This movie screened at the 5th Melbourne Underground Film Fest and I gotta admit! I got sucked in by the title! But the movie held up as well. Entertaining, engaging characters and convincing cast. Sexy women too!Sometimes all the crazy antics were hard to keep track of and sometimes the camera was a little too hand held,..but the film held together through its sheer energy. The film has that much visual color it is almost overwhelming, the camera never stops moving and the characters never stop scheming. My prediction is keep an eye out for this director."Bitch" is pulsing with ambition and confidence. This director is going to pull off something even bigger in the future..


Why We Had to Kill Bitch is the funniest film I have ever seen at a festival.

The plot is well paced. Comedy is spaced evenly throughout and springs from the story instead of from canned laughter. Shot in first person, the difficult mechanics of POV and storytelling are well executed. Slick pulp fiction dialogue ties scene to scene and refuses to stoop to trite.

Finally, the jewel of WWHtKB is the unique characters. I have met these people before in another life. Some I wish I still knew. Some I wish I could forget. The film is like Napoleon Dynamite... only different... sexier... more disparate.

If I had three thumbs, they would all be up.


Okay, well maybe this film is "a fun-filled romp" and "an action-packed thrill ride." But somebody says these things about nearly every movie, and they don't do Why We Had To Kill Bitch justice. This film is unique, to say the least.

I had the pleasure of seeing this film in the largest screening room in Pittsburgh, twice. First I saw it at the world premiere, which drew over a thousand people for the best turnout of any indy film in Pittsburgh history. By the time I saw it again a year later at the DVD release party, the film already had a dedicated cult following.

This is a film which doesn't take itself seriously, and that frees it up to be really, really funny. From the witty banter, to the zany, over-the-top yet familiar characters, there is an utter lack of pretense that really lets you know how much the filmmakers loved this project.

I loved the characters (you know someone like each one of them), the acting, the silliness, the randomness, the way the humor hits you in so many different ways, I LOVED THE ENDING (which I won't ruin), but the thing I loved most about this film (and this is very important in my opinion) is that it was funnier the second time I saw it! I can only hope that more great films like this come out of Pittsburgh. I highly recommend that you check it out if you get a chance. If you have any sense of humor at all, you'll want to play it again as soon as the credits roll. But stick around for those. The credits are one of the best parts!


if you're looking for a fun independent movie then give why we had to kill bitch a try. i first watched the movie with a friend who had seen it at school, and she loved it so much she shared it with me. both of us own the movie on DVD because we enjoyed it so much, and have in turn showed the movie to others who have also enjoyed why we had to kill bitch.

wwhtkb is funny, witty and if you're like me chances are you know people just like the characters in the movie. why we had to kill bitch will keep you laughing, and perhaps even giggle at somethings you might not normally giggle at. the movie really has a great ending, that will provide some more laughter. round up some friends and go ahead and watch it. i look forward to more movies from nickel.


I saw this movie after running into the director at a bar during a film festival (and going to a strip club with him). I had no idea what I was in for. This movie raises all the important life questions you will ever have, such as "Will my friends kill for me?"; "How do I get rid of a boss I hate?"; "How do I get the girl I like?" and "Is it ethical to lie to my professor to get a better mark?" I would recommend contacting the director about buying DVDs as I don't know that they are in stores. I have a copy but I can't loan it to you as I lose too many DVDs that way.

Check out http://www.fivecentproductions.com/ for more info.


I was introduced to this movie by a friend who brought over the DVD one night as part of a collection of movies we could pick to watch. Since none of us had admittedly heard of it before, we decided to watch and give it a chance.

While it might not appeal to the big-explosions-special-effects-only younger crowds of today, the film is well-paced, witty, and is one of the few movies that has hit my capacity for sarcastic and bizarre humor hard. Unlike most of the movies of the aforementioned genre, WWHTKB actually takes time to develop its characters so you might actually have an opinion on them (vs. the mindless automatons of most of today's features). There will be many moments that leave you saying "what the...?", which might not be for everyone, but it contributes to the overall style of the film (in my opinion, at least).

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed myself and hope to see more productions from the same director in the future.


