I'm not going to pretend that this is classic Fellini, or a masterpiece of Italian/European art-house cinema, but.....there's a lot going on in this movie that rewards a lengthy attention span. Mastroiani plays the archetypal middle-aged menopausal misogynist, the oldest swinger in town, calling women everything but women. Sows, mares, bitches, etc.

Fellini effortlessly sets him up for a long slow surreal fall from grace, deconstructing his fear of women in the process. It's a temporal culture clash, as stiff monochrome macho sexism meets technicolour badass feminism head on.

There's a few of Fellini's sublime production games going on in the background, most notably the orgasm orchestra that builds from the sono-portraits of Marcello's past lovers. The symbolism on display throughout is typically oblique, but it's effortlessly played for laughs in a way that few of his earlier films managed.

I've seen most of Fellini's output, from La Strada to Ginger and Fred, and for me this movie stands out along with those two as an accessible entry point into the satirical world view of one of Italy's most interesting directors.

It's certainly not a masterpiece, but it's definitely a wry look at the sexual mores of the day. And the cinematography ain't bad either.


By the time this movie was made Women's issues were alive in the media of all industrialized nations ... This movie was meant to shock and shock it does. Its not crass ... it is very cerebral and highbrow. The character is lost in a sea of femme weapons. This movie actually depicts well the confusion and men and women in a new age. The movie is full of enticement followed by letdown and weirdness ... as is our daily lives in this new age. Have you ever heard that all a man thinks about is sex ... well this movie takes it to extremes. Its funny, scary, enticing, crazy, dreamy, wild, intellectual, modern. I think one of best of Frederico. He got better with age. The movie characters are all over the edge, too much, too weird ... its all for a point.


La Città Delle Donne is not a grotesque film even though it is rightly considered by many as a crazy little tale of a hapless philanderer.In this film,Italian superstar Marcello Mastroianni appears as if he is more of a morbid widower than one of the resourceful male chauvinists who would do everything in order to prevent weak women from usurping power.Feelini freely talks about the never ending confusion of male female relationships especially in the context of transfer of power.He has made a film which will surely have problems in getting understood by all.It can be surmised that even regular,loyal Fellini fans will have problems trying to figure out the hidden message of this film. This is the sole reason why this film necessitates multiple viewing session in order to understand why so much noise was being made about it.The focus in this film is on what all women of the world can achieve if they have solidarity.This has been shown by showing strange ways of women.Men have been reduced to ignominy as there are few taker for them.A major portion of the film is devoted to feminists who have not achieved much over the years.Fellini has shown them as they are and have always been:making fools of themselves.This film is neither pro women nor anti men.It is quite simply a beautiful film for the people who cherish the art of cinema.


Probably there is no Fellini's film, after Amarcord (1973), with such a high level of mastery as "Otto e mezzo", "La Dulce Vita", and Amarcord. But there are certainly strokes of genius in "E la nave VA", the nostalgic and highly critical of TV "Ginger and Fred", the delightfully autobiographical "Intervista" or even the "lunatic" and "moonstruck" "La voice Della Luna". "La cittá Dell Donne"has few assets to remember: Mastroianni, of course, and some brilliant scenes where the world of Snaporaz's erotics fantasies is brought back as a sort of entertainment show. But the script is faulty, there is no "reality check" to confront such unbridled fancy, where everything is possible. Of course, Fellini is a master, and "La cittá Dell Donne" is still the work of a master, who revisits one of his obsessions: women and sex and eroticism. But the same subject has been (much better) treated in "La Dulce vita", "Otto e mezzo", "Roma", "Amarcord", "Intervista" and even in "La Voce Della Luna".


Although I have recently watched some of Fellini's most famous films, after seeing this one, I drew a conclusion that CITY OF WOMEN can hardly be compared to any other movie from the Italian director. Since hardly any of Fellini's works leads us so intensely into the director's surreal world, into a tunnel of his erotic fantasies and lustful desires. At hardly any other moment, Fellini appeared to create such a satire on society, on decadence, on contradictions as well as on the established order like "the institution of the family." Moreover, Fellini seldom got as erotic as here, and strangely as critical of women. Yet, despite all the diverse characteristics of the movie, can CITY OF WOMEN be called a valuable work?

Most importantly, it is necessary to say that if you feel ready to see it, please keep in mind one fact: CITY OF WOMEN is not for everyone. Because of its ambiguous nature, this film is for the minority of movie buffs and, moreover, it does not appeal to all Fellini buffs. On the one hand, the movie is a witty, hilarious satire with moments that make you split your sides. On the other hand, it is a sort of "clothed pornography" or "pornography with hardly any nakedness". Everything appears to be around sex and lust executed in more or less "tasteful" excesses. Let me analyze that in more details.

Humans (both men and women) are reduced to the carnal aspect of existence. Feminists want to create a world without male dominance, detest penetration and highly criticize "fellocracy". Marijuana-induced generation of teenage girls aim at good fun and fast driving in trance. But not all characters are female characters since, according to an alleged proverb "these are men whose minds are absorbed by sex." There are two men in CITY OF WOMEN: the main character Snaporaz (Marcello Mastroianni) and his opposite counterpart Katzone (Ettore Manni). The former one is rather decent, still "normal" and "appropriate" male who searches the ideal woman. His "city of women" is idealistic and exists in his inner self, in his mind the climax of which is the ideal woman. The latter one is a true "conqueror", a male with excesses, with a number of women he has conquered by flesh. His "city of women" is more materialistic. It appears to be his villa of vibration, of fantasy, of decadence which is, at the same time, a tribute to lust and his marvelous vitality. He calls himself "Sanctus Crosfallus."

Therefore, CITY OF WOMEN does not have much to do with LA STRADA where Fellini showed us a moving story, 8 1/2 or GIULIETTA DEGLI SPIRITI where he supplied us with an insight into a psyche, a person's struggles, fears and memories or even with LA DOLCE VITA where Fellini, despite all this immorality of sweet life, drew our attention to contradictory freshness. Here, there isn't much to say about the content and character development except for one thing: what their sexual life is...

However, that superiority of depravity in CITY OF WOMEN does not mean that there are no similarities with other Fellini movies. After all, it is still Fellini in CITY OF WOMEN. The similarity has to do with three aspects: characters, Felliniesque nature combined with symbols and the unpredictable content.

There are characters that resemble the ones from Fellini's earlier films. It is, first of all, Snaporaz who, like Guido in 8 1/2 (in both Marcello Mastroianni) copes with the madness of the world that surrounds him and tries to figure out his inner self. Katzone, though a male character, reminds me of Suzy in GIULIETTA DEGLI SPIRITI (memorably portrayed by Sandra Milo) with the weirdest ideas filled with erotic fantasies. Elena, Snaporaz' wife/mistress through her words "I am neither your nanny nor your mum" reminds me of Emma in LA DOLCE VITA who wanted to be a mother and a whore. The feminists remind me of the group of people visiting Giulietta and girls driving cars in trance of Marcello's friends in LA DOLCE VITA.

Felliniesque nature of the movie is resembled in a reality blended with a fantasy. All occurs to be a dream, yet it is so powerful to feel this. Memories come at any moment and affect our subconscious sphere. This has to do with symbols. Police appears to represent the established order which is contrasted with Katzone, his house, his party as a symbol of sexual anarchy. A ladder that Snaporaz climbs symbolizes effort to achieve, effort to climb the bounds of reality. Storm appears to me as unstable desires and temporal nature of lust. Finally, train occurs to be a monotonous journey of life.

Unpredictable action is revealed particularly at the end but also throughout the movie where we do not know constantly what is ahead of us, like it is the case with the future. That is something Fellini could do very well and he does not reject it in CITY OF WOMEN.

Yet, at the end of my comment, let me come back to the question I asked at the beginning: is CITY OF WOMEN a valuable film, something you watch and are bound to remember? Unfortunately, I don't think so. It is rather a harmful and confusing movie which does not have much to offer, something even Fellini buffs criticize. If you overdo with something, you are bound to fail. And that is what defines the director's fault in this case. CITY OF WOMEN overdoes with the alleged belief that humans are only carnal creatures. Fellini shouldn't have skipped the spiritual sphere of mankind.

Yes, CITY OF WOMEN indeed leads us into the tunnel of lustful fantasies. But tunnel is darkness and art is not there to lead us to darkness but rather out of it, to the spiritual horizons of light and beauty. Unfortunately, Fellini in his later years, totally forgot about that significant truth. 4/10


Although there are a couple of scenes that drag on too long and some special effect errors, this film is yet another Fellini classic. I would say that this film is almost as good, but not as good as 8 1/2.

You will laugh harder than you ever have before at a Fellini movie. The scene at the doctor's house will have you rolling on the floor.


What a genius! Fellini went and broke the cardinal rule of screenwriting. In the end, the character woke from a dream. The whole stinking movie was a dream. The first time around, it's one of the most confusing, annoying things ever, but it makes perfect sense the second time around.

Beautiful.


In my opinion this is Fellini's no 2 picture(after Satyricon). Its beauty, it's wildness,its kindness, its madness... Everything is so incredibly intelligent, the music, the colours, the imagination in the scenes of the car-race,in the houses...


I loved this film! It is very funny especially the scene in the greenhouse. The film has fantastic visuals. The images and scenes from this film have influence so many modern films of today, such as the indoor rollerskating scene. My favorite scenes are the drugged up nymphet delinquent girls and Mastroianni sliding down a huge slide as his sexual history flashes before his eyes. The scene of the drugged girls reminds me of the glitzy 80s music video or a scene from an Argento horror film. Many believe that this film reflects women in a negative light, but I don't think it shows women in all their glory. Mastroianni is perfect in this role and quite beautiful to look at. I highly recommend it!


Although I was born in Italy, I never had the chance to see a movie by Fellini.

Yesterday I decided to fill this gap, watching "La citta' delle donne".

I was very disappointed, not only by the movie, but also by the commentaries included in the DVD (American edition).

