-This Review can contain SPOILERS-

Wendy gets a mean crush on Neil the year she's twelve, and her friendship with Neil will continue throughout her teenage and early adult years. They're just a couple of crazy kids hanging with each other to placate the boredom of living in the middle of no-where. At night she has dreams that they are Bonnie and Clyde together, blowing away "boring innocents" with their machine guns, with their arms wrapped around one another. They are both reckless outsiders like Bonnie and Clyde, both hated by the other kids who reject their mindset and style. They hate Neil for being a queer, and the girls think Wendy is strange herself by openly declaring herself his friend by walking home from school with him every afternoon. But Wendy doesn't care. She hangs tough about all the other stupid kids in school. Wendy vows to herself, "If I could make Neil my friend, I figured I wouldn't need anyone else." Eventually, Wendy and Neil become the closer than if they were even lovers. Wendy just understands something about the perverse Peter Pan in Neil that even he doesn't understand about himself. It's almost as if she were his perverse Wendy who can sometimes visit never-never land together.

From the get-go, Wendy and Neil are of a like mind. She witnesses Neil trying his sex games out on a retarded boy. "Now, some dire section of my brain longed to find out what twisted things Neil could do to this nimrod, this Stephan Zepherelli." By the time Neil and Wendy are 15 years old, it doesn't surprise Wendy one bit that Neil is showing signs of degeneration. Especially since she witnessed him going down on this retarded boy. Neil has told Wendy all his private stories about being with Coach, and older man who used to make-love to Neil when he was a little boy. In Neil's mind, it has been a great thing, a great love experience. But deep-down, Wendy knows there's something wrong with Neil, and his love relationship with Coach is somehow to blame. Neil is now perversely attracted to older men, and wants to sell his body to get both his cheap thrills again, and earn an income, "so I could get more drugs for Wendy and me."

Neil, a little later, will go to New York City and begin his tenure as a full time street prostitute. Wendy is the friend he shacks up with. They both have managed to escape Kansas, and get away to AIDS ridden Manhattan. But meanwhile, they are still growing up in Kansas, and Neil gets his first real job as a hustler. He takes the bike he stole over to Wendy's to celebrate their first hoist. Never mind that Neil let his first john almost mutilates his genitals. Neil and Wendy stop and wait for a train. Neil puts the candy wax lips over his mouth, and Wendy leans over to kiss them. They go to the park and Neil writes his advertisement on the in magenta crayon. Then he says, "I have something to show you." And here Wendy witnesses teeth marks on Neil's prick when he takes his pants down to show what this john did to him. "Your dick is not a candy-cane!" she lectures him. (Because Wendy enjoys this privilege), "Pull up your pants, exhibitionist!"

It is in the very last chapter of part one of the novel that Heim shows the reader how close Wendy and Neil are. More than high school sweethearts, more than a married couple. They are almost like soul mates who share the same secret language. Written from Neil's Point of View, we can see just how much Wendy means to him, as his friend who he's willing to share his deepest secrets with. As the snow begins to fall, Neil thinks, "it's as if I'd punched a button marked MIRACLES." Neil takes Wendy's hand. "I wish they were showing a movie right now," Wendy whispers, a film about our lives, everything that's happened so far. And we would be the only ones standing here, you and me." They unhook a phone form a pole they're standing by. Is Wendy playing a joke on him, Neil wonders? "I hear something," she tells him, listening, "it's the voice of God." But Neil has a need to trust his in soul-mate, the girl who does everything for him, even gets God on the phone for Neil, just so he can believe in something for one single moment in his life, something that isn't a joke told by his best friend. Neil takes the phone out of her hand, brushes the snow out of her face, and says, "I hear him." -review from "The Bad Art Cafe" based on "Mysterious Skin" novel, by Scott Heim.

Amazing (if crude at some moments) film, but my only complain is that Wendy had played a larger role in the story, as she does in the book, hence posting this review I found on internet as commentary. I really ended envisioned Neil (and Brian too) as Peter Pan types, whose normal lives had been cut off from themselves by the sinister coach.


A hauntingly beautiful film, 'Mysterious Skin' is a moving film that endures through tragedy and heartbreak. Not always an easy film to sit through and watch, but one that delivers a profound emotional experience. Rising star Joseph Gordon-Levitt gives a dedicated performance in a difficult role, making Gregg Araki's film a memorable and powerful picture.

As an eight-year-old, Neil McCormick is sexually abused by his baseball coach. It follows Neil through the rest of his life, and as a teenager begins to sell his body for sex. Brian Lackey is a boy who, also at the age of eight, experiences a traumatic event after blacking out for several hours and waking up to a bloody nose. Believing he was abducted by aliens, Brian sets out to investigate and uncover the mystery. He'll discover more than he bargained for when he realizes a deep connection with Neil, who he played baseball with nearly ten years ago. To finally unlock the key to his past, Brian desperately searches for Neil, who he hopes will ultimately help him learn to cope with his troubled past.

The art behind 'Mysterious Skin' is how painfully realistic it is. Similar films can often get carried away by sensationalizing events or leaving you with an artificial ending, which is completely opposite from the way 'Skin' works. For that, it may appear underwhelming or dull, but the effect couldn't be more different. It relies on script and characters to tell the story, and they all achieve greatly. The subjects of sexual abuse and prostitution are approached quite frankly, making 'Skin' that much more disturbingly real. It's not a happy movie, it won't lift your spirits. It's a very sobering experience that will leave you quietly while speaking profound words.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the star feature here with 'Mysterious Skin'. His performance is steeped with tragedy, as his character desperately tries to attach meaning to an act that has become empty and emotionless to him. His performance deserved more attention than it was given, but Gordon-Levitt is clearly on the verge of breaking out after roles in the outstanding 'Brick' and this year's 'The Lookout'. Brady Corbet and Michelle Trachtenberg both deliver admirable and mature performances. A fantastic young cast who truly help lift this film to great heights.

'Mysterious Skin' takes its viewer on a unique coming-of-age journey that's about discovering one's self, and being comfortable in your own skin. A painfully honest look into the world of abuse, 'Skin' is an abnormally tender and genuinely heartfelt story. Gordon-Levitt will wow you in a fantastic performance, as the film itself is a remarkable and note-worthy achievement. This film will challenge you, but I highly recommend this bold picture to all of you.


Mysterious Skin captures the effects of sexual abuse in a very truthful way. Only a victim would know this truth. The bed wetting, The nose bleeds, UFO's and alien probing. Asexual adolescence, promiscuity, and self destructiveness. Yet, the most important truth is that our society raises us to fear sex. Instead, it teaches us about Santa Claus. We are raised on illusion and lies as well as fears. This is why these boys fall into isolated roads of growth. Middle and lower class values engulf the two young men keeping them in boxes of destructiveness. One boy forgets the experience whereas the other seems to enjoy the playfulness as he realizes sexual desire at the age of eight.

The performances seem real and the film has a personal approach as if Director Araki wanted to show the world an experience of an unfamiliar territory. It is uneasy viewing at times but the film bounces back to compassion and empathy. Joseph Gordon Levitt possesses the screen presence to carry the film. We like him. Yet, like most street kids his youthful rebellion will turn into aged bitter pain and sadness only leading to one outcome...an empty soul that could never love or trust. The question is who is truly at fault. The Coach? The Mother? The American Dream? The film has no conclusion for these young men except: Welcome to Life and join the ranks of all us victims and strive for the pursuit of happiness like everyone else in America.

A powerful and painful film. Yet, Mysterious Skin examines a subject we need to pay more attention too as kids are more exposed to sex at early ages with the invention of the internet. We are too distracted by our desires.


I can't get over how great this film is. Of course, it is a bit graphic and over the edge, but at least it can do that while still holding the emotional appeal that makes it so great in the first place. The entire setting of the film gives this kind of atmospheric vibe that immediately pulls you in from the get-go. I feel there is no other actor out there right now that can perform such a flawless role as actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It caught me off surprise...who knew some kid that was in the TV series 3rd Rock From the Sun could show such potential. I would highly recommend this movie to any true fan of great cinematic film. It's one of those "rough around the edges" kind of movie, but once you look past that you really begin to see how well thought out it really is. And the whole alien abduction part of the storyline, what a great twist! More than anything this movie has got me really excited for what these great actors have in store for us in the future...


MYSTERIOUS SKIN is a pretty strong film that tells the tale of two youths, both of whom have to grow up with a secret that has changed their lives. The boys know each other only peripherally, but their lives converge when one of the youths seeks answers that only the other can answer.

The film begins with some background on Neil and Brian - two young boys in a small mid-western town. Neil is molested by his baseball coach, and Brian has unexplainable black-outs and nosebleeds that he believes were caused by alien-abduction. The two boys don't know each other socially, and their only "connection" was that they both played on the same baseball team - or so we think. As the boys grow older, their lives take drastically different paths - Brian becomes a male prostitute and eventually moves to New York City, and Brian remains in his small town, nerdish and constantly searching for proof of his alien-abduction theory. Brian eventually begins to feel that he and Neil are somehow more deeply connected, and goes in search of him, only to find that he's moved away - But when Neil comes back over the Christmas holiday, Brian will learn all the answers he needed to know - which may prove far worse than his initial UFO theories...

MYSTERIOUS SKIN is a harsh film about strong subject matter. It is not "pretty" or "glamorized", so those looking for happy-ending Hollywood garbage should probably steer clear. That said, the themes and scenes are handled tactfully, even when portraying some truly horrifying events. I personally don't feel that the film ever crossed the line into becoming exploitative or gratuitous - instead opting for a realistic and confrontational yet "respectful" approach. The acting is top-notch by all involved, and features some good cameos and supporting roles from Elisabeth Shue, Billy Drago (in a very small role), and the "Jump-To-Conclusions" doormat guy from OFFICE SPACE (in one of the more harrowing scenes in the film). MYSTERIOUS SKIN is a starkly beautiful film that will not appeal to all tastes, but if dark, thought-provoking cinema is your thing, you'll probably dig it...8.5/10


I recently bought this movie without knowing or hearing anything about it. Yes, I sometimes do that. And I can gladly say the choice I made was a good one exchanging my 13 dollars for a round plastic disc.

