lives (other than marrying the high school quarterback and becoming Mrs. Dirk Squarejaw, housewife and mother).

When you younger kids see this you might wonder how things could have been that bad for women less than 60 years ago. But the fact is, humans are an incredibly adaptive species. If you'd have told just about anybody in 1951 that a black man would be elected President of the U.S. in 2008, they'd have laughed their butt off. But here we are- Black President, and women Senators, astronauts, and race car drivers. Who'd a thunk it?

But back then, Home Economics was a woman's choice, until her husband ordered her to quit her job and stay at home (tee-hee). But look at it this way, modern humans have been around for at least a couple hundred thousand years, but in the last 100 years we've positively rocketed into the future. If you could bring somebody back who died in 1909 to the year 2009, they'd never even recognize the place, or understand how a woman could be a cop or plumber. Hell, back then women could only vote in 4 of 46 states!

But back to our short.......The high school girls are taught that learning to cook, sew, decorate, teach nursery school, etc., will prepare and qualify them for the most important job of being Mrs. Squarejaw. Maybe you could even be a nurse or fashion designer. If you showed this thing to modern high school girls they would never believe you were serious. They believe their tattoo artist is the only one that needs to know how to decorate. It may seem shocking to today's youth that wives in the 1950's didn't even have tramp stamps.

So, since those tough old birds that were married in the 1950's (and my Mom was one) paved the way for you young girls, you can now be judges, jet pilots, doctors and ice road truckers. Congratulations. Also, we have come far enough along to laugh at how things were for women in 1951. If you can, check the MST version of this short. It's on the episode that also features The Viking Women and the Sea Serpent.


My one liner says that this is an inspiring movie. Unfortunately, some of the other reviewers feel pretty uninspired by it. I guess their "a priori" hatred for the protagonist and his religion are the predicate for these feelings. This film is based on true events. It is not " Mormon propaganda" as suggested by many. The missionary happens to be a Mormon but the story would be as moving despite the denomination. It is the story of a young man on a religious mission to the Tongan people. His companion is a native and his mission is characterized by a love for this people, not condescension to them. How anyone could watch this film and come away with bad feelings is beyond me. The whole point of the film is about loving our fellow man and giving them due consideration. The protagonist has his detractors in the film also that he eventually wins over with his sincerity and goodness. If some one does not like this film--fine--but to use these pages as a canvas for painting one's hatred demonstrates the need for films of this kind. There is a lot of hatred and bigotry in the world that needs to be done away with. This film demonstrates one example of how understanding and respect develops between people. I'm sorry members of the "new inquisition" missed this point. I give it an 8 out of 10.


I loved this movie!!! My father is Tongan and my mother is Samoan (the first island Elder Groberg landed at the beginning of his journey). Even though I was born and raised here in the US, I have been exposed to my Polynesian roots and love and embrace both cultures of who I am (Polynesian side and American side).

I have to say that my family and I LOVED this movie. It is refreshing to watch a beautiful movie without all the sex, violence and vulgar material that permeates our society today. This movie is about True Love on so many levels - the love between Elder Groberg and his future bride Jean, the love between the Tongan people and Elder Groberg and the love between Our Lord and his children. No, I'm not Mormon, I'm actually an Assembly of God Christian, however that does not overshadow my appreciation for this movie.

The depiction of the people of Tonga is accurate. They are a lighthearted and loving group of people who love to laugh and find joy in the simple things of life. They are all about respect and honoring one's family. The scene of the first funeral brought back memories for me as it illustrated exactly how these kind people handle the departing of a loved one. When my dear Grandmother Siu passed away in 1994, my family and I traveled back to Vava'u (an island within the Kingdom of Tonga) to lay her to rest. The unmasked grief and crying as depicted in the movie was exactly how my grandmother's funeral was. The crying and grieving took place for 1 full day (24 hours - day and night) while different groups of people from all the villages on the island, came to pay their last respects.

Hats off to Disney for going out on a limb to bring the story of one young man's journey of faith and trials and tribulations of his mission to the big screen! Well done!


Considering that this movie was neither made by, nor endorsed by, the LDS church, The Other Side of Heaven is an endearing, uplifting movie that celebrates and pays respect to Mormon missionaries without going too deep into LDS philosophy or beliefs. Produced in part by the same producer who brought us such cinematic gems as Schindler's List and Jurassic Park, Heaven is refreshingly devoid of many "blockbuster"-style elements and is a very low-key presentation of a young man's struggle to survive, adapt, and succeed in a world far far away from his familiar hometown in Idaho.

In the early 1950's Elder John Groberg from Idaho Falls accepts a call to serve a three-year LDS mission to Tonga. Although he is thrilled and dedicated to his mission call, he is understandably concerned about leaving Jean, the love of his life, in Utah for fear that she will marry somebody else. Yet his faith and determination to do what he believes is right are shown throughout this movie as his motivation to stay through the hardships, the loneliness, and the difficulties that are faced during his mission.

The Other Side of Heaven is essentially a chronicle of Elder Groberg's true life mission. At times spiritual, humorous, frightening, and uplifting, the movie is a tribute to a young man who faced overwhelming odds and setbacks to continually overcome some of the most difficult situations ever beset a young missionary. Throughout the film, Elder Groberg's letters to Jean and her letters back to him keep the film centered on it's true message, that of a man out of place . . . loving where he is, but wishing at the same time, to be home with the others that he loves. And it is this internal struggle which, I am sure, has been faced by every other missionary in history, that gives the movie its depth and emotional quality.

My only criticism of the movie comes from the very brief explanation of the traditions and culture surrounding LDS missionaries and the way in which they receive their calls. For those who are familiar with LDS missions, this should be no problem, but for those viewers who have not been exposed to the process of a Mormon mission, the first 15 or 20 minutes may seem a bit confusing. There is another bit of Mormon tradition which is very poorly explained, but I can't tell you what it is without giving away a fairly poignant moment of the film's ending.

Nevertheless, The Other Side of Heaven is not just a Mormon movie. It is a movie that can be enjoyed and appreciated by people of all faiths (and even those of no faith). Because in the final analysis, this is a movie about the triumph of the spirit and the joys and rewards of fighting for, and doing something, you truly believe in.


I really did enjoy this film, although it is certainly no cinematic masterpiece, however I do think it would be of fairly limited appeal to a non-Mormon audience. It is a fairly slow and simple story, done fairly simplistically, but not without its charms. To really appreciate it I suspect one would need to have some background knowledge of the key elements of the movie. I was certainly surprised to see it as a Disney movie and was mortified to see other posters suggesting that the advertising for the film was less than forthcoming on the true nature of the storyline. For what it is, its very entertaining and uplifting, but I would strongly suspect that this film will not appeal to a wide audience. My Vote 7/10 (although I unashamedly admit my own bias)


I am not a Mormon but thought this movie was a fine example of a good, clean, wholesome, interesting, and very enjoyable film. Time and time again we have watched--or started to watch--a highly proclaimed movie, only to be turned off by the language, violence, and sexual inferences. The Other Side of Heaven was a refreshing change and is proof that Hollywood can do it when they want to. Would love to see many, many more films of this quality. I saw this movie two days ago...and this weekend we are inviting relatives over to see it. Incidentally, we have friends who are (non-Mormon) missionaries in a location very much like Tonga, and they have experienced many, many of the same things portrayed in the film...even the rats!


Exceptional artistic and historic care blend with charming cinematography, to render a visual experience that transcends into an emotional one. Not just one church's story. A universal story. Youth against the world. Virtue against violence. Anyone can relate to this film. It combines all the elements.

You get a light-hearted view of one young man's experience in a remote and unusual part of the world, at a time when the world was just about to start shrinking. There are family values. Individual challenges. Real-life stresses hurled from nature and cultural contrast.