*** Some spoilers from now on *** The movie is a total mess. Everything is loud and exaggerated. There are no hints or subtleties. The message the movie aims at conveying, the difficulty of men to deal with women in the modern era with the men losing their predominant position, is screamed. For 20 minutes you can cope with such a visual and acoustic disorder, but I found 140 minutes definitely too much to bear.

I did not find the movie funny either. For example, one of the character's name is Katzone (an Italian vulgar expression for big penis) and guess what? He is a womanizer, he lives in a house full of phallic shaped objects, he has taped the moaning of all women he has slept with, and so on and so forth. Maybe, you can laugh for one second about it, but everything is so obvious, trivial and vulgar that I found it very hard to appreciate.

Mastroianni delivers a great performance, as usual. The problem does not lie in the actors, (actually most of them deliver great interpretations) but in the director's vision of the movie.

The film does not flow. The sequences are not linked appropriately and sometimes are way too long: he could have obtained the very same result (shocking/amusing the audience) in half the time.

Being the movie a dream by a man in his 50's, it is reasonable to express it in such a disorganized and convulsive way. However, I do not need to see a movie to get that feeling, my own dreams are enough.

Fellini was very brave to propose such a theme, especially in a very rigid society as the Italian one. He wanted to be provocative and he succeeded in that dimension. However, he failed at making the audience think about those issues, being only worried at representing his own insecurities and fears.

I also found the movie very arrogant, in the sense that it made me think that Fellini wanted the audience to believe that they were watching not only a movie but "art".

Frankly speaking, this film is so bad that it makes any Tinto Brass production look like a masterpiece.

In the DVD's commentary the people asked to comment on Fellini's work basically said that he was a genius. I think they do not understand what a genius is. Moreover, all the people interviewed do not explain or motivate why they think he was such a great artist.

He might have had a different approach to things, he might have had a personal interpretation of facts, he might have broken the clichés of his time, but defining him a genius is way too much, at least for what he has done with this movie.

I think that labeling him as a genius does not allow him to be pretentious and his movie to be pointless.

I still hope that "8 1/2" is going to change my mind about Fellini's work.


Such a comedown from the Fellini of the 1960s! At a certain age, some artists have nothing left to offer, like Woody Allen today. They just end up recycling their previous ideas in increasingly crass ways. That's the case with City of Women, which is easily one of Fellini's worst films. It's crass, vulgar, and endlessly offensive and stupid. Whereas the harem of women in 8 1/2 was funny, a whole movie of cartoonish stereotypes of women (slutty, man-hating, and always one with enormous breasts - please!) and the man who's more afraid of them then in love with them. Do yourself a favor and just skip it. Or at least don't see this until you've seen every other Fellini movie first. I hate to think of anyone seeing this as their first Fellini movie because it would definitely turn them off all his other films!


Audie Murphy's screen autobiography is a much better film than it has any right to be... The Army provides a Depression-era kid from East Texas with a strong family structure that he has never really experienced...

In 1937, a young Audie Murphy (played by Gordon Gebert as a boy, by Murphy himself later) is forced to become the head of a family with an ailing mother and an absent father... He drops out of grade school and goes to work full time to provide for his younger siblings until, at roughly the same time, World War II starts and his mother dies...

By enlisting in, Murphy can provide more money for his brothers, but neither the Navy nor the Marines were interested in the small guy...

In the Army, Murphy is promoted to Corporal on the troop ship carrying him overseas where he joins the 3rd Infantry Division, B Company, 15th Regiment... It soon becomes apparent that the likable 'baby face kid,' hardly old enough to shave, has a genuine aptitude for soldiering...

After North Africa, his outfit takes part in the invasions of Sicily, Anzio and Southern France... In every engagement, Murphy steps up and excels as a soldier... At the same time, he becomes friends with Brandon (Charles Drake), Johnson (Marshall Thompson), and Kerrigan (Jack Kelly). He sees himself as part of a unit, and everything that he does is meant to advance the unit, not the individual... Murphy liked to work alone, putting only himself at risk...

The one long scene that moves away from the Militaryan interlude in an Italian town where he meets Maria (Susan Kohner) and her family, is embarrassingly bad... As long as the focus stays on the platoon's activities on the battlefield, the film is in fine shape... Director Jesse Hibbs makes the cold mud and rain of the Italian campaign believably real, especially a series of scenes revolving around a farmhouse and a burning tank...

One might assume that Murphy's indomitable courage would be described as Rambolike heroics, but in comparing the film with the official combat reports, it is clear that Murphy became an astounding soldier by skill, training, intelligence, and luck... He was an equal opportunity soldier, doing everything the front line combatant is required to do in order to take and hold ground through Sicily, Italy, France, and into Germany...

All of the events recounted in the film take place before Murphy was 19 years old... In that brief military career, Audie L. Murphy becomes one of the best fighting combat soldiers of the last century... He never really seemed to care about the medals or glory, just the men of his unit and friends who fall down in the European Theater of Operations...

Murphy died tragically on May 28, 1971, when the private plane in which he was a passenger crashed into a mountain near Roanoke, Virginia... He was 46.

His last film role was earlier that year, playing Jesse James in 'A Time for Dying.'


It's a shame that more people haven't seen this movie in recent years. As much as Saving Private Ryan introduced a new generation to horrors and heroism of World War II, "To Hell and Back" introduces you to one of the men who lived through it. It doesn't attempt to glorify the War, it simply relates what happened to America's most decorated soldier based on his own story and actually staring him. While it's amazing that the baby faced Murphy still looks young enough in 1955 for the story to work 15 years after the fact, the truly amazing thing is that from most accounts, Murphy understates his own role in many of the events described in the movie. The final war scene for instance shows him holding off an entire German regiment using artilery and the machine gun of a burning tank. The fact is that he held that ground alone for well over an hour before the germans finally gave up. All the while the tank was burning and could have exploded at any time. Like many great soldiers, however, he had trouble adjusting to life after the war even with a semi-successful acting career aided by James Cagney after the war. Still, it's men like this, who risked and often gave their lives on the fields of Europe and Africa and in the waters and islands of the pacific, that we have to thank for the Freedoms we enjoy in the United States today. Too often we forget this.


Let's face it; in a world of computers and egotists so far absent of true human contact and chivalry, Audie Murphy will forever shine brightly and ever brighter as a true man. He is perhaps the last real genuine American hero, as we slip into a vortex world of lawyers, statistics, and scams.

1.) At the age of 12, he chose to be a man by taking over his absentee father's role in his family; he literally fed his dirt poor family by putting meat on the table with a keen eye and a broken down .22 rifle. Working two jobs at this age, he still wrote cursively w/ excellent spelling and diction when he had to quit his education. This is something half of the high schoolers of today can't do as they "rap" themselves in hedonistic pursuits of clothes, breeding without responsibility, drugs, cell phones, and a disregard for another person's respect and rights.

2.) After multiple attempts to join our country's armed forces, he became the most highly decorated soldier in our nation's history, with countless feats of heroism (please see WWW.AUDIEMURPHY.COM.).

3.) He achieved Hollywood star status with his tough yet tender persona.

In a current world of 50 cents, we can look back to a time when a man was truly a man, and that man was the United States Medal of Honor Winner: AUDIE MURPHY.


Audie Murphy, the greatest hero of World War II, was always a seriously underrated actor, and he had a great screen presence. This movie was a chance to make film history by featuring Murphy in his own exciting story, something that's never been done before or since. Well, Universal blew it! Not by their standards, of course, they made a lot of money. But as time goes on, this movie hasn't been well regarded, and it falls flat on contemporary viewers. Future generations will generally dismiss it.

The battle scenes play like a Disney version of the war, so sanitized the main role might have been played by Hayley Mills. Murphy adopts this curiously detached and semi- bored manner throughout the story, looking uneasy in his own uniform. You might have thought this film would have plenty of technical advisors, including Murphy himself, but everything---the gear, the scenery---looks and feels wrong. The Italian campaign, it seems, was fought in a sunny backlot, against fake Germans wearing fake uniforms with fake weapons.

Most of the other actors fit blandly into their goofy patterned innocent/naive American farmboy roles, and it wears thin after a while. Halfway through, I got the feeling that this could have been a great war classic if it had been aimed a little higher than the junior ROTC crowd. A more bitter and savage tone, tempered with American optimism, the kind of attitude that I understand Mr. Murphy actually had later in life, would have worked.

Even though I was disappointed, I still recommend watching this film because of my admiration for Audie Murphy, and to observe a particular attitude about war that was common in 1950s America. In some ways, after the crusade in Europe, that attitude was justified.


I watched this movie because I was interested in seeing the story of Audie Murphy, the most decorated soldier in U.S. history. The fact that this movie is based on Audie Murphy's autobiography, and that he stars as himself in the film, added to my interest. I didn't have high pre-expectations, so I was pleasantly surprised while watching this enjoyable film. To Hell and Back is a solid 1950's style WW2 movie, which focuses on the camaraderie of the foot soldier. It is neither pro nor anti-war, as it has a high body, but shows little of the bloodshed or true horror of war.


In my opinion 'To Hell and Back' is one of the best war movie ever made, (right next to 'Saving Private Ryan') because it was about a true story of a kid from Texas with a run-a-way Father and a dead Mother, wanted to do something for the war effort but was turned down by every other service except the Army, and the Army had second thoughts. What makes this movie very special is the fact that the most ever to date decorated US soldier (two dozen of the highest medals) and a Congressional Medal of Honor receiver, not only lived through the war, but in fact played himself ! after being talked into it, seems he didn't want to play himself, he thought it would degrade the Medal of Honor.