Through the movie it was pretty obvious to me that they wanted to save the big reveal for the end. I don't know if this is what they really intended to but I saw it coming all along. Though one might find it pretty easy to pick out where this movie is going, there are still surprises for those who think they have it figured out.

This movie also made me feel squeamish at times. I don't really get like that when watching movies. But this movie sure as well did just that.

Overall a good watch for someone who is into independent movies and want to see some real, raw, gritty imagery.


It is very doubtful anyone can fully grasp the emptiness inside a child's life when searching for a reason behind his cold empty silence. Yet when dealing with the scars of child abuse, not even the greatest medical or psychological specialist will ever be able to fathom nor even comprehend the severity of the wound. This film is called " Mysterious Skin " and it is based on the highly acclaimed novel by Scott Heim. Within it's graphic pages, emerge the black images which relate the tragedy revealed in this film. The story is of the nightmarish memories of two boys, Neil and Brian (Chase Ellison and Joseph Levitt as Neil and (George Webster and Brady Corbet) who recall their early experiences with their little league coach (Bill Sage). Each boy deals with the sexual abuse in different ways. Neil becomes a prostitute, searching for unrequited love in quick sordid affairs in the back seat of cars and squalid apartments, while Brian believes he was abducted by aliens. It takes years of patience discovery, to learn what happened, but in the end, each owns a piece of the dark puzzle and with sympathetic understanding they approach the answer together. The movie encapsulates the suffering of many, but only those who have visited the pit of despair will ever understand their pain. Excellent film! ****


Myterious Skin is a movie that is perfect in that it captures you in its storytelling and in the end drops its message on you in a very subtle way. Honestly if you don't have a tear in your eye in this powerful ending with its unbelievably intense music by Sigur Ros you must be dead inside. The movie revolts of the growing up of two kids, Neil and Brian, whom we follow from their childhood to their 19th years. Both play in the same baseball team as kids but don't meet again until the end of the film. Neil gets into sexual play with his baseball trainer and turns a gay hustler while Brian sees UFOs and tries to find out about the moments his mind blacked out.. of course thinking of an alien abduction. The movie basically deals with Brian trying to unfold the mystery of his blanked out memory and meeting a strange UFO-Girl with similar experiences while Neil is growing up into more and more sexual obsessed gay life.

The way the story is told is just interesting, the acting is incredibly believable from all involved but most of all by Joseph-Gordon-Levitt and Brady Corbet as the grown up Neil and Brian. The movie has a strange calmness with some beautiful scenes ... except for one particular scene (and having seen Irreversible this is tame) I don't understand what people find shocking about Mysterious skin. The whole way of Neil growing up doesn't seem dramatic... its just the small things hidden behind his acting (like his best friend says he has a black hole where others have a heart) and his distant stare when being hugged. His realization falls close to that of Brian and the way they deal with their past seems so real one can relate to it.

I never found myself being so touched by the subject of child abuse especially because of the calmness and the final lines Neil delivers with Brian on his lap and fading into the beautiful piano melody of Sigur Ros' Samskeyti. Mysterious Skin doesn't hammer its message into the viewers head but rather makes him think about the fact that a small moment in the early years can change a life forever and nothing can be undone again. This is a wonderful movie that leads straight into a finale with falling curtains and standing ovations ... finally after so many movies who let you down in the end. All thumbs up!


I see all these very favourable comments and high marks and I can't help but wonder what all the people saw in this movie. I mean, yeah, it approaches pedophilia in a very direct way, the performances are good, the directing is good, but most of the film was utterly boring.

One could see the ending of the movie from a mile away and I stood through all the story to find out exactly what the twist will be, but there was no twist, only a sudden closure of plot, a total stop.

My guess is that if the subject of pedophilia would not be such a scary and fascinating taboo in American culture, this film would not have been received in such a (in my opinion) over positive way.

Bottom line: be prepared for some shocking images like pedo, homosexual sex, even rape, and a lot of boring stuff in between. The entire child abuse part is really well detailed as well as the psychological trauma, but that's about it.


From a study of the movie poster, you might be tempted to think this is another pointless romantic movie about two lovers in France. "Oui," they will fight, love, eat croissants and find meaning. How drearily cliché.

But, surprise of surprises, "Two Days in Paris" is a very funny, very soulful and very interesting look at a slice of the life of two quite interesting characters. On the surface, Marion (Julie Delpy) and Jack (Adam Goldberg) are two irritatingly pretentious neurotics. Both 35 and childless, they have been traveling Europe for 2 weeks, deciding to stop in Paris for a couple days to drop in on Marion's family and friends before flying home to New York. Marion is French, the child of left-wing French artists. Jack is a New Yorker, a political lefty whose shallow grasp of culture (he speaks only English, for instance) is purely American. She had aspirations to be a photographer, though (for reasons the film will make clear) her work is strictly third-class. He takes pictures of everything, but has no eye for form, color or composition.

What's fun about the film is the complexity of the relationships. To Jack's annoyance, Marion keeps bumping into her old boyfriends. And her father seems intent on humiliating or offending him and his American tastes. A dinner scene in which he is offered a rabbit's head is just hilarious. When offered carrots, he says, "So, we're going to eat the bunny's food, too?" For her part, Marion cannot understand why Jack finds her continued casual friendships with exes to be so extraordinary. And Jack, utterly clueless about the nuances (or even the surface content) of Marion's conversations, is getting paranoid that he is not being told everything. At one point, Marion is holding a violent argument with a racist cabdriver. Jack knows something is going on, but can't get past Marion's insistence that everything is fine.

I realize as I write this that I am doing no justice to the joyful sense of voyeurism that the film affords.The film is so smartly written and fast-paced that sometimes you forget you are watching a film and think you are watching dinner with Julie's real family or attending parties with her smug and artsy friends. The film is completely convincing and has a depth of heart I didn't expect. It deal with secrets and the frustration that comes from knowing another person. The language and culture barriers then act as metaphors for the inability of two people, even lovers, to inhabit another's life and experience.

"Two Days in Paris" is not for all. Marion and Jack are exemplars of the worst aspects of US and European artistic classes. Their treatment of a group of Americans on a "Da Vinci Code" tour tells you more than you want to know about the antagonisms between right and left. But their smug, knowing put downs of Bush and Cheney supporters are less political messages by the movie makers than markers of the characters' personalities. This movie about liberals does not necessarily espouse their world view. But, at heart, this is a love story, not a political drama. Secondly, since we are talking about shallow artists, there is an enormous amount of politico-sexual "art" on display in the film. While this may be offensive to the audience, its presence helps to define the characters themselves. It's not there to titillate the viewer, but to describe the actors.

Delpy, who wrote, directed, produced and acted in the movie, has made a master work that is complex, evocative, real and quite beautiful. She has captured aspects of the French national character that seem quite convincing. She has also aptly captured the emotions and dilemmas of 30-something adults who, under it all, are still looking for meaning, belonging and peace. Goldberg gave a powerful and hilarious performance. He's Ben Stiller with a soul.

If you can put up with the film's politics, you will be amply rewarded. Magnifique!


The culture-clash story might have been done before, but this is still a very refreshing and most of the time utterly hilarious movie. Myself and the rest of the theater burst out laughing every couple of minutes, which makes me forgive the few scenes that made me uncomfortable. Definitely not for the faint of heart or easily offended!

The characters might seem over the top at times, but they're still likable and real (as witnessed by the fact that the artwork in the gallery was actually made by Julie Delpy's father). I thought that Julie Delpy's parents stole the show whenever they were on screen, although Delpy and Goldberg both do a very good job.

All in all, it feels like a very personal look at French (or rather, Parisian bohemian) life, and very much worth a viewing. Or even two.


This is a somewhat romantic comedy about a french-American couple spending two turbulent days living with her parents in Paris.

My expectations were fairly low when I was coerced into watching Julie Delpy's directorial debut. After the first couple of minutes (and arguments between Delpy and Goldberg, respectively) I was still skeptical. But by the time her (real life, by the way) parents were introduced, things got really hysterical and I was holding my sides laughing throughout the rest of the movie. It has to be said that most of the jokes are sexual in nature, so this is no film for the young or easily offended. There are also moments where Delpys character is a little annoying, but those are thankfully far and few between. Similarly, I approved the brevity of Daniel Brühls appearance. Special mention has to go to Adam Goldberg, however, whose antics lend the movie the lion's share of its funny moments - I certainly hope to see more of him in the future.


Julie Delpy excels in '2 Days in Paris' as she writes, directs, produces, composes the music and stars in this romantic bitter/sweet comedy. Opposite Adam Goldberg, who has amongst other things played psycho Eddie in Friends and Private Mellish in 'Saving Private Ryan', Delpy shines as the nerdy photographer who has trouble with her eyes. The two central performances and sharp script means the film flows along at a pretty fast pace with the one liners so frequent you could easily miss the odd one. The situations explored around relationships and family are universal and so easy for anyone to relate to, there are misunderstood physical situations and language barriers which all add to the overall melodrama/comedy unfolding on screen. The film is peppered with brilliant moments from the awkward to the bizarre and the laughs come thick and fast, with Paris as a backdrop the lovers weave in and out of one situation to another always in love yet always on the verve of break-up. Co-starring Delpy's real father as her in film father shows a sense of tightness and a labour of love that comes across in the finished product. Like a cross between something from Woody Allen and Amelie this film has a special naivety full of wonderment juxtaposed with the dark underbelly of life that is at times hard to escape. Whether you laugh or cry you can't fail to be moved by a film so simple in its execution of themes that can, as displayed, be so complicated. Delpy has made something she, and everyone involved, should be very very proud of.


I watched 2 Days in Paris staring Julie Delpy and Adam Goldberg last night. I've never much cared for Adam Goldberg, and I spent my own 2 days in Paris in 2000 and it was the hardest 2 days on a relationship I've ever had. Maybe that's why this has become one of my favorite films of all time. Watching Adam Goldberg deal with some of the same foreign travel problems and relationship issues that torture him throughout this movie.

