Though generally regarded as an outdated artifact these days, the importance of the original EMMANUELLE and its effects on erotic cinema (extending to this very day) cannot be overstated. DEEP THROAT dragged hardcore out of its store-front, mini theater ghetto and made porno chic. BOYS IN THE SAND achieved the same for the even less visible gay side of the genre. But EMMANUELLE, considerably less explicit for sure, played regular cinemas (famously monopolizing one Paris Champs Elysées venue for over a decade) and drew in crowds who would have never dared to venture anywhere near the shady down-market dives displaying THROAT and BOYS. Long before the term "crossover" was invented, EMMANUELLE brought extended scenes of nude lovemaking before an audience of youngsters, couples and little old ladies, lured in by the respectable credentials backing up the project.

First-time director Just Jaeckin had a background in photo-journalism. Composer Pierre Bachelet was a French pop chart favorite and supplied a tuneful score. To top it off, the whole endeavor was based on a scandalous best-selling novel, allegedly penned by the wife of the French Ambassador in Bangkok, yet frequently assumed having been the handiwork of the good Government official himself. Plenty of reasons to put bums in seats then to enjoy what was presumably their very first dirty movie Exquisite 20-year old Dutch model turned actress Sylvia Kristel, who had enjoyed minor success in her native country, landed the title role and would forever be associated with the character.

Innocent Emmanuelle takes the flight from Paris to Bangkok to join her ambassador husband Jean, played by the very wooden Daniel Sarky. A bit older than his pretty wife, Jean forever tries to push the poor girl into extra-marital affairs to broaden her horizons. While certainly no prude, Emmanuelle continues to resist his incessant urging, even with the other officials' bored wives forever going on about their erotic exploits. One of them, the predatory Ariane (a suitably voracious Jeanne Colletin), shares a conspiratorial bond with Jean and takes it upon herself to seduce the naive girl. More bemused than shocked, Emmanuelle turns to precocious nymphet Marie-Ange (a youthfully glowing Christine Boisson, later to become a highly respected French actress) to whom she confides her first betrayal of her husband with a pair of handsome strangers on the flight over, a perfectly paced sequence of suspenseful anticipation which probably instigated the whole "Mile High Club" idea. Marie-Ange is desperate to introduce her newfound friend to elderly "erotic philosopher" Mario (arthouse icon Alain Cuny) to further her education but Emmanuelle remains unimpressed as she's far more interested in the alluring presence of Bee (gorgeous Marika Green, aunt to current actress Eva), a lesbian archaeologist shunned by the other women. Though they share an afternoon of love and lust, Bee insists that she feels no more than friendship for Emmanuelle, driving the poor girl into Mario's clutches. It's all opium den rape, Thai boxing and pan-sexual threesomes from here, all of which remains vastly preferable to Mario's deliriously half-baked sexual sermonizing, already drastically pared down from the book, before Emmanuelle at last winds up in THAT chair, applying excessive make-up and donning a gaudy glitter dress, signaling her questionable "evolution" towards the silly '70s ideal of sexually liberated womanhood, conveniently overlooking the fact that it has been mostly engineered by men, some of them old, all of them dirty.

Ideologically, there are indeed some problems in dealing with this material three enlightened (?) decades down the line. I mean, rape and forced infidelity as a woman's primary liberating forces ? Not even hardcore was proposing anything as offensive at the time, and it was all in the novel, then believed as being a woman's own autobiographical account of her road to sexual awareness ! Now you know I'm no politically correct prima donna and I can take just about any amount of rape and torture in my skin-flicks. The crucial difference between cheerful hacks like Jess Franco or Joe D'Amato and the self-important Jaeckin is their tone, the latter adopting a serious approach towards material ultimately no less exploitative than any cheap, gross-out women in prison picture. As a reflection of people's moral attitudes, these tasteless aspects were considerably toned down for future episodes in the official series, endowing Emmanuelle with at least the impression of empowerment. Being the trash that I am, I much prefer D'Amato's mile-long run in the opposite direction in his many BLACK EMANUELLE installments where the title character had to endure many a ravishment along the way, usually responding to such an occurrence with shoulder-shrugging matter-of-fact-ness !

These days, it's hard to imagine that there was indeed an erotic cinema before EMMANUELLE as the film's style as well as its substance have forever influenced and perhaps tainted the genre since with its exotic locations, lifestyles of the idle rich and empty philosophies on the nature of love, fidelity and jealousy. As a matter of fact, both book and (surprisingly, to a lesser extent) movie play like a feature-length excuse for adultery. With its glossy sheen, EMMANUELLE can't help seeming a lot more hypocritical than its many imitators, and yet I still like the movie an awful lot. The reason for this is simple. Sylvia Kristel was, is and always will be a goddess. Currently negotiating rights for her amazing autobiography across the globe, she was captured at the height of her frail beauty, injecting a comforting down to earth quality into the production's eye-popping artifice, her subtly acted responses to the often outrageous demands made of her always logical, realistic, recognizable. This movie may have made her an erotic cinema icon but close scrutiny will reveal that her Emmanuelle remains above all a living, breathing human being, a calm center of common sense amidst all the feverish fantasies.


a film encompassing an edgy kind of exquisite sensuality one of sensual exploration into the world of female sensuality and sexual pleasure and it brings one to a new understanding of many modern young women who are becoming increasingly bisexual. This film moves through this exploration without giving offence and in a careful manner. A lovely location where all is believable. The older husbands attitude is perhaps not unique as many older men respond to their wives or partners in a similar way and would be aroused and want to allow their younger partners to explore with their help and assistance. At the time the film was released however attitudes were not nearly as liberal as they are in the 2000s it was not so much the films content but what it silently inferred that was to shake people up and to raise questions their own minds.So that we focused on was it right for her "Emannuelle" to be touched by another woman, to have multiple hetro sex, or to be anally penetrated? these were serious issues in the 1997s some even illegal. But we have to judge this film in todays climate and many issues like those above no longer provoke amazement or distaste, as the moral climate has relaxed


Well, it does have a plot, it does have nudity and it does have sex. It is some kind of vintage soft core pornography with many modern peculiarities-- like the masturbation scene.

N/A

But, nonetheless, it is also a hard movie to watch until the end. That is the true problem with soft core. Along with hardcore-- but that's another problem... the plot is quite simple, understandable and sometimes stupid; the sex scenes are also simple, predictable and cut quickly.

So, let's see. A classic, yes. It must be watched. It must be rated. It should be reviewed. Should it be watched in its entirety? Well, that is up to you-- it's not like it is some kind of "torture porn" but it isn't an Oscar winner. Just see what you want to see. And that's what I recommend.

Culturally speaking, it marks an age. The seventies followed the peace and love lifestyle from the 1960s and this erotic masterpiece it's a proof of that. Engaging sex with maids, lesbianism and orgies are just a beginning of a world gone mad. And a peak for the pornography industry.


I first saw this film back in 1976, and only remembered that it was fiercely arousing to a young man at the time. I didn't catch the story, however. Times have changed since then, and I recently viewed the film a couple of times, when I wrote subtitles to it so I could show it to a close friend.

Emmanuelle falls between X-rated and art-house. If one views it as an adult film, then the lack of male frontal nudity and full-on intercourse make the film feel timid. OTOH, for an art film, the plot is quite thin.

When the film premiered in the mid '70s, it made a stir. Most of the brouhaha was about it being shown in regular theaters instead of seedy back-alley ones. Today we see so much erotics and sex in regular films and on TV that such discussions would seem ridiculous.

Emmanuelle is based on the autobiographical novel with the same name, by Emmanuelle Arsan. The book (1971) was banned in France, ostensibly for too much erotic content, but the Foreign Department may have influenced this, since the story gives a decadent impression of them.

Young and innocent Emmanuelle travels to Bangkok to her newly-wed husband, ten years her senior. He lives in a setting where bored Embassy wives resort to promiscuity and intrigue to fend off a sense of boredom and lack of purpose in life. Her husband clearly feels at home in this setting.

Both her husband and the wives tell Emmanuelle to "get free of inhibitions", which they themselves clearly have done. The film is essentially her journey towards that goal. Her husband has others help him in "her education".

At first viewing the film is admittedly just an erotic flick, with thin connections between the erotic scenes. But after a few more times it becomes clear that director Jaeckin and screen writer Richard really tried to follow the book, and the characters and their actions seemed plausible and natural.

Perhaps the most surprising thing about this film is, it does not seem old, like many other European erotic films of the time.

One can also view this film as a discourse between the male and female aspects of sensuality. There is the male dream of sex and eroticism without emotional commitment, and promiscuous relations with beautiful, willing girls and women. And the (possibly today somewhat outdated?) female sexuality as sensuality, commitment and pure love, with its slow love making and longing for true companionship.

Emmanuelle can also be seen as a spiritual road movie, where she starts off as an innocent, yet strongly sensual girl, who slowly reaches sexual awareness and competence. From sex drive as the master to her as the master and erotics as just another tool in her chest.

I would strongly recommend this film especially for grown-ups who have seen enough porn, or love scenes in regular films, and who want to remember instead what erotic meant. There still aren't that many films in this niche between porn and mainstream.


Emmanuelle, a "girl" in her 20s, played by Sylvia Kristel, is an authentic and plausible character, who gives you the impression that she could in fact be experiencing the many erotic adventures - amongst them many lesbian encounters  which she embarks upon in Thailand. Maybe it helps to point out that Sylvia Kristel, born in 1952 in a small town in the Netherlands, was brought up in a very strict Calvinist family and went on to study English, in hopes of becoming a teacher, before she ran away from home, giving up all she had had, defying all of her relatives and friends, and started working as a model from the 1970s on in Amsterdam.

In her first Emmanuelle film (a French erotic film), she acts the role of her life, becoming famous immediately in France, and soon thereafter in the world.

She plays a young married lady, the wife of an ambassador, living in Thailand with her husband. There, she experiences many erotic adventures with and without him. The intriguing fact is that her husband encourages her to do so; he would like her to "improve" her sexuality and gain experience, ultimately learning to differentiate between love and sex.

