I give it a 'D' for Dialogue, which is hackneyed and atrocious, and there isn't a grade low enough for the script. Honestly, I really like the people in this movie, Mary McDonnell especially. But she and they are so much better than this. Mary McDonnell has been in countless movies of better quality. Emmy Rossum was one of the bright spots in "The Day After Tomorrow". James Badge Dale was excellent as Chase in last year's season of "24". Steven Bauer...well, I'm not sure about him. As for "Nola", the idea is good, but the material just isn't there. Seriously, I could see the end of this movie coming an hour before it was over. The young law student rides in on his white horse to save the legal day; Nola herself is put in a sleazy predicament; Leo the reporter breaks the story and, by the way, just happens to be Nola's long lost father; Nola ends up singing for a living; it's all way too predictable. I stuck around out of morbid curiosity; everyone else should spare themselves.


You get Anol. Which pretty much says it all. (Thanks to TA for pointing this out to me).

Yes, this movie is stupid. But not in the Troll2 funny kind of stupid. It is an hour and a half of pure boredom punctuated by brief episodes of incredulity. Let's get this straight guys. Lawyers in coffee shops do not save the day.

They drink coffee and get stoned when they go home.

Girls who work for escort services, are expected to service their clients. They don't get lucky shots with some crap in a sock.

The average "madam" is not some sweet lady that cares about her workers. She's a user, just like the Johns.

Almost forgot, the dialogue is just horrible.


Don't get me wrong, I liked Coyote Ugly, but this one was much better! The story was better, even the actors were better. Also, Emmy Rossum sang her own songs! She even has 2 tracks on the soundtrack. Plus, the screening that I went to was the Arizona premiere, so writer/director Alan Hruska and story consultant/assistant producer Patina Cole were there to do a Q&A after the screening. That was great because it gave more insight into the story and how the movie was made. In conclusion, this is definitely a movie that I would want to see again and again!!


I thought that "Nola" was a step or two down from movies like, "The Phantom" and "Mystic River". She should stick with feature films on the big screen and musicals. Isn't lifetime movies usually cast with actors that have been around for awhile? All I know is that after seeing "The Phantom" and then "Nola", I was just so let down:-( She seemed almost "average", which she is anything but!! I am hoping that the "Posiedon" will be great, with all of the great cast, including Emma. Kurt Russell and Josh Lucas are wonderful in almost everything they do. Well, I hope I didn't offend anyone, but I had to speak my mind. Emma is just too pretty and talented to be cast in an average, boring role!


I just saw this movie on lifetime tonight; before this week seeing all the commercial for it on lifetime I would have never of knew it was out there to be seen. May I say this is one of the few jewels Lifetime has shown in a long time. Not only was the story line interesting enough to keep you watching the acting was great. I though the male lead Ben was great and nice looking in that down to earth boy next door way and not the I'm a male super model worship t my feet way, which is very unique for male role now days that have to be the knight and shinning armer type. Nola she was so much different from many of the charters out there and I loved how her character development through out the story and how she actually learned something in the end.People creating movies think that if th guy is hot or the women is hot and a story is horrible the the movie will still do good and yes that is true but this one had all thing tied in it!

PLus the whole Ideal of a ***** ( not to let any spoilers out) being clean was real nice. I like the movie and the music to the movie it is amazing to see am movie where the actor actually sings their own songs and sounds good doing it. I would love to see this movie another time and I hope you also pick up a copy of it. If you like lifetime movies you will love this one so much better, it wasn't even made by lifetime.


Khamosh Pani a.k.a Silent Waters (Urdu/Punjabi-English Subtitles) is an extra-ordinary feature film i've ever seen till date. It is totally belongs to Sabiha Sumar all the way. In short it is totally a Director's Film. Every scene of this film shows and portrays the hard work gone into it.

Every actor in this film performs very well. Especially Kirron Kher & Amir Mallik steals the show.

I think this film is a treat to watch. Every frame of this film has something to say and discuss. A truly learning cinema. Sabiha Sumar gives a work of Masterpiece in her debut. Kudos to the film maker for revealing such a beautiful cinema!!!


Actually I'd like to say it's a 2 out of 10 but for how upset I am a 7 about covers it. As soon as I saw the two strangers arrive in town I knew this movie was trouble for me. Then watching them work on the weak - I left the theater twice to talk to the presenter, asking if the story would turn around for the better side of humanity, well returning and watching the whole story - Sorry to spoil the end - I am so deeply sad...

This is a powerful movie what shows the wicked prey on the weak, a community leaderless and indifferent to protect itself, and a family torn apart.

Not entertainment for me, just a story of the wicked wining another battle - hopefully not the war.


I know Subiha way back since Eighties. At that time she was a young lady and just came back form Oxford to Karachi. She was engage in a War Against Rape to save innocent women and also joins an Urdu newspaper AMN with us. She was although too young but a brilliant and socio conscious girl. With reference to her film Khamosh Pani I would like to say Weldon Subiha. But my dear you may don't know, today situation in Pakistan is more dangerous than Zia period. Nowadays we are sitting on a volcano that erupts every day some where in Pakistan and take lot of innocent peoples life. Karachi was a modern city by every means in recent past but today go anywhere in this city, it may be a posh area, middle class locality or a slums you will find bearded men and burqa clad women in such a huge numbers that no one could even imagine some years earlier. This huge number of black bearded mullah and black burqa clad women on streets looks to me a black storm which is coming to destroy every thing. Time has come to make a film on this situation, I would like to suggest name of this film '' LAWA''. I think no one but Subiha can produce that kind of a film. I wish you best of luck Subiha. MUBASHIR MANSOOR


Even though I've seen many of Tex Avery's Warner Bros. cartoons and know what sorts of things to expect in them, "Dangerous Dan McFoo" was still a hoot. Set in a bar in the arctic, this one portrays a dog with Elmer Fudd's voice taking on an opponent who hones in on the dog's Katherine Hepburn-imitating hubby. Of course, the whole thing is an excuse for a series of gags, the same way that a Leslie Nielsen movie is.

However, there is one scene in this cartoon that I am surprised got past the censors: at one point when the opponent punches Dan, Dan puts his hand over his face, and it looks as though Dan is shooting his opponent the bird! I know that the people behind these cartoons liked the push the limits, but that one just blew my mind! Anyway, a really funny one. It appears on the website Daily Motion...and has French subtitles! The things that we see in life.

Note: this was one of the many WB cartoons released before 1948 that got stripped of its opening credits in the Blue Ribbon reissue.


I watched this  it was included among the extras on Warners' DVD of DODGE CITY (1939)  as part of a 5-cartoon marathon to commemorate the 100th Anniversary from the birth of one of the most important figures in animation history: Tex Avery. It was actually remade  and considerably improved upon  by THE SHOOTING OF DAN McGOO (1945), a Droopy 'vehicle'; while remarkably similar in many respects to the later classic, one of my favorite Averys, it is a minor (if still highly enjoyable) effort  for one thing, because of an anonymous i.e. less sympathetic protagonist, but also its more primitive quality (Avery's Fred Quimby-produced MGM efforts being generally superior to his stuff at Warners).


This is a typical Tex Avery short: he takes an idea from anther source (here it's a poem by Robert W. Service, an idea he would use again at MGM), follow the basic concept and toss in every oddball sight gag or joke that could be shoehorned in in the 7 or 8 minute length. An interesting point here is that Arthur Q. Bryan does the voice for the title character, in the voice he would use as Elmer Fudd for a great many years. It really is strange hearing that voice from another character. Good cartoon, although the one Avery did at MGM was just a touch better than this one. Well worth seeking out. Recommended.


**SPOILERS** Cat ghost story about a cat's, Margaret, spirit coming back from the beyond to protect and help those who were her long time owners Mrs. Ashboro, Sherley Knight, friends from her both scheming and conniving nephew Boyd, Barrett, and unscrupulous local real-estate developer Ted Riker, Nigel Bennett.

After his wife suddenly passed away Wes Merrett and his teenage daughter Natalie, Michael Ontkean & Ellen Page, moved back to Ringwood where the late Mrs. Merrett grew up. Meeting Mrs. Ashboro in order to buy her house she tells the couple that it's not for sale and that her nephew Boyd has no right to sell it to anyone without her approval. It's only later when Mrs Ashboro suffers a fatal stroke that things start to become strange and ghostly to everyone who knew her. The day after Mrs. Ashboro's funeral her 15 year-old pet cat Margaret suddenly passes away from a broken heart. The Merretts, with Mrs. Ashboro now longer living there, end up buying and move into the old Ashboro house.

Not knowing just what's going on behind the scenes in town Wes & Natalie begin to be visited at night by Mrs. Ashboro's cat Margaret. The cat wants to alert them on the impending danger that's about to happen to not only them but to Mrs. Ashboro's good friend and neighbor Brenda, Loni Hallier, who runs an animal shelter in the town.

Boyd had been embezzling his clients at his job at the Ridgewood Savings and Loan by secretly putting their money into this very speculative stock Graydon Industries that later dropped 90% leaving him as much as $50,000.00 in the hole. Getting it straight from the grapevine that he and everyone else in the bank are to be audited at the end of the month Boyd is desperate enough to even murder in order to keep from ending up behind bars.

Knowing that his aunt Mrs. Ashboro has a large amount of cash in a bank safe deposit box Boyd get's to have it opened but finds that it's practically empty. Meanwhile Brenda is under pressured to sell her property, that's holding up his multi-million dollar housing development, to this annoying and pushy real-estate agent Riker. The two sleaze-balls, Boyd & Riker, become allies in getting Brenda to relinquish her property by getting the bank holding her mortgage to threaten to for-close. Natiale meanwhile had become very friendly with both young Person and Kurt, Mark Rendell & Shawn Roberts, who both work as volunteers at Brenda's animal shelter and also have a stake in her not having to lose it to the bank.