A very unique film. Yes there are elements of QT and Kevin Smith but is not imitation the highest form of flattery. It has been said that there are no original ideas and with the many thousands of movies that are available in stores, the finger of god would have to be pointing directly at you if you expect to see something you've never seen before. What I haven't seen before is a film that so shamelessly yet unpretentiously zings the industry as a whole, the average movie viewer, and itself, and all in good fun. Because everything that Nickel's script pretends to despise is happening right there on the screen in front of you. Kevin, at a loss for a subject for his film class project, stoops so low as to bribe his best friend Eugene to grant him an all access pass into his staggeringly pathetic professional and personal life. What we the viewers are let in on is a fairly accurate portrait of generation Y's aimless slacker lifestyle, and the struggle for love and adventure therein. As a former long-time resident of Pittsburgh, I know these guys. I feel their pain. Put yourself in any mid-sized American city with a minimum wage job, average looks and nothing to do on a Friday night and this is what classifies as the best you can get out of life. Yet Nickel has succeeded in turning someone else's boredom and desperation into a fun ride. For the cinematic sadist like myself I was disappointed that there weren't more bumped heads and kicks in the groin but they happen just enough to make the title character "Bitch" or "Karen" as Gene naively calls her, the "weasel under the cabinet" as Pinter would say. Though her screen time is limited, her presence is constantly felt and unquestionably recognized by male and female viewers alike. Everybody knows Bitch. Every guy has dated Bitch, and every woman knows a Bitch they've had to overcome to get the poor abused schmuck who they know deserves better. This is a movie that everyone can relate to. It is irreverent, fearless, clever, honest unique and above all funny. And Fun. You won't find these people together in any other movie you see, although you're likely to encounter them in real life whether you want to or not. This time though you won't regret following them around for a day. This is the adventure citizens of Movie Land, and it will change the way you look at movies and hopefully, real life. So check it out, because I guarantee you, you have not seen THIS before.


I first saw WWHTKB when it was screened in my hometown film festival two years ago at one in the morning on a Saturday. I had been watching movies all day for two days (thank you Jolt Cola and Continental Breakfast coffee) at this point, and WWHTKB stood out for a few reasons as one of my favorite movies from the festival. The main storyline, though contrived at points, kept a consistent mix of cynical humor and sarcastic wit with downright impossibly ridiculous situations and an extremely unlikely cast of characters - including "Bitch," the main character's abusive ex-girlfriend - that had me laughing out loud more than a few times. There were a lot of things outside of the main storyline that stood out as downright hilarious concepts, such as the fake John Travolta film, "Oh Shenannigans!" from which they show clips. Though these elements made me chuckle, they really don't stand out from the entire genre of late-teen-college-age movie as something original. What really stands out from the film is the high amount of action that happens within the scenes, but having no real interaction with the plot. For example two movie theater clerks poke holes into paper cups and get kinky with the popcorn tubs while two main characters talk about going out to the improv later that night. This is the kind of movie that is best watched with a couple of drinks and some good friends that you've gotten up to some fun with. I got to talk to the director at the festival, and ended up actually buying a copy of the movie. It has some of the most wonderful cover art for any movie that I've ever seen. A definite watch for one of those late night boredom releases.


I really enjoyed Why We Had to Kill Bitch, perhaps I am a bit biased since I saw it with someone who was in the movie. It isn't really like any other movie that I've seen before, so It's a bit difficult to describe. If I had to describe it, though, I'd say it's a mixture of comedic-reality TV, 80's teen movies (like ferris beullers day off), and clerks. The highlights of the film were definitely the acting performances by the main cast, as well as the use of comedic flashbacks. The film starts off a little slow and takes the more direct slapstick humor route, but changes into a more plot-driven/ironic comedy style. The characters also get more developed towards the end, which explains some of their behavior early on. Check out the movie if you get a chance to, make sure to watch the end credits.