Sylvia Kristel plays Emmanuelle with such authenticity, and with the vulnerability and timidness, only a young woman of her age, lacking sexual experience, could have. In summary, she doesn't give you the impression that she is doing yet another boring porno- flick, where she is forced to do "some acting", in order for the movie to HAVE a plot, other than gynecological nudity scenes, or 3-minute "sex-adventures". The countless sequels to this first Emmanuelle film certainly don't measure up to the artistic standard - or even to the erotic standard - of this one.

If you are willing to forget that it seems unrealistic that a young lady sleeps with other women and men, while her husband encourages her to do so, you are in for a really sensual and - for guys, a very realistic - account of what an unreserved, 20 year old, bi-curious girl might really experience in Thailand; the country of erotic massages and exotic climate.


Hello! I gave this film a 10, not because it stands up to Citizen Kane, The Godfather or Mulholland Drive, but because for this genre (soft core porn/erotica) it's the best. Emmanuelle 2 (1975) is just about as good. The rest in the series have their merits and faults, but for the most part get steadily worse. But I am not just comparing Emmanuelle and Emmanuelle 2 to the other Emmanuelle films -- I am comparing them to all the films in this genre/subgenre -- all those films that you saw on Cinemax After Dark.

Also, I would like to point out that Sylvia Kristel (b. September 28, 1952, Utrecht, Netherlands) is the best that you can do in this type of film. It's embarrassing to see her in (barely) legit films like The Nude Bomb (1980), The Fifth Musketeer (1979) or The Concorde: Airport '79 (1979). She seems so ill at ease. But in her best work -- Emmanuelle, Emmanuelle 2, Borowczyk's La Marge (1976); moments from: some of the other Emmanuelle pictures, Curtis Harrington's Mata Hari (1985), Jaeckin's Lady Chatterley's Lover (1981), and Vadim's Game of Seduction (1976) -- she's as mesmerizing as Garbo was in Camille (1937), Anna Karenina (1935) and... Mata Hari (1931).


I remember watching Emmanuelle with all my friends when I was 13 years old and at the time it was so hot. Now years on and I still love it. Basically, it's definitely not for teenagers. (I know I was under aged when I watched it, so there's no point in pointing that out) But for anyone who's into older movies, Sylvia Kristel or sex, I so suggest you watch Emmanuelle. Granted the story hardly makes any sense and the picture looks a little pale, but my friends and I enjoy an evening watching it. The story is pretty much about an attractive young woman who seeks comfort in the arms of men she hardly knows. That's really the whole story, but my point in watching it is because the sex scenes are not bad at all. It'll give you ideas on what to do next to spark up your relationship.


This film used to be a classic adult piece and is based on the book, which in itself was judged scandalous when published in 1970 something. Now, thirty years later, it is a fairly stylish soft blue film, which is served beautifully by its soundtrack and somehow by photography, which remains charming and announces the David Hamilton style of Bilitis.

As for the rest - and let's not talk about the supposedly adult character of the film, if anything it spread the word about "French" films in the English speaking world, but has the flavour of a 1970s film, which basically means handlebar moustache and burners, funky shirts and picturesque house furniture (especially in the opening scene in Paris).

Some aspects of the script, such as a rape scene, young Marie-Anne are shocking today - apparently they were not so much back then.

It ranks more as a drama with sex today and should be considered like Basic Instinct or The Lover or even Last Tango, rather than like soft porn. This style has very few exceptions that survive the years, oh! life is difficult for erotic romance.

Still the supposedly intellectual approach to sexuality is fairly boring today, and rather pedantic. 5/10 for a nice soundtrack and photography and a script which does tell a story albeit a dull one.


Emmanuelle (1974) is one of the best soft core films ever made. Sylvia Kristel is perfect for the role Emmanuelle and the supporting cast is also good for a porn film. The sex sceanes are very erotic although 2 graphic rape sceanes might bother some. If you like soft core porn film, you definatly need to see this film. If you like hard core porn films, you should also see this film, it might change your mind about soft core.


Well let me start off by saying they should have called this movie "Blue Balls". I found this tape while cleaning out my garage(must have been my dad's or something, I respect him much less now knowing he would watch some weak garbage like this). The summary on the back sounded hilarious, so I decided to give it a go. The tape was in pretty poor shape and it took over an hour just to get it to work. Boy was I in for a big letdown. I have seen some bad soft-core in my time, but this is the most god-forsaken bunch of crap I've ever seen. I felt corrupted by the soul-crushing message behind the movie, yet I wasn't even able to get my rocks off. It would take a remarkable imagination to be able to shoot one out to this movie. Time after time, the clothes come off, the girls are making out, you see a little fur-burger here, a little whisker-biscuit there(just frontal, no open clam), and just when it looks like the chicks are going to get down to some serious munching, it just cuts to some worthless clip of them cuddling after they had "made love", whatever the hell that is. Funny the chicks name is Alaine Cunny and yet there really isn't any of that. I just wanted to see some good ol' chowing of the muff, but this movie provides nothing, but some blue balls. Even a convict wouldn't enjoy this. This is more like torture. We should just play this movie over and over again for the prisoners at Gitmo if we want to torture them. SO if you want to see some chicks chompin' down on the neden, this ain't the movie. Even if your back is against the wall, don't waste your load on this one, just wait for a wet dream.


I didn't have to watch very much of this film to see that 70's erotica is just as bad as modern erotica. In fact, this is probably a little worse. Quite simply, this is a dull movie, and no matter how many sex scenes took place, I remained terribly bored throughout. But as dull as the sex was, the dialogue was even worse. I had low expectations for this film, and yet, it was somehow worse than I had expected.


The subject line I gave basically sums this flick up. There's this girl named Emmanuelle who lives with this older guy and he allows her to do the freaky with other people. She falls in love with another woman and eventually share a passionate night together. Make sure to watch for other wholesome lil' tidbits in between such as, naked women swimming together, a seventh grader who loves to masterbate and horny guys in a jungle.


I can't imagine anyone finding this film erotic. The two rape scenes are heinous. And the idea that Emmanuelle's husband entrusts her to some self-centered, egotistical idiot spouting pseudo-philosophical BS about love and such, only to have her humiliated by being sexually taken by the winner of a boxing match in front of others is absolutely disgusting. I couldn't feel empathy for any of the characters in this sleazy film. The husband is an absolute fool. Mario, the old man to whom Emmanuelle is entrusted, is disgusting. Emmanuelle herself is far too confused to know what she wants and so is at the whim of everyone around her. She doesn't become "a woman" by film's end, as she declares, but a soulless sex machine who engages in sex purely to satisfy animalistic passions. Nothing loving, sensual, or enticing about this film. If couples watched this, I could imagine the women beating the crap out of their male partners if they imagined they got off to the rape, abuse, powerlessness, and humiliation of women. Stay away from this one.


Emmanuelle (Sylvia Kristel) is happily married to an older man (she's about 20, he's 50s). He has no problem with her sleeping with other people (men AND women) and even hires an older man to teach her how to be a good lover.

Yawn.

I saw this at an movie house that showed old movies back in the early 1980s.

It was showing as the midnight movie and a bunch of guys at my college encouraged me to see it. (Actually, I'm gay but I was closeted then). What I saw was a beautifully photographed, very sensuous but BORING film! Afterwords the guys agreed with me--they all hated it too--they said it was the most boring X rated film they had ever seen (these are STRAIGHT college boys)!

Film looks great but there's no plot and no motivation. Kristel is certainly beautiful but can't act. There's plenty of female nudity--no male nudity at all. Even the sex isn't that explicit! The one somewhat explicit sex scene is between two women--and NOTHING is really shown! I can't believe this still has an X--I've seen more explicit R rated films.

Still, historically, this IS an important film. It caused a major uproar in 1974 and was actually considered a serious art film (for a while). Still, the entertainment value is nil. Very dull and slow. Don't bother.


In the interior of Brazil, the French sister Sarah (Élodie Bouchez) has a mysterious pain in her stomach and the French priest and doctor Joachim (Gérard Depardieu) treats her. Joachim has a past as a violent man, who found in the church the necessary peace for his life. However, Sarah is removed from the hospital by Mère Emmanuelle (Carmen Maura) and brought back to France. Joachim gets interested in the mystery around Sarah and performs an investigation. He realizes that she has a twin sister, arrested for killing a baby about fifteen years ago. As far as Joachim goes further in his investigation, he notes that there are many lies hidden behind the official story. In order to avoid spoilers, I will not make any further comments. This story having a better conclusion would be an excellent movie. There are some flaws in the script, like for example, Emmanuelle does not allow that a priest doctor treats Sarah, but gets her to the macumba. It sounds to me totally non-sense. I would like to know where this movie was shot. Was it indeed in Ceará? The pronunciation in Portuguese seems to be from Portugal, with the exception to the customhouse guard. The gorgeous actress Élodie Bouchez is unknown for me, but she has a great performance in her double role. Gérard Depardieu is great as usual. I regret only the disappointing end, since the plot deserved a better conclusion. Anyway, a good entertainment. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): `Pacto de Silêncio' (`Pact of Silence')


A slow mystery thriller, seriously underestimated. Comments here about plot holes and unresolved issues rather show that some viewers missed clues and did not catch onto what was going on. Very pretty girl playing the twin(s). Ah, what lips. Not by any means a masterpiece, but anyway a great little thriller. At first the movie seemed to be something as rare as a genuine catholic drama, but the various themes were not developed in a religious fashion. Still the same theme appears in dozens of configurations, as if the author was wrestling with the same moral dilemma in ever character and plot structure: helpfulness in it's various guises, sometimes as sacrifice, sometimes as but the false shell of selfishness. This occurs not only in the main characters, but in virtually every minor act too, from journalists over fellow inmates to high priests and nuns. The main characters development is as I mentioned certainly not catholic, rather they discover to abandon the vain failure of self-sacrifice and Samaritan ambitions, and that to do real good you have to accept your own desires.


