Subhash Ghai makes a beautiful film after the disastrous Yaadein. The highlight of this film is most definitely Rehman's soul-stirring music! It is absolutely excellent! My favorites are Hum Hain Is Pal Yahan, the flute-piano theme, and My Wish Comes True. What I appreciate is that the revolution, fight for Indian independence, and Hindu-Muslim riots were kept as a backdrop and that the movie didn't sidetrack into a historical film. It is a love story from the beginning to the end. It is an interesting illustration of how love can cross cultures and is not skin-deep. The movie also shows good examples of where the British and Indian cultures/societies blend to create harmony and clash to create havoc. I thought everyone gave a good performance. The visuals are simply stunning. This movie has a very good script with excellent scenes that truly touches your emotions. The only thing I didn't like is the picturization of the songs during the church scene. It was unnecessarily melodramatic and just plain out weird. Also, two beautiful songs are just jammed into each other in an ear-screeching fashion. Other than that, though, this movie is an awesome romantic adventure.


Kisna is an interesting movie, complete with great acting,story, songs and action. It is a typical Subash Ghai movie- A love story set against the backdrop of a chase. The story is set in 1930s and 1940s. It is about the family of a British Governor of an Indian province . He is non tolerant towards Indians, but his wife and daughter love India and it's people.The daughter makes best friends with the house hold servants son, and in later years this blossoms into love.Typical problems of pre independence India follow(Frowned upon by all parties concerned-The British, The Indian Royalty, The Families and the Villagers). There is the usual Indian masala of love triangles, action, chase, family drama etc. I would recommend anyone to see this movie ,if not for anything else than the acting of Antonia Bernath and the great songs.

It is not a great movie, but it keeps you engrossed through out.

7/10


I have recently watched 'Kisna: The Warrior Poet' at the theater, and i must say these reviews i have read about are seriously garbage. Kisna is a beautiful love story, and is a great film altogether. Sure the acting staff wasn't as strong in the 'name power' of things, but WHO CARES....if u have actors that are not known, it doesn't matter as long as they do well. My advice to all of you that are reading this review after reading all others is to watch the movie, because i loved it, Antonia and Vivek are going places and after this movie you'll know it

It's just plain beautiful, just them looking into each other's eyes is sexy, just the kind of feeling you need in a love story, follow Kisna as he goes in the paths of 'Dharma' and 'Karma'....Though if one thing has failed in this movie it was the late Amresh Puri, his last film was no big phenom acting wise, but Kisna is a film to remember, and hey i didn't even think about falling asleep during the 3 hours it was on, or the songs, it is unforgettable, if you got a girl......take her to see Kisna, i think she'll love you for it ;)!


This is one of the best films made in the last few years !

The reasons being that the story-line though thin, still manages to interest audiences due to its simple story-telling coupled with great visuals and music !

The only point which does affect is the length of the second half of this movie !

The visuals are at par with any Hollywood period film and the music is just awesome.

I would suggest that everyone should check this film themselves and then form an opinion....because in my opinion the presentation style of Kisna is something which has not been attempted in Bollywood !


Subhash Ghai - He has been my favorite for a long time. I was waiting for long for Kisna to release and saw it on the first day itself. However, I found that Kisna is rich is content but low in actual reproduction. The film builds up good . There is this foreign lady Catherine who is in her old age and comes to India to relive some of her childhood and youth memories !!! The movie is in a flashback.

She tells her story as Catherine having Vivek (Kisna) as a childhood friend. It dates back to the times of Independence and caters to a small place called Devprayag in Uttaranchal. Her father was an English lord and Kisna the son of one of his servants. Her father did not like her association with the boy and sent her back to England only to return in her youth.

He had also grown up now. By then it was 1947. The smell of independence gripped everyone...... A revolt!! and her house and family destroyed. She was in danger and Kisna's mother orders him to plunge and fill his 'Karma' of protecting her and safely deporting her to Delhi . In the way he has to pass through a tough phase of defending himself and her from many people including his own brother, uncle and many more. Finally he manages to safely reach her to Delhi where she asks him to marry her and leave for Britain.Though by this time he is also deeply in love with her, he must fulfill his 'Dharma' now, that is to marry his fiancé Lakshmi . He departs leaving in her heart memories of love . Their love is thus immortalized.

The songs were just superb and the music thanks to Ismail Darbar and A.R. Rehman , fabulous. Backed by great visuals and great performances notwithstanding the length of the movie which is quite long,I think it would be a descent watch. I give it a 8/10.


This is a terrific film, centered on the life of a family of Tunisian Jewish immigrants in the desolate Paris banlieue of Sarcelle (aka la Petite Jérusalem). We follow two stories : Laura (played by the ravishing Fanny Valette) is a 19 year-old philosophy student, committed to Kant and to rationalism in the midst of a pietistic household which, to put it mildly, does not share her enthusiasm for philosophy (as his pious sister remarks, philosophers take aim at their target and hit the bullseye : problem is, they're aiming at the wrong target). So taken is Laura by Kant that she imitates his daily promenade, every day at the same time...unlike Kant, however, Laura's stroll happens to lead her past the door of the darkly handsome Algerian clandestine immigrant alongside whom she works as a janitor in the evenings. The rest is not hard to predict, but Abdou's direction is always restrained, subtle, understated. There is never a moment in which here characters' words or actions ring false. This is, by the way, one of the best portrayals of philosophy I have ever seen in a film : we often see Laura in her philosophy class, where a Derrida-lookalike prof discourses - rather eloquently - on freedom versus the law in Kant. This stuff actually *matters* to Laura, but the Law she is concerned with is, of course, the law of the Torah. Can freedom be reconciled with obeying the Law? That's Laura's dilemma, and Albou treats it with dignity yet without sententiousness.

The other main focus of the film is Laura's older sister Mathilde, played in an award- deserving performance by Elsa Zylberstein. Married with four children, she is deeply pious and sure of herself until she discovers her husband's been fooling around. Her only solace then is the ritual bath, and she seeks sexual advice from its wise attendant in order not to lose her husband. It would have been easy to treat this scene as slapstick, but instead it's done with the greatest respect for the characters involved : Mathilde, who is afraid of losing her modesty and giving way to the dark tendencies of her soul, is astonished to learn that yes, according to the Torah, she is in fact allowed to touch her husband's genitals. Watch also for the lovely scene where Mathilde asks for sexual advice from her mother (the excellent Sonia Tahar). Every dialog rings true, and the superstitious mother, who initially comes across as a domineering harpy, is revealed as a woman of depth and dignity : not because she evolves or "sees the light", but just because we get to know her better.

This is a deeply humanist film, set against a background of the utmost contemporary relevance (a synagogue is burned and a group of soccer-playing Jews is attacked by a group of masked thugs ). It's impossible to come away from this film without a deeper understanding of, and therefore respect for, an entire aspect of Sephardic Jewish culture from a feminine point of view


La Petite Jérusalem (2005), written and directed by Karin Albou, was shown at the Rochester High Falls Film Festival as "Little Jerusalem." The title refers to the section of suburban Paris that is inhabited by first-generation Jewish immigrants--most of them from North Africa.

The Muslim-Hebrew conflict has apparently been transported to France, where each group is suspicious of--and hostile towards--the other.

Two Jewish sisters are trapped in conflicts. The older, Mathilde (Elsa Zylberstein), is a wife and mother residing in a modern, developed country, but still living under marital rules and customs brought from her native Tunisia. She realizes that there are problems in her marriage, but doesn't know where to turn for help. Seeking formal therapy would be out of the question. Instead, she receives counseling from the attendant at the mikva--the ritual bath. (This pivotal supporting role is portrayed beautifully by Aurore Clément. Another brilliant supporting actor is Sonia Tahar, who plays the girls' mother.)

The part of the younger sister, Laura, is played by Fanny Valette. Laura is a brilliant philosophy student who works at night as a cleaner at a school. She falls in love with a young co-worker from the Muslim community, with predictably problematic results.

This film could not be more timely--as I write this review, the immigrant communities in France (primarily Muslim), have risen in revolt against what they perceive as discrimination and prejudice against them within French society. Being an immigrant can never be easy. What makes it so hard is portrayed very well in this movie.

La Petite Jérusalem offers a glimpse of a world most of us will never know. The district isn't very attractive, and it's certainly off the beaten path for tourists. The people who live in Petite Jérusalem have to cope as best they can. This film shows how they go about this precarious balancing act. It's a wonderful movie, and is definitely worth seeking out. (In French, Arabic, and Hebrew, with English subtitles.)


The Tunisian-French Laura (Fanny Valette) is a young woman that lives with her Orthodox Jewish family in the Jewish community in the suburbs of Paris. Her mother is a widow that left Tunisia; her sister Mathilde (Elsa Zylberstein) is having troubles in her marriage because she repressed her sexual desire based on her misunderstandings of the principles of her religion. Laura is an open minded student of philosophy and works cleaning a school in the nightshift. While Laura feels a strong passion and desire for her Muslin Algerian colleague, her sister finds that her husband had an affair with a woman and looks for an adviser that helps her to interpret the true meaning of love and the duties of a married woman.

"La Petite Jerusalem" is a sensitive film about religion, intolerance, philosophy and repressed desire. The story exposes how religion may affect relationships through the dilemma of two sisters raised a conservative community. The older one misunderstands and is confused about the limits of intimacy of a couple, and the younger feels how prejudice and intolerance may affect relationships even of those that are less religious or more open-minded. The magnificent performances are very realistic and Fanny Valette is an extremely beautiful woman. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Pequena Jerusalém" ("The Little Jerusalem")


This film has probably already made the circuit of the Jewish film festivals and will continue to be screened in Jewish series in cinemateques, as it deals with the French Jewish environment and the tensions between the Jewish traditional life and the modern world. However, what may be a relatively new theme in the French cinema is already beaten track in the Israeli films. A few excellent films coming from Israel have dealt with similar subjects in the last few years. It is amusing to a certain extent to see as the relatively young Israeli cinema matures, the French cinema with its long tradition seems to repeat the mistakes of the older Israeli cinema - trying to tell too much in one movie, schematic and stereotype representation of the characters, temptation of folklorist approach when dealing with the Jewish customs, and too little characters development.

