well i saw the trailer... i thought it looked like a fun and interesting movie. But was i wrong! wow ... for a start.. the 3 main leads .. who i have liked on screen in the past..were given dreary dialogue .. The characters were all so unlikable, the story.. what story?!.. it just wasn't worth being made.. it told nothing. they had to stick a stupid funeral scene in for some visual effects OK i might be a little harsh .. it was well shot.. but thats all its got going for it.

please avoid this pretentious rubbish.. i cant believe it got so many favorable votes.


I admit that arrogance is in the atmosphere of all of Wes Anderson's films and his style will probably never change, but I LOVE every single one of them (even the overblown "The Life Aquatic" gets me giddy). He knows how to push my emotional buttons and entertain the hell out of me, something that I find rare in most movies I watch. Usually if I want to be entertained, I feel the movie has to compromise the emotional value and vice versa. With Wes, I'm laughing, being entertained by the characters AND caring for them. The second that Adrien Brody ran past Bill Murray in slow motion running toward the train as The Kinks' "This Time Tomorrow" kicked in, my heart started racing at the idea that I was about to watch a new film by Wes, which I look at as something special that comes every few years. Wes' detractors complain that he is a pretentious one-trick pony, a true statement, but to me, not a negative one because I love his universe and I love being invited into it in every one of his films. While I love both of them, I occasionally wish that Tim Burton would make a film that wasn't some kind of Gothic fairy tale, or that Paul Thomas Anderson would make a film that didn't star his own ego. With Wes, I want him to just continue what he's been doing: keep using his same awesome style while taking baby steps of progress. The writing, acting, directing, soundtrack, production design and cinematography (okay, EVERYTHING) are top-notch in "The Darjeeling Limited". Hell, if "Rushmore" wasn't such a damn masterpiece, I'd say Wes has made his best film yet.


The first thing to note about Wes Anderson's new film (featuring Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, and Adrien Brody, as the Whitman brothers, Francis, Jack, and Peter respectively) is that it was shot in India, mostly on a colorful old train traveling across Rajasthan. The train perhaps replaces the elaborate constructed set of the ship Anderson used in 'The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou.' That ship was a bit of an albatross. The movie cost $60 million to make and is Anderson's least admired work. The train is part of a faster and cheaper production and it's crucially different: it's a real train, in motion during the shoot. It's still perhaps an arbitrary and whimsical setand has the kind of bright pastel colors Anderson likesbut this time, as Brody has said about the shoot, they were learning to "live in the moment," just letting things happen, and using whatever they observed of Indian life as elements in the film. Every time they turned around there was something unfamiliar, remarkable and new to see; if they could, they worked it in. This isn't navel-gazing (though there's that) but also discovery and wonderment. It's partly a homage to Anderson's fascination with India and admiration for Jean Renoir's 'The River' and the films of Satyajit Ray. The soundtrack isn't just sweet Seventies rock but music from Ray's classics.

Every Anderson film is about families (and his crew and casts are like family); this one is mostly, of course, about sibling relationships. Wes wrote the screenplay together with Roman Coppola and Jason Schwartzman, who're both cousins, and old friends of hisand hence like brothers, paralleling the film's three. They also went to India and took a trip before the writing, living the experience before they made it into a screenplay.

'Darjeeling's' trio of obviously privileged sons have been estranged for a year, since their father's deathwhich their mother, Patricia (Angelica Houston), now in a convent near the Himalayas, chose not even to attend. (There's a flashback of the brothers en route to the funeral, with Barbet Schroeder as a German mechanic.) Francis, the eldest, has summoned Jack and Peter to this Indian train voyage as a way of bonding, and at the same time seeking spiritual enlightenment.

But before we get to that, there's a kind of pendant, called 'Hotel Chevalier,' which sometimes will be shown with 'Darjeeling,' sometimes not. It's a ten-minute film with Jason Schwartzman and Nathalie Portman. And it's a perfect little film in its way. Schwartzman is already Jack, though the film was completed a year earlier. He's enjoying solitary luxury in a nice Paris hotel, when his girlfriend (Portman), also estranged, turns up. Jack, who likes to go barefoot and wear expensive suits, is a writer, and this sequence comes up in 'Darjeeling' as a short story he's working on. 'Hotel Chevalier' is a bridge into the full-length film, and was also a way for Schwartzman to readjust to working with Anderson as an actor after the long interlude since 'Rushmore.'

Everyone is damaged. We know how actually damaged Owen Wilson is from the news of his recent suicide attempt; and Anderson's comedies are perennially tinged with melancholy and dysfunction. Francis (Wilson) arrives with his head all bandaged up from a terrible motorcycle accident. Peter (Brodythe only Anderson newcomer among the principals) is running away from the pregnancy of a wife he regrets marrying. Jack is pining for the girlfriend of Hotel Chevalier, who has apparently slept around. She can't commit to him and he can't give her up. The brothers stop at temples and see sights and shopfor Indian medicines to get high on; poisonous snakes; pepper spray. The men are bossed around by the train's chief steward (Waris Ahluwalia), and Jack has a quick affair with a stewardess, Rita (Amara Karan), whom the others know as the sweet lime girl. Francis, who bosses his other brothers around, also has a secretary and planner, Brendan (Wally Worodarsky) who prints up and laminates little copies of their itinerary, which changes from day to day, and has such tasks as keeping track of the brother's extensive array of custom Marc Jacobs Vuitton luggage, which belonged to their father, and finding adapter plugs. Brendan eventually defects, but Francis hopes to lure him back.

The brothers effect a rescue of some boys in a capsized raft near a waterfall; but the boy Peter tries to rescue doesn't survive, and they all go to the funeral. They weren't going to go and see their mother, but they do; Huston gives an especially strong performance. A ceremony to celebrate their bond and spiritual union goes wrong, but later they do it again. And this time it works. The movie begins with Bill Murray (Steve Zissou in Anderson's last outing) who runs after the train and misses it. The throwing away of the baggage is perhaps a little too obvious a symbol.. Maybe the rescue episode feels contrived and emotionally detached.

Either you like Wes Anderson or you don't, no doubt. But if you share my impression that he's one of the most important American filmmakers of his generation, his new film is obviously essential viewing. It looks like this time has gone better than the last, even if Nathan Lee is right in saying it's more "a companion piece to 'Tenenbaums' than a step in new directions." It will be nice if a lot of people get to see it proceeded by 'Hotel Chevalier' (which, anyway, will be on the DVD). The New York Film Festival 2007 has chosen 'The Darjeeling Limited' for their opening night film. This is a new direction for Anderson, which is to just let things be, or, as Francis says in dictating the course of their journey, to "say yes to everything." To try to, anyway.


The Whitman brothers haven't seen each other in over a year. Francis (Owen Wilson) invites his brother Peter (Adrien Brody) and Jack (Jason Schartzman) on a cross-country train trip through the heartland of India in order to reconnect, bond and find themselves on a spiritual level. That's their internal arc. The external arc is to reunite with their mother who is now working as a nun in a convent at the "foot of the Himalayas".

The Darjeeling Limited is actually a run-down train, the kind you would find in just about any third world landscape. The Darjeeling Limited (the Movie) attempts to mix farce with scenes of dramatic pathos unsuccessfully. For most of the movie, the three brothers are depicted as losers with a ton of emotional baggage, unable to resolve grudges they hold from an unfulfilled childhood. Unlike the Three Stooges (who mainly depended on quirky physical routines), there's little to distinguish the three witless Whitmans. Francis is the goofy businessman who spends most of the movie with his head wrapped in bandages after getting into a motorcycle accident prior to hooking up with his brothers; Peter is ostensibly running away from the responsibilities of adulthood as his wife is now 7 ½ months pregnant back home; and Jack is a struggling writer with a propensity for casual sex (he easily beds a stewardess on the train). Note there is a 13 minute short film on the DVD entitled "Hotel Chevalier" which illustrates the ending of Jack's pretentious novel.

Act I concerns the brothers' unfunny vignettes aboard the Darjeeling Limited. The main bit concerns their smuggling a poisonous snake aboard the train which almost gets them thrown off by the conductor. Eventually, Peter accuses Francis of being an "Indian giver" after he takes back an expensive belt he had given him earlier. They get into a physical altercation which spills out into the passenger section. This finally gets the hapless siblings thrown off the train in the middle of nowhere.

Act II switches to a rural Indian area where the brothers witness the capsizing of a raft manned by a group of boys. The brothers jump into the river, save two of the children but are unable to save a third. The brothers are about to take a bus but are suddenly invited by the villagers to attend the boy's funeral. Obviously, this is the scene where the brothers are supposed to 'grow up' and the audience is supposed to sympathize with them. In better screenplays, moments of sympathy for the protagonists come much earlier (usually at the beginning of the story). Here, the rescue of the children occurs at the midpoint of the film and it seems out of place with Act One's slapstick tone.

Act III reunites the brothers with their mother, the nun in the convent played by Anjelica Huston. There's a lame joke about an escaped tiger eating one of the nun's brothers followed by the mother making breakfast for the brothers and then disappearing. Unperturbed, the brothers go up to the mountain and bond with one another. The final scene reprises the first: the brothers just miss the departing Darjeeling Limited and must jump on board just as the train pulls out of the station.

The performances here are uniformly forgettable. The usually grim Adrien Brody should be singled out for proving that he's unfit for comedy. The leering Jason Schwartzman does his Ron Jeremy imitation and Owen Wilson takes a pratfall or two. Finally, there's the director, Wes Anderson, who must be castigated not only for his self-indulgence but for having a sense of humor that is thoroughly juvenile in tone and scope. Let's hope that some of the film's bloated budget went to helping some of the indigent local population who assisted the crew while working on this film. The true star of this misguided production was the Indian countryside and its people whose earnestness is contrasted with the shallowness of the film's creators.


I was really looking forward to see this movie. I saw the trailer and was ready for a real treat with Owen Wilson's comic character.

It started out alright but never took off. This was an empty movie that leaves you empty, gives you nothing and leaves you wondering why the Hell this movie was made.