Films about identical twins are always interesting, especially when they are so gorgeous your two eyes are out on stalks looking both ways at once. Elodie Bouchez is my idea of the kind of twin I would like to have all round me, what a gal! That is the kind of double-vision we would all like to have all the time! In the story, the twins have had a hard time of it, one locked up in prison for a murder ostensibly committed at the age of 14, and the other locked up in a hideously fundamentalist Carmelite nunnery (don't you just hate all that Catholic masochism stuff?) Carmen Maura plays a mother superior who is in love with the twin who is the nun, and she is very convincing. Into this mix steps a priest named Father Joachim, played by Gerard Depardieu. He is extraordinarily good at this, despite the fact that we know in real life he is one of France's leading bon viveurs. Strangely, in this role we do not really expect him to pick up a wine bottle and drink it all in one go, or wipe his lips after having had some snails. Instead, we really believe that he is that ascetic renegade priest 'with a past'. When he gets sacked by the horrible hypocritical Monseigneur, we want to cheer because he is free of the crap and now has time to take more interest in - which twin is it? Well, there's the problem. Even he loses track of which twin it is. Each one feels the other's pain, and there is a strong paranormal element with the story, and the twins are in constant telepathic contact. This is a very intriguing and gripping tale, well made, and with the performances of Elodie Bouchez being so spell-binding (her allure is indefinable, which is what all allure should be, but it has a spiritual dimension) that this is one of those really good gripping French movies that we wish they made so many more of.


Luckily, I rented this from my library, so all I want back is the 99 minutes I wasted watching it. (Actually, I only wasted about an hour and 15 minutes, since I fast forwarded through everything that didn't have subtitles...and I was still bored.) It lacked character development. Plot development. Thematic development. Whatever it is you need to make a good thriller, the producer and director said "Oh, let's not do that..." and did the WRONG thing. It wasn't as if bad choices were made mistakenly, but deliberately. The narrative was painfully choppy, the English translation for the subtitles pitifully stilted (and wrong...at one point,according to the subtitles, the Monsignor tells Joachim the Reverend Mother doesn't trust him. In French, however, he says "She thinks you're the anti-Christ." Gerard Depardieu is a terrific actor but he just ain't priest material and it's been a long time since he (And Sean Connery and Harrison Ford and a few others) could play a believable romantic hero opposite a (much, much) younger actress. (Indeed, had this played over here, Sean Connery would be our priest and Lindsay Lohan would be the nun.) I don't know if the script can be blamed on the source novel, but I could not swallow Carmelite nuns at a voodoo ceremony any more than I could swallow the sudden and inexplicable love affair between Joachim and Gaelle. The ending was a gory mess and the efforts to blur the twins' identities was just silly.

A waste of time from start to finish. The only good part of this flick for anyone at MY home was that my cat got to sit on my lap and sleep for the hour and 15 minutes the movie played....

Look elsewhere.


Thriller about mystery surrounding twin sisters both played by gorgeous Elodie Bouchez, one a nun and one in prison, starts off interestingly but eventually becomes so ludicrous that it completely goes off the rails. I don't claim to be an expert on Carmelite nuns but somehow I can't picture fundamentalist Catholics participating in a voodoo ritual. The movie does a good job of establishing the mystery surrounding the girls and the seeming conspiracy by the nuns to cover up the one sister's past and prevent her from receiving medical treatment that might save her life. Unfortunately there turns out to be little rational reason for the nuns actions and no real conspiracy. Once Gerard Depardieu's priest character helps the ex-con sister break parole and smuggles her out of the country the movie starts to go downhill very quickly. While it's hard to believe that Depardieu's character would do this it's even more unlikely that a low level newspaper employee who isn't even a reporter would trail them to Peru. The solution to the mystery of the child's death raises the stakes of unbelievablility to such a high level that I was finally appalled to have wasted my time watching this crap.


Tweety is perched in his cage on the ledge and Sylvester is across the street at the "Bird Watching Society" Building on about the same level. Both are looking through binoculars, and they spot each other. Tweety then utters his famous phrase, "I taught I taw a puddy cat." (thought I saw a pussy cat.) Sylvester scampers over to grab the bird. Tweety flies out of his cage and Granny comes to the rescue, bashing the cat and driving it away.

The rest of the animated short shows a series of attempts by Sylvester to grab Tweetie - a familiar theme - and how either bad luck or Granny thwarts him every time. The cat dons disguises and tries a number of clever schemes...all of which are funny and very entertaining.

In all, a good cartoon and fun to watch.


This was an entertaining cartoon, but what made it was Granny. I love how she defends Tweety by bashing Sylvester on the head with her umbrella. Sylvester is his crafty and rambunctious self, and Tweety is still cute. This wouldn't be possible without the vocals of Mel Blanc, is there anything this genius cannot do? Seemingly not. Characters aside, Sylvester's attempts to capture Tweety are funny and devious, using various disguises including a street monkey. Also the animation smooth and colourful, and the music(such as the simple "I am a Tweety who lives in a cage") is well done. Overall, well worth seeing, not the best of the Looney Tunes canon or the best Sylvester and Tweety cartoon but definitely a good one. 9/10 Bethany Cox


With this cartoon, Sylvester the Cat has a new obstacle in trying to catch the Tweety Bird: His owner, Granny, as originally voiced by Bea Benaderet (June Foray would later take over). She may be elderly but she can still belt the cat with the best of them! Other obstacles include an 800 pound weight and Sylvester's miscalculation in the distance from his building to Tweety's in using a rope to swing from one place to another. The cat also disguises himself as a monkey at one point. Since Friz Freling is the director, look for his name on one of the buildings as a drink with "Six Delicious Flavors". This was on disc 4 of The Looney Tunes Golden Collection, Vol. 1. Very funny and highly recommended.


Sylvester and Tweety had only been co-starring for a few years by this point, but Granny appears to be the prototype for the current - if unrealistic - image of the senior citizen kicking booty. As a cat lover, I've always wondered why Sylvester has to suffer so much in these cartoons, even if he's a sinister predator. But in "Canary Row", he suffers at the hands of Tweety, Granny, and even the desk clerk. Will that feline ever get what he wants?! Anyway, it's a pretty funny cartoon. Tweety is sort of the epitome of a facade hiding something nasty.

Watch for a sign advertising "Friz" (Freleng, that is).


The film follows a disturbed young man who kills without remorse. It is surprisingly disturbing considering the period in which it was filmed. After killing a bus driver, the baby faced young man seeks refuge in a bar and holds its patrons hostage. All he wants is to see the psychiatrist who committed him three years before. The film is notable for its stark and unflinching portrayal of someone completely unable to feel remorse. The film is also notable as it was one of the first movies put out by MGM under new management which turned the company away from solely making big budget events. This B-movie thriller marked a new territory for MGM. It is well-worth watching - IF you can find it!


This is a most effective little thriller from 1950 concerning a disturbed killer who holds a group of people hostage in a bar. It's the sort of story that had been done many times before in films, and which would soon be a staple on television. There are few surprises in this one, as everyone goes through the motions as one expects they would in a movie like this. As the psychopath, Marshall Thompson isn't really up to the job. He's not awful, but he doesn't generate much tension personally. Robert Walker would have been much better. The actors playing the various hostages are capable, however, and there's a nice sense of what city life was probably like at around this time. Slick and artificial as it is, the film has its charms. It's never boring, and director Gerald Mayer maintains a nice pace.


What I liked about "Dial 1119" is that it's basically ignored as an example of film noir yet, for a film made in 1950, this thing was ahead of its time. First off, there's a big-screen TV in the bar, which plays an important part in advancing the plot. The folks who made this picture also foresaw the role that TV news would come to play in taking over a story. Good cast with William ("Cannon") Conrad as Chuckles the bartender, Leon ("Mr. Ed") Ames and Marshall ("Daktari") Thompson as the central character, our friendly neighborhood psycho. Finally, you've got a love a film noir selection that takes place in Terminal City.


The disturbed veteran became a staple character of the postwar noir cycle. In Dial 1119 -- the equivalent of 911 today -- clean-cut Marshall Thompson plays the most whacked-out of the bunch, a cold, disengaged psycho who kills without reaction or remorse. Riding the Big Dog into town (the aptly named Terminal City), he steals the bus driver's gun and, when confronted, plugs him dead. Then he holes up in a bar containing a cross-section of small-town America; the liveliest of them is Andrea King as man-hungry barfly Helen. Seems he returned to town to meet with the police psychiatrist who knows the "real" story behind his shell-shocked persona....Dial 1119 is an engaging (if never quite gripping) drama, part of MGM's low-budget, black-and-white early 1950s productions under Dore Schary


This seldom seen, nearly forgotten gem stands out as a precursor to many movie motifs now taken for granted. A deranged young man, Gunther Wyckoff (whacko with a gun, played menacingly by Marshall Thompson in perhaps his best performance), shoots a city bus driver with the driver's own pistol, then holds up in a local bar using the patrons as hostages. In those long ago days when such occurrences were rare, there were no professional police negotiators. Ironically, Wyckoff does his own negotiating with the law, demanding to see the psychiatrist that is in charge of treating him.

What a crew of hostages: A barfly willing to bed anyone who buys her a drink, an old married fool making arrangements for a weekend tryst with a sweet young thing, a young man whose wife is in delivery at the hospital, a zealous reporter whose newspaper editor thinks he's a joke, and Chuckles, the bartender, played by the dour William Conrad of radio's "Gunsmoke" and later TV's "Cannon" fame. Maybe he got his moniker for being the opposite of chuckles, such as calling a big guy, Tiny. The interaction of this motley crew with each other and with the criminally insane killer makes up the biggest part of the flick. An alternate title was "The Violent Hour," which basically describes the plot of the film, approximately an hour's standoff between the psycho and the police who work to free the hostages unharmed. A young André Previn provides the appropriate atmospheric music.