The photography is utterly charming in its balance. It is not a slow film, any more than "Castaway" was a slow film. The difference between these two films is that one pits a single man against the world and against himself, while the other pits a young man against an utterly alien life which he manages to blend into his own. The "slowness" of the Pacific island life is micro-viewed to reveal that there are actually exciting and humorous details of daily life; while macro-viewed to show the occasional punctuation of extreme chaos and challenge,change and redirection.

Everyone wins in this film. Conflicts range from mutual culture and social shock, to static compromise, and eventually up to complete resolution.

See a South Pacific adventure that is, for once, totally based on real life and real historic occurrences.


I watched this movie with my 17 year old daughter last night and we both loved it. It was full of beautiful messages that we as a human race have so sadly forgotten If once in a while we all took a moment and thought of life like the young man in this movie, this would be a wondrous world. It breaks my heart that a movie with so much to offer was basically ignored by the public and press.


I usually read the reviews of the users here on IMDb before I watch a movie.I have come to rely on this site for renting and watching films.When I saw the title of this film "The other side of heaven" I felt that the title was somewhat inspiring.After 5 minutes from the actual beginning, I kind of knew what direction it was heading.I still wanted to watch it though.I'm Christian Orthodox, but this has nothing to do with this film or with me thinking to better watch a sample from a movie after reading a review next time.

I think that the film is well made...good acting, nice sets, good directing, but has an awful script.It is inspired by true events...I know...but then so are a lot of WW2 films...that doesn't mean that "poetic license" is not involved here.If in the WW2 films "poetic license" means political points of view...(he who wins the war writes the history (Churchill's was a genius!):D)in this case (the accent being put on the fact that the film is based on true events) I found that "poetic license" means...well,kind of bullshitting people.

My opinion on this film is that it's kind of...a little propagandistic.There are some scenes in it that made me laugh a little...there's one about the missionary man kind of resurrecting a native child (was that food poisoning, or what?...food poisoning in the case of natives...they know what to eat with their eyes closed...never mind), scenes with the missionary man and his adepts on a boat, far out sea...dressed in suits, or on the beach, dressed in suits...(am I a dirty bastard, or does anyone else find it funny?)

It's interesting though that it sheds light on the Mormon doctrine, rites and such, as well as the inner church bureaucracy.It is a very good effort, starting a bit shy, not saying anything about the religious aspect, then less and less shy until it really becomes very enlightening on these matters.This is not my first Mormon film, I saw another one, more interesting, "The princess and the Marine", about an Arabian princess being saved by a Mormon GI-Joe from her native country.I liked it very much. (also based on a true story).This I've got to hand it to you Mormon producers, you are very truthful.

I am this "mean" because I really don't like to see propaganda in films.Films are made for people to enjoy and relax, not to attract new followers.I don't have anything against loving the man next to you, selfishness and dedication to a cause bigger than you and I, but this is really bullshit.This film is not about "loving the man next to you".This film is about "You can find God, and peace if you repent.Repent and God will welcome you with His arms wide open.".As proof of this, that I don't have anything against the Mormon religion,I'd have to say that I saw Salingrad (even though the film's made by "zie Germans" about "zie Germans", fuhrer and Nazi stuff mentioned in there, Sven Hassle style) and absolutely loved it, and I gave you another example with another Mormon film I really enjoyed in the last paragraph.So don't throw any rocks at me please.Just because I didn't like this movie doesn't mean that I don't like Mormons...I just don't like this film.

As for inspiring...I find Happy Feet inspiring, and I don't have to necessarily be a penguin to say that, but this film, The other side of Heaven...let's put it this way...if you really want to sin, buy it.(you'll see what I mean afterwords, when you will see what you payed for) If you're a patient man/woman and you think that you can get past the "propagandistic" content, it's a well made film, I think, and if you really have nothing else to do, you might want to pirate it a-harrrr.Just kidding...never do something illegal...even in this case...watch it, and you'll see why (it's bad to do something illegal).Anyway, I hope I didn't bore you with this long review...If you will consider watching it, you will find that you do have your limits as patience is concerned...just don't pay too much for it.

Have a nice day, and enjoy...


I have read "In the eye of the storm", John Groberg's book about his mission to Tonga from which this movie was taken. Although, as is almost invariably the case, the book surpasses the movie in almost every important detail, "The other side of heaven" was nevertheless an enjoyable movie that was well made, with a good cast and outstanding scenery and effects.

In most respects, the movie was quite faithful to the book, and the only knock I have is that it seemed to shy away from anything that could not be explained in a worldly way. Although people who are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints might be sceptical of the ability of a missionary to heal the sick, I think that it is important to depict a true story in its truest form, and John Groberg truly worked miracles in Tonga. I think that the majority of believers in the world (and most critics seem not to be!) believe in miracles, whether they be through a young mormon missionary or any other faithful follower of God, and I think this would have only enhanced the story. Granted, since Hollywood was funding it, they probably have a different opinion then I do! One notable exception in the movie was when he was sinking in the water after they jumped form the boat in the storm, and it seemed that a hand came and pulled him up, but no one was there. Although it was not clearly stated, I think they were insinuating that the Lord was helping him, and it was nice to see they didn't ignore that aspect altogether.

Anyway, aside from all of that, it was an enjoyable movie that I think the whole family can watch and marvel at the difficulties people can face, and overcome, in their lives if they have the courage to try.


A reasonable religious movie not billed as such. When I saw this movie at Blockbuster, it seemed to be a reasonable light family type movie. Instead it is a nearly 2 hour informercial for LDS/Mormons. I have nothing against LDS, but did not want to nor was interested in being proselytized to. Unfortunate that Disney could not have been more forthcoming about what this movie is really about.


I have yet to catch all of the movie on TMC but I have seen about 7/8ths of it. It's funny, sharp, very interesting and easy to watch. I found myself laughing and crying with the character. Being based on a true story makes it even more fun to watch. The movie sure does explain more about what a missionary goes through. What a life this man had! He was truly blessed. This movie was a great find. The main actor was magnificent in the role and his portrayal made the movie even greater. The locations were like heaven on earth. The main character had to overcome local prejudice against missionaries, his total removal from worldly possessions, his fears of becoming an elephant (see the movie he explains this) and his loneliness for his wife to be are just a few of his challenges. According to his church elders he must first finish his missionary role before he can marry his true love. This is one rule he is determined never to break. The fellowship and eventual closeness he enjoys with the natives proves to be a grand learning experience for both him and his new friends. "The Other Side of Heaven" is a must see for anybody.


This movie is excellent because there's action and also a good story that makes you think about how you live your own live. It's based on a true story that is about a missionary who has to go to Tonga for 3years to preach the gospel.Tonga is a small Island and first he experiences a huge shock of culture. The people there have no money and live of what they can cultivate on the Island and the worst of all, he doesn't speak their language and the minister forbids the people to listen to him.A lot of miraculous things happen to him on that Island.And he has to fight for his love back home and writes her letters in which he tells her not to marry someone else.The story is about true love, faith and a boy becoming a man. It really touched my heart.


The movie contains what seems to be an honest look at a missionary leaving his home for quite a while, not knowing what to expect, and, returning home unexpectedly different. I thought the movie was tastefully done. I didn't have a lot of preconceived notions going in, and was pleasantly surprised with the outcome. I thought the storyline showed some of the greatest human characteristics that can be shown, both from Elder Groberg and from those whom he served. I recommend the movie to anyone I see...and really don't understand why anyone would say it's "the worst movie ever" seeing some of the bile that's put on film each and every day.

If you're looking for shoot-em-up and special effects, this is the worst movie ever. If you're looking for an inspiring story that gets you asking what's really important in life, then you may put this on your ten-best list. Happy viewing!


This exceptionally well made, independently produced film is a heart warming tribute to the human spirit. The production team of Mitch Davis, John Corbett, and Gerry Molen(the Oscar winning producer of Schindler's list) are to be commended for the excellent job of presenting this story. It's refreshing to see economic success come for a family centered movie.