To its merit I must mention that La Petite Jerusalem is quite accurate in rendering Jewish life, and that acting has quality, especially the actresses playing the two sisters whose story is in the center of the movie are attractive and sensible. The tension between the spiritual Jewish life and the temptation of sexuality deeply felt by the two sisters (one married and one not) and up to a certain extent the relationship between the younger sister and the Arab Muslim co-worker are depicted in a direct and quite effective style. It is the mix of too many parallel stories that are insufficiently developed and get too fast and easy solutions that gives the impression of superficiality. Then the relationship with the Arab boyfriend is too quickly expedited, and he depiction of the boy's family is surprisingly stereotype for a French film. The stories of the two sisters get unsatisfying solutions, one inconclusive, the other one too simplistic. Overall 'La Petite Jerusalem' is a sincere but not successful tentative in a genre that has produced better films.


Little Jerusalem is an amazing film about a family of Orthodox Jews living in Paris.

The best reason to see this film is Fanny Valette. I think Fanny Valette may be one of the greatest actresses ever. Seeing her in this film was like seeing Brad Pitt for the first time in 'Cool World'. Although I hated, hated, hated 'Cool World', the second Brad Pitt appeared I knew he was going to be a major, major star. I felt the same way about Russell Crowe in 'Romper Stomper' as well. All I can say is brush up on your English Ms. Valette, because Hollywood is going to be pounding down your door any second now.


Perhaps hardcore Bunuel fans won't like El Bruto that much. It doesn't contain much of his surrealism. It is a lot like many of his other Mexican films: dark, melodramatic, brutal, and tragic. El Bruto is mostly a social melodrama, with a wealthy man trying to evict a group of poor residents from some slums that he owns. To intimidate these rebellious residents, he hires a giant thug, nicknamed El Bruto (the Brute, duh!). El Bruto is big and dumb and he follows orders well. But he's not a bad guy. He can be tough and mean, but, deep down, he's a gentle giant. Pedro Armendáriz is fantastic as the lead. The other major actors are as good. Katy Jurado, most famous for her role in Fred Zinnemann's High Noon from the same year, is much better in this film from her home country. The script is excellent, with some good (if a bit predictable) twists. I think that those who haven't "gotten" Bunuel yet might want to see this one. It's probably his most easily understood fim. It may not be exclusively Bunuelian, but El Bruto ranks with Luis' best films. 10/10.


The film starts off with a rich landlord's attempt to evict a lot of poor people from a low-income apartment building that he owns, and they rebel against him, threatening him with violence should he go through with the eviction. There is a great scene where we see the landlord's wife showing him that in order to calm down all those people, all that he has to do is get rid of the strong ones that keep starting the trouble. There's a great bit of symbolism here as she cuts the heads off the tallest of the flowers in her flowerpot, leaving only the crowd of smaller, weaker ones. Take out the strong ones, and the rest will subordinate.

Thus the movie does not set out dealing very directly with the unenviable role in relationships that women played in the 1950s, not under Franco in Spain, but in the Mexican society in which Bunuel lived at this point in his career. Instead, the movie makes a more specific comment on the state of the union as a whole, as is suggested in the line to Don Andres (the rich landlord who is throwing all of his poor tenants into the street), `Thank you, Don Andres. You're the pride of a country without people.'

At this point in the movie, one begins to try to make ties between Don Andres and Franco, Spain's oppressive dictator at the time the film was made (and also the reason that the movie could not have been made in Spain in 1952). Franco is something of a rich and oppressive landlord himself, although the movie does not spend much time on the idea of an all-powerful and enormously wealthy landowner.

As was the case in A Woman Without Love, the Brute very soon goes into the story of a woman who is constantly brought suffering by the men in her life, even if only indirectly. The movie starts off making a strong comment about the suffering of many at the hands of a small elite, and then it quickly explores an individual situation within the population. These are a typical group of poor people, and their efforts to prevent themselves from being thrown on the street and, more importantly, the efforts of their landlord to evict them, provide the conflict focused on in the rest of the film.

Don Andres hires a huge man from the slaughterhouse, a man who adores him since he has been a mentor for his entire life, and the man he hires is determined to strike fear into the hearts of anyone who would dare to stand against this wonderful man. There is a lot going on here that deals with superficial impressions, since Pedro, the Brute (played by Pedro Armendáriz, who, as an unfortunate side note, committed suicide in 1963), is completely determined to help Don Andres but then changes his mind entirely once he gets close to the people that he is sent out to scare into submission.

Pedro is a brute of a man, hence the title of the movie, but he faces the reality of what he is doing when he becomes close to the daughter of the man that he accidentally killed under his assignment from Don Andres. This bit of irony is the confliction of the martial law enforced by the powerful elite as it conflicts with the larger population, the humanity of which is too often overlooked. He was determined at the beginning to set the troublemakers straight, but it is not until he is forced to take shelter among them that he realizes who the real troublemakers are (`I may have done something wrong but I didn't know you then.').

It would seem that this portion of the film presents the harshness of an authoritarian regime as misdirected and even naïve rather than inherently evil, although it is equally likely (and, indeed, probably more so) that it is a message to those very regimes (specifically that of Franco) of the reality of their form of government. Brute is a strongman for the rich elite and then ends up getting help from them and even falling in love with one of them, at which point he changes his mind, no longer wanting Don Andres to have his way and for all of these people to be evicted. He has, in effect, been separated from his brutish side by his intermingling with the very people that he was sent out to oppress.

There is a great scene during the chase, by the way, that I just have to mention. At one point, when Pedro is running through the alleyways, there is a shot of him running in one direction, and his shadow, through trick lighting, clearly runs in a completely different direction, going down a different alleyway. At this point in the movie, Pedro separates from his darker side, turning toward helping the poor people that are being evicted. Just a little bit of trick lighting (a VERY common technique in black and white filmmaking) that really stood out to me.


Had Luis Bunuel ever made a bad movie? I've seen fourteen his films and every one of them is great, simply fantastic, starting with the most famous short film, 17 minutes long "Un chien andalou" (1929) and ending with his swan song, "That obscure object of desire" (1977). Bunuel made films in France, his native Spain, and in Mexico where he had to immigrate after Franco came to power in Spain. Each of his films is uniquely brilliant but all of them have in common his magic touch no matter what period of his life they belong.

"El Bruto" is no exception and it is a strong combination of a surreal melodrama and political film which could also be viewed as a modern retelling of the Frankenstein's story. Pedro "El Bruto" is a young tough slaughterhouse laborer who is exploited by a tyrannical landowner who may be his father and to whom he is very loyal. He is eager to help Don Andres to evict the poor tenants form their houses that belong to Don Andres. Pedro is a simple man who was not used to think a lot and analyze the motivations of the others but he will learn and his eyes will open. Pedro will become a not so obscure object of desire of two women, passionate and strong-willed Paloma, the young wife of Don Andres and the kind and gentle Meche, whose father Pedro accidentally kills while doing the job for Don Andres. As is supposed to be in the melodrama, one of the women is scorned and hell hath no fury as she does and the inevitable ending is coming. The very last shot of the movie with its enigmatic irony is pure Bunuel - only he would finish the film the way he did.


Minor Bunuel maybe but what a tough little film and featuring the most steamy performance from the stand out Katy Jurado, already well into a film career that would last for almost another 50 years. Fantastic b/w photography and amazing control of crowded action sequences. Not much of the wily old surrealist on view here but he certainly turns in the most dramatic, violent and sexy of films that must have made much of the rest of Mexican cinema look a little stale. It would still be a few years before the director could get back into full stride but this this film must have ensured that he would be able to continue making films, even if temporarily, it was still to be in Mexico. So this is a fine piece of cinema for Bunuel fans and non Bunuel fans and incredible that it should have been so difficult to see for so many years.


El Bruto is, quite simply, a melodrama in the literal sense; romantic music cues the romantic scenes, action music cues the violent scenes, etc. Moreover, the characters are introduced as stock archetypes and are mostly undeveloped; Don Andres the cruel capitalist, Meche the unassuming maid, Paloma the adulterous wife (Katy Juardo, in a performance that, looking back, boarders on misogynist in its hypocritical implications of female sexual aggression), and of course, Pedro, the beast turned from his wicked ways because of a good (looking?) woman.

The film follows an uninspired tale of eviction of tenants by Don Andres, and El Brudo - Pedro - is hired to rough em up, and stop those "revolutionaries" from stirring up trouble. Perhaps Bunuel was making a commentary about Franco's Spain with such references, but any analogy is lost in the mire of an all-too-predictable plot. The details are not really worth mentioning, on account of their banality.

What, then, saves this film from registering a 3 or worse on my scale? Well, while the film seems at first aggravatingly conventional, there are enough subversive digressions from the genre (beast-mollified-by-virtuous-beauty) that makes you rethink the point of the entire film. First of all, there's the matter of perspective - we are all used to seeing Film Noir heavies take the protagonist/troublemaker aside with a little "message" from the boss. This time, though, we are asked to sympathize with the heavy's side. Sure, it's been done elsewhere (The Godfather trilogy comes to mind), but not with, as in Armendariz's performance as Pedro, intensity reminiscent of Marlon Brando as Tennessee Williams' Stanley Kowalski.

Otherwise, a lingering question of motive remains. It is not a simple, beast-man changes his ways and saves the day story, because Pedro's motivation for change seems to be attraction to Meche, not benevolence towards the lowly tenants. Does that make him a selfish, animal man? Or does it actually reveal his humanity, above that of the loveless Don Andres and Paloma? In the end, Pedro doesn't change his nature, but a certain part of his nature - that of attraction - gets the better of him.