Margaret communicate to Natalie to where the money, that Mrs. Ashboro took out of her safe deposit box, is. This lead her to a dry cat food package where there's not only the $50,000.00 but a note, or will, left by Mrs. Ashboro leaving it to Brenda to keep her animal shelter from being seized by the bank. Boyd finding out that the money that he so desperately needed has gone to Brenda becomes more desperate then ever to take it off her hands with the bank audit just days away and him facing not only the loss of his job but a long stretch in the state pen. Boyd was such a nosy creep that he checked every transaction that Brenda made finally finding out that she deposited the $50,000.00!

Now at the end of their lines with jail and financial ruin facing them Riker and Boyd start to get real dirty in planning to burn down Brenda's place, including the animal shelter, together with her and everyone including Natalie and Kurt as well as the animals in it in. Unknown to Riker & Boyd there was just one hitch in their what seemed like perfect plan: Mrs. Ashboro's cat Margaret.

Moving as well as exciting cat comes to the rescue movie with Margaret the ghost cat foiling Boyd's and Riker's sinister plans. Margaret not only saving the lives of Natalie Kurt as well as the animal's in Brenda's animal shelter but taking off after the fleeing arsonists and giving them the shock to end all shocks that they'll never forget for the rest of their lives.


This is a really cool movie! I enjoyed it immensely, and watch it every time it is on TV.

This movie, "Ghost Cat", deserves to be on DVD!

It's the ultimate Halloween movie for the whole family.

If you are an animal lover, "Ghost Cat" will be one of your favorite movies.

Maybe if we all contact Animal Planet, or the Studio that made the movie, and ask them to put this movie on DVD, they will.

Ghost Cat has a special charm to it, that is sorely lacking in many movies.

It is a very special movie.

Let's put it on DVD!


This movie is about Manu, a young gay man, who moves to Paris. There he meets Adrien, an older man, also gay. Adrien is in love with Manu, who isn't interested in more than friendship. Adrien is also a good friend of a young woman, Sarah, who's just had a baby, and her husband, Mehdi. Sarah and Mehdi have an open relationship and are allowed to have affairs with others. Mehdi starts an affair with Manu.

Like many other French movies, this one is told by a character, in voice-over; Sarah, who is writing Manu's life story. The story is about love in different ways, about being happy with who you are, and about the destroying struggle against AIDS.

It is set in the 80's, when the world first heard about the disease. Nobody knew what it was. It's beautifully shown how these characters deal with it when AIDS hits them and the people they love. The movie's never really sad, because the director doesn't have the typical long, sad scenes with slow music and lots of tears; just like life, the movie keeps going.

What also moved me in particular is the character of Julie, Manu's sister, played by Julie Depardieu. She doesn't have anyone in the world; no friends, no lover, just nobody, bu she manages life and isn't depressed about it; she's doing what she wants and loves, and that's enough for her. This movie tries to go against common belief in more than one way; you have the woman who doesn't have friends, but is still very happy, you have the woman who doesn't love her baby,... All these things aren't accepted by the public, but I think it's good to show that it can be different.

Les Témoins isn't widely marketed, but is certainly worth watching, if you want to see how a not-hollywoodfilm, and a slow, human film can be great. André Techiné also may not ring any bells, but anyone who is interested in French film-making has to see something by him. I certainly recommend it.


A somewhat schematic script - you can almost see the boxes being ticked as each issue is dealt with - does not ultimately detract from a fine achievement. The story surrounds the succumbing to HIV-AIDS by a life-loving young man at the time when the world was taken by surprise by the ferocity of the hitherto-unknown virus. The various reactions - bewilderment, fear, panic, hatred, self-loathing, guilt, determination, courage, loss, grief and, of course, love - are all charted in the five central characters.

There can be little argument, I'd have thought, concerning the excellence of Michel Blanc's performance; nor of the puzzling awfulness of Lorenzo Balducci's - whyever was this Italian actor cast as an American who had been brought up in Australia?

Julie Depardieu's character is the least developed of the central quintet but nevertheless the actress manages, as ever, to make a fully-rounded contribution.

Emanuelle Beart's striking features and dynamic screen presence make it difficult to assess her as an actress. In the end she didn't convince me she was any kind of writer, but she was entirely convincing as a mother with ambivalence to her baby. The scene where her character talks to her own mother (the late Maia Simon, in a brief but noteworthy final performance) about the difficulties surrounding her own birth is one of the most tender in the film.

Johan Libéreau is touching as the doomed Manu, fleshing out what seems to me to be a somewhat idealised character - unreflective but sensitive, foolhardy yet vulnerable.

But the film ultimately belongs to Sami Bouajila as the policeman who finds himself in the most unexpected of relationships. It's by far the most complex role and also, perhaps for that very reason, the most believable. Bouajila embraces the contradictions, possibly realising, as Heath Ledger proved so memorably in Brokeback Mountain, that struggles with sexuality can produce compelling drama.

Les Temoins is well edited, photographed and, on the whole, well directed. The influence of Truffaut's Jules Et Jim is all-pervading, but it's none the worse for that. The film's biggest advantage is that it tackles its subject in an entirely unsentimental way: the same script made in Hollywood would undoubtedly turn into something unspeakably gooey - the memory of Philadelphia, with which it could all too easily be compared, makes me shudder. Les Temoins is way, way above that.


I agree with some of these comments. By 1984 I thought we were more familiar with AIDS...maybe 82 is the year this should be set. My main gripe was the unconvincing make up Manu wears, and the way he doesn't lose weight. What was so shocking and devastating for those of us growing up with the onset of AIDS was running into people who were gorgeous, fit young and beautiful. Next time you saw them their faces were blemished, their bodies wasted, emaciated, skeletal like. I recall bareley recognising a young lad who'd once been a fixture on the scene. So the scenes where Manu is nursed through the terminal stages were less than convincing and left me somewhat unmoved. Otherwise its worth seeing and its sex positive, uplifting, life affirming attitude is a welcome riposte to Hollywoods schlocky treatment of the subject.


André Téchiné's new movie about criss-crossing relationships marked by the AIDS crisis begins when Adrien (Michel Blanc), a respectable gay doctor, picks up a young, eager and definitely gay country boy from the mountains in a Parisian cruising area. Adrien just wants to protect young Manu (Johan Libéreau); there's no sex; but he takes the boy everywhere and falls madly in love with him. Whatever shenanigans Manu is up to, he's sweet to Adrien. A narcissist, he loves the attention. He doesn't get that from Julie, (Julie Depardieu), the opera singer sister he shares a cheap hotel room with. Adrien's idyll ends when Manu gets a job in a remote camping ground and starts an affair with a bisexual vice cop of Arab extraction named Mehdi (Sami Bouajila). It's a small world, because not only have Manu and Mehdi met through Mehdi's well-heeled wife, Sarah (a friend of Adrien's); Mehdi also minds the seedy area where Manu lives with Julie and consorts with the local whores. Sarah and Mehdi have an open marriage. They also have a baby she doesn't much care for and she is getting tired of writing children's books and wants to write a regular novel. After saving Manu from drowning gives Mehdi a raging hard-on and they begin having daily sex, this becomes something far too important to tell Sarah about.

All this is moved forward with a Nouvelle Vague-style retrospective voice-over spoken by Sarah, and this is Part One, entitled "Summer 1984: Happy Days." The happy days are not to last. The AIDS crisis is about to happen and Manu is going to be one of its early victims. The idea that this is a collective tragedy worthy of opera is underlined by Julie's singing and operatic background themes, not to mention the swirling merry-go-round of interactive relationships.

Many of these ingredients are familiar to Téchiné fans. The young gay boy from the mountains who goes wild in Paris has close parallels with the young Pierre (played by an actor named Manu, Manuel Blanc) in the 1991 J'embrasse pas (I Don't Kiss), who likewise comes from the mountains, winds up in a promiscuous gay life as a hustler, and initially finds an older gay protector at a Parisian cruising area (and this film also has Béart in the cast). I Don't Kiss focuses mainly on Pierre, but in it many paths cross. A love triangle and bisexuality are central to the 1994 Wild Reeds (Les roseaux sauvages), another period film, though it's set in the Sixties. Criss-crossing, bisexuality, and a brother-sister combination are found in Les Voleurs (Thieves, 1996). These are all fine, fascinating films. The Witnesses partakes of the same complexity. There is something radical about Téchiné's ability to avoid a central action or central character, yet keep things interesting--even more interesting because of the unpredictability of the interactions and an openness toward behavior the straight world tends to see as forbidden or transgressive.

Les Voleurs is complicated in this way, but it's anchored in a powerful sense of family and place, and made exciting by the fact that one main character is a representative of the law and several others he's personally involved with are, as the title implies, criminals. Wild Reeds is a kind of triple coming of age film, and has simplicity and focus through a tranquil provincial setting and the relatively simple life of the three youths, with the Algerian war a vague but powerful magnetic force in the background. It's more sympathetic toward the gay boy and his sensitive "girlfriend" than toward the bisexual youth who breaks his heart, but the latter's dark appeal is unmistakable. Téchiné's mastery of the odd and unexpected relationship is never more evident than in the intense, transitory union between a wild, mysterious boy called Yvan (Gaspard Ulliel) and a Parisian mother fleeing WWII bombs in the country (Béart again) whom he rescues in Strayed (Les Égarés)--a story of intense freshness marked by Téchiné's great sense of landscape and ability to blend sweeping, evocative tracking shots and vivid close-ups. The look of The Witnesses isn't as beautiful and consistent, but there are many nice little visual details. The faces will stay with you: Mehdi's hyperactive eyes, muscular brow, and disturbed jaw, Adrien's intelligent, bourgeois solidity, his pale shaved dome, has stylish round glasses; Sarah's distracted gaze and scruffy bleached hair; Manu's wild eagerness and frequent smiles, then his skin ravaged by lesions. Also memorable visually are Manu's little light-footed leaps over barriers and onto branches, which Adrien observes admiringly but does not try to follow.