I watched a run of this movie on the History Channel, it was a show called, is it 'History or Hollywood' where by at the end of the show 3 Historians discuss a movie for Historic correctness, every one said if anything this movie was under stated of what Audie Murphy truly did in Europe during WWII, one said it was down played because of Audie Murphy himself, because his Army recorded as witness by others has him doing lots more, but that was the personality of Audie Murphy, imagine watching a movie were the battle's and the deeds are true, they called out a seen where Audie's best friend gets shot, he really did go ballistic charging at the German machine gun nest that killed him, picks up a German Machine gun then proceeds to take out 2 or 3 more gun sites, by using the German gun it didn't give a warning to the Germans, he saved countless American lives coming up that mountain, a brilliant movie.

My only wish is for this movie to come out on DVD, please release 'To Hell and Back' on DVD !


To Hell And Back rates as one of the truly classic and unique movies of our time. To have Audie Murphy himself have to remember and "relive" his war experiences, having been removed from them for only ten years, is unprecedented.The movie is the forerunner of such movies as We Were Soldiers Once...and Black Hawk Down. Although Col. Tom Moore was only an on scene adviser he also relived some of the scenes(his own admission) that were depicted in "..Soldiers..." Black Hawk Down depicted actual footage of the battle. The historical and personal accuracy of these movies is tremendous. Audie, however paid a bitter price. His war experiences tormented him the rest of his life with constant insomnia, depression and anxiety. I was lucky enough to meet him at Suffolk Downs Race Track in 1959 or 1960. I always wondered what became of his siblings and sister. Audie Murphy is a true hero of the twentieth century. Everyone should take note of what true character, integrity and loyalty Audie gave us. Thank you Audie.


Audie Murphy is one of the nation's most beloved souls, not only as an actor, but his exploits on the battlefront during WWII, becoming the most decorated soldier in history, and rising far in the military at the tender age of 19 made him an inspiration for us all. To Hell and Back is his story.

A true story based on Murphy's autobiography, THaB is beyond its time in that the visuals are absolutely stunning for a movie made in 1955. When watching it for the first time, I thought it was made in the late 1960's or early 1970's. Audie Murphy provides a realistic and moving performance as himself. The film is not only about Murphy's exploits in the war, but the people he met and became great friends with. It also shows the sorrow and tragedy of war very well, throwing in some romantic moments here and there, which is nice relief from all the action. What you'll realize about Murphy's performance is how real it is, because it's a rare moment in movies when someone plays themselves in an actual moment that changed their lives.

Go watch this great war movie. It's a classic that all war films should definitely take reference from. You'll have a good time with it, guaranteed.

8/10 --spy


Anyone who knows anything about Audie Murphy and his heroics, knows that the film does not do him justice. He did so much more than the film depicts. However, with the limited time allowed for a movie, the movie is quite good. The story is very accurate of how the US troops moved through Italy. Every time I see that the movie is on, I try to watch it and remember that my father was there!! Enjoy!! And hope we don't have to do it again!!


During the first World War the American hero out of that conflict, Alvin C. York of Tennessee, had to wait until the outbreak of the second World War for his biographical film to be made. World War II's equivalent from East Texas only waited ten years and had the singular honor of starring in the film of his own life.

Good thing Audie Murphy became a Hollywood star because he got to both write his own story and have Universal Studios produce the film as to his specifications. To Hell and Back is his story, but it's also the story of the men who served with him, those who came back from hell and those who remained.

What I liked best about To Hell and Back was the camaraderie and spirit and the relationships between Murphy and the men of his outfit. The story starts in North Africa where his company arrives too late for the fighting there, but just in time to be part of the offensive to take Sicily. Then it's Salerno, up the western Italian coast and into France with the landings in Southern France until Germany. At each stop Murphy grows in admiration and respect from those over and around him. Such players as Jack Kelly, Paul Picerni, Marshall Thompson and Charles Drake support Murphy very well.

To Hell and Back also shows what a roll of the dice combat is. It could just as easily been Murphy as any of the cast that is killed and doesn't make it to the end of the film. Staying alive is a singular accomplishment. All of these guys are heroes. A lot of the fame and glory Murphy won was due to luck and opportunity and he would have been the first to admit it.

When do you get a film with 100% perfect casting for the lead? you get it in To Hell and Back with Audie Murphy playing the man his comrades called Little Texas. A nice film about the greatest soldier of the greatest generation.


This autobiographical account of the exploits of Audie L. Murphy as the most decorated American soldier of World War II makes for a good--but not great--traditional military movie where everybody obeys orders and few complain about serving in the infantry. "Ride Clear of Diablo" director Jesse Hibbs and "Saskatchewan" scenarist Gil Doud has fashioned a solid, unpretentious combat movie that opens with a brief prologue about our protagonist and the rigors that he endured as a teenager. Murphy had no father. The man abandoned his family and left them to fend for themselves with our hero setting aside his eighth school education to earn money for his mother and his brothers and sisters.

The outbreak of World War II prompted Murphy to enlist, but the Marine Corps and the Navy rejected him for his size. He stood five feet five inches and must have looked even scrawnier in real life. Eventually, Murphy made it into the Army, but Hibbs and Doud skip his basic training and have him showing up in North Africa as a replacement. The commanding officer of the outfit is somewhat surprised when Murphy puts in a request to transfer to the paratroopers. Initially, the C.O. wants to transfer the ailing Murphy out because of his poor health on the trip to North Africa (Murph had never been on a ship) and put him in with the cooks. Murphy asks them to forego any special treatment. Nothing happens for our heroes in North Africa, but they get their taste of combat in Sicily and later the Italian campaign. Everybody in the outfit sets out to protect little Audie, but by the time that it is over, he has risen to the rank of lieutenant and he is the one watching out for them.

What sets this combat film apart, aside from its infantry perspective, is the appearance of two genuine Sherman tanks--which while they may not be the same models that plowed through the fields of France--are a rarity in World War II movies, especially during the 1950s. Hibbs includes the famous scene where Murphy single-handedly stalled a German advance by manning a .50 caliber machine gun on a blazing tank. His superior officers wanted to ship Murphy off to West Point, but those ambitious plans were sidetracked when Murphy suffered a war wound that disqualified him for the academy. Marshal Thompson, who played the replacement in the Battle of the Bulge movie "Battleground" is cast as a fellow G.I. along with Jack Kelly who later attained fame on the "Maverick" television series with James Garner. Murphy has a brief interlude with a spunky Italian babe, Maria (Susan Kohner in her film debut), but they never get it on with fireworks to boot. Basically, "To Hell and Back" covers the war from North Africa to France without too much fanfare on the part of the protagonist. The theme of friendship is explored in some detail. Nobody wants to make friends under such stressful conditions because their friends wind up dying under fire and the separation is agonizing for them. The action ends with Murphy receiving his decorations. The Germans are pretty much depicted as extras in long shots without any interaction between themselves or the Americans.


Of course this movie "sanitizes" WWII, look at the year it was made, the Hollywood censors would NEVER have allowed a "Saving Private Ryan" film to be released. That said, this is a true story, starring the man who actually lived through everything it shows and much, much more besides. I knew Audie personally and I can tell you that he was, and could really do, anything you saw him do on the screen. He actually did kill 283 German soldiers, not as a unit action, but he, himself, with his own guns! If anything, this movie down plays his real life heroics to a large extent. Audie's book tells a lot more detail about what happened during the War. When I knew him, Audie suffered from severe PTSD, but the VA had not recognized that as a real medical problem, so he never got treatment for it. He did sleep with a pistol under his pillow every night of his life, and he carried a loaded gun on his person everywhere he went, every day of his life (I do the same thing btw...and the VA treated me for PTSD after 'Nam). Finally, this is a wonderful movie about all the brave heroes who fought in those campaigns, dying, maimed, or just lucky enough to come home at the end. Audie was a much better actor than he was ever allowed to be by Universal Studios. His Westerns made money, and that was the studio's bottom line. BTW...To Hell and Back was the BIGGEST money maker for Universal until Jaws was released...that's not a bad record for Hollywood...20 yrs. worth of Dollars in the bank.


I quite loved this film when I first saw it as a 22 year old at the Fox theater in Fullerton, Calif. I grew up during the war years and had become weary of WWII movies, but this one stood out as one of the fastest paced and most authentic seeming war films. The fact that Audie Murphy actually portrayed his own experiences make it even more valuable a film.

It did have the feeling of a propaganda film, but it doesn't really commit itself as being either pro-war or anti-war. It is of course "sanitized" as far as language and violence are concerned since the Hayes office was still around. This does give it a somewhat dated appearance although it was at least in color.

It stands to this day as one of my favorite WWII films and I heartily recommend it.


When I was at school in my early teens, never a film was so much talked about after a weekend. The guys loved it, and one scene when they give chocolate bars to the soldiers, stuck to one's mind and one's appetite. I saw this film on DVD yesterday and either the chocolate scene was missing or unconsciously I slept through it. There is not much of a plot to the film, because it shows the real hero Audie Murphy in combat. But what great action scenes! The soldiers capturing a house in the field and then losing it, Murphy blowing a tank, shooting by mistake at himself in the mirror, standing on a tank in flames, throwing grenades at a pillbox, crossing a river under fire, whatever you think it is there, and in Cinemascope, which adapts very well to the widescreen format. We are used to see actors playing heroes, but here we see a hero which played western characters that could never be as brave as he was in real life. Everybody would think it is unreal!!!


Few know that this film was the studio's biggest "blockbuster" until "Jaws" was released 20 years later. The film does chronicle some of the exploits of Audie Murphy, who having grown up dirt poor in Texas, went on to become the most highly decorated soldier of WWII. The film is somewhat dated and was definitely cleaned up to appeal to a larger audience, but nonetheless, it gives a pretty accurate version of this man's damn near suicidal bravery. Because Murphy was rejected by the Marine Corps, and was a fairly small man in stature, an under current of the underdog story develops as the young Murphy attempts to do just about anything in order to improve himself. This was not Murphy's first film, so perhaps this explains his above average performance and seeming comfort on camera. He is supported by a crew of veteran performers, (Marshall Thompson, Jack Kelly) who do there best to let Murphy be the center of attention. It's a terrific story, enhanced only a little by the fact it's true, and if you're able to imagine a remake of this film, I don't see how it couldn't be successful.


