THE LAST OF MRS. CHEYNEY was not a very good film, though you probably wouldn't suspect that until the film was about half complete. That's because the basic premise and acting were very good. In fact, the film had a super-strong cast--with Joan Crawford, Robert Montgomery, Frank Morgan and William Powell. It's obvious that this was a big-budget MGM film. However, towards the middle, the whole thing became a very stagy and dreadful film--with way too little action and way too much horrid dialog. By the end of the film, instead of improving, the film takes a nose-dive into wretchedness! If you don't believe me, then read on to find out about the terrible plot.

Joan plays the title character. She is supposed to be a rich American but is actually a thief working with William Powell's gang. Her goal is to insinuate herself into rich society so she can steal some fancy jewels. However, along the way, she finds that not only are these people very welcoming but nice folks--so nice that it's obvious that she's having a hard time sticking with the plan. However, the gang members won't allow this--even if it's obvious that Powell cares about Joan and wouldn't hurt her himself. So far, this is great stuff and seeing love blossom between Joan and two nice guys (Montgomery and Morgan) made it all the better.

Unfortunately, I assume the original writers must have died or suffered massive head injuries because the witty dialog and fascinating story completely lost its way midway through the film. It was as if they'd set up a good story and had no idea where to go. That, or the writers went on strike and were replaced by lemurs! At this point, the film didn't seem to know whether to have Joan prove herself to be decent or a crook--so they made her BOTH!! This made no sense, but what was worse was the reaction her new society friends had when her plan came to light. Now you'd THINK having a jewel thief lie and steal would cause a problem, but in a case of insane script writing, they had the rich folks not only agree to forgive and forget but try to pay her and Powell 10,000 pounds!!! What the heck was this?! No anger, no recriminations but everyone instead being happy and even talking about setting Joan up in business! This was just stupid and .000000003% believable. Talk about contrived and dopey. To make it worse, all they seemed to do for the last 30 minutes or so was talk, talk, talk and talk. It all seemed like mindless prattle after a while.

I guess the worst part about all this for me was how utterly wasted William Powell was in the film. He is one of my very favorite actors of his age, yet here his performance is very muted and he's given a very bland part. It was as if he was sleepwalking through the film. As for Robert Montgomery, he was pretty typical of his usual devilish playboy character up until the end--where he was transformed by Joan's allure into a simpering wuss. Ugghh! While she was given crappy material to work with, Joan probably came off the best of the leads in the film---and this isn't saying much.

Please understand that of all eras, 1930s films are my very favorite and I adore Hollywood's Golden Age. So my dislike for this film is not because I hate older films. It's just that with so many wonderful films out there (often starring these same actors), this is among the worst of the larger budget MGM films. This film is ONLY for devoted fans of the actors--and even then you might want to think twice about seeing this one.


Joan Crawford in doing The Last of Mrs. Cheyney had to stand comparison with not one, but two previous actresses who essayed the part of a crooked adventuress who discovers she has a chance at love.

The Last of Mrs. Cheyney was first presented on Broadway as a play by Frederick Lonsdale in the 1925-1926 season and it ran 385 performances with Ina Claire in the lead. Then it was done as an early sound feature film for Norma Shearer who got rave reviews.

Not having seen Claire or Shearer in the part I only have Crawford to judge and she doesn't do badly at all in the part. Of course she and the film are helped greatly by the fact William Powell and Robert Montgomery are in the film and both can and have played this kind of light comedy in their sleep.

Crawford is the shill, the come-on, for a gang of thieves of which William Powell is one of the members. She's taken on the identity of wealthy sophisticated American widow Faye Cheyney who ingratiates herself with the rich and famous and gets in their homes to rob them. We find her first working her wiles on shipboard with Frank Morgan, playing the usual befuddled Frank Morgan part. Powell serves as her 'butler'. But she also meets wealthy young Lord, Robert Montgomery and through him gets invited to old dowager Duchess Jessie Ralph's for the weekend.

Jessie's got a big rock there that the gang would like to get a hold of. But Montgomery is offering Crawford a chance to break away from that life and it puts her in a dilemma. Since Powell's kind of stuck on her too, she's got another problem.

I think Crawford carried off the part quite well. But the best one in the film is Jessie Ralph. Seems as though the old duchess married into the aristocracy and she spots that Crawford is not all she claims she is. But she likes her nonetheless. Very similar to the part Florence Bates played in Saratoga Trunk with Ingrid Bergman. Ralph steals every scene she's in.

One of these days I met get to see the Shearer version. Till then I'll recommend this version of The Last of Mrs. Cheyney without hesitation.


Stagy, tedious, wooden, boring, endless. And yet...

Here's a cast of wonderful MGM actors in their prime. Joan Crawford is not that far removed from the musicals of her youth. Her beauty hasn't hardened into the horrible Kabuki mask of later years. She's one of the worst things about this movie. She's utterly unfunny and totally charmless. She sinks every scene to the bottom of the sea, and thence downward to the center of the earth. Still, it's always interesting to watch her, to notice the lighting and other tricks that give her the star treatment in every shot.

The male leads are the incomparable William Powell (one year after "My Man Godfrey"), and Robert Montgomery (one year before "Night Must Fall").

The rest of the cast is filled out with wonderful character actors including Frank Morgan, Nigel Bruce, and Melville Cooper. Not to mention Jessie Ralph, a cinema immortal for her role as Mrs. Hermosillo Brunch in "The Bank Dick."

In 1937 American actors were severely afflicted with the phony English accent syndrome ("cahnt" for "can't"). Here, the cast is supposed to be mostly English, with only Crawford and Powell as visiting Americans. But Crawford and Powell both speak in that mid-Atlantic half- English accent. Meanwhile, half the "English" characters are played by Americans who barely attempt to sound English (Robert Montgomery, Frank Morgan, Jessie Ralph). In these bewildering accents, much dialog is babbled, little of it worth hearing.

But under the wreckage you can discern the movie somebody was hoping to make: something like the infinitely better "Trouble In Paradise," Ernst Lubitsch's masterpiece about two jewel thieves, their victim, and the resulting love triangle. Samson Raphaelson, the brilliant writer of "Trouble In Paradise," is one of the many listed writers on this movie. There are a few flashes of brilliant dialog here that sound like him. Meanwhile, Frank Morgan (later the Wizard of Oz) plays a character that's a prototype for Mr. Matuschek in the wonderful Lubitsch/Raphaelson "Shop Around The Corner."

But in this movie, 90% of the dialog is heavy as lead. There are many frenzied comings and goings, none of them funny. In no way is this movie a comedy -- if by comedy we mean what makes you laugh. Number of (intentional) laughs detected in this film: 0. Unintentional laughs: few. This isn't even one of those so bad it's good movies. It's just a stinker.

And yet... all those actors near the tops of their careers... a first-class MGM production from the golden age... and Mrs. Hermosillo Brunch! My advice: Tivo it and watch it at triple speed if you like, but do take a gander.


Drama queen single-handedly destroys the fun in a manor house jewelry heist.

The single biggest problem with this film is Crawford. I don't think she had comedy in her. She plays the tragic heroine in every movie, and this one is no exception. She warps the movie from a very funny comedy into just another Joan Crawford tragedy, of sorts. And she assumes an air of breezy self-assurance that is so strong and so undiluted with any sense of self-deprecation or humor that it makes her annoying.

Of course, there are other problems. It's hard to tell that the movie is supposed to be funny, really, until the "butler" takes a cigarette for himself and flops heavily onto the settee. Ah, of course! NOW I get it! It's all a scam! Until then, we've had small humorous asides from a few characters, but outside of that, we're not sure where the movie is going. Only with that heavy flop, a good half hour or more into the movie, do we understand that this is a comedy.

By then, it's too late, even if the movie had begun behaving the way it's supposed to. But the maudlin melodrama continues, with Crawford empathizing with the scary-looking Duchess, and this once again drains all semblance of comedy out of the movie. The later scenes with the robbery gang, which should be the sparkling highlight of the movie, come off instead as irritating and quarrelsome. And the snooty upper-class guests do no better. The "parlor game" is abrupt, unfinished, talky, and doesn't deliver any comic payoff. All of the characters but one are dispatched OFFSCREEN to "pay their penalties"--as if the filmmakers WANTED to avoid any potential for genuine good fun! (And the one character who pays hers on screen is annoying, deliberately so.) Was this to avoid lightening Crawford's gloom-and-doom character? Nigel Bruce and Frank Morgan are of course both priceless in this movie, because you could ask either of them to read the list of ingredients on a cereal box and they would still exude their own striking personalities, and Powell has a few moments, but his character comes off as stock and flat, just like Crawford's.

One imagines that this could have been a terrifically entertaining and funny movie...one imagines that some of the people involved, Powell, Morgan and Bruce, must have realized this...and one imagines that they must have been terribly disappointed to see the way the movie was handled.


I've seen it twice and enjoyed it thoroughly each time. Still, not being an experienced movie critic, I'm grateful to Krorie for pointing out some valid deficiencies. For me, the scene in the beginning with Crawford in the wrong cabin (and bed) hooked me. Bruce's bumbling reaction was so natural, believable and funny I already decided I was going to like the rest. From then on, though, it does seem like the cast is just reciting lines. I found the constantly twisting plot at the end hard to keep up with. If anyone knows the name of the song Crawford plays on the piano, please let me know. Was it original or popular at that time?


What was Joan Crawford thinking when she accepted this incredibly bad 1937 vehicle?

A woman and her gang of thieves plan to steal gems from a wealthy family. Crawford, as Mrs. Cheney, is that woman who plays up to Robert Montgomery, in order to be invited to the home of his wealthy aunt.