It's disconcerting to discover that Manu isn't central to The Witnesses because when AIDS takes him away, life goes on. Adrien has become part of the teams of French doctors frantically seeking to manage the disease. This is Part Two: "The War" (against AIDS). Mehdi is terrified that he is infected, but when he learns that he isn't, his life can resume in new but not altogether different directions. Sarah, against his wishes, brings Manu's story into her adult novel. The couple makes love again, but Mehdi also begins taking Julie up in the little airplanes that were part of his courtship of Manu and she begins to replace Manu in his affections. There's a slight danger that The Witnesses will seem like a Telenovela. Manu's story ends, he drops out of the series, and a new sequence begins. The coda entitled "Summer Returns" is both premature and excessive. The film feels a bit as if it's gone on too long and doesn't really know how to end. But the point is still a valid one, at least for the cross section of society, young and old, sophisticated and naïve, creative and blocked, rich and poor, integrated into the ingenious and characteristically Téchiné-esquire story. La vie continue. The witnesses survive.


Les Témoins (The Witnesses) is another fine artwork by French director André Téchiné that continues to examine relationships in times of stress and through areas of rough travel. As written by Téchiné, Laurent Guyot, and Viviane Zingg this film is a love story and a social commentary on life in 1984 when AIDS raised its ugly head and disrupted lives, hopes and relationships. What could have been a heavy-handed woeful tale is instead a story about ordinary people and how the spectre of the then 'new disease' affected a small group of friends. In the intimacy of the story there is an opportunity to reflect and to see more clearly the atmosphere of that time in history.

Sarah (Emmanuelle Béart) is a writer of children's books married to Mehdi (Sami Bouajila), a member of the Paris police force vice squad. They have an open marriage and have just given birth to a baby boy - a factor that disrupts their separate lives while conflicting their married life. Sarah has a physician friend Adrien (Michel Blanc, so memorable in his role in 'Monsieur Hire') who is gay, and while he is older, he still longs for the company of young men. Adrien meets the young catering student Manu (Johan Libéreau), a lad whose sexual appetite is satisfied by trysts in parks, back rooms of bars, etc. Manu and his opera singer sister Julie (Julie Depardieu) live modestly in a sleazy hotel cum brothel that is under surveillance by Mehdi. Adrien and Manu strike up a friendship and are invited to join Sarah and Mehdi to Sarah's mother's cabin by the sea and while there a relationship between Manu and Mehdi begins, one that will become an affair in secret.

A strange disease comes to public attention and it is Adrien who is in charge of the investigation of the disease now called AIDS. Though Adrien's ties with Manu have become platonic while Manu see Mehdi daily, Adrien is the first to notice lesions on Manu, lesions that are the hallmark of AIDS. How this discovery affects the lives of each of the characters we have met (the 'witnesses' to a very important time in our history) serves as the crux of the story - part tragedy and part a torch of resilience the weaves the story to a close in an honest, touching but never maudlin manner.

The acting is consistently excellent, the sort of ensemble acting that keeps the focus on the message of the film rather than on individual attention to characters. The movie is beautifully photographed by Julien Hirsch and the musical score by Philippe Sarde wisely blends excerpts from Vivaldi and Mozart with original music that recalls the 1980s. This is yet another triumph for André Téchiné - a film that deserves the widest possible audience. Grady Harp


This script is perfection. The directing is awesome. The actors are---every single one---sexy. The plot is surprising. The climax is heartbreaking. The depth of these stories is revelatory. The dialogue is witty. The characters are cherishable. The editing is astonishing. In summation, this brilliant film is revealing, true, brutal, funny. Sexy are the actors. Sad is the plot. True is the reflection of these lives in these times. Sexy are the actors. Sad is the story. True is the movie. Perfection is the movie. Bravo to all.

I don't get this minimum of 1,000 words. I loved this movie. I will say it again and again.

And it's sexy.


Overall, this movie was OK. The male lead actors all were very good and believable in their parts. The homosexuality was presented in a natural, matter-of-fact manner, instead of pedantic or problematic. The way the start of the aids era was captured was disturbing, but it seemed very realistic. There were some things in this movie that annoyed me however. First of all, the female characters. Depardieu is your typical withdrawn, a-sexual, artistic, female French cinema archetype. I can live with that though. Far more irritating was the presence of Beart, who was totally miscast. What is a blown-up plastic Barbie doll doing in a movie that is situated in the early eighties, when plastic surgery was not even properly born yet?? Her acting is (partly due to her renovated face) very flat and expressionless and it would have been better if she had been altogether left out. An other revealing mistake is the American guy/gay, who shows up in the last part of the movie; quite confusing when a character who is so proud of his multi-lingual talents has such a strong foreign accent when he speaks his mother tongue...


My experience of films with a male gay theme is very limited having only seen Hollywood's most recent output before Les Temoins. It is a film that I found both refreshing and pleasantly surprising in the way in which it approaches and represents a physical gay relationship. Sex is shown to be sensitive and loving. It shows such a versatile tenderness from both parties and Sami Bouajila's performance as the character of Mehdi evokes such genuine feelings that I was moved to tears. In addition to this, I found Les Temoins an extremely beautiful film to watch visually, its very blue and yellow colour-scape providing a serene backdrop for the action. For someone looking for a much gentler yet highly gripping tale of gay love this is a film I would highly recommend.


An unsentimental look at the consequences of the AIDS outbreak on a bunch of friends and lovers in 1980s Paris.

It was unusual to see folk come down with the disease while it was still classified as a 'mystery' and while docs were desperately searching for cures, reasons, symptoms etc.

Some of the news reportage shown resembled news clips from a zombie movie.

There were lots of good bits to the film, some interesting characters and lives, it was well acted and the story swept along without resorting to melodrama.

A pity the unfulfilling ending came on too sudden.


I'm sorry, but I don't join all the praise that is given here. I really enjoyed this movie and acknowledge the gripping premise, and the good acting and direction. But I didn't like the script very much. All characters seemed a bit bland and there was little connection between any of them, even the supposed lovers like Manu and Adrien or Mehdi and Sarah. In fact, it seemed to me as if everyone was very much focusing on themselves and I couldn't find any sympathetic character among all of them. Take Manu's sister Julie, who even at the day of the funeral of her brother seemed to care more for her cherished role in an opera; or Adrien, who loses himself in his role of potential savior of the AIDS-epidemic; or Mehdi, who was more involved with fear for his own health, and who switches shamelessly between Manu, Sarah and in the end even Manu's sister, while in the meantime relentlessly executing a witch-hunt on brothels and prostitutes, even if this means hurting innocent people like Julie. Or Sarah, who sees her baby not as a responsibility but as a burden.

Sure enough, Manu's character is endearing: young and careless and on top of everything in the beginning, but in his (extremely improbable) affair with Medhi he doesn't hesitate a minute to sack Adrien in a very harsh way.

The whole AIDS-related section with Adrien (who at the start of the movie impressed me as a low-key local physician) suddenly becoming a professor and a national AIDS-expert, and all the lecture-like information on the disease, struck me as a bit patronizing and undermined the dramatic storyline. Furthermore the movie seems like 20 minutes too long, the part after Manu's death doesn't fit in at all. Are we to think, in witnessing in the final scene yet another peaceful picnic at the river, that everything is as it was before? The new boyfriend for Adrien is as improbable as the coupling of Manu and Medhi (even Adrien seems to think that). And why this complicated nationality-issue, whatever language he spoke it never did come out as genuine. And as someone already commented on this site: did Manu really have only one shirt and one pair of trousers?!?

On the other hand I have to praise Sami Bouajila and young Johan Libéreau, they did an excellent job and carried the whole movie. And for some reason I really liked the photography, it has this French quality of balancing between the intimate and the claustrophobic and makes French movies often feel like your stepping into someone's private home. And most important of all: Téchiné succeeds in avoiding all larmoyancy: it's as if the fast pace of the movie tries to keep up with the lively spirit of Manu, the story waltzes around the rocks of melodrama and as such it resembles Real Life itself: in spite of everything the band has to play on.


"The Witnesses" is a provocative and moving French drama set in the early days of the AIDS epidemic.

It's 1983, and a young gay man by the name of Manu (Johan Libereau) has come to Paris, where his sister (Julie Depardieu), an aspiring opera singer, lives. Almost immediately, Manu enters into a platonic relationship with Adrien (Michel Blanc), a middle-aged doctor who falls in love with Manu despite the fact that the young man sees Adrien as just a pal. Meanwhile, Adrien introduces Manu to a longtime friend, Sarah (Emmanuelle Beart), a writer of children's books, and Mehdi (Sami Bouajila), her husband who works as a vice cop in the city. Eventually, Manu taps into Mehdi's latent attraction to men and the two strike up a tentative, secret relationship. But before long a mysterious and deadly disease has arrived on the scene, changing the lives of these characters - and of countless others in the world - in ways they could never possibly have imagined.

Even though "The Witnesses" deals with a very grim and serious subject, its primary focus always rests on the characters and the complex relationships that define them. Written by Andre Techine, Laurent Guyot and Viviane Zingg and directed by Techine, "The Witnesses" draws us into the lives of these people precisely because it refuses to make an undue fuss over them and how they choose to live their lives. In fact, much of the narrative feels spontaneous and unformed, almost as if the writers were making it up as they go along. The result is that the incidents don't feel contrived or forced, and we are never tempted to question their credibility. In fact, the filmmakers often seem to go out of their way to avoid doing the obvious, often building up to scenes (a dying man's trip to his sister's opera performance, a final meeting between estranged lovers, a maudlin, drawn-out death scene) that never end up taking place - just as in real life.

The characters, moreover, are richly drawn, with each emerging as a nicely balanced combination of weaknesses and strengths. Manu, for example, is basically a happy-go-lucky kid who's just beginning to find his way in life and who demonstrates that he has a tremendous capacity for joie de vive and emotional tenderness - even if his youth and inexperience occasionally lead him to hurt others in ways that he doesn't yet fully comprehend. It becomes doubly tragic, then, when the fates demand such a harsh, unforgiving punishment from him. Sarah is a recent mother who admits quite frankly that she appears not to have much of a maternal instinct, looking upon her newborn more as a hindrance than as a blessing. Her husband, Mehdi, is a mass of contradictions as he tries to come to terms with his bisexuality, falling further in love with Manu, even while raiding dens of iniquity in his on-duty hours. Finally, Adrien is the lonely older man whose wisdom born of experience ultimately gives strength and guidance to others.

The performances are uniformly excellent throughout, and Techine's direction can be either down-to-earth or lyrical depending on which of those two seemingly contradictory tones a particular scene calls for.