The special effects in the hurricane scenes were as good as any big budget movie production, yet maintained their focus on the central characters in the film. I hope to see more from this talented production team in the future.


Now, typically I don't like movies like this one. I'm more into Black Comedies, dark sci-fi, mystery, suspense, drama films. But being a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints myself, and a former missionary in Guatemala, I had to go see it.

I hated the previous "Mormon" movie "God's Army", with it's melodramatic portrayal of a missionary's life in L.A. and it's blatent use of church ordinances to stir up emotions in my fellow members of the church. But what was great about "The Other Side of Heaven" was that you weren't bombarded with all the LDS dogma that you wouldn't understand unless you were already a part of the "Mormon" culture.

It was just a story of a missionary (to use a generic use of the term) who goes to another country and faces all the difficulties that we all would experience if we were to go to another country trying to express what is most important to us.

The love story was believable, since it was true. And it wasn't overdone like the droning love story in "Pearl Harbour" where the man had too decided to leave his woman for a while.

Mostly, as a former missionary myself, it brought back a load of great memories from my own mission and my own experiences.

I highly recommend it for all.


I loved this movie more because I was able to relate to the people and places it represents. I'm not a technical critic and this is not a technical review. My favourite films touch an emotional chord and this is one of them. It was a very personal film to me. I served with Tongans as a missionary myself, but in the more Westernized society of Australia. I just want to say that I had to chuckle at a few comments. There is as much variance in reaction to this film as there is to the story of Joseph Smith (the 'founder' of the LDS faith) himself. It interests me that some people see this as a propaganda piece and also as a statement of the perceived supremacy of the "white man's religion". The Tongans who I met loved their religion (as the Tongans did in this movie). To them it was as personal as it is to me, and to the German, Australian, Samoan, Chilean and Phillipino Mormons I have met. Was the preaching of LDS Missionaries to my parents in England a white supremist act? Of course not, no more than it was to the Tongans or any other nationality or culture. Tongans serve today as missionaries, of their own free will, as enthusiastic and committed as Groberg was then. The message to me from this, is that there is a level of humanity that transcends the temporary diversity of culture. Groberg and his beloved friends found that place in "The Other Side of Heaven". Something so very personal that it is very hard to express on film. I think this movie was as honest as it could possibly be. It was the experience and perspective of Groberg as he recorded it. It was true to his literature, upon which it was based. To question its integrity is to question the integrity of Groberg himself, the people he interacted with in Tonga and the motive of the film-makers who tried to translate his memoirs to film. You have a right to question them. If you find this film offensive, preachy, lacking in artistic expression or drama or just sickly-sweet, I feel sorry for you. To me this motion picture experience is an expression of real-life at its fullest. A wonderful achievement.


Not pushy or preachy, just a simple, honest tail of a young man and his struggles. A truly grand film!!! I recommend it to anyone. Anyone who is looking to be uplifted, touched, and inspired, no mater their religious affiliation, this is the film for you. Coming from Idaho Falls, Idaho myself this film has a soft spot for me. The touching moments, the harsh reality of prejudice, and the outcome of honest sacrifice makes this film profound. This film is a true story that shows only a few of his vast adventures, which change his life. He gave up his home, family, love, comforts, and all that was familiar for almost three years to help people he had never met. This truly shows you don't need to die to 'lay down ones life', but better yet, it's the putting aside our worldly desires for things of a better.

Have a very critical eye, being a director and writer myself, I say this film is a success.


I saw this movie today and can't believe I waited so long after its release to see it. I stumbled on it on my cable channel and was so taken by it, I interrupted my afternoon plans to watch it in its entirely.

Not only was the filmography incredible, but it was so beautifully directed. I can't believe this was Mitch Davis' Directorial debut! How do you do a work so incredible on your first work? The characters were portrayed so beautifully that it seemed that they were real people and not actors. It reminded me of one of my favorite stories of all time...James Michener's "Hawaii", yet it had its own sweetness and own story.

I will put this on down as one of my top ten movies and highly recommend it to anyone who loves drama, hope, truth and love...amidst a beautiful island people.

I give this 10 stars wholeheartedly!


Going into this movie I understood two things. It was about an LDS missionary and it starred Anne Hathaway. After seeing it, I know that it is far from a story about a man's mission experiences with a pretty girl on the side. The experiences that Mr. Groberg has are incredible and delightful. Understanding that he is LDS is almost meaningless in the context of the movie's plotline. Whether you are LDS or not, you will be able to understand it's simple motives.

Love (Godly, romantic and platonic), Integrity, Loyalty and Friendship all make a presence in the deep character development. As writer of the screenplay and as director Mitch Davis has masterfully crafted this adaptation of the life experiences of John Groberg. You sense he did not go into his mission with a desire to find glory or fame, but he did go to Tonga with a desire to do what was right. This I feel is the overarching trait of the character played by Chris Gorham. It pulled him through when he didn't know how to heal a seemingly dead child or make it to land after losing his ship in the middle of the ocean. Nevertheless, in persisting to be true to his religion, his family and his love, he was able to touch the lives of hundreds in the three years he served in Tonga.

Now, his story is able to touch the lives of thousands more through the efforts of Mr. Davis and his staff. Thank you for pouring your life into this so we may view the greatness that is the life of John H. Groberg.


This commentary might contain spoilers for the movie.

(This was originally geared toward the user "theprovinces" to help clear up any questions others might have from his critique.)

First, John Groberg did not produce this movie. He did not contact any production agents about it himself. They came to him after reading his autobiography. The director/producer Mitch Davis is not Mormon (as he indicates on the commentary), and further the majority of the other cast and crew that worked on the film are not Mormon either. The Tongan people are not put off by this film, but rather are very much in support of it. It is an acurate depiction of their lifestyle in the 1950's (did you realize that when you wrote this?). As indicated in the commentary, the people living on the island that the film was shot on were very much in support of the film. They even had a Polynesian prayer ceremony where all the tribal leaders and ministers of other faiths gathered and prayed for the successes of the film production, all on their own without any compulsion from the film crew.

You referenced the scene where Elder Groberg walks after the soles of his feet were eaten by rats. The director said that that really occured and it was not him being God-like or having a "miracle" happen. It was an event that was entertaining to the people on the tiny island. They really didn't have a lot to do in their day-to-day routines and it was funny to watch a man from a distant country walk after something like that.

As far as the girl seducing Elder Groberg and her mother wanting him to father half-white babies goes, something like that is not hard to fathom. As explained in the film by the girl's mother, that could have gotten them higher status in the tribe. But because he refused, they were initially insulted and shamed. It wasn't until he explained to the mother what true love means to him that she finally understood where he was coming from. And your comment regarding her being the "most beautiful Tonga(n)" is very opinionated. Regardless of the degree of attractiveness, his reaction would have been the same. She may have not been that attractive in real life, but if you were the producer, wouldn't you have done the same thing. They were only trying to point out his strong morals. (If you want to see what she really looked like she is at the very begining of the movie in one of the pictures of the Tongans.)

You were also incorrect in your reference to the "dead child". He was not breathing because of the mango in his throat, and therefore by all outward appearances dead. Once the mango was out, the boy remained in a coma because of his fall from the tree. The father of the boy was also Mormon, and brought his son to Elder Groberg because of the trust he already had for him. The director later interviewed the boy, now a grown man living in California, and he said the accident happened on a Tuesday and he woke up late Thursday.

If you couldn't tell on your own, the point of this movie is not to see who he ends up with. That doesn't matter. What matters is the life changing experiences both he and the people he taught went through. Yes these people were primitive, but Elder Groberg learns that that doesn't make them inferior or him superior. What it does show is that strengths can be found in everyone. They learned from each other. In fact the director states that Elder Groberg learned far more than he taught.