The Crawford character is in cahoots with William Powell. The film goes bad as this is a comedy. Had this been a drama with Crawford playing a brassy woman, this would have been something. Otherwise, the film goes downhill quickly once Crawford has been found out. Crazily, a letter has been sent by Frank Morgan, one of the aristocrats to Mrs. Cheney, which describes the negative side of these wealthy patrons. Crawford and Powell try getting some money out of Morgan, and when they do, they promptly relinquish it. Powell goes willingly to jail while Mrs. Cheney finds her true love in Montgomery. To believe this misery, you have to be quite a fool. O yes, Jesse Ralph is around as the dowager aunt. Even her hearty laugh can't save this mess of a film.


Joan Crawford is miscast as a wealthy American widow who relocates to London and mixes it up with the high society Brits. Lethargic comedy, previously filmed in 1929 with Norma Shearer, does have one plot twist, though many viewers may tire and tune out by the time it is revealed. First-half is so slow setting up the story, I could easily understand why this was such a flop in 1937. The second-half does improve, with jazzy supporting performances including Frank Morgan's as a befuddled would-be suitor (he's very funny). As for Crawford, she's too tough and inflexible for this kind of flippant character. Originally based upon a play by Frederick Lonsdale, with the material's stage-origins are all too apparent. *1/2 from ****


Always a winner in sophisticated roles, Crawford had a huge hit with Cheyney. Far superior to the Shearer film (Norma only had 3 expressions), Crawford gives a heavy dose of credibility and leaves one wishing she had made My Man Godfrey, not Carole Lombard. It is her ability to take the most banal lines and give real meaning to them that enabled her to achieve greatness in roles that were not always very great. This being one of them.


Elaborate, star-studded movie about a jewel thief (Joan Crawford) falling in love with a man she's supposed to rob...or something like that.

This is a horrible movie--just one of the worst I've ever seen. It is beautiful to look at, has a great cast and they all give great performances (especially Crawford--she's gorgeous and letter perfect in her role).

Then why do I hate this so much? The dialogue and plot. The plot is as old as the hills and the script is chock-full of totally unbelievable dialogue that no human being would ever utter. Virtually every other line was so bewildering that I could not get into the characters or the story. Also the film is very static--it feels very much like a stage play filmed. And it's very, very slow and dull

Maybe I shouldn't judge the film--as it is I tried to watch it twice and fell asleep both times! I made it through an hour and then dozed off. I think the stupid dialogue kept me awake for that long.

This film was unavailable (for some reason) from the 1960s to the early 1980s. Unfortunately it's now out there. Do yourself a favor--if you're a Crawford fan (like I am) don't see this. It's really terrible.


This complex and beautiful film is built on correspondences and contrasts; between landscape and society, man and nature, between passive and active, death and life, sanity and madness, the repressed and the unbridled, sexuality and abstinence, comedy and tragedy, alienation and redemption. The many strands to these themes are woven together in a complex pattern that defies complete analysis. Yet 'The Eel' is well-paced and is easy to watch and enjoy.

The film is set in Japan, that most self-disciplined and compliant of countries, and it is the limits, and limitations, of conformity and control that are explored. Behaviour is checked, emotions kept inward; yet when people look inward they find a seething that terrifies.

The landscape here is a damp, featureless, washed-out coastland, exquisitely shot in a subdued palette that embodies the film's subject. The people, too, are generally quiet, gentle, good citizens. Yet violence and disturbance erupt into their lives as norms are broken: a woman makes love, intensely, exultantly, adulterously. Her husband discovers her and stabs her to death in the very act. After eight years in prison Yamashita is released on parole, alienated and withdrawn, and, accompanied by his eel companion, opens a barber's shop. He finds Keiko, unconscious after a suicide attempt, and she begins to work for him. She, too, is on conditional release, from her crazy mother and unpleasant extortionist boyfriend. There is an immediate sympathy between Yamashita and Keiko, a sympathy that he, especially, cannot bring himself to express, driven to repression and passivity by his guilt and fear.

Each of these principal characters correspond with other characters in the film, providing a network of symmetry and contrast. Thus, Yamashita's failure to express his yearning for Keiko is set against Dojima's earlier lovemaking with her, and a fellow ex-convict's attempted rape. The ex-con haunts Yamashita, taunting him with his weaknesses, until he is transformed into a phantasm of Yamashita's imagination. Yamashita's wife's affair, too, finds resonance in Keiko's sensuality - and in both women's determination to provide a lunch box whenever Yamashita goes fishing. At the end, the man volunteers to assume paternity of Keiko's unborn child by Dojima.

Attempts by minor characters in the film to reach out beyond febrile compliance and quietism provide humour but little comfort: Keiko's mother's Spanish dancing is but a manifestation of her madness, and Yamashita's friend seeks only the unattainable and absurd, in his obsession with contacting UFOs. The moments of irony and humour are generally introduced with a light touch, but the transition is less satisfactory in the climactic fight at the barber's shop. This crucial moment in the film, when Yamashita fights Dojima and his thugs, against her past and his, is filmed as slapstick; the humour in unnerving.

In the end there is redemption, but the contrast of the conventional with the unruly is resolved, once more, quietly, almost submissively. Yamashita, his parole broken, returns to gaol for a year; Keiko waits for the birth of her child and Yamashita's release. Harmony is restored - on the surface. The eel, at last, is released.

'The Eel' is a subtle and complex film, with a succession of images that require more than one viewing and more than this brief note to tease out. But doing so will be a rewarding experience. Imamura's film is strong and subtle, warm yet critical. It will reward many viewings.


I tried to spoil my girlfriend, who studies Japanese culture, with a film and it worked! Unagi (the Eal) tells a story of man who commits a 'crime passionelle' by murdering his wife. When he leaves prison the guards bring him 'his' eal. Under supervision of a local priest he tries to live a peaceful peasant-life in a place where nobody knows about his past; he becomes a barber, the eal is his friend ('they never say things you don't like..'). The situation changes when, on instigation of the priest, a girl starts assisting him in his shop. Inevitable his dilemma's come back...

I loved this film for it reminded me much of the films of the Dutch director/producer Alex van Warmerdam; the ordinary, tightly directed up to every detail, the sufficating dilemma's lightly woven thru. Modern drama at it's best!


Guilt and Redemption are the pervasive themes of this quirky, disturbing, very fine film from Shohei Imamura. The consequences of the instantaneous loss of control molds this story in the way such life happenstances unfold - slowly - and Imamura knows how to take us with him in this strange tale, pausing here and there for the surreal, dreamlike sequences that can and do alter our perceptions of reality.

Takuro Yamashita (Kôji Yakusho) is a quietly married blue-collar worker who spends some evenings fishing for sport and food, his passive wife Emiko (Chiho Terada) sending him off with boxed lunches. Takuro receives an anonymous letter that states his wife is having an affair while he slips away to fish. Incredulous, Takuro returns early form his nocturnal fishing to find his wife engaged in passionate sex and Takuro stabs her to death, then bicycles to the police station and turns himself in for the murder of Emiko. He is imprisoned for eight years and conforms to the rigid life of the incarcerated, his only companion is a pet eel with whom he feels he can communicate.

Upon release from prison, Takuro is placed under the supervision of a kindly priest who helps him start a barbershop, living a quiet secluded life, his only friends being his pet eel and a strange character who has set up a field station to attract friendly aliens from outer space! All is calm until he encounters Keiko (Misa Shimizu) who closely resembles his murdered wife and indeed is suicidal from her own slashes in an attempt to negate the genetic threat of her mentally disturbed mother and her own consignation with an underworld lover Eiji Dojima (Tomorowo Taguchi), a man who holds her under his control to gain the mad mother's money committed to his evil schemes. Takuro saves Keiko from her suicide attempt and the priest encourages him to take on Keiko as an assistant.

The barbershop does well and Takuro and Keiko make good business partners. Takuro is emotionally dead over his guilt for the murder of his wife and refuses to entertain the idea of opening himself to Keiko's loving advances. There are too many similarities between the dead Emiko and the frightened Keiko. Yet when all of the forces collide in the climax of the film, Takuro realizes how much of his past is mixed with fantasy/nightmare and, equally, how much his present is dependent on his interaction with Keiko (now pregnant with Dojima's baby), the priest, his sci-fi friend and the forces who would destroy Keiko and his quiet existence. The ending, somewhat marred by a keystone kops like fight, reveals the cracks in Takuro's mental armor and the possibility for redemption unfolds in a tender way.

There are many levels of interpretation to this fable and to explore each of them would rob the first-time viewer of this little film of the pleasure of the chess game Imamura sets for us. The acting is solid, the night scenes are lovely, and the day scenes are as visually chaotic as the real world in which we live. There could be improvements in the editing, definitely in the musical score and in the camera work. But those are minor blemishes in this film that engages the mind in the challenge of entering a new mode of thought. A strange little film, this, and not for everyone. Grady Harp


Takura Yamashita (Koji Yakusho) has served eight years in prison for murdering his wife and her lover in a jealous rage and attempts to rehabilitate himself by opening a barbershop in an isolated corner of Japan. His past, however, catches up with him in Shohei Imamura's The Eel, co-winner of the 1997 Cannes Palme D'or with Kiarostami's A Taste of Cherry. Based on the Akira Yoshimura's novel Sparkles in the Darkness, The Eel is either an absurdist comedy, a drama about redemption, a surreal poem about states of consciousness, a thriller about jealousy and revenge, or all of the above.