The final image of the film is also deliciously enigmatic: Paloma gazing - fearfully? anxiously? - at a dark hen that defies interpretation. Perhaps I missed a plot detail about that hen - was it the same one that was a gift from Pedro to Meche? then perhaps she is jealous - but more likely, it is a statement of rebellion against Paloma's otherwise static character type. She seems to be have been involved with some potent set pieces earlier (the flowers to be cut, representing tenants; the meat to be cut, representing the subtlety of seduction).

We are not meant to leave fully knowing or understanding either Paloma or Pedro (sadly, Meche remains 1-dimensional), and enough scenes are introduced that challenge our preconceptions about type characters that makes the story surprisingly compelling.


This was the first film I've seen of Luis Bunuel and this movie stars Pedro Armendariz as a strong guy with a lot of muscle but not a lot of brains. He his hired by a landlord to do anything to get the tenants to move out and he winds up killing an old man who was their leader. Katy Jurado is the landlord's wife and they have an affair. Pedro is chased by some of the men with weapons and hides out in the apartment of the girl who's father he killed but she doesn't know that. There isn't much else to the plot but there are several murders at the end but you can find out for yourself who is murdered. Pedro has worked with John Ford before and Katy Jurado was in High Noon and One Eyed Jacks.


Usually I rely on the voting averages to give me an idea of how good a movie is. I have to admit that a 5.6 rating is much different from what I would give this film.

"Original Sin" seemed to be the movie that everyone walked away from. The only thing I remember about its opening was all the chatter about the nude scenes. I guess it reminded a lot of viewers about the whole "Wild Orchid"/"Showgirls" fiasco which is still etched in the mind's-eye of every self-conscious moviegoer. Perhaps this apparent smoke screen of an issue caused Angelina Jolie's (often chapped and super-pouty) lips to be sealed regarding her role in the movie. Likewise, the dependably silent/aloof Antonio Banderas was even harder to locate when it came to any promotion of the film. And after making sure every radio listener heard, "The Music of My Heart," even the inconspicuously conspicuous Estefans forgot to drop the hint that they contributed to the film's lushly romantic score.

The fact that this was not a perfect movie didn't prevent it from being an excellent one. I think the film's real problem was that it couldn't quite fit into the typical Hollywood hype machine that has crowned more inferior material with non-stop publicity and gratuitously "glowing" reviews. It could also be due to the fact that the plot, "not a love-story, but a story about love," didn't match the small space many viewers have reserved in their hearts for Romance and Drama - just not both!

Anyone who takes the time to TRULY WATCH THIS MOVIE will find that they cannot walk away from loving it. Banderas and Jolie succeed in being both glamorous and gritty. Antonio Banderas is one of the most beguiling actors in contemporary cinema (believe it or not). I am always amazed by the vast artistic depth that lays beneath the stereotypical Latin-lover super-bronzed matinée-idol exterior that he has been assigned to. Banderas' talents, like this movie, are grossly underrated and marginally explored. His every motion gives Vargas the pitch-perfect blend of simplicity and passion. Banderas' portrayal makes it hard not to hurt when Vargas hurts or trust when he trusts. This makes it easy to see why the naive Vargas and the lethal Julia/Bonnie are integrally compatible.

Wacko Jacko antics aside, Jolie, in all her un-Gwynnethness, is a site to have and behold. As the mysterious Julia, she is one mail-order bride who can both sell her body and steal a man's soul. Jolie succeeds in revealing every aspect of Bonnie's internal struggle to achieve personal authenticity while accepting a once-in-a-lifetime chance at true intimacy.

In many ways, the film is about humankind's universal need to be, "who we truly are" as well as the long, winding and often treacherous road toward love's salvation (closely examine the play Julia & Vargas went to see). The movie's many twists and turns represent the bloody sacrifices/transgressions that often mark the way. This was constantly echoed through a script which foreshadowed the story's theme (in a manner both poetic and hypnotic). Equally intoxicating were the use of nontraditional cinematography and sound techniques. They perfectly complemented the period-heavy scenery and costume. All these elements melded to create a picture that was at once abundantly sensual, visually stunning and emotionally sensitive - with an excellent ending!

Oh, and as for the much talked about "skin scenes". I thought they were well done. Gratuitous, yes. Gratifying - definitely! If you've got it, flaunt it. Banderas and Jolie absolutely have it, and then-some!


It is unfortunate that American audiences appear to want three things in a film: action, action and more action. Original Sin is a tale of emotion. With beautiful cinematography, wonderful costumery, the plot is rivalled only by Hitchock's Vertigo.

Set in Cuba in the late 19th Century, the story revolves around a man, named Luis Vargas, played by Antonio Bandaras, and the mail-order bride, with whom he falls in love. Vargas, who at the start of the film is marrying for convenience alone, because of his business, finds himself emotionally capsized by the sumptuous Julia Russell, played to the hilt by the fulsome-lipped Angelina Jolie. But when Vargas's new bride suddenly disappears, the businessman discovers that his life is now totally based in her.

Let us go back to Vertigo, the obvious source of this film. In it, Scotty Ferguson, played by James Stewart, is obsessed with Madeleine Elster, played by Kim Novak. When Scotty witnesses Madeleine plummet to her death, his world takes a dismal tern, until he meets Judy Barton, her physical twin. The thing is that Madeleine and Judy are one and the same. Here was Hitchcock's irony of the illusion of Madeleine falling to her death actually gives rise to the demise of Scotty's soul.

In Original Sin, Angelina Jolie plays Eve to Thomas Jane's serpent. Antonio Bandaras is poor Adam, with only one woman in all of the world for him. There is even Lillith, all too quickly dispatched. But forbidden fruit, once swallowed, the loss of Paradise is soon to appear. From my point of view, this is a must see film with intelligence, symbolism and beauty.


Original Sin slipped under the radar and in fact tanked at the box office back in the summer of 2001 despite the fact that it starred Angelina Jolie at the peak of her fame. The movie itself is not bad at all. There are surprises a plenty which of course I won't reveal. Since the expected doesn't occur that provides plenty of incentive to follow the story through to the end. Since the movie is an erotic thriller there are of course... erotic scenes! Ms. Jolie is definitely an attractive woman by conventional standards! It goes without saying that her smoldering looks keep the viewer fixated on her character, Julia. Banderas fans should note that his chemistry with a female costar hasn't been this good since his hookup with Catherine Zeta-Jones in Zorro. Thomas Jane, whose other work I am not familiar with, is also excellent in his role. Very good entertainment, 7/10.


The film's plot, script, and acting are only average, but the film is buoyed by some sizzling chemistry between Jolie and Banderas. Their sex scenes are extremely memorable, so make sure you get an un-edited version (unrated).

Banderas plays a wealthy Cuban coffee farmer whose dedication to his trade has thus-far distracted him from the important business of finding a good wife. Using a matchmaker, he agrees to marry a woman from Connecticuit. He has been dishonest, however, in describing himself as a man of only average means. Banderas admits his dishonesty to his new wife (Jolie). However, it soon becomes clear that there is more to her than meets the eye, as well. Soon Banderas becomes so obsessed with Jolie that her lies destroy his entire life. He is well aware of what is happening every step of the way, but he doesn't care.

So, this is an interesting movie for a few reasons. As stated above, the sex scenes are among the best ever filmed. It is also novel to see a film about a man who is actually obsessed about his own wife. I personally could identify with Banderas in his willingness to give up everything for woman he knows he cannot trust. Heck, it happens to the best of us.


I rented the unrated version because of - I admit it - the sex scene. What a letdown! As I watched, I kept thinking: "aren't they supposed to be in love?" because they sure didn't act like it. There was no romance, no nothing. Like two wild animals. It left me cold.

The costumes were as yummy as the sets were fake. The leads were badly underwritten. Banderas nails Luis's little-boy innocence, Jolie nails Bonnie's ice-cold cunning, but I didn't care about either of them, nor did I believe that he would willingly ruin himself for her. That he winds up taking Billy's place was beyond belief!

And I have a silly question: how did Billy find out Luis was actually loaded if poor Ms. Russell thought he was just a humble clerk at a coffee company?


Unfortunately I saw this marvelous film on TV last night-unfortunate because it was on the small TV screen and not a large movie screen. I admit it-I am totally taken by period pieces whose setting is somewhere in Latin America and if those movies have good sets and/or locations then I am smitten. Original Sin, set in Cuba and filmed in Mexico had the visuals down perfect-throw in the acting of Jolie and Banderas and you have a visual feast.

The book/script were fabulous vehicles for the acting of the majors as well as a framework that works beautifully for the intrigues that pepper this film. This script should keep viewers interested throughout and I will definitely be renting this film so that I can savour it without interminable commercials. I want to wallow in the beauty of the images and settings at least one more time.

Any viewer who likes settings and images from slightly earlier times owes it to themselves to look for Original Sin in their local rental shop because it is a wonderful film that seemed to slip by the reviewers when it was released.


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** I'm trying to remember a worse movie that I've seen....can't do it. Maybe it'll come to me before I finish this review. Let's see, how to begin: A rich, handsome, outgoing Cuban businessman(Banderas) intentionally decides to screw up his life. Why?? Blank-out. No answer. The Plan: he decides that a bad marriage will be his downfall. Okay, but how does one intentionally design a marriage to be so bad as to destroy oneself financially, emotionally, spiritually.

**********MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD***********************

Since the antihero is handsome, rich, and outgoing he could easily marry one of any number of women, most of whom would jump at the chance. Many of these theoretical matches might possibly work out. No, no...there's got to be a worse way. I know: the man must marry a complete stranger found via a newspaper ad placed in a foreign country. That's it. And to lessen the probability that she is compatible with the man, the woman must arrive in the man's country no more than 3 hours before the wedding takes place. The man and woman must know nothing about one another except the lies they've exchanged with each other in establishing contact via the mail.

Okay, now here's the shocker. Are you ready for this. Hold on to your seat. Despite these elaborate plans to undermine the marriage from the start, the marriage does not in fact work out and the man is destroyed financially, emotionally and spiritually. What I have just related is the precise opening premise this movie expects you swallow in order to grab your attention for the movie's remainder. If it sounds implausible to the point of imbecility, well, that is not my fault.