What a splendid cast. Even workhorse Charles Lane, who is today 101 and says he is still available to do a show, is seen briefly on the tube in a man-on-the-street interview. And don't blink and miss June Cleaver (Barbara Billingsley) in a walk on part.

Items you don't see around anymore: A cigarette machine, a weight scale on the sidewalk, a pay telephone that costs a nickle to dial 1119 (no push buttons). Items that were curiosities at the time but are now part of everyday life: A flat-panel big screen TV, TV news hype, and, alas, crazies that for no reason shoot patrons who are total strangers.

The chosen title, "Dial 1119," which today reminds the viewer of "Call 911," is a fitting one. Labeling the location Terminal City, however, is a bit much.


Having just watched this on TCM and after reading the previous reviews for this film all I can say is that although there may be limited moments of great suspense which does not take anything away from the film.The plot- insane man escapes from a mental institution and holds five people hostage in a bar. Now if you have ever seen any films from the 50's you should know what fate always falls upon the villain.If given the opportunity to see it you definitely should just to see a basic storyline before it became overdone, but if you need your movies to go from one moment of terror to the next this is not the movie for you; otherwise this film should hold you attention from beginning to end.


Out of the grayness of film noir drama comes a pondering on the gray area of social engineering.

Dial 1119 is a film discussion of the distention between straight-ahead law enforcement and the brand-new authority of psychological intervention in criminal matters. The heart of the film is the series of conversations between the Homicide Captain and the forensic psychiatrist. Therein lies a clear blueprint of the issues: Is it better to identify and treat society's offenders, rather than simply punish? What should the treatment be; confinement, medicine or capital punishment? In view of the fact they prosecuted a man for murder and saw him escape the electric chair to kill again, are the police to be blamed for being skeptical of the medical model in dealing with crime? Are we to condemn the doctor's humanist courage as simple folly, or celebrate it as a noble march toward higher existence?

I found the relationship between police and doctor to be unique in cinema, can't remember when I've ever seen it so clearly and dramatically drawn. Also, the characterizing vignettes of the various hostages were deftly wrought. Overall, a remarkable film rendered nearly into the realm of science-fiction by the dominance of a 48 inch flat screen TV over the main set, presaging the looming hypnotic sway the contraption would wield on a developing social world.


You know the audience is in for a bumpy ride when the all-night bus arrives in a place called Terminal City. Actually it's the luckless driver who ends up terminated, with a slug in the belly from ungrateful, wacko passenger Gunther Wykoff (Thompson) who has not yet learned how to blink or turn his head. So, now the crazy guy is loose in the city, headed for a late night bar sporting that new-fangled invention called television. (I suspect this 1950 production was one of the first to integrate TV into the storyline.) There, he holds hostage a motley crew of barflies who, needless to say, don't help his condition at all. He'd like to whack 'em all, but first he has to meet with his head-doctor (Levene) who's obviously done a pretty rotten job so far. Meanwhile, the cops, a TV crew, and a few hundred on-lookers have taken a real interest in Gunther's where-abouts and are waiting outside to greet him if he ever comes out. So, the stage is set, but how will it play out.

This may be big-budget MGM's cheapest production on record (basically one set and a $20 lighting bill), but they do get their money's worth. This suspenseful little crime drama is well acted and packs a pretty good punch. Baby-faced Thompson plays against type and is excellent in the pivotal role of the stare-happy wacko. William Conrad is a stand-out too, as the no-nonsense barkeep, but I guess it's only logical that he would have to exit early too bad. On the other hand, make-out artist Earl (Ames) and the classy what's-she-doing-in- this-dump Helen (King) are none too believable, and I kept hoping Gunther would spare us the bad seduction dialog and put a fist in Earl's syrupy mouth. Apparently, young father Skip (Brasselle) was added so there would be at least one sympathetic person among the collection of compromised characters. Anyway, it's a good, tight little B-film, with the novel idea (for its time) that movies and TV might get along, after all.


Enjoyed this 1950 film which dealt with a mental patient who thinks he was a soldier during WW II and has a legal license to kill any one he decides to kill. This crazy person is played by Marshall Thompson, (Gunther Wyckoff) who is riding in a bus and sitting next to a lady who is trying to be friendly, but Gunther just looks straight ahead and views a gun that the bus driver had on his sun shade and just gets up and blows this driver away. Gunther eventually goes into a bar and locks all the customers in the bar and starts killing the bartender and threatens various other women in the bar. Gunther wants to have his Doctor John D. Faron visit him in the bar in order to prevent him from causing all this death to innocent people. There is plenty of tension in this bar and the women in the bar do their very best to try and over power this nut case.


Pretty hard to make a hostage movie with no suspense, but this one virtually pulls it off. It isn't exactly "Dog Day Afternoon" or "The Desperate Hours" (1955 version) in the intensity department. The studio was undoubtedly hoping that baby-faced Marshall Thompson would be just as ironically chilling playing a killer as Alan Ladd was a few years earlier in "This Gun For Hire". Unfortunately, Thompson does little more than clench his jaw the entire time and is about as menacing as a bran muffin. Not only that, but it's a real handicap having him be so silent; there are long stretches in this film that are the equivalent of dead air. The camera is rolling but nothing seems to be happening at all. It doesn't help that the hostages he takes are extremely, extremely dull and mechanically written. It's got hard-headed policemen and a heroic, know-it-all psychiatrist (who is alarmingly blase about the murders his former patient has committed) on hand too for those who are interested.

I suppose it deserves a bit of credit for making an attempt to show how the media intrudes on these types of unfolding situations and packages them as entertainment. Too bad it does so in a naive, wildly unrealistic fashion. Surprising that TCM, otherwise the best channel going, would showcase this as part of their "Unknown Gems" (or something) segment. It's unknown all right, and with good reason.

One final note: I'm pretty sure that's Barbara Billingsley from "Leave it to Beaver" there towards the end, even though this is not listed as being among her films on this site.


I am biased, as are all film reviewers. There are certain types of films we are naturally more positively predisposed to, and this is one of them for me. I love history and aviation and so it's not at all surprising that I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Heck, there were a lot of very similar movies in the 1930s and 1940s--films about young cadets trying to make it through flight school, bombardier school, etc. After a while, they tend to blend a bit together in my head and I am sure that the average viewer would get tired of the genre pretty quickly. But if you also consider that this film was made by Warner Brothers (who made a lot of similar films) and stars some wonderful actors that I truly enjoy watching (George Brent, Olivia DeHavilland, John Payne and Frank McHugh), it's natural that I should like it. But, on the other hand, will you? Well, if you love this type of film, you are sure to be impressed. If you have not, then you probably will find that the film is a tad contrived and clichéd--particularly regarding the romantic triangle in the film. But considering how marvelously done the flying sequences are (exceptional for the time), the consistency of the writing and acting and the overall fun of the film, I think the average person would still probably give this movie a score of 6. I myself give it an 8 but realize that a good compromise between non-aviation/old movie lovers/history teachers and nuts like me is a score of 7.


I was seven years old when my parents took me to see "Wings of the Navy" in 1939 at the Vogue Theater in Montebello, CA. I believe this was the first movie I had seen. At least I don't recall any movie before this one. I remember sitting near the back of the theater with my parents. I really like the flying scenes and I remember the sounds of the airplane engines. The love scenes did not do anything for me of course. Boy that is amazing I can remember those details. I remember calling the movie Wings of the Avery. Does anyone know if there was ever a DVD or Video made of the movie? I have looked everywhere I can think of with no luck. If someone knows where I can get a copy of it I would be one happy guy.

Sincerely,

Charles Field


Back in 1988 I believe it was when I was flipping through channels and I came across USA UP ALL NIGHT on the USA Network. I thought the show was stupid at first but as I started to watch more of it and enjoy the movies that they aired I became hooked on it. I grew up in Decatur, Illinois and we use to pick up a station out of St. Louis, Mo. known as KPLR TV. I use to watch every Saturday night The Three Stooges for two hours. When the local television station removed KPLR TV and went with TBS and TNT I could not watch The Three Stooges on Saturday nights. So then I became hooked on watching Gilbert Godffried and Caroline who was then replaced by Rhonda Shear. I was watching USA UP ALL NIGHT when I noticed Caroline was no longer on the show. I was like what happened to the brunette who hosted the show on Friday nights? I then saw for the first time a beautiful blonde Rhonda Shear hosting on Friday nights. The cheesy B movies were so hilarious to watch on the weekends that when I did not have plans I would be watching the show. I thought at times that Gilbert Godffried got onto my nerves due to his voice but in time I got use to it and loved the show and movies that they aired. I had crushes on a lot of the B movie actresses like Robin Stille who played Babs in Sorority Babes In The Slime Bowl O Rama and Veronica Carothers who was in Witch Academy. There were other actresses that I had crushes on. I miss this show a lot and wished that NBC Network never altered the programming because I think it really ruined the station. The other good memory that I had of USA UP ALL NIGHT was they would air like a special USA UP ALL NIGHT when New Year's Eve would fall on a Friday or Saturday night and it was great to watch. The only way that I would love to see Rhonda Shear and Gilbert Goddfried is if one of the USA UP ALL NIGHT fans had the money to create a station where they only showed B movies on 24/7. That would be awesome you know! I know if I had the money I would create a television station like that but I would make it to where it is not edited in anyway or form. What I mean is that if there is profanity or nudity in the movie it would be aired in its original format at the movie theaters, VHS, or DVD.


I watched the Latin version of "USA UP ALL NIGHT". I don't know where else to comment about it.

The host was Shelly Moreno; a sexy blonde Latina with a sexy fresh attitude. She would always wear skimpy mini skirts and bathing suits. She was extremely nice and at some points gave her opinions for some Horror movies.

Those were the days when this program was the best possible Friday night entertainment. I miss the old days... I can't even count how many movies I watched it on this show.

To the producers of Latin USA Network; I praise you and thank for the good memories. Hopefully, one day, this show will return in it's Latin version.