In this autobiographical war film, the viewer is shown in a marvelously thought-provoking fashion the true meaning of heroism. Murphy was rejected by the Navy and USMC, yet became our nation's most decorated veteran. Especially poignant are the scenes wherein Audie Murphy loses those closest to him. His tears are more than acting, they represent his memories of the real life sacrifice of the fallen heroes of WW II. This is a masterpiece of autobiographical cinema !

The performances are realistic and yet familiar to us veterans . The camaraderie, sorrow, hardship and esprit de corps transcend the half-century which has passed. The final battle scene which depicts Audie's Medal Of Honor winning actions is moving but characteristically modest in its presentation. Enjoy this portrait of a true American hero.


Being in the U.S. Army, I tend to favor military movies. This movie shows what our Veterans went through, and it lets people know what kind of heros we have in the military. Audie Murphy, being the most decorated man in WWII, is a military idol. I truly enjoyed watching Audie Murphy as himself in this movie.


"To Hell and Back" is a good war movie, but it would have been better if Audie Murphy narrated the movie instead. He should have had a younger actor play his part. When Murphy went into the war he was seventeen years old and looked like fourteen. When he made the movie, it was over ten years later where he looked older so the story was less believable. In real life, the men Murphy served with gave him a hard time because he looked like a kid. The older Murphy in the movie did not look inexperienced, innocent, scared, or young enough. Murphy was too mature to play himself a decade later. The point of the movie was how a kid became a military leader in the Army.

However, the story is still good. Even better, the casting was superb. Many of those actors became recognizable faces from television years later. It is the only movie where those actors were given good film roles. It's fun to watch those guys doing good work.


This was Audie Murphy's account of his actions during WW2. He saw many of his friends' die as he went through the travails of war. This was a graphic look at the horror and waste of man's ultimate folly.


I cannot understand why a man like Audie, certainly a man with character, let it happen that he was misused for this propaganda film. This film is of the same indescribable, ridiculous stupidity as most war films that were produced as long as the Germans and the Japanese were the bad guys. I watched it horrible 60 minutes long, still waiting for something positive. In vain. It is remarkable that - the longer the time runs since WWII - war films are becoming more realistic and "fair" with the former enemies. Compare this Audie film with the last film of Clint Eastwood or even Soldier Ryan (which has still a lot of unbearable patriotism).

I am bored to look these films in which the US-boys are always: 1. outnumbered by the red-Indians, Huns, Japanese, Spanish whereas the historical record has it that more often it was vice versa 2. the enemy always has the bigger weapons, the better equipment, the better support etc, whereas in reality it was more often vice versa 3. the US heroes are mostly shot from behind, there is no other way to overcome them! They are always character better. Believe me, if you have two armies with 100 thousand young men between 18 and 30 the percentage of good guys and bad guys is on both side the same, as well as the percentage of mothers who swear an oath that their boys are good boys - right so as well as wrong so! All of these 3 typical Hollywood-war-film-points are displayed in this film. Audie played it like that because the film-makers ordered him to do so. This was his earnings. He died young. Maybe he could not live very long with these lies or he became sick of being a hero that felt to be useless for normal peace-time-life. Maybe his biographical war-time-story was a total fake. America needed a hero like that, because America lacked of true heroes. The American soldiers had hardly any chances to become heroes as it was looked for it that they got as often as possible their exchange at front. Air fighters for example had ten times less service at the front than Germans. The care the Americans took for their men should be hailed, where lives counted much contrary to totalitarian systems where human lives count nothing.

So, if the story of Audie was true, it was not a typical story of an American soldier in the last war. Anyway human acts should be hailed as heroism, not exterminating humans which is always a multiplication of human tragedies (think of all the mothers and fathers, wives, children). If You want to know how the war was ask one of those who were really at the front and whom you know as reliable and honest people. If you believe in these propaganda Hollywood movies you fall in the same pit as so many of Your nation. You will have to pay the bill. Trust in God and You will thrive, not in Your own weakness! He can win Your wars for You, if You leave him, no more.... I know that the readers do not like to read this comment, which is so hostile to their liking, but soldiers who fought at the front mostly do not like glorifying films either. There is no room in reality to glorify people for killing others. Following orders might be a necessary act to survive and to fight against evil (which Nazi-terrorism or Stalin-terrorism were) and banish it from the face of Earth. But this is nothing heroistic. Germans or Japanese who fought against the overwhelming powers of the Allies committed also "heroic" acts (and wasteful as well!), but for what good? In our days it is only acceptable to show films which demonstrate the necessity to fight against injustice and evil, but at the same time the barbarism and cruelty of war. I do not understand the reason for that kind of American film-making. It must be an exaggeration of patriotism as I do not believe that Americans have a minority complex, which is often the reason for hubris. This exaggeration is self-deceit and also very dangerous, because it blindens oneself for reality which in the long run has very negative effects.


This movie plays more as a tool of propaganda for the US military, than presenting a good story with good acting and memorable characters.

Instead we just sit back and are just watching things happen like a 3 minute news reel. You feel no sense of danger when the battles are ranging, you don't feel camradare for the soldiers fighting cause the actors are lame, you don't feel sadness when the soldiers die. We are forced to fumble along as the hero, goes from battle to battle and it's all the same. On top of that we have to keep hearing his humility in how he always says he's not worthy of being promoted. And of course we then hear all his buddies congratulating him. Over and over and over and over....

It's like watching 4 year olds play cowboys and indians its bang bang your dead I won The End. And of course the only Native guy in the picture has to be refered to as "chief". There was ONE actor in this picture whose character was interesting and seemed like he would develop on in the film. But his presence and dialogue in the movie died (not cause he was killed) shortly leaving me more frustrated.

The thing is there probably is a real story here but the translation just doesn't work in this film.

Rating 3 out of 10.


More Hollywood junk created for the new car society of the 1950's. This film is the "Leave it to Beaver" of war films. It starts with an implausible autobiography that is more than slightly self serving to Audie Murphy and has the same elements of self delusion that haunted Murphy throughout his adult life, namely that he was a lunatic with a terrible temper. The film completely ignores any internal dialogue within Murphy and what must have been a self destructive streak, as he seemed to be a psychopath. It paints him as a good family man in a war which is implausible in the extreme. He gunned down 283 Germans? Yeah right, that was fabricated by the US military for propaganda purposes, nothing more. The characters are all good guys doing good things and never really showing any emotion. This film could be a stunning vehicle for demonstrating the idiocy of the American infantry in Europe in WWII, but it utterly fails to engage even that material. Save your time or else keep heavy things out reach while watching it because you will want to destroy the TV. What a waste for intelligent folks..


Ichi-1 is the prequel to Ichi The Killer. It's not the best movie in the world, but it's a lot better than I thought it would be. It's about Ichi in high school. He gets bullied and that's when he starts to go nuts. It's got some great fight scenes too. It's also of course got a few nasty scenes. The baseball scene was pretty disturbing. The main problem I had with this movie though was the fact that there were no teachers at the school. I can't believe not one teacher stopped any fights at school all those kids had. I didn't see one teacher at all at the school period. I guess all the kids scared them off or something. Ichi-1 is a low budget movie, but much better than most low budget movie I've seen. It's also got a bit of comedy in the movie too. The movie is all in Japanese though, so unless you can speak Japanese you'll have to read the English subtitles. It's worth checking out if you liked Ichi The Killer, but it might disappoint some people. I recommend renting it first.

I give Ichi-1 a 7/10


Being a prequel to one of Asian cinemas master works, this film, 1-ichi has a lot to live up to. Directed this time by Takashi Miikes right hand man, Masato Tanno, the assistant director of Ichi the Killer brings a fresh take to the world of Ichi. Apparently closer to the manga than Ichi the Killer was, though I wouldn't know as I haven't seen the manga comic.

The primary setting for 1-ichi is a school, so this is presumably supposed to have taken place before Ichi the Killer. Nao Omori returns as the emotionally imbalanced Ichi, though the main character is really Teah from a Miike film the City of Lost Souls. To many people, Teah probably fills the shoes of Kakihara (Tadanobu Asano), and does an admirable job at it. He retains the coolness and equal sadism that Kakihara possessed. By the way the original music for this film was apparently composed by Tadanobu Asano, showing just one of the mans many talents.

Teah plays Dai, the toughest guy in school. After a short intro of Ichi watching a boxing match we see Dai involved in a fight. He easily wins and spots Ichi watching the fight and smiles at Dai's initial misfortune. (One of his opponents hits him on the head with a flower pot.) Dai notices Ichi watching his fights. This seems to get under his skin.

Dai remains the tough guy until Koji Chihara turns up, playing Onizame. A guy who just transferred and is a real bad ass. Its an interesting fact that Chihara forms one part of a comedy duo, who are famous in Japan. Rivalry flares up and it isn't long before their is a showdown between Ichi and Onizame. Who no one else can seem to beat up....

For much of the film Ichi's rage is suppressed and it takes a lot of bullying for him to snap. There is a lot of fighting in this film and much of it is, in my opinion more disturbing than in Ichi the Killer as it is more realistic.

The movie is also lighthearted as Dai's friends provide some comic relief. One of them has a fixation with part 3's of movies and the other one keeps changing his hair.

Masato Tanno does an excellent directing job, with some great camera work and interesting filming. Slight tinting and fading shots etc. The film evidently has a smaller budget than Ichi the Killer and some of it seems to have been shot on digi cam, though this just adds to the great look of the film.

To conclude I recommend that you see this. Its entertaining and a neat addition to the story of Ichi, who is a superb character. You don't need to have seen Ichi the Killer to enjoy this either.


I love this movie. I know it's not perfect and can't really be compared to the great movies that occupy the IMDB top250 list, but it's great fun. It's also disgusting. There are enough face smashing, broken bones and dislocated shoulders for everyone. I really love Teah and the guy who plays the main bad guy.