As the film opens, Yamashita, a worker at a large flour company, is startled to read an anonymous letter on the train coming home from work informing him that his wife cheats on him when he goes away on overnight fishing trips. Cutting one of his trips short, he returns home in the middle of the night to find his wife Emiko (Chiho Terada) in bed with a lover. Grabbing a butcher knife, he brutally stabs both of them to death then calmly rides his bicycle to the local police station and turns himself in. After eight years in prison, he is released and paroled to an elderly Buddhist priest. Alienated and afraid, Yamashita's only companion is a pet eel whom he confides in ("he listens to what I say"). He opens a barbershop in a rural part of Japan but his life becomes complicated after he saves a young woman, Keiko (Misa Shimizu), from suicide and gives her a job at his shop. Reminded of his former wife, Yamashita avoids intimacy but she is drawn to him nonetheless and offers him box lunches when he goes fishing.

In spite of trying to keep his distance, Yamashita attracts some local characters that move the plot in a different direction. These include a young man who borrows his barber pole to attract UFOs, a fishing buddy who designs a device to catch eels without harming them, and his former prison mate, Tamotsu Takasaki (Akira Emoto), a foul-mouthed drunk who recites Buddhist Sutras and reminds him of his previous acts. The story, which until now has had a rich dramatic arc, soon descends into forced comedy when Keiko's mentally-challenged mother shows up doing flamenco dances and Keiko's former boyfriend returns demanding her mother's money. The townspeople and semi-gangster associates of the boyfriend join in a final free-for-all at the barbershop that might have been lifted from the Three Stooges.

The Eel is at times a brilliant and involving character study about a man seeking to turn his life around. At other times, however, it is a discordant conglomeration of plots and subplots, one-dimensional characters, and heavy symbolism relieved only by wooden farce. The UFO sequence is very lame and the comic behavior of a man just out of prison seems inappropriate as he marches like a soldier then runs after a jogging team that is passing by. Imamura has said, "If my films are messy, this is probably due to the fact that I don't like too perfect a cinema." I know that things are not always neat and our lives are often a blend of drama and farce, but The Eel's odd mixture of quirky characters and widely disparate elements keeps it from coming together as a satisfying whole.


'The Eel' proved how the director Shohei Imamura is good at describing life-sized characterization and mental state. The main character's suspicion, madness, kindness and love, are closely related to what we have inside. Which made me sympathetic and devoted to the character. Shohei Imamura described the main character's complication by using the character's delusion. And, the usage of psychological and fantastic images strongly helped to express the human mind. 'The Eel' is a unique human drama.


The Eel does something so imaginative and effective in the way it tells its story. It really makes the audience interact. Explaining this would ruin its effect, a sort of thing rarely experienced anymore in filmgoing. It's difficult to find movies that actually redirect your thinking and stimulate you and make you suffer in that great, fulfilling way. So, I will leave you to take my word for it. What is amazing about what The Eel does is how it really enlightens the audience when it comes to the judgment and expectations of characters. The Eel probes meticulously and sneakily the strange progression of a person.

Shohei Imamura, the film's cunning, subtle, and seemingly offbeat director, fashions the opening murder with what is in the first nanosecond of reaction aggravating and promptly recognized as a brilliant little effect. As the movie's main character stabs his cheating wife to death after slashing her frightened adulterous lover, blood sprays all over the camera, the scene becoming skewed and blurred through the bloodied lens, forcing us naturally to want to peer around it to see as clearly as we can the violence the character continues to commit. And at that point we realize, as is Imamura's intention, that we are the audience and that there is the movie, and that we are voyeurs who so badly anticipate such things as the passionately vindicating slaughter of a coldly adulterous lover. And from there, Imamura exploits the weakness he knows we have, but in what way cannot be predicted.

Later in the film, Imamura stages a ballistic, ungraceful fight that includes many characters, but with a relentlessly stationary camera. No matter how intricate certain actions get, he refuses to let it be anything more than observed. His intentions are all to make us conscious of what we are thinking as we watch these scenes. It's a creative intelligence applied more and more rarely all the time.

The cast is very carefully balanced. Certain characters are animated, some eccentric, some very stoic, and some are combinations of all three, yet they never become even remote resemblances of clichés. They are all meant to oppose or serve as comparison to each other in nature and chemistry.

Another plus is the film's purposely awkward, infectiously gawky musical score that, like most music in Japanese films, is recurrent and sustained, a repeated series of only a handful of melodies that are very memorable.


The Eel tells a story about a Japanese man who copes with his guilt after committing a crime. (I won't go into details on the crime, that's for you to find out) The way he does this is what makes this movie a great one in my book. Not only does he turn himself in after the crime (with a great way of response by the police) he even makes a friend out of an eel in prison. Hence the name of the movie. Once outside the prison he tries to build up a barber shop and get his life back on track.

The film is carried by its character interactions. Apart from these there is nothing else in this film, so for those who don't like dialogue don't bother with this film because you'll be bored.

For the others, who like a story carried by characters, this surely is a must. The only flaw for me was the presence of a quirky UFO nut, but that's minor.

And please watch the original version with subs and not some gruesome dubbed version. I never understood the appeal of a dub.


I was slightly disappointed with this Cannes winner, which has many good elements, but not a thoroughly convincing total. A rather unexciting public official, Yamashita, receives anonymous letters about his wife's adultery. Finding her in the act one night he stabs her to death. 8 years later he is trying to begin a new life, with his prison pal, an eel, as company. He opens a barber shop on a desolate river shore and tries to mind his own business, interacting only reluctantly with the locals. A woman he saves from suicide, Keiko, enters his life and tries to break down his barricades. There are many funny and touching scenes, as when Keiko tries stubbornly to provide Yamashita with a lunch bag against his will, and the many nightly fishing trips, where our hero releases the fish as soon as they are caught, are also unforgettable. The movie gains intensity because of the challenge Keiko presents to Yamashita's crumbled self, and some of his scenes of self-questioning are rewarding, but in the end I think movie is too sloppy and inconsequent. The farcical climax falls flat - what I like best are the calm scenes around the barber shop and by the river where the story comes to a halt. 8/10 ************SPOILER!!!!**************** At some point Yamashita realises with a shock that perhaps there was no letter about his wife's adultery. He imagined it. Which makes me wonder: did he imagine the adultery as well, and killed his wife only because of his frustrations with himself? His wife's sensuality, as well as Keiko's, is deeply contrasted with Yamashita's lack of warmth and inability to connect. His tormentor claims that he was unable to fulfill his marital obligations. If that is true, it could have driven him insane. And we never hear about the trial, the other man etc.


I would compare this to Talk to Her and Heaven. The protagonist commits a terrible crime but turns out to be a likable guy. The murder is over and done with quickly.

After that, I laughed a lot. This is more of a romantic comedy than a drama. The characters are somewhat over the top, especially Keiko's mother. The weird thing is the chaste romance story. The lack of PDAs and kissing in a movie with sex and nudity is disorienting. High contrast between a reserved, traditional Japanese culture and frank subject matter. Not for kids. Beaultifully shot. The director is world famous for good reason.


Some parts are terrible and stupid, but many are fascinating. I hated and liked it from time to time, and wanted to fast-forward, but I couldn't. You have to endure it to see what I mean. A few parts are unforgettable, and more than a few are quite forgettable.


THE EEL borders on dark humour when a man, who after eight years in prison for the murder of his wife, is released from jail. He sets himself up in a barber shop by the river and trouble comes knocking on his door and he can not seem to get away from it. Simple, yet effective, a very mature piece of work and pleasing overall.


In the majority of movies I am most attached to the relations between characters and the evolution of this process. 'The eel' for that part is quite interesting as it focuses on a male protagonist with a dark past and a female counterpart equally in troubles.

I was moved by the convincing performance by the two main characters. Besides them there are are only few, some really odd, other persons acting in the story.

As others mentioned before in most parts of the movie the pacing is slow as it can get. This is not unusual for cinema from Asia and I am really comfortable with it, regarding this as some kind of watching meditation experience.

The shooting is at times beautiful and stunning - the violent scene at the beginning or the colorful, vivid, surrealistic looking field of flowers the man finds the woman.

Disliking programmed happy endings of romantic Hollywood movies I enjoyed the unfolding narration of 'The eel' having no clue what is going to happen next and in the end.

Without the one situation which I found weak (one reviewer stated it as slapstick - the 2nd struggle in the barber's shop), there are numerous magical and disturbing moments in this movie.

I fully recommend viewing Shohei Imamura's little gem.


I might have given it a higher rating had the film admitted its own hollowness. When this film tried to dress itself as something deep things start to get worse. All the life philosophies preached by it via 'the reel' is nothing more than mere commonsense, and far-stretching to the theme story, to say the least.

During the viewing I wished that the director had bothered to show us what exactly the main character spoke to his eel when they two communicate, because the eel seems the only connect he had and mean a lot to him. Then we might be able to understand the main character a bit better, and understand the tie between him and his eel better. However, the one and only time we see this is: the main character crouched by the side of the glass tank and asked the eel with a tender voice, with his face full of concern and with the presence of a neighbour, "Do you like it here?" The whole scene is so absurd and out of place that it hurts.

What bothered me most is the attitude of the main character towards his crime. It is so important that it forms the foundation of the entire film. Therefore a weak and blurred conception will undermine everything. But again the director hauled us a muddled mess.

Now it is left to ourselves, we seemingly have two options to work with. First, he repented his murder. Then what we see basically from the film is how a man's murdering of a woman is redeemed by accidentally saving another woman's life. Due to the fact that everything about the saved woman happened totally independent of the main character (Not much happened in the film actually, mind you), and no sacrifice or endeavour of any form is required from him, the redemption seems cheap and convenient to the viewer.