To be fair, although this movie in no way deserves it, the woman he marries is a con artist(Jolie) who has helped kill the actual intended bride and assumed her identity. But that absolutely doesn't matter, because it may just as well have been the con artist who answered the man's marriage ad as any other woman.

I really can't discuss this movie much further...the level of irritation Original Sin caused me makes it out of the question. Let me just say that the account I've related so far is not the most implausible element in the movie. For example, let's assume for the sake of argument that you are a psychopath. Somebody tells you they love you a total of 999 times. But you are a psychopath and it has no effect. So you decide to poison the person who loves you. Hey, it's what psychopaths do. Somehow the person finds out you've poisoned their drink and they tell you. Right before the person drinks the poison they tell you for the 1000th time that they love you. They knowingly begin to drink the poison. Suddenly, the scales of psychopathology fall from your eyes and you see everything in a different light. You spring to your feet with all the good-hearted innocence that a recently cured criminally insane person can muster and try to knock the poisoned drink from their hands.

Here are the crucial questions: Do you find this plausible? Possible? Psychologically realistic? If so, let me state in the strongest possible terms: This movie was made for you.

Hey, I just had a revelation. I just remembered a worse movie I saw: Ed Wood's Love Feast, aka Pretty Models All In a Row. I knew I could do it!!


Those who have not seen Fred Durst in action need to see this excellent movie under his direction. The movie is so moving and Fred has perfected every scene. The actors and crew acquired a great respect for Fred's hard work on this film.

The talent performed by the wonderful actors in this movie will make each a household name. I was blown away at their ability to captivate the audience and hold everyone's attention to the end of the movie.

People laughed, cried, and gasped during the premier and I didn't see anyone go for refreshments during the film. That should tell everyone how exciting it was! Thank you for allowing me to express my views on this premier. If you haven't seen it, write into your movie theaters and demand it be shown. It is worth it!


This anniversary special is quite interesting as it features excellent performances from all involved. The natural chemistry of Patrick Troughton and Nicholas Courtney for instance is one of the truly shining elements of this production. Also Richard Hurdnall does a remarkably good and under rated version of the 1st Doctor. It is most interesting to see the 1st Doctor paired up with Tegan as they both have intense egos which work brilliantly in tandem. Meanwhile we have the familiar couplings of the 3rd Doctor and Sarah Jane along with just strange choices - Turlough and Susan. This adventures captures the spirit of Doctor Who at it's finest, and is quite well written, acted, and executed for an anniversary special!


November 1983 marked the 20th anniversary of DOCTOR WHO and I remember the media coverage given to the event . Scotland's national newspaper had its centre pages dedicated to the history of the show and Britains best selling TV guide Radio Times had a front page cover and a multiple page feature on the show . There was even a special anniversary magazine from the Radio Times dedicated to the programme . But it was this one off special that really got the fans excited

The plot centres around someone capturing the different incarnations of the Doctor and holding them hostage in the dark zone of Gallifrey . Okay it's hardly a mind blowing premise and just sets up the story whose main function is to reunite as many Doctors and companions as possible and maybe the story is too cluttered with companion cameos for the story to work successfully , but at least we get to see some old villains like a Dalek and a Yeti and the Cybermen take centre stage in this monster mash

As entertainment for both fans and casual viewers it works very well and is one of the better stories from the early 1980s . There are one or two bits that don't work like Sarah falling down a " mountain " and Susan twisting her ankle but Patrick Troughton's performance alone makes this worth watching


It would have been more fun if they could have gotten Tom Baker instead of just using a couple clips of him, but it was a very fun adventure. It also gave me exposure to some of the other Doctors that I had never seen before.


The Five Doctors has a lot to live up to in its 90-odd minutes of air-time, and it succeeds in part. After all, no-one should really expect such a short program to truly represent a series that was - at the time of filming - 20 years old. There were probably many ways the show could have been made, but in the end, its writer chose a very straightforward tale which tries to cram as many Doctors, companions, concepts, monsters and enemies into the same story and, like I said earlier, it succeeds in part. It's great to see all the old Doctors, for example (even if the first Doctor was dead and is played here by a lookalike and the fourth Doctor rather childishly didn't want to be in the show, so is featured via old, unused TV footage), but it's still a bit cheesy to have simply SO MUCH Doctor Who crammed into one show. Sure, it's better than the 10th anniversary story "The Three Doctors," but it's definitely not as good as the latter story, "The Two Doctors," made a few years after this, and which I recommend wholeheartedly.


Anyone who doesn't think that 'The Five Doctors' doesn't have a plot, may reconsider after reading this.

The Doctors are brought together by the Renegade Timelord, President Berusa of Gallifrey, in an evil plan to become immortal. They are all seized by him and end up on their old planet Galifrey. Of course they are all still trying to work out why they have been brought here, as there is no indication why but they figure it must have something to do with Rassilons tomb, which lies in the tower. In turn, each doctor has to face some of their most fearsome foes and dangers, in an area called the Death Zone, to reach the tower of Rassilon, where the the ring for immortality is kept. The renegade time lord, Berusa, controls the mind of the fifth doctor, when he works out that Berusa is up to something, in attempt to gain immortality, so that he can be the Lord President of Gallifrey forever. He had sent the Doctors to the Death Zone on Gallifrey to defeat the enemies and dangers that lay before the tower. Berusa then tries to use the Doctor as a servant, in a bid for immortality. However little does Berusa know that immortality is a trap itself, as the First Doctor works out from an inscription in the tomb. This lets Berusa finally get what he wants, to find out he gets set in stone forever. All the doctors are then set free, however the fifth doctor is informed that he is now declared Lord President of Gallifrey but he says to the Chanellor of Gallifrey, to take charge until he returns, which is the beginning of the doctor going on the run from his own people. Which is how it all started, as he states at the end.

If thats not a plot, I don't know what is!


This is Probably the best Dr.who I've seen ever! Peter moffatt does an excellent job at directing this. The Special effects an action sequences are top notch. This is probably the only Dr.who that doesn't have effect errors. And I was so pleased to see sarah and the brigadier! those 2 really do add a lil spice to the Dr.whos (But why on Earth is the Brig wearing fur? He didn't seem like much of a fur wearing type 2 me.(Maybe it was to attract the yeti in the cave for mating)). And of course there's the Cybermen, which are of course my al time fav aliens frm who. The Cyber Massacre sequence has got to be the best bit of the whole film. Although how the robot can fit all those arrows in itself is beyond me (works well none the less). This Dr. who pretty much has it all Comedy, Action and there were even bits that gave me the willies (i.e. the old looking companion phantoms). And lets not forget the Cyber Vomit!


Someone at the BBC came up with the idea that they should make a programme featuring all five incarnations of the Doctor. A meeting was held, and it was decided that the programme should be made. There were a few problems. Tom Baker didn't want to know, and William Hartnell had gone to that great television studio in the sky. But with a little old footage and substituting Richard Hurndall for Hartnell, the problems were ironed out. And since Anthony Ainley was already doing for Roger Delgado what Richard Hurndall was doing for William Hartnell, there was no problem with The Master.

Some old companions turn up too. These include Fraser Hines and Wendy Padbury; and a mature trench-coated Carole Ann Ford gets to shriek: "Grandfather! Grandfather!" like only she can.

Of course all your favourite monsters turn up just to muddy up the reunion a bit, and the story is passable, considering the task set for the scriptwriters.

The programme was made as a celebration of nostalgia. It does its job quite well. but as an exciting film, I am afraid it falls flat.

Still it was nice to see some old faces, and I thought that Richard Hurndall was a good sub for Hartnell.


Argentina, like some countries in the industrialized world, is being invaded by illegal immigrants from neighboring countries, mainly, Paraguay and Bolivia, where the poorly paid workers believe in going away in search of badly needed money to feed the family they left behind. These poor, unskilled workers are in for a big surprise: the people of the countries they immigrate to, don't want them! Never mind they only take the work that no one else wants to do.

The story of Freddy, a Bolivian, is probably universal. As he arrives in Buenos Aires, he finds work in the small restaurant owned by Enrique, who promises to pay Freddy fifteen pesos a day, which is not even five dollars! With that, Freddy has to live and try to save to send home to his wife and children in La Paz. Freddy is expected to work from 7 in the morning until late at night. He is basically the only employee in the place, where he is a cook, tends bar, and does everything the boss, Enrique expects him to do. The other employee, Rosa, is from Paraguay.

At the bar, a series of low-life individuals gather to socialize, watch television, as they use the place as their own club. Oso, the unemployed taxi driver is the first one to show his own prejudice against Freddy, who has not been disrespectful to him. Oso complains about how the illegals are taking over. He knows it well because, he, himself, is from Uruguay and has found a home in Buenos Aires. Oso will be instrumental in what happens to Freddy at the conclusion of the story.

After his first day in the restaurant, we follow Freddy as he roams the streets of the neighborhood next to the place he works. He is stopped by two policemen who not only are rude to him, but in their eyes, he is guilty of something they haven't decided about. Freddy ends the night in a lonely bistro where he orders coffee and falls asleep. Rosa, the kind waitress, takes pity on him the following night and takes him to the hotel where she has a room. Before that, they have stopped at a club that caters to Bolivians, and Freddy, who has drunk a bit too much, makes a pass at Rosa.

Adrian Caetano, the director, also co-wrote the screen play with Romina Lafranchini. "Bolivia" packs a lot in only 75 minutes of screen time. Mr. Caetano plays with our emotions in the way he presents a good man who is willing to work, yet, circumstances beyond his control make him the butt of the hatred people feel about the poor immigrant who is only doing a minimal job to survive. Mr. Caetano, uses the gritty black and white cinematography of Julian Apezteguia to surprising results.

Freddy Flores is seen as the Bolivian man trying to eke out a living for himself and his family. Mr. Flores is a natural, as we never feel he, or for that matter, the rest of the cast, acting. Rosa Sanches is perfect as the stoic waitress who never tells us anything about herself. Enrique Laporace makes an excellent contribution as the owner of the restaurant. Oscar Bertea plays the brutish Oso.