The movie is half in French. It is definitely to your advantage if you don't speak French, because a key plot element is how Jack (Adam Goldberg) becomes so regularly frustrated by not understanding the language.

In the end, I think I loved this movie because it is one of the best love stories I've ever seen. It's not a Hollywood fairytale romance, it's real, it's gritty, quirky, funny, and ugly, just like love can be in real life.


This witty and touching film considers the difficulties of cross-cultural relationships, in this case a relationship between an American man and a French woman. While the film sometimes relies on stereotypes (particularly with some of the minor characters), it also presents rich, fleshed- out characters that are clearly individuals with their own histories and experiences that they and those around them have to contend with. The film does not spare either Americans or the French in its critical look at the two cultures and the ways they affect the interactions of the two main characters. Both Delpy and Goldberg deliver fine performances, and the script offers plenty of laughs.


I saw "2 Days In Paris" today. It was like going to an AA meeting or any group therapy session to live more spiritually. It is all about relating, being honest and accepting others for what they really are and not what you want them to be.

Actually it is not a movie about Paris.The entire film could have been done in locations other than Paris. I was surprised by the movie. I was expecting a lot of action and a complicated plot or story line taking place all over Paris. Instead, it was mainly two characters who are maybe in love with each other but need to open new doors to make their love possible or to be able to be fully realized.

This unmarried couple discovered that, though they profess loving one another and enjoying lots of sex and love making, they actually did not know one another. True love comes about by knowing one another with honesty and acceptance.

The film has a slice of life story line. There is actually no definite beginning or end. It was more a segment of living by two young people trying to relate to each other. Since it was a slice of life story line, I was not able to anticipate when the movie would end. However, I accepted the movie's ending when it did happen.

I recommend this movie to anyone who wants insights on how to have a spiritual and non-judgemental relationship with another person. It is the kind of truth that one discovers in AA and other twelve-step programs.

"2 Days In Paris" is not dull or boring. The movie made me feel alive and realize that at my age of seventy-nine that I still have a lot spiritual growth ahead of me. Self-honesty and accepting life on God's term is a process of living that never ends.


If this was rubbish, we would be calling it a vanity project. But, luckily, Julie Delpy is not only a good actor, but a fine writer and director. There are elements of 'Amelie' and the classic Woody Allen comedies such as 'Annie Hall' and 'Manhattan', particularly in Adam Goldberg's neurotic response to the chic scruffiness that is Paris. This film has things to say about the Franco-American culture clash, but says them in a gentle and affectionate way. Until you've been to Paris, it is difficult to realize just how much in love with all things American the (urban) French actually are... until they encounter it face to face, when they find it so baffling that the only recourses are sarcasm and irony, in addition to lapsing into French spoken so fast that even some French speakers find it incomprehensible. There is also lots to say about relationships and how they work, or don't. If you are in a relationship, you will cringe with recognition. If you aren't, you will wonder whether you really ever want another one.


What is it with Julie Delpy? I have only seen a hand-full of her movies but she always manages to surprise and excite. She acts brilliantly as the title character in Tarantinoesque Killing Zoë, manages to stay convincing in the far-fetched An American Werewolf in Paris and is great as a young lover in Before Sunrise and as a confident woman in the sequel Before Sunset. This brings us to 2 days in Paris which could easily be mistaken for a continuation of the Sunrise/Sunset movies. And that would be a huge mistake: 2 Days in Paris is a dialogue driven romantic comedy dissecting a couples quasi-dysfunctional relationships and how they have to come to terms with their individual imperfections to be able to truly coexist as a pair. Though that may not sound like compelling viewing its actually hugely entertaining as it dissects a million small mix-ups which can make or break a couple.

Adam Goldberg is compelling as the sarcastic yet witty American boyfriend visiting Paris for the first time with his girlfriend. What follows is a series of hugely entertaining misunderstandings involving cross cultural differences, hilarious conversations in broken French with family members and a series of unplanned rendezvous with former lovers all of which combine to drive him high up the paranoia ladder.

It's refreshing to find out that not only does Julie Delpy act brilliantly as the naive and clumsy Marion but she also directed and wrote it, heck she even composed the soundtrack.

The lasting message of this movie is although you might hate 80% of the things your lover does if you just cant live without them don't lose them


I must say that this not a boring film at all, although I found the endless little quarrels a bit tiresome. It is hard, though, for a non-French person to judge just how much of all this is meant to portray the character of "the French" (if anything like that exists) and how much is mere parody exploiting and playing with the cliché that French people always think about love and sex. For example, is Marion's father supposed to be a prototype or simply a caricature? Knowing this would be of great help in evaluating this movie.

On the other hand, the film is very balanced in its attempt to weigh Marion's delight in experiment against Jack's conservative rationalism with regard to relationships. In other respects, of course, Jack is not rational at all, for example concerning his hypochondria. Whether one wants to call him touchy and easily offended will probably also depend on whether you think that, in the first place, he is being treated badly by all those slightly crazy Parisians or whether you would rather want to say that he is a bit stiff and inhibited.

In any case, this is a nice little film about the difficult task to lead a cross-national relationship and about the fact that thinking you know your partner is not the same as knowing her or his culture.

But don't expect to see a romance like in "Before Sunrise"!!


I actually did spend two days in Paris, back in August 2004, and did all the touristy things one could do in those short 48 hours, like visit the unmissable landmarks such as Le Tour Eiffel, visited babes Mona Lisa and Venus at the Louvre, tried to look for the hunchback at Notre Dame, paid my respects at Napoleon's casket, and ended the night partying after a dinner watching a French revue.

But no, I didn't have a Julie Delpy to romance, or to hang out with. Written and directed (and edited!) by Julie Delpy, comparisons to the Richard Linklater twin combo Before Sunrise and Before Sunset are inevitable, because firstly, they star Delpy, and secondly, the characters hit off into interesting chatter that grabs our attention, albeit this one takes place over a longer period of reel time over 48 hours versus the combined 24 hours that the Before movies offered. But before you shout "rip off" and discredit Delpy's effort as another Linklater clone, I can safely say there are distinct differences between the movies, and that while Linklater's had a kind of dreamy romanticism to his, Delphy's 2 Days in Parissomehow had a more realistic, grittier, down to earth look and feel (no offense to Linklater, whose movies I mentioned I just adore too), tackling a key issue in relationship, and that's honesty.

In fact, you'd wonder if honesty (100% no holds barred revelations) can offer you less headache, particularly when your partner has to discover some parts of you that you want hidden away, either for reasons of being ashamed, or just because you want to protect him/her from possible hurt when they find out the truth. Truth usually has a funny way of getting back at you, in presenting themselves usually at the less than ideal situations, open to being misconstrued, and misunderstood. Kind of having a negative vibe to it all, doesn't it? Adam Goldberg plays Jack, who's into a two year relationship with Delpy's Marion. While enjoying a whirlwind holiday in Europe, they decided to make a pit stop in Paris to visit Mario's folks Anna and Jeannot (Marie Pillet and Albert Delpy, Julie Delpy's real life parents playing her reel ones in the movie), before flying back home to New York. That's the basic premise, with Jack being brought around Paris by Marion, as well as to catch up (or rather providing the opportunity) with Marion's friends, which inevitably involves ex-boyfriends. While at first being quite magnanimous, Jack will confront his fears and ego-busting situations when he starts to realize in his own warped perception that Marion may well be the village bicycle, having ridden with/on/by every male they come into contact with.

I never thought I'd laugh my way through the movie, as from the get go, 2 Days in Paris contains extremely witty dialogue in rapid fire, and almost every character gets into the act, either intentionally (like Jack and his constant sarcasm), or through various situations the couple get into. Cab rides aren't like Linklater's Before Sunset where the lovebirds take the time to understand each other, gaze and whisper sweet nothings. Cab rides here means opportunity for insane dialogue, insults, and even being hit upon! It was so much fun that I'd actually wanted the couple to take more cab rides. Bringing on the laughs too was Marion's/Delpy's dad, a Frenchman who cannot speak English, which provides cross-cultural / language barrier comedy with Goldberg's Jack, and being the old man that he is, peppers his conversations and actions with so much sexual innuendo it'll probably make you blush. That scene in the art gallery is just to die for, if you pay close attention to the art pieces. Dad definitely stole the show each time he appeared on screen.

But fun and laughter aside, this movie as it turns out, is a very keen, and introspective look at modern day love and relationships. That voice-over by Delpy towards the end, somehow struck a bell within me, and I'd think most of us who have been hurt in the same way, may share the same thoughts too. And for that bit of sincerity and recognition of a probable perennial issue of the cycle of love-lost-found-is-he/she-the-one-pondering, this Julie Deply movie is a definite winner. Kudos too to Adam Goldberg for being a likable unlikeable fella providing ample, believable repartee to carry the movie through. Highly recommended, don't miss this movie! And book your tickets early too, as it has been playing to full houses!


Let's take a few snaps-pots of this film:

- she sends a picture of her naked boyfriend to her family - when asked if she had an affair with the guy at the florist she replies oh no ! I just gave him a blow job - this guy will later in the film describe that it was like sex between sister and brother - her father has a gallery filled with sexually explicit and obscene paintings,he salivates at the name of orgasm, cunnilingus and is ecstatic when saying: sex good - at the party the guy who sits next to the main male character starts stray away to speak about women pubic hair

Please, I am French, I know a lot of French people, I have been to lots of parties in Paris and know a lot of uninhibited people, but the description of French sex obsessed people in this film is grotesquely twisted and exaggerated.

Like the description of the taxi drivers being stupid racist and fascist dick heads,is clearly over the top.

As a French person I almost fell offended in front of this accumulation of stupid stereotypes.

Please avoid.


2 days in Paris (2007) was produced/written/directed/edited/scored/starred by Julie Delpi who also recruited her real parents to play the parents of Marion, her alter ago.