Then if we come to the second conclusion that he never repented, we are then facing a more intimidating mentality. Why does the main character deserve the 'happiness' by the end of the film? Had the main character really killed his wife out of hallucination? Is the director hinting on the impending of another tragedy? The undertone of the film will then be entirely altered. But the ending of the film, where the saved woman watches smilingly and peacefully the car driving away in the warm dusk after handing over the lunch bag, is blatant enough to overthrow this consumption. On the other hand, if it is the conviction of the director that the merciless crime committed by the main character is forgivable after only 8 years prison, he does not give enough clue to justify it. We never get a chance to hear the murdered wife's self-dependence in front of the appending kitchen knife. From the very little information we get about the murdered wife, she seems, if not faithful (that is, if the adultery DID happen), at least a caring and competent housewife and there hasn't been any serious confliction between her and the main character.

If the stoic personality of the main character, though forgettable and one dimensional, can manage to make sense, all other characters in the film verge from bizarreness to insanity. Many, especially the mad mother, should be left out for good. No one can simply stands for logic. For example, the saved woman. What caused the transformation from her being desperate and suicidal before to suddenly optimistic and strong in action after? How come she, as a daughter of a rich family, has experience of working in a barbershop? And most importantly, what aroused her affection towards the main character, besides the fact that he spotted her body and called the police, therefore indirectly saved her life? If the binding up of the cut finger can be looked upon as a sort of set up for this plot development, then it comes as abrupt and trite as all other plot developments in this film. The concern from the distant main character over that cut finger feels sudden and out of nowhere. Did the director forget that his character is determined to shut himself in and keep distance from everyone else, especially woman?

All puzzles, no satisfactory answers given...... Maybe the biggest puzzle is how on earth did this garbage win in Cannes that year? This is not a satisfactory film. This film failed in almost every aspect, like most of other contemporary Japanese films.


This was a very engaging film about a guy who murders his cheating wife and then is released from prison 8 years later. You really find yourself rooting for him--especially when he meets and saves the life of a lady. You really want them to get together,...the problem is, he is SO afraid to open up to people that he distances himself from her and chooses to confide more in his pet eel. It seems that if he does connect to someone on a deeper level, he's afraid he might kill again--though he is clearly a decent person who snapped one time in his life and only after being pushed. It's a great character study and the acting and direction are marvelous--with a few lapses here and there. What didn't I like? Well, it isn't so much the acting that's the problem, but the script. Repeatedly, flashbacks and psychotic-like hallucinations occur. They tend to muddle the basic message and confuse the plot. Without these and without the LARGE amounts of blood in the murder scene, this would have gotten a rating of 9 or even 10.


Synchronicity of form with the content has been an undeniable goal of art since it's conception. In film, that is where real magic starts and there is no master of medium that hasn't mastered this essence. That is visible here as well. Unfortunately, content, if we mean intriguing story, never made it in. What we have is a sorry collection of characters unable to think, act or express themselves - (shall I be guessing) oppressed by their culture? And this is where synchronicity starts: because all the form is just equally inept, unable, clumsy, luke warm, unwilling, closed-off, just as the world it portrays. Credits to the master whose work in its success leaves me nauseated. Shame to the west, whose taste is ignorant to all above, unbearably fake ingredients, cheesy pathos of music - final signature of the Imamura's baton. Not to mention insulting ethics that disturb even a sworn anti-feminist. Thank you very much.


I HATED this movie. It opens with an incredibly gruesome murder scene, then goes on to imply that it's really not so bad to kill someone, as long as you "have a reason". Oh, and everyone will forgive you for it afterward, even if you don't show any remorse.

The characters' motivations are weak: an entire village falls in love with the hero, although he hardly says two words the entire film. The main female character inexplicably prefers washing old men's hair and making her boss' lunch to being a successful businesswoman in the city. And why is it that the murderer has so little trouble dealing with his own crime? Could it be because he's a psychopath? Probably, but we never find out for sure, because the filmmaker never goes beneath the surface to explore anything. Instead, he constantly changes tone, going from a Bill Forsyth sort of whimsy to inferior attempts at Hitchcockian suspense.

Some of the acting is good, but the star of the much better "Shall We Dance" gives a wooden performance here.

Some of my problems with the movie may have come from cultural differences. The murderer gets only 2 years in prison, according to the subtitles--could that be because the courts of Japan would consider his crime "justified"? (note--someone snarkily emailed me that it's actually 8 years; I'm not going to watch the movie again to check that fact, but 8 years still doesn't seem like much to me for murder.) The director made some heavyhanded comments about the murderer's sufferings in prison, but I thought the killer got off lightly. Also, I didn't understand the ending of the film--I was hoping it would say something to indicate that the director didn't really support the murder at the beginning, but instead it seemed to me to draw parallels between the victim and the murderer that I didn't think were appropriate.

This movie makes me feel angry every time I think of it. I'm planning to avoid any other films by the same director.


Excess Baggage was a joy. Alicia Silverstone is gorgeous, bratty, and fun. Benicio del Toro is frumpy and totally unlike any other leading man ever. Unfortunately, this film seems to have been misunderstood in a big way, by the audience, by reviewers, and by the people I saw it with. But, it's worth another look.


This was much better than what I expected.Since it had such poor reviews,I rented the video only to watch my new favorite actor, Benicio Del Toro .I was actually pleasantly surprised at how good he was in a romantic comedy.He should do these more often! He has proved himself in serious roles already, but I think he can be a very refreshing lead in romantic roles. Haven't we seen enough Hugh Grant movies yet? I wont' go into details about the plot,which had an interesting start but looked like it wasn't sure where it was headed at the end.Then again, a movie starring Alicia Silverstone can't be expected to be so plot-conscious...If you're a fan of Benicio, you'll enjoy his unique debonaire charm in this movie.For once, he doesn't look that intense or sad, and we can really feel the tenderness behind his half-smile...I might not be such an objective viewer, but this movie is such a nice distraction from the Julia Roberts, Sandra Bullock romantic comedies...


Lots of dissing for both Alicia and Benicio but it seems disingenuous. This is not a profound film but it IS a fun one. Nice photography, a plot that has a good rhythm and tempo, engaging characters that are well acted and clever film devices (for one, the conflict regarding her smoking that set up the plot complication in the first place). Walken is great as usual as a character both scary AND endearing. Spark a blunt, open a beer and enjoy this silly but fun little flick.


What are the requisites for a person to like a movie? I can't tell, but I ask because a friend of mine told me she had watched a little bit of this film and then stopped because it was bad; and I found it truly entertaining, funny and charming. I've said a lot of times that I love romantic comediesI still do, you know? "Excess Baggage" is an unexpected little romantic comedy that finds amusement in the strangest places. First off, the way the two leads meet. She is faking a kidnapping an hides in the trunk of a car waiting to be found; he is a car thief and steals that car, takes it to his garage and discovers that someone is making noiseThis scene is fantastic because the thief acts like he doesn't understand, and when he discovers it is only a girl, he gets scared.

The girl is Emily Hope: "All I wanted in a father is a person who cared and valued his daughter", she says at the beginning of the film. She is portrayed by Alicia Silverstone as a grown person who hasn't really grown up and does mischief to get her millionaire father angry; because she knows he can spend any amount of money to find her anywhere. Her perception is right, and Silverstone's ability of going crazy helps the development of her character. I'd like to add that Silverstone's had a short career and she was discovered because of Aerosmith (she looked nice in that video); but she's got it.

But the best development is the relationship between Emily and the thief; they start with the wrong foot because neither of them understands how they ended up in the situation they're living, but soon they have to deal with the fact that they look good together and that probably each of them is the part that's missing in the other one. Old question: Can two people fall in love after two days of being together? This movie makes it believable.

Congratulations to Max D. Adams, the only story he ever created, he did it a perfect job. In stories like these is very flexible to keep a loyal viewer engaged with the plot line. Adams, alongside Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais ("Goal!") present the girl-father relationship but are smart enough not to loose focus in what's going on with Emily and the thief. They also put the lead male in a financial trouble bringing funny performances from Nicholas Turturro and Harry Connick Jr; and chose the best person to look out for Emily: Christopher Walken, who end up a step away of stealing the show: the thief does that.

Who is the thief? He is called Vincent and the actor who portrays him has done every type of film and played every type of character including one that lies among the best performances I've ever seen. As this movie went along, I was observing his performance carefully because it appeared similar to something I've seen before; but I couldn't discover it. Maybe it was a character he played, and that's why I'm convinced there's no one like Benicio Del Toro. His performance here finds him always beaten down, but still being able of finding the charm his character requires. "What a view", he says, and only he says it.

The director of the film, Marco Brambilla, showed Stallone the way in "Demolition Man", was in charge of this and then of the marvelous miniseries "Dinotopia". He gives "Excess Baggage" the kind of eye it requires; comprehensive and caring. He sees the chemistry between the leads and takes advantage of it in the best way possible.

I'm a fan of both of the leadsAnd by the way, I stick to my beliefs about romantic comedies.


I rented this movie thinking that everybody had been too hard on poor Alicia, who had been wonderful in Clueless and sexy in many an Aerosmith video. I was wrong. It might have been due in part to the non-existent script, but Alicia showed no screen presence at all. Instead, she smoked and drank during the entire flick (is this the moviemakers' attempt to appeal to the teenage crowd this movie is aimed at??). Benicio del Toro's performance was all right, even though (or: because) he seemed to think he was in a remake to the 'Usual Suspects'. In all, if you see only a hundred movies this year, don't let this one be one of them.


I have to admit, there was something really undefined I loved about this movie. Yeah the script needed a little work, and maybe the actors could have done a tit bit of a better job. But overall it really touched me in that sweet/sadistic way.