I saw WWHTKB pretty soon after production finished. I loved it because of its quirky comedy and "clerksy" feel. I have seen it 3 times since, a few different edits and I like it more and more each time. This movies is funny and enjoyable with a plot like I have never heard of before! Definitely unique in its theme, WWHTKB is the type of movie that everyone can watch and enjoy no matter what your movie preference is. There is a character for everyone to relate to and the acting is great. My personal favorite character was Eugene, he was absolutely hilarious! And the scene in the movie theater is one to leave quite a memory. Oberall it was a great movie, one that I am looking for ward to seeing again and again. I can't wait to be able to own a copy of my very own!


I discovered this movie through a friend, and my husband and I LA-OOOVE it!!! We actually ended up at the premier in Pittsburgh while visiting and have managed to see it at least a couple more times. It embodies the every-kid experience: "one night my friends and i decide to go after this girl our one friend likes, which is great cause we hate the only other girl he ever liked, and along the way all this crazy sh*t happens." Anyone who's been to high school in the last 30 years will definitely relate, although some may not tolerate the weirdness well. Perhaps if you were a cheerleader in the last 30 years, you may not relate.


i went to see this movie at the Lowe's waterfront theater in Pittsburgh. they were giving away free tickets so i figured why not the worst that could happen is i waste a night out. when i got there the line was crazy out the door, they were only letting in the first 500 people, but we managed to get in. they had prizes, dvds, t shirts and a band it was awesome. i thought maybe they hyped it up and it was gonna suck,then the previews came on and they were all for local indie movies some of them looked OK and the the other were just horrible. one i remember vividly was some kinda crap called biophage? then i thought to myself wow this movie might be really bad, but i laughed my a** off from beginning to end. there were some slow parts but all in all it was great. i even bought a DVD to show all my friends. i thought it was one of the best local films i have ever seen. the acting was good the picture was beautiful and trust me from some of the previews the picture could have been real bad, and i laughed constantly. i give it 4 stars!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I first heard of WWHTKB from a friend of mine who appeared in the film. No longer an actor, my friend discouraged me from watching the film (he doesn't think he looks good on film), but my curiosity got the better of me and I ordered a copy from the website. Boy, am I glad I did.

WWHTKB is a quirky romp, filled with bizarre characters that are only a step removed from the outlandish slackers that everyone in our generation has encountered/been/hated/hung out with/slept with at some point or another. The strangely Byzantine plot doesn't take itself too seriously, and writer/director John-Paul Nickel takes the opportunity to send up romantic comedies and Indy films alike, while making a movie that is arguably both. The performances are compelling: whiny Gregory Caridi as Eugene holds the thing together with a repellent charm; the dynamic duo of John Yost and Greg Johnstone (as Stanley and Quentin, respectively) always entertain; Kristin Pfeifer as the titular "Bitch" is so outlandishly evil you can't help but laugh; and then there's Jason Steele--his performance as George is something to behold.

Is the film perfect? Of course not. It's a bit derivative in style, stealing from (or paying homage to?) Kevin Smith and Christopher Guest, among others. When you get past the clever wordplay and eccentric characters, the plot is rather mundane. There are some technical problems--the sound, particularly, is spotty in places. But it's still more than worth watching. Writer/director John-Paul Nickel does a hell of a job on his first film, and shows that, given some practice (and maybe a budget), he could one day be a force to behold.

Kudos to the Five Cent Productions gang. Keep 'em coming!


If, like me, you liked _Love and other catatastrophes_, then you'll probably like this too. It's not quite a sequel, but it does follow young Aussies thru the period just after college. It concerns three fairly likeable guys and three not-unattractive girls in this in the awkward but enjoyable phase of life, and views their often quirky attitudes to relationships with a non-judgemental eye. It's full of humour, and it's only major faults are that some of the characters and plotlines are a bit cliched and you can see the ending coming from a long way back.


Fans of Australian film cannot possibly ignore Emma-Kate Croghan's triumphant second feature. I have not personally seen the apparently superior "Love and Other Catastrophes", but must say that it would have to be an absolute masterpiece to beat "Strange Planet".