Man, what a time to grow up! The 1980's were a fabulous time for, not only, music, and films, but television as well. There was no better television station in the 1980's than The USA Network! USA "Up All Night" was amazing! Since I was too young to really go out, and party, in the late 1980's and early 1990's, I would sit at home, or at a friends house and watch this show every weekend. I loved how atrocious the 'B' movies were, and the hilarious comments both Gilbert Godfried and Rhonda Shear used to make about the film.

USA's late night television blocks were AMAZING on weekends. I can vividly remember getting excited, every Saturday, from about 1988-1993, to watch The USA Network from 8PM until, at least 3AM.

As a teenager that loved horror films, what could've been better than USA's Saturday Nightmares block (8PM-11PM) and then, USA "Up All Night" which ran from 11PM-3AM. Blood and guts from 8-11 and T&A from 11PM-3AM, what could've been better for a 13 year old guy? LOL! Unfortunately, The USA Network, like many other television stations, has gotten stale, and play many syndicated television shows, which are boring as hell. I will never forget all of the great childhood memories, I received from The USA Network from 1987 until 1993.

If there could only be a "USA Network Classic" channel created, that could run these old shows, in their original form, including retro USA bumpers. Shows like "Night Flight", "Up All Night", "Saturday Nightmares", and "Commander USA's Groovy Movies" that would kick some serious ass!


I had completely forgotten about this late night movie show until I came across a reference to it on another IMDb page. And what a great show it was, with wonderful bottom-of-the-barrel flicks interspersed with the occasional legit movie, and hosted by various funny folks like Gilbert Gottfried, Such fond memories. The topic of female nudity -- a frequent occurrence in many of the flicks shown -- and how this was handled makes for some very funny reading here, and I remember that sort of thing vividly. Today, the station would simply optically obscure what it doesn't want us to see, instead of making ridiculous and downright damaging edits. Many of these films may never be seen again, sad to say. I agree with those who suggest watching G4, which runs some pretty awful and hilarious flicks from time to time. But it's not and never will be "USA Up All Night." That was one of a kind.


I got to see this at a screening last week in LA. And I must say, this is a very thought-provoking, creative effort from first-time director Fred Durst. Set in the backdrop of the mid-70s, this is a well-written coming-of-age tale by a gifted young cast. Jesse Eisenberg, of the new flick Adventureland, brings a sense of wonderment and naivety to his role. Jason Ritter also shines as a questionable friend from the past, who may or may not have a more questionable past. Fred Durst directs the film as a nostalgic throwback to a forgotten era. The script is top-notch and as noted, the acting is superb. Definitely a must see. Especially for the curious, who have dismissed Mr. Durst as lead singer of the rap/metal band Limp Bizkit. Mr. Durst shows he has the chops to pull off a rather remarkable film.


The Education of Charlie Banks marks the film debut of Fred Durst of Limp Bizkit. And what a remarkable debut it is! The film's themes deal with love, change and facing one's fears. Durst really makes the characters come to life and, despite many films of the same ilk, creates a likable antagonist--albeit a brutally violent one--who proves to be human, despite all his flaws. Jason Ritter plays a fearsome character, but just as the protagonist, Charlie Banks, expressed his need to "protect" him, I too sensed something in him that was precious. Unlike Variety magazine, who said Ritter "simply lacks sufficient menace and charisma," I find Ritter to be quite right for the role. In fact, the next day, I met him at Club Embargo and asked him not to beat me up! The real star, however, is Jesse Eisenberg, who plays the lovable Charlie Banks. His sincerity and genuine concern for others rightfully took an emotional toll on me as I sat in the theater. Tom Huckabee mentioned the film ought to be up for an Oscar nomination. I think I could agree with that.


This is a touching story filled with breakout performances. Jason Ritter hit it out of the park and so did Jesse Eisenberg. Most of the film is set in the 80s, and the style of cinematography brings you right into the East Village 25 years ago. Nearly every character was captivating, including Ritter, Eisenberg and hilarious Sebastian Stan. The plot is rich...even the music was first class. If I had to say one bad thing about the film I would have a hard time. I caught it in NY on Saturday night and anyone who has seen it knows that these films are few and far between. The audience applauded well into the credits. I am bringing my girlfriend back to see it tomorrow or Wednesday.


A terrific film. The director managed to capture the innocence of the seventies. I was glad he didn't use JUST 70's movies because there was a great piece of music that opened and closed the movie. I think it was called "The Sad Song." It was a nice balance to the 70's music and prevented the film from becoming a movie about old music. Very well cast as well. All the actors were wonderful. I am usually bored by coming of age movies, but this had a lot of surprises, and I think it was because the director was really feeling with his characters. The opening and ending section with the small kids was also very moving. I understand this is Fred Durst's first film. It's a great first film and is also very smoothly and seamlessly edited. Will this film be distributed? I saw it at the Tribeca Film Festival and wondered if and when it was opening anywhere else.


The Education of Charlie Banks was an excellent film. This independent film surfaces from a sea of mundane dramas. With elements of revenge between Charlie and his childhood bully which reminded me of the 1991 remake of Cape Fear and elements of admiration and chivalry the film is very dynamic. The time line and set are also very interesting to me, the film starts in the mid seventies and jumps into the mid eighties, with all of the hair styles, clothing and props that bring you back to those time periods. With surprise twists and smart dialog, it kept me interested and curious. The climax of The Education of Charlie Banks satisfies the viewer in a way it answers questions of character and of lessons learned. A must see for drama fans. ~NikkoD


I was genuinely surprised by Durst's directorial debut.The characters were rich and Jesse Eisenberg did a fabulous job of taking the lead as Charlie.The setting was nice and Durst seems to have gone into great detail in trying to capture the essence of college life in the 80's.Eisenberg ,definitely the star of the show , does a fabulous job getting across as Charlie.He is a wonderful actor and I am glad to see he is back to his "Indie" roots(Squid and the Whale was fabulous.Didn't know why he was associated with Cursed...).The screenplay could have been better but the storyline was not over- complicated and kept you captivated till the end.Durst seems to have a great touch at this which has surprised me but then again he never ceases to surprise us all.He seems to have his hand in everything these days.

Kudos to Durst and hope to see him in the future with stronger actors and better budgets.


As the directorial debut from Limp Bizkit's outspoken and often loathed frontman, Fred Durst, it's safe to say that the bar was set very low for "The Education of Charlie Banks" -- too low, as a matter of fact, as Durst's film (drawn from a screenplay by Peter Elkoff) is a surprisingly rich experience that unfortunately sat on the shelf for too long after being made and which got virtually ignored by critics and mainstream audiences alike.

Opening in the mid-70's and then picking up sometime in the 80's, "The Education of Charlie Banks" tells the story of a bully (Jason Ritter) who appears as some sort of boogeyman to the title character (Jesse Eisenburg). Though the two make acquaintances as teenagers, it isn't until his college years that Charlie finds himself being truly haunted by the ultra-violent hot-head when he shows up unexpectedly in the dorm-room he shares with his childhood friend (Chris Marquette). Slowly, he works his way into Charlie's life, tagging along in spite of the fact that he never quite fits in. Has this friend from the past changed his ways, or is he just a hot-head ready to blow at any minute?

Without a doubt, the film was influenced by the films of Martin Scorsese (see the "Raging Bull" poster in Charlie's room) and although it's not quite in the same league, it's a noble effort nevertheless. The film reaches for lofty heights, and thanks to its credible cast, reaches them. You'll feel immersed in the characters and situations in "The Education of Charlie Banks" and while it's ending doesn't exactly resolve anything, ultimately resembles reality a bit closer than the average coming-of-age story. It's a well-written and well-paced story directed almost effortlessly by Durst that should intrigue the interested and silence the critical.


First of all, I love high school/college setting, dysfunctional family and coming of age drama. Despite having the elements in this film, it was missing lot of chemistry between the actors, the time period didn't fit the screen, wasn't really impressed by the lens/filter or the cinematography. It would be amazing if Gus Van wrote/directed this film.

Nevertheless, I do have to praise Fred Durst for evolving. He has come long way from directing music videos to the big screen. He displayed so much maturity through music choices in this film and long drone camera staring into the characters. Also, to get a dramatic gig like this film and to bring forth so much emotion off the characters/story was just good for Fred. He really tried to capture the mentality of teenagers/young adult. it was very good first choice for Fred Durst. I am very much impressed by his first attempt. (o yes I love the guy, he was so humble and awesome guy when I met him at TRL in 2003)


Fred Durst from some music group called 'Limp Bizkit' directed this & it is his first effort. For a first timer he did a first class job.

Peter Eckoff wrote this screenplay about some college students in the 1970's at Brown Univ. in Rhode Island. The screenplay is quite intelligent & not the usual college days & nights stuff we usually see.

However I felt that the ending was a letdown & to me it hurt MY overall enjoyment of this very well acted & made drama. There are many comic moments BUT this is primarily a drama.

Jesse Eisenburg is Charlie & he is just first rate. Jason Ritter who has usually done lighter roles is just magnificent as a confused non conformist & bully. Chris Marquette is there buddy & has most of the funny lines.

This is one trio I would like to see again.

Eva Amurri is also first rate as a love interest.the entire cast are all first rate.

This is another low budget film that only had a very short USA run in March 2009. & released to DVD 3 months later.

This is a darn good film,I just did not care for the ending. See it, you may or may not agree with me on the ending, BUT I feel you all will like it. It also is a wee bit overlong.

Ratings: *** (out of 4) 84 points (out of 100) IMDb 7 (out of 100)


Others here have expressed that this Indie film was good and I agree. I think it could have been better. I also agree, the educational part was not about Charlie Banks, who seems very passive and self centered with many short rather flippant comments. He really doesn't rise very high on the intellectual ladder. However, I also felt as a privileged kid who had all his little ducks in a row, and egocentric as most of these people are, the film seemed to project a kind of real life situational social drama.