I mean that's what we all want right? To be cared about, and it just shows how far sometimes people will go for it. And OH YEAH Benicio Del Toro is such a triple threat.. He's extremely hot, He's Italian and he's an amazing actor. So whatever movie you put him in, it has a really good chance of touching someone. Overall I give this movie a 7. I think it deserves at least that.


A really lousy movie. Alicia Silverstone needs more than her "cute" looks to recoup the producer's money. The dialogue ranges from incredibly dumb to hilariously stupid. Director Marco Brambilla was out to lunch on this one. Don't watch this film, read the phone book.


When I rented this movie, I didn't have too high expectations to what it was going to be like, but even so I must admit I was disappointed. I wanted to watch this movie, part because I enjoyed the easy going humor in "Clueless", and part because I like Alicia Silverstone as a young actress. But neither of these two reasons were enough to make me like Excess Baggage at all. The movie lacks a good plot, and is rather boring after a while. All though Silverstone put up a half decent performance, Benicio Del Toro didn't get his role together, and stood out like a sore thumb. A good tip: don't waste your money OR your time on this boring and dumb movie...


This is, without a doubt, one of the two worst movies I've ever seen (at least movies that were supposed to be "good").

Alicia Silverstone, usually a decent actor, is simply annoying in this film. The usually excellent Benicio del Toro turns in an embarassingly bad turn as the love interest/kidnapper. In fact, the only actor of any importance here who performs reasonably well is Christopher Walken (who is the lone bright point in this complete waste of space.)

The plot is convoluted, flighty, and downright dumb. The audience has no empathy whatsoever with any of the characters, especially with Silverstone's, nor is she even a "cool" bad guy. In the end (indeed, 10 minutes into the film) not only do we not care at all what happens to her, but we rather wish Walken would just lose his cool, lock her and del Toro in a closet someplace, and dance away into the sunset to a Fatboy Slim song.

Thank god del Toro got his role in Traffic, because this quite easily could have wrecked his career. I don't recommend anyone see this film, unless you are just begging for ways to waste your money and torture yourself.


I only paid $1.00 to see this movie, and I still felt ripped off. I stuck around, assuming it would get better, or at least hoping I could laugh at it's badness, but neither happened. It was not cheesy enough to laugh at, and it was so terrible I actually experienced physical pain while watching it. The talents of Del Toro and Walken were completely wasted in this lame excuse for entertainment.


When I began watching this, I thought it was pretty strange. I wasn't going to sit through the whole thing but I decided to, since I really had nothing else to do, but I'm glad I did. It's pretty different, to say the least. But it left me feeling happy and satisfied.

Silverstone's acting, in my opinion, is mediocre. I've never been a big fan of hers. I don't know what it is about her, she just rubs me the wrong way. Del Toro, however, aces it, as per usual. (I love his dark, brooding eyes and the way he mumbles. Maybe it's just me :P )

All in all, I recommend it. Even if you're a little skeptical at first, try it out.


Okay, so people might think I'm crazy for voting this 10 out of 10. The usual response and comment everywhere I look seems to be a negative one. But I was sitting here the other night, we just moved into a new house. I love the new environment, and I was ready for the new year. I was up late, as always, and this movie came on TBS. I had just watched Clueless with Alicia in, and I thought if I could stay awake long enough, I would watch this. I love Walken and Silverstone, but had never seen Toro in much. So I started watching it. I thought at first it was funny, hilarious, and enthralling. The way the girl tied herself up and put herself in the trunk, and was extorting her dad for money. I first thought she really wanted the money. Then I figured out it didn't matter, she wanted attention. It was a cry for help. Then I see sexy del Toro steal the car and freak out when he opened the trunk and saw her in there. The scene where Uncle Ray (Walken) saw she framed her fire news article...was hilarious and brilliant. And the scene at Knotty Pines where she said "you don't have to be drunk to kiss me"...and he said "I'm not drunk"...absolutely brilliant. Not too much love scene, then the scene the next morning by the lake was touching. I loved it whenever he's talking to her dad, and he says, "Are you telling me I've only known this girl two days and already I care more about her than you do?" Wonderful. And the scene at the end of the movie...I TOTALLY knew he was in the trunk. And they're sitting there in the trunk and he says "what a view"..she says "What makes it a view?" he says "You" and then Dave Matthews starts playing "Crash Into Me"...perfect song, then he goes to kiss her and he does that "come on, come on, come on, come on, come on" thing...and they close the trunk. Perfect ending. Okay, so I loved the movie. I think that's clear. But if any person watched this and hated it, they need to go back and watch it again without thinking too hard about it. You won't hate it then!


Okay, so it's kind of a stock movie story with stock characters but what really makes it a view-more-than-once flick are the characters, especially Benicio Del Torro who puts in another stellar performance. Del Torro's character, Vincent, was the only non-stock character in the film and I'm convinced that Del Torro made Vincent all that he was -- no matter how good the writing & directing. I never get tired of Christopher Walken and his Christopher-Walkenisms so I found him bonus in the flick. And who is this superb gangster Nicholas Turturro (Stick)? Again, a so totally stereotypical character, but Turturro's seamless, peerless delivery made me perk up in anticipation of how he would deliver his next line every time he showed up in a scene.

Something else I loved about this film were the "tight" images. I think the quality of the air in coastal Washington(?) gave the film a solid, high resolution look. But things like the car storage facilities not being your ordinary chop shop garages contributed to that "tight" imaging. Even having the cars covered in plastic was a "tight" consideration. As much as I'm not a big Alicia Silverstone fan, her face extrapolated this tightness.

A serious detriment to the movie was the terrible weakness & implausibility of everything to do with the police -- their acting, their entire investigation activities, the chase scene, their placid acceptance of "Uncle Ray" at the final abduction site. So strike that stuff from your memory and focus on Del Torro's acting. Thankfully, the cops don't impinge much on the story.

Overall, I found this to be a very enjoyable film that I will *definitely* watch again.


I own this movie...I think it's a fun movie to watch. Before this movie I never cared for Alicia Silverstone, but after this I appreciate her a lot more...especially now that I know she created it. This also was the first film I saw Benicio del Torro in...and I think he is fabulous! His quirky behavior...and the comedy added in...made the film fun to see. Throwing in Christopher Walken as Emily's uncle and Harry Connick Jr. as Vincent's friend helped spice up the story. I liked the story of a spoiled rich girl faking her own kidnapping to only end up with a very experienced car thief...and having them fall in love...it's sweet and funny!


... or should it be 'Thelma and Lewis'?!?

Basically this movie is mindless fun - something that may have you chuckling once or twice and rolling your eyes a few times, as well.... Nobody is on their best behavior in this light and slightly campy film. You've all read the plot summary - Rich brat kidnaps herself but gets more than she bargained for when her car is stolen from the garage and romance ensues.

The cast is very good in all their places.... Silverstone plays a spoiled rich brat that wants desperately - DESPERATELY - for her father's love and attention. But daddy is too busy with his business life and dealings - some of which are not on the most 'up and up'... While he's no Mafia Don, it's hinted that he's not the cleanest business man in the world.... Walken is daddy's 'enforcer', who seems to help in some of the shadier deals that daddy makes. But, Walken has a decent relationship with Silverstone, and seems to be more fatherly in his relations with her...

Del Toro plays a high end car thief who steals beautiful machines on order.... You want a Ferarri? OK, we'll get you a Ferarri...! Del Toro is a bit annoying with his slow dialect and dumb founded look. Harry Connick Jr. plays Del Toro's 'agent' in the car rip off ring. He does a great job in this role, that I think is one of his first.

Overall, the movie is fun.... sure, it's not the greatest comedy (romantic or otherwise) on the face of the planet, but it's decent fare - a decent way to burn a few hours.... If you're a Sliverstone fan, you'll probably like this one.... If you're a Del Toro fan - well, he's just himself - with a bad speech pattern. Walken is his typical bad guy self, and shines.

Overall, I'd give it a B....


This Benicio Del Toro's Funniest role next to "The Usual Suspects". The scenes with Benicio and Christopher Walken are priceless. If you like Ironic Humor, you'll love this film. It's boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, girl Ruins boys life and they ride off into the sunset together.


After first watching this movie, I wasn't too impressed. But after the 2nd and 3rd time, I love it! Something about the movie makes sense. Watch at least once, but go back for more if the movie pops in your head.


This is no Bonnie & Clyde. It's not some huge feat in movie-making. It's not supposed to be; it's just a cute little comedy. But it's cool. It has some very clever dialogue & fine acting. Benicio del Toro looks better than he's ever looked in any movie here. Walken is delightful. Alicia Silverstone plays the pouty brat well - she's supposed to be a little annoying. It's a fun romp.


How many bad reviews have I read of this movie? Way too many... I decided to see it anyway since I'm one of Alicia's biggest fans. By the way, if you listen carefully to all of the dialogue in this film, you will probably notice that this is her most personal film to date. I won't go into all the details, but there are a few reasons I know of why she rewrote a large chunk of the dialogue. First, the plot is original, as far as I know of. The first fifteen minutes immediately kicks into overdrive with everything happening at once. The soundtrack, too...love it. She picked that out herself, too, and made great choices. Benicio steals the show once again, but Alicia and Christopher aren't far behind with their performances. Oh, and Mr. Walken is a little spooky in this movie (as expected?), but don't think of him like that in real life. Emily T. Hope is by far Ms. Silverstone's most magnificent creation to date, topping Cher Horowitz and Darien Forrester. Emily is nothing like Alicia, and that's a huge sign she's the greatest actress on the market today. I suggest you watch this film just to learn a little bit here and there, despite the slowdown in plot during the middle and Brambilla's lackluster action sequences. Well, except for the only car chase in the film...a classic. So, how 'bout a part two?