Julie Delpy who was absolutely charming as Celene, the heroine of two Richard Linklater's movies (Before the Sunrise and Before Sunset), tried to make the similar film or rather follow-up about the couple that have been together for few years, experience some problem in their relationship, and try to work them out. Judging by the fact that Delpy has thrown so much of herself in all aspects of creating the film, she deserves my deepest respect. The problem is, as much as her movie walks the same territory as Before the Sunrise and Before Sunset (it takes place in Paris as the title suggests), it is not as good as they were. The chemistry between two main characters, the French Marion (Delpy) and New Yorker, Jack (Adam Goldberg) is completely non-existent, the plot is very thin but it is not even the biggest problem. The film has no subtlety, elegance, wit, or charm, and if it does, they are very well hidden. Yes, few times Woody Allen's name came to my mind because Adam Goldberg seemed doing homage to Woody Allen's character, neurotic, unsecured, and whining - and not particularly good one. He was mean, often without the reason. The scene in the beginning of the movie when Jack gives the group of the Americans tourists the apparently wrong directions to Louver just because he is sure that they are conservative Bush supporters does not make him a white knight, and it is just not funny. I also did not find charming Marion sending to her family via e-mail the picture of naked Jack with the colorful balloons. I have nothing against pictures a la nude, and from what I was able to notice, Jack had nothing to be ashamed of but how about privacy and trust in the relationship? Whatever happens between two people in their intimacy should stay between them because it belongs to them only. How about simply asking a boyfriend if he would not mind his funny picture be sent to his girlfriend's family? Does sensitive, intelligent, feisty Marion ever think of it? I was so much in love and could not get enough of one afternoon in Paris few years back with Celene and Jesse. 77 minutes long Before Sunrise was so clever, so romantic, and so moving that it made me want to see another movie with French girl and her American love, to find out what could've happened to them. Well, little did I know that it would be "2 Days in Paris". It is sad for me to admit, but Delpy's follow up to two of the most romantic modern screen observations of the relationships was a disappointment. I should mention that Delpy's movie has some positive sides to it. I liked how she showed HER Paris, very real, tough, and not sentimental. I liked for the most parts her parents Albert Delpy and Marie Pillet in their roles. There is one scene that I enjoyed and every time I think of it, it makes me smile. On their way to visit Jim Morrison's grave at Per Lashes, Marion asks Jake, Why do you want to see Jim Morrison's grave? You don't even like The Doors. And he answers, "It is a famous grave...I am a huge fan of Val Kilmer". Sadly, all the bright points were not enough to save the movie - I never thought that two days in one of my favorite places in the world may be so unbearably long and disappointing.


Regardless of what any one else says, this is a well done movie particularly considering it is her first with writing, directing and scoring credits. It is a statement on the French / American connection as much as it is a statement of love, sex and relationships. This is probably the most unromantic representation I have seen of Paris since moments of Paris, je t'aime. The dialogue is rapid fire, often amusing, profound and poignant. A whole lot happens in those 2 days. Much of the American and apparently French sensibility is called into question. Yet as hellish as Paris is presented to be, the final scene between Julie and Adam is so beautifully done and emotional, it makes the whole ordeal well worth it. If you have ever loved or are in love, it will make you cry.

I assume the small number of reviews for this film is due to limited release. I applaud my theater and all others who present this film to their audiences. If you get a chance, take a date, see it alone or with open minded friends, but don't miss this if you believe in love.


Sometimes you see and movie and think: 'It's a shame that it doesn't get the wider audience it deserves...'

Well, that's absolutely not the case with this film. I saw it an hour ago and am still wondering why anybody would spend any money or effort making something as vacuous as this. To begin with, the plot is rather flimsy: boyfriend, American, and girlfriend, golden-haired Frenchwoman, are together for two years, start to get bored of their relationship, and thus decide to travel to Italy and visit the girl's parents in Paris. They roam around in the City of Love and meet some weird people, including a couple of former boyfriends of girlfriend. Jealousy, conflict, long dialogs. Oh, and before you start to get excited about dramatic endings: in the end, they cry and decide to stay together despite their difficulties. Life as we all know it, in other words. Let's be honest: even I experienced more exiting things during the last two days, and I am a very boring person, according to some of my friends.

Everyday boring events as a movie topic do not necessarily lead to boring movies, at least not when the director manages to present these events in an interesting way. Think of Altman's Short Cuts. Or Lynch's The Straight Story. Unfortunately, the plot of 2 days in Paris as a whole is... well, how could you describe it... unexciting. Things you learned in cinematography 101. The general story is, as I said above, so straightforward that you could forget it exists at all. Plot turns are either trivial or contrived, the characters almost reduced to stereotypes,and although Paris is an exciting city architecturally, the makers systematically selected the blandest of settings. Visual narrative devices (well, mainly the inter-cutting of some photographs) are used in a way that will make you firmly believe that the director tried to make a cheap parody of (good) French cinema of the last five years. Or just copied some of the more inexpensive tricks. The cinematography in general is so basic that you will probably agree with me when I say that your 13 year old niece can make a movie like this with a bit of help from her dad. Actually, even if you don't have a 13 year old niece, she will do a better job.

Even this would not make a bad movie if only the actors would set down some decent performances. In 2 days in Paris, however, Julie Delpy (girlfriend), Adam Goldberg (boyfriend) and most of the other actors are prone to overacting and hide their lack of skill or enthusiasm behind a lot of cheap yelling and blustering and gesticulating and contrived facial expressions. To express it concisely, they are all quite bloody awful. And I won't waste any words on the female voice-over that from time to time randomly pops to pretend in vain psychological depth. Think B-grade soft porn.

But even with the above all being true, this film could still have been saved. Some movies are so bad that they actually get funny. However, the makers carefully avoided even this and created such a mediocre and bland story, portraying the uninteresting lives of boring characters played by boring actors in such a mediocre fashion that one cannot but wonder whether these people really intended to make a film or were just shooting up some left-over reels because they were desperate to spend all their government subsidies before the Ministry of Culture would reclaim the money.

Please do not waste any money on seeing this movie. If you got the tickets for free, you might consider a trip to the cinema, but you could also do something more useful and interesting, like picking your nose or cleaning the toilet...


We rarely stop a film before passing judgment, but we just couldn't take it. The film is probably very well created, but we don't see the humor in extremely dysfunctional people. Self-centered highly dysfunctional personalities don't touch my funny bone, just my sympathy or maybe there was just not enough wit to keep it entertaining in spite of the human suffering. When Woody Allen portrayed a poor twisted slob, he was over the top and peppered his dialog with witty jokes. The characters of this film had no witty lines and were much too real. It was almost like a documentary of how not to be a human being. This film probably appeals to a smaller audience, we're just not into it.


Julie Delpy makes an impressive first work as a director in 2 Days in Paris,a great movie.The best thing about this movie is,no doubt,the screenplay because it makes very intelligent commentaries about the modern relationships and it also has brilliant dialogs.I would say this movie is a twist between Annie Hall and Before Sunset,because it has the intelligent humor of the first one and the brilliant dialogs from the second one.Delpy makes a pretty good performance but Adam Goldberg really surprised me.This actor made a perfect performance and he does not seem to be acting at all and I think that's the greatest achievement of any actor.The only fail I found on this movie is that some scenes are a little bit pretentious.2 Days in Paris is a brilliant movie I truly enjoyed.I totally recommend it.


This movie is a real joy. Loved the Woody Allen glasses Julie Delpy wore for the first part of the film. Sure, there are a lot of Allen similarities. But she takes off the glasses, and comes into her own.

As for the Linklater comparisons, honestly, I like her film as well as anything he's done, and he's one of my favorite directors.

One thing Delpy has, that Linklater rarely has, is perspective. He had it in Dazed and Confused, and he had it in the Delpy movies, but otherwise mostly he has this high, etherized meta-perspective on things. It's heady, but there's not a lot of heart in it. Except when he has Julie as a vanishing point to fall towards.

I really love this woman. She was singing Nina Simone in Sunset, so I checked her out. I heard a song, Little Girl Blue. It was the most heart-broken thing I had ever heard, and I thought, oh, Julie! Zoot Allure! I wanted to send her chocolates and flowers, to cheer her up, and I would have, too, except she'd think I was a psycho.

Very funny, very personal. Vulnerable, yet able to pull it together. Nice work, Julie. I hope you make more! We'll watch them!


For anyone who is an admirer of Richard Linklater's two wonderful films, 'Before Sunset' and 'Before Sunrise' - of which I include myself - then this rather excellent film will show you another side of Julie Delpy that was not really glimpsed in those films.

In 'Before Sunset/Sunrise' Ms Delpy's character was a rather sweet, innocent abroad type of character, whilst here her character may start off looking that way, and the voice over helps to build that initial impression, but it does not take long for us to realise that here is another side of her, one seemingly obsessed with sex, and finding the ideal partner. Julie Delpy handles this subtle change superbly well, and is help throughout by a cast that adds enormously to the film. Most notable amongst these are Adam Goldberg, playing what can only be described as Woody Allan on speed!, Marie Pillet and Albert Delpy as her mother and father - not hard considering they ARE Julie's parents! - and the trio of Daniel Bruhl, Adan Jodorowsky and Alex Nahon as her three ex-lovers (respectively, Lukas, Mathieu and Manu). The only wasted cast member I felt was Alexia Landeau as Rose, sister to Delpy's Marion. Her role appeared to be lost on the cutting room floor somewhat.

The film is, at times, incredibly funny, and contains one of the funnest dinning scenes I have seen since Meg Ryan and THAT scene! But what gives this film the real edge is the way it is not afraid to veer into viciousness, and does not duck out of attacking the values of certain aspects of the French character. Check out the scene in the cab where Marion riles against the racism of a "typical" French cab driver, and the one in the café where another ex-lover appears and is roundly condemned by Marion for...well, that point I am not going to give away, but it is truly shocking.

Around all this Mr Goldberg as Jack really plays up the cliché of the American abroad, but again without failing to use this to again, like Ms Delpy, attack certain aspects of the Yankie Abroad, with suitable very funny results! How true these aspects being attacked are I will leave others to decide, but some of them rang true to me.