These people were not in need of saving (at least temporally), but are in fact a thriving intelligent community of people who do not need the things of the world. It is not like they were a polytheistic society. Several other missionaries from other churches, like Methodist, were already there, preaching the word of the Lord and about Jesus Christ. So if you attack him for being Mormon, you should also attack the others there that were of other religions.

Elder Groberg was far from being perfect. He was portrayed as being arrogant, as seen in the opening scenes with Anne Hathaway, determined as shown in the scenes where he learned how to speak Tongan, and frightened as shown in the scene where he and his companion were confronted by the small mob. Anybody knows that these are not qualities of a perfect person.

In no way is this movie racist either, unless your idea of racism is speaking the truth. This island culture was basically that of a third world country where access to things of the world and contact with the world was seldom available. They didn't always want that contact anyway, as observed when the Austrailian yacht came looking to trade booze for women and the people were desperately begged their own children to not go with them.

I am sure missionaries from any religion can relate to many of the experinces Elder Groeberg went through. Just because it is a film about a Mormon Missionary doesn't mean it's not relatable to everyone. The movie is not even about the religion, but it is about the experience of living with a culture unlike your own and learning that everyone has a mission in this world. Elder Groberg's story is one of truth from a very upstanding man, taken straight from his autobiography and authenticated by the people who lived it. I should know, I've met him and I know the kind of man he is.


This film is of personal interest for several reasons. Being a Mormon, I was interested in seeing how my religion was portrayed by "outsiders" on the Big Screen. Having met the real-life person the movie portrays, I was also interested in how interesting this man's younger life would be. Serving a mission for the Church is a rather common experience - what would make this man's mission interesting? And would any non-Mormon be interested?

I was surprised at how interesting it was to me, but wondered how interesting it would be for non-Mormons. The story, although in a Mormon setting, was a very human story with several surprises, moments of courage, demonstrations of testing personal commitment against temptation, and an endearing love story. I loved the actors - from the main stars to the peripherals, it was high quality all around.

Throughout the film I kept asking myself: how would I have acted in this situation? I have to admit, this story portrays a life to emulate. It was personally inspiring.

This film is not filled with sex or violence or gore; it's simply a good story well-told. I would give it 8 out of 10.


I disagree with the other person's comments.

I found this film to be one-sided (i.e propaganda) in its portrayal of a Mormon missionary.

Which is fine, but just boring for a movie.

Sorry the other person seems to have a chip on his/her shoulder in defending this movie.

But I found it sugar-coated while avoiding some deeper issues - like what is the traditional spirituality of these people that the Mormon missionary was replacing.

The movie glorifies religious colonialism - so if that bothers you, you may not want to waste your time on this movie.

However, if you want to learn how the narcissism of missionaries and religious zealots works, it's a good example.


Unfortunately, it seems that our friends from the LDS church are using the Corporate Giant Disney to try to proselytize upon others. This is their latest attempt to appeal to real Christianity by portraying their field missionaries as here to help, rather than bent on world conversion. (And I might add that they are not real Christians, compare the tenants) This film was steeped in touchy moments that act to enforce the mormon-fed ideal that they are all perfect people that lead perfect lives and are in the perfect faith. Propaganda is written all over this one. There are a few laughs and many moments that LDS members should find enchanting however the film held little in the sense of real substance. The fact that it will inevitably lead people to take interest in the mormon church is disturbing, considering the lack of enthusiasm presented by Disney towards the actual Christian faith. If you are LDS have at this movie, otherwise seriously consider yourself before being taken in by a propoganda film such as this.


The scenery and cinemaphotography may distract you from the fine script and terrific acting. Breathtaking and mind-boggling at the same time.

As a lapsed Catholic, I did not find any LDS propaganda in this film disturbing, and did not make me want to shuck off my dirty-soul to find salvation. Ignore anyone who tried to divert you, it's not there.

This is a story (once you get past the palm trees, waterfalls, and beautiful islanders) about volunteerism and the American spirit.

Revel in it. Grasp it. Live it.


This is the day and age where most movies relying on an "R" rating and special effects to get moviegoers to shell out their hard earned money. At the same time their producers push the limits of good taste and see how far they can go towards the "garbage" rating. I know not all movies do this but way too many do. Even many PG13 movies try hard to promote bad taste with raunchy plots. The trouble with this type of approach is that in many cases the movie isn't even good, or even worse - junk. Now comes a real good movie that takes a higher road. "The Other Side of Heaven" stands out as a movie that tries to fill the viewer with a sense of goodness in a people and those who would serve them. In this case it is the Tongan people and the server is a young missionary named Elder Groberg and his Tongan companion. I found this movie very interesting because besides being a very good movie, I was able to learn of the Tongan customs and traditions: what they found valuable and what was important to them. Elder Groberg was a young man from the states with all of the comforts that living there provides. To leave those comforts and go half way around the world to a strange people with a strange language must have been a real challenge. It was nothing less than a whole new way of life for him. This movie has some special effects but it doesn't rely on them. It is an epic movie with a great plot, which is made even more interesting because it is based on a true story. "The Other Side of Heaven" has clean humor, tragedy, love, challenges, danger, hope, faith, and great acting. What could be better? You can go to this movie and take your kids or your mom without worrying about what they will be subjected to. What movie these days can claim that? Anyone want to visit Tonga?

The Generic Critic


I loved it! What an amazing true story! It was fascinating to go into the 1950's Tongan culture and to see the love that that missionary had for those people. You could see how much he really loved his girlfriend, who he left in the U.S. That must have been so hard for him. I was so relieved when he made it back home safely and married her. The scenery was amazing and the acting was impeccable. It has taken the place of Titanic and Forrest Gump as my new favorite movie. I give it five stars! I'm buying it as soon as it comes out on DVD and VHS. I actually might go back to the theatre to see it again this weekend....


This is one of those movies that as itself is a gem. For those that have seen it, and "want to know more" I HIGHLY recommend getting the book the movie was based upon. The movie is like a "Cliff's Notes" version of about 5 chapters of the book!!!

 Only complaint was that I think it was a bit TOO vague on the missionary selection process in the beginning of the movie - but did a great job avoiding the "dogma" aspect and staying true to the story.

 Two thumbs up (even if their my own).


I thought this movie was one of the best I have seen in a long time. Everything about it was great hope to see more of these kind of movies, very moving. Hope to be able to take my three children to see it. GREAT MOVIE!!!!!!


I really enjoyed the movie, it was great and touching. My friend says the book was 10 times better, that's why I can't wait to read it, cause the movie was GRREAT!!!!! I love Missionaries and what they do for the world. I'm so happy things like this about my church are being shown to others. I know whether you're Mormon or not you will enjoy the movie.


This film is set in the 1950's, not only in time but in style. It was a time of Poodle skirts, McCarthyism and fear of the bomb. This script acknowledges the first only. There is a simplification of the time that will appeal to some but not to most.

The characters lack depth and the "feel good" problems the characters face lack tension. That said, the low-key acting services the low-key script very well.

If you can identify with the characters (especially if you are Mormon). you will enjoy this film. If you cannot identify with the characters, you will probably find the film slow and very boring.


Outstanding exploitation flick with a palpable sense of sleaziness...Feels like an old E.C. comic book story, one that would have been drawn by Graham Ingals...who cares if it's a "Freaks" rip-off: it has its own unique charm, with loads of authentic carney atmosphere (producer/writer David Friedman was a carny himself up until a couple years ago) and great performances from a cast of nobodies. Shorty is incredible, as is the fat, sweaty hash joint owner at the beginning. And David Friedman as a freak show barker is not to be missed. The genuinely unsettling make-up for the She-Freak is by Ed Wood's make-up man. Good stuff.


_She Freak_ is certainly one of the more accessible of Friedman's post-HG Lewis movies. Obviously intended to target drive-ins, it lacks the more objectionable (and usually dull) `adult' material of his other pictures, and spends more time on the plot. Other strengths include actors that know their lines and location footage (at a carnival) that offers a bit more visual diversity than is usual in the extreme low-budget 60's field.