"The Witnesses" is a sad movie but not a depressing one, for its canny recognition that humans have an endless capacity for regeneration and hope even in the face of unimaginable suffering carries us beyond the tragic nature of its subject matter.


There is much potential for this to be made into a great film with flashes of brilliant ideas - a young homosexual who sells himself for sex lives with his budding opera singer of a sister; yet this relationship is barely touched upon, and her character barely developed. A Muslim cop married to an atheist writer who struggles with maternity; a lonely and ageing doctor who watches his would-be lover contract HIV.

This film is a perfect example of how to write a bad screenplay -- every scene in which there is dialogue is an argument. The characters are haphazardly portrayed, and whole chunks of storytelling are left up to our imagination. Our homosexual protagonist seems to travel through wormholes between Paris and south of France, as he is poor, and we never see him drive, fly, or take the train. Seaons come and go faster than the characters and relationships develop. We are given glimpses into a female writer's life, yet the reason why she is a writer is of little to no importance to the story, and there is only a suggestion of what she writes.

The dreary, stilted arguments, where the script leaves no subtext or nuance for the actors to work with make soap operas seem high brow.


I can't say I'm wild about Andre Techine or the kind of films he chooses to write and/or direct and this is just about the best film of his I've seen very possibly because of the standout performance of Michel Blanc who dominates the film. Techine cast Manu Beart in Les Egares and once again he and/or she herself play down her chocolate-box loveliness in favor of ordinariness and once again she turns in a great performance. To be fair it's something of a triumph for ensemble acting with everyone pulling his weight with special mention for Julie Depardieu who manages to oxygenate a pretty thankless role. This is one I'll buy on DVD which is more than I can say of Les Egares.


I have seen a lot of TV in my time, both good and bad, and I cannot agree with the comment that this show is hideous. My only problem is that I was too young to appreciate both AbFab and High Society when they first started airing. I have seen on this site where people scoff at the use of Valium as a way to get a laugh because the drug is too weak. Let's face it. None of the Americanized versions of British comedies were allowed to be as free with their material as their counterparts in the 1990's. American television was more restricted than other nations, especially on regular networks. People immediately labeled Jean Smart as "family TV" because of one role, so they failed to accept her as Ellie Walker. Mary McDonnell is a two-time Oscar nominee with amazing talent, so how could she possibly be funny? That's what people thought, and they were wrong. What's sad is that some of the people who put this show down are probably tremendous fans of the American adaptation of The Office. Funny how it's acceptable today to rip off a show, but ten years ago, it was a deadly sin.


"X-Men" is a rare treat-- a blockbuster that lives up to its hype and a comic book adaptation that hits the mark.

Along with Tim Burton's "Batman", this stands head and shoulders above all other superhero movies. It's a genre that's usually synonymous with silly, campy, cartoonish crap, but Bryan Singer delivers a long-awaited exception to the rule. "X-Men" is smart, stylish, and very cool... one of the better sci fi/fantasy films of the last decade.

Of course, it helps to have good source material.

The X-Men comics, which originated in the 1960s, are more politically progressive and morally complex than older superhero stories such as "Superman" where the heroes are always right, and truth, justice, and the American Way always prevail. The series is a well-crafted parable about individuality and discrimination. The characters are mutants--struggling to find a place in a society that rejects them. Its primary villain, Magneto, isn't an evil lunatic-- he's a sympathetic character, a misguided revolutionary playing Huey Newton to Professor Xavier's Martin Luther King. The iconic character, Wolverine, is a beer-swilling anti-hero who cares little for ideals and fights only to protect himself and his loved ones. The female characters are as powerful and important as the men, rather than being mere love interests.

Rather than making just another flashy explosion-per-minute-special-effects-extravaganza, Singer practices the lost arts of character and plot development. As a result, the movie has a far greater depth than the average big budget summer flick. The acting is also quite good on the whole. Hugh Jackman, who plays Wolverine, is fantastic--a bona fide Clint Eastwood caliber badass. Some of the dialogue is fairly cheesy, but in the hands of Ian McKellan and Patrick Stewart it sounds quite convincing. (Stewart has made a career out of making lame dialogue sound cool.)

Hard-core fans of the comics have complained about the omission of several popular X-Men. This is silly. A movie that gave the background on every character in the comic books would be 6 hours long. There will be plenty of time to develop new characters in the forthcoming sequels. Fans have also complained about the casting of Anna Paquin as Rogue. I disagree. Rogue is unable to touch another human being without harming them--she would not realistically act like a confident, sassy warrior. Paquin did a tremendous job of conveying the fear and isolation that such a young woman would feel. She will undoubtedly grow into the part in future movies.

In the end, "X-Men" is a comic book movie. Superpowers are explained with silly pseudoscientific babble, the plot revolves around a fairly ridiculous take-over-the-world scheme, and names like "Magneto" are spoken with a straight face. Don't read all the glowing reviews and expect Citizen Kane. But don't underestimate "X-Men" either. It is an intelligent movie that people will enjoy whether or not they are familiar with the comic.


There's no doubt about it, X-Men is not a stereotypical "comic-book film". Whenever a movie is made that is based on comic books, there is always a fear that it can and will be typically pigeonholed into the "comic book film" genre and that the movie is basically made for the fans of that comic book. Comic-book films are usually unrealistic and unappealing to the general audience.

Bryan Singer, however, did a wonderful job at making X-Men a movie that will not only overjoy the fans of the comic book, but also the general movie-goer as well. The movie is grounded, without the flighty unrealism of comic book material, and it delivers a message about prejudice that has always been what X-Men were about: fighting for a world that hates them.

The performances are outstanding, especially Hugh Jackman who, in my opinion, did a dead-on Wolverine, and Patrick Stewart, who never failed to show the peace and self-control that Professor Charles Xavier always strove to maintain.

Aside the characters, the plot was original (I couldn't tell you what was going to happen in the end by the middle of the movie) and most importantly: the world was REAL. The only suspension of disbelief that is required is the assumption that these genetic mutations can happen, and did, causing these extraordinary people. Honestly, I was a little disappointed that the colorful high-flare costumes were omitted, but I instantly forgave Singer when I realized why. It was simply to add to the realism.

All in all, X-Men was excellent. If you're a fan of the comic book series as I was, then you'll endlessly enjoy seeing these characters come to life. And if you've never been exposed to the comic book, this movie will give you an entertaining way to be exposed to its message about fear, hatred, and prejudice.


A tale of super-evolved mutants in a struggle against human oppressors, X-Men is an instant sci-fi classic, combining impressive special effects with an involving plot to create a truly memorable cinematic experience.

Lacking the tongue-in-cheek camp of the later Batman films and other recent comic books-turned movies, X-Men draws the audience into its world of mutants and superpowers, and prevents it from becoming tacky or absurd. Not to say that there isn't any humour in the film, in fact it delivers some of the best one liners in a film this year.

It is a rare thing for an action blockbuster to feature great acting, but with a cast that among others involves both Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen is bound to be above average. Both Stewart (as Professor Charles Xavier) and McKellen (as Magneto)deliver stellar performances, and their onscreen chemistry is compelling as they play two old friends turned arch enemies.

The rest of the cast deliver solid performances, including Hollywood newcomer Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, Oscar-winner Anna Paquin as Rogue, and another rising star Rebecca Romijn-Stamos as the seductive but deadly Mystique.

A classic tale of good versus evil, with heroes, baddies, and great special effects, I don't think it's going too far to say that X-Men is destined to be mentioned in the same breath as Star Wars and other all-time sci-fi greats.


The answer to that question can be found in this movie with a resounding YES. Being a fan of X-Men comics and cartoons, I watched this movie with great skepticism. It was wonderful how the characters remained true to the comics.

The special powers that our mutant heros and villains possess are displayed exceptionally. It made me wish that I could have a special power of my own.

Enough can not be said of the phenomenal cast of actors that were selected for their roles. Not only did they fit their parts perfectly, but they made you believe. Bravo to Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman, Ian McKellen and a host of actors who were lucky enough to take part in this adventure.

Bryan Singer does a fantastic job of bringing it all together. The special effects in this movie, only enhance the great script and acting. After seeing the DVD with the outtakes, the editing was quite effective.

The true battle of good versus evil can always make for a great story but when a comic book is adapted to film and you feel that what you see is really possible, it is a true stroke of genius.


If this film had been given to the wrong director it could have been incredibly cheesy. Being a reader of the comics I know that there are a few things that works on the page of a comic book but not in a film and let me say that the costumes is one of these things that in all probability wouldn't work. Singer chose to go with black leather outfits and I, for one, am very thankful for this choice. There are many things in this film that works but unfortunately there are a few things as well that prevent the film from being truly great.

Lets start with the things that work. Acting wise the film is very good. This is above all attributed to some excellent casting. Hugh Jackman is simply perfect as Wolverine and brings out the duality of the character in a very satisfactory manner. Also the scenes were we see a glimpse of the rage in the character work remarkably well. The only thing that could be said about him is that he is too tall but it seems most people, including myself, have accepted this fact. I think also that it was a wise choice to let a relatively unknown actor play the part because in that way we have no preconceived notions about him. As for Professor X no other man than Patrick Stewart could/should play him. Stewart simply becomes Xavier both in presence, voice and looks. An example of perfect casting. Ian McKellen is brilliant as Magneto and succeeds in creating a human villain rather than the usual cliché like villains we see in Hollywood productions. The acting aside from the ones mentioned above is pretty good. Not spectacular but good. The only one who does not look and act like the character we know from the comics is Anna Paquin who plays Rogue. The character is nothing like in the comics and Paquin's performance doesn't help the character.

When it comes to music and sound effects in general the film is a notch above average. The musical score has a very grand, even epic, feel to it and this suits the film very well. The score is not as memorable as the score from Batman (1989) but it is very adequate. As for the general sound effects they are both very fitting and believable adding to the overall credibility of the film which is considerable. The sound Wolverine's claws make when they come out is exactly as I imagined it. Very well done. The effects in general are also very well made. Not as good as in Spider-Man but still very good. A lot of care has been taken to make the effects seem as believable as possible and from where I'm standing they work. The only character whose powers I did not fully believe in was Toad's. Ray Park is an excellent athlete but many of his stunts look like obvious wire work. This is a pretty general complaint I have as some of the action look rehearsed. There is, however, some interesting action scenes and overall the action is acceptable.