All praise must go to Julie Delpy not only for her acting, but her directing of the film. Some of the tropes used are clever, and serve to keep reminding you that you are watching a film, albeit one with a real heart and something to say.


Early on, I made the Woody Allen connection, thinking to myself, "This beautiful woman sees herself as a Woody-Allen-Nebbish-Type." Incredible! And, sex, sex, sex, everywhere there is sex, just like in real life. And also, just like in Woody Allen movies! Thought her take on seeing sex from the American (prudish) point of view and seeing it from the French (free and easy) point of view was interesting and funny. Weaving a smart plot and clever one-liners together was quite brilliant, too. (Ala Woody Allen!) I agree that Delpy did a great job on this movie and that it's something she and her family should be very proud of. She created a real work of art.


Adam Goldberg plays Delpy's neurotic American boyfriend who had a bad time in Venice. He got dysentery, and photographed everything. Has he never heard of those simple things that get most Americans around the world? The only remaining two days of the holiday are to be in Paris, Delpy's hometown, before they go back to New York, where they live together. They move in upstairs from her parents, played by Delpy's real parents. Culture shock cuts into the American Adam Goldberg beginning the first meal, braised rabbit.

The couple wanders Paris, talking in that way that lovers do when they start to get on each other's nerves. It is a reflection of the inevitably incompatible sides of people, as Paris brings out a part of Delpy that Goldberg is stunned to see: Is she a fanatic political extremist and a blatant slut? They come across old boyfriends so frequently it makes Paris give Goldberg the impression of a petite village, and when Delpy attacks one of them in a restaurant for taking a vacation to Thailand to do some nasty things that she says in French, Goldberg is fed up, unable to understand.

This movie lives and breathes Julie Delpy. As well as casting her parents, Delpy puts herself into this film in many other ways: She starred, wrote, edited, directed, co-produced, and composed and even performed some of the music. Delpy actually has made a smart romantic comedy with a sharpness. There is nothing forced or corny about it. Her couple bares things about themselves they never thought they'd divulge to anyone. Julie Delpy is a woman who declines to be distinct or restricted. What she has done here is shunned all inducement to reuse the standard lovers having relationship problems that we see all the time in movies, and has shaped two unique, odd characters so preoccupied with their differences that Paris is almost an agitation.


I laughed out loud through much of this movie. The way this movie captures the gender and cultural divides it portrays is right on target. I must say that it enhanced my appreciation of the movie to discover that Julie Delpy's parents played themselves (and, if I understand correctly, the apartment was genuine as well) and Julie Delpy and Adam Goldberg were also involved at one time, and per one interview with Julie Delpy- monogamy was not exactly her strong suit) Julie Delpy has a deft touch with all this and with numerous details (including the rabbit dish episode which I experienced in almost an identical fashion in Italy once, the tourists seeking to travel the path of the Da Vinci code) I love the ambiguous celebratory ending and I love the way the Da Vinci tourists reappear at the end. This movie is not for everyone. I love Paris but found the irreverent take on an "idyllic" trip to Paris to be great, wicked fun!


Julie Delpy, the talented actress of "2 Days in Paris" surprises with this tale of a pair of lovers at a crucial moment of their relationship. Ms. Delpy, who wrote and directed the film shows how well she has learned the lessons of being in front of the camera. The end result is a delightful film that owes a lot to previous films where she has appeared.

Throughout the movie one felt the presence of Richard Linkletter, who directed her in two films that bear some resemblance to this one, and Woody Allen, in the way Ms. Delpy presents the character of Jack, her lover of two years. Jack, a New York neurotic, feels out of his usual turf. In a way, he is totally overwhelmed by the life Marion, his girlfriend, has left behind for a life in America.

Julie Delpy plays Marion wearing thick black eyeglasses that hide her beautiful face in a way we are not used to see her in movies. She plays the straight part against the goofy Jack of Adam Goldberg. Mr. Goldberg has some good moments when he is at his nastiest, like with the group of tourists he misdirects in order to get ahead of them in the taxi queue.

One hopes Ms. Delpy will come with another film in a not too distant future for she shows a natural ability to set a pleasant story in an enjoyable way.


Julie Delpy might very well be one of the biggest threats in Hollywood today. She acts. She directs. She writes. She sings. Her talent stretches for miles, and what a breath of fresh air she is. Her latest project, '2 Days in Paris', is such an accomplished piece of work that's sad and funny, sharp and intelligent. Another terrific picture that takes us to the streets of Paris, but with a unique and wonderful twist.

If you think you've seen this story played out on screen countless times before, think again. '2 Days in Paris' does away with tradition and clichés and instead plays to a different beat. Delpy's ability to make observations without screaming them from the rooftops is a true gift. Whether it's the sharp dialogue between two lovers struggling to keep their relationship together or keenly aware political injections that at times are used to hilarious comedic effect, '2 Days' is a tour de force in almost every way.

Despite the subject material, '2 Days in Paris' is actually a wickedly funny film. I laughed. A lot. Delpy doesn't look down on us or treat us like we're stupid, she's made a film that stands alone as a great achievement. We're given unusual access to some of the most personal moments that go on between Delpy and Adam Goldberg, and with an air of improvisation, the performances speak for themselves.

I believe Julie Delpy knew exactly what kind of film she wanted to make with '2 Days in Paris', and the results are a bittersweet film that shouldn't be missed. It's an honest and authentic portrayal of a relationship in turbulence, both funny and insightful.

More reviews at rottentomatoes.com/vine/journal_view.php?journalid=219276&view=public


This film is so intellectual, charming and sentimental. I was in the right place and in the right time when I've seen it. 2 Days in Paris projected my current relationship situation on the screen. It's like a vicious cycle that we fall in love, we have a fight, and then we break up, but we return to in love again in a short period, and so forth. This is a permanent stupidity of mankind. (Anyway, I still hunger to watch Scenes from a Marriage (1973, Ingmar Bergman))

There were two scenes almost break my heart. First, the couples argued about "Can someone be friend with his or her ex?" Double conflicts suddenly emerged in my mind because I always think like Marion (She usually befriended with her ex) but what I have really done is like Jack (He can't do this to his ex.) Another heart-breaking scene is in the edge of the film, Marion and Jack have a big fight and they're nearly climbing to "break-up point". The voice-over (Marion's) in this scene is like those words which run through my head in every thought, every moment for the whole week. Finally, I cried but I don't know anymore, which one I cry forMarion? Jack? or me?

I feel like the ending made a little flaw to the film, but it's still acceptable for me.


What can I tell about Julie Delpy? After watching Before Sunrise (1995) and Before Sunset (2004), both this year in the same day, I took some time looking for other movies she's in, and this woman rocks.

This movie is wonderful in all senses. If you're expecting something like Before Sunset or Sunrise, you're right. If you think that it will be the same thing, you're wrong. If you think that you will spend 96 minutes just hearing dialogs, you're right. If you think you'll get bored, you're wrong. If you think this is a love story, you're right. If you think that it's a ordinary one, you're wrong.

Even being a romantic comedy, it surprises you all the time becoming a terrific romantic comedy. I recommend for those ones that love this kind of genre but is tired to always watch the same things. The ironic dialogs are great from the beginning to the end, there are moments truly hilarious and intelligent without being cliché.

Julie Delpy directed, wrote, edited, produced, composed the original score and also is the main actress. This woman is brilliant, I'm fascinated by her and each new work she's in.


I first heard about this movie from my parents, who said they were surprised by how raunchy the film was. I saw it and loved it, and didn't find it too dirty at all -- although the naked pictures with balloons were a bit weird. Say no more, you'll have to see the movie to get that reference. Julie Delpy, writing, directing, editing, and starring as lead Marion, is a great neurotic photographer in the spirit of a Woody Allen film, and Adam Goldberg, as Jack, is her neurotic interior designer boyfriend.

The film is simple in its plot, but I think Delpy's just so good she makes it look easy. After an anticlimactic romantic getaway in Venice, a frustrated Jack and Marion stop for 2 days in Paris before returning to New York. Right off the bat, the dialogue is fast and funny, with a hilarious scene with Jack encountering some American tourists from the heartland. Jack meets Delpy's eccentric family, her beautiful sister, and her artistic friends and many ex-boyfriends -- leading him into hilarious fits of jealousy.

Overall, the film is great fun and has a brain. Delpy strikes a good balance of showing the positives and negatives of her home country and the U.S. -- for example, the French are a classy, exciting people, but cab drivers make openly racist jokes -- it's still a slightly backwards place. Adam is a stereotypical New York guy -- half Jewish, half Catholic, with hipster tattoos all over his body, slightly whiny, but acerbically funny and cynical. In one scene, when Marion takes him on the Paris metro, he begins tensing up with fear, and starts talking about 9/11. It's a sensitive moment that people outside NYC wouldn't really understand. But then his fear manifests itself, when a creep on the train stares openly and lustfully at Marion. Jack tries to scare him off, gives up, and it ends up being a funny moment that scares away fear with laughter. Delpy's wonderful touch with these delicate moments makes the movie a winner, even though the ending feels like it could have gone either way and probably came off the editing room floor. A film this good doesn't need a better ending -- you kind of wish it just kept going.


I'm a pain in the arse. I liked the scene in this film where Dad Delpy is "keying" the cars that are parked on the sidewalk. Adam Goldberg tells him to run for politics but I like the directness of keying the cars. It puts the power into the peoples hands and out of politician's hands and it saves time.

The baffling thing about this film is that Julie Delpy is writing about two neurotics where the girl is a self-centered liar. How odd.

In the scene where they are kicked out of the restaurant, her character IS being unreasonable and SHOULD be kicked out.

Goldberg says more than once that he knows she's had sex with other men, but why does she have to lie about it? She has a personal voice-over where she acknowledges that it's OK to lie about things if you probably won't be discovered.

In the end, the couple seems to stay together because they are too tired to move on to the next drama. In fact, if she'd stop lying, they'd have a pretty good relationship.