That said, however, the film is deeply flawed and far from a classic. It is frequently billed as a `remake' of Tod Browning's _Freaks_, which is true to an extent, but not in the way one would hope. Clearly the writer took the concept of a selfish carnival girl who is punished by the freaks for her ill-treatment of one of their number and ran with it. Unfortunately, it did not inspire him to particular heights.

The most notable difference between this film and its inspiration is the aspects of carny life upon which they focus. _Freaks_ focused on the title characters  showing their lives and loves, how sideshow freaks were people with feelings who banded together against a world that despised them. _She Freak_, by contrast, seems mostly concerned with the people behind the scenes: the concessioners and `ride boys' and the Grips (or whatever their called in carny talk) that set up and tear down the big show. Something like 10 minutes of footage is sweaty guys working with tent poles, so if that's your thingAs far as sideshow acts are concerned: there's a coochy-dancer (who goes `as far as the law allows,' evidently in a bible-belt state), a sword-swallower, a snake charmer and a fortune-teller. Even the one real `freak' of the film, the unfortunate `Shorty' the midget, gets very little screen time and never performs whatever act he is supposed to have.

The other glaring flaw is the character development. The main character, Jade, starts the movie as a bitch, then is re-introduced as a sympathetic character with high hopes, then spends the rest of the movie bouncing back and forth. It got so bad that I started to regard the movie as a Jekyll-and-Hyde tale, with the `bad' Jade progressively screwing up the aspirations of the `good' Jade. But, unlike Stevenson's story, there is no explanation for Jade's dual personality, and no way to predict which side of her would emerge. A more interesting take, had the writer and director been up to the challenge, would have been to portray Jade as starting out nice, but gradually becoming `jaded' (sorry, couldn't help that pun) over the course of events and hard knocks in the carnival, until she went too far and had to be destroyed. Frankly, the `crime' for which she is punished (firing Shorty) does not fit the punishment she earns, and there are other characters in the film that have far more justifiable grievances than the freaks do.

One interesting hallmark of the low-budget Friedman approach deserves note. The extended silent sequences, in which the audience is treated to musical montages of images that are supposed to suggest action. Aside from the aforementioned set-up, tear-down sequences, the entire courtship of Jade and her prospective husband is handled in this way. Up until his last two or three scenes, pretty much the only thing this actor says is `Hello.' On the whole, this is actually a good thing.

Overall, it's worth it for exploitation completists, and is a watchable film, but not generally recommended.


A truly diabolical 60's remake of the legendary Tod Browning movie Freaks. Unlike the original film, this ultra low budget affair does not feature real 'freaks'. Also, unlike the original version, this film does not feature anything that can be vaguely described as interesting. An alarming percentage of the running time seems to be spent watching people putting up and taking down tents and other fairground attractions. We have seemingly endless scenes showing fairground rides and people frequenting side-stalls. We have a hugely unerotic striptease and many other sequences so tedious my mind has blocked them out as a suppressed memory. The acting talent and production values are nil. This movie must've been shot in a couple of days tops. The she-freak of the title only rears her ugly head in the last few seconds of this dreck and, needless to say, it isn't worth the wait.

This is exploitation cinema at its worst. It exploits the viewer in such a way that it promises something and delivers less than nothing. This is as close to a non-movie as you can get. It's so bad I would wish it on my worst enemies.

Absolute gash.


She Freak begins with a good five minutes worth of footage of a carnival & it's everyday goings on as the crowds flock & enjoy the attractions it has to offer, this dull as dishwater montage of footage is accompanied by some of the worst music the filmmakers could have chosen. Eventually the film cuts to the freak show, a barker (writer & producer David F. Friedman in a small uncredited cameo) introduces one of the exhibits "there are only two kinds of freak... those created by God... & those created by man... she is a bit of both!" The film then goes into flashback as the barker begins his story. Jade Cochran (Claire Brennen) leads a miserable life working as a waitress in a roadside café on a terrible wage (oh stop! My hearts bleeding for her!). But Jade has ambitions, she is determined to make something out of her life & become someone. One day a carnival advance man named Ben Thomas (Ben Moore) walks into the café & asks the owner & head chef Greasy (Claude Smith), so-called for good reason, to put one of his posters up. Jade begins to talk with Ben & asks if there are any jobs vacant at the carnival, Ben says maybe & she should talk to the owner Al Babcock (Van Teen). Babcock sorts her a job out as a waitress, great career move Jade. Anyway, Jade befriends a stripper named Pat 'Moon' Mullins (Lynn Courtney) & attracts the attention of the local carnival stud Blackie Fleming (Lee Raymond). But Jade wants more & decides to date the owner of the freak show, the rich Steve St.John (Bill McKinney). Oh, & there's a dwarf named Shorty (Felix Silla) who wears a cowboy hat straight out of Dallas that's almost as big as he is! He doesn't have much to do with the plot but I thought I should mention him. Where was I? Right yes, so Jade marries Steve for his money & business interests as she also begins to look down on the ordinary carnival people who befriended her (& she sacks Shorty!). However, Steve's freaks from his show don't fall for Jade's charm quite as easily & decide to dish out some just deserts! Edited & directed by Byron Mabe who also has an uncredited cameo as a police officer, She Freak is pure rubbish from beginning to end. The script by Friedman is a complete waste of time & the lasting impression I got from the film was don't treat people badly & women in awful dead end jobs shouldn't try to better themselves! The film does not contain much dialogue but it's pretty bad when it occurs with male characters saying things like "you got yourself a great little broad there" after Jade has just served the drinks! She Freak is incredibly boring & features long sequences that are totally pointless, there is lots of footage of the carnival (& people looking & staring directly into the camera) with awful music playing in the background. In fact at times She Freak comes across like a documentary on carnival life from the late 60's! She Freak also makes the fatal mistake of being utterly boring throughout, I mean this is the kind of film that depicts a romance between two people by having them sitting on a park bench together, nothing happens of any note until the last five minutes when the 'twist' ending is revealed which you can probably guess anyway from the opening scene. The acting is terrible from everyone involved in a significant role, what little their given anyway. There is no blood, gore or nudity so as an exploitation film it's completely worthless too, in fact I think I'd probably struggle to even call She Freak a horror film either as it contains virtually no horror elements at all. She Freak is an absolutely terrible film on a technical level to, photography, music, editing & sound (the dialogue is muffled throughout) are below acceptable. So why the two stars you ask & not one? Well, there are a few unintentional laughs in here & that dwarf with the large cowboy hat is just cool & he even gets to play around with a flick knife towards the end! Basically steer well clear of this piece of crap, I can't see anyone obtaining any kind of entertainment from it & I certainly didn't.


The fact that this movie is a rip-off of Tod Browning's "Freaks" should not be construed as a reason to see it. The photography and acting are bottom drawer, the direction is listless and unimaginative, and writing is rarely sly (or at least it's hard to get any good dialogue out of these actors' mouths). There isn't even all that much exploitation footage here.

What is kind of interesting is the picture of carnival life in the 60s (a period of decline for that art form) it provides. Roustabouts, geeks, carneys, all are presented with some sort of versimilitude.

With a stronger lead actress and a more competent cast/director, this film could at least have been a memorable shock-fest. Instead, it's ultimately forgettable.


[spoilers]

This daring flick tells the sordid tale of Jade, a devious, unlikable tramp who's our main character, making this movie so much fun to watch. You see, Jade has a depressing job as a waitress in a greasy diner so greasy the cook is named "Greasy". She dreams of something better, so gets an even more depressing job as a waitress at a greasy carnival. But still she aims higher, so she seduces and marries the owner of the freak show!

While this is going on we're treated to lots and lots of footage of the carnival being set up and taken down and set up again (I actually enjoyed that stuff, being a fan of "Death Mask" and "The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies).