I don't recommend this to those who hated Ichi the Killer, but I know that that movie has a lot of fans and those fans should see this movie. Just don't expect too much and you won't be disappointed.

It's not quite as good as Ichi the Killer, but I really like it. I've already watched it 3 times so I guess it has some replay value as well.

4/5


1-Ichi origin is from the Japanese comic. A great prequel to the story of "Ichi the killer". It is a stand alone so even if you have not seen "Ichi the killer", you won't have a problem understanding this one. The fight scenes are great with lots of violence and blood. A short summary of the movie: It is about a Japanese high school student wanting the title of being the best fighter. Ichi is the best fighter because he can fight with quick speed. A great plus is that the actor who played Ichi is the same actor of the movie "Ichi the Killer". This movie is not quite as violence and graphic as "Ichi the Killer" but the story and the fight scene are great.


Wow, if you're a fan of Miike's work and liked the "original" Ichi, you will probably love this prequel! It's almost hard to believe that it wasn't Miike himself on the director's chair. But as the assistant director in the production of Miike's masterpiece, Masato Tanno for sure knew what he was doing as the director in this prequel. He shows Shiroichi during his time at Highschool, where two other boys lay claim to the status of the best fighter of all Highschools in town. So, almost the whole film is about fighting. And these guys really know how to punch! Tanno's film isn't as strange and dark as its "forerunner", but it doesn't have to hide behind it. You can call it in a row with such great masterpieces as "Ichi" or "Story of Ricky". It's different but brutal and violent as hell. Acting was good, so was the camera work. But director Masato Tanno definitely did the best job of them all. If you have the possibility, you should rent it. If you're a fan of Miike's films, buy it - you won't regret! It'll blow you away!!!


I will admit that the description on this one may be a little misleading. It is not nearly as much of a supernatural film as it is a pretty realistic look at a couple of hardcore tweakers. If you want a ghost story look elsewhere but if you just want to watch a disturbing movie than 1-Ichi is what your looking for. For those of you claiming bad acting, no offense, but you don't know what your talking about. I'm guessing you've never seen someone on a 2 week binge. I have, it's not pretty. I've seen someone pull a gun out from under the couch and start screaming that someone was after him. I thought that these actors nailed it. Sad to say, I've seen people act like that. That was almost twenty years ago and just watching this movie put knots in my stomach. This is a b-movie and it is pretty much a window into watching teens spiral downward as far and as fast as they can go. For me it held a good amount of intensity all the way through. I thought the camera work was good and the different techniques often added to the intensity of the situation when required. As far as all the jaw grinding going on, that what tweakers do. There actually IS somewhat of a parnormal aspect to this movie but it pretty much left up to you to decide if it really is paranormal or just these freaks losing their minds. In the end it doesn't really matter though. Just don't go into this one looking for ghost themed movie because the focus is definitely on the violence and the social commentary. I thought this was fantastic for a b-movie.


A good prequel to the GREAT Ichi the killer, only a few bad things such as NO KAKIHARA!!!! which is a shame, even if he just made a small cameo it would have been great. the story is simple and violence OTT (which is a sign of MIIKE ) there doesn't seem to be as much style put into this film as Miike was only the assistant director but there are still signs of him in it.

i wouldn't recommend you see this before Ichi the killer as it may not want you to watch Ichi the killer as much, SO watch it as a prequel and not before.

But If you have seen Ichi the killer and liked it give this film ago as at then you can make your own judgement.


Quite possibly the worst film I've ever seen, especially considering it's not even a FILM, but rather a shot on digital video, no budget, poorly acted, poorly directed, and poorly scripted amateur fest from beginning to end. I can't fathom why others on this site have given this decent reviews. This high school level project was obviously a failed plan to cash in on the success of Takashi Miike's film, which, in case you're too thick to figure it out, has EVERYTHING to do with Takashi Miike, and little to do with story. This piece of crap should be left to rot in the bargain bins. I wouldn't accept a free copy of it. Utter crap. Don't waste your time on this dud. What's next, some idiot with a video camera doing a prequel to Audition?


I remembered that show from when I was a small kid. After each episodes, some friends and I played ninja outside in the woods near their house.

I remembered key scenes like when The Master plays dead on the hotel room floor and I remembered Max's van.

I recently got the series on DVD from Ebay. What a ride! It was as I remembered. A great show full of adventures. Typical of many shows from the 80's it involved the heroes dropping on some trouble or someone in danger in a random town...

If you have the 80's nostalgia or are a ninja movie fan, I recommend seeing this show.


Top stuff. I've only ever seen episode 1 but I'm always on the lookout for the others. I loved the bit where Van Patten tried to use the approved "sleeper touch" technique to subdoo a baddie, and it didn't work !

Van Cleef's arrow-catching stunt was very impressive, and he handled that scene and a lot of other equally unlikely frames like the true pro that he was. Keeping a straight face through the takes must have been hard work at times for a guy who had worked with directors the caliber of Fred Zinnemann and Sergio Leone.

Demi Moore would likely prefer that her appearance in this B-grader remained largely forgotten, but we all have to start somewhere, and the show was probably a lot of fun to make.

R. B.


I am groaning as I write this but during the early '80s with all the ninja craze as as a kid who practiced and loved karate, I loved this show. I never knew who Lee Van Cleef was prior to this TV show but my father did. He remember Lee in all the spaghetti westerns and would laugh that the villain of the cowboys was a good guy ninja now.

You have to wince at some of the shows you liked as a kid but, you know, thats what makes the memories of your childhood so amusing if your lucky.

Now, I am older and a father, and I appreciate actors like Lee more than the pinheads in Hollywood making $20 million + a picture. Actors like Lee kept us entertained and made guys like Clint Eastwood ("For a Few Dollars More") and Kurt Russell ("Escape From New York") look so good.

When he died in '89 it gave me pause. He deserves to be remembered and I won't forget this weird funny show he did that kept me glued to the screen with all it's oddball fantasy.

The 13-year old boy in me gives this a 9 star rating and a 10 star rating for the beady-eyed, hawk-nosed actor who played the lead.

Rest-in-Peace, Lee, you are remembered.


This entry into the series has to be the best out of 1-5. It is absolutely stunning and action-packed. In the first part of this "movie" comprised of episodes 9 and 10 from the 1980's action series, "The Master," that dynamic ninja duo of Max Keller (Timothy Van Patten) and John Peter McAllister (Lee Van Cleef), find themselves in a pickle as McAllister, aka The Master, is framed for attempted murder of an old war buddy of his, now an intelligence officer. In the second half, they must confront a dangerous man in search of the legendary Java Tiger, an artifact worth $8 million, which is said to be hidden in a cave on a remote Hawaiian island. All in all, this is a truly amazing installment into the already incredible Master Ninja series. But it is best to watch the other installments first, so you can appreciate the evolution the characters go through, especially Max Keller's as The Master's pupil. It's a shame the series didn't make it past one season, I guess it was just too good.


Ah the early 1980's......how I miss them! The era embodied a sort of innocence which dissipated towards the end of the decade and has sadly yet to return. Who can forget the fads of the time; In music we 'bopped' along to the sounds of New Romantics, pioneering synth pop acts and additionally were blessed with a wonderful array of 'big hair' heavy metal bands. On TV we enjoyed such classics as Knight Rider, Airwolf and the incomparable, The A-Team and in cinemas we were treated to probably the best decade for horror and action movies......yes, the eighties....ah, they were the days.

There was actually another craze that swept the western world during the early part of the decade also; What was it you may ask? Why it was Ninja Mania! We just couldn't get enough of these enigmatic stealth assassins in fact. The public obsession first began proper when the Cannon Film Group released the Sho Kosugi outing, Enter the Ninja in 1984. Kosugi himself went on to a semblance of super stardom literally overnight - this despite the fact that he was actually playing the films main villain! Such was the mystique and allure that these historical figures exuded on screen. Needless to say, more ninja flicks were swiftly put into production by a plethora of film companies, each trying to out do the last and cash in on the publics apparent insatiable fixation on all things connected to the ninja. It was inevitable of course that these seemingly semi-mystical beings would break out into other entertainment mediums also. This they did in the form of numerous comic books, novels, toys, games and in the instance reviewed here, a television series starring veteran actor, Lee Van Cleef and as it happens, the by this time living legend, Sho Kosugi.

The plot concerned Cleef's character returning from Japan where he had spent years studying the ninja arts, in order to find his estranged daughter. Also along for the ride was the token wise cracking side kick (as was a somewhat unfortunate trend of the eighties....) who becomes Cleef's new student. Unfortunately, our veteran ninja is also being hotly pursued by a fellow ninja from his clan (Kosugi) who is incessantly intent on sending him to the great beyond.

Despite ninja mania in full swing at the time, the show curiously lasted for only one season before disappearing as quickly as......um.......well, a ninja in fact.

Whilst mildly enjoyable in its own right, it has to be said that the series was unfortunately hampered by its incredibly formulaic treatment. As with the vast majority of eighties TV shows, the plot was never more ambitious than to set our heroes (who just like in every other eighties show), travelling around from place to place helping out those in trouble (invariably a sexy, feisty female) from evil property developers and the like. Every now and then to spice things up, Kosugi puts in an appearance and it's no coincidence that these episodes are the best of the series which sans his presence is somewhat pedestrian at best.

For a bit of nostalgia or else those still desperate for a fix of anything ninja related the series is probably worth a look as long as you don't set your expectations too high.


Found this film under Cinema Classics and was very disappointed with the entire film or TV Series film which lasted with only two episodes. The only reason this film might have interested the film viewers was Demi Moore who is a daughter to The Master (Lee Van Cleet) and was missing from her dad for many years. The Master enlists the help of a young man (Timothy Van Patten) whom he trains in the martial arts so the both of them will be prepared to defeat the kidnappers. However, The Master and Timothy are unaware that a deadly group of Ninja assassins are on their trail. Demi Moore made a few brief appearances and gave a few quick kisses to Timothy, there was some action, but nothing to write home to mom about.