Spiritual journey my ass. Nothing is spiritual about it. They are constantly smoking or getting high on both upper and downers. But that's to hide the fact that the movie has nothing to give. They are empty characters that are never fleshed out and the drugs don't add any dimension to it either. It just falls flat.

I had high hopes for this movie and am deeply disappointed to have watched such a waste of resources on such great actors.

The pretentious feeling of Life Aquatic is still there but this time no Bill Murray to save the day.


What in the name of Slumdog Millionaire is this? Mind you, I loved Rushmore, but Oh Lord! How do you screw up a cast like this? And how do you misuse Bill Murray by just letting him run for a train he clearly won't catch?

The Whitman brothers reunite after a year of estrangement on a train in India of all places. Francis is the oldest bro with his face banged up pretty badly, creating itineraries on what to do, what to see, etc. on the trip and intent on staying on schedule, all the while it's all a plan for the three of them to reunite with their mother who abandoned them after their father died (not even attending the funeral) to be some nun in a quasi church/ashram/temple/somethingorother. Peter is the middle bro whose about to be a father and not too keen about it, tends to steal things like Francis' belt, hangs on to his dead father's things, and buys a cobra for...I have no friggin idea why. Jack is the youngest still hung up on a ex-girlfriend back in Paris, but has no problem having a quickie with Rita, the stewardess on the train. After all their secrets come out, getting thrown off the train, trying to rescue some kids but one unfortunately dies, attending the funeral, and finally seeing runaway delusional mom who apparently has no interest in her sons' lives, abandons them yet again that the brothers leave on another train to, I guess, sort out their lives.

I have no clue what the point of the film was, but all I got out of it was this: if your an adult and your surviving parent decides to run away to join some ashram/cult/whatever instead of attending the dead spouses' funeral, forget searching for them, just cut your loses and move on.


Following a troika of greats with "Rushmore", "The Royal Tenenbaums" and "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou", Wes Anderson extended it with "The Darjeeling Limited". This one has brothers Peter (Adrien Brody), Jack (Jason Schwartzman) and Francis (Owen Wilson) traveling together on a train through India for a "spiritual journey". The dysfunctional family is clearly Wes Anderson's specialty, and he doesn't disappoint. Especially impressive is the scene showing the brothers before the trip to India (I liked how the scene throws the audience off).

Are dysfunctional families becoming a cliché in Anderson's movies? Well, suspense was a cliché in Alfred Hitchcock's films, and Hitch made great use of it. Wes Anderson has made another good film here, and I recommend it. Part of the point is that, despite these people's problems, they're well-meaning. I can see the brothers as a branch of the brood in "The Royal Tenenbaums", with the luggage representing the emotional baggage with which the father left them (and then what they do to the luggage at the end).

Anyway, a really good one. Anderson so far hasn't made a bad movie, and so I hope that he doesn't disappoint with "Fantastic Mr. Fox" (currently in production). Also starring Waris Ahluwalia, Amara Karan, Barbet Schroeder, Wallace Wolodarsky, Anjelica Huston, Natalie Portman, Irfan Khan and Bill Murray.


This title is probably more suited to males that have brothers but definitely is not exclusive to this group.

Our main, wealthy brother has had a life changing experience and is now looking to bring his family back together. What's left of his family comprises his two brothers and his mom. He (Owen) will spare no expense or detail to make sure that the end result of this journey will bring his family closer. There are PLENTY of adventures along the way that make this task more daunting than it should have been. By most accounts, these feelings (that the brothers share) could of been aired out during a Thanksgiving dinner but clearly, our group needs more time and energy to be heard. Their adventures make sense and it shows how dis-functional blood relations can be.

Great writing, along with a spectacular cast make this character driven masterpiece worth investing time in.

Expect some laughs, maybe a tear but also, make the time to follow a great story line. This is not a typical Hollywood format. But then again, that might be why I loved it so much.


This guilelessly vague dramatic comedy is a warm, engaging, funny film, very immersed in India, a land and culture of baffling beauty, and thus a brilliant opportunity for the stunning showcase of an art director. This Venusian journey of materialistic and tangible beauties begins with Bill Murray (I just contradicted myself, didn't I?) racing to catch a train in the Indian countryside. As he is about to lose the train we see Adrien Brody following the same desperate intention. Brody makes it, Murray doesn't. Brody makes his way to his compartment, where he finds his brothers, played by Jason Schwartzman and Owen Wilson. Wilson's head is heftily bandaged, as he was in a serious motorcycle crash. Brody and Schwartzman have come to India, apparently at Wilson's proposal, on the Darjeeling Limited, on what he wishes to be some kind of spiritual excursion.

This is a great beginning which demonstrates the very character sustained throughout the film. Wilson plays an obsessive sort, which is why his younger brothers find it grueling to be in his company, which tugs the easygoing movie along. One of the film's draws is its Indian framework. Wes Anderson and his co-writers Jason Schwartzman and Roman Coppola avoid clear inducements of the exotic by surprising us. The stewardess on the train, for example, speaks standard English and seems American.

Anderson employs India thankfully not as if he and his audience are tourists, but as a surrounding that is extremely palpable, a testament to the true power of cinema without the vain aide of Blu-Ray and Hi-Def revolutionizing, as we can practically smell India and dread the ferocious sun and the feeling of sweat. Take into account a long-lasting scene in which Wilson, Brody and Schwartzman sit at a table in the diner car with an Indian stranger with whom they do not trade a word. He keeps to himself. The brothers confront each other directly and overtly about their points of conflict and reservation. The Indian does not react in any apparent way. Then again, nobody ever does in a Wes Anderson film. But his tranquil being there is a camouflaged concentration of scene nicety, because all four of them could probably converse in English very well. But I think the world learns a great deal from Americans when we travel and assume that foreigners are not fluent in English. You think you like people-watching, it's people across the globe such as this Indian who take it to a whole new level.

I also like how Wilson, Schwartzman and Brody elbow one another in an intimate, familial way. Yes, the film is competent with great presence and simple being and possession of itself, but it does wander. But it doesn't have an ultimate objective, other than perhaps a visceral experience of existence. Anderson may not have used a straight, constantly progressing story structure before either, but he clearly knows it, because the humor and poignancy come in the way he meddles with non-sequiturs and inconvenient interruptions of rambling.

Note: Watch Hotel Chevalier with The Darjeeling Limited. Hotel Chevalier is the short film that precedes this story. It is a fun way of feeling more deeply in the know with some characters and more informed than other characters. It also has that Venusian subtlety of touch that Wes Anderson seems to bring to everything.


I think this was the first time Mark Mothersbaugh(of Devo) didn't do the music, and it kinda shows, it all sounded like Anderson's ipod left to shuffle (i almost thought this was gonna be a theme of the film, but it was just a passing in-joke), the music highlighted where emotion was happening on screen, but didn't really give me any sense of "what emotions" we were supposed to be experiencing(save for the i-pod scene already mentioned), it all just felt kinda vague like someone left the radio on in the other room. And I'm talking about the pop songs, the Indian music was okay.

Though it was enjoyable and I feel like I would watch it again(and have), I just wanted more, and not in the "I hope this never ends" way, but in the "really there's not another half an hour here...or something?" sense of wanting more. The discarded luggage at the films end, though a nice bow at the end of the package, felt sudden, not unresolved, just sudden.

Maybe Schwartzman as screen-writer wasn't the best idea, then again Coppla's "CQ" was okay at best, so who knows where it went wrong, and though it could have been worse, and wasn't that bad, it just left me kinda disappointed.

Still Wes Anderson at his weakest is still more interesting to watch than many at their best. I can see how people could like this though, some of it feels like "Bottle Rocket", another beloved Anderson film I was't too thrilled with.

Hotel Chevelaire kind of makes up for some of the weaker bits, in retrospect. It's just an encapsulation of everything great about Anderson, the music, the shrines, the dialog, the camera-work...and Natalie Portman doesn't hurt too...


Once again, Wes Anderson has created a film that has interesting and odd, including its character, script, and plot. He returns to familiar themes of family (mainly mending relationships with parents/children). The movie is not always easy to understand and the ending may leave some seeking more. There is character development, but there seem to be some holes and the plot seems to jump forward at times. But for those who can comprehend metaphors and tolerate ambiguity, viewers may leave the film satisfied.

As usual, the movie's charm comes from its oddball characters, and script and thanks to the cinematographry and colors of India, it is a beautiful movie to watch.


This is one of those movies which determines who you want to hang out with and who you don't. In other words, if you are open to new ideas, enjoy movies which go outside the box, and are a free thinker, then Darjeeling Limited is for you. But if you are on the conservative side and more apt to rent a family-oriented, typical Hollywood melodrama, then this movie is not going to be your cup of tea. Because you see, Darjeeling Limited is creative, absolutely creative, and entertains from start to finish. The viewer of this unique, esoteric movie is treated with very visceral cinematography, which was breathtaking, from beginning to end. More than anything Darjeeling Limited is very much like taking a trip, namely in this case going along for a ride to visit exotic places, and interesting sometimes confounding people. Making this movie even more intricate are a host of family dynamics, quite humorously blown out of proportion or sometimes even exponentially exaggerated. There are also issues of grief, and hence part of this movie is these brothers journeying for some sense of resolve or closure. So in other words, it is a richly thought out script this movie is based upon. Most of all, as a viewer of these three brothers' often outrageous antics, I personally loved being a part of all of it, sharing their discovery of new places, seeing new people and above all experiencing their lives. And for those who have seen Darjeeling Limited and are still asking themselves what it was all about or what was the point of this movie, it is essentially an allegorical tale of how rewarding your life can be if you are willing to open up your mind, enjoy life and above all explore the world and the people around you. That is what this movie is all about---c'est tout! I must admit that I enjoyed this movie so much that I was dreading the moment it ended. I know this movie is way too cool for a sequel, but one can only hope.