The film-makers were so busy showing how much fun carnivals are that they forgot to have an interesting plot- the freak show owner that Jade seduces hardly has any lines or character, and we never even see the freaks until the very end. The story moves incredibly slow for an hour and twenty minutes, then the freak show owner dies, Jade reveals herself as the bitch she is, and the freaks take their revenge- all in the last five minutes. They saved all the interesting stuff for the end, and then just rushed through it.

The "surprise" ending is a surprise only to those who haven't seen Tod Browning's "Freaks", which is superior in every way to this chunk of crap. The freaks take their revenge on Jade by gluing a googly eye to her face and making her wear a Mr. Spock ear, and then spraying her with silly string. Actually, the resulting "She-Freak" is much more attractive than the way Jade started out, as the actress resembles a leathery skeleton in a blonde wig.

Did I mention that I hated this movie? I did. Some of it looks neat, and it was probably an influence on Alex Winter's brilliant "Freaked", but overall it's too slow, dull, cheap, poorly acted, and unimaginative to be of any interest. Dullsville, baby, strictly Dullsville.


There are some films that are bad, and there is this film which is BAD! Wow! I thought I was getting a horror film but instead I got a docudrama on carnival life. The story picks up a bit at end, and it is really nothing more than a cheap imitation of Tod Browning's Freaks minus credible acting, reasonable storytelling, atmosphere, and class. In fact, the one thing this film could have had going for it was the female lead and another beautiful blonde in a supporting role. They are very attractive women, and just when you think they might drop their top and save this film fiasco, they don't. What more can I say about this film? If you like to see people on rides whilst real bad music plays in the background for what seems an eternity, then She Freak is for you. Watch for producer David Friedman in a small role as a barker.


I guess I can't complain too much, because for all intents and purposes, I got this movie for free. It came with a 'freaks' boxed set through Something Weird video, along with, among other movies, the classic 80's cheesefest BASKET CASE. At the time, purchasing BASKET CASE in this boxed set actually cost less than it did alone, so hey, a good deal is a good deal. And since I bought it, I gave SHE FREAK a day in court and watched it. Unfortunately, it isn't nearly as interesting as BASKET CASE. It's really only slightly more interesting than watching paint dry.

SHE FREAK is, near as I can tell, the 1960's remake of the classic freak film FREAKS, directed by Tod Browning. Unlike Browning's movie, however, SHE FREAK contains almost no freaks at all. The biggest problem with this movie is that a grand majority of it contains stock footage of carnivals being set up and taken down, shots of random people on rides, and other such mundane images of fair grounds and carnies.

What little story there is revolves around Jade Cochran (the late Claire Brennan), an average-to-homely woman who begins the movie as a coffee shop waitress with high aspirations. After getting fired from her job for not being appreciative enough (if you know what I mean), she finds work at the local carnival, becoming good friends with one of the strippers. She eventually meets and seduces Steve St. John (Bill McKinney) and marries him, although it's made very plain that she's a bit on the easy side, as prior to the marriage she has a little bedroom bam-bam with Blackie Fleming (Lee Raymond), a man egotistical enough to decorate the walls of trailer with his own name in spray paint.

Steve St. John, Jade's new husband, is in charge of the freak show, something that deeply disturbs Jade. See, Jade is a bit on the shallow side, thinking more about the material advantages of marrying a man with money and less about the human side of his work trying to make a life for people who might not otherwise have one. Since Steve isn't the most attentive of husbands, Jade's little fling with Blackie continues despite the marriage. Then, one night, the only freak in the movie--a little person named, appropriately, "Shorty"--sees Jade getting it on with Blackie, and while he says nothing, he makes his dislike of Jade as clear as this script is capable of making it.

Things escalate (so to speak) from here, with Jade becoming increasingly open about her dislike of the unseen freaks. Unfortunately, as an actor, Claire Brennan was as talented as she was attractive, and when she expresses her disgust she does so with a smile that she holds back with painful difficulty. Soon, Steve St. John catches Blackie after one of Jade's indiscretions, the two of them have a fight, and Blackie stabs Steve to death in a very brief and tame fight scene. Jade then inherits the freak show, and runs it with a cold heart, in contrast to Steve, who considered the freaks close friends of his.

Anyway, eventually the freaks catch up to her and deform her in ways that are only possible in the movies, and she ends up becoming the bizarre and twisted creature shown in the SHE FREAK trailers and posters, and the movie ends. That's it. And believe me, this review is far more interesting than the actual movie itself, which should tell you something.


I'm a big fan of David F. Friedman, with titles such as "Space-Thing", "The Defilers", and especially the H.G. Lewis pictures ranking high on my list of cult favorites. I can't get enough of his special kind of colorful camp. Unfortunately, "She-Freak" is one of his weakest pictures. This maybe because it lacks the two things that Friedman used to sell his other pictures - sex or violence. For a Friedman flick, this is extremely tame. Maybe he should be applauded for attempting to craft a legitimate picture, but outside of the lack of those exploitable elements, there seems to be little effort to make something quality or compelling. David, I love you, but what were you thinking?

To be honest, there is a few cool aspects about the film. As usual with Friedman productions, the garish color truly resembles a good vintage comic book. Also, the two lead actresses are quite attractive and there is an accurate carnival atmosphere. Thats about it though. Too much of the running time is compromised of talk, and while these bits of campy dialog are entertaining in similar films, the lack of shocking elements to space them out makes them quite monotonous after a while. Also, the film copies "Freaks" by having the horror elements confined to the last ten minutes or so, only problem is this time around the first seventy aren't even remotely compelling. "She-Freak" is a considerable disappointment. It has its merits, but not enough of them. (3/10)


I won't waste any more time on this, but don't think that it has any sort of artsy freaky weird '67 trippy horror vibe... it sure don't.

They actually fill/waste so much footage in the thing: there's a 6-minute montage (complete with bad lo-fi jazz) of the circus guys taking down and setting up in the next town. SIX MINUTES!!!

Totally stupid. Awful writing, thinner-than-cardboard characters, UGLY photography/editing, no plot, painful acting, STUPID.


This film has absolutely nothing to recommend it. Bad acting, an even worse script, poor cinematography ... you name it, it all flops. Many of the extras were not even aware they were taking part in a film as is evidenced by their staring curiously at the cameras. Unlike even PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, which is so bad it's at least worth some good laughs, this bomb doesn't even rate a good chuckle. An utter waste of celluloid.


Opening as it does with an encomium for Bobby Cohn, one of the leaders of the North American Carnival Industry, 1967's "She Freak" at times comes off more as a tribute to life on the midway than a grisly horror film. In it, we are introduced to Jade Cochran (lamely portrayed by Claire Brennen), whose waitressing job in a jerkwater greasy spoon is so dispiriting that her new gig cleaning tables at a traveling carnival seems like a step up. Jade soon sets her sights on the owner of the carnival's freak show, despite her aversion to those poor people, and with her curvy figure, toothy smile and blonde good looks (indeed, Brennen here looks very much like the young Joni Mitchell), has no trouble roping him in. But anyone who has seen Tod Browning's 1932 masterpiece "Freaks" and knows of Olga Baclanova's fate in it (or who has seen the trailer reel that precedes every movie from Something Weird) can guess what happens next. "She Freak" is only 83 minutes long, but at least half its running time consists of padded footage of roustabouts setting up the carnival or tearing it down, or of customers walking around or Jade wandering about. Unlike "Freaks," which shocked and amazed audiences with its large cast of real-life biological sports, "She Freak" offers basically only one of "Nature's mistakes" in the form of Shorty (!), a Stetsoned little person. Still, somehow, the picture manages to barely hold one's interest, and features beautiful color photography (well captured on this surprisingly pristine-looking DVD from those miracle workers at Something Weird) and even some interesting directorial touches from Byron Mabe. Basically, though, the film is junk. Viewers interested in seeing a superior updating of "Freaks" would be better off checking out the British film "The Freakmaker" (1973), which is much more, uh, freaky and a lot more fun.