This is a cute movie for it's nice grasp of family life, past sexual history (where Mom once did Jim Morrison) and idiot cabdrivers. All of the actors were funny and- there was a shot of the mini (?) "Statue Of Liberty" in Paris and I thought they were back in New York and I was disappointed.

This is a good movie but one where Delpy casts a woman (herself) as the "bad guy" in the relationship. Is she a saint or something?


Impossible to watch without entertaining the ghost of Richard Linklater (Before Sunrise/Before Sunset). Indeed Delpy clearly has the aesthetic, subject material and script content in her own mind as well. It is a great testament to her that this is an idiosyncratic, coherent and self- contained rom-com in the metropolitan tradition of Annie Hall.

It helps that she persuaded Adam Goldberg to play her lover. He's a fine actor (look no further than Linklater's own Dazed and Confused, no less) but here he's careful not to overplay the Jewish weltschmerz. He's attentive to the chief protagonist being the relationship that the two principals have and not each of them individually. Delpy also does a fine job given that she's clearly shuttling between different ends of the camera - not too 'kooky'.

The ensemble cast is well taken without reserve, all creating striking but not overpowering characters along the way. The film is shot largely hand-held and jumps through the episodes with an energy that goes with the purported watershed age of Jack and Marion (they're meant to be 35). I liked it very much. 7.5/10


A very good, intellectually and romantically stimulating and wonderful film directed and written by Julie Delpy, who also plays the main character, Marion, to Adam Goldberg's Jack; the two are a couple who spend two days in Marion's hometown Paris, before heading to their home in New York. While there, Jack finds himself strangely surrounded by Marion's exes, a language he doesn't understand and several dramatic and very comedic relationships. Marion evolves and revolves throughout the film. All in all, very comedic, very human (i.e. non-Hollywoodesque) and sympathetic. Straightforward acting, a beautiful script and many laughs makes this a winner.


I am a huge "Dallas"-fan, but this movie is just not good enough. Silly one-liners, the acting and direction seems rushed and contrived. And don't get me started on the story, or should I say lack of the same. The first reunion movie "JR Returns" at least had a decent script and some good and entertaining parts, but this time it just didn't work. The title is a misnomer as well, there are hardly any Ewings left on Southfork. JR, Bobby and Sue Ellen. One thing I DID like though was the updated opening titles. Classy! I liked the shot of J.R in the helicopter. If they had used the original "Dallas"-font i would have been perfect, but I guess you can't have it all.


"Dallas" fans must have enjoyed the inside joke at the beginning of this second reunion movie for the popular CBS primetime soap: Bobby is shown in his famous Dream Season shower scene, turning around and saying hello -- but it's Sue Ellen he's greeting! And this time, the shower scene is actually the dream, and it's J.R. who thankfully wakes up! J.R. is now the owner of Weststar Oil, the largest independent oil company in Texas, while Ewing Oil -- now owned by Bobby and Sue Ellen -- is right behind it. J.R. decides he'd like to get Ewing Oil back. Anita Smithfield is at his side again (returning from the first reunion movie). J.R. finds out that Ray's ranch might have oil under it, and he thinks this could get him the collateral he needs for a loan to do the Ewing Oil takeover.

Carter McKay, meanwhile, has an offer for Sue Ellen that he says will make Ewing Oil even bigger than Weststar. J.R. spends part of the movie trying to feed conspiracy theories to Sue Ellen about Bobby to drive them apart. Jennifer Jansen of Jansen Oil seeks advice from J.R., and he's thinking she might be a nice distraction for Bobby. Cattle rustlers force some gunplay at Southfork, and various attempts are made on J.R.'s life.

The movie does deliver on all usual fun stuff that "Dallas" fans look for (J.R.'s connivin' and dealin' and all that), though it's a bit painful to see our beloved stars aging.


An awful film. Usual plot, usual characters, but fewer of them. The stars have aged somewhat, except perhaps Patrick Duffy who still looks almost as well as his days in "the man from Atlantis". Many scenes make the film laughable, such as the shoot out with the rustlers. J.R. is up to his usual tricks but doesn't quite have the meanness of the old days. This might as well have been just another episode in the Dallas series. If you like laughing at B class movies, or you are a Dallas die-hard, then this is a film for you! My vote: 2.


I enjoyed the taped stage play setting and all of the characters were immediately familiar to me, having just viewed the 1942 version. I rarely miss anything that Nathan Lane does and thought him perfect casting as Sheridan Whiteside.

However...it all seemed a bit forced to me. Lane's delivery was good and his mugging very funny, but he was working all the time. It just didn't seem to come naturally. The "Banjo" character was just an impersonation of Durante and an average one at that. As with the '42 film, I feel this character was superfluous.

The overall impression for me was one of a very good amateur company doing their very best to put on a show. I never forgot it was a play, whereas in the '42 version, I got more involved in the story.

As for the inter-act comments from the host and hostess, I skipped those immediately (so grateful for DVD technology!). The newsreel footage and swing music were delightful between the acts, though.


The 1942 film THE MAN WHO CAME TO DINNER was possibly the best comedy film that Bette Davis ever appeared in, but while she got starring position in the film's credits, the real star (who went to town as a result) was the great Monty Woolley, recreating his magnificent acid tongued curmudgeon Sheridan Whiteside. It was one of the rare occasions when a stage performance of importance was saved on film.

Fifty eight years later (forgetting one disastrous television version with Orson Welles as Whiteside in 1972) PBS showed this production of the stage revival of the play with Nathan Lane in the Whiteside role. Lane played the role perfectly, basing it (physically) closer to the original figure Whiteside is based on - writer, critic, actor, radio personality, and Algonquin Round Table Wit Alexander Woolcott. His facial appearance included wearing the round eye frame glasses that Woolcott wore all the time. Lane did not have the crusty, elderly asperity of the great Woolley, but he did have a malevolent elfin charm reminiscent of Woolcott (a man who was all too easy to dislike - Woolcott was also the model for Waldo Lydecker in LAURA, which just goes to show his popularity).

One of the problems with comedy (or drama generally speaking) is the fact that the works can be dated in their references. When, in one of his plays, Shakespeare refers to "the Great Sophy" it is to some long ago forgotten English traveler and diplomat named Shirley who went to Persia. Most of us see the foot note of this 16th Century reference and try to concentrate on the rest of the play that still is strong and relevant to us. But with THE MAN WHO CAME TO DINNER the great problem is the barrage of trivia that comes out of the play. Woolcott's two Algonquin friends (Kaufman and Moss Hart) added small bits of biography to his stage version, which everyone who knew Woolcott would recognize. The theater critic knew everyone of importance in the theater. So he has a scene with a clone of Noel Coward named Beverley Carlton (to add to perfecting the imitation of Coward, Kaufman and Hart asked Cole Porter, a close friend of Monty Woolley, to write a song for "Carlton" to sing to Whiteside, that was in Coward's distinct delicate style). The close friend of Whiteside who shows up as a comic "deus ex ma china" in the play is "Banjo." This was based on Woolcott's close Algonquin friend Harpo Marx.

But most of the references are quite arcane. Who is Elizabeth Sedley? Well, it is a reference to a celebrated murder case defendant, whose career would have intrigued Woolcott, the great amateur criminologist. What are the references to Beebe and Byrd? This version got around the problems using mock 1930s newspaper headlines chronicling William Beebe the oceanographer and Admiral Richard Byrd, the Polar explorer. This sounds cumbersome, but it was far more effective and useful to the viewers than the idiocy of the 1972 Welles' version where the script was "up-dated" meaninglessly.

The program was an excellent version of the classic comedy, and well worth comparing with the Woolley film. I feel that it deserves a "10".


As someone who goes out of his way to see performances of "The Man Who Came to Dinner"--one of the greatest comic concoctions of the 20th century--I thought this was the best media presentation of the play to date, much better than the 1940 film version. My only quibble concerns the decision to pattern Lewis Stadlen's Banjo after Jimmy Durante's version in the film, rather than Harpo Marx (upon whom the character was originally modelled), but that's a matter of personal taste. (And to be fair, Stadlen does just fine, perhaps even out-Duranting Durante.) Conversely, I can't imagine anyone better in the title role than Nathan Lane, and he lives up to my hopes splendidly. (I hope PBS broadcasts him in "The Producers" one of these days!)


If you're in a mood to laugh yourself silly, this is the play for you. Nathan Lane is at his scenery-chewing best as Sheridan Whiteside (modeled on Alexander Woolcott), a critic, commentator, and friend of the great and near-great who is forced to spend several weeks in the home of a Middle America family for whom "Goodbye Mister Chips" is as high on the cultural scale as they go. Lewis Stadlen is equally hilarious as the manic, irrepressible Banjo (a takeoff of one of the Marx Brothers, but I'm not sure which). Jean Smart is wonderful as the haughty and man-eating Lorraine Sheldon, and Harriet Harris is superb as Maggie Cutler, Whiteside's devoted secretary and Lorraine's nemesis.

To get all the references, you'll need a copy of Who Was Who in Theater, Film, and Opera, but I'm glad they didn't try to update them. It just wouldn't have worked.

Finally, kudos to Ryan Shively (as Sandy, union organizer and June's fiancee)! A talented actor and an all-around great guy (okay, he's my roommate, so I'm a little biased)!


What a treat to watch. Having recently portrayed the role of Mr. Whiteside in a local civic theatre production, I was reluctant to view the movie beforehand, so that I might give the pompous "Babys Breath" my own take. I am proud to report that as much as a a non professional can, I approached the character much like Mr. Lane did.(Only with a bit more heavy handed shouting)Jean Smart is always a treat to watch in anything she does, and I agree, that the role of Banjo was handled with the appropriate lunacy. Also excellent was Harriet Harris. She was able to convey the intimacy that comes from years of being someones right hand, and then to lose that when you have been sidelined by that very same person. It is a wonderful movie to watch. And one of my most favorite roles on stage.


I gave this DVD version of the play a 10 simply for the scene stealing performance by Byron Jennings. He is truly amazing as Beverley Carlton. This is not to be missed by anyone who appreciates uncommonly gifted acting.