"Bolivia" is a small film, but it holds our attention because of what director Adrian Caetano has done with the story about human beings that roam the globe in search of a meager salary, for them and their families, only to get the scorn from the people that benefit from their labor.


The life of illegal immigrants, in Buenos Aires or in another place in the world, is a black & white life, the colors are off. For telling the routine of a Bolivian cook, alone, sleeping in a bar, with his wife and children living 1500 miles away, disturbed everyday by police asking for his papers, white and black are enough. You won't find here famous actors or great special effects. Almost the whole movie occurs in a cheap neighbourhood bar. But the story is universal, it could be a Turkey in Munich, a Tunisian in Marsella or a Mexican in Los Angeles.

Hector Kesselman, Buenos Aires, Argentina


Bolivia is filmed entirely in black and white, contains almost no score, and 90% of it takes place in the same setting - a quaint, run-down café frequented by Argentinian regulars.

It sounds slow but captivates for the entirety of its short duration. The movie follows an illegal immigrant, Freddy, who is trying to make his way in the country as he struggles to deal with intolerant locals. He supports a family back home and wants them to join him in Buenos Aires when he saves up enough money.

The film delivers a powerful message about xenophobia and poverty in South America in the modern era. Despite its short length, it is one of my favorite foreign films to date.


This film sums up what's good about small cinema. They spend millions of dollars on rubbish movies and then this classic is produced on a shoestring. I thought the use of the football and boxing footage worked well, and overall it is a fantastic film from start to finish. Having just watched Crash, it is interesting to contrast the clichéd approach to racial tension in that film to the delicate yet ultimately more powerful way this film deals with the same theme. What a shame that, judging by the lack of response to this film, not very many people have seen it. Can anyone recommend films of this type that might be worth watching.


In a small bar/restaurant, at a corner in Buenos Aires Argentina, a Bolivian immigrant finds a job as a cook. His experiences and those of the locals in the bar are used by the director to tell us a story about life of working class people in nowaday Argentina. The film is almost entirely shot in the bar. The scenery, discussions in the bar, and development of the drama have a Jarmusch like quality.

The film won the critics-price in the International Film Festival Rotterdam. Highly recommended!


There are movies that shows you how hard can life be for people considered different or out of place. We know that Adrian Caetano is quite an expert in such films. "Bolivia" is not an exception. Really good, makes you think about facts that seems quite normal in our countries.In Argentina the Bolivian or Paraguayan people are generally unwanted immigrants, as Argentinians are unwanted in other places like USA, Italy or Spain. This movie shows clearly how can individual tragedies be part of social discrimination. Considered as "Nuevo Cine Argentino", Caetano's filmography should be watched carefully, being a good director that tells simple but deep stories.


Bolivia (2001) This is the first feature-length film from director Israel Adrian Caetano. It was an Argentinean & Dutch Production. Filmed in black & white & on a low budget the film was shot 3 days a week over a period of three years. Kind of a neo-realism slice of life film the mostly plot-free film is confined to a café-bar in the lower-middle class Buenos Aires suburb of Villa Crespo, with few trips outside. It tells the story of Freddy (Freddy Flores), a Bolivian with a gentle disposition, who, after Americans burn down the coca fields where he is employed, loses his job. With little work opportunities in Bolivia, he leaves his wife & three daughters & travels to Argentina to search for employment as an undocumented worker. He hopes to make money & later return to his family. He lands a job as a grill cook in a seedy Villa Crespo café where the owner (Enrique Liporace) is happy to skirt Argentinean immigrant laws in order to secure cheap labor. It is in this café that Freddy meets the characters who affect his life: Rosa (Rosa Sanchez), a waitress of Paraguayan/Argentine descent, & an outsider by virtue of her mixed heritage; Hector (Hector Anglada), a traveling salesman from the province of Córdoba who's gay; a Porteno taxi driver (Oscar Bertea), & one of the driver's buddies. Freddy also has to deal with various Argentine café patrons who view all Paraguayans & Bolivians with disdain due to their ethnicity. The film gives us a realistic portrayal of racism immigrant labor & prejudices in Argentina. Cateano used professional & non professional actors. Freddy Flores was a local non professional. Other reviewers state this film is for art film students only. I disagree. All interested in foreign film & film in South America & Argentina will like this film. It very realistic & I enjoyed it. This short 75 minute film about poverty, intolerance, violence, & despair in contemporary Argentina is powerful & I recommend it. This is a universal story. 3 or 4 stars.


Just watched this film and it is not an objective representation of life in Buenos Aires. It is clearly subjective and 100% racist. Check out the opening soccer sequence with its skewed perspective and you get the picture.

In general terms, it's all low grade B&W mud just like this poor excuse of a film. From the beginning till the end... the script and filmmaker's POV perpetuates separation between countries and cultures.

Ultimately, what makes this story thematically xenophobic is that the Bolivian protagonist is murdered with no accountability, thus the filmmaker's message is... that's it's okay to be a racist.

How would the Director like it if we made a movie about crack whores from Montevideo working in Buenos Aires and called it... URUGUAY?


plot=0 shooting=0 script=1 direction=5 photography=nil acting=pretty poor

This movie could have been entirely shot with a personal VCR. The script could have been written by an average Argentinian on a piece of paper, nothing original. Perhaps it causes a certain effect on people outside Argentina, but I can compare it with below-mediocre locally oriented films such as "The Firm" or "Meantime" from the UK. Sorry, this film does not do for me, there is no art behind this socially motivated short story. In the same line of socially motivated films you'll find finer examples on Argentine cinema: "Buenos Aires, Viceversa" or "El Polaquito". I have to believe this film was more an experiment than a full scale movie.


Hi, My name is Chani and I was at the movie "Mendy" last night.

I sat in the theater for a while after the credits rolled and then remained in a quiet space for some time in the car.

My friend asked me"Chani, What are you thinking..." To which I responded "I am not thinking, I am just feeling."

At that moment I remembered the part in the film where Bianca asks Mendy not to think only to feel and his total perplexed look. He had no idea what she was asking from him, he had never experienced that.

I was able to see some progress in my journey, reflecting that I was in a space where I could JUST FEEL and NOT THINK!!! Thank you for that.

The reality: I have watched many movies based on the Jewish Community that I come from, and yet there are always things (sometimes even only one thing) that could never have taken place.. something quiet not kosher. This movie IS ALL TRUE. Has happened to different people at different times. I know them, I AM ONE OF THEM.

I love the fact that it did not have a definite goal or point. It was a story of the Journey.. the hardship we face.. the reality that we have so few choices... the pain we take in becoming healthy individuals in a society that is so foreign from us, yet within miles of our life.

How many of us turn out to be Yanky, drunk, high and running constantly to the unknown, doing the illegal and finding no purpose. How even when we try to make love, we have no words for it. We do not know how to say it, to appreciate its beauty. We make those we treasure run from us due to our ignorance, our lack of social etiquette.

How very few of us find inner peace, inner joy and spirituality among the outside world.

How no matter how far we run, we carry in our bags our Tefillin, and in the most unexpected moments take them out and pray.


This movie is an accurate portrayal of the hardships that a young man faces. He leaves his community in which he was raised. The problem arises due to the limitations the community. In the community he does not learn how to read, write or speak English, nor is he given any skills that will enable him to make it in the outside world.

Mendy is a young man who searches We watch him transform and find his peace.

The ending is profound. We are left wondering about his life. But most important we are left hoping that throughout his journeys he will continue to remain true to himself.


Mendy brought me in contact with a culture I knew very little about in a very modern way. Instead of following the typical introduction of a people through their rituals, the film actually deconstructs this culture via its main character. This unusual journey of a Hassidic Jew on the path of Western hedonism not only brings to light the sectarianism of such drastic religions, it also point the finger at the lack of spirituality (not religiosity) in the United States. By clashing these two worlds, Mr. Vardy has discovered what we could expect to be a controversial explosion. But far from simply contenting himself with the shock factor, the director finds the root of beautiful emotions, sincerity, loneliness, and therefore serves to us a palette of characters so sincere and touching that one cannot help but be carried into the story. Ivan Sandomire's acting is surprisingly dead-on for a newcomer and not once did I question the sincerity of his actions. Adam Vardy has tackled a difficult subject matter with tact and the result is worthy of the best festivals.


Having experienced some of the same issues as Mendy, I can tell you that this movie is very well done. It has a great script, and the actor who portrays Mendy is superb. Truly, some of the best acting I've ever seen. Also, too many movies portraying Jews look totally fake. This one is the closest to real that I've seen. This movie made me laugh and cry, and stirred my emotions better than a kitchen aid stirs a batter. It was so powerful that I can't bring myself to see it again. But I'm sure glad I watched it once. I would recommend it to anyone, no matter what your background is. It's a great movie that almost everyone can relate to on some level.


I'm sorry guys, but this movie is bad.

Ivan Sandomire's performance, the music, and some externals (including the B&W still pictures) are good, but not strong enough to save the film.

I found the screenplay particularly unconvincing and the direction quite uninspired. The overall result looks more like a graduation project than a proper production.

It may be enriching for those struggling with emancipation from Hassidic Jews communities, but it fails to be compelling to a broader audience. As it talks about a young man in search for understanding, identity, and love, it could be much better.

I also found the representation of Brazilian culture, of which I know a thing or two, outrageously inaccurate and small-minded. It surprised me that it got best actress and best picture award in São Paulo International Film Festival (which is misspelled in the DVD cover as "Sao Paolo"). I went to the festival website archives (www.mostra.org) and found no confirmation. Perhaps they are referring to another festival or to nominations, which I would consider it misleading.

In anyway, for a really good movie showing the interaction of Jews and Brazilian culture, check "the year my parents went on vacation" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0857355/).

I hope this review helps.