Effortlessly sophisticated humour from writer/producer Stavros Kazantzidis (also of "Love and Other Catastrophes"), classy direction from Croghan and magnificent performances from all involved make this film one to be remembered for a long time. It undoubtedly rates alongside the best Australian comedies of the last decade, such as "Two Hands" and "Kiss or Kill". Claudia Karvan and Naomi Watts (recently discovered for her magnificent performance in David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive") give spectacular performances, as does the ever-reliable Hugo Weaving.

The disarming charm and style of "Strange Planet" leaves many overseas romantic comedies seem like insignificant gurgles in the background. No-one who enjoys the sophistication and class of Australian cinema can avoid this wonder-work. Four bright, sparkling stars for "Strange Planet".


Rating - 4 stars (out of 5)

Too many reviewers have tried to compare Emma-Kate Croghan's second feature with her first, Love and Other Catastrophes. Well you'd expect that, since they are relatively the same subject matter. I'm not though, because I have not seen it. But I will most definitely see it soon, because I was very impressed with "Strange Planet".

It's not often that directors play it straight off the bat. Most try to pull off something amazing and fail miserably, others go for the 'play it dumb' method to make it accessible for everyone, as Steven (Hugo Weaving) so rightly puts it in the film. Croghan as a director oozes class; she knows what she is doing. In other hands it could have been very messy.

The tagline is perhaps the best summary of the film one could put it. Three girls, three guys, 365 days to get it together. We follow the trials and tribulations of the two separate groups, who encounter the usual mid-twenties "What am I going to do with life?" crisis, fall in and out of love, rave parties etc etc. All told with amusing results. Though the material is far from original, I never felt as if I needed to scream out "I've seen it ALL before!!!". Croghan adds in her own dose of tricks along the way to make sure it definitely sets it apart from other films, for example watch out for the ongoing discussion of a lady's handbag!

Claudia Karvan wonderfully plays Judy who begins the film with so much assurance but begins to lose herself as her world starts falling apart. Naomi Watts (Alice) is great too and easy to watch. In fact all the actors gave first class performances. There is so much to like about the film, that the ending comes as a bit of a let down. It's the ending you want for the characters, but not exactly the right ending for you. A little too sentimental and over-done and way too predictable.

Australian films have come a long way since Gallipoli, Strictly Ballroom and even the recent Shine. No longer are we compelled to just one or two great films a year. We are producing them like never before. Strange Planet sits with the best of them this year - Two Hands and Siam Sunset. With Croghan, Karvan and Watts we have many good things to look forward to.


Strange Planet is set in Sydney and is the story of six twenty-something young folk -- three girls, three boys. If you're thinking "Oh, it's an Aussie version of Friends", you'd be right, and wrong.

What Strange Planet has over the sit-com is characters who you can sort of like, and not want to punch. Unfortunately, as much as you want to like them, they're let down by some appalling writing, especially for the male characters. Tom Long does well with what little he has, while Jeffries and Williamson make do. Of the girls, Claudia Karvan acts Watts and Garner off the screen. Why Karvan isn't a huge star is one of life's great mysteries.

While Strange Planet is hard to dislike, it leaves you with a sickly feeling, not unlike after eating an entire packet of jelly babies. And the ending -- holy mother of... Has there ever been a more tooth-rotting conclusion to a film that has tried so hard to make you like it? No. This is one of those 'close but not really' efforts -- all it needed was a better, punchier, cleverer script with just a touch of insight into the psyche of men. is it worth seeing? Maybe, but for what it's worth, it's still better than Friends.


Like a few other Australian entries from 1999, 'Strange Planet' is gorgeously filmed but appallingly scripted and acted. The story sees two sets of three friends (three girls and three guys) who stumble to and from bad relationships. In a nutshell, that's basically the plot. Spanning a year, the film certainly covers a lot of time. And neatly too. Each new month is visually introduced by some stunning time-lapse sequences of Syndey. However, once plot and character development come into swing, then the movie just falls flat on its face. Dialogue feels too sparse and wanna-be offbeat, not to mention being so predictable and underdeveloped that it feels more like a synopsis than dialogue. The 'witty' nihilist-turned-romantic banter about relationships is anything but. The plot likewise feels all too familiar, and the ending comes paradoxically unsurprising and undeveloped, so undeveloped that the last shot (an overhead of the six eating breakfast) feels like an insulting attempt at gratifying the audience. Yet another sad triumph of of style over substance. Try 'The Big Night Out' for similar results.