One of the more enjoyable 'fun' films I've seen in a while, Excess Baggage left me with a smile on my face. Del Toro seemed a little uncomfortable on screen, and it's always hard to see Harry Connick, Jr. trying to play a bad guy, but Silverstone was wonderfully bratty without overdoing it and Christopher Walken served up yet another delightful performance as the 'problem solver.'

The scene in the garage/warehouse with all of the exotic stolen cars, the bad guys, and good ol' Ray (Walken) with a gun was simply priceless.

Don't look for anything 'heavy' here. Just kick back, relax, and have some fun, and enjoy the film for what it is.


You know, it never ceases to amaze me how movies can be totally blacklisted by the critics to the point of it being absolutely ridiculous and unfair: Excess Baggage was victim to this. It was a bomb, however I feel it was really taken the wrong way.

Silverstone plays a very cute spoiled rich girl who just wants some attention from her father, so she fakes a kidnapping, then locks herself in her own car. Del Toro plays an accomplished and stylish car thief... well, I think you can figure out what happens next.

My thoughts of the film are this - I'm a sucker for cute comedy's with adventurous story lines, and that's what this is. The acting isn't bad, Silverstone is believable and Del Toro is always great. The chemistry on screen is just fantastic. Accompinied by a good soundtrack, and a sexy Silverstone romancing cool Benicio really makes this movie a can't miss. Even if it's something to watch with a girlfriend or boyfriend. It's one of those films from the 90's that just makes you want to go back. If you are reading this and deciding to make it a date movie, it has everything a good date movie has. Rent it tonight!


Spoilt brat Emily Hope, (Alicia), seeks attention from her snotty rich dad, (Thompson), by organising her own kidnapping. This time around its the girl who cried wolf when Vincent, (the very funny Benicio), ends up stealing a car with her in it. All hell breaks loose when good old Uncle Raymond, (Walken in his usual style of acting), comes on the scene in search of the two. It's Benicio's performance that hooked me in, it's quirky with a feel of spontaneity . Even Alicia gets in on the act joining Benicio's playfulness. And to top it all off, add Christopher Walken and you've got an interesting level of performances.


I really enjoyed this movie. It had a really 'feel good' theme and left me wanting more. It reminded me of an old romantic movie where the guy always gets the girl. Benicio Del Toro was excellent, he really made the role his own, like it was written with him in mind. Any other actor wouldn`t have worked. Let`s just hope we see a lot more of him in the future. Fair enough, the plot wasn`t exactly rocket science, but the story was told really well and watching it was a real escape from everyday life.

I would recommend this film to everyone (although maybe the romantics out there would probably appreciate it the most!!). Although Alicia Silverstone played her part well, Del Toro, with his simple, bumbling ways, really made the movie for me. Definitely A*


As the title says, this movie IS excess baggage in your video collection. The idea of the film isn't (at) all bad, only the resulting movie just lacks about everything in all areas; the dialogue is horrible, Silverstone is no actress and by the looks of this film will never become one either. Benicio del Turro oughtta be ashamed of his work. Never in the film does one believe in the relationship between the two main characters. As a matter of fact, I could have said it better in one brief statement: don't watch this film. Period.


This movie left me with the urge to get a pro-rata refund from my local cable company. I can only imagine what people felt at the movie theaters after paying $8.25 for this bomb.


Maybe it was just the fact that I watched this movie on television with commercial breaks while doing homework, and therefore wasn't exactly giving it my full attention and deep scrutiny, but I rather liked it. It was pretty funny most of the time, though it was all pretty obvious, but that's all right. Journey's more important than the destination, and all that.

The acting wasn't perfect, and all around, there could have been improvements, but I felt fortunate to have stumbled upon this movie. It makes an awesome excuse to take a break from studying every few minutes and stare at Christopher Walken.


This 1997 "movie" is meant to be a comedy but after about an hour I switched it off as if there was anything remotely amusing, I did not see it.

The story: spoilt brat daughter of a zillionaire fakes her own kidnapping to try to get the attention of daddy, but things go wrong as she is mistakenly captured by a car thief.

All the actors in the film are wholly unconvincing.

Post 9/11 and Baghdad....I don't think making a film about kidnapping is funny, especially as this one ain't got anything going for it and what is more it simply ain't funny!

In real life someone stealing top of the range motor vehicles would not hesitate in getting rid of any witness rather than falling in love with her, which appears to be the ludicrous premise of the film.

The actor playing the private detective brought in to rescue the daughter suffers from always being in awful 'B' pictures, and his hair transplant with phoney red hair looks ridiculous.

The actress playing the daughter is completely unattractive in every way except physically. And the good guy car thief is a total jerk.

Plus a script lacking in any merit whatsoever.

1 out of 10.


Dull, witless, a real pain to watch -- and yet, unbelievably -- it's based on a script which won First Prize in the Austin Film Fest's screenwriting contest! (I guess all that advice about writing interesting stories with strong characters and sharp dialog got ignored by the judges.)


Alicia Silverstone is very hot, though the title of this strange looking thing really sucks.

When rich chick Alicia fakes her own kidnapping by locking herself in the trunk of her car in order to get attention from her elusive father (Jack Thompson), a car thief (Benicio Del Toro) steals it while followed by two lowly hoodlums and Alicia's anemic uncle (Chris Walken) who wants to bring her back to Daddykins.

Alicia is beautiful and Benicio is handsome in this light romantic-comedy, though all the car trunk scenes will make you look at your watch.


I first saw this movie late at night on TBS. I read the info. of it and wanted to check it out just because Alicia Silverstone and Christopher Walken was in it. Once it started I instantly thought it would come out OK, the plot was great. It was hilarious when Alicia tied herself up then locking herself in the trunk. All of a sudden this actor comes along, I assumed it was Benicio Del Toro cause thats what the info said. Anyway I knew I'd seen him somewhere and thought this would be interesting. The acting responses he gave were great and at first I thought he couldn't speak English cause he doesen't say a word till he goes to the diner for coffee, waiting for the telephone. Anyway the fight scene with them is great, I love how as they stick together they gradually become friends, then well you can probably guess but I wont say. Anyway I too gradually came to really liking Del Toro till he became one of my favorite actors!!!:) This was such a movie worth staying up for!! the acting and chemistry between Alicia and Benicio I think it's great, you see for yourself and if you don't agree than poor you!!! love it!!!! First Benicio movie I'd ever seen!!!


I think that if one has a personal understanding of the history of the circumstances which tie Andalucia and North Africa together, along with some of the cultural, social, and spiritual connections that are maintained between these two separate but connected worlds, the movie Vengo will strike you as being very symbolic.

There is a lot which is implied and will go right over your head if you are not aware of the culture and history of this region (as well as being aware of the life and struggles of Gatlif as a Gypsy man born in Algeria, caught between these two worlds). Gatlif does not spell anything out for you. He leaves it up to you to try to put the pieces together, and he knows that there are certain types of people, with a certain awareness, who will be attracted to his films.

I thought Vengo was incredibly deep with so much true emotion and so much of the subtle and misunderstood inner-struggles of the people of Andalucia being depicted through a number of overlapping stories and characters: The retarded nephew, the man whose daughter had died, the feuding Gypsy families, the exiled father of the son living in Morrocco, etc.

This movie told the tale of a people and their will to hold on to the purest ("Flamenco Puro!") sources of happiness and joy within their lives, amidst circumstances which seemed destined to tear them a part and undermine their unity.

An incredibly beautiful story with lots of information, emotion, and spirit. If you are open, this movie will touch your soul.


"Vengo" is a wonderfully alive feast of the flamenco music, dance, and rhythms of the contemporary Andalusia gypsies of Southern Spain built on a ominously rumbling story of a blood feud and death. Not your usual movie fare, "Vengo" divides its time equally between musical ethnic folk singing and dancing from gala festivities to impromptu "jam" sessions to funeral laments while inching the family feud story slowly forward with the kinetic tempos of flamenco rhythms everpresent. More art than entertainment, "Vengo" will appeal most to those into foreign or ethnic films with bold musical underpinnings. Those who enjoy "Vengo" might want to check out "Flamenco (de Carlos Saura)", "Assassination Tango", "Tango, no me dejes nunca", and the like. (B+)


A family feud involving honor and integrity is at the center of this intriguing film directed by Tony Gatlif. We are taken to meet Caco, a man that is being threatened by an opposing clan because his brother Mario killed one of the Caracava men, something that will not be forgotten until justice is done. Since Mario is hiding in Morocco, Caco is a marked man because he represents his brother, the assassin.

Caco, is a man who loves his nephew Diego, that suffers from cerebral palsy. Diego, who is Mario's son, enjoys women like other normal young men his own age. Caco takes care for Diego to have a discreet encounter with a beautiful prostitute, la Catalana. Caco learns how the Caracavas are vowing to avenge their dead brother by sacrificing Diego.

"Vengo" mixes the action with music, song and dance performed by some of the best flamenco interpreters of the genre. Antonio Canales does a good job in his take of Caco, the head of his clan, and the loving uncle of Diego. Orestes Villason Rodriguez, who is physically handicapped, appears as Diego, who like any other member of this clan, loves his music and women with the same passion. Antonio Dechent appears as Alejandro, Caco's right hand man.

Tony Gatlif brings all the colors of Andalucia to a film and does justice to some of that exotic music and mixes the local gypsy music with Moroccan performers that add color to the movie.


Rarely have I seen a document as pure as Vengo. It's style, somewhere between drama and documentary, nor it's story line have what usually makes a great movie, yet the music, the honesty of the actors, the scenery, the general atmosphere make Vengo a masterpiece of European impressionist cinematography. Vengo narrates of pride and family honour, of music that comes directly from the depths of the soul, of duende. Go see it and love it. Chances are you'll buy the soundtrack recording immediately the next day.