The story is pretty well written and the dialog is both witty and sharp. Especially much of the dialog between Wolverine and Cyclops (James Marsden) is very entertaining and true to the comic books. Where I feel the story is lacking is in the climax which I am afraid to say is a little silly. Magneto's plan for world domination is actually pretty stupid when you think about it and that is a shame because much of the exposition is very well done. Generally, however, the first film is all about setting the stage for the films to come and it does do that in a satisfactory manner.

All in all X-Men is definitely one of the better super hero movies out there and although it was surpassed by the sequel it still stands as a true testament to Singer's skill.

8/10


I've always been a fan of the X-Men, since the Animated Series aired (I'd never really read any of the comics though... ^_^). So when I heard they were making a movie about them, I was counting the days until it was released. Maybe that affected how I viewed the movie, but I was a bit disappointed. Director Brian Singer (Usual Suspects) did a good job with what he's got... the multiple characters, etc. The whole project seems a bit "safe," though, as if the producers wanted to make sure this big production didn't flop. It's a good movie, but not a great one. Fans of the X-Men might be especially disappointed if their favorite characters do not include either Wolverine or Rogue. Mine personally is Cyclops, but he had a minor role. James Marsden, who played Cyclops, was a bit on the stiff side, but I forgive him because I like him as an actor. On that note, all the actors did an excellent job, especially Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan, as the forces of good and evil. It brought an endearing humanistic side to a story I had thought was dominated by sci-fi. If you're an X-Men fan, I would definitely recommend this film--but you probably have already seen it! What X-Men fan would miss out? If you're not a fan, maybe this movie can be a starting point for a new obsession... :o)


"X-men" is a well done sci-fi action film for all action fans: especially for those who as kids dreamed of having special powers themselves. Each of the main mutant characters has a special ability and during the film I sometimes found myself thinking about which of those abilities I would choose if I were given the chance. Of course all of those special abilities are visible in the film's spectacular special effects. But the special effects were not the only thing that made watching this film fun. There is also plenty of action and character interaction besides shooting and beating and using special powers. As each mutant character is given a past (to give him a motivation) and a weakness, the film's plot never got boring because I also wanted to know how things developed between the mutants themselves.

And I won't even talk about the ending. It actually surprised me. But go see for yourself


Tibetan Buddhist teacher Robert Thurman writes in Inner Revolution: "In karmic evolution, the successful actions that lead to positive evolutionary mutations such as a human life are those of generosity, morality, tolerance, enterprise, concentration, and intelligence. Their opposites - stinginess, injustice, anger, laziness, distraction, and ignorance - are unsuccessful actions, which lead to negative evolutionary mutations that take you down the chain through animal incarnations." We got to thinking about this when we realized that the mutants in the sci-fi thriller X-Men are of two types: the generous, moral, and intelligent ones, and the animal-like ones acting out of revenge and anger. The message is clear: evolution can go toward the good or the bad, and there will always be a battle between the two possibilities.

X-Men, with stories revolving around the activities of a group of mutant superheroes, has been a phenomenally successful franchise for Marvel Comics. Now director Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects) and screenplay writer David Hayter have adapted this series for the screen. The movie exposes the battle going on for America's soul. In doing so, it goes right to the heart of the country's shadow - our continuing inability to deal with those who are different from us, either by race, ethnic heritage, sexual preference, or generation. The story taps into the reservoir of feelings we have about diversity, tolerance, and exclusivity. And, let's admit it, all of us, at one time or another, have felt like a mutant outsider different from the "norms" of society and cut off from the "in" crowd.

U.S. Senator Robert Kelly (Bruce Davison) has a cause. There are mutants living in American communities, and nobody knows how and where they might use their strange and strong powers. He wants to protect human citizens by passing legislation to require them to register with the government. Indeed, even mutants with the best intentions can't always control their impact on others. When Rogue (Anna Paquin), a Mississippi teenager kisses her boyfriend for the first time, he ends up in a coma for three weeks. She can absorb the energy and memories of anyone she touches.

Fleeing to Alaska, Rogue meets Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), another mutant who has amazing healing powers, which come in handy when his retractable adamantium claws inadvertently inflict damage. These two "freaks" as the locals call them eventually team up and find their way to Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), the world's most potent telepath who has started a school for "gifted students" - a.k.a. mutants. His key assistants are Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) who has telekinetic and telepathic skills, Cyclops (James Marsden) whose eyes release energy blasts, and Storm (Halle Berry) who can manipulate weather disturbances.

Not only must these X-Men fight the forces of bigotry and repression afoot in America, they must square off against Magneto (Ian McKellen), a mutant who has survived the Holocaust and now believes that a war with the humans is inevitable. He concocts a plan to turn the world's leaders into mutants at a special U.N. gathering on Ellis Island. The X-Men come to the rescue and must contend with his evil team consisting of Sabretooth (Tyler Mane), a beast-like warrior; Mystique (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos), a metamorph; and Toad (Ray Park), a high-jumping monster with a ten-foot tongue.

Thanks to its thematic riches, X-Men is far more interesting than the Batman superhero flicks. Most fascinating is the love/hate relationship between the peaceful Professor Xavier and the power-hungry Magneto. In the last scene of the film, they play a game of chess in a prison holding Magneto. We all know that the mutant villain has not made his last move.


Special-effects and terrific 5.1 surround sound are the highlights of this science fiction film. And what highlights they are - tremendous in both categories, at least for 2000 when this film and DVD came out. At the time, they were the best special-effects I had ever seen, but strides are being made so fast in that category that every few years we movie fans are stunned at something new we see. Audio-wise, the rear speakers come into to play as well as any movie I've heard.

As for story, once the beginning plugs for evolution and political correctness are over with, it is a simple good guys-trying-to-get-the-bad guys fare. It's pure escapist fun made so with tons of sci-fi effects. The characters aren't particularly involving, either the "good guys" or the "bad guys." The two leads, played by Hugh Jackman and Anna Paquin, should have been, but weren't. Jackman's "Logan/ Wolverine" always seemed to be pouting and angry, but I guess he's a favorite of females.

For me and most males, Rebecca Romjin-Stamos was a treat for the eyes. Her outfit was something to behold.

If profanity bothers you, the film was treat in that department, too, as there was very little. Obviously, this film was popular enough to spawn not only a sequel but more in the making.


This first movie about the X MEN is my favorite of all the trilogy, and the only one I was really excited to watch and I really liked of them all. There is not a better Wolverine then Hugh Jackman, and I cannot imagine Dougray Scott , who was the first choice to play Logan, in Hugh's place. Patrick Stewart and James Marsden have both a big resemblance with the characters they play as well.

After watching all the X men movies, only now I noticed that Halle Berry was using an accent to play Storm in this first movie. It's a sad thing that so many famous mutants in the comics, like Jubilee, Shadowcat, Colossus; Iceman and Pyro only have a small participation in it. Another sad thing is to see Rogue as a frightened kid,instead of the sexy and strong woman she is in the comics. Instead of Gambit, Rogue's true romantic partner in the comics, in this movie she has a interest in Wolverine.

The movie was directed by Bryan Singer and explores the ideas of prejudice and discrimination in the world, specially United States.


I've never heard of this comic before and I hate comics in general, but I enjoyed this movie. I think some people are losing it a little with their big wraps of "X-Men" though. It can surely only be described as a good fun movie that's not to be taken very seriously. Still Hugh Jackman was awesome and it managed to entertain me, and that's all I was after.


I thought this film couldve been a little more developed (even for a assumed prequel) considering the circumstances of it being a movie based on one of the best comic books ever. Still, there are many things to like in this film. The action, the characters, the visual and special fx and someother things. It is a must see, but fans of the comic book might be a little confused of the characters being kinda young (Rogue in this film is a teen and in the comic book series she is an adult) and being under-developed. Note- look for Ray Park (Darth Maul) as Toad. A-


X-Men is my favourite comic book series, I have been a fan of the comic books and the animated series in the 90s and I was excited when I found out that they were making an X-Men film. I was round 14/15 at the time it was released and the only bad thing about my experience seeing the film was the popcorn (American can't make sweets to save their lives).

X-Men is a wide ranging series which tackles a lot of plots and issues. It has been considered to be a metaplor for the civil rights movement in the 60s and the comics have tackled other issues like the role of the government, the AIDs virus and the Holocaust. There is also the issue that powers may be a curse rather then a blessing e.g. Rogue and Cyclops. There are also a number of characters and fractions which would have made the film difficult to make because there would have been no way to make the fans 100% happy.

The plot of the film is in the world they are mutants, people with powers that can range from being psychic to changing your apparent to healing to controlling the weather. They are met with fear from the general public and they are calls in the US Senate for the Mutant Regisration Act, to get details of every mutant in the USA. Within the mutant community there are two major factors, the X-Men and the Brotherhood of Mutants. The X-Men, led by Charles Xavier, want to have harmonious relations with humanity whilst the Brotherhood, led by Erik Lehnsherr/Magento, believes that the human race would never accept Mutants and that a war is coming. In the middle of this are two mutants, Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) and Rogue (Anna Paqulin). Wolverine can not remember his past and lives a nomadic lifestyle and Rogue is a teenage runaway, who needly kills her boyfriend just by kissing him. Mangento wants Rogue so he can complete his scheme to turn the world's leaders in mutants.

This film was not particular action packed; this was because the budget was $75 Million which is nothing special for a summer blockbuster, and the director was Bryan Singer, who's most famous film before was the Usual Suspects, a psychology crime thriller. He chose to focus on character development which was a good move. He also tackled the project as an outsider, he was not a fan of the comics, but I thought that was good because he was able to cut of the flak. He made the film into a realistic sci-fi film which could appeal to the fans and normal movie goers. He made a few jokes about some of the issues of the comics, like the codenames and the costumers. The film does tackles ideas like Wolverine's tortured past and his rivalry with Cyclops, Xavier's friendship with his rival Magneto, the human factor, Wolverine's need to protect children, the list goes on. The film also has a good international cast, Patrick Stewart, Sir Ian McKellon, Halle Berry, Famke Janssen, James Marsden and Anna Paquin. The film also made Hugh Jackman into an overnight star because before the film he was an Australian Stage actor and after it he became an A-lister and has a strong scene of loyalty to the franchise. To a lesser extent Rebecca Romjin has also become a major actress.