With a cast that includes the likes of Richard Harris, Richard Roundtree, Ray Milland, Joan Collins and Denholm Elliott, you would expect A Game For Vultures to be a pretty bankable success. Would all those talented stars sign up if the script was a load of old rubbish? Surely not. Add to that the plot, which concerns itself with sanctions-busting and freedom-fighting in 1970s Rhodesia, and you'd expect a film with a level of gritty realism and political topicality. It is sad to report, then, that A Game For Vultures is an absolutely disastrous film which misfires in every conceivable department.

In 1970s Rhodesia, black freedom-fighters - dubbed "terrorists" by the white leaders - are busily ambushing the white soldiers on patrol. One such man, Gideon Marunga (Richard Roundtree), is nearly killed when a routine ambush goes wrong and results in several deaths and casualties on both sides. Meanwhile, back in Britain, sanctions-buster David Swansey (Richard Harris) is hired to smuggle some helicopters into Rhodesia to aid the white government in their fight against the black revolutionaries. A Rhodesian by birth, Swansey is determined to support the whites as they struggle to retain control in Rhodesia, even though the rest of the world has imposed crippling sanctions on his nation. Also cast into the mix is unscrupulous business tycoon Colonel Brettle (Ray Milland), who finances Swansey's plans, and crusading journalist Larry Prescott (Sven Bertil Taube), who desperately wants to expose Swansey's illegal activities in the press.

A Game For Vultures is rather confused and heavy-handed. It gets far too plot-heavy for its own good and the result, in all honesty, is a deadly bore. Ironically, the opening fifteen minutes are actually quite good (it's an extended action sequence featuring an ambush which goes bloodily awry), but as soon as the sequence is over the film begins to nose-dive. Richard Harris here contends with probably the weakest role of his career (it's NOT his worst film, but certainly his most bored and subdued performance ever), while supporting stalwarts like Ray Milland, Sven Bertil Taube and Denholm Elliott are wasted too. Even Joan Collins - included primarily just for sex appeal in a male-dominated story - fails to add any sparkle to the proceedings. James Fargo directs rather lethargically, making the plot unbearably hard-to-follow on the one hand while over-simplifying the racial themes on the other. I won't be watching A Game For Vultures again and, if you value your time, I'd suggest that you shouldn't even bother with it in the first place!


A complete pile of hooey! This is one of the most muddled movies you'll ever see. None of the plot makes any sense, characters come and go without rhyme nor reason (in fact Roundtree is killed at one point and then appears again a few scenes later - and he isn't playing Jesus!). The biggest disappointment is reserved for fans of La Collins - she makes a tiny cameo appearance moments before the end, for no good reason, then the film finishes. Audience breathes a sigh of relief.


Dean finally tells Sam the last words of John Winchester before dying, and opens his heart about his dilemma and feelings. Sam leaves Dean during the night and travels alone seeking answers with Ellen and Ash in the Harvelle's Bar. When he finds that another psychic was stabbed in a parking lot in Illinois, he decides to investigate his death. Meanwhile, in Peoria, the young woman Ava Wilson has a premonition with the death of Sam and meets him in the motel of her dream where Sam is lodged. Meanwhile Ellen tells Dean where his brother is, while Sam is hunted by Gordon.

In this excellent episode, it is disclosed what John told to Dean about Sam and his dilemma and feelings; further, it seems that a demon war is coming and Sam and other psychics will fight on the demon side. Ava Wilson is introduced and I hope to have the chance to see this character again. The despicable Gordon returns but is duly framed by Sam. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Caçado" ("Hunted")


As usual the writers of Superantural presented an edge of the seat episode. Which will leave you wanting more and anticipating the next episode. It begins with Dean finally revealing the "secret" of what his father said about Sam before dying. We are to experience Dean's hesitation and guilt of keeping this hidden from Sam. We are then are able to feel for Sam and understand his reaction after the secret is revealed.

As the plot of the episode moves along we are introduced to a new character Ava is somehow connected with Sam. We are able to understand her confusion and shock after realizing she is not alone. We are also reconnected with a character from the past. His arrival brings a new twist to this fast moving episode.

In the end new revelations are discovered. Which will lead the boys once again searching for answers in this world of confusion.


This episode is important for several reasons. 1) It establishes that there is a demon war coming and that the psychic kids will play a part in it. 2)It introduces the character of Ava, who will come up again. 3) It brings Gordon back on the canvas. 4)Sam finally admits that he is Hunting because he thinks its making a real difference in the world. 5)It reveals what John told Dean in "In My Time of Dying": Dean must either save Sam or kill him. This is an important episode and you really can't skip it.

"Hunted" revolved around Sam finally learning about John's dying words back in "In My Time of Dying." Apparently having some idea of Sam's destiny, John told Dean that one day he'd have to either save Dean or kill his brother. Dean is confused by what his father meant by that, and why Sam's immune to the "Croatoan" demon virus and how his visions are connected to the Yellow Eyed Demon. Dean thinks that they should lay low. Sam disagrees. Angry and scared he takes off for the Roadhouse leaving Dean behind. While he's there, he gets Ash to find out more about the psychic kids. It turns out one has been killed recently and Sam heads off to investigate.

Sam soon meets up with a girl named Ava, who says that she has visions of people's death, just like Sam. She's seen Sam being blown-up. She and Sam begin investigating the other psychic guy's death. Dean arrives in town, just in time to stop Gordon from killing Sam. Gordon kidnaps Dean and explains that he's on a new mission. He's heard of a coming war between humans and demons. The psychic kids are suppose to be helping the demon side. Gordon tries to trick Sam into triggering an explosive device, but thanks to Ava's warning, Sam survives. He and Dean escape Gordon and call the police so Gordon is arrested. Dean says that they should lay low, especially when they learn that someone at the Roadhouse tipped off Gordon. But, Sam insists that he's committed to Hunting now and that what the brothers do makes a difference in the world. Meanwhile, Ava vanishes and her fiancé is killed. The boys find traces of sulfur at her apartment and think she might have been taken by demons.

There are some good parts to this episode. I like the scene with Sam & Dean discussing John. Dean is trying to explain things to Sam, but all Sam can hear is that he might go evil. I think Sam knows that Dean will try to shield him and that the only way he'll ever get any real answers is to go out looking for them. Otherwise he could one day just wake up "darkside" and hurt his brother. It's an interesting. And I like Ava. She's such a cute, funny little thing in this episode. She and Sam are actually a good team, as they investigate the case. Her line, "Can't you just leave town before you blow up?" just makes me laugh. And I always like Gordon. He's such a good villain because he BELIEVES what he's doing. When Dean attacks him in a blind rage, punching Gordon and the two of them fight on the rooftop it's really cool. The phone call where Dean tips Sam off with the code word "Funky Town" is perfect. And I like the trip wires going off as Sam breaks into the abandoned house. Dean's panic as he thinks that Sam has been killed is incredible. When Sam comes into untie him, Dean just grabs at his brother, checking him for injuries and immediately heading into kill Gordon. But, Dean leaves the house when Sam asks him to, because he trust his brother's judgment. It's sweet.

One interesting feature of this episode is the question that Gordon poses to Dean. Gordon is convinced that Sam is evil. An unclean Anti-Christ type figure. He's convinced that he's right in his quest to kill Sam. Gordon can sort of understand Dean's hesitance to get on-board with the "lets-kill-Sammy" plan, seeing as Sam's his brother. But he also thinks that, as a professional Hunter, Dean should be able to understand the bigger issues here. He sees Dean as blinded by emotion. So Gordon asks what Dean thinks John would have done. If Sammy went evil, if John could stop him, would he shoot his own son? It's an interesting question. John seems to have told Dean to do just that in "In My Time of Dying." But, realistically, John HAD to know that Dean would NEVER shoot Sam. Not for any reason. No matter what. Before John told Dean that he might have to kill Sam one day, he started crying and telling Dean that Dean was the one who'd kept the family together. ("You took care of me, you took care of Sammy...") And that was also just hours after the events of "Devil's Trap," where John heard Dean begging Sam to not shoot John, stopping Sam from killing the YED once and for all. So in "In My Time of Dying," could John have really BELIEVED that Dean would kill Sam if it came down to the line? Did he really WANT Dean to? Could John have done it himself? I just don't know.

On the down side, we never do get any resolution on how Gordon got the information on Sam from the Roadhouse.

My favorite part of the episode: Ava at the psychiatrist's office, acting as a distraction for Sam. "I just remembered that when I was a kid, I ate like 6 things of Pop-Rocks and then drank a whole can of soda! You don't think that counts as a suicide attempt, do you?"


I loved this episode. It was a complete nail biter, and edge of your seat kinda deal. From the re appearance of Gordon, who by the way in my eyes is a fantastic villain, to the apparent disappearance of Ava...it was fantastic! Jensen Ackles performances were again spot on. From his first fight with Gordon, to the soul splitting 'death of SAM', he was brilliant. Just the right amount of action and mystery to make it a fantastic episode! Kudos to the writers, and of course to the brilliance of Kripke. Ava was a brilliant character, just the right amount of angsty 'why me' behaviour, coupled with a bubbly personality to make a refreshing addition to the episode. All in all a FANTASTIC piece of work, and one of my favourite episodes... and while I'm here can i just add how much i loved that blood splatter on the camera when SAM blew up :D Xsarahx


I love this one. Sam has a vision and learns about his future. Sam for sees his own death. Gordon tries to kill Sam for he knows the secret of Sam. Sam has the help of a fellow person with the same skills. A turn about where, Dean gets captured by Gordon, and Sam come to the rescues. Sam shows, a good plot twist, that he is the smarter brother by getting Gordon arrested by the cops, and Gordon will probably do 100 years. The humor is added when Dean is impressed and says don't drop the soap. What a great story, which keeps the viewer wanting more. What does all the plot development have to do with Sams future. Sam develops in this story form the younger brother to a much stronger character. I believe this episode will lead the way for what season 3 will be about. 8 out of 10


Private Thatcher Hospital is suffering a spate of murders, but THE PATIENT IN ROOM 18 - a young detective recovering from a nervous breakdown - is determined to find the killer.