I read a short commentary about the Darjeeling Limited before it was finished. It seemed interesting, and with the cast assembled I felt it would probably be a good movie. Of course, when I did finally see it, I was excited to see it was another Wes Anderson creation. Following three brothers on a spiritual journey to find their way back to each other, couldn't be more realistic. Siblings often know each other so well, and yet they never really know each other well enough, as is the truth with these three brothers. Still grieving over the death of their father, they argue and come together over and over again. They confront their mother along the way and each other about the events that followed the death of their father. When it is all said and done, no three brothers can come together and find such a spiritual bond as these three. I cried, I laughed, and I fell in love with the music. I can't see any other actors playing in the roles of these three quirky brothers and I can't believe how amazing I felt when the movie was over. I got the message and I hope you do too. I enjoyed this movie so much, I added it to my collection.


True escapist bliss! So trippy, like being sucked into a new world you don't really want to leave. The story seems to unfold as spontaneously as the characters take it. The direction and editing make you feel like you're on the trip with the brothers Francis (Owen Wilson), Peter (Adrien Brody) and Jack (Jason Schwartzman) Whitman, who, in their own clumsy way, try to find some meaning in their lives after the death of their father.

It's fascinating how the subplots, other characters and attention to detail don't detract from the main story, without the feel of an omniscient manipulation behind the scenes. You tend to accept anything that is thrown in an attractively haphazard fashion on screen; you drink in all their imperfections and are hooked for more. The casting of the brothers is perfect; their faces are all so enticingly odd, they don't really seem like they're acting.

I feel this is where quirky director Wes Anderson excels: being able to march to the beat of his own drummer while getting others on board with him.


Admittedly the reason that I first decided to see Ten Inch Hero was for Jensen Ackles (Priestly) who I must say did not disappoint, the young actor has wonderful comedic timing. However, I returned to the Phoenix film festival for a second viewing of the film (with all my friends in tow) for an entirely different reason. The film is incredible and I can honestly say I that I would watch it again and again, a point that everyone who accompanied me to the screening would agree to. In general the acting was superb, Clea DuVall has immense presence as the shy and self-conscious Jen and John Doe is excellent as usual as the quirky Trucker. The story itself is wonderful, simple yet not to the point of boredom as it has several twists and turns that even my best friend who has a knack for ruining all plots reversals for me couldn't guess. I can't wait the see this film in theater or at the very least on DVD and would love so much to be able to have in my possession the soundtrack of this movie. The the soundtrack alone (trust me on this one) is worth seeing the movie for, the original songs by Bethany Joy Galeotti are incredible! All I can say is that I am so glad Jensen Ackles was chosen to play Priestly or I likely would never have seen this film, and that would truly have been a huge shame.


When I first heard about this film, I didn't have terribly high expectations. I had high hopes, but... that was about it.

Still, I made the effort (and yes, going from the Sierras to Phoenix WAS a lot of effort) to see this film. And I'm very glad I did.

First, the script. Betsy Morris shines in her first script. Her plot is not overly dramatic. The situations the characters face are all very real. They happen every day, but it's the common quality of their issues that makes them important. As you're watching the film, it's less about watching characters, and more about watching the lives of people you already know, that you see everyday on the street, as they unfold.

Second, the cast. Yes, some of the names and faces are very recognizable from the WB/CW. This shouldn't be held against them - because not only did each perform solidly, but they definitely played off each other. I will say, though, that Jensen Ackles stole every scene in which he appeared. His character Priestly is very different from any other character I've seen him play before and is, in a way, a visual representation of many of the film's themes - that people are often not who and what they appear, that they are more than what we assume them to be, and that we need to look beyond the immediate. (The tampon scene and the checkout scene are VERY reminiscent of some of the 80's and 90's comedies.... great!)

Third - visuals. I must admit that I saw this film on a digital projector and the image was somewhat murky (I blame the projection on that), but it was still immediately apparent that this film holds a wealth of visual potential. There are a number of shots on location on the California coast that made me ache with homesickness and yet, in others, you feel like you're standing in this familiar town, walking down familiar streets.

My one complaint had to do with a scene that I felt was somewhat gratuitous (and those who have seen it probably know exactly which scene I mean), but if that's my only complaint, I think they're doing pretty well.

Okay, so maybe this film won't ever be an Oscar contender, but it's solid and entertaining and given some of the schlock coming out of Hollywood of late, I'll take a small, solid film over an overdone, trite "blockbuster" any day.


From the start the movie has that feeling that "Reality Bites" or "Empire Recods" once had: friends doing nothing but everything at the same time, discovering who they are and what they want. I won't spoil you, 'cause that's not my intention anyway, I only want to express why this movie is SO good!

The cast is amazing, every single one of them. I'm a Jensen Ackles follower, so I concentrated on his character (which was amazing in every sense, he can always pull it off, no matter what he's playing) but I was immediately in love with every single one of them. Miss Betsy, the writer, is an awesome writer, and she was able to create a bunch of AMAZING characters, Priestly being, of course, my favorite. He's the type of character that everyone loves, doesn't matter if you know Jensen or not; you simply love Priestly.

There's something for everyone, and everyone will enjoy it!

I recommend this movie, and I hope we get a DVD... PLEASE!!!


What to say? I have no idea cause there are no words to describe how magnificent this movie is. You might say excellent or fantastic, but those words would not do it any justice. I mean the plot of the movie is full of surprises and the characters are so complex. I just love it!! I was so glad that I was able to get my tickets for it at the last minute due to my short term memory loss. LOL!! Even though we went to the Saturday viewing at the butt crack of dawn, but it was well worth it. All I have to say is that I hope it comes out to the big screens soon, so I can see it again and again and then eventually buy it on DVD. So I can watch it again and again and again. LOL!!!


As always it is the complainers that are the first to comment. I personally thoroughly enjoyed the film. Surely a films aim is to entertain? Well this one did the job as far as I am concerned.

Has something similar been done before? probably but who cares, and without knowing how it was shot you (or at least I) couldn't even attempt to judge how innovative it is. All I know is that it felt very different to watch than most movies you will see. As for the comment that this genre is dead... what a load of tripe, this is not some Quentin T rip. It stands alone as an interesting story with some good twists and plenty of humour (assuming you like your humour fairly dry) Was it a low budget flick? almost definitely, does it look "cheap"? not at all. I think this is a breath of fresh air for the industry within NZ. And I firmly believe it is a good quality, entertaining flick.

Is it the best movie in the world? of course not... still I liked it better than at least one huge blockbuster I saw recently. Mind you some people apparently can't live without huge explosions and/or a festival of CGI! If you enjoy the flavour of the "british gangster" type flick, and like your humour dark and dry you will probably enjoy this film.

So go check it out you will probably enjoy it. Plus you are supporting genuine NZ film.. i.e. not financed from half a world away with the money and talent disappearing offshore the day it wraps. Oh and it might pay to watch to the end...

PS I can't wait to see what these guys can do with the next film and some cash support behind them!


Alas, Francis Ford Coppola was wrong. The digital camera revolution has not resulted in an explosion of talent gracing our screens. All it has delivered is the never ending glut of amateur material, posturing as cinema, that clog the shelves of video stores worldwide. YOU MOVE YOU DIE is a continuation of this never ending cycle of sub-mediocre, ego- driven and wholly wretched home-movies.

Suffering through YOU MOVE YOU DIE is like watching a gang of young schoolboys, inspired by a movie they just saw, playing Goodies and Baddies as they chase each other around the drab back streets of their boring small town. They play-fight and play-act, and do all things their parents would frown upon (like swearing and smoking). The jolly romp is all made up on the spur of the moment and after an hour or so, they're so darn tuckered out from all the tussling and screaming and pointlessness of it all, so they simply...stop.

Now imagine a group of age-retarded adult men in their thirties, doing the above. Yet sadder still, is their friend with a video-camera who's followed them around as they playact like little kids- bored during the summer holidays. Then afterwards, they all wearily (but satisfied and with much backslapping) go back home to endlessly watch themselves replayed on telly, over fizzy drinks and chips as they collectively fantasize about hanging out with Tarantino.

That pretty much sums up wrist-slitting banality that is YOU MOVE YOU DIE.


It's not a bad job. The characters are convincing, even if some of the action isn't. If you can accept stylized, unconvincing violence (no blood anywhere), which I don't mind, the story has some new twists. The first two thirds seem a bit aimless, like Mean Streets down under, just a tale of four thugs who seem to have an appointment to keep in the afternoon, and manage to keep it, in spite of the befuddled police they have to deal with in New Zealand. It's funny; it could have been funnier, but for something I never heard of before a street vendor offered it to me, it ain't bad. The acting is generally acceptable; the camera-work is utilitarian. Technically, it succeeds in some ways, e.g., the steadicam work, but fails in others, e.g., under- and over-exposure, or their digital equivalents. The dialogue is in Kiwi, i.e., "english", but it would benefit from subtitles, also in English, as in The Harder They Come. It's worth noting that the vaunted technical achievement (long, uncut shots) was barely noticeable-which means that it did what it was supposed to do without drawing attention to itself.


This is an obviously inspired film that isn't the usual predictable drivel that I see in so many films of this genre. It has a Taratinoesque quality to it but isn't quite so scattered brained as most of his movies are. The characters are interesting and personable and not over the top, and there are some genuinely funny moments. There is a little bit of bad acting but not from the main actors at all, just in some of the bit parts. The story line is very good and although there are some violent moments in the movie it wasn't at all gory or messy. Also, the camera work is really quite unique and there is a flow to it that almost makes you feel like you are part of the movie. I would think that a lot of other filmmakers will be trying to use this type of effect in upcoming movies. Overall I would give this move at least an 8 out of 10.


I found this movie entertaining. From the reviews I've read thus far it seems I was one of the few who felt this way.

Many of the reviewers on this site have been jaded by the big budget Hollywood epic. The funny thing is that these same reviewers are the first ones to lament about the dearth of fresh ideas found in modern cinema.

I watch movies to be entertained, not to rush back to the IMDb forums to eviscerate the works of others.

I don't normally post my comments on IMDb, but felt this movie to unfairly criticized.