The film isn't perfect, I would have liked to have seen more characters like Gambit and Beast, and the film did ignore Wolverine's and Sabretooth's hatred for each other and the fact that they have a past together. X-Men was an introduce to the film franchise, especially to people who do not know the comics.

X-Men is a very good film, X-Men 2 is even better and X-Men 3 was one of my most biggest film disappointments. I would love to see Bryan Singer back in the director's chair and ignore the third film and do it the way he wants and the fans want.


I really enjoyed this movie a lot when it first came out 8 long years ago and I decided to revisit it with my little brother tonight and enjoyed it just as much as I did back then. I think it's definitely one of the better Marvel films and up there with the first Spider-Man and Iron Man. I'm definitely glad I decided to check it out again.

There are a lot of great elements in this film and I thought the story along with the effects were both great. The acting was really good as well with great performances from James Marsden and Hugh Jackman. I thought they did a great job of adapting the comic book into this film as I've been a big fan of the comic books since I was very little kid.

Most Marvel fans have most likely seen this film, and a few times over. However, if you haven't yet, you really should do yourself the favor of checking it out. You probably will enjoy it quite a bit.


X-Men was a really entertaining, and overall great film.Than again, I use great in lowest term, but still, I think it deserves to be called great.This movie is one of those superhero movies that delivered and stuck.Most just deliver and then you forget about them, but this one always has to be one of the first superhero films that comes to mind when you think of that genre.The casting could've have been more perfect either.I mean, Hugh Jackman, Famke Janssen, James Marsden, and Halle Berry.All of them I've seen in numerous amounts of films and I think they're all fantastic.This is a good movie, and I recommend it for basically anyone.


I gotta give my props to Brian Singer. Man, what a fantastic job he did in bringing my favorite mutant superhero team to the big screen. The X-men comics have decades of established treasured mythology and this film does it justice almost perfectly. Some story elements have been altered here and there but it never undermined the finished product significantly as to throw off die-hard fans, although I was disappointed that Gambit wasn't included. But the film superbly makes up for that with action, special effects (and what MARVELOUS EFFECTS they are!!!) and a plot that's intellectually stimulating actually. It's a shame that most action films today don't have that kind of pizazz and gravitas to keep it from being mindlessly entertaining. Not so here as X-Men challenges its viewers to ponder the nature of acceptance , fear, and prejudice. My one main complaint is that the villains such as Sabertooth wasn't fleshed out more and similar to his vicious comic book counterpart. I will purchase the director's cut for any bells and whistles not in the theatrical cut but for the most part "X-Men" is an exciting and exhilarating experience with something more beneath the surface even more so than action films today and I can say with all authority it embodies the spirit of the comics nearly spot on.

Great film.


Based on the comics, the movie X-Men, while there are many important characters, follows Marie a.k.a. Rogue and Logan a.k.a Wolverine, who discover Professor Xavier and his "X-Men" as Logan labels them (Scott a.k.a. Cyclops, Jean Grey, Ororo a.k.a Storm), who help them after an accident. However, they soon discover that the Brotherhood, led by Magneto (or Erik), plans on using them for a scheme, which he tested on a Senator first. I think everyone's good, but it's always hard when there's at least two Oscar winners, two Shakespearian actors and some other awards winners.

If you like action films (which I do), this is a definite must-see.


I was introduced to the "X-Men" as a kid in the 1990s when I started seeing episodes of the cartoon show. Later, I started playing an X-Men video game, and during my comic book phase, I do recall reading some X-Men ones. Since then, the comic book series has been one of several to get the live action movie treatment at some point within the past ten years or so. I didn't see too many films on the big screen back in 2000, so I didn't see this this first "X-Men" movie adaptation. I finally watched this about a year and a half after going to see its sequel, "X2", but I have now seen it more than once, and it is good.

In the near future, many mutated humans exist. They are born with a special X-Factor gene, which gives each of them a certain superpower. Unfortunately, these mutants are generally feared by the rest of humanity, even though many of them mean no harm. In the X-Mansion, where many good mutants live, Professor Charles Xavier runs a school for students with the special X-Factor gene, where they learn how to use their gifts wisely. Xavier dreams of a society where mutants can live with the rest of humanity in peace. However, another mutant named Eric Lensherr (a.k.a. Magneto), who was once Xavier's friend, has different plans. He has a machine that can convert non-mutated humans, and he plans to speed up the process of human evolution with it! For some reason, one unbeknownst to anyone in the X-Mansion, Magneto and his evil mutants are after either Logan or Rogue, two recent arrivals at the mansion!

Comic book movies from recent years are generally not known to be flawless, so it's no surprise that "X-Men" has some fairly weak moments. After the first scene, which is set in 1944, and the story skips to the near future, where the rest of the movie takes place, the film gets pretty shaky, starting with Rogue in her room with her boyfriend, just before she discovers her powers. I would say the story really gets good around the part when Logan (a.k.a. Wolverine) first finds himself in the X-Mansion. After that, it doesn't stay completely steady for the rest of the film, but usually is pretty entertaining, with a decent amount of action and suspense, as well as good special effects, some intriguing futuristic sets, and occasional humour. I can't say TOO many of the cast performances here really stand out, but those of Patrick Stewart (as Xavier), Ian McKellen (as Magneto), and Hugh Jackman (as Wolverine) do. The script isn't perfect, but for the most part, it's better than the "Hulk" and "Catwoman" scripts (two very disappointing comic book movies), that's for sure. Here, there's a mixture of strong and weak dialogue and acting.

So, overall, this first "X-Men" movie does have its cheesy moments, but that certainly doesn't mean it has no entertainment value. Now, some people strongly dislike these recent comic book movie blockbusters in general, and if you're one of them, I'm sure saying that this one has its cheesy moments is a gross understatement to you, if you've seen it. However, if you don't like this kind of movie, it's simple, don't watch it. For those whose interest is often captured by comic book movies like this, there may be some films of this kind which are best to avoid, most notably the more poorly received ones, but "X-Men" certainly isn't one of those, even if it's not the best adaptation of a comic book series ever made.


"X-Men" rules! As directed by "The Usual Suspects" helmer Bryan Singer, this top-drawer cinematic adaptation of the popular Marvel Comic series sets a whole new standard for filming superhero sagas. Unlike the gratuitously overblown, happily-ever-after, D.C. Comics inspired "Superman" and "Batman" franchises, "X-Men" differs because Marvel Comics forged superheroes with tragic flaws. Not only does Singer orchestrate an entertaining but intelligent yarn around titans of Good and Evil battling for supremacy with the fate of mankind at stake, but he also tackles important cultural issues integral to the plot that enhance its subtext about intolerance. Ultimately, "X-Men" qualifies as the best superhero comic book movie ever produced, thanks to a stellar cast led by Shakespearean heavyweights Patrick "Star Trek: The Next Generation" Stewart and Sir Ian "Richard III" McKellen, "Matrix" style special effects which compliment rather than eclipse the plot, and a literate script that parries childish pratfalls. Obviously, hardcore aficionados of either the animated TV series (1992-98) or the comic book itself may complain about the various liberties that Singer and scenarist David Hayter take with the subject matter.

Over the opening credits, Patrick Stewart narrates that "in the not too distant future" genetic mutations will trigger the "next stage of evolution." As the next evolutionary stage of life, mutantsa.k.a. Homo superiorwill suffer persecution because they are not only different but also potentially dangerous. The prejudice that mankind manifests toward these mutants serves as an allegory for our current climate of political, racial, and sexual bigotry as well as the uncertainty that older teenagers and younger twentysomethings encounter as they search for their niche in society. Some critics have compared the showdown between Professor X (Stewart) and Magneto (McKellen) with the rivalry between Martin Luther King and Malcolm X during the turbulent 1960s, while others have recognized mutants as symbols of any oppressed group forced to identify themselves, whether they be classified as homosexuals, communists, Jewish, or firearms owners. Like the famous "Star Wars" prologue, Stewart's voice-over neatly encapsulates the origins of the "X-Men" and the inherent conflicts confronting them.

While "Superman" and "Batman" unfolded in linear fashion, starting from the beginning, Singer picks up "X-Men" somewhere in the middle. The setting is Poland in 1944, and the Nazis are parading helpless Jews into the gas chambers for extermination. When young Erik Lensherr (Brett Morris, bearing an uncanny resemblance to the older Ian McKellen) finds himself separated from his parents as the Nazis are about to gas them, he experiences such heretofore unknown terror that he emanates an invisible force field with his fingertips. He destroys the high, iron, barb-wired gates while several soldiers struggle to restrain him. Finally, smashing Lensherr in the face with his rifle butt, one Nazi sentry knocks him unconscious. Nevertheless, his supernatural powers stun the guards. This grim scene in Auschwitz hearkens back to "Schindler's List (1193), while the show of paranormal power recalls Brian De Palma's "Carrie." As introductions go, the concentration camp scene grips with its poignancy. Clearly, this horrific, downbeat scene is not the usual way to kick off a superficial movie about a comic book franchise.

Flash-forwarding through time, Singer brings us to contemporary Washington, D.C. Dr. Jean Gray ("GoldenEye's statuesque Famke Janssen), a telepathic mutant with telekinetic powers, address Congress on the controversial subject of mutant registration. Senator Robert Kelly (Bruce Davidson of "Willard") believes mutants with their extraordinary physical and mental prowess endanger humanity. The fanatical Kelly demands all mutants be required to identify themselves. Moreover, he campaigns for registering them since they cannot be trusted to supervise their powers responsibly. Some mutants, he argues, can eavesdrop on your mind and read your thoughts. While Kelly drums up support for his proposed legislation, Dr. Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) watches quietly from the balcony. Although confined to a wheelchair, Xavier is a super-telepath that can do what Kelly fears the most. Not only can Xavier read your innermost thoughts, but he also can exert control of another person's body and speak through them with the ease of a ventriloquist.