It is a fact: There are not many good or even authentic Yiddish movies. The fake-Eastern European movies that Joseph Grünberg alias "Jo Green" had made with his troop that he more or less evacuated form Galizia, Wolhynia, Bessarabia and Podolia approximately five minutes before the first NS-pogroms started in the 30ies, are good but not authentic. However, the cast which is in this movie, from "Yidl Mitn Fidl" over "A Brifle Fun Mamele" until the "Purimshpiler" are highlights and will stay in the hearts of all those who love the meanwhile dead Stedtl and the language of Sholem Alejchem, Mendele Mojcher Sfurim and Jitzchok Lajb Perez.

After, we have, besides documentaries about Klezmer and other not very intellectual products ("A Tickle in the Heart" with the Epstein brethren) Norman Jewison's version of Alejchem's "Tewje, Der Milkener" (Anatevka; The Fiddler on the Roof). Although the movie is beloved all over the world and even decorated with an Oscar, the choice of Topol for Tewje is a bare horror. Topol is not Tewje, the movie is completely worthless, the acting constantly bad and the whole movie non-authentic. About the singing: Whoever had the luck (as the sub-signed did) to hear Michael Glücksmann as Tewje, will forget everything else quickly.

Between the miserable Jewison-Tewje and the new millennium, there is one single highlight: the almost completely unknown "Bruxelles-Transit", directed by Sami Szlingerbaum with the shining planets Helene Lapiower and Boris Lehmann in the main roles. And now, since 2003, we have Adam Vardy's "Mendy", a masterpiece of authenticity, with exactly the right balance of hidden critique and irony, illusion and satire, a real "Laughing under Tears", as Dr. Salcia Landmann had characterized the work of Sholem-Alejchem. The whole crew plays formidably - namely: adequately - whoever has a bit of an idea what happened with the grand ... grand children of the great Eastern Eruopean Yiddish speaking émigrés since World War I, recognizes that Vardy's portrait is that of a linguistic connoisseur and a competent social insider. No other people on the world has contributed more to both metaphysics of life and humor as the Yiddish speaking Jews have. That certain representatives of Israel do not like that and have done everything to suppress this movie in the past 6 years, is a shame, but fits perfectly into their Zionist-Fascist world-view.


This was a surprisingly great movie about a young Hasidic man's journey from an insular religious Brooklyn community to the modern, secular world of Manhattan. The film was both hilarious and profound, philosophical and emotional. Mendy's story will ring true for anyone brought up in a traditional community who tried to find their place in the chaos of modern society. As an Orthodox Jew, I found the story to be extremely realistic. In particular, Orthodox Jews will be able to understand the psychological enormity of the taboos that Mendy breaks - starting with cutting his peyos (sidelocks), then tasting his first cheeseburger, and having sex with a non-Jew. But ultimately it seems that Mendy finds some kind of peace with his new non-Orthodox lifestyle, despite having been brought up with almost no skills with which to function in American society. The final image of the movie is striking, a reaffirmation of Mendy's religious roots despite his abandonment of the Hasidic way of life. Great work by the writer/director Adam Vardy, and wonderful acting. Hopefully this movie will get the wider release it most definitely deserves.


This film was bad enough to get me to spend my time writing this review.

It actually started out as a big promise. Finding this movie, I thought it would be a nice addition to contemporary Jewish cinema with films like the excellent "the believer". However I was very very wrong.

This is a bad film in every sense of the word bad. 1. very bad acting (the guy's friend was so obnoxious, I couldn't stand to watch him) 2. very shallow and uninspired script (Half of the script is just stupid rambling about f-cking, supposed to signify lecherous new york life) 3. mediocre movie making

This really looks and feels like a student film, and a pretty bad one. The only thing this guys got right is the DVD box which is pretty cool.

For me as someone interested in the line between religious Judaism and secular Jews, this film was a major disappointment and embarrassment. It is filled with the worst kind of stereotypes about orthodox Jews and about secular new-yorkers. Some parts got me so disgusted I could hardly watch it.

It wouldn't have made me so angry, if it weren't that this film even won awards in different film festivals like the San Paolo film festival, Bendfilm festival and Brooklyn festival. How on earth can that be??? I can't believe they didn't find better films to give awards to. Probably the politics of cinema played some parts here.

Anyway, spare your time. And if you wish to see a decent movie about a displaced Jew, go watch "the believer" or even "the chosen", but please not this one.

1/10


It's a little funny, the Yiddish makes it interesting, but a lot of silly comments and it sounds like bitter depressed person with a lot of issues wrote it up, very very bad ending, not a real ending to the movie.

It's very fake and not the real life in the Hasidic community, boys are smarter then this boy sounds, he knows how to take a train and get around the city and goes to clubs but cant buy himself a pair of jeans.

If you are not an orthodox Jew you will hate this movie, if you are an orthodox Jew you will find it a little funny and very stupid The Yiddish speaking sounds very annoying it sound more like Russian Jews with bad Yiddish.

The education in the yeshivas from this movie sounds like these boys are told to study religion all day long I wonder how and why you see young Jewish boys who are very successful in business without any education


More nonsense from pap-Maestro director Kevin Sullivan. Another Cordon Bleu of racially motivated comedy designed to suck the dollars from a dumbed-down middle America. The cliché of the Oedipally challenged father refusing to relinquish his jilted grip on his daughter is far from a stranger to our screens. A successful director's job these days seems simply to be that of taking an already burned out concept, removing all intelligible plot moments, merging in a few racially 'hip' moments and then repeat until they have enough money to breed and make more of these sordid offerings. The 'comdedic' castration scene alone should be enough to silence this director's career forever. Nonetheless in addition the scene when the delusional father starts physically befouling the prospective stud's mattress in an attempt to quite literally dirty him in his fiancée's eyes is perhaps one of the lowest points of cinema in the last hundred years. A degrading attempt at comedy, at best a cringing wallet filler for the director. All I can say is that I hope his daughter turns into a transsexual mud-wrestler and elopes with an incontinent zebra.


I found "Guess Who" to be absolutely delighful. Even though there are a lot of differences between "Guess Who" and "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner", I still see a resemblance. I also think that Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy would have enjoyed it. Bernie Mac and Ashton Kutcher did a wonderful job. They seem to work well with each other.

As far as the movie is concerned, I found nothing racial in it, except for the scene at the dinner table when Simon makes some racial jokes, but remember it was only a movie. Yes, the jokes weren't necessary but they were part of the script and movie, and I think no one should have gotten offended because it was just a movie.

As far Bernie Mac's character and Ashton Kutcher's characters getting off to a slow start, sometimes that happens between two characters. Eventually you see them start a friendship near the middle of the movie.

Even though there were some serious things happening in the movie, basically the movie was very funny. A perfect example is when Bernie Mac's character doesn't believe Ashton Kutcher's character about him knowing about the racing circuit and tests him by racing him in a go-cart, I found it extremely funny when they start to race each other and try to beat each other and land up tearing through the hedges and getting stopped by a police officer. Another funny example is when Ashton Kutcher's character teaches Bernie Mac's character the tango and later on Bernie Mac's character denies to his wife that he was taught the tango by Ashton Kutcher's character.

This movie had a great cast. Zoe Saldan is extremely great in this movie and so is Judith Boot, as is Ashton Kutcher and Bernie Mac.

I basically found nothing offensive about the movie except the scene at the dinner table. But like I said before the movie was absolutely delightful and very funny


Even though the movie is corny, it still sends a message that love will prevail. Family means everything and without their support, love and consideration, life will be harder. Just knowing that your family loves you and what you love, makes facing the world that much easier.

I compare this to My Big Fat Greek Wedding in cultural attributes. There is a world out there of give and take and for the most part, I feel people have forgotten that. These two movies show that consideration and the almighty give and take are important to long-lasting relationships in any culture, religion and family.

I recommend watching this movie with an open mind, hoping to laugh, love, cry and remember how to have a healthy relationship and I hope this inspires you to have consideration for others in your world.


To be confessional, I didn't have the bar set high for this recent installment of "the comical bridges of the races" Bernie Mac-Ashton Kutcher product. Surprised as I was, "Guess Who" very much surpassed those expectations and worked throughly well as a hilarious comedy that attacks cultural differences with an irreverent, raunchy, and jovial punch. Simply put, here is a film that could have excelled with any number of premises, given the inimitable charisma and comic wit of Bernie Mac, who flat out carries the show on his own piercing, sarcastic own. Ashton Kutcher works well with what he is given, yet his character comes across as a trite, clumsy bumpkin to Mac's ferocious flare, and is merely the butt of every comedic catastrophe, rather than a multi-dimensional character who can hold a candle to thwarting his own preordained chagrin. Kutcher gets involved with "his other half", is initially terrified at meeting her father (he's better with moms), and all hilarity ensues when he and "the father with the bulging eyes and capricious temperament" get uncomfortably and frolically acquainted with one another, eventually realizing that maybe this relationship will require some self-depreciation and frenzy to eventually be accepted. To be certain, much of the comedy adheres to the "racial tension" theme, and there is of course plenty of the proverbial cultural clash that abounds- consummating with, you guessed it, a torrential family dinner scene in which Kutcher's "empowerment" eventually gets the best of him, but "Guess Who" isn't content to strictly deplore racial boundaries, as it also works effectively as a howlingly funny "meet the father from hell" scenario, succeeding solely on Mac's uncannily nimble charisma and wit, who has an aura about him that would make any future son-in-law shrink to his skin, or to a greater extent, be obliged to sleep and "spoon" with the man! Of course, while this is consistently amusing and funny, what we're mostly left with toward the end are the platitudes of mawkish sentimentality, of "rekindling the love we lost" that seem to always hobble the comedy of even the most outrageous of premises, as if the premise has been exhausted enough and becomes more of an "endearing love story" than a convivial comedy... Why is that? Anyhow, I would solidly recommend "Guess Who" for its cutting, raucous comedy and for Bernie Mac's spunky, fleeting charisma that really gives a convincing element to this otherwise wired premise. The laughing stock might not be constant throughout the film, yet there is just enough humor to enjoy and laugh yourself silly. After all, watching Bernie Mac popping a blood vessel over a basketball game, debasing a man's character for not being avid in sports, or keeping a cautious and close body near Kutcher's "nighttime affairs" is certainly worth the price of admission! *** out of ****


'Guess Who' is a good reflection of the changes in society since the Sydney Portier version was made many decades ago. Ashton Kutcher is an underrated comedic actor, who despite his good looks, can still be quite goofy and amusing. The movie raises good points about reverse racism, people's continuing prejudices and the pressures society puts on 'mixed-race' couples. I think the director and writers found a happy medium that allowed issues to be raised while at the same time keeping the movie light-hearted, funny and entertaining. If you are looking for something meaningful and entertaining at the same time, with a touch of romance and some eye candy, this is the movie for you!