What exactly Charlie learned? Well, I was mystified how a moocher could live and walk about an Ivy League campus without some security officer kicking him out. I suppose this does happen where friends allow for social reasons something like these triangles to happen. But, gosh uncle Elmer how did he eat and live in a dorm room that was rented for two legitimate male students.

I suppose the moral crisis comes late in the story, and in fact, Charlie and his Mich buddy were not physically matched for fighting. I would have thought Charlie would have attempted to undermine Mich earlier in the film, rather than passively sulking and accepting this man's total illegitimacy as a college student.

However all these picky concerns did not over all make me dislike the flick. I have known students like Charlie before and wondered if they actually had any moral compass other than their own egocentric interests in sex and pleasing their parents.

I rated it above my standard 5 to a 7. The film is worth a look !


There are two ways you can look at this film. The first is simply as a drama film like any other, a well-set piece for the epoch it unfolds in; certainly the clothing and set accessories are all in their right place for the 70's/80's. The acting is quite impressive all around: Jesse Eisenberg and Jason Ritter are the stars of the show, commanding very well-built characters; one a more introspective, unspoken kid and the other a more domineering, swagger-carrying bad-ass. Chris Marquette and Sebastian Stan are also worthy of note, as is Eva Amurri as the typical thrill-seeking bored rich girl - the type that tends to want what she can't have, in this case a guy who is perhaps not to be trifled with, possibly of the kind she is ill-equipped to deal with, or at least to deal with as she does - again the typical heart-breaking machinery at work.

The other way you can look at this film is as a Fred Durst production. Considering he was the director, you're ready to give it more credit than it would be worth straight out of the bat. It is quite impressive on his part that he was able to put this together (if such was the case), even if marks of a certain lack of experience are visible throughout. First we have the screenplay - some of what the characters are saying is repetitive and at times nonsensical. The dialogue could have been more elaborate - that would certainly have upped the quality and believability quotient - not that the film strays too far from reality - in fact it tends to steer back on track and find it's way safely to the end, yet scenes such as the one when Jason Ritter is in the bar by himself with only a few "workers" around him and the things the barman spouts there. These exhibitions of class demarcation and the like are ultimately unreal. There is also an ongoing attack at "rich people" in general, when the case being considered is that of the spoiled offspring of some rich people - not all "rich people" are worthy of scorn. Second there is the unnecessary use of swear words. At a certain point in the film these just become tiring. Not that films should forcefully not contain these, the simple fact is a film reads differently than, say, a rap album with explicit content.

However you look at it, notwithstanding, the film still pulls through successfully. Considering the kind of garbage being thrown our way these days, The Education Of Charlie Banks stands. The title is fitting; indeed, even if we may think otherwise, Charlie is the one who ends up learning from things. He in a way corrects his ways and makes the right choice. He shows humanity, he tries to be cooperative as opposed to being oppressive. Here the film triumphs, in that it reveals a positive message.

Kudos to otherwise career-dead Durst for carrying this one through; let's hope he learns from his mistakes and rises to make better things? One can't help but think this could have been so immensely better with a different director, yet it is still surprising that it was carried under his wing.

6.5(7)/10


This is an excellent film with a great cast. Jason Ritter gives an outstanding performance. I thought the title should be "The Education of Mick". It's really Mick that we see undergoing a transformation when he visits the college from a thug to a misunderstood kid trying to find a better life for himself. I really didn't find Eisenberg's character Charlie Banks interesting or sympathetic at all. I didn't identify with his character who was mostly cold & distant and very little was revealed about him personally. Part of this is the fault of the writer, but also Eisenberg was just wrong for the part. He was mainly just an observer & didn't get into any conflicts until the last scene.

Mick on the other hand reveals his complex nature and shows he's not just a bully with a difficult upbringing but someone who has compassion and is a loyal friend. Without a doubt Ritter is the star of this film, not Eisenberg.


This film could have been better if the acting was better. Jason Ritter is riding on the coattails of his late dad. Certainly he is no John Ritter.The vastly underrated, John Ritter had range and went from slapstick to straight man comedy to drama in 'Sling Blade' and did it well. His range was terrific. Jason Ritter playing the bad boy bully , stalking his nemesis in college was ineffective. Than again, none of the actors shined in this film. This was just a bad effort all around. There was no acting chemistry or believability. Certainly getting lost in this plot was impossible. The shame of it all, is that the movie , with better acting could have worked. The plot ,itself, was interesting. Articulation there was none. Direction .. Nothing. This film could have been a contender , instead, collectively , it fell flat on its face.


This is one very boring movie from beginning to end. Jesse Eisenberg is especially so, and annoying as well. The movie is mostly about the competitiveness of those on a college campus, to see who can be the wittiest and most pretentiousness. Eisenberg's clever banter that he uses as a defense, wears thin very quickly.

Jason Ritter's acting wasn't bad, but the character that he played seemed to be a bit exaggerated and over the top. One of the minor characters, Mr. Banks (Charlie's father) played by Dennis Boutsikaris was good, but it was a relatively small roll. Sebastian Stan (Leo) seems like a good actor, but the nature of his character seemed unbelievable.

There really didn't seem to be much of a story, so of course, it never really went anywhere. I couldn't recommend this movie to anyone.

There was a few good songs used as background, but that certainly doesn't make for a good movie on it's own.

There aren't a lot of comments on the movie at this point, and almost all of them are glowing in their praise. I felt obligated to post a negative opinion. This is not a good movie.


In Afghanistan, during the Taliban regime, women are forbidden to work and to walk on the streets without the company of a male. The teenager girl Osama (Marina Golbahari) cuts her hair and dresses like a boy to get a job and support her widow mother and grandmother. There is no men in her family, since her father and her brother were killed in previous Afghan wars, and the family has no means of survival. When Osama, disguised as a boy, is called by the Taliban to join the school and military training, the boy Espandi (Arif Herati) tries to help her.

"Osama" is a spectacular film, based on true events, and the interpretation of the amateurish cast is so perfect that sometimes the movie looks like a documentary. It is amazing how different from Western cultures is the life, religion, streets, houses of the Afghan people, and how repressed the women are in this evil system. Although being aware of many atrocities of this fanatical power, through articles in newspapers and magazines, this movie is so real and impressive that makes the viewer feel in the skin the difficulties of the life of this poor people. This is the first film made in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban. In accordance with the interview of the director Siddiq Barmak in the Extras of the DVD, Marina Golbahari was accidentally discovered four days before the beginning of the shootings. The girls had never watched a movie in a theater, and did not have a TV. Two days before the beginning of the shootings, Barmak met Arif Herati, and decided to create a special character for him, not foreseen in the original screenplay. The boy requested the director to buy his dogs to accept the invitation. This movie was awarded many international prizes, among them the Golden Globe (Best Movie),Golden Camera (Cannes Festival) and Best Movie (London Festival), and certainly deserves to be among the IMDb Top 250. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Osama"


In a time when the world is so focused on the conflict unfolding in Iraq, the thing that is most clear to me after watching this movie is the old saying that after thousands of years of wars fought in the name of religion, we are not a second closer to peace than we ever were. Osama looks at one of the many religious struggles in the world by focusing on the plight of women under the iron fist of the Taliban, one of the sickest and most debase groups on earth.

The story focuses on a young girl living in an all female family, and since they live in an area ruled by the Taliban, they are not allowed to leave the house, because women walking around unaccompanied by a male are promptly arrested and subjected to inhuman punishments. With no way to feed themselves, since women are not even allowed to leave the house, much less work, their only choice is to dress up their youngest member of the family as a boy and have her go out and find work to feed everyone else.

The most important thing that the film does is that it calls attention to the atrocities that are being committed by religious groups beyond hijacking planes or planting roadside bombs or kidnapping and beheading people. In addition to all of those horrible atrocities, there are women in Afghanistan that are literally treated not just like property, but like animals.

At one point in the movie, one character, a woman, wishes that God had never created women. The fact that she wishes that God had never created women, rather than wishing something a little more logical, like that God had never created the Taliban, serves to bring into sharp focus the extent to which the Taliban have perverted these women's minds.

The film opens with a surreal scene of a large group of women in ghostly blue burkhas in a demonstration in which they chant their desire for the right to work, for some reason seeming to have forgotten that they do not even have the right to assemble. The local Taliban, however, remembers this little detail very clearly, and starts by hosing the women down with high-pressure hoses before opening fire on them. That such madness is committed in the name of some god is an illustration of how humans can take the concept of religion and twist it so horribly wrong that they can justify doing whatever on earth they feel like.

The movie is a study not only of the atrocious practices that are carried out against women by the Taliban, but also an illustration of the elasticity of the concept of religion. Especially in America, we have this conception of religion as this benevolent force that transcends the suffering that we endure on earth and promises justification through a higher medium. Osama shows us that it is the very concept of religion that is used in some practices to justify that suffering for which we look above for reasoning and comfort.

The Taliban have succeeded in amassing all of the worst possible appropriations associated with religion, turning it from a benevolent force and into a tool with which to justify their massive destruction of human rights, which are not an American concept but a religious one.

Aristotle once said, 'I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God that has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use.'

Similarly, I personally do not feel obliged to believe that any God in existence, presiding over any religious sect, could possibly approve of the wholesale torture, abuse, and destruction of women, a divine creation if there is a single one on earth.


The film felt like a documentary - it was simple and straightforward. "Osama" captured many aspects of what life is like during Taliban's occupation, through the eyes of a 12-year old Afghan girl, within 1 hr. 22 mins. - it's more than most Hollywood movies manage to get across in 2 hrs. For a debut feature, w-d Siddiq Barmak delivered a quietly poignant film - it may not be evident at first impression right after seeing the film with the sadness and injustice it burdensomely carries. As I was re-telling the film's plot to someone who missed the showing, it came to me how succinctly the film tells/exposes what the women and children, and men, had to tolerate under such atrocious regime. The poverty level and misfortunate situation/predicaments are almost unspeakable.