Unlike the cynical Erik Lensherr, a.k.a. Magneto, who insists war between humans and mutants is inevitable, Xavier contends that mutants and humans can co-exist in harmony. As far as Xavier is concerned, people like Kelly are well-meaning but misinformed. Xavier has established a School for Gifted Youth in Westchester, New York, where he teaches young mutants to curb their potentially destructive urges. Some of his long-time students, Cyclops (James Marsden of "27 Dresses") who sports special sunglasses to shield his lethal laser beam eyes; Storm (Halle Berry of "Die Another Day") who controls weather and deploys lightning bots; and Dr. Jean Grey serve as instructors when they aren't running errands for Xavier. Concisely, in a model of economy, Singer establishes the characters and creates the overall conflict between them while broaching questions about the enormity of segregation! Moreover, he inserts several amusing tidbits of humor that flesh out the characters without detracting from the storyline.

The conflict in David Hayter's screenplay that prompts Magneto and Xavier to clash again concerns tow mutants thrown together by fate. A teenage girl in Meridian, Mississippi, Marie (Anna Paquin of "The Piano") discovers her touch can kill. Also known as 'Rogue,' she can drain the life out of people. Horrified by her inexplicable power, she hits the road and eventually meets Logan (Hugh Jackman), a rough-hewn cage fighter nicknamed 'Wolverine,' an anti-social amnesia-stricken loner searching for his past.

Director Bryan Singer toils throughout "X-Men" to dispel any notions that it is just another disposable comic book epic. He triumphs in every department from superb casting to thoughtful plotting. Stewart and McKellen embellish "X-Men" and provide it with the kind of dignity that Alec Guinness brought to "Star Wars." When Magneto and Xavier speak, their conversations sound like the oral equivalent of a chess match. "X-Men" hits the mark because Singer and Hayter fuse superior dramatic elements in the best Aristotelian fashion; its heroes experience a tough time winning.


X-Men was the movie that started the modern comic book movie craze. While some of those attempts (Ghost Rider, Superman Lives) were totally inept, this X-Men falls into the good category. This movie works well as an introduction to the characters in the story. Dr. Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) started a school for mutants. In his care are Cyclops (James Marsden), Storm (Halle Berry), and Jean Grey (Fahmke Jansen). Through a series of unfortunate events, they meet Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) and Rogue (Anna Paquin). On the other side is the Brotherhood, led by Magneto (Ian McKellan). On his side are Mystique (Rebecca Rojmin Stamos), Toad (Ray Park), and Sabretooth. What I liked about this one is that the movie explored the flip-side of having super powers. In a way, they are powers the mutants love and hate. Their is a bad side to them. Cyclops can never look at someone with his own eyes. Rogue is isolated, living in a world where she cannot touch anyone. Also, there is conflict within their own ranks. Wolverine, always being the maverick he is, does not know which side to join. He does not trust anyone. Another strength is Ian McKellan who plays Magneto with such charm. His a sympathetic villain who uses questionable means for his gains. For him, it is much easier to sacrifice others than himself. I also liked the commentary in the film that did not hit us over the head with the shovel. It is obvious the corrupt Senator Kelly (Bruce Davison) was inspired by Senator Joseph McCarthy's paranoia and Fundamentalism that has ostracized the homosexual community. I did have a few gripes with this film. Except for Magneto and Wolverine, there was not good character development. Also, the movie was a bit short, which is was prevented the deeper character development. However, overall, X-Men was a good start to a good trilogy of the 2000's. These mutants only got better from here.


It's not very often you get an action movie that has exciting action scenes, a strong story, and explanations of stuff without bogging down the entire movie. X-Men is one of those movies. This movie had me engaged from the beginning of a young Magneto going to a concentration camp and discovering his powers of bending metal and Rogue discovering the hard way of her ability to take another mutant's powers(or the life from a non-mutant). The action scenes were extremely exciting and engaging. From the small skirmish Wolverine and Magneto had on board a train to Cyclops and Storm's fight with Sabretooth and Toad inside the train station to the huge climatic duke-out inside the Statue of Liberty, the battle scenes kept me on the edge of my seat, wanting more. Even when Professor X was explaining to Wolverine about his school and mutantism, it didn't bog down the story at all, but kept it going as we got a better understanding of what was to happen. The end was great and left it open for more as Magneto sat in his plastic prison cell, telling Professor X on his way out that the cell can't hold him forever, leaving it open for the sequel.

If you enjoy action movies, Marvel comics, or superheroes in general, this is a must-see movie and an x-cellent kick-off to one of my favorite movie trilogies.


Unlike most summer movies (The Perfect Bore, MI2), this is about the characters, not the effects. Despite that, you get cool effects, good action and some solid laughs on top of the deep characterization the movie centers on.


After seeing "X-Men" today, I decided to check out some print reviews. Many critics liked this film, but some didn't. That's not particularly unusual, but what is unusual is some of their reasons for doing so (of the X-Men dissenters, I mean). Some say that the film is too serious. What...are they saying they would rather have seen another dim-witted, idiot summer movie filled with one-liners? We ready have that in "Judge Dread," Godzilla," and "Batman & Robin." When they see a mindless movie, they complain that it isn't serious enough. When they do see a serious movie they complain that it isn't campy enough. They're all a bunch of winers if you ask me. Do not listen to them. Go see this movie!


Its about time for a Marvel movie to be great. Blade was good but X-Men is a great film. It hits all the right notes and doesn't descend into camp and self parody. Hugh Jackman is amazing as Wolverine, I didn't for an instant doubt him as Logan. His scenes with Rogue (Anna Pacquin, also excellent) were believable and often touching. Although the rest of the cast didn't have much to do I have high hopes for the inevitable sequel.

The whole cast does an excellent job (even if they don't have as much to do) but Jackman, Pacquin and Ian McLennen bring real heart to what is simply one of the best superhero films ever made. Its really hard to contain myself when I'm talking to friends who haven't seen it yet who ask me how it was. I can't wait to see it again.


If you've read the comics, you'll be happy with this adaptation (and you'll be the part of the audience that gets the yellow spandex joke!) My friends that I saw this with, who were NOT familiar with the XMen beyond the promos, also enjoyed this very much.

(Wolverine's original costume in the comics was made primarily of... yellow spandex).


I've been a fan of the comic series for a number of years, and was delighted to see the treatment given to the X-Men.

The film has just the right blend of action and drama to keep you glued to the screen, and the large numbers of students glimpsed in the Mansion are sure to keep folks on the net identifying them for months. Well worth your money even at full price. The only negative comment I would have is that it runs a bit short at circa 90 minutes.

Next time let's get a full two hours worth of the Dark Phoenix Saga...!


Don't want to add to any spoilers for this film; I wish for anyone wanting to see it to be as surprised of its quality as I am. I saw the preliminary character sketches for this film and was horrified at what the costuming and overall appearance of the characters were. Now, I've done a complete 180. Nearly everything worked in this film. Only really lacking was a kick-butt score for it. I'm a firm believer that music accents the emotional value and can add a great deal of excitement to any given scene. Music was a bit weak, but the rest was a gem. First comic book to film adaptation I have ever seen that the characters actually had depth. This should be a benchmark for any future comic book projects. Anyway, go and see it and see it in a big DTS or SDDS sound screen. You'll be anxious for the sequel when you leave the theater. Great action mixed with explanatory and character building scenes and was actually very funny in spots.


I liked the comic book of 'X-Men'. So, when I heard that this movie was playing I immediately wanted to go. My favorite character is Wolverine. The Visual Effects in this are the one of the best (others include 'The Perfect Storm'). If you don't have anything else plan go see 'X-Men'.


The movie has a lot of action.I saw that it had a lot of special effects.The acting was alright ,and it could be a little better throught the movie.Other than that it was ok.


An OK movie but not a great movie. The story is not compelling, maybe because it tries to stay too close to the original media. The X-men powers are cool at first but become quickly boring. Some of the X-men give the impression they themselves aren't very familiar with their own powers as if they just discovered them.

Save your $9.


"Tomorrow is Yesterday" is the second episode that deals with a time-travel premise. In this episode, a space anomaly sends the Enterprise to the 20th Century Earth, and Kirk and his crew try to go back to the future without altering the past. Of course, all sort of complications arise. Not as good as the later "City on the Edge of Forever", but well made and interesting. It is actually very similar to the feature length movie "The Voyage Home (1986)". Like most shows that deal with time-travel, the story does not make much sense, but this show is an excellent example of how far the series had come in a relatively short time. Very enjoyable.


This early D. C. Fontana episode bravely goes where TOS never went before - to the time of its own creation - the late 1960s. Another bold frontier for the series (previously explored, but less interestingly, in Squire of Gothos) was crossed as Tomorrow is Yesterday established the show's sense of humor by - characteristically - poking fun at its own historical context. The original series was never equaled in any of its worthy successors in making commentary - whether comedic or serious - on its own historical context. And though not terribly serious, Tomorrow is Yesterday is a good example.

The plot is fairly complicated and as impossible (from a scientific perspective) as most of what passed for science in Voyager and Enterprise, but the strength of Fontana's dialog and the performances of the regular crew and the guest stars (Roger Perry is great in this) carries it. Enterprise, on its way to earth, is catapulted back in time by a slingshot effect relating to the gravitational pull of a star, to the late 1960s (ya, I know, a physics class might have helped here, but bear with me). The ship enters earth's gravitational field partially disabled and in a decaying orbit. They are spotted and branded a UFO, and a warplane is sent to investigate. The crew must figure out a way to repair the time line, return some unwanted guests to earth without memories of visiting the Enterprise, and, of course, return to the 23rd century without ripping the ship apart.

The episode is well written, despite the ridiculous premise, and very nicely acted. The cinematography is effective, though the effects are some of the worst in the series, and many of the long range shots of the ship should probably have been cut. Kirk engages in one of his better fight scenes - if you're into that sort of thing.