2/5


After her promising debut, Love and other Catastrophes, made on a shoestring budget and employing mostly ex-Aussie soap stars, Emma Kate Groghan misfired with this Friends-style "comedy" - if you can call it that. While her debut embodied verve and a vitality borne of its low-budget, Strange Planet has the opposite effect, mainly because of its bigger budget. With more money, the sets and photography are better but the acting and story are substandard Home and Away fare with a touch of melancholic romanticism thrown in to evoke quasi-seriousness. The acting is okay at times but most of the actors can't really summon enough gusto to deal with the cliché-ridden script. The film is only really notable for the inclusion of Naomi Watts who coincidentally made the pilot for Mulholland Drive the same year. Visually, the film resembles an ecstasy-induced advert with bright tones and little else. One to avoid.


I thought it was a pretty good movie. The acting was good and the story was well told. It's one of those *feel good movies* that you know how it's going to turn out but you want to watch and see how it all ends anyway.


I have a special name this genre--I call these "going to hell in a handbasket" (or just "hell handbasket") films. They are defined by taking "average Joes", often a bit timid at first, and setting them at odds against the world--initially through no, or at least relatively little, fault of their own--in an increasing spiral of dilemmas from which extrication seems impossible. The more they try to dig themselves out of a hole, the further they fall in. "Hell handbasket" films are often comedies, but need not be. Famous examples of the genre include After Hours (1985), Very Bad Things (1998), and My Boss' Daughter (2003). An even greater number of films have elements of the "hell handbasket" genre, combined with other genres, such as Suicide Kings (1997), Killing Zoe (1994) and Neighbors (1981). Because I really like what I consider nihilism in films, the "hell handbasket" genre is one of my favorites.

I bring all of this up, of course, because The Out of Towners is one of the earliest examples, if not the first full fledged "hell handbasket" film. Even if not the first, it is certainly one of the most influential. It may not be one of the best films of the genre any longer, but only because its successors have taken its pioneering lead and upped the ante. Still, the final verdict for me at this point in time is a B, or an 8. That, plus its historical importance, makes it well worth watching.

George (Jack Lemmon) and Gwen Kellerman (Sandy Dennis) are on their way from Twin Oaks, Ohio to New York City--George is up for a big job promotion. His company wants to make him Vice President of the head office in Manhattan. George is naturally a bit neurotic and obsessive/compulsive, and in order to make sure everything goes like clockwork, he has the trip planned out to the last minute.

Of course, things start going wrong, beginning with the flight to New York, which is first put into a holding pattern because of excessive traffic, then later sent to Boston because of the weather. They arrive in Boston hours late, and there is little chance they can get to New York City on time. Despite his planning ahead, it looks unlikely that George will be at his interview with the company President at 9:00 a.m. sharp the next morning.

If The Out of Towners has a flaw, it's that there are slight logical problems when it comes to the Kellermans getting into their increasingly difficult conundrums. A number of times viewers will find themselves asking questions like, "Wait, aren't their buses to New York City from Boston?" Or, "Why would they trust Murray (Graham Jarvis)?" Director Arthur Hiller, writer Neil Simon, and Lemmon and Dennis try to justify these decisions through characterization. George goes from neurotic and self-righteous to even more neurotic and self-righteous, which most of the time is sufficient support for him not always thinking rationally. Dennis goes from cool and collected (or at least she projects as much initially) to irritable, a bit panicky, and generally paranoid and put-off by the city. Still, there are times when the characterization isn't quite in tune with the characters' decisions. It doesn't happen too often, but often enough. Since this aspect is an extremely important element of "hell handbasket" films, it caused me to bring my rating down a point.

On the other hand, it's clear that Hiller and Simon aren't always shooting for a straightforward, literal film. In many ways, The Out of Towners is something of a New York City parable. Most of the elements that make the city a challenge are present--including dilemmas of transportation, the high cost of living, the difficulty of finding readily available and amenable services, strikes, bureaucracy, crime, trusting fellow citizens, the mostly aloof treatment of crazies, protests, social and ethnic conflicts, and so on. By the end of the film, it's no longer just a race to get to a job interview on time; it's a "universal" conflict of man against New York City.