The most insulting thing about this movie is that it purports to be a re-make of the 1967 classic "Guess Whose Coming to Dinner." That movie, starring the late Spencer Tracy in his last role, the late Katherine Hepburn and Sidney Poiter dealt with the issue of race as real people would do. The original was made during a time of racial tensions in this country. Tracy's moving speech at the end of the original 1967 movie brought it all together for me.

Bernie Mac and Ashton Kutcher do not deal with race seriously. This movie is not about social justice like the original. The jokes are not funny. Mac seems too grouchy and Kutcher is not funny. Kutcher's girlfriend and Mac's wife do not seem like real people. This movie has no soul and for a rental it was money poorly spent.


The twin billing of the late Bernie Mac and Ashton Kutcher is rather appealing and the two comic-gifted actors do fairly well. I always think its the mark of a good actor to pull off the consistent lurching that is the hallmark of sentimental romcom. The two of them negotiate the script well.

The problem is that, like so many other examples of the genre, the film demands a statutory smattering of extra set pieces: a dreadful go-kart race and a ridiculous men-share-the-bed running gag let this one down. There's also an unsavoury 'black jokes' sequence which I simply didn't need.

When I wasn't cowering/out making the tea in embarrassment I enjoyed it as it was intended. 4/10


When i saw the cover of this movie i thought it was going to be fun.. Ashton Kutcher,Nicole Sullivan and Bernie Mac..great actors! but my hopes were not met.. Guess who had lots of unoriginal scenes and bad humor.. It was Ashton Kutcher on the worst! it was like he didn't take the comedy job seriously, he was just silly (not in a good way).

the movie puts sometimes a smile in your face,but you will never laugh..NEVER! Me and my friends were more interested by a fly,flying in front of the computer. This is a kind of movie you shouldn't buy or rent!

i hope that i could help you choose..


First of all, I am not a fan of Bernie Mack and certainly not of Ashton Kutcher, but I liked this movie.

While the movie is certainly predictable, it has its humorous moments. Although Bernie Mack plays a little overly protective father, he does not over play it to the point that it is just a ridiculous caricature. Ashton Kuetcher has a good haircut and looks like a nice clean cut male, not the long haired goof-ball we usually see.

My favorite scene was the one at the dinner table. Not to give anything away, there were racist comments and racist jokes, but in good taste and fun. That scene shows that both sides can be racist in their own rights but still enjoy a good joke when it is truly funny.

While not the masterpiece that "Look Who's Coming to Dinner" was, it was a whole lot more fun to watch.

This is you typical formula romantic comedy, but it is heavier on comedy than romance.


It wasn't horrible, don't get me wrong. However, if you are going out to see a good romantic-comedy type movie I would suggest something else. Hitch for example. 'Hitch' is everything this movie is not. It is funny, fast paced, with great chemistry between actors, and a good leading male in Will Smith. 'Guess Who' however was incredibly predictable and slow moving at times. While there were a lot of "funny" parts in the movie, there was nothing in it that I laughed out loud at. The jokes were forced out for the most part, and the actors looked like they were going through the motions. There didn't seem to be much chemistry between the the leading male and female in this. At no point did I feel I was looking at real characters. I just felt I was seeing Bernie Mac playing the role of the father, and Ashton playing the 'boyfriend'. Ashton was silly while trying to be funny, which is his style and personality. But he was unconvincing and awkward while trying to be serious. Ashton is just in over his head with this kind of acting. He was in his element with the show 'Punked', and 'Dude Where's my Car?'.

In short, this is one I would suggest waiting to see on video. If you were thinking of a good evening out, I would suggest Hitch or go with a totally different genre of movie.


This film merges the embarrassed meeting the in-laws thread of comedy with the black vs white culture shock school of thought, and does a decent job of blending them.

There are a lot of laughs together with a subtext about colour not mattering, while at the same time trading on those differences, thus enabling the film to have its cake and eat it.

It's not a classic film and never will be, but the principals all do very well in delivering characters who are believable and convey touchingly the emotional consequences of some of the problems which occur.

Well worth watching.


Well, with no expectations at all, this movie is surprisingly lovable and touching.

Bernie successfully portrays a typical father who overreacts to his daughter's personal life and creates disruptive situations between her and her other half. Ashton's acting is brilliant too, not too much, and acts out the embarrassing emotions well when he went into a black family.

What made me sweating in my eyeballs (believe it or not!) is when such a traditional person realizes his fault and admits them to his wife and Ashton. Sure the interracial stuff has added more fun and contradictions to the plot.

Meet the parents are good, but sure this movie gives you more. 8.5/10.


I really recommend this movie to anyone. I think that Theresa and Simon have a very realistic relationship that I could truly see one of my friends in a relationship like theirs. Like real love, they have their ups and downs, their awkward moments, and their little fights and all those little things that make it a real and believable love and not just a movie love. It's not your typical fantasy life is not really like a chick flick movie. It is a good mix between comedy and the tough stuff. Simon seems to really love Theresa and you can really tell that they are good for each other and compliment each other. I'm kinda a romantic and like the fantasy chick flicks, but this one is probably one of my favorites because the relationships and situations are what love is really about and how it is to want to make that good first impression on your future in-laws. Bernie Mac plays a great dad and reacts like a real father would when meeting his daughter's boyfriend for the first time. One of my favorite lines of his was when Ashton says, "You knew you were going to kick me out a week ago?" and Bernie replies, "Boy, I knew I was going to kick you out 24 years ago when the doctor announced it was a girl." That just seems like something a real father would say. So overall, I love this movie and recommend it to anyone. Don't let the chick flick part turn you away, it's more realistic than most. To me, this movie is not mainly about the race issue, or any other issue other than love and the love of two people wanting to spend the rest of their lives together and trying to work their two worlds into one.


Two kid are in love with each other and like any relationship you have to go through the ups and downs just like everyone else. But the moral of the story is True Love and thats what you see in this movie so everyone stop making such a big deal jeez. I thought Verney mac treated everyone the same he was rude. It was wrong when her grandfather talked about his grandma like that cause i wouldn't let no one talk about my granny i would have to cut them. but anyway i love Ashton hes so funny. and Verney i love him too but since Ashton is more in my age range i like him more he attractive too uh oh i think i have a crush anyway they say i have to write ten line so I'm just killing words. but my point was true love has no shade.


Bernie Mac and Judith Scott appeared to be a bit too young to be the parents of girls in their mid-20's, yet the premise is all too real in the USA and in the Caribbean...

Many black families have a problem with racial jokes yet object to their children being "colour-blind," and marrying outside The Race, but this is a problem swiftly solved by both intendeds letting everyone in their respective families know that they're marrying each other and not the family! Back to the picture, Bernie was funny as the NASCAR loving loans officer and Ashton Kutcher was good as the well-meaning devoted and sappy fiancé.

However, the problems started from the time that Theresa/Zoe Saldana left out that Simon/Kutcher was caucasian...

Some of the stereotyping in the picture is probably parodied as it needs to be made like a dinosaur, extinct and fast - having an anniversary celebration that only one side wants and doing what YOU would like and not really have the other person in mind; the Metrosexual male (I was shocked to see Dante, the Wedding Designer was married, must've been for convenience); black women gathering in a drunken hive to bitch over a man who's done one of them wrong and not answering your mobile for pride's sake... Pride don't keep you warm at night, sugar! Grow up and tell your Mommy too! The hilarious parts involved Bernie getting his pants adjusted, Ashton teaching Bernie how to dance, the Go-Kart race and Ashton's accurate prediction of the rain and Bernie's refusing to use the windshield wipers - His character was best summed up at the hotel, when it was learned he rerserved a room from the time he knew his wife gave birth to baby girls! Yet in the end, when Bernie got what he originally wanted, he discovered it was no longer so as he learned how much Simon/Kutcher really loved his daughter and that Simon indeed had principles even if he didn't play sports...

Opposites attract, plain and simple - Simon is businessman and Theresa is an artist... They have what the other longs to be! Same as the speech that Bernie stole from Ashton to woo back his wife on the day before their 25th Wedding Anniversary.

In the end, for this culture - at any rate, fathers just have to realise they can't marry their daughters (except for Woody Allen) and just grit and bear the fact they will never accept whoever their daughter marries even if the prospective son-in-law develops the cure for AIDS! Better to dislike him and have grandkids with blond dreadlocks and light eyes than not knowing where your daughter is as she eloped and left the country or moved town to avoid seeing or hearing you...


If you have seen "Meet the parents" or any film like that then you know it will remind you of this film. Instead of your father to be being an ex-C.I.A agent he is black and does not like him at all and trusts no one who is white. Until at the end despite being a liar, upsetting his dad and telling a racist joke his noble side shine's through (after having a major argument with his girlfriend) just like meet the parents they make up and get married. Jokes are predictable and not funny, laughed twice through the film (think that was the go-kart race). I would not bother watching this film instead take a trip to the zoo and stare at the monkeys it's far more entertaining.


Guess Who was terrible. I guess I didn't expect it to be much better, having been almost dragged to the theater by some of my friends who seemed to think that the movie would actually be funny.

I usually hate Ashton Kutcher movies but this one was the worst one I have seen. Bernie Mac was just as bad if not worse. It was just another movie to make fun of white people, (think Taxi). The whole movie was filled with jokes and only the tiniest amount of them were actually funny. The plot was so predictable and stupid.