The portrayal of Osama by Marina Golbahari is impressive: the bewilderment and fear on her face, the rare break into a smile we get to catch, her wailing and cry and crying - mostly delivered in a speechless manner. The other child actor, Arif Herati, who played the one who tried to shield her from trouble by the other boys, gave a brief but convincing Espandi. There's also Osama's mother and grandmother, and the neighbors, and the men who were 'helpless' in spite of wanting to help - the roles and scenes are all touchingly stirring. There are suspenseful moments and one wonders what would happen next - outcome could be predictable yet its share of drama and humanity lessen not. As a relieving contrast, a coming of age boys lesson in a Turkish bath setting was included - suspense and intrigue a-mixed. Barmak gave us a well-paced film, missing not a chance to provide insight to the cultural aspects of the people.

"Osama" brings to mind other similar 'hard medicine' films: Iranian director Jafar Panahi's `The Circle' 2000 (aka "Dayareh"), is the empathetic telling of the mistreatment/misfortune of four women in an unsympathetic society; director Michael Winterbottom's docudrama `In this World' released through 2003 Sundance Series, gave us an unflinching look into 'human cargo smuggling' of an Afghan refugee, 16-year old Jamal, with the persistent slim hope of a better livelihood in Britain; Xavier Koller's `Journey of Hope," the 1991 Academy Award's Best Foreign Film, is a heartbreaking tale of enduring/diminishing hope.

On a different note possibly more hopeful, though family poverty, hardships of Afghan refugees and girl posing as boy to obtain work are still the ingredients, we have "Baran" 2001, another worthwhile filmic experience from Iranian filmmaker Majid Majidi ("Children of Heaven" and "Color of Paradise".)


If this film does not make you angry, then you have no feelings whatsoever. This is the first film made in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban. It shows the oppressive life of women under the Taliban. They are not allowed to go to school, hold jobs, or be allowed in public without a male escort. This movie tells the story of a girl who must disguise herself as a boy in order to get a job so her family can buy food. If she is caught, she would most likely be put to death for breaking the law. It is amazing that such things still exist in today's world. This movie is a warning that there must be no more regimes such as the Taliban in Afghanistan. I hope this film will prompt people around the world to demand that women have basic rights such as the right to vote, to go out in public, and to dress however they please no matter what country they live in.


I'll spare you the tedious task of reading this slightly long review and say outright that this film is great but very hard to watch and requires one of those special moods where one wants to see a film and is reluctant to watch some standard multi personality disorder thriller or a romantic comedy that more and more lately, seem mutually exclusive (How to lose a guy in 10 days, Love actually and the list goes on and on).

Osama, a name that strikes fear in almost every person, is a bogus name of a young girl who lives with her widowed mother and grandmother. The fact that neither women can't go to work under the strict rules of the Taliban, forces the mother to cut her daughter's hair short and send her to work as a boy. Soon enough, the disguised girl is recruited to a religious, Taliban oriented, all male school where she faces the task of fitting in, a task which is partially aided by Esphandi, a beggar teen who knows Osama's secret and goes a great length to hide it, knowing full well that if revealed, both his and her life will be in jeopardy.

According to the IMDB's Biography of Marina Golbahar (who portrays Osama) the struggle for survival is hardly new to her which is probably why she plays in such a credible and moving manner despite having no acting experience. The acting is the cornerstone of the film and it is the main contributor to the film's impact. Another major factor is the scenery, I will elaborate on that later on.

Without going into detail as to the plot's progress, I will note that the film doesn't try to embellish the harsh reality of Afghan women and especially their children who, according to the film, are doomed in most cases to be robbed of their childhood.

I added the "according to the film" reference because this film doesn't try to convey it's hatred to this regime and although I'm hardly a Taliban devotee, I am skeptic enough to know that film can depict anyone they want anyway they choose (just the other day there was a story on 60 minutes that showed how North Korean kids are brainwashed to believe that George W Bush is the 21st century's Hitler ) so one must approach this film under a very critical point of view.

But even so, there is little dispute that women's rights were trampled during the Taliban reign of oppression and that Afghanistan is a nation in plight in large part due to that regime (was it the setting or did the Taliban also banned the building of houses with roofs?).

The only reservation I have of the film is the fact that under the loathing of the Talibans, the director, Siddiq bermak, added scenes that weakens the usually high sense of genuineness of the film. For example, in a wedding party the women sing almost throughout the scene about men falling in the war against Russia in the late 80's. Not your regular spice-up-the-party tunes. I assume the director wanted to give us a little background about the characters and forgot that the key to the story's conviction is the appeal of Osama and not the appall of the Taliban (I used that word eight times in this review, I think I overdid it).

But other than that, the film is very powerful and although the real magnitude if the suffering in Afghanistan will never be known to its full extent, I still managed to feel empathy for the people I used to be completely indifferent to (I admit to my eternal shame).

8.5 out of 10 on FilmOmeter.

One more thing I'd like to address to is the quote in the beginning of the film. In the Hebrew subtitled version of the film, the quote was translated as "I may forgive but won't forget" by Nelson Mandela. In the film, however, the quote (in Arabic letters) refers to Doctor Shariati who was the ideologue of the Iranian cue (I didn't get the chance to read the actual quote because my Arabic is a little rusty). I guess there wasn't much point in explaining to a viewer like myself who Shariati was but nevertheless, its an evidence of the tiny alterations film go when they are branded for foreign viewing.


'Osama'is a sad story about a 12 years old girl who lives in Afganistan, under the Taliban rules. One of those rules,is not allow any woman to work and even go out of the house without the presence of a man;since there aren't men in Osama's family, she needs to pretend that she is a boy,to bring some food to her family. Espandi, a boy who works at the streets, knows that Osama is a girl, and helps her as he can, teaching and explaining her how to do some male stuff, and he even fights with the other boys, who doubt that Osama is not a man.

The worst thing about the violence and the other sad facts of this movie, is that they are the reality of the Afganistan. The repression of the women, the poverty, the young boys being trained for war, the younger girls forced to marry someone they don't want to...they still happens in XXI century.

I think this movie is great and very worth seeing, specially to see how was the reality in the Taliban times.


The use of Afghan culture as a medium for the commentary this film delivers shouldn't be misinterpreted. While it does serve to educate the viewer about the violent impact of religious fundamentalism and the raging inequality of conditions women have faced in Afghanistan, it also teaches the lesson of what happens when an individual defies the established rules of sexuality, a lesson that can be as relevant in Ohio as in Afghanistan. Osama is not just a girl, but a girl who masquerades as a boy in order to survive; the torment she endures in return is not just a demonstration of the cruelties of of fundamentalist Islam, but the cruelties of society as we know it.

Barbarism is not confined to any people, any nation, or any religion, and it would be a grave mistake to misinterpret (whether accidentally or otherwise) the aim of such a poignant film. Osama is skillfully produced and acted, and serves as an artful and immersive vessel for its sentiments.


This film is extremely well-done and conveys a sense of suspense (maybe a better word is dread) better than most movies could ever dream of. The cinematography captures life in an Afghan village and the excellent performances by the cast seem true to life and The story is set in pre-democracy Afghanistan when the Taliban were cracking down with a force and brutal efficiency that would have shocked Hitler's SS. Their extremist version of Islam is forced upon the populace without regard to the effect on their lives or the necessity of an already impoverished and struggling people.

Women are not allowed outside their homes and require a male escort. In addition they are required to wear a Burka It is a source of constant amazement to me that the same compassionate liberal folks who rightly condemn the third Reich would defend, excuse or rationalize similar atrocities when committed by those in the Middle East. It's really a sort of subtle racism if you think about it.

This movie should put the myths to rest and should serve as a sort of "Diary of Anne Frank" for a new generation.

The atrocities of the Taliban and other extremist Islamic fundamentalists must be revealed to the resistant and skeptical west and "Osama", the first film to come out of Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban, does just that.


When this movie first came out, the reviews were generally favorable but the subject matter was utterly depressing. What could be sadder than the appalling mistreatment of Afghan women at the hands of the Taliban? I skipped the movie when it ran at the theaters.

I recently viewed the movie and my earlier impressions were correct. It is very depressing. However, I would recommend it simply because it is as good a method as any to educate the world on Islam and its treatment of women. What happens in "Osama", the summary execution of women via stoning, the brutal beatings and imprisonments, the slavery trade, and all manner of beastly practices anyone in the West would consider beyond the pale, occurs in these countries all of the time.

The question one asks, given the increasing percentage of Muslims in the E.U., the increasing practice of "honor killings", the frequent rioting by Asian "youths", the routine harassment of Jews and Gays by Muslims in the E.U. countries, and the increasing acceptance of Sharia law by the secular E.U. authorities to accommodate the growing Islamic population, how long will it be before the great democracies of Western Europe look like Afghanistan? Rudyard Kipling must be rolling in his grave.