Fast-moving & fun, this is another example of the comedy crime picture that Warner Brothers was so expert at producing almost without effort. Casts & plots could be shuffled endlessly, with very predictable results. While this assembly line approach created few classics, audience enjoyment could usually be assured.

Patric Knowles & Ann Sheridan spark the action here. As a convalescing detective & stern head nurse with romantic difficulties in their recent past, they keep the plot racing - especially after murder rears its ugly head. Knowles, who never quite graduated to starring roles in major pictures, shows a fine flair for comedy. Sleepwalking down the street dressed in pajamas & bowler, he is indeed a very droll sight. Sheridan shows flashes of the talent that would eventually make her an important star at Warner Brothers.

Unfortunately, the two most potentially interesting characters in the film - Eric Stanley's English valet & Greta Meyer's German cook - are given very little to do. And what about the film's other mystery: just what is so special about Room 18?


Don't worry. This won't make you fear hospitals. It is just a tepid variation on the standard romantic mystery/comedy. Hidden radium. Doctors who are maybe good and maybe bad. Servants who may be servants or may be something else. It is truly standard issue. Ann Sheridan's name in the cast list drew me to this. But she is very subdued. Patric Knowles is OK but not very exciting. The supporting cast is OK, too. But just OK. And the plot is adequate. It holds together, though it is at times a bit confusing.The title is intriguing. And the director did some fine work -- but as a writer. It won't kill you but don't expect it to cure anything, either.


Sorry for the hyperbole topic but I mean it. I am a horror movie fanatic and I have become desensitized to cheap scares with loud noises and murderers running around with axes. I am very picky and only like one out of every few dozen horror movies I watch. I also don't like nonsensical supernatural horror that uses creepy images as a gimmick without actually bothering to make any sense. So when I say that this is the creepiest horror movie ever made, it is not hyperbole.

That said, this movie will bore or confound the average horror movie watcher. It is not linear or logical and it doesn't explain everything that is going on, but it doesn't have to.

This is an apocalyptic horror movie about loneliness and how people may become distant islands and ghosts even through connecting technology like cellphones and the internet. I don't know how anyone can make a horror movie about loneliness and make it creepy as hell but Kiyoshi Kurosawa pulled it off.

That's all you need to know. Experience it with the lights off, no breaks, noise or distractions, or I will lock you in a room with a depressed ghost and tape the door shut with red tape until you become so lonely you will evaporate into nothing.


Why isn't this available in the US?

I don't know how to describe this with out making it sound like something its not, but I have to say that this is one of the creepiest and most disturbing films I've seen in quite some time. Its not perfect, even if I gave it a 10 out of 10, simply because few films have left me that uneasy.

Operating well with a sense that I can only describe as dream logic this concerns the really weird events surrounding several people who notice something is wrong when a friend goes missing. The friend is not the trigger, but the event that they notice making them suspect that all is not right in their world.

Everything about how this story is calculated to send slowly building shivers up and down your spine. There are no real moments of shock, just ever growing horror and unease. I hated the way that this movie made me feel but couldn't stop watching.

If there are any flaws is that the film is a bit long at just under two hours. The pacing wears and the logic, while frightening gets stretched almost to the breaking point.

If you can stand slow calculating horror films that freak you out with images and implications then see this movie. Its one of the best I've seen in a while.


This film works on many levels. What's odd is that one place it is weak in is the plot - it does somewhat tie it all up and make sense but my main point is it doesnt really matter - the director set out to make a scary ghost story and that it is! I see horror films from all over the world so I am pretty jaded when it comes to something "scaring" me but this film has many sequences that truly are frightening and disturbing. Some of the images have stayed with me for weeks. The lighting, the art direction and the use of muted colors (aside from reds used effectively)all make up for a creepy, eerie visual. I have to laugh at the arrogance of some of the comments on this and other "horror" films that claim since it didnt scare them the film is NOT SCARY. That is b.s. What scares one person may not scare another. You can say the piece didn't scare you but to make such a sweeping statement is vain. I personally didn't like any of the Friday of 13th movies, but obviously those films work on some level for millions of people. This film is so non-American in it's pace and core that that is what might turn off some viewers, but that's what I loved about it. The director just sets up the camera and keeps it on a space and then has things slowly emerge from the sides - he has you start to look and scope and wonder if you are REALLY seeing something as opposed to the lazy, bloated SHOCK moment of most US horror films. There are moments when people are confronted by visions/images of ghosts that move and terrorize just like real dreams - slow movements, awkward movements as the ghost approaches you. Terrifying. The film definitely doesn't know how to wrap it all up but in many ways, I found this film even scarier than the original RING. Well made ghost story. Seek it out, fans.


Kiyoshi Kurosawa's "Kairo" has to be one of the most mesmerizing supernatural horror films I have ever seen.The film is loaded with extremely dark and brooding atmosphere and some scenes actually scared me.The photography by Junichiro Hayashi is truly beautiful and the score is very haunting.The theme of "Kairo" is that at the end of the line there isn't anything except a fearful nothingness-no heaven or hell,just a miserable eternity of living in between states.The film is cold and bleak,even nihilistic in its portrayal of total isolation."Kairo" is pretty slow-moving and there is absolutely no gore,so fans of "Scream" or similar crap will be disappointed.Still the visuals are amazing:dark skies,deserted streets and crawling shadows will leave you stunned.A must-see for fans of Japanese horror.10 out of 10.


I don't want to give away anything about this wonderful, haunting film. If you liked "The Sixth Sense", "The Others" or "Ring", this will show you how those films pale in comparison. I felt my skin crawl so many times, and the movie has been haunting my thoughts for days now. I sincerely hope that a wider audience has a chance to experience this dark, beautiful film.


I'm an old horror buff. I've seen some of the more notorious stuff around (Salo, Cannibal Holocaust, Caligula,...), but they all more or less about visceral horror.

Which doesn't work if you helped slaughter a few pigs.

What does work? Psychological horror. Impending doom you cannot prevent. Things you can't see or understand, but that are there right in front of your face. Music that shouldn't be scary, but which lingers anyway.

It's a typical, slow moving J-Horror with an atypical idea behind it. That oblivion is actually preferable than immortality.

Gore doesn't scare me - but some ideas do.

Like i said - it made me squirm... One of the best horror movies ever made - for the patient ones.


a horror film hasn't given me chills in a while. this film made me feel as isolated and terrified as the characters in the movie. I had seen the American re-make before this film, and i'm kind of glad I did, because I got to save the best for last. If you were disappointed by the American Pulse, this predecessor will certainly make up for that sorry excuse for a horror.

I can say without a doubt this is one of my top films to watch alone in a dark room if I wanted to scare the hell out of myself. And that just puts a big grin on my face. Not to mention, the lighting and cinematography in this film is also really well done, and adds a lot to the completely creepy mood throughout. While the story may be hard to follow if you don't know the history behind the film beforehand, it's scary either way. I've watched it twice now, and it's just as good the second time around. Even though this film is considered an older J-horror film, it's still fresh in my book.

I think horror film makers that rely on cheap thrills and gore should take Kairo for a spin, they'd learn a lot from it. Kairo is a truly haunting, scary film that will leave your eyes wide open in terror. 10/10


This movie is very touching. In fact, almost painfully so. I would recommend it to anyone in the mood to engage in a thought-provoking narrative about the human condition.

I have to admit that when I first saw this film I did not expect it to be what it is. The basic premise involves a haunted website, so when I sat down to view it I was expecting something at the same level of terrible as fear.com; instead, I was shocked to find a truly provocative story full of surrealism and drama that examines the concept of isolation and the deep fear that all people have of loneliness.

This, of course, means that the fear that Kairo invokes is not typical of the horror movie genre--at least not the North American horror movie genre; I can't speak for the Japanese--because it isn't really scary. It's disturbing and eerie, and frankly I wouldn't watch it alone in the dark, but I'll admit that I'm a bit of a coward (The Grudge still terrifies me, so make of that what you will). If you go into this movie wanting to see people being hacked apart, or if you want to be jumping out of your seat every few minutes by fake-out scares, you will probably be pretty angry by the time this one's over. Seriously--you'll probably be more freaked out by the original version of Dark Water, and that's saying something.

However, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. This film provides a very moving portrayal of people's inability to truly connect with one another. It offers a bleak examination of human nature without being heavy-handed or pretentious; it doesn't come off as condescending and the creators obviously aren't trying to be snobbish or "intellectual". It simply asks the question: can we ever truly connect with one another, or are we doomed to be alone by our very natures?


This film is about a gap that exists between the real world and the world of the dead. There's a lot of mumbo-jumbo about the internet (i.e., if you install a program on the computer, you see dead folks--much like if you play a videotape you'll die in RINGU). Frankly, most of this seemed rather silly and lost me. What I did find interesting is the idea that the dead live within their own separate existence--being totally alone for eternity. This was sobering and fascinating.

I love Japanese films and have seen a huge number compared to most Americans. However, one genre that has become popular in recent years that I just can't relate to very well are these horror films. I know they are super popular--especially since they seem to be remade so often in the States. I've seen both RINGU as well as THE RING, JU-ON and THE GRUDGE and was rather ambivalent despite their popularity. About the only recent horror film I really liked from Japan was SEANCE--a reworking of the great British film, SEANCE ON A WET AFTERNOON. And what, do I think, made SEANCE different? Well, unlike the other films as well as KAIRO, gobs and gobs of money weren't spent on special effects or trying to scare the audience--instead, the emphasis was on the story. The bottom line is that these other films are a lot like American films like HALLOWEEN or Friday 13th--with scary things jumping out just to scare the audience and plot is purely secondary (at best). For me, I want story--not cheap thrills or ghosts as the primary focus of the film.