George ends up yelling at the city in the middle of the street, "You won't beat me!"--even though he looks defeated. We could almost call it a love story for New York, although maybe only people who have lived in New York for an extended length of time would understand that. Since the Kellermans were out-of-towners, that might help justify the ending, which is otherwise inexplicable to New Yorkers. At any rate, if you're curious about what it's like to live in New York, watch The Out of Towners back-to-back with something like Woody Allen's Manhattan (1979). Even though both films are around 30 years old, the combination gives a good idea of the joys and joyous frustrations of living in the city.

Like usual, maybe I'm being overly analytical or abstract for many folks. So back to the basics. More often than not, the Out of Towners is funny--maybe not always tears-rolling-down-your-cheek funny, but at least chuckle-funny. When it's not funny, it's usually a joy to watch Lemmon's performance. Dennis can be more challenging for many viewers (quite a few people, including my wife, found her more annoying during the later portion of the film), but for me, her character worked as a good combination of foil and catalyst for Lemmon, even if she was something like a slightly toned-down Fran Drescher in "The Nanny" (1993).

Overall, the film works well enough to strongly recommend it, especially to Lemon fans, fans of comedies of this era, and fans of "hell handbasket" films, even if you didn't know you were one before you read this review.


I've been reading some of the comments for this film, and I can't understand those who don't find it funny. Apparently they've never traveled or have never experienced a modicom of mess while traveling (and I LOVE to travel), or, have simply never had a really bad 48 hours, doing whatever! Lemmon's shear repetition of wanting to get everyone's phone number and address is hysterical, because through his fatigue in trying to cope with one problem after another in The Big Apple, he still finds the strength to take down everyone's name and number, and promises to retaliate at a later point in time. Sandy Dennis is a perfect, calm, albeit understandably very fatigued, foil for Lemmon's frustrated and hyper New Yorker-wannabe. For me, she's always a gem to watch.

The scene in which Lemmon loses a tooth, followed by losing his hearing, followed by the ability to hear only every other word spoken, is quietly hysterical. Also very funny is his scene in the park "talking" to a little boy....that's all I'll say about that one. Overall, if you're in the mood for observing high-speed neurosis, played to comedic perfection by the inimitable Jack Lemmon, watch this film, and enjoy.


I'm a huge fan of Jack Lemmon. I loved him in the Apartment and the Odd Couple. Out-of-Towners is a timeless classic comedy in my opinion. I mean come on! Jack Lemmon in a Neil Simon story? How can you go wrong with that? There are alot of funny lines that Jack Lemmon uses that makes the movie what it is. I couldn't imagine anyone else playing the role of George Kellerman. This movie is a definte classic comedy that will never be forgotten.


I didn't appreciate this film until I saw the updated version. This film starring Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis as Ohio visitors to New York City. The trip is nearly disastrous from the moment that they get off the airplane. Of course, this film is one of Neil Simon's better works. The couple lose their luggage, get robbed, and don't have a clue about the way that the city works. George is here for a job interview and has high hopes of moving to the city with his wife, kids, and dogs. He has a romanticized notion of New York City that he sees in the films and television shows. Being there is different from just the movies, I think the ending speaks for itself. New York City is not for everyone but it's how they came to the realization of how tough it is to be New Yorker and even the ending is something that could have generated a sequel.


I love this movie. I watch this over and over, and every time I watch it, I find a different scene that I missed before. It makes me laugh so hard that I miss some lines. Even now, just thinking of the scenes in Central Park are making me laugh. Every line is funny. This is a very under-rated movie.


The 1970 version of The Out of Towners was one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. I first saw it when I was a teenager back in the 1980's, but I rented it just last week because I needed to be cheered up.

This is the type of movie that when you watch it it will make your day. You cannot think about anything else but the craziest that is happening on screen.