Don't let the fact that this film is low budget put you off. I know it's annoying to watch low budget films with it's shaky camera action (which you don't see that often in this film just a bit at the beginning with the bike), but the story line and the dialogue in this film makes up for the fact that it's low budget. The film moves at a fast pace and at no point was I bored. Now on the other hand if they had invested more in this film and shot it at a better location, I'd say this would be a pretty big hit. If this was picked up by a major Hollywood production house, I'd definitely give this film a 10/10. Thoroughly enjoyed the action and dialogue.


For a movie I had never heard of, this movie was a very enjoyable surprise rental at the video store. There are hints of Pulp Fiction humour, a touch of low budget El Mariachi, nods to Lock, Stock or Snatch, and a real crappy Toyota station wagon. Considering the violence of the film, there is no real gore or blooded to be seen. Think of it as a crime caper comedy that doesn't take itself seriously.

Some film students/critics may not love it, but ordinary people with open minds that enjoy a laugh with their crime caper will likely find it worth the time. It is reasonably polished for the reported $50K budget, throws in a twist or two, brings the laughs, and doesn't try to overwhelm you with it's "art".

I bought a DVD copy and recommend it often. I am looking forward to what they do with the sequel when they have a few more dollars to play with.


this film is essentially a lark about by some guys from new Zealand and really that is all it is, I don't think when they made the movie the filmmakers were thinking that this was going to be a world wide blockbuster or an intellectual indie thought provoker they simply made a movie that they thought would be fun and hoped that others would as well. I watch movies that are better than this on paper every day- if you break films down to their component parts - but sometimes, just sometimes you enjoy a movie for the sheer fun it gave you. This movie doesn't have a 10 out of 10 script. this movie doesn't have a 10 out of 10 score. this movie doesn't have a 10 out of 10 cast. this movie doesn't have a 10 out of 10 director. this movie doesn't have a 10 out of 10 cinematographer. BUT.... This movie does give 10 out of 10 enjoyment!!

There are some great pieces of dialogue and some good set pieces, yes some of the acting is wooden and some of the action-fighting sequences are a bit crappy but they are still 10 out of 10 enjoyable.

Listening to some of the critics on this site and you would never watch anything.

DO YOUR SELF A FAVOUR SIT DOWN WATCH THIS WITH YOUR FAVOURITE POISON AND ENJOY!!

No it isn't Shakespeare or Polanski or Hitchcock or even Michael Mann it just fun.


I bought this film for nothing in a Chinese market and sat down to watch it. The only thing on the cover in English was the title. For the first ten minutes I was trying to decide whether this film had been made by some kind of movie school in the UK or not, but to my growing joy I was proved wrong.

Set in some town in New Zealand(Aukland maybe), the film is basically about a day in the life of a bunch of 'hard men/wise boys' out to get back something stolen from their leader in a mugging. The story has obvious flaws - but tell me one that doesn't.

The dialogue is absolutely spot on. This is how we really speak. At least the gentlemen I know speak like this "you're a knob jockey" being a fine example that comes to mind.

Upon close of the film I found I had come across a great bunch of characters and all in their own way likable and recognisable from my own experiences. The lead duo I thought were superb, and you can tell while watching the film they were enjoying themselves. It's all done with a great sense of fun and lust for life.

If you are interested in watching a well made film, full action, great dialogue, magic characters, funny as hell - and without the biblical references, social pap, bare knuckle fighting and blood (although Mr Richie does this well) political correctness, etc. etc. - then here it be. Marvelous work! Lets have another one.


Pretty good movie overall in the sense that the story keeps moving and there's no soppy love scenes to slow things down. Acting was alright too and most of the actors / actresses were convincing. Ketzal's outbursts and coined phrases added that little bit of humour and if you just watched it at face value, you'd never have guessed the ending. Looks like this is a Quentin Tarantino or Guy Ritchie in the making. Just too bad he didn't come up with anything like this after. I've watched it a few times and will definitely recommend it to anyone looking for a 'light' movie or simply to find out what a knob jockey is.


Evil? Err, okay, someone needs to get out more. The movie was okay in the sense that unlike all other New Zealand movies, it didn't try to dig into quirkiness that defines just about every other NZ movie out there - think genetically modified killer sheep. Watching it, I did get a little bored after about 30 minutes, but then I did a gear change and accepted it for what it was - a low budget, romp through Auckland, with some cheesy action and acting. The actors seemed enthusiastic, albeit quite wooden at times. There were a few laugh out loud moments - ie Mike making the chick disappear and the whole conversation in the dry cleaners - and there were some cringe moments as well - ie the scene with the kids mother. Watching an interview on TV, it seems that it was all done on a budget of $50,000. Yeah, it wasn't the best, and for a first effort action movie a little light on the action. Worth a watch if you are a Ketzal Sterling fan, from the days when he was doing High Octane - another cheesy product but TOTALLY appropriate for that market.


Loved it, pretty hard edged. Lot's of profanity. Not every bodies cup of tea I guess. Aimed squarely at the Playstation generation. If you like Grand Theft Auto then this film is right up your alley. I'm certain our mum will hate it. I doubt your dad will like it either, but if you're a young guy, and have a twisted sense of humor....rent it now. The way they made it is amazing, shot half the film in one day. Steadicam shots are totally amazing. Some takes are nine minutes long. Lead actors are all brilliant, the dialog's very natural, almost feels like adlib. That takes real talent. Dry Cleaners scene is legendary.


This is a movie that operates on more than one level, most of which is so subtle as to be nearly imperceptible --or at least seems to be imperceptible, dwarfed as everything else is by the manifest opprobrium of the main character.

Superficially what we all clearly see is a dark comedy about a despicable cad, Lenny, who is not just despicable, but despicable with oblivious aplomb, a role played masterfully by Charles Grodin, the aforementioned opprobrious main character and star of the movie. That factoid right there sets up a dynamic wherein people are either going to love this movie or hate this movie, based strictly on how Lenny strikes them. Some find humor in this guy, but others do not. Many are off-put. So off-put, in fact, that they can't get past it. In that way I would compare this 1972 film to a more contemporary one, Sideways (2004). In Sideways the main characters, Jack in particular (played by Thomas Haden Church), were so personally offensive, in word, in thought, and in deed, that many people intensely disliked the movie solely on that basis. People say to me, "I hated Sideways." I ask them why and they say, "I couldn't stand Jack." Some perspective is called for here. The viewer is supposed to dislike Jack in Sideways. That was intended. Maybe find him a little entertaining --or not-- but disliking him is the intended effect. Likewise here with Lenny in The Heartbreak Kid. We are supposed to dislike Lenny. We can laugh at him too if we want to, and he is funny, but disapproval and repulsion is the intent.

At the very least Lenny's actions make most people just plain awkwardly uncomfortable. The movie thereby evokes certain feelings and emotions in the viewer that aren't often evoked by movies, which, all by itself, makes this movie unique. As a work of art it makes it a success. And that's just the superficiality of it. There's more to it than just that.

Bruce Jay Friedman, the writer, and Neil Simon, the director, were actually making some much deeper ethnic observations and social commentary here. Commentary about Jews, about Jews and Jewish culture in modern America, about Gentiles too, and about how Jews and Gentiles interact in that modern America. All that. But mostly the observations and commentary was about the condition of young Jewish men (some of the very same turf that was being plowed by novelist Philip Roth in about the same era as this movie was released). Lenny, the character played by Grodin, is the almost stereo-typical young angst-filled Jewish male, desperate to break out from the box of tradition which was preordained for him, and who rubbishes his very Jewish bride on their honeymoon to lust after a very Gentile blond, Cybil Shepherd as Kelly Corcoran, all as a part of that angst condition. The Corcoran family, meanwhile, presenting themselves as the cold, aloof uptight WASPs.

Friedman had a lot to say here. Simon executed it well. Probably among Simon's best work, although not ever really recognized as such. A remake with Ben Stiller in the Lenny role is now in the works, soon in the offing. We'll have to see if they improve upon the original. I have my doubts that they can even come close. While not perfect, the original is a good movie. But perhaps the time for this story has passed. It was relevant, pertinent, and apropos for 1972. Not so sure about that in 2007. Not to disparage Ben Stiller, but the underlying themes of this movie wouldn't mean as much today as it did 35 years ago.

Grodin and Shepherd give good performances. Eddie Albert did too. I heard Cybil say in an interview not all that long ago that she always wished they'd done a sequel to it, and that she was still open to the possibility.

Very much worth seeing before one sees any remaking of it.


It seems everyone loved this movie; I will offer the first dissenting opinion here. Supposedly the 1980's ushered in the "me" generation, but after watching this film, one has to wonder if it didn't begin earlier. Lenny Cathrow (Charles Grodin) has got to be one of the most selfish characters on film.

He marries a nice enough gal, Lila (Jeannie Berlin, daughter of the director, Elaine May), but almost instantly shows contempt for her - "buyer's remorse"? On the third day of his honeymoon, he meets a (rich) spoiled college kid, Kelly (Cybill Shepherd), whose beauty and laugh captivate him. I should mention that Lenny and Lila are New York Jews and Kelly is a blonde mid-Westerner from Minneapolis. The fact that Lenny may never have seen a WASP like Kelly while growing up in the city is hardly an excuse for his actions, and Berlin's character is hardly a stereotypical (repugnant, overindulged) Jewish American Princess.

Sure, the road-trip to Miami, during which Lenny all-too-quickly grew to hate his bride (one wonders how he ever chose to marry her in the first place), was hardly ideal. But someone who'd spent three years in the service of his country should show a little more maturity than he does; the story recalls Tennessee Williams's play, and the much better film "Period of Adjustment (1962)" - Jim Hutton's character was also ex-military. Suddenly, anything Lila does (almost nothing Lenny shouldn't have noticed while dating) is distasteful to her groom. Is it possible that he was a virgin and we're to believe that their wedding night sex was too disillusioning for him?

So, Lenny decides to dump his newlywed wife to pursue Kelly, whose attraction to him is a mystery; it appears she's only toying with the young bridegroom until the incredible (and disappointing) end when he wins her away from her disapproving father (Eddie Albert, his performance being the film's only highlight). I can enjoy a movie with unredeemable characters, as long as the plot is plausible.