With a relatively high rating, I know I am in the minority, but I just don't find this a very satisfying film. All too often, minor things occur that might startle someone slightly--but the characters begin screaming and crying and acting as if to say "this is the scariest film ever made so you'd better start shaking". Well, I think it just tries too hard and I wish it had focused more on the afterlife seen at the end of the film and plot progression--not scare tactics.


Kario (Pulse) is unlike any Japanese horror I have seen. As much as I love the Ju-On series, the scares come from creepy ghosts that pop-up from unseen places. They are good movies, but those scares wear off after awhile. However, in Kairo the ghosts don't pop up suddenly and they aren't accompanied by loud music. They are just there and boy are they creepy. Sometimes they do nothing, they just stand there, staring. It creates a feeling of unease and constantly keeps the viewer on edge.

It's not just the ghosts that are unique, the story is incredibly interesting and intelligent. But it is not linear, logical and it doesn't explain everything (it doesn't have to, though). It really leaves it up to us what to decide. This is what is so good about this movie, it's much unlike most horror films. Forget all the recent American horror films, although some are excellent they really aren't like this. This film is almost like a dream in some ways. It goes at a very slow pace (clocking in just under 2 hours) and there aren't a lot of scares. At times the story may seem illogical but I beg to differ.

Kairo is really an apocalyptic horror much like the 2002 British horror film 28 Days Later (just replace zombies with ghosts). Also like 28 Days Later, this film carries a very profound social message but unlike 28 Days Later this one is about loneliness and how people become distant through the use of technology. There's also a heavy emphasis on the evils of suicide.

Kiyoshi Kurosawa has created an intelligent, unique horror film that doesn't quite get the attention it deserves. If your willing to experience movie that will leave your unsettled and weired out afterwards, look no further than Kairo.

4½/5


I'm a jaded horror-movie fan, hence approximately once in a blue moon do I get to watch a film from this genre that has me glued to the screen rather than bored or sneering/almost laughing at the gore when I'm not supposed to. But perhaps that was the key here, the essential ingredient - or rather the lack of it: the fact that there is no gore. Just like in the Japanese "Ringu", the eeriness comes out of what is insinuated rather than catchup-stained limbs flying through rooms as if they had wings. "Kairo" remains interesting in spite of its 2-hour length, although a little editing snip here or there might have made it a little more compact. The dialogue is mostly standard, i.e. not that interesting (with some exceptions), so it's the ghost scenes that elevate this movie above 98% of the usual horror crap. The story is slightly muddled (or were my subtitles bad?) but it matters not. "Kairo" shows once again why the Japanese (or Orientals in general) have an upper hand in the genre in recent years.

And even if you disliked it: it still beats watching a Stephen King or Wes Craven film, doesn't it? Plus, Japanese actresses are so much better-looking than the increasingly ugly, masculine blonds Hollywood serves us lately...

"Printo screenki": this is how one male character referred to a certain computer-keyboard feature...


Not a bad little Japanese horror flick, this, but while it is creepy and disturbing I must say that I felt rather lost trying to keep up with or figure out what was going on. Seems that wherever spirits go when they're dead is full, and the spirits remain on earth, lingering in the shadows and around corners, always just out of sight. Or so it seemed to me, and this may not be the actual idea. As I mentioned it is a bit hard to follow. Still though, it has a certain creepiness and gloom about it, a sense of dread, that comes across rather well. It seems to pole vault from one scenario to another though, and I will confess to being totally lost sometimes. A good look and feel to it though, and a scene with a low-flying plane on fire that then crashes out of sight is particularly eerie. I suppose a second watch might reveal more to me but we'll see, I reckon. I wouldn't say don't see it, just be prepared to pay close attention, I guess. 7 out of 10.


Kairo, or Pulse as it's known amongst English speaking audiences, is set in Tokyo & starts as Sunny Plant Sales employee Michi Kudo (Kumiko Aso) decides to visit her friend Taguchi (Kenji Mizuhashi) to enquire about a computer disk he's been working on, when she gets to his place he gives her the disk but then rather inconsiderately commits suicide in front of her. Meanwhile a student named Ryosuke Kawashima (Haruhiko Kato) has recently hooked up to the internet & keeps getting spooky messages & images on his monitor so he ask's computer whizz Harue Karasawa (Koyuki) whats happening, she doesn't really know but it seems that the place where people's spirits go when they die is full & they need somewhere else to go & Earth is as good a place as any, right? These spirits don't like sharing either so they sort of make people commit suicide or turn them into ashes or something like that, I don't really know because the films a bit of a mess...

This Japanese production was written & directed by Kiyoshi Kurosawa & right off the bat I have to say I hated Kairo, I hated everything about it & it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Asian cinema can produce something as crap as any American filmmaker. The script is an overlong mess, the thing simply doesn't make any sense with scenes which seem like they are from a different film, sequences which make no logical sense or are not explained in any way & Kairo is also the most downright boring film I've sat through this year. At two hours long this is a real chore to sit through, I really wanted to fast-forward it but I'm fair if nothing else so I stuck it out to the bitter end & frankly wished I hadn't. There are so many things wrong with Kairo, I suppose the filmmakers were going for a surreal ambiguous & deliberately incoherent feel but those are traits which I despise in a film unless they are done properly. Then there's the whole internet thing which I just couldn't relate to at all, I use the internet all day & it's not in the least bit scary to me in any way. Then there's the fact that Kairo as a film provided zero entertainment value for me, maybe I'm a Neanderthal but I kind of like the films I watch to entertain me, make some sort of sense & not bore me to death.

Director Kurosawa has made the ultimate insomnia cure as far as I'm concerned, if you have trouble getting to sleep stick this in the DVD & you be fast asleep within 10 minutes I guarantee you. I didn't think Kairo was scary in the slightest, the whole internet thing was laughable & as for scary you should see some of the penis enlargement pop-up ads I get, now that's scary! I hate this film, I hate this film, I'm sorry I just need to make that basic point again, twice. Forget about any action, tension or gore as there isn't any. If you have a very nervous disposition then there are maybe a couple of scenes which might creep you out otherwise this is kiddie friendly PG rated stuff all the way. Urgh.

The film looks so dull & boring it's untrue, the camera just sits there for very long shots & when it does move it moves very slowly, this has all the style of a Mexican soap opera. Since Kairo is sub titled it's difficult to judge the original performances so I won't bother, it's hard to care for someone when they don't even speak the same language & you don't know what they are saying.

Kairo is crap, I hated it & it's as simple & straight forward as that. Just because it's an Asian flick doesn't automatically make it any good & the mess of a story, the plot holes, the fact it makes no sense & it's an absolute bore means Kairo would rightly be torn to shreds by people if it were an American production. The worst film I've seen this year by some distance. Kairo got a Hollywood remake as Pulse (2006).


I was so excited to finally watch "Pulse" after receiving it from Amazon, and I have to say I was utterly disappointed. I perhaps think I was too hyped up. I had expectations set by its fans that simply couldn't be met. After loving other Asian horrors, I thought I knew this would find a place in my heart.

The story was slow, painfully so. I am a diverse fan of horror. I love the brutal, bloody craziness of "The Devil's Rejects" and I love equally the steady, growing macabre of "A Tale of Two Sisters". "Pulse" offered little from either spectrum, sadly.

Along with the sluggishness of the plot, it was also very muddled. I hadn't a clue why characters were doing what they were doing and how what they were doing would help their problem. It seemed as if the director spouted off the plot in a sentence or two and the rest was improf from our actors. Unlike "A Tale of Two Sisters", which also has a rather hard-to-follow plot line, "Pulse" clears up very little at the end and left me feeling frustrated, confused and uninterested in the characters' endeavors. My closing statement about the plot was its inconsistency. At first it seemed as if the story was about the ghost world overflowing and their medium of escaping is the Internet. That's a damn original idea. I like that. But as the plot drones on, plot-holes and unexplained happenings rearing their heads in, it seems the director switched to some apocalyptic tale (as evident by the ending) that just hasn't been clear enough throughout to execute.

I realize the dreariness of the shots and the setting was intentional to make the viewer feel bleak and isolated, but the dullness of the movie was only intensified by the grainy, shadowy surroundings. I will admit there was a certain feel of surrealism with the movie, but that may have just been my attention waning in and out.

The actions of some of the characters are a little bit ridiculous as well, and perhaps if I was more enthralled by the story I would've been able to suspend more disbelief but as well myself being unmotivated so too were some of the characters. Like I mentioned previously, the logic behind what certain characters did were absent and contributed to the incoherence of the plot. Perhaps it was a result of the plot's incoherence that the characters do questionable things. To be honest I don't really care.

The acting was decent. Certainly nothing outstanding but nothing terrible either. No outliers to mention on either side of brilliant or plain awful.

Now I'll stop sounding so sour and mention that there were a handful of creepy moments. One towards the end especially that if there were more like it throughout, I would've enjoyed this movie (almost) wholly. I thought whenever the website was shown it was pretty unsettling, as well as some of the ghostly encounters our two main characters face. The things that went on between these ghastly run-ins were just too lackluster, baffling and "WTF" for me to truly appreciate.

Now for something pertaining to the DVD itself... Magnolia's release of "Pulse" comes with subtitles, yes, but the subtitles are off. They aren't said at the correct time of the character's speech. It may sound nit-picking but it bothered me a little and it may bother some others. I think this is the only North American release of the film though so you either have to deal or watch dubbing (NEVER WATCH DUBBING!!!) I tried to like the film, I really did. I WANTED this film to live up to the hype... but sadly, it fell flat for me. If you're looking for other creepy Asian cinema I can recommend you "Audition", "Shutter", "A Tale of Two Sisters", "Strange Circus" and "Marebito" -- all of which are more my palette.