Nathan Lane as Sheridan Whiteside is the perfect foil for him. His line about the Lindbergh baby is hilarious, and Byron Jennings' reaction is well in tune with Nathan Lane's humor. It's rare to watch actors who are so much in sync with each other. Too often a film or play will feature great talent playing opposite mediocre talent. Speaking of which, the actress who plays Sheridan Whiteside's secretary is not of their caliber and detracts from their performance.

The play's greatest weakness is that Mr. Jennings appears in just one scene.

Still, it's amazing enough to be worth the cost of purchase.

It's so unfortunate that American film and theater productions place greater value on perfectly photogenic looks, rather than exceptional talent. If only film and theater goers were able to recognize and value substance and depth of character, they would be able to look beyond the shallowness and one dimensional "acting" that is foisted on us.


'The Man Who Came To Dinner' revival was just absolutely amazing! The cast shined. Mr.Sheridan Whiteside was played by the one and only Nathan Lane, who made the play pleasurable the whole time. Jean Smart was, in my opinion, one of the funniest on stage. In a specific scene, when she finds out her cables have been wrongfully sent, she has the crowds (and folks at home) up in roars. This wonderful cast also includes Lewis Stadlen, Harriet Harris, Byron Jennings, Terry Beaver, and many more. If you are ever faced with the chance to see this play, don't pass on it! It Is A True Masterpiece!!


What a wonderful, witty comedy this is. I was so glad PBS broadcasted this terrific stage production. Beautifully directed by Jerry Zaks. I loved all the performances, but Jean Smart was especially fabulous as the ridiculous Lorraine Sheldon. The dialogue in this play is so good that even if you don't get an opportunity to see it, you'll get a good chuckle out of reading the script.


This movie will be very moving, if you can sit still and take the opportunity to be drawn into the disturbing situation of a destroyed Kabul after 25 years of war. The story of Noqreh who dreams of becoming president while hiding her school attendance from her conservative father is very intense. Togehter with the sister-in-law and her sick child, Noqreh and her father are looking for a place to live in the ruins, they briefly stay in a crashed airplane and the bombed parliament building, before leaving the city for a more traditional country side... The camera observes, taking its time to capture the essence of the moments and the characters, including a staged debate between the two presidential candidates in the girl school. While the women start discovering some freedom (sun-umbrellas; dressing shoes), the men are struggling with keeping their faith in the new realities and everybody -including truck loads of returning refugees from Pakistan - is only trying to survive. At the moment, when a few helicopters flying over the head of the traveling family and they look up, I realized how deeply drawn I was into the movie and its very sad reality - so out of place seemed this modern technological machine compared to the mule-drawn carriage in a harsh landscape. Highly recommended, if you like Rohmer, Tarkowski or Mambety - 9 out of 10 stars!


This movie tugged at my heartstrings delivering an unforgettable portrayal of Afghan life. It's a 10 out of 10, poetically revealing modern life in a city relegated to Neanderthal living conditions after the Taliban was sent packing.

The Film's title is the title of an extraordinarily relevant poem, recited twice during the film.

Though a tough way to learn Farsi (it's subtitled - phew!) "At Five in the Afternoon" awakened me to the plight of the poor souls coping with the rubble and 19th century technology.

The film describes (teenaged) Noqreh's life as she attends school and struggles to discover her role in society now that "any" job is within her reach. She decides to become the country's President.

The zesalots may be gone ... but there's plenty of cranky, old, conservative men (her father among them) who long for the "good ole'days". The country's problems (among them: live buried mines, religious extremism, the absence of basic social commodities - water / education - after several wars) serve as the antagonist as Noqreh's father carts her and her extended family across the Afghan dustbowl in search of her brother, The film moves slowly and deliberately, but I guarantee you'll be paid for your time investment with a once in a lifetime education about Afghanistan.

I hope you find a copy or a showing, and allocate the 2 hours to let it wash over you and take hold.


For me, this was the most moving film of the decade. Samira Makhmalbaf shows pure bravery and vision in the making. She has an intelligence and gift for speaking to the people, regardless of their nationality or beliefs. I am inspired and touched by her humanity and can only hope that she has touched many people the same way. Her message in this film is strong, simple and pure. The human soul can survive the most unheard of cruelties and repression, yet still have the capability to hope and dream even the biggest dreams. Under the most incredible circumstances, the most unexpected people rise up to be heroes. This young girl who has recently regained her voice, yet is still afraid to use her new found freedom, is our hero. She daydreams of becoming president of war torn Afghanistan, the only vision of power that she can imagine that could truly change her current situation. We catch a glimpse of her spirit while witnessing her hardships. In the end, we are left with hope, hope that when her young voice does eventually speak out, it speaks loud and clear for all to hear- sounding a message that transcends borders, nationality and religion. The true epitome of the phoenix rising from the ashes. Hats off to the simple tale of the complex truth.


Was not the sanction against Taliban led by the US to bring dawn into Afghanistan? Noqreh goes back and forth between her father, who believes neither education nor jobs are necessary for women, and the school, where teachers encourage female students to have any job, even the president.

Her family generously offers the place they live to the refugees coming back from Pakistan. Soon they have to go out from there, and without food, the dream of becoming the president fades out. Her white shoes become useless.

It seems the whole of the movie is a poem. That a high school girl dreams to become the president is a poem too. Maybe it is the best way to describe the world Noqreh lives in, which is at five in the afternoon, not in the morning.

How can the country, where just seeing the face of woman is sin, be open to the world? The country which was destroyed and lagged a long way behind the world by men, who are taught as superior creatures than women. Only the belief that God never dies supports them. Tough I have my belief as a Christian, I never want to shut myself away into the world of illusion.


The movie title, and one of its main axis, comes after a fragment of a poem written by Spanish poet Federico Garcia Lorca, called 'Llanto por la muerte de Ignacio Sánchez Mejías', dedicated to the death in 1934 of a Spanish Torero.

This poem is often seen as a premonition of Garcia Lorca's own dead, near Fuente Grande, and of the Civil War that was soon to desolate Spain.

Samira Makhmalbaf comes again with an anguishing tale of a woman that wants to believe in the role of women in a modern society while her own family is disintegrating around her.


I loved the characters of the movie - the people were really *there* you could see them. Even though I did not understand the language and the subtitles were in French (which, since I am not very proficient in French, I had trouble reading sufficiently fast), I did appreciate the emotions conveyed by the protagonists. This movie might be a bit slow for some people - however I found the timing just right. A minor gripe is the sound - the recording is not particularly good and a lot of scenes are completely silent, apart from the audible tape hiss. The result is a a minor loss in atmosphere (The crackling of the fire, the sputtering of the lamp, the shifting under the blanket, the shallow sleeping breath, all could have added a lot to the silent scenes, if they were added at the barely-audible level).

Apart from that, it is very good. Check it out.


Interesting to look at. Acting is acceptable. The little friendship that develops between the 2 young people is watchable. The title is a mystery that is referred to a couple of times during the film but its meaning is never made clear.

I found myself thinking at the end of the film, "So what was that all about? Did I just waste nearly 2 hours of my life?" I would say that if you are feverish to experience the ruins of Afghanistan and the misery people endure since the war, then you would probably enjoy it. If, on the other hand, you would like some kind of story, I would not recommend it.


Not to be a party-pooper amongst these comments, but I just saw Panj é asr, and I am not too impressed. In fact, I fell asleep somewhere in the desert, when the main characters of the movie were burning up their last belongings to provide heat for an already dead child.

The movie points out the catastrophe of Afghanistan, the despair of the situation and its impact on the people. Unjust, tragic and undeserved. The movie portrays this well at times, and it is especially when western helicopters fly above that we get a feel of the contrast of our societies. This is the good part of the movie; it tries to tell us something.

The bad part is its style. It has a documentary approach which works at first, but drags on so long, and so slow, that it turns tedious. There is never any background music, and conversation mainly only in the beginning of the movie. It is good to sleep while you're watching this movie, because you'll wake up and see that almost nothing has happened, so you can safely eat some popcorn and continue sleeping.

If there had been an improved script to this movie, which dared to throw some serious blame along with some serious and though-provoking theme music, this movie would have been magical and revolutionary. Sadly, it's not. Two out of ten.


The keyword is "based" because this movie is a true story but has a lot of fictional drama added to it to pique the interest of the viewers. The reason I can say this is because it is based on the true story about the disappearance and murder of my 5 year old niece. SPOILER:The main element that we wanted to bring across by allowing this movie to be produced for television was that your children may not always be safe around someone you know or a prominent citizen of the community. In this case the killer was a neighbor whom we had known for several years. My niece was friends with his children. He was a former police chief from a different town and was currently employed by the university police department. My sister did not turn vigilante (even tho she would have liked to) but we did not have an arrest until 5 1/2 years later.He confessed after being arrested for the kidnapping and rape of a 9 year old neighbor girl who thankfully escaped. All money was donated for lighting, playground equipment and a memorial for my niece in our local park.

In response to "The Outcome of David Woodward" by jamie_arkansas40 David Woodward's trial was held in the Sedgwick County Courthouse, Wichita, Kansas in January of 1992. He received a 30 year sentence, release date May 26, 2021 unless he is granted parole before that date. Needless to say my family will be at any parole hearings to try to keep that from happening. inmate search page http://165.201.143.205/kasper2/offender.asp?id=25440

My sister, Belinda, and Kim divorced several years after Amanda was murdered. She now lives in Kansas City, Kansas and Kim lives in San Antonio, Texas. They have both remarried but remain good friends. My sister could not have any more children due to medical reasons and Kim has two children from a previous marriage.


I felt like this was a very good movie. Whenever the mother cries you feel her pain. It is a bit obvious but it's still a good movie. There are some cheesy attempts at suspense. SOme of the parts are suspenseful though. There were a few careless things overlooked that the police should have noticed but that's just me nit picking. The performances were very good by everyone although at times Laurie seemed a bit over-dramatic. Also Some of this movie is a little bit unrealistic. But overall it was a good movie that made your heart ache. I highly recommend this movie. If you have kids then you will most likely cry at the mere though of your children going missing. This movie was a good movie so grab a box of tissues and watch this movie.