Jeannie Berlin (as Grodin's wife Lila) has been sadly undermentioned in all of the comments. What a wonderful performance. She is so "out there"--watch her eat an egg-salad sandwich and then try to picture one of today's actresses willing to look so natural and vulnerable. (Well, maybe Cameron Diaz with her "hair gel" in "There's Something About Mary.") But Berlin's performance is so believable. I wish she had done more over the years.

And please note the beauty of Cybill Shepherd's figure in the surf scenes. How refreshing to see something other than one of today's stick figures as the objection of desire. She is healthy, lush, and gorgeous.


Outrageous, ridiculous, annoying, seemingly made on-the-cheap, and yet one of the most endearing comedies of the 60s/70s. Such contrasts in this film! It is entirely made up of 100% stereotypes: Lenny's transparent con-man, Lila's funny/sad nebbish, Kelly's Ice Goddess, Kelly's father's WASP image, Kelly's Mother's...well...Mother image. And yet at that moment in the restaurant when Lenny breaks the news to Lila over that half-slice of pecan pie, our hearts just break for her, and Lenny's feeble, yet honest (although ultimately self-serving) attempt to comfort her also touches us, as does Kelly's joie de vivre and passion for Lenny, and her parent's obvious conflicting feelings of protection, love and knowing they have to let go. The dialogue is as delicious as that pecan pie (not to mention Lila's Egg Salad and her candy bar in bed). It is sort of a guilty pleasure. Much of the movie is of people being sort of cruel and insensitive - acting only on impulse and immediate feelings, rather than maturity. But the way the film progresses from one brilliantly written scene to another, we can't wait to see what will transpire next, and we somehow end up caring so much for everyone in the film (even though they often don't care all that much for each other!) Favorite moments: 1. the ENTIRE road trip down the East Coast as the Honeymoon starts to end before it even begins. 2. Lenny's "laying out all his cards" for Kelly's Dad (as Lenny does his monologue, and Kelly's Dad responds with his hysterical descriptions of preferring a lit bomb in his mouth rather than having Lenny court his daughter, look at the combination bemused/concerned reactions of Kelly and her Mom--priceless scene). 3. that heartbreaking restaurant scene, and Lila crying out: "Oh Lenny, you're dying!!!!" - I never saw that response from Lila coming--again, priceless! 4. The Dinner scene in Minnesota with Lenny quoting shamelessly from an editorial in the local paper. Talk about clever and unexpected dialogue! This film is an absolute gem, hasn't dated one iota, and is a genuinely bittersweet comedy guaranteed to entertain, but which also somehow manages to resonate with some very real truths about love, relationships, ego and happiness.


I saw this when it first came out in 1972 and saw it again recently on cable. One way to know a classic is how well it dates itself, not just in the vernacular, but philosophically. How timeless are the themes it portrays and how well could anyone from any time period relate to them? In fact, of The Heartbreak Kid it could be said that a lot of the shock value of a man dumping his bride on their honeymoon will be lost on a generation that would wonder why he would want to married at all. Well at least the title character believes in firm commitments, as long as it is with the right girl. The point of the whole movie is the somewhat subtle ending that depicts a man who, despite the odds against him, got the girl of his dreams, but somehow dosn't find it nearly as satisfying as he would have thought.

This a terrific piece of script writing, with many memorable lines you love to quote...a sure sign of a very good movie.


James Grodin's Character of Lenny in "The Heartbreak Kid" is one of the most peculiar characters you'll likely encounter on film. Despicable, outrageous and an audacious liar. He's obnoxious in his determination to get what he thinks he wants and yet somehow comes across as sincere and likable. This whole film is also one of the most peculiar comedies to come along. I found myself alternating between laughs and uncomfortable winces at his utter insensitivity and selfish determination, but it's this dichotomy of emotions that make The Heartbreak Kid the obscure gem that it is. I don't think we can ever be sure if we should like or hate this guy. Two scenes in this movie: "laying his cards on the table" over drinks with Kelly and her parents and the breakup scene in the restaurant with Lila, are a sight to behold. Eddie Albert's, Jeannie Berlin's and Cybill Shepherd's facial expressions are priceless as they listen to Lenny's plans to claim Kelly after remedying his current "complication". The scene in the restaurant as Lenny tries to "drop the bomb" on Lila would be funny if it wasn't so painful to watch. I've never been quite sure about the final scene of this movie: Lenny on the couch, quietly humming to himself, seemingly at a loss as the camera lingers on him for a thoughtful moment, is he already on his way to becoming dissatisfied again now that he has attained his desire or has he finally found some peace after his battle for Kelly? This is an unusual comedy well worth a look. If you can find it.


An artful mixture of deft, laugh-out-loud comedy, interspersed with touching poignant moments, makes this film special and unforgettable. Elaine May's direction was delicate yet purposeful, allowing for the superb development of characters ( in particular Eddie Albert's curmudgeonly businessman/father) without impeding the flow of the plot.

In this social portrayal of the Peter Principle, the glib, shallow Lenny somehow talks himself to dizzying social and economic heights all without the benefit of a pedigree or occupational skill set. Albert's father figure takes no time at all to see through all of this; but he is outnumbered by his wife and daughter who succumb to Lenny's charms. You can't help but feel this man's helpless pain in having to watch his lovely, impressionable daughter lured into a clearly doomed marriage.

Cybil Shephard, Eddie Albert and Charles Grondin all turned in career performances. This show was one of those rare times when everything (directing, writing and acting) came together to create something greater than the sum of its parts - it's a real treasure.


Priceless. Charles Grodin is in every scene of THE HEARTBREAK KID and in every scene his actions are more cringe-inducing than the last. Insinuating himself into the lives of a mid-western WASP family, Grodin is sickening...utterly insincere and constantly losing. He's head over heels for wholesome coed Cybill Shepherd, much to the constant dismay of her stern father Eddie Albert. Further complicating matters is his new wife! Grodin, in an early leading role, is excellent, Shepherd is charming and Albert steals each scene he's in...his teeth never seem to unclench. Another big plus is Jeannie Berlin as Grodin's hapless bride, a woman with the social graces of a blind hippo. Directed by the great Elaine May and written by Neil Simon. It's funny and smart. Adapting the Bruce J Friedman story, this is probably the most cerebral thing Neil Simon has ever written.


Eddie Albert's 2nd nomination for best supporting actor in the 1972 film, "The Heartbreak Kid."

One can ask how can a picture be good when its hero, played by Charles Grodin, marries Jeannie Berlin in synagogue at the beginning of the film, and by the latter's end, he is marrying Cybil Shepherd in church. Oy vey!

Yet it happens. On his honeymoon with Berlin, he is taken back by the lovely Shepherd, love here is the obstacle. What is he to do with Berlin? Murder, is not legal we know.

If that isn't enough, he runs up against Shepherd's father, played with a fine demeanor by Eddie Albert, who conveys the typical WASP feeling. How can this average Jewish guy win over a man, a typical WASP? This becomes the central theme.

Jeannie Berlin was nominated for best supporting actress. Just look at her face filled with cream to cover that sun-burn that keeps her locked up in the room while Grodin cavorts with his love.

A comic look at some very serious issues. Well worth the look.


No pecan pie?? No pecan pie?!? This movie, although a long forgotten classic to the trendy, so called "movie buffs" out there, blissfully unveils the solid foundations of a perfect romance comedy. though made in 1972, the subtle and sometimes blatant humor, and the addition of an ex bachelor suffering from a regretful commitment, truly creates a more real relationship dilemma that seems to be missing in more modern chick flicks.

The Heartbreak Kid truly is a lost gem; forged with superb casting, many memorable scenes, and a handful of classic dialogues and mannerisms that will certainly become engraved in memory with intricate ease.


Lenny Cantrow and Lila Kolodny are a newlywed Jewish couple.During their honeymoon in Florida he meets this tall blonde, Kelly, and realizes he's made a terrible mistake.Now he wants to have an instant divorce and get together with this attractive gentile.Another problem is the girl's father who can't stand this guy.Elaine May, the former sidekick of Mike Nichols is the director of The Heartbreak Kid (1972).Its writers are Bruce Jay Friedman (story) and Neil Simon (screenplay).What a wonderful and funny comedy this is! Charles Grodin does a performance of a lifetime as Lenny.Same thing with Jeannie Berlin as Lila, who's Elaine May's daughter.Cybill Shepherd portrays Kelly Corcoran in a memorable way.And so does Eddie Albert as her father.Audra Lindley is wonderful as her mother.Doris Roberts does a small role as Mrs.Cantrow.Grodin's character is somewhat likable even though he acts like a real jerk.You can't help but feel sorry for this man.I mean, this gorgeous college girl wants him! But still, what he does is wrong.Leaving his wife, his beautiful and sweet wife like that is just wrong.But in the last image of the film you can see some kind of regret on the man's face.He's just married Kelly and he starts humming Close To You, that was played on his wedding with Lila.This movie made me laugh several times.Like the time Lenny lays out all his cards for Kelly's dad wanting to marry his daughter.Guess twice how the old man feels about that.The Heartbreak Kid is a real treat.Everybody should see it.


43. THE HEARTBREAK KID (comedy, 1972) Lenny (Charles Grodin) a young Jewish man, marries seemingly perfect-match Linda. On their way to their honeymoon in Miami Lenny realizes that Linda's various idiosyncrasies are driving him crazy. In Miami he meets Kelly (Cybill Sheperd) a young-WASP beauty whose lustful innuendos he falls under. After 2 days of courting her he decides to leave Lina. He follows Kelly to Minnesota where he plans to marry her. However, Kelly's rich, snobbish parents object. But he shamelessly fights for Kelly's hand in marriage.

Critique: Extremely funny, satirical film adapted by Neil Simon and directed by Elaine May. It is Charles Grodin's best outing, proving that once he could act and have a comic touch (his persona has become strangely wooden). Lenny is the ultimate, unthinkable 'schmuck' who cons his way into any situation.