All right, bring on the pain. Now let's start right off the bat with no nudity. I happen to know that those side show strip shows showed skin, if not they wouldn't be popular. I mean it was 1967, Ed Wood even had nudity in his films by now. Now let's look over the action in this movie, there isn't any. Most of the movie is just Jade with long speeches about how bad her life was and long speeches about how she's going to change that rotten luck and long speeches about how much she hates the freak show. My God, we get it. You're a gold digging skank and you want money in order to make your life better. Another thing, they act like the owner was rich, if he was rich he wouldn't be living in a big house not acting like a bloody nomad wracking in the little money from rubs like real carnies do. Ownership of a Carnival or Fun Fair isn't worth killing over, which she does near the end and the freaks get together for revenge. They turn her into a freak. None of the "freaks" has supernatural powers, so how the hell could humans to that to a person. It's impossible, as a TALES FROM THE CRYPT episode, it might have worked. 30 minutes and that includes a speech about her crappy past and how she's going to do better. Plus, they might have explained how she was turned into a freak. Long story short, bad characters, bad ending that makes no sense equals a really bad movie. THE RASBERRY.


Overall, this movie was dumb. I gave it a 2.

To me the most interesting things were Jade's accent and the late 60s fashions.

The make-up looked about high school play level.


When watching this film , viewers have to keep 2 things in mind: That this is a TV movie, and that this movie was made to tell a story, not to blow you away. While some things in this movie were made up in order to tell the real story

(As far as I know, the whole thing about the reunion of all the soldiers and Jesse Marcel talking with a lot of them in order to find out what happened , is made up. While Jesse Marcel did exist and everything that the movie said that happened to him really did happen to him, the scenario of him talking to all this people 30+ years later was created to tell the story of the crash). But when it comes to what is important: The Roswell Incident, this movie is accurate with what eye witnesses have been saying for years. If you are an skeptic who really doesn't care about the subject at all, then you will find little, or no entertainment value here.

But if this subject interests you, this movie will entertain you and inform you. Highly recommended to all of you who are curious about what happened in Roswell New Mexico in July of 1947.


Kyle MacLachlan may be the star of this movie but Dwight Yoakam steals the show with his portrayal of Mac Brazel. If you're not familiar with the Roswell Incident (who isn't by now?) this movie will clue you in quickly and accurately without having to read your way through a stack of books on the subject. If you're already a believer, this movie will quickly become on of your favorites. It is a docu-drama. DOCU...DRAMA - of course some of the acting is melo-dramatic - it's a made-for-TV movie about the crash of an alien spaceship...hello.... That aside - the movie is true to its subject matter and the acting is not the horror show some have claimed. I went to film school (Columbia) and believe me, compared to what I've seen - this is A+++. They are also Hollyweird actors, not schlocks so how bad can it be? I won't restate the plot here but I wanted to refute the few 'this is horrible!' posts out there. It's not horrible and it's very informative. Unlike others, I also found it suspenseful. The suspense doesn't come directly from the action but from slowly uncovering what happened right along with Jesse himself.

See it - you won't regret it.


This Docu-Movie (apparently TV Release in USA) starts off all Doco style in the opening credits, which is great, not highly original, but sets the mood instantly. All key players are present. Marcel (both Jesse and Jess Jr), Ramey, Dubose and Brazel, and are played well.

If you want a retrospective of the Roswell incident played out in Hollywood style, this is the best yet. Not much artistic license taken, which when dealing with something based in fact, is much appreciated.

The crash site was what I really wanted to see portrayed, as this hasn't been recreated previously on film (well, that's even mildly believable) and (if also based on fact) proved to be, the SMOKING GUN. The size of the site is the "Think Tank" for this film.

Fans of Kyle Mclachlan will love this too. Maybe not as much as Blue Velvet, but that's another story...........


(There May Be Spoilers) Story about the crash outside of Roswell New Mexico, in the early summer of 1947, and how it changed the lives of everyone involved in the investigation and handling of the evidence of that incident as well as those who were witnesses to it. Both in the military as well as those of the local population.

The story of "The Incident at Roswell" begins some thirty years later at the 30 year reunion of members of the famed 509th Bomb Wing of the 8th USAAF the only group of bombers who were armed with atomic bombs in the world at that time back in the late 1940's. It was the 509th who's B-29 bombers dropped the two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima & Nagasaki in August 1945 that ended the Second World War.

At the reunion is retired Maj. Jesse Marcel,Kyle MacLachian, who was the intelligence officer of that bomber wing back in 1947 when the Roswell crash happened. Sick and dying Jesse want's to finally get to the bottom of what happened back then and make it public before he dies and tries to get as much information from the soldiers airmen and civilians who were there and knows what happened but have been too afraid to talk about it all these years.

At the time of the crash in July 1947 Jesse and his commanding officer at the air base in Roswell Col. Blanchard, John M. Jackson, came to the conclusion that the debris that was found outside of Roswell at the Brazel ranch was out of this world and very possibly that of an extraterrestrial space craft.

Col. Blanchard released the startling story "US Army Captures a Crashed Flying Saucer outside of Roswell NM" that made headlines all over the world. The next day Gen. Ramey, Matthew Falson, arrived from D.C and told both Col. Blanchard and Maj. Jesse Marcel to change their story from a "flying saucer" to an army weather balloon crashing in the desert outside of Roswell.

Jesse was made out to look like a fool and incompetent with him having to stand before newsmen and news photographers looking like a jerk holding pieces of a weather balloon and making it look like he didn't know the difference between that and an alien spaceship. It also hurt Jesse that both his wife Vy and young son Jesse Jr. (Kim Greist & J.D Daniels), who knew that Jesse was telling the truth, were both made to swallow that made up story and having to see him humiliated in front of the American public and his friends as well.

At the reunion Jesse finally gets to the truth about what happened from many of those who were involved in the investigation and the cover up of the evidence at Roswell, as well as those UFO investigators who were investigating it then in 1977. In the end he dies in peace, Jesse died some nine years later in 1986, feeling that hopefully in the near future the truth would come out and prove, once in for all, that he was right about what happened at Roswell back in 1947.

What really happened at Roswell in 1947 we may never know if we have to count on the US government and military to release the evidence about that incident. In 1994 the US Air Force released a statement that the people who claimed that a space ship crashed at Roswell and that there were a number of alien bodies recovered, one of the aliens was reported to have survived, mistook that for the US Air force's Operation Mogul. Mogul had high altitude balloons drop dummies in parachutes to see if humans can survive those high parachutes drops in the future.

The paper trail totally disputes that claim since Operation Mogul was conducted in the early to mid 1950's years after "The Roswell Incident" was said to have taken place. In fact it's "The Roswell Incident", not Operation Mogul, that's supported by the newspapers magazines radio and television reports at that time in the fateful summer of 1947. The Then Secretary of Defense James Vincent Forrestal, Eugune Roche, was reported to have had a major hand in the Roswell Investagation back in 1947 that at the time was classified above Top Secret by the newly formed CIA. Within two years Forrestal lost his mind and was committed to the Bethesda Naval Hospital in Washington D.C after suffering a severe mental breakdown. Forrestal later fell or jumped out of his 16th floor hospital room window to his death in the early morning hours of May 22, 1949. Was it what he saw at Roswell, and forced to keep silent about it, that drove him to kill himself?

What exactly did happened outside of Roswell in the summer of 1947? The American people as well as the world may never know. What's positive about the "Incident at Roswell" is that those in charge of finding out what happened, then as well as now, will never let it see the light of day. Those in charge will continue to cover up the "Roswell Incident" and keep it covered up for as long as they have the power and authority to do so. And nothing short of a massive landing of alien space crafts in all the major capitals and cities on earth, to show the people on earth that they in fact do exist and are real, will finally make the US Government reveal what really happened at Roswell almost sixty years ago.