I just watched "Someone She Knows" although it was a very good movie I I wished it would have had the conclusion of the trial. Usually at the end of the movie there is the outcome of the jail sentence. It is so many people that could be and are in the same danger as this little girl was. This movie will help people think about others. This happened back in 1986, this is now 2007, I hate to imagine how many more children this has happened too. A sad thing too because children are innocent and so trusting to people they know ( think they know ).

I have tried to find out the outcome on the trial. When it took place and what his sentence was. I have not had any luck. What about the parents Belinda and Kim Sorrell ? Are they still in Kansas ? Did they ever have any more children ? If anyone has any information on this would you please post it ?


This movie tells a sad true story, but I guess a lot of drama has been added. The whole script just isn't very believable. After only five minutes I knew who did it and it was funny to see the script-writer failing again and again in trying to make you believe someone else did it.


Individual stories of inmates in the huge, overcrowded and infamous Carandiru penitentiary in Sao Paulo, Brazil; the fil rouge being a doctor (a narrow character who ain't but a narrative excuse) who decides to take care of the prisoners during the outbreak of AIDS epidemic. At the end, a futile fight starts a riot which will eventually end with the death of 111 inmates.

Carandiru is'nt a masterpiece. But it's a good, solid, non moralistic or stereotyped and yet entertaining prison movie which manage to transport the non-Brazilian viewer to feel the noises, the colors, even the scents of a lively, desperate and merciless world in which good and evil, guilt and innocence are inextricable.

Way better than Ciudad de Deus ("City of God") by Meirelles, which was a lot more successful abroad; IMHO, it was just a stylish gangster-movie with a Brazilian location.


A Superb Film!!

Like 2002's "City Of God", "Carandiru" too takes a similar approach to a True Story. The narration of this movie is Excellent. One story after the other, well paced and well Told. Some stories are completely disturbing. The Level or reality present in the scenes and the Mix of Humor is always well BALANCED. The performances by all the actors are worth Praising.

******Spoliers********** this movie could be Politically incorrect. The ending in particular is made out of Rumors and stories told about what happened. We should know that this movie isnot trying to make statements. After all we know what the outcome was. But could there possibly be any justifiable reason to such MASS-KILLING? NO! Well that's the only point this movie is trying to make. And I respect the movie for this.

This movie All in All is an Excellent film. Well written and perfectly Directed. I wonder how this movie did not make it into the Oscar Contenders list. 9/10


Seen through the eyes of the prison doctor, Dráuzio Varella, this is his version of events taken from his book Estação Carandiru, and the innocent massacre of the guilty.

Told in several short fables and sown together into the fabric of the last remaining days of the prisoners in block Pavilhao Nove, this is an account of the build-up to one of Brazils most notorious prison riots in modern history.

Filmed in the prison itself before its demolition in 2002 and built in 1956 with its mass population of around 7000 inmates, made initially for the tinier amount of some 3000. Carandiru was never going to be a holiday camp, with its toil of constant hard drug use and the need for safer sex that the prisoners are perpetually being told. AIDS is rife here, be it via drugs or sex, and the violent life that has to be adapted to survive; no one is getting out clean, let alone alive.

Slowly unthreading itself as a movie of human connections, Carandiru Penitentiary may be a holding pen for the sinners of Third World poverty, but their stories are typically international. As with each perspective, we are woven into each predicament and, possibly, led to believe that most are victims and victimised rather than perpetrators of crime.

It is in these stories that have us empathising their plight and it can be all too easy to dismiss the fact that with every prisoner inside, it is inevitable, that there are victims' on the outside. It is also known that a large amount inside Carandiru was jailed without trial or lawful judgement. However, this is different, this is no ordinary colony, Carandiru is a self-run compound, run from the inside, and with its own rules and punishment; break the law and you end up inside, break the rules and you may never see the outside again.

Extremely realistic language and its violent and unforgiving claustrophobic environment drives Carandiru along and is given the grace and respect of a highly talented team. Hector Babenco, whose career also undertakes prison movies such as Kiss of the Spider Woman (1985) and Pixote: A Lei do Mais Fraco (1981), brings together one of the best cast seen for this type of genre. Rodrigo Santoro as muscular Lady Di, the charming and charismatic transsexual in love with tiny and likable Gero Camilo as No Way, who when eventually released wants to become a doctor. There is hope and dreams here, but in the light of day despair and misery are what walk these dark and destitute corridors.

Carandiru with it inevitable climax is both tense and mesmerising and at times sympathetic, why, even if some had committed crime, did some have to pay with their life this way? This unfair and totally unjust execution of unarmed men is nothing more than butchery; this punishment certainly does not fit the crime.


We have a tendency here in the United States to homoginize prisoners with grey or orange jumpsuits, given them a number, and put them into a regimented lifestyle outside of society. By doing this we forget that they are too human as we are. Carandiru is literally a world within a world. Full of its own characters. All aware of but able to be a part of an outside world.

In this world, there is not direct control from state imposed leader. The prisoners find their own leaders and make their own rules.

So, this is Carandiru, a Detention Center in Sao Paulo, Brazil. It was built to house no more than 3000 inmates, but at its peak held over 7000. This film is based on the story told by a doctor who, every monday, went to the prison to provide free medical care. In October of 1992, a riot broke out. The police were called in. In the aftermath, 111 prisoners were dead. That the simple history.

The story is almost in told in 2 parts, the first about the prisoners, and about life in the prison. The second part is the storming of the prison by the police. Although it flows pretty well, the feel and sytle of the film seem to change in the second half. No longer is it about the characters, but what is happening to the prison on a whole. The characters become bystanders.

The film portrays the characters as they are. They are not judged for what they have done. They are just shown for who they are. The doctor, who in a sense tells this story, made a point not to pass judgement for what they did.

Overall, the film is incredible. When i saw the film, the director was avialable afterwards to answer questions of the audience. He provided some interesting insight to how the film was made, and the world of Carandiru. In December of 2002, after all the inmates were tranfered, Carandiru was demolished. That is the final sequence of the film. 9/10


When the first season of oz finished airing, we had many characters who we grew to care for (or hate) presumably dead. That was a risky premise that the creators didn't venture into. I love Oz. It's a true victory, but after seeing this movie (in the Haifa film festival), I know there's something better.

Carandiru does just that and takes it one step further. The brutal massacre in the end kills almost everybody, after building in us pure hope, not through melodramatics (no rape scenes or male nudity for example), but through hard realism. It's difficult to explain this, but this movie makes you care for the worst kinds of men because it shows you their humanity - their weaknesses and faults, in the prison and outside it. It doesn't give faces to the dead - it gives them souls. Not just a statistic you hear about in the news - 111 dead - they are people with stories, good and bad, that live again in this movie. And you mourn for their senseless death in a way you wouldn't if you heard about it in the news, shocking as it would be.

In an era of computer-generated effects which hide poor movies, seeing this rare gem, offers a rich cast of characters, many scenes where hundreds of actors participate perfectly (especially the visiting-day scene) detailed, original stories, and all of this in a claustrophobic set. This a lesson in how cinema should be and can be.


I saw this film when I was in Brasil a couple of weeks ago (April 2003). It's so powerful. I imagine that characters and incidents were invented for dramatic purposes, but I don't doubt that the horror was any less than the film portrays.

The acting was fabulous: it was invisible.


This movie is based on brazilian best-seller by Drauzio Varella and was directed by Babenco, both excellent. Probably will be indicated for the Oscar, correcting the mistake made with CITY OF GOD, the best brazilian movie until now. It is impossible not to compare both movies. The violence is more real in this one, the corruption of police, the dirty facilities. The prison no longer exists but the murders that happened there will never be forgotten. In spite of 2 1/2 hours, you don't feel the time passing, because the cast and the directing are perfect.


This movie shows us how was life in the Latin America's biggest penitentiary. Good story, good plot, high fidelity to the original story. 10 out of 10. The scenes of the inmates' slaughtering are just fantastic. It's real life.


A safe bet

Brazilian cinema is getting stronger, indeed. And it has reached levels of quality that really surprise me. What we are seeing, mostly, is a tendence to leave the alternative and reach the popular and commercial. That is exactly what Carandiru passes.

It is a great movie, without a doubt. Strong, heavy, and yet not as real as it could be, Carandiru will impress mostly the international public with the story of a place where "the only thing more important than freedom is survival". It is very well conducted and some scenes are close to genious, but it is not a masterpiece at all. Carandiru is a safe bet. A safe bet because it does not cause all the impact expected, probably because of external pressure, a safe bet because it is a easy movie to watch, and has a commercial background. It´s obviously NOT an attempt to get only profit and maybe even an Oscar nomination, but still, it is an easy movie to watch. A movie to many people.

Again, it is a very good movie, Hector Babenco talent and the cast talent make the experience of watching it pretty good, and it is indeed one of the best movies of the last years. But - and I am trying to avoid this comparation - it is not as good as Cidade de Deus (City of God).

If you are looking for a good movie to have fun while watching, not truncated and complex in its storyline or editing, you will enjoy - as I did - Carandiru. But it is, definetly, not as good as expected.

8/10


When I went to the première of Carandiru, last movie of Hector Babenco (see "Pixote"), I have got great expectations. I have read the Drausio Varella's book "Estação Carandiru" (Carandiru Station) and, of course, I knew the ado caused by the real event portrayed in book and movie. Carandiru is the biggest penitentiary in South America, a complex with more than 7,000 inmates. Friday, October 2nd, 1992 was a dog day in the cells. In a facility known as "Pavilhão 9" took place a manslaughter where 111 cons lost their lives. Very close to a documentary, this movie shows what we desperately try to hide, the problem of torture and violence which stains our penal system.


Babenco has managed to put the brilliant, powerful, tough yet tender Brazilian best-seller by Drauzio Varella into a movie that must have been very difficult to shoot but that was handled firmly, with courage, great care and talent. Excellent music and some outstanding performances, with special mention to Rodrigo Santoro and Maria Luisa Mendonca.