The fun of the film relies on Lenny's unnerving pursuit of Kelly, and how his ridiculous lies and deceit work to his favor. Trying to pass himself as an honest, likable fella, we are astonished that Kelly even likes him. Thinking that 'honesty is the best policy', he repeatedly infuriates those around him. Despite all this, we can relate to this guy. Maybe because at one time or another we have sunk as low when in pursuit of someone we lust after. At the end, we do come to understand Kelly's equal fascination with him. After all, the never-say-die attitude sometimes pays off.

QUOTE: Lenny: "You were very attracted to me. You were? . . That's cute, that's a really cute thing. So I was. . .something to do?"


Charles Grodin and Cybill Shepherd star in this off beat comedy that ends up being more dramatic and poetic than funny. Charles Grodin has always been on the border line when it comes to being funny and serious. Much of his comedy career has been played serious and his dramatic appeal is sometimes hilarious. Unlike Chaplin, Keaton or the Marx Brothers, Grodin's punchline is not necessarily funny. Most of the times, the outcome of the joke / hilarious situation turns into a political / ethical realization. Grodin's character is likable but by the end of the movie you either lose total interest in the character or you become so attached to him that you feel bad during the final frame of the story. In many ways, Grodin resembles a young W.C. Fields character where you hope for his achievement in the relationship with Cybill Shepherd and his family. Then again, Grodin puts himself into situations where he is the butt of the joke and the victim of the circumstance. A wonderful movie, made before its time. The Heartbreak Kid is a story about a middle aged kid (much like Fields) who is in need of getting his heart broke.


Although fairly unknown, this is a classic film - period. I watched it for the first time the other night and it has jumped right to my "Top 10" movies of all time. That in itself is saying something.

The plot of the film involves a sports salesman named Lenny (played by Charles Grodin, in arguably his finest performance) who rushes into marriage to the first girl he meets in a singles bar. From there, the pair whisk off to Miami Beach for their honeymoon. During the long trip from their native New York, it becomes apparent to Lenny that he has made a monumental mistake.

On the newlyweds first day in Miami, Lenny's wife, Lila, ignores his plights for her to put on some sunscreen. In turn, she develops a severe cash of sunburn which forces her to stay inside the hotel room, while a joyous Lenny is free to pursue other things - like courting the beautiful and seductive Kelly (played by Cybill Shepard).

This is a poignant, bittersweet film that will have you laughing, crying, and even squirming.

The soundtrack is a plus, too.


This movie had the characteristics of a B-movie, but had a very good plot. Jeff Fahey put on a very good role & the bad guy had a big ego. The fact that I didn't fall a sleep watching this movie after a hard days work, proofs it's not that bad at all & it's really worth watching.


Its suppose To be Under Siege in a Water Plant.. But it ain't... Its a really Woeful action Movie and thats what i love about it... (Kim Coates) is given the freedom of the entire movie to act like a complete dick. but he does a good job ..and he's made a fan outta me. He leads a team of incredibly dumb terrorists into a waterplant and will pollute the water unless blah de blah blah.... Cue (Jeff Fahey) the Worst Hero ever...Jeff spends most of this movie talking about his brie omelette's and generally Hiding behind (Carrie Ann Moss )..Yes Folks John McClaine he Certainly ain't .. He Kills 1 Terrorist ( a female one at that) .. and he shoots her in the back !! (Gary Busey) Pops up as the Brains behind the Terrorism...Then he Gets greedy and starts Killing his own men...Which is a good job , becoz i don't Think Fahey was up for it... Fans of Busey will Enjoy his moments on screen.... Yeah its a Dodgy piece of Junk .....But it gets my seal of approval Busey & Coates keep it entertaining and although the Action is "Z list" standard the Unintentional comedy element is Top Notch

10 outta 10 for this Bad Boy


i think that over the past year or so Disney has made a lot of really mature and enjoyable Disney movies and this was no exception. at first i didn't think this movie would be very good. everyone was talking about the fact that it was a simple life rip off and i didn't really know if i should side with that or not, but after seeing it i have found its nothing at all like the t.v. show. the acting from both girls were great and though i was just a little disappointed with the ending it didn't change my mind at all that this was a very respectable movie, and it definitely stood out as being "original" in "disney channel original movie". very well done to aly and amanda, i love the song "On The Ride" as well


Being a Disney film, the outcome is predictable, but Walt Disney always wanted to turn out "wholesome" family entertainment. He said that he would never produce any movie which you would be embarrassed to watch with your children in the room.

Cow Belles, as the IMDb plot summary indicates, is about 2 spoiled rich girls, who have absolutely NO concept about how working people live their lives and manage to survive.

When their Dad makes them go to work in the company business, to repay someone for a major problem they caused, they learn a lot about "the real world".

It actually reminds me a little of Paris Hilton & Nicole Ritchie on "Simple Life", except the 2 girls in the movie actually LEARN something, where Paris & Nicole don't seem to learn anything - they just get grossed out & can't wait to return to their pampered lifestyles.


This movie was terrible to say the least. I was hoping for a lot better after seeing "High School Musical". The whole entire movie was a complete rip off of "The Simple Life", only it wasn't a reality show.

The acting was not good at all. Amanda Michalka had her moments, when she wasn't that terrible. On the other hand Alyson Michalka was bad all the way through. Chris Gallinger, who played the love interest of Amanda was playing a french guy, but had an awful accent. One good thing about this movie was the completely adorable Michael Trevino, who played Alyson's love interest. Just something to keep in mind, if this movie had been aired before "High School Musical" it probably would not have seemed as bad. But it was no comparison.

Overall I give it a 2.


This movie is truly awful. After seeing the advertisement for it, i thought it could have its charms ... but it didn't.The girls cannot act, and they cannot sing either. The soundtrack to this movie is full of their songs, and its not a pretty sight, Terrible story line, unbelievable plot, its one of Disney's worst movies by FAR!. Ally is not a bad actress on "Phil of the Future", so i don't know what happened in "Cow Belles". And her sister, AJ, seems to be just hitching a ride on her sisters "fame", and she displays no talent what so ever.

At the end of the movie the girls do finally learn some cliché morals, but this is to late to rescue this train wreck movie.

Awful


This movie kind of reminds me of A Mary-Kate and Ashley movie-only worse. Just the rich sisters kind of thing I think even though Alysons more the actress, in this movie Amanda michalka was okay sometimes but Alysons acting stunk. i think that after high-school musical they needed to come up with somethihng better and this definitely wasn't it. The story line wasn't that great and I think they should have gotten two other people to play Taylor and Courtney. I'm not a big Alyson Michalka fan and this movie didn't make me like her any better. i think they should definitely sick to singing and only watch this movie if you have nothing better to do (which sadly I didn't)


This movie really surprised me because I thought it was going to be another "dumb blonde" movie but it really had purpose and meaning.The plot line was really good and I think it teaches kids a lot about responsibility and life in the real world. I think that the duo of Aly and AJ was really good, I think that being sisters in real life is good for on-screen chemistry. They had that real sibling "love" that was really great. All the actors were great except the french guy who seemed a little fake to me but he was OK. Though I must say that the guys weren't too hard to look at. Especially Michael Travino as Jackson he was really good. I really like this movie and it seemed like is should have been more than a Disney channel original movie.


I watched this movie really late last night and usually if it's late then I'm pretty forgiving of movies. Although I tried, I just could not stand this movie at all, it kept getting worse and worse as the movie went on. Although I know it's suppose to be a comedy but I didn't find it very funny. It was also an especially unrealistic, and jaded portrayal of rural life. In case this is what any of you think country life is like, it's definitely not. I do have to agree that some of the guy cast members were cute, but the french guy was really fake. I do have to agree that it tried to have a good lesson in the story, but overall my recommendation is that no one over 8 watch it, it's just too annoying.


I thought this movie would be awful but I was wrong.Aly & AJ's acting was fine & the rest of the cast's too.This movie is about the spoiled Callum sisters who are forced to work at their father's dairy.Their father is gone on vacation & it's up to Taylor & Courtney to save the day by trying to find their father's missing money.

After seeing this movie I bought Aly & AJ's CD Into the Rush because I liked the song On the Ride so much!

I am glad this movie is coming out on DVD June 27.The only thing that I didn't like movie was(for some reason)the name.

I actually didn't get to see the ending but the rest of the movie was fine.

I give this movie 9/10.


Cow Belles is a charming Disney Channel film starring real life sisters Alyson and Amanda Michalka playing a pair of rich sisters whose father, Jack Coleman operates a dairy plant. They're not bad girls, but their widowed father spoils them to death.

Before he leaves on a long needed vacation that is Coleman's number 2 guy at the plant, Michael Rhoades, has been urging on him to take in fact he gives him the money to do it, Coleman has both the girls actually get real jobs at the plant to see how the working folks really live.

The Michalka sisters get a lot more than they bargain for when the paychecks at the plant bounce because, Rhoades emptied the accounts of the business and ran off. They get quite a life's lesson in the realities of life and both develop a social conscience if not at the same time.

They even snag a pair of boyfriends Alyson teams with farm kid Michael Trevino and Amanda finds herself a French exchange student, Christian Gallinger.

Cow Belles is a pretty good film from the Magic Kingdom, nothing deep or profound, but in its own light way touching on some serious issues.