I really hate conspiracy theorists. They make me want to vomit, honestly. Everything from the Kennedy assassinations to 9/11 to the freaking Illuminati, Masonic Templars working with the Mossad to abduct our cattle or whatever, there's no end to it. My favorite is actually Sterling Hayden's theory about fluoridation of the water from DR. STRANGELOVE and the global commie plot to sap & impurify all of our precious bodily fluid. Now THAT I can believe.

I'd rank ROSWELL up there with Oliver Stoneground's JFK as amongst the most effective examples of conspiracy theory propaganda masquerading as an entertainment extravaganza. The proof is that I am actually acquainted with several dunderheads who are of the opinion that BOTH films show what really happened, albeit in the form of historical reconstructions. Both films press every button in their respective conspiratorial play book, with ghoulish government secrecy, evil rogue military industrial shenanigans, shady men in black suits, doubletalk, doublethink, and a conveniently noble hero/fall guy "everyman" at the center of both stories, ROSWELL delivers the goods and is convincing enough to get away with re-writing history as the paranoid would have it be taught. But it's only a movie, and a flawed one at that.

The main problem is that contemporary teaching implies that both heroes misled themselves in regards to much of the mythos that made their stories so compelling, and that the truth behind the conspiracy is actually mundane, anti-romantic and a buzzkill compared to the sexy conspiracies outlined. Punctuated by official sounding military jargon (the expression "mandate" is sternly referred to repeatedly), an apparent obsessive eye for period detail right down to Kyle MaClachlan puffing on unfiltered cigarettes, snappy looking 1940's suits and some laughable matte paintings showing that which the dingbats drawn to this stuff WANT to see.

To quote Harry Nilsson, we see what we want to see and we hear what we want to hear. In 1995 when I first encountered this movie I also desperately wanted to believe every last bit of nonsense hurled at the viewer like a face full of compressed cheeze. Sure, there probably are some basic truths suggested by the film but it's done with such a zest for showing those myths in a suggestive enough manner so that people are actually convinced that they have seen what the wreckage field really looked like, what the aliens really looked like, heard the threats made against the witnesses to stay silent or perpetuate some lie, and the finger of blame pointed squarely at the US government.

I am still convinced that something out of the ordinary happened at Roswell in 1947 without the laughable nonsense portrayed in this movie. I am not sure if it involved the crash of an extra terrestrial spacecraft so much as misidentification of something that shouldn't have been where it was found. And in spite of my stern admonishment above I don't believe that the feds have come clean on the incident, mostly because whatever may or may not have happened was "covered up" so quickly that there isn't a paper trail that can prove OR disprove the wildest of allegations -- That a flying saucer crashed, a rancher found bits of the junk, that a second crash site was found complete with alien life forms who may not have been quite dead.

The second crash site is important because, like all good conspiracy theories, it answers one of the basic problems with it's core premise, in this case the legendary "debris field" reports: Where were the working parts? Where were the engines and the cabin seats and the landing gear? All they found was a few yards worth of tinfoil, balsa sticks, scotch tape and some filament materials. How do you get a rocket ship out of that? And the obvious answer is that it wasn't the rocket ship, just part of it. That lets the theorists off the hook for not having enough junk to make a rocket ship, with the convenient answer that the government hid it all away in the Blue Room at Wright Patterson or out at Area 51.

One thing you have to keep in mind when thinking about paranormal phenomenon is that eye witnesses are statistically unreliable: You can't reproduce what they claim to have seen, and their stories tend to change over time. Jesse Marcel himself was guilty of embellishing his story of coming in contact with the wreckage, adding new details every time he told the story. One could argue that he was simply remembering more detail as time went on, but the fact remains that when you look at the reports and evidence collected in 1947 it sounds a lot less sexy than what was being remembered thirty, forty, and fifty years later.

That doesn't make this a bad movie by the way; In spite of some retarded high school drama club "aging" makeup, histrionic over-acting (the "I saw the bodies!" by a fictional nurse character is a really bad laugh), Martin Sheen lurking around just being Martin Sheen, and a condensed cliffnotes version of the story, ROSWELL is immensely watchable, conspiracy thinking viewers will find it very entertaining and as others point out some of the issues the movie raise probably have a certain amount of veracity to them. But just remember it's propaganda made by people who want viewers to arrive at a specific conclusion, and if you don't keep your thinking cap on you'll find yourself snookered into believing it like some of the people I know, one of whom I had a heated argument with over the fact that it's a MOVIE, a work of fiction, and an entertainment. Just like JFK, though a bit more fun, innocent, and less obnoxious.

4/10


This movie presents the details of the Incident at Roswell very accurately in accordance with the books published on the event. Whilst the movie obviously portrays the incident to be the crash of an alien craft in New Mexico in 1947, the scene in which Martin Sheen and Kyle MacLachlan meet in the hangar I believe gives the viewer the opportunity to make up their own mind about that incident and other U.F.O. sightings in general.

Whilst much of the movie revolves around Jesse Marcel,the government's efforts to make him look like a fool, and the subsequent cover ups, I felt the viewer was given the chance to understand why such an issue would have to be hidden from the general public. I believe the producers and director were smart to avoid the over the top, cliché, tacky Hollywood conspiracy theory theme.

Whilst the movie is based on the events at Roswell in 1947 some scenes that have been dramatised for the purposes of the movie are wonderfully incorporated to allow the viewer the opportunity to understand why the government would hide such an event. In particular, the scene in which a secret government committee has been set up to investigate the incident and the round table discussion that takes place. The dialogue such as, "We're here to ensure domestic tranquility, not eliminate it", "what of our religious institutions", and "what if this was to all come out, what are people going to believe" gives the viewer an understanding for why the government would shield us from such information.

The War of the Worlds radio broadcast in 1939 demonstrates how feeble minded the human race is to the possibility that we are not alone. If suddenly we were told that yes there was a crash of an alien spacecraft in New Mexico in 1947 then the world would go into a frenzy. The beliefs of an overwhelming percentage of the world's population, in particular religious institutions who are of the view we are the sole occupants of this enormous universe, would be instantly proved wrong. To tell such a large number of people that what they have believed their whole life is completely inaccurate would have devastating consequences. The government has to protect the majority of its people from themselves.

Therefore the information needs to be leaked slowly to allow people the chance to make up their own mind over a long period of time. That, in my view, is what is happening.

A wonderful movie perfectly produced that has not been given the full credit it deserves. The movie is not for those with a simple, uncomplicated mind however. You need to be able to think in a complex manner. Try watching it with an unbiased view on the event and see what you believe afterwards.

Some who have criticised the movie, in particular students from Melbourne, might be better advised to ask their teachers to try movies such as High School High, Down Periscope or Date Movie to better evaluate how a movie should not be made. Every movie made can have the s#*t picked out of it if you are watching it to do such.

Roswell is essential viewing on more than one occasion.


First off, I'm a huge believer in the existence of Aliens, abduction, implants, crop circles etc. etc. etc. (Did you just hit Not Useful already?? Jerk-off.) So, prior to this movie, I had decently high expectations. I wanted a movie that would deliver an intriguing story but at the same time give lots of interesting facts. Low and behold, my expectations were met and the movie delivered on both accounts.

At Major Jesse Marcel's 30th Anniversary for his Nuclear Bomb Unit, he's set on getting the facts straight about what he experienced and what went on during the Roswell incident. Through flashbacks mostly, the movie retells what most probably occurred.

With an intriguing and important story being told in a entertaining way, the movie succeeds more than it fails. The acting overall, is kinda average, especially by Kyle MacLachlan, but with an always impressive Dwight Yoakam, and a usually solid Martin Sheen, the movie also ends up succeeding here as well. Overall, Roswell was a entertaining film that delivers a nice story with some nice knowledge concerning the incident. If you're even slightly interested in aliens or Roswell, and if you get the chance to watch this movie, don't hesitate, it's easily worth the 90 minutes.