An entertaining episode, and one that established a trope for the entire franchise - engagement with the show's own historical context. Recommended.


We finally get to see Earth on the original Trek show, but wait! This is Earth in the 1960s! Wow, those black holes can really do a number on our starships in the 23rd century: one rubber band effect later and Enterprise is being chased by a sixties Air Force pilot aiming to nuke a UFO (nice stock footage). This was the first time travel story from Trek in which we visit Earth of the past (the others were "City on the Edge of Forever" and "Assignment:Earth"). In the latter episode, the journey was made on purpose, following up on the accidental visitation here. This one threads a fine line between comedy and sf adventure. Especially amusing is the female-oriented computer that Kirk is stuck with here and the Air Force pilot's introduction to Spock. And the amusement continues with Kirk's slapstick fight with 3 military officers and their ineffective interrogation. Kirk is at ease here and cool as a captain can be.

On the other side of the coin, we have the pilot (guest star Perry, in fine form), a sixties military version of Kirk, being told he can never go home to his family due to what he knows of the future - well, why did Kirk give him a guided tour of the ship? We know why: Kirk is instantly fascinated by this archaic (to him) version of what will eventually become Starfleet in about 200 years. The pilot is pretty much what Kirk would be if he'd grown up in the 20th century. Likewise, the pilot is fascinated by this glimpse into the future, especially in meeting Spock; he's not repelled as we might expect, overcoming any phobia with the grace that great training and an open mind brings. It's all a playful, colorful adventure - which completely falls apart in the final act when they start transporting/beaming people into themselves - but hey, whatever gets you home.


Tomorrow Is Yesterday introduces the most classic of Star Trek plot devices: time travel. After the original series, it was also used in the spin-offs (minus prequel show Enterprise) and three of the eleven - so far - Trek movies (The Voyage Home, First Contact and J.J. Abrams' reboot), always to great effect. This episode is no exception, especially as it gets more fun to watch as time goes by.

The travel itself is actually just an accident: when a mission goes wrong and hostilities ensue, the Enterprise flies towards the Sun and then away from it as quickly as possible. This, the so-called "slingshot effect", causes the ship to end up orbiting Earth - in the late 1960s! Unfortunately, a pilot working for NASA notices the ship and is taken the hostage by Kirk and Spock, who must now come up with a way to get back home without altering the course of history.

The usual elements of every good time travel story are all present: the discovery of a new age, the problems that derive from it and, of course, the discussions regarding possible paradoxes. What really makes the episode stand out, though, is its sense of fun and prescience: ordinary people's reaction to the sight of Kirk and Spock is always a joy to behold, and it's pretty funny to hear our heroes mention man's first landing on the Moon as taking place on a Wednesday at the end of the '60s: they got it right, weekday and all, a full two years before the whole thing happened. Ah, the pleasures of good sci-fi...


The Enterprise is somehow knocked back in time and the ship becomes visible to the folks in the US Air Force. Not wanting to mess up the future, they try to get out of there fast--but not until they accidentally take a pilot prisoner. At first, they don't think this is any big deal (Huh? It sure seemed like one). Then a bit later Spock informs the Captain that the pilot's son plays an important part in space travel history so they MUST return the pilot ASAP--especially since at this point, the pilot hasn't yet sired any kids. So, they realize they must erase the pilot's mind and steal the records of their being spotted (boy, this seemed really easy) so that time would not be affected.

This is a decent episode but also one that is easily forgotten. Despite having seen the episode many times, it just never seems to stand out in my mind--sort of like eating white bread. Sure, it's filling but not all that memorable.


I recently saw a brief clip on (I can't remember what) channel interviewing a Vietnam War era fighter pilot who skirmished with four or five MIGs to save his downed buddy and was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, or something nearly as prestigious and darned if I wasn't looking into the face of actor Roger Perry 40 years hence!

I began thinking the actor who played the '60's fighter pilot in this episode left Hollywood, joined the air force, went to war and became a hero. A little research, of course, shows Roger Perry continuing to act through the '70's, and I never did catch the name of the well-regarded Phantom pilot being interviewed in that short news sequence.

Perhaps the script for "Tomorrow is Yesterday" has not yet been been played out.


as a general rule, any episode of any series showing the people and world we know from an outside perspective is a above average episode; this is no exception. Here we see the crew through the eyes of a 1960's astronaut who ends up aboard the ship. The episode is not told from his perspective of course, but it does let us see it from his point of view. What would someone from our time (roughly) think of their ways. I am very much borrowing from another reviewer here, I just happen to agree.

The dialog is the main attraction here. The dialog involving captain Christopher, and kirk's infamous joking scene especially. Fans of the show, you know what I'm talking about. I won't spoil anything but I will say that they encounter a few problems trying to return to their own time; each of which they (of course) eventually overcome. 6 out of 5 stars here again mainly because of dialog and time-travel done inventively.


As mentioned before this movie probably is the first one of its kind to be made in Austria by Austrians artists only. Austria's good times in the movie industry have long been gone and modern Austrian filmmakers concentrate mainly on producing artistic stuff that relies heavily on the actors (mostly due to funding problems). So this film is quite different from what is coming from Austria nowadays but it's not so different from what is coming from Hollywood. That's a new approach and that's OK. In my opinion the movie is better than the average Scary Movie flick. The story is quite straightforward, the ending is adept though not too surprising. The gory scenes come at the times you expect them to come. Sometimes you know what is going to happen before but that's what we call suspense and if it was good enough for Hitchcock it's good enough for everyone. And it works here too! The movie doesn't stay on a high level of tension all the time. It speeds up then slows down then speeds up again several times. Nice flow. The director does a really good job and I especially appreciated the cinematography. Some really nice pictures, good camera positioning. The cutting was good too and makes the movie look more expensive and professional than it was.

The young actors are mostly unknown but mostly talented and add to the overall positive impression the film made on me.

I enjoyed watching the film although it's not a perfect piece of work (therefore my score of 7/10) but judge for yourself. Let's hope there will be more to see from the people who made this movie. I think there is still a lot of potential to explore.


In 3 Tagen Bist Du Tot (Dead in Three Days) is labeled "Austria's first horror film". A quite passable one, I might add. It probably won't become a milestone within the genre, but if you're looking for real suspense and gore, this movie has plenty to offer.

Like many others, the film features a group of teenagers, more precisely two boys and two girls who have just graduated high school. While they're out celebrating, they all receive the same SMS: "Within 3 days you will be dead". It has to be a (very) bad joke, they think. Until one of them is found dead in the river the following morning...

I was positively surprised by this movie, mainly because the director, Andreas Prochaska (a former collaborator of Michael Haneke) knows how to terrify his audience even if the plot is all too familiar: 75% of the screenplay is shamelessly borrowed from other horror films, some blatantly (I Know What You Did Last Summer, Deep Red), others in a more subtle way (Halloween). There's also stuff from other kinds of flicks (a possible visual The Empire Strikes Back-reference).

Prochaska does, however, count on the surprise factor as well: not all in the script is a deja vu, and he takes advantage of those moments when we don't know what's gonna happen next to scare us witless, with almost sadistic joy (in terms of how off guard we're caught). People get hurt or killed in painful, stomach-churning ways (I had trouble sleeping for a few days after seeing the movie), and some victims are unexpected, too. This guy knows how to do horror, that's for sure. If only he'd been a little nastier with the ending, like Greg McClean did on Wolf Creek.

Overall, this is a decent horror film. Prochaska seems to have found a promising start for his directing career. If he takes better care of the script next time, he might even be able to join the likes of Carpenter and Romero in the genre's Hall of Fame.


"In Drei Tagen Bist Du Tot" (2006) is an excellent slasher movie from Austria, a land that has, since the silent time, proved to deliver constantly world-class movies like no other German speaking land did. To whoever does not believe that, I highly recommend the "Hoanzl" collection with several hundreds of region-free available DVDs amongst which you will even find early Mihaly Kertesz = Michael Curtiz movies amongst other classics about which the non-European audience can just dream.

"In Drei Tagen Bist Du Tot" is remarkable in many respects: First, it is the first Austrian slasher movie. Second, practically all actors have never acted before. Third, the budged was 2 millions of Euros for which in Hollywood one would not even take a camera out of its closet. Third, the whole movie is spoken in Salzkammer dialect and, as usual in Europe, filmed In Loco. (On the contrary, in Hollywood movies it is usual nowadays that the beginning is filmed in Utah, the main part in Rumania, and the end in Canada.) In 2007, "In Drei Tagen Bist Du Tot" got amazingly the Austrian film price, the now so-called "Austrian Ticket" which was given before, in 1996, to Vilsmaier's "Schlafes Bruder". I also welcome this movie because Horror has a very small tradition in European film-making. While the Swiss film De Facto died with Kurt Früh in 1979 and the German film with Fassbinder in 1982, our whole hope stays with Austria.


I liked this film, but it had so much potential to be an important film in Austrian horror-film history. As a thriller, it had every element that makes a European-style thriller breathtakingly beautiful, but as a slasher, this visual beauty took away the terror and fun that is usually associated with the genre. The film is slow and only has fun teen-slasher music at the very beginning and very end. If re-edited with a new soundtrack, faster cuts, and shortened to around the 80minute mark, I believe this could be the film it's solid script hoped it would be.

I look forward to watching the sequel as I have read good things about it.


This is a nice little movie from a country, which is not that well known for movies in the international movie-scene! ( which does not mean, that their movies are bad!! ) At the end of teenie horror wave here comes a little horror-thriller about 5 young students passed luckily their MATURA ( maybe like finish of High School ), good friends since Primary school. They received messages on their cell's telling "In 3 days you're dead!" One by one of disappeared and get killed.

The acting is good, in Germany released with the "original version" - means Austrian dialect - makes it more realistic, a little charming town in the Alps... But the special effects are totally disappointing and silly. Away of "Less would have been more", if the director would have been avoid bloody scenes, the shock effects would not have been involuntary funny!

The actors told at the bonus material, that the characters here are more deep and well developed, as in American movies. You feel with them, in American movies they would be to superficial... I totally disagree, they are as bad or as well developed, as in every other teenie-horror-movie to!