I saw it last night 4/13/05. I thought this would be the worth movie ever but I think it is extraordinary.This is a must see.It is about two spoiled girls who burn the kitchen and they have to take a summer job at there dad"s dairy factory, while he goes on vacation,but the sisters run into a lot of problems and they need to find the solution together.I liked the story,the acting was great and the best part is that I can watch this over and over again,not like a lot of movies.I also like the way the sisters realize that they need to think about other people not just themselves.so this is my conclusion:see this movie,if you like Disney,vote on it,comment.that is what I think of this outstanding movie


Taylor Callum (Alyson Michalka) and her slightly younger sister, Courtney (Amanda Michalka) are the daughters of a fairly well-off dairy owner. In such a light, their spending habits are monumental and they even divide up the "color scheme" of their yearly wardrobes so that they don't duplicate any outfit between them. Yet, one day, even their usually complacent father has reached the end of his rope. Small wonder. Taylor caused a neighbor's truck to end up in a pond and both girls managed to set the kitchen on fire through their carelessness. Father Callum decrees that the girls will work in the family dairy to pay for their mistakes. This is indeed a harsh punishment, as the girls know nothing about the "work ethic" and are astounded to find that they have to get up at 5:30 am and work eight hours a day! Yet, when their father goes on an extended vacation, the dairy suddenly takes a downward turn, thanks to some skullduggery by one of the high ranking employees. It is up to the girls to figure out how to save the jobs and the essence of their father's business. Can they do it, even as Taylor attention is diverted towards a local dairy farmer's son and Courtney has her eye on a handsome foreign exchange student and her debutante ball? This is a charming film aimed at young girls and their families but, truly, enjoyable for females of almost any age. The two young stars have their "clueless" act down pat and the other performers are quite nice, too, especially the good-looking young males that are the object of the girls' affections. The dairy country setting is lovely beyond words and is another reason to see the film, absolutely. All other production values are high as well. However, on the costuming, the girls' outfits are of, sadly, the now-normal, far-from-modest variety (lowcut tops and short skirts) that might make the film objectionable for some viewers. Yet, the movie's heart is in the right place as its lessons of hard work, perseverance, and thinking of others are a top priority. If you are looking for a "nice" film to show a girl-oriented audience, this one rings up as a true winner. For, truly, females from 10 to 80 and beyond will find the flick to be a "mother's milk" for their romantic souls


I think the movie Cow Belles is very good! It is about two girls who lost their mother and now live with their father, and they learn the meaning of life by working at the fathers dairy farm! But while working there they go through some rough times..... but together as a family they get through it! I also think this is a really good movie because both Alyson and Amanda M. are very talented not only in acting but singing! I think they were the perfect girls for this movie! This movie is a wonderful, because it teaches you that just because you are rich doesn't mean you get everything you want. So that is why I love this movie so much!!! If you haven't already seen Cow Belles see it and if you have see it again!!!!


This movie is cute!It can also teach other rich spoilt children a lesson!Much thought was put in this movie!The movie started by showing the Callum sisters' lavish and luxurious lifestyle,how they only are concerned about their health,their appearance and mostly about what they can do to make themselves happy.Their father,the owner of a very successful dairy operation,was very disappointed with his daughters but decided to let it go.However,after Taylor and Courtney ruined their house kitchen the father decided to teach them a lesson,they got to work at his factory!When their father goes for a vacation,the company was in big trouble.THe company account was empty,not even a single cent!So,it is up to the Callum sisters to set things right but Courtney has a party to prepare and the sisters have to give up their lavish lifestyles to save the company.The Callum sisters face many problems in the process,like conflicts between themselves and Taylor had to sell her classic stickshift!How do they resolve this problem???


This movie is one of the greatest movies that the people at Disney have ever come up with. it shows the life after two spoiled sisters are forced to work at their dad's dairy after Courtney throws a towel on a flame and starts a fire. so as punishment they are sent to the family dairy. when they arrive at the dairy, they cause many more problems. when their uncle steals all the companies money,Taylor takes 20,000 dollars out of Courtney's 25,000 dollars for her cotillion. then they realize that it's not only about them not getting their money, but about all those people who live off their paychecks. so when they find out that the expiration date was set wrong, they pull all their friends together and try to save the dairy. this movie is great for everyone. i give it a 10/10.


How Disney can you get? Preppy rich girls act like idiots, buy a bunch of stuff, and get taught a lesson. Is Disney trying to send a lesson to itself? That maybe while buying everything it should maybe still be human? Whatever the psycho-analysis, this movie sucked.

The girls want a rich party for their rich lives. But then money disappears and they have to use their riches to get the milk plant (yes, milk) going to employ the workers. They keep it afloat until daddy comes home. And the man at the beginning, who appears to be the one that takes the money, is the one. But the ending is dumb. Webcam in the Cayman Islands? Huh? Not worth my time ever again.

But it is better than Howl's Moving Castle. "D-"


this movie was excellent! I loved Ally and Amanda's acting and their song on the ride was perfect with the movie. I think they used all the right characters for each part. Everyone in this movie was a talented performer! Congrats on an excellent movie! I am so proud of Disney!!!!!! Remember to also listen to all of the songs Aly and AJ have written because they are all talented! Sticks and Stones especially because it helps many kids with bullying problems to find their inner self and to stick up to the bully. Please watch this movie. Disney and all other production companies did an excellent job with it and all of the cute boy characters are really and truly cute! Love this movie 5 stars!


I love this movie and i can't wait for everyone to see it! I think its funny and the Michalka sisters do an awesome job playing sisters! I would most definitely give this movie a 10 because of its awesome performance and its amazing genre. Heck, I'd give this movie a thousand and one. I'd love to watch it over and over again forever. I couldn't believe how good it was. I hope everyone likes and enjoys it just as much as I did because I know it was good and it deserves a lot of credit. Man, this movie was amazing. All I have to say is I loved it all of the way. If anyone doesn't like this movie, they don't have good taste at all.


this movie is good i liked it. you learn a lot about girls who live in the rich live and see how they react when they have to work at a factory to make up for something they did wrong. in this case a cow factory. well these girls manage to pull it off and have some fun at the same time. making of the movie they were having a blast as they say. the girls said to me that in the making of the movie is was a blast and working with the cows were unexpected, but cool at the same time. from my perspective the girls had fun and well they were having fun they were making a great movie for the audiences. overall this movie will be a 10+ for audiences that are well any age!


Changing the past to affect the future may not be a new concept in film, but "Frequency" handles it deftly and with heart. The acting is superb, and as far as I can tell the plot is nearly airtight. It keeps you on your toes as the story twists in what feels like six directions at once and keeps you in emotional sync with the characters. The past/present connections are stirring and intriguing, especially the single-flash cuts at pivotal moments. This is one of the few movies about which I can honestly say, "I laughed, I cried, I was scared stupid." Truly the only good movie so far this year.


You can't help it!! You have to cheer and applaud this movie. I can't remember the last time the whole audience clapped at the end of a movie. It has been such a long time since a movie was made that warmed your heart, while keeping you at the edge of your seat. This movie will make you laugh, get a little misty in the eyes, and you won't even notice the time. You're almost sad to see it end. Dennis Quaid is excellent, this is his best movie in years. This movie also has some new faces you won't soon forget. Don't take my word on this, see it your self. You will be thinking about this movie for weeks.


The plot in Frequency is hard to believe, but the movie's twists, action, and dramatic moments cover up its uncertainties. The idea of how the past affects the future is not original, but the rest of the film is.

When I first saw the preview for Frequency, I thought that the idea of a son talking to a his deceased father over a radio was original and interesting. I didn't think, however, that the film would be very good. I was wrong though. The movie is packed with action, mystery, twists, and emotion. The love between the father and son is so real, as are the characters themselves.

Frequency uses remarkable use of film's ability to stretch out moments of time and intercut between different events. And as far as timing goes, this movie has stopwatch-precision. As a result, it can produce tears, outbursts of laughter, or dropping jaws in the audience.

I think the ending of the movie could be improved, but I still highly recommend seeing this film. As long as you don't worry too much about the plausibility of the time-lapse details, you'll enjoy it. After all, it's entertainment in its finest form.


Going into this film I had no idea what the true story line was. Is it a time travel film, is it a sci-fi film or is it a murder mystery? Well it's a little of each of these. Put behind you images of flying Delorians traversing through time and just let the film soak you in it's original story of what if. What if you could change history and bring back the ones you lost long ago. What if that power came with a price. Is it better to leave things as is or if given the chance to change the world you live in would you? These questions and more rise in this film that ask, would you, could you, should you. Dennis Quaid, in one of his best roles, is a fire fighter from New York in 1969. His hobby is ham radio when not rescuing people from near death in the line of duty. His son John is just a child and dreams of being a baseball player when he grows up. But in the realities of life somethings were not meant to be. John grows up and becomes a police officer working on the homicide squad in 1999, and his father never made it out of a burning building in 1969. On October 10th 1969 sun spots rise up the day before the fatal day in the warehouse. 30 years later the same event happens on the same day in 1999. John finds his fathers radio and begins to play with it and finds a man who seems to have the same call letters and last name. The sun spots allow his radio waves to traverse 30 years into the past to his father. He can save his life with the knowledge of the future and have him back in the present. This comes at a deadly price for in 1969 there is a serial killer who preys on nurses. Johns mother is a nurse. Together John and his father must stop this killer from taking more lives in a game of cat and mouse that unfolds, reverses, and progresses over the 30 year gap. Memories disappear and new ones open in there place, people survive and others die. All this leads to a fantastic final battle of old and new.

This really is a film not to be missed. Fans of thrillers, sci-fi and action will all be pleased with this film.


Wow, what a suspenseful film! This is a combination crime and fantasy story, a time-travel theme employed as a son is able to talk to his father 30 years in the past and help change history for the better. Far-fetched? Oh, of course, but it's not meant to be taken seriously as something that could happen. Like "Field Of Dreams," it's pure fantasy but a nice father-and-son vehicle that makes you - or at least it did me - bring a tear or two to your eyes.

The young guy is played by Jim Caviel and his dad is played by Dennis Quaid. Both are excellent and likable guys, as they usually are in the films they play. They talk to each other through an old ham radio. Through it, the son helps save his dad and mom's life on a few occasions and catch a serial-killer in the process. Well, you have to see it because explaining it just makes it sound silly. It's not; it's a fine movie and great escapist entertainment. Once you get into this story, it is impossible to put down. For New York City folks, and fans of the New York Mets, I would imagine this movie has added sentimentality.

Highly recommended.


The idea of this film is pretty original; I don't think I've ever heard of a story so well-thought out about time-travel/alternate time-lines before. The idea is based on the main character being able to communicate with his father, who's been dead for 30 years. His father hears it then, 30 years earlier. They quickly do some things that shouldn't have happened back then, which then changes the future(or present). The movie deals very well with how they change the future back and forth. The plot is very good, the acting is superb and the characters are all believable. The special effects are very good. The very idea behind the film is very good, but the way it develops so much further is amazing. The ending, while it may seem corny too some, and is, by all means, a bit of a typical Hollywood ending(some might even call it a cop-out), but personally I just think it worked better than anything else could have. I'd recommend this to pretty much anyone who can watch a movie where they have to suspend disbelief, but especially anyone into time-travel or alternate time-lines, as this is, in my opinion, one of the best movies made, concerning this subject. 8/10


This unique and interesting film is actually more of a suspense thriller than a science fiction, although I think fans of both genres will be pleased.