There is only room for a few good romantic comedies this year and this is not one of them.


"Guess Who's Coming to Dinner," released in 1967, examined racial tolerance with a story about a young woman bringing home an African-American male to her parents and requesting marriage to him. It was a groundbreaking feature that was a little trite, but ultimately important.

The new film "Guess Who" takes its name from the original, as well as its central plot point (a woman brings home a man of different race.) However, 38 years after the original, interracial relationships aren't uncommon enough to be a daring subject for the screen. In turn, the producers decided it should be a homogenized racial comedy instead of a social commentary piece.

Boring and frequently unfunny, 'Guess Who' is an uninspired trip in familiar territory. Having much more in common with "Meet the Parents" than the original movie, "Guess Who" takes the unfriendly in-laws approach.

The story unfolds under simple pretenses. New Yorkers Theresa (Zoë Saldaña) and Simon (Ashton Kutcher) have recently decided to get married. They're young, happy and of two different colors. Although they receive foul comments from people about their relationship, they've decided to stick it out. Only one thing is left before they can get married: Simon has to meet Theresa's parents, Percy (Bernie Mac) and Marilyn (Judith Scott).

Theresa decides to bring Simon along to her parents' 25th anniversary party, where they will be renewing their vows. A big problem arises from the fact that Theresa didn't tell her family Simon was white. Her sister and grandfather have their own comments to say about it, but Percy seems the most taken aback.

To make matters worse, Simon has just quit his job as a stockbroker, but in an effort to impress Percy and Marilyn, he pretends as if nothing has happened. This little fib eventually leads to more complications.

You can see where this going. "Guess Who" is startlingly predictable, leaving nothing for the viewer to guess.

The screenplay, credited to David Ronn, Jay Scherick and Peter Tolan, is just too tame to evoke many laughs. It tries to incorporate the comic subtleties of "Meet the Parents," but each joke tries too hard, creating a reverse effect.

Thankfully, Mac, one of the best black comedic actors around, ensures that the movie is not a complete failure. His charismatic presence on the screen adds a few laughs, even when the dialogue is lacking. Although, when he is not on the screen, the film suffers.

In addition, there are a few great moments when Simon and Percy begin to acclimate to each other. The two drink vodka, play indoor football and practice the tango together, creating an unusual bond.

It appears director Kevin Rodney Sullivan ("Barbershop 2") was trying for a "love triumphs over color" film with comedic moments to smooth out the edges. However, it doesn't work as well as it should.

It's not as if the film doesn't try to do something with its subjects of race and in-law acceptance, it just doesn't do enough of it.


GUESS WHO, in my opinion, is a good comedy that will make you laugh, smile, and feel good from start to finish. If you ask me, it was absolutely romantic that Simon (Ashton Kutcher) and Theresa (Zoë Saldaña) were engaged. Also, to me, Percy (Bernie Mac) was an absolute a******! The reason I said that is because she couldn't handle Kevin being engaged to Charlie. However, when Charlie slapped her, I was amazed. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this good romantic comedy that will make you laugh and feel good to anyone who's seen GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER, although I haven't seen that one. You're in for lots of laughter, so go to the video store, rent it or buy it, kick back with a friend, and watch it.


I cried when I thought about all the money that the filmmakers wasted on making this garbage movie.

I cried when I thought about all the money I've wasted watching utterly predictable formulaic movies as this.

I cried when I realized that I live in the greatest country in the world and some foreigner may see this film and think it's representative of American filmmakers' capacity.

I cried when I realized the stars of this movie are still employed.

If this is what Hollywood is producing these days, I'll be crying for a real long time.

Stay away; this movie was horrible.


I was expecting so much from this movie! The trailers on TV were excellent and Bernie Mac is an great comedic actor but about half way thru I was getting so agitated and could not sit still. I rarely walk out of movies but I was close to this one. I think it was ASton Kutcher that made it as bad as it was. Yes, Bernie Mac was relentless in his bullying but Ashton rarely stood up for himself and when he did, he just spoke out of the side of his mouth ....mumbling. It was just painful to watch.

The last 20 minutes of the movie were the best...but it just did not redeem the movie.

I wondered why the theater was empty on a Saturday nite...the movies reviews must have killed it!


I found so many things wrong with this movie, it's hard to know where to start. For one thing, it's not funny. I think I laughed out loud about three times. Even worse, there are many times when you are expecting--make that hoping--that something funny is going to happen, or someone will say something funny--but it doesn't happen. For example, there's the go-carts, a scene that wants to be played for big laughs. What is funny about two men driving go-carts? Nothing. Something MIGHT happen along the way that's funny, but doesn't. They race, they make crazy turns, and they yell loudly. And it seems that when they discovered this wasn't funny, they had to add some slapstick to end the scene. Trouble is, it's so unbelievable that it's painful... and unfunny.

Related to that are scenes and dialog that go on and on without making any contribution to the story or to the exposition of the plot. Like when the sister takes a drink out of the refrigerator, shakes it up and drinks it while her mother makes a face. And then someone starts talking. What is the point of that action? Why did the camera linger on it? Why do we care?

The worst example of this is about 2/3 of the way through, when the two lovers run off into the night and end up telling each other how much they love each other. This is perhaps the longest scene in the movie, but it serves no purpose. What is it doing there? To show us how much they love each other? We already knew that. Character development? Hey, the movie is 90 minutes old--it's a little late for that.

And the editing is so awful at times, it makes one cringe--such as when Kutcher is climbing back into the basement. One moment he's fiddling with the window, and a second later he's standing on the floor next to the bed. And at the end of the go-cart scene, the two guys are surrounded by cars and trucks and the sound of a crash; and in the next moment, all the traffic is flowing smoothly around them.

But I think the most disappointing thing is how little the movie makes of its premise. About 75% of the conflict in the movie has nothing to do racial issues; instead, it has to do with a guy trying to get along with his girlfriend's dad. In this way, it is very close to Meet the Parents. But Meet the Parents was funny because it had a lot of funny jokes and situations, and it honored its premise. Guess Who has very few funny jokes, but worst of all, it doesn't do much with its premise. And the "black joke" that is supposed to be a shocking, critical point in the drama isn't even all that offensive.

About half the audience at my screening walked out before the movie was over. Too bad. I wanted this to be a good movie, but I guess the writers and director didn't want it as much as I did.


Although this film was intended to be a modern-day and comedic version of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, IMHO, Guess Who played much more like an episode of "The Proud Family" cartoon. Bernie Mac's character, Percy Jones, seemed especially like the over-protective, nobody's-going-to-date-my-daughter cartoon father that Penny Proud contends with every Saturday morning on ABC.

Unfortunately, Guess Who barely touched on the racial issues. The jokes about racial difference were old and predictable. The funniest portrayal of the racial difference was the music playing while the father and the fiancée were riding together in a car. And in true sit-com fashion, all the issues are ironed out for a nice happy comedy ending.

If you don't mind paying a few dollars for a matinée show, it's not a bad way to spend a couple hours entertaining the children. Otherwise, I'd say skip it.


Or Guess What Could Be Career Sucide For Ashton Kuthcer. It is clear that he cannot act, he is just a personality, he is not famous for his acting, It is his presence in the film. But his performance in this film was about has annoying as his performance in Cheaper By The Dozen. And the women seem to get immense pleasure making a fool out of the Bernie Mac character, even Judith Scott,the woman playing his wife in the film. And now I wished Queen Latifah would have come out, and kicked all there butts. I feel bad for Bernie Mac, he really is the only who is funny, but his effort comes up short, as the story just get really lame has it goes on. I can't really comment on Guess Who's Coming To Dinner, cause I didn't see it. But I'm sure it was a better film, then this remake/spoof. This movie was about as annoying as Paris Hilton. I'd probably go crazy if had to sit through this movie again.


Even copying other two great successful movies (Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and Meet the parents)this one is really pathetic. All gags are old. Every situation is predictable. Characters are banal. An easy way to try to create a nice (which nice is totally not in this case) humor about the natural racial preventions which every race still fill in front of other races (unfortunately). This movie sometimes makes you laugh, most of the time is stupid and pathetic. Technically this movie is very cheap (many directors of comedy genre does not take care of a good cinematography etc). Watch the DVD in your living room with your most ignorant friends and save some dollar. To go to the theater and watch this garbage is time wasted. 3/10.


Another feeble attempt from an idea-bankrupt Hollywood to cash in on past classics (Guess Who's Coming to Dinner) and recent successes (Meet the Parents). It puts nothing new on the table. All the jokes are predictable and stale, and the subject itself is somewhat offensive since it seems to (yet again, as in "Taxi" or "Hitch") justify racially-tinged humor at white guys without taking the same swipes at the other races dishing it out. In other words, it's just Hollywood making another safe bet. But irrespective of that, it's just not a funny movie. Bernie Mac is not a chuckle-inducing actor. His entire repertoire consists of making funny faces and acting aghast when confronted with a sitcom-like situation, which in the real world most of us would brush off as a problem barely worthy of consideration. And Ashton Kutcher is a total dud. He's also a one-note actor, like Bernie Mac in a way because his acting range also consists solely of gulps and looks of surprise in response to stupid, artificial situations. Bad movie. Only for dummies with no discriminating palettes.


I have only seen half of this film and i have to say that I was very surprised at what I was watching. I guessed the ending and later I found I was correct, all the 'laughs' I had seen and heard before and I sat there completely board as though I was staring at a blank screen. However, I've seen plenty of films like that before so why was I so surprised at this one? For the simple fact that had this film been reversed and it was a black man coming into a white family, no one could have gotten away with it. I am a strong believer that racial abuse of any kind is unforgivable, but why doesn't the door swing both ways? Why is it perfectly acceptable in a film for a black family not to want a white person in it but not the other way around. As a young white girl, I find this outrageous and am very surprised that it would seem either many people don't see my view or do and are too chicken to raise the point