this film was the Golden Gate winner for 2004 Best Foreign Language Film. now comes on of my greatest pet peeves about the synopsis and reviews on the cover of a movie or book or whatever. it as if the people writing these reviews and synopsis' have either never even seen the film or are just blatantly obtuse or detached from the reality of human suffering. the New York Post described it as "powerful, beautiful, simply extraordinary". true it was "powerful",it went into great depth of the overwhelming fear of the oppressed, repressed , exploited people of a certain chaste of Afghanistan, generated through utilizing torture, every form of abuse, rape, humiliation, and intimidation. and there is nothing "simple" about this "extra ordinary" projection of life of the powerless people it portrayed. and it sure was out of the "ordinary" as far as standards go for the privileged goes, who on the whole do not experience the "extraordinary " atrocities and all forms of denigration these people experience in their daily lives. it was hardly "beautiful" as the women were subjugated to being summarily rounded up, imprisoned on a the slightest whim and then beaten, raped, buried alive, or as this one woman...stoned to death by a gleeful mob after being wrongfully accused of uttering obscenities. "Bold, Beautiful, Deeply Moving" (boxoffice (who in th e h*** are they)).i guess you could call it "bold" for them to interrogate, torture and execute by firing squad (at least they did not saw off his head in front of millions of eager observers, eh?) for filming a documentary on Afghanistan life. and we are all painfully aware that they absolutely do not appreciate satire...bombings, death follows? "Deeply Moving"...their sadistic militaristic manner in which they corralled and herded the woman and children that were at a gathering to beseech the government to allow them to work as they were starving to death. they were hosed down with torrents of water, fired routinely on by gunfire, thrown in cages, beaten, raped, and killed, woman and children alike. and i would say again, it was "bold" of them to raid the hospital, shooting and destroying everyone and everything inside as everyone that were able were fleeing in panic...patients and caretakers alike. there was an especially poignant shot of a severely crippled boy of about 5 years of age abandoned by the fleeing crowd as he desperately tries to hobble along in order to not be left behind. "Beautiful" (again) and so positively stated by the director.."filled with hope". "Hope"...Osama, the girl forced to be transformed into a role as boy so that she can go unescorted to work in order to bring home a watermelon and a few scraps of meet for the family, is just so filled with this "hope" as she "embarks on a terrifying and confusing journey" to avoid detection from the taliban (this is not the journey you or i may take after paying five to tens of thousands of dollars to some guru to become enlightened)...NOT!!! she is full of extreme anxiety, fear, terror (yes) and i would daresay she would have loved "confusing". this journey of hers took all of ten days from the time she worked for an old man (that dies because of this kindness),was "recruited" (forcibly ) into the talibans training camp for boys (10 yrs up, if not younger)where they teach you the qua ran's rituals such as how you wash your genitals in three different direction, (and allah help you if you didn't preform each ritual in the exact order and way in which they dictated1), to the time she is discovered. she is taunted, teased, hung from a rope suspended over a seemingly bottomless well (hysterically crying for her mother), after which she is jailed. at her trial she is sentenced to a marriage with the oldest, the most sadistic, most perverted man of the taliban who takes her home to be locked up along with the other woman and children he has abused to no end. her "journey" full of "hope" ends with her being all trussed up and presented to the creep who then asks her to choose which iron chastity belt she would like before brutalizing and raping her (at the age of 12yrs. remember) for the rest of her life. and that is just how the movie ends...just "beautiful" and full of "hope"! in all good conscious end here without mentioning the unfortunate husbands and sons who were forced to leave their families and homes, usually to never be seen again. it was certainly an eye opener for me in that these civilians would be abducted anytime day or night and anytime between, a rifle put in their hand, and sent off to some obscure place to fight the russians, Germans,Americans, whoever... all and all a "stunning" (Enteertaiment EWeekly), "Emotionally Charged" (Sceen International", and a "striking work of cinematic art"(Daily News). but i am sorry to say that i hardly found it "breathtaking" (Slant), but "extraordinarily" heartbreaking"!!! "NOTHING SHORT OF ASTONISHING" (N.Y. Times)...does that leave you with the impression it did me...that absolutely no one at the NY times watched this movie. i read this morning..."that the heart is an artist that paints over what profoundly disturbs you, leaving on the canvas, a less dark, less sharp version of the truth." i am an artist and i do not think so! this should be a required film to be seen be all those quo are either in denial or are immune to the many "inequities" that exist in the world since time immoral up into what is now the 21st century, submitted with the utmost respect and love... jamie jo Jesus

i realize i would be hung, burned at the stake, tortured, crucified, stoned to death, and more if republished this in iraq..if not now? at least then. and if we don't once aging rally ourselves to do something about these injustices now...then when?


This film has gained a lot of notoriety for being the first movie made in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban. Fortunately, the hype was well-deserved because this is indeed an excellent movie. The film tells the story of a little girl who masquerades as a boy in order to earn a living (under Taliban ruling, women have no rights). It is a highly politicized movie, but I did not care much for that aspect of the movie. I rather prefer to see the film as an unusual coming-of-age story. The cast of non-professional actors perform well, specially the girl who plays the title character (the camera is in love with her). My only complaint is that director Barmak could not avoid the temptation of preaching to the audience. Not that a little preaching bothers me, but I think the material is strong enough to speak for itself, and we did not need the director to tell us what we can see clearly. Overall, I did think Barmak handled the material in a brilliant manner. At the very least, the film provides a fascinating peek into another culture. Very downbeat, but sincere and always interesting. The movie is not a pleasant viewing experience, but it is an eye-opener to a sad situation. Highly Recommended!


This is a straightforward, almost documentary style look at the status of women in the Taliban days of Afghanistan.

The beauty of the movie relies on the clever photography on not going too graphic, not over emphasizing on the oppressors and at the same time does not draw too much melodramatics in form of emotional music. Its also a short movie which makes good viewing.

Osama is the story of a pre-teen girl who lives with her widowed mother (a doctor) and grandmother. She will eventually crop her hair short and go out into society disguised as a boy to earn for her family (Women were not allowed to work so they basically starved without any resources of income).

The movie does not preach in any apparent direction but it highlights the plight of the women under this feudal system. Most is left to the viewer's rhetoric.

It may be disturbing for people who were never aware of facts described in this movie but for others it will be a reminder of what once happened. Watch this movie, not to build up prejudices, but to open one's awareness .

Cheers


This movie arises emotions from several issues that we hear about everyday- from a justification for the war on terror(All the terrorist leaders are in favor of a ruling system similar to the one carried on by the talliban) to women's right's. Women in the west have made remarkable progress on their plight to social equality and today they take on every sort of important role in our society. Well this is were "Osama" hits us with the brute culture shock that globalization can bring by showing how in some areas of the world women not only have made little progress in gaining social equality but the very society in which they live, has deepen the disparity they fight against.

It's a story so sad that will bring up a feeling of anger and disgust from any devout Tibetan Buddhist.


A single woman and her 12-year old daughter (whose name is not revealed) lose their jobs when the Taliban shuts down the hospital they work at in Afghanistan. Needing to survive, the woman decides to disguise her daughter as a boy by cutting her hair off, putting her in men's clothing, and calling her Osama. Osama gets a job, but is soon taken away by the Taliban for military training with all the young boys in the village. This is beautifully filmed but extremely painful to watch. Most of the violence is off-screen, but there is still disturbing imagery in this very realistic film. It is incredibly suspenseful watching the lead character go through her days, hoping that her secret isn't found out. The lead actress, who was a panhandler before making this film, gives an exceptional performance and the look of sheer terror and pain never leaves her furrow-browed face. Osama is depressing and bleak, as a movie about the Taliban's violent oppression of women should be. My Rating: 9/10


I LOVED this movie for the quiet truthfulness of the characters, the authentic pictures of the countryside and primitive way of life, and the understated humor. Not just women suffered, but any feeling individual was hurt by the Taliban regime. Most will really enjoy the characters, especially the moving mother, who is a female doctor not allowed to practice her craft despite a desperate need for doctors throughout the country. The director avoids all sentimentality, yet the movie has moments of humor, pathos, cynicism, charity and quiet desperation. If you are a woman, you should see this movie. Contains humor, great characters, unbelievable look into the horrors of the Taliban in Afghanistan, all portrayed with a light touch and great insight.


Osama is the first movie made after the fall of the Taliban last year. It shows the story of a young girl who is forced to disguise herself as a boy so that she can work and feed her hungry mother and grandmother. Winner a Golden Globe for foreign language film is about 80 minutes long.

I have got to say that this film will really give a massive shock to the viewers with some of the scenes. The severity of some of the actions and policies of the Taliban were really extreme and it sometimes is hard to understand how people could do this to other people.

One of the first scenes you see in the film is that of a rally of women all asking for jobs so that they could feed their families. It is a breathtaking and powerful scene as you see hundreds of women all clad in their blue burkas. This I felt was one of the ways the director was able to portray the harshness of the rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan. You could see the peoples hardship and longing for a better life.

I was rather pleasantly surprised to hear that all of the actors in the film are all locals of Afghanistan and do not have any experience in acting. They all did great jobs in putting across the material especially Marina Golbahari, the lead actress. I guess it was easy translating real life experiences to the scenes in a film.

The director also did quite a laudable job of making a rather bleak atmosphere throughout the film. A lot of the scenes had dark lighting and not a single second of musical score throughout the film added to the overall dark atmosphere of the film. He also did a good job in making the Taliban a menacing force, which you would learn to hate.

A good film overall and it was really effective in putting the message across even if the movie was just 80 minutes long. 80 minutes of powerful filmaking and its simplicity is the main reason that this film is a good one.


The nature of totalitarian, ideologically driven regimes makes them good settings for drama and the presentation of the best and worst of human nature. This film makes clear how dreadful daily life was in Taliban ruled Afghanistan, particularly if you were a female (not that it's much fun in other Muslim countries) and we quickly sympathise with the central characters in their struggle for survival. That it was made only a year after the Taliban were ousted gives it an authentic documentary feel, but it would still be as effective if the events were years earlier. Part of the fascination is how the Taliban managed to be so primitive and backward (basically anything that didn't exist at the time the Koran was written was verboten, with the exception of weapons and vehicles for them to get around in) and the peculiarities of Islamic attitudes and practices that distinguished the Taliban from, for example, the Khymer Rouge in Cambodia or the Nazis in Germany, although there are also parallels.


When you see a woman buried to her neck and children about to stone her, the brutality of mankind is shown in full view. Regardless of how one feels about the Afghan war in Canada, the overthrow of a regime dedicated to treating women worse then dogs was justified. It is hard to believe that in the modern Muslim world there are still people willing to humiliate and torture women. If this is how the majority of men still want to indoctrinate their boys in school to behave, then the world will remain a cruel place for woman from Morocco to Indonesia. I find it hard to believe that any Muslim living in Canada would oppose the United Nations intervening in a society were music at a wedding is a crime. To lock up young women and force them to marry against their will was a problem in many countries till recently. Few women in the west would tolerate such control over their bodies by men. I am ashamed that some generally good religious Muslim men in our community still refuse to condemn such outrageous behavior.