It's funny that a critic from the new york times could know so little about film. I will not say much except this is one of the most simple, most beautiful stories made into cinema; there is absolutely no artifice, no tricks, and every detail is pure and genuine. Tony uses faces Kurasawa could've killed for. You ain't seen nothing if you ain't seen this. The music, artists like Gritos de Guerra, La Caita, Sheik al Tuni, (seemingly unavailable on record, but better than anything I've heard,) seems to capture at once the joy and sorrow bound up in human life. Likewise the players, most not actors. In fact, the music is so integrated into the lives of the characters, in the end there is no division. For reviewers of respected periodicals, we would explain this is what is called thematic. So much for the standards of education in journalism. Even reviewers who really liked this movie did not fully understand this; like most really great art, it is ahead of the curve. I suppose it should be possible to find a film as beautiful as this, as simple and captivating, but none come to mind. Skip "Vengo" and your life will certainly be less rich.


It's an excellent film for those that love the music. One can trace the origins of flamenco and, in particular, its links with traditional Arabic music. An authentic passionate piece of art interpreted by authentic real people. Loved every moment of it and wanted to be one of those excellent musicians or dancers.


Indeed, not a bad documentary (barely a real film, the plot is just an excuse to the connection of the different flamenco scenes). Antonio Canales is surprisingly good as Caco, and the other characters are of no relevance to the story whatsoever. Orestes, Caco's nephew with cerebral palsy, is actually Antonio Canales' nephew. Undoubtable epic flavor in this escape/flamenco journey. Good details, as the nice landscapes in Cadiz and the references to Caco's relative "exiled" in the Spanish cities of North Africa. Great and not so commercial flamenco singers, such as La Paquera(R.I.P) and La Caita. Special attention to the closing song, "Naci en Alamo".


I am not a musician myself, in fact I am a student in art history, but I really enjoyed this picture. I was amazed that such a great passion for music can be combined with the medium of movie, without weakening nor the subject, nor the medium. The music that Tony Gatlif pursues is the kind of music that really means something to me, it goes straight into the body, the mind and the soul. This is not entertainment, this is 'life' in the purest sense of the word. Thank you Tony Gatlif, for bringing this message to us.


`Vengo is a call, a song, a hymn to life, to love, to mourning, to blood money. A hymn to the Mediterranean spirit.' Tony Gatlif.

Well with this been said, I don't think I have very much more to add. It's everything what the director said. I never really liked musical movies, I am like most people. And I must admit that as well as me others missed out on great movies.

I have worked for a long time in a video store and I saw that many musical movies were put aside. It doesn't mean that musicals are by definition good, but it's like our system block them automatically away and we won't watch them. Why? I don't know. Because of our childhood? Does our body protest thanks to movies like Sound of music and Mary Poppins and etc.

Could be. Even Dancer in the dark didn't do well in the video store. From an instant when people heard that some people sing in it they left it behind and didn't wanted too see it although it was directed by Lars Von Trier.

But those who did see it thought it was great! Well, it is the same with this movie, those who saw it thought it was great, those who heard people sang in it, didn't even bother to turn their back and try out on something they always rejected and therefore missed something. I really liked Vengo and I enjoyed the music allot. And I didn't regret it for a second.


After reading the enthusiastic comments posted so far, I feel guilty admitting I was bitterly disappointed by "Vengo." I'd enjoyed "Latcho Drom" and even went out and purchased the sound-track CD.

But "Vengo" left me cold: too much mediocre acting, far too much melodrama, and far too little flamenco for my taste.

At one point the main character characterizes the music being played as "flamenco puro!" and bangs his fist on the cafe table to underscore his fervor. I agreed with him--at that moment. But aside from that one cafe scene, I found little in the movie that seemed "puro" to me, and much that sounded "globalized" and tawdry.

I am voting only two stars on this one.


Great music is not enough to make a great film. If 'Vengo' was screened on some world music channel, the viewers would have objected to the useless melodrama that deprived them of some thirty minutes of great music and dance. Amazingly, if you see 'Vengo' in the theaters or on the film channel, the objection is the same. There is great music here, and this is the best part. The rest is a very skinny gypsy revenge melodrama, not complex and interesting enough to sustain a big screen movie. Some of the characters are interesting enough to provide the opportunity for good acting, but what remains in the memory after the film is mostly the music, dances, environment. I rated it 7/10. Do not rent or select it for seeing unless you are a fan of gypsy music and culture.


Tony Gatlif has made two films about European gipsy life, "Latjo Drom" and "Gadjo Dilo". If you have prejudices about this ethnic group, he doesn't do anything to make them smaller. But that's not really the important point. Not in "Vengo", which is Gatlif's best movie so far.

It takes courage to start the film with ten minutes mixture of a flamenco/arabian music performance. And where are more of it later on. The interesting thing is that the film doesn't lose any tempo from it.

This is a story about sacrifice and love inside an ethnic group. The people seems to be criminals in some way all of them, but still they are sympathetic or if not sympathetic, interesting. Gatlif knows how to tell a story and so he does here. Great acting especially by Antonio Canales and Orestes Villasan Rodriguez.


This movie is visually stunning; each shot is framed like a still made by a master photographer. It is among the most beautifully filmed works I've ever seen.

The wonderful music is spontaneous and part of the fabric of life (and death) of the story. This is not a "musical" like Hair or Chicago or Sound of Music. I don't mean to demean Vengo when I say it's use of music is more like that in Forrest Gump or Almost Famous where music sets the mood or anchors us in a time and place as the story flows. If you like "world music" or flaminco, you will love this movie. If you didn't when you started watching, you will by the end.

I figured out most of the story even though I don't speak much Spanish. I wonder why if my TV can put Spanish language closed-caption subtitles under English moves, why I can't get English language captions in Spanish movies...wish someone would make an English language version of this wonderful film!

Loved it. 9 out of 10 stars


Beynelmilel Amsterdam has a large Turkish population and this was my first Turkish movie of life. I went to see this movie because I read good review of this movie.

The story is in a small town in Turkey in 1982 where the local military head hires a musical troupe to play for the arrival of their chief. The lead maestro's young daughter and her lover boy are influenced by communism movement. One day on hearing a communist song being secretly played by the daughter the musician assume it as an international song (thus the name of the movie) and composes a musical piece for the arrival of military chief. It is only during the last performance that everybody realizes the performance is of a communist song. The movie is a light arty comedy with a simple love story woven in it. But the ending of the movie is sad.

Cezmi Baskin as the musician has played his role with ease, his daughter's role is played by beautiful Ozgu Namal; her lover's role is played by Umut Kurt. There are lots of other character actors who have all played their role nicely.

This is the first directoral debut for Muharrem Gulmez. He has given a simple, light hearted approach to the serious topic, and it is there within his low budget parameters he excels to keep things real and enjoyable.

I am from India and I do not understand Turkish, but seeing the movie reminded me of the 1970's era of Indian movie where there were many art movies made on the backdrop of communist movement.

Just a trivia There were 9 Turkish ladies who had come to see this movie and I think this was also the first movie of my life when I was the only male in the audience.

(Stars 7 out of 10)


The film is telling a story from Turkey in a difficult time slice and place. The time is 1982 and place is Adiyaman from less developed portion of Turkey. Story is using local musicians who are earning their life from night entertainments or from weddings, as a tool to develop around. Scenario is convincing well and many details such as small things, objects, and clothes are perfectly reflecting that time and that place. This is together with the correct dialogs developed between local people and officers, giving a highly realistic atmosphere to the movie. In spite of some accent errors, cast is successful as well.

The mood of the film has a spectrum from comedy to tragedy like their life itself. The peak comedy scene in cemetery is really better than many comedy movie, and the last scene showing the changed world after years are really tragedy, or black comedy. Old and fat but congenial singers who are derived from other cities to sing in the nightclub are playing the timeless philosophic minds of such situations.

To avoid any spoiler, I will not tell in details but the final public meeting scene and unusual events in the meeting are not realistic. This portion is the only faulty portion of the movie. This is not a masterpiece but a movie not to miss.


I was not expected an extraordinary movie such as Beynelmilel. Recently, there has undeniably been an increase in Turkish movies. However it is clear that quantity can not bring quality into the scenes. I am grateful for seeing a master from Gulmez and Onder. The budget was small, contrary, story and drama was at the highest. We learn the life of Gevendes' - local musicians- in Adiyaman region. People were looking for a little bit freedom for their way of life. For the moment, it seems strange even listening music was prohibited by law makers. We should appreciate the freedom we have now. It is definitely that the freedom needs enlargement in Turkey. Comparing in the days we live I feel better.

The movie was made so plain and perfect. Directors did not exaggerate the scenes to increase humour. Humour factor was talently implemented into the body of the movie. As Gulendam, Ozgu Namal played very well. She was really beautiful and capable of playing difficult characters. As Abuzer, Cezmi Baskin was fantastic. His play is not comparable to the other Turkish players. He is far behind them. As Semra, Meral Okay capable of adding value to the movie. We can see her power easily. Most of the other players are not famous but they were playing their roles like they are an expert.

In my opinion Beynelmilel should have gone for Oscar instead of Dondurmam Gaymak. Definitely the directors make Beynelmilel in basic film rules and they seem to win success with the help of story, players, scenes, culture.


One of the best Turkish movies that I watched in years! It is certainly in the class of great Italian movies; the script, acting, cinematography, and the music are all great!