Dennis Quaid plays a heroic firefighter who was killed trying to rescue a runaway from a burning warehouse during the days of the Amazing Mets' World Series victory in October 1969. Jim Caviezel ("The Thin Red Line") plays his son, now a cop, thirty years later. Through some quirk of physics involving abnormal solar activity and the Aurora Borealis, the two make contact with each other across the 30-year span over a ham radio. The son is able to prevent his father's death, but changing the past also turns out to have unexpected consequences with which the two must deal.

The film really works on all levels with good action sequences and suspense, a nice dose of humor and some very touching exchanges between father and son. It explores the "what if" scenario of one's being presented with the opportunity to change an event in the past and the way in which those affected must deal with the consequences in a very intelligent and thought-provoking manner.

The acting is uniformly strong, with Quaid very appealing as the courageous firefighter and loving father who has an almost-childlike love for baseball (he even pulls off a Brooklyn accent nicely!); Caviezel is equally good as the present day version of Quaid's character's son. Caviezel brings a subtle sadness to the character, a quality one might expect from someone whose life hasn't quite worked out quite as well as it might have, possibly due to a void created by the absence of his father. One of the strongest aspects of Caviezel's performance was a subtle shift in personality following the changing of events in the past (a change which left him with memories both of his father's death and of time spent with his father in the intervening years).

I have a good feeling about this film and think it has a chance to be a real surprise hit. It's certainly one of the best films of the year thus far.


FREQUENCY / (2000) ***1/2

It' 1999. Jim Caviezel stars as John Sullivan, a detective whose life is falling apart. Recently, he has split up from his girlfriend, he and his police partner Satch (Andre Braugher), are unable to solve a serial murder case that has been reopened due to the discovery of skeletal remains of a past victim. The thirty year anniversary of the death of his firefighter father (Dennis Quaid), is also approaching. John is beginning to sink in a pit of despair.

One night John stumbles upon his dad's old ham radio. He makes an effort to get the machine to power up once again. When he does and begins conversations with another operator, however, he realizes the person he is communicating with is his long dead father. Somehow, due to the presence of the Northern Lights, John is able to transmit back in time to 1969 and literally alter the course of his existence.

The concept of time traveling communication may seem far-fetched to some, and "Frequency" is a little hard to grasp at times, especially when the film never directly explains why the father and son are able to talk with each other through time. Notwithstanding, the production works as a science fiction thriller with supernatural overtones. While the filmmakers do succeed in convincingly constructing "Frequency," most audiences might have to leave logic at the theater entrance before viewing it.

"Frequency" is a well-structured motion picture; the movie is focused throughout. Although its story changes pace at different periods, for the most part the audience can follow along with the characters. This is a movie with a complicated and challenging story. Because of the film's complexity, we are enormously involved, if slightly confused. Screenwriter Tobias Emmerich links original and fresh feeling material here. Gregory Hoblit produces the right amount of action and suspense, combined with gentle emotions, to generate a film we have not seen before.

Dennis Quaid and James Caviezel are the perfect choices for the principal characters. Quaid performs with intriguing tension and appropriate receptivity. Caviezel dazzles with intricacy and dexterity. Offering refined supporting roles are Andre Braugher ("City of Angels", "Get on the Bus") and Noah Emmerich ("The Truman Show") who furnishes some light-hearted material as John's best friend.

Director Gregory Hoblit ("Fallen," "Primal Fear") clearly executes topics on screen. This film is overflowing with ideas and contains enough plot for a television series. However, "Frequency" is not without flaws. Sullivan's chaotic life is only vaguely portrayed. Although we do care for the character, more development would increase the relationship between the audience and he. Some of the make-up effects depicting age differences were disgraceful. Andre Braugher appeared as if his make up artists were straight out of junior high, slapping too much pancake cream plaster on him. The film's contrived climax concludes with a formalistic fight instead of continuing its battle of wits.

Despite a few unacceptable external problems, internally this is a very effective production. As a whole, "Frequency" contains a very encompassing story and places interesting characters in engaging circumstances. The movie is definitely worthy of recognition, but do not view it unless you plan on thoroughly discussing it afterwards.


I love this movie. It is a smart, sweet, suspenseful story. I've always loved time-travel stories. This one doesn't have classic time-travel, but it's similar in that there is the ability for father (in 1969) and son (present-day) to communicate and effect change in the future. It's a strong story with twists and turns as the son tries to save his father's life (in 1969) and accidentally messes up things in the present day.

When I first rented the movie, I had never seen the trailer. I am very glad, because the trailer gives away a big plot twist, which occurs halfway into the movie and I think it is more exciting if you don't see that coming (so I won't elaborate on that part).

This movie has authentic characters that I really cared about, which makes the suspense so much more real because I felt invested in what was going to happen to them. The strong directing and cinematography (atmospheric) ties this story together into the perfect package.

I also loved the small hints and moments that are sprinkled throughout the film that tie back into the larger "time travel-ish" story, which makes it great on repeat viewings. I thought the moments of how the past affected the future were all plausible except for one moment toward the very end of the film, which was clearly done for dramatic effect, (so I'll let it go).

Overall, one of my favorite movies!


I waited to add my two cents until I had seen this film several times to see if the overwhelmingly positive effect would wear off. I am pleased to report that it doesn't. Remarkably, the effect gets stronger with each exposure. This is without a doubt my favorite recent film. The performances are wonderful. This is Quaid's best after his early bloom and nothing he's done since can compare with it. Jim C, well, he is luminous. Indeed, every role is well and truly played. This one is special because it does what the Fountain and a number of other, recent "high concept" and "message" films try but usually fail to accomplish in any meaningful fashion. Frequency moves the heart through the experience of film. It teaches love and does so without relying on the tension of plot because as I discovered, it still works after ten viewings when the end is not in doubt and "what happens next" isn't why your eyes are fixed on the screen. The reason you watch yet again, still eager, is simple. It is because,well, because, there is never, never enough love and this is a way to find a bit more, every time.


There are five movies which i consider really great: Contact, Apollo 13, Gataca, The Matrix, and this movie Frequency. It really should have gotten an oscar. Too bad it was so overlooked.

To sum it up, it's a sci-fi time travel murder mystery, so it gets the best of three genres! it also involves ham radio, an aspect not usually shown in movies. Now I may be biased since I myself am a ham, but I am very glad to see this fun hobby portrayed in a movie.

So the sunspot radio-wave time travel scheme is probably not adherent to your college physics book, but who cares? movies that mess with the space-time continuum are rarely this entertaining. if you suspend your disbelief, this is just one great story! It is action-packed and full of surprises but also emotional and touching.

The fire scenes are very well done and the film keeps you on the edge of your seat right up to the shocking conclusion. If you are headed to the video store tonight, I would strongly recommend Frequency. -Rox


There are not enough movies that you can leave feeling touched, refreshed, and enlightened. So many films today don't bother to build strong characters that have a lasting effect. Frequency is such a wonderful movie because it incorporates a realistic father-son bond, and raw emotion into an action thriller. I must admit that I am not particularly drawn to action movies, but after seeing Frequency I have tried to change my attitude.

Jim Caviezel and Dennis Quaid are extremely believable as a son and his long-dead father. Caviezel's character cried when he first talked to his father that had been dead for thirty years. I cried, too, as he so believably yearned to be with his dad.

Another great thing about this movie is how intriguing the action sequences are. Not only are the usual chase scenes exciting, but the interesting psychological aspects of the movie also work extremely well.

If you have not seen Frequency, please do so, it is an excellent movie and I doubt you will regret seeing it. Although seeing it in a theater is the ideal place, the DVD is almost the same. You should enjoy this movie, it is a true classic, and I know I will never tire of watching it.


This film is about John Sullivan who can communicate to his dad, Frank Sullivan, 30 years in the past. Having manage to save his dad's life, the two must fix all the bad things that have resulted from the saving of Frank.

This is a good sci-fi thriller that is like a father and son movie. Dennis Quaid and James Caviezel's performances are great, including others.

I like how the time effects used in this film in which two people in two different time periods (reminds me of The Lake House), changing things in the past which changes the present and creating more problems.

This film has mystery, action, thrills, and emotion between the father and son. It has great performances and is a good sci-fi thriller. If you like these kinds of films, watch it.


OK. I give this a great rating partly because it really hits a lot of areas that I, personally, enjoy. The emotional focus is on the father-son relationship, and the idea of being able to contact your deceased parent. That alone would make me at least interested in

the movie. It also deals with "the space/time continuum" idea not all too far removed from "Back to the Future", but certainly not in

a comedy sense. These types of movies are a guilty pleasure. It

also manages to weave in a semi-interesting murder mystery. The fact that there is the backdrop of the 1969 World Series is just an added treat for a baseball junkie, such as myself. It's sort of a "Field of Dreams" meets "Back to the Future" with a side of murder mystery. All in all, I really enjoyed it. I have watched it again, now that it's

on video, and it holds up to multiple viewings. It will probably be one of those movies that I watch periodically to make me feel better.

Anyway, I'm not going to give any plot lines or rave about the performances (they were all fine). The true value of the movie came from the story and the direction. Just watch the movie, I doubt you'll be disappointed.


Didn't see this in the theater, but a coworker told me about it. Wound up buying it on DVD & watching it with my girlfriend and buddy. One of the best movies of its kind! The plot was very good, and flowed well. The action was believable. Many questions undoubtedly, but we have not been able to prove what an actual time shift act would result in. Definitely a movie to keep you on the edge of your seat, and when the timelines converge at the end, it was a total surprise and brought the end in just like a story should!

Very few other movies top this... and i am eager for this writer to write something else with this kind of creativity!