This movie tells the story of an era in Turkish political history full of military oppression, violence, prosecution, and ignorance in a satirical way. The choice of the song "International" as the theme music in the movie is smart and wonderful!

I have only one criticism about the script and that's why I did not give a perfect score: the events in the last 5 minutes of the movie have evolved very quickly and ended in an unusually dramatic way, which made me think if there were financial reasons for ending the film so abruptly. Otherwise, it had the potential to win prestigious international awards. Congratulations to the crew who produced such a great movie with a small budget!


What a wonderful movie, showing us many aspects of life in Eastern Turkey and the oppressing role of the army, in a very subtle,ironic way. One of the first scenes: A band of street musicians, are setting up their trade now forbidden by the army, in a truck, near the local graveyard in outer-Turkey. An army platoon, set on their trail, prepares to attack, rifles aimed at the back of the truck. Very slowly, the back flap is lifted and we see .... a young man, dressed up as a belly dancer and a band of musicians playing. Such ironic contrasts work through the whole movie: The band leader hears by coincidence the Internationale, thru the love of his daughter for a young die-hard communist and thinks it is THE music to be played for a military audience, not having a clue about it's origins. However, the real tone of the story is rather sad and moving: The hard life of the musicians, trying to make a living, the mother- and wife-less home of the band leader, who lost both in childbirth. And the abrupt end, which we cannot elaborate here, thanks to spoiler policy .... Every European and US-citizen should go see this movie, since it seems to give a realistic picture of Turkey even now. The army is still in power. I do hope this movie will have a wide distribution in Turkey proper. Will it?


I saw this movie a couple of days ago. I thought this one is one of the best in the recent anime films including Miyazaki's. Even satisfied more than 007.

Based on the comic by Matsumoto Taiyo (also Ping Pong), Michael Arius, who joined Animatrix production, directed the film. As he knows many Japanese old downtowns and landscapes, his way of constructing the imaginary town is so real though many Asian tastes are added, and I believe the town in the film must attract Americans too. The story is basically fights between two boys and intruders, old traditions and new. I also impressed how this Anime can express things which I have not felt in the other Anime films. Michael gathered many best creators in Japan and the world. I really recommend Tekkon to you all.

By the way, MOMA's Artforum picked up this film as #1 in 2006. http://www.artforum.com/inprint/id=12076


A moralistic fairy tale set in modern day. Brothers Black and White are orphans and run the streets of Treasure Town, doing what Cats do best, stealing and running. The Yakuza show up and start causing concern. Leaving little Black and sort out the situation. It is unbelievable how good this film is. Nuanced interesting characters are a vehicle for a over arching moral diatribe on cities, the people in them, and how we all deal with each other. White is purity, he's naive, but has a general sense of good, which is married to his seemingly stunted educational and emotional growth. His older brother, Black, on the other hand, is smart, streetwise, good in a fight, and has lost the innocence that White still possess. And we are able to interpret events that occur during the film through both of their eyes. This film had very interesting art, childish of a sort, but designed for the sake of experimentation, and to remind us that we're in a story that is seen and narrated by children. It used a full palette of colors and symbolism to help extend the story to the viewer and it succeeded masterfully. All said, this film broke my heart in a million different beautiful ways. I loved this film, and not since Hotaru no haka (Grave of the Fireflies) has a film been able to effect me so profoundly. I know I will never forget this film. When this comes out of DVD, rent it, or, if you're lucky, run to the theater and catch this before it disappears.


Tekkonkinkreet opens this year's Animation Nation festival, running from today until 1 Dec 07, showcasing a selection of animated feature films, shorts and documentaries from around the world. Last year, the festival scored a coup in having Paprika screened just after its Japan premiere I believe, and had the noir styled Renaissance screened too. This year, both Tekkonkinkreet and the highly acclaimed 5 Centimeters Per Second were sold out in days when tickets when on sale, and it's a pity I may not be able to catch the latter due to conflict in schedules.

Nonetheless, Tekkonkinkreet lived up to its hype, although I found the story to be a little too perplexing for my liking. I guess with Japanese anime, some come with a huge dose of the fantastical, and you might not catch all in one screening, leading to longevity as you discover something new each time you view the movie. The story centers on 2 orphans, Black and White, who are essentially the Cat clan, guarding their city Treasure Town from perceived external threats. But they soon find that the big boys such as the Yakuza are slowly muscling their way in to establish money spinning business in the form of theme parks (heh), and inevitably discover they are within the crosshairs of a major turf war.

The attention paid to detail is simply amazing, as it seems like not a pixel on the canvas was wasted. Treasure Town itself is a sight to behold, with its dizzying levels that don't seem to end, and the camera playfully whizzing through buildings, bridges, nooks and crannies giving sense to claustrophobia. It's like Gotham City, only brighter, messier, and of course, without the Dark Knight, now instead, having Black and White play vigilante, Batman and Robin style. Being just boys, they possess (and here's where its fantastical) superhuman skills, putting martial arts swordsman to shame with their ability to scale buildings with the ease of a simple leap.

Yes, our boys have skills like the Yamakasi, only that it's magnified ten thousand times. The set action pieces are excitingly crafted with excellent sound effects and design going into overdrive. The action pieces are spaced out quite well, starting with the satisfying chase sequence with Dusk and Dawn, with the flight-for-your-life battles with robotic assassins, and topped off with the urban legend Minotaur justifying his status. In between the fights are the quieter moments of course, with subplots that put the spotlight on the myriad of Yakuza characters, and the brotherly love shared between Black and White, who share a dream of an idyllic life at the beach house, where they can live in peace from the unnecessary bustle of the city, and from the trouble that comes looking for them.

Based on the manga by Taiyo Matsumoto, I suspect there being a need to read up and do some research in order to appreciate this movie more. Akin to a cyberpunk movie where you can read its multiple layers, Tekkonkinkreet is first and foremost a visual spectacle, hands down, and doesn't fail in providing a Wow factor with its presentation.


Eye-watering Japanimation might not have all the spit-shined polish afforded a Miyazaki production, though any excuse offered from the same studio that provided many eclectic animated thrills with the Animatrix compilation could only be explained by admiring their unabashed passion for detail. Nearly every frame of this marvelous, Manga-adapted feature is littered with an unprecedented level of specific illustrations that really aims to set the bar for sheer artistic commitment. It is the city itself that rules the film, and these passionate animators do not disappoint when it comes to delivering scene after scene showcasing an unfathomable detail rendered in these massive, severely inspired cityscapes.

First time Director Michael Arias does stumble a bit at times, making the episodic material feel that way, but we do see a compelling fusion with CGI effects in many of the action scenes that make this visually stimulating feast rise to fluidly spectacular levels. Despite many pratfalls found in the script, sometimes silly voice acting (common in the genre), and some (at times) counter-intuitive pacing, scene-for-scene Tekon kinkurîto (US title is Tekkonkinkreet) will probably remain the most compulsively rewatchable, primarily hand-drawn work of art to be savored by pencil-aficionados until the next driven team of artists desires even more.


Tekkon Kinkreet is the most stunning visual anime that I seen since Akira. Director Arias, use of colors and directing style is nothing short of genius. The best part of this movie is its heart felt story between the two brothers Black and White. Black is the older more responsible brother, who is tough and violent, while White is the younger, off beat, childish brother. Black and White watch over the city they live in called Treasure City, in a gang called the cats. But it's the duality of the orphaned brothers that makes this story so touching. The tough older brother, Black, needs his young brother White to remind him of his humanity and White needs his brother to help protect him.

As the two brothers protect Treasure City, the evil developer Snake moves in to take over. As he vows to kill Black and White, the brothers bonds are tested. Black is faced with his dark inner demons of hatred and violence and White must bring him back.

There are no giant robots in Tekkon Kinkreet or magic. Although the brothers Black and White seem to be able to fly on and off rooftops, it seems to be the limit of any type of super powers. This anime is amazing purely for its story and visual look. If you are a fan of anime or cartoons, rent this movie. You will not be disappointed.


Hyperknetic animation helps along a sometimes too sprawling narrative of homeless street kids White and Black who leap from building to building in the neon streets of Treasure Town.

Treasure Town looks like an abandoned psychedelic amusement park that's been over run with urban sprawl (which is pretty much the center theme of the film, the lose of balance, lose of innocence, illustrated through the symbolically named White and Black). Actually almost all of the characters have names reflecting some kind of duality, "Choco" and "Vanilla", "Dusk" and "Dawn" etc.

Black is the muscle, somber and always ready to fight to defend "his town" While White is the more innocent, slightly brain damaged younger of the two who can't dress himself but can leap from the backs of moving cars, like la parkour runners bitten by radioactive spiders. "Chinese Monkeys can ride clouds" White states at the beginning of the film, referencing certain aspects of China's mythic "Journey To The West", before they begin their matrix leaps/gliding across the city. The first ten minutes of which, are the best moments in the movie(and no it is never explained how they can fly, leap, fight as they do, so much so it's easy to forget how vulnerable as children they are, which is used to get effect).

The trouble comes when there's too many Yakuza characters given too much back story, too much over inflated psychodrama with Black attempting to rid himself of his solitary monster like Minetaur persona (this time a Greek myth of the bull monster locked in the labyrinth), and not enough explanation of who the mysterious villain was, who were his henchmen refereed to as both "killing machines" and "aliens" more than once, and what if any connection did he have to re-developing the town, killing the kids, his mission from God, and the mysterious organization who lent him the monsters? That being said, I was emotionally absorbed into the film enough by that point, and satisfied with the unique fluidity and vividness of the color palettes, to ignore the weaker points of plot, til the movie was over. Enjoyable and unique anime, but like so many it reaches for seriousness, when whimsy would be a better fit.