Jack Lemmon was fantastic as George Kellerman. He is truly insane and the movie would have been dull without him. Sandy Dennis was perfectly cast as his wife and was a perfect compliment to Jack Lemmon's confrontational and neurotic character. I see that the director was careful to not put any distractions that would have taken anything away from the film such as making sure that Gwen Kellerman was an average looking (and acting) wife.

The whole movie was hilarious, but I thought the funniest parts of the movie for me were 'The Car Chase' when George and Gwen went along on a high speed chase in the police car that was supposed to take them to the armory. Then, if things couldn't get worse, the crooks take over the cop car with George and Gwen still inside and then decide to dump them in the middle of Central Park. The second hilarious scene was scene with the lost little boy and the chase by the policeman on horseback in Central Park. Later that morning, after being kicked out of the church where they were praying, George Kellerman goes on a tirade in the middle of the street "YOU HEAR THAT NEW YORK, WE DON'T QUIT! NOW HOW DO YOU LIKE THAT!!..." This is the perfect movie to watch on a rainy Sunday morning or if you're feeling down and that the whole world is against you.


Now that I'm retired I do a bit of traveling now and I make itineraries that I like to stick to. What happens to Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis is every traveler's nightmare in between all the laughs.

Starting with the circling around the airport, I remember once circling an hour and a half at Newark Airport because flights were backed up and that's after an hour delay from Rochester. That was 20 years ago and I haven't had anything like that happen to me recently. It can be incredibly nerve wracking and I well sympathize with what was happening.

That would normally be enough. But Mr.&Mrs. Kellerman go exponential Murphy on this trip. Everything that can go wrong does, every single solitary thing from lost luggage to canceled hotel reservations to spending a night on the ground at Central Park and plenty more besides. All this on a nice dreamed of vacation in New York for this middle America Ohio couple who are combining business and pleasure as Lemmon is also in town for a job interview.

Jack Lemmon is a perfect fit for his American everyman character and Sandy Dennis provides an interesting brand of quirkiness as the wife. Although there are some talented players in the cast including a rising Billy Dee Williams in the role of a ticket agent, they're fairly one dimensional as the film for about 90% of the time focuses on Lemmon and Dennis and their travails in the Big Apple.

Do they get out of all their woes. Well I can say is, think about that musical number that Bing Crosby and Olga San Juan did in Blue Skies.


It is incomprehensible how Leonard Maltin can badmouth this riotously funny movie. Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis play off beautifully against each other in this tale of two misbegotten and forlorn visitors to the Big Apple who suffer every indignity that can befall two out-of-towners, and then some. It's a comedy classic in my book. The 1999 Martin/Hawn remake pales by comparison.


A classic and one of the funniest films ever made. Directed by Arthur Hiller in that dead-end style of his, (the best that could be said for him was that he knew how to point a camera and keep his actors in front of it), but it's got a cracker of a script by Neil Simon and two of the greatest comic performances ever put on film by Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis.

They play two small-town Americans who think promotion and a life in New York is Nirvana itself when in fact it is a hell that even Dante could not envisage and no-one can capture the comedy of escalating awfulness better than Simon, at least in America. In Britain, this is the terrain of Alan Ayckbourne.

It's really nothing more than a series of strung together gags but Lemmon and Dennis are great farceurs and Simon knows how to build the jokes one on top of the other. There is nothing original about the film but then who needs originality.


My then 19 year old Son and I watched this movie on television about a year or so ago. I told him that he had to watch it because it was the funniest movie that I ever saw. He laughed so hard during the entire movie that I am and must find the DVD. This movie is a classic. It is a great movie to watch with one's family during the Holidays. A classic indeed. Another reason for me looking for this movie is that I have a girlfriend who at one point in her life was suing everyone that came across her path. That is what really got me on the search. Both Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis were a crack up. I loved her patience, while he was off on a rampage.


Many times I have viewed this film over the years mainly because I am a big fan of Sandy Dennis, (Gwen Kelleman) who plays the role of a wife from Ohio and her husband, George Kelleman, (Jack Lemmon) who wants to go to New York City for a job position that George would like to have and they encounter many problems that they never expected. This couple find themselves having to sleep in Central Park and are robbed of everything they have and there is plenty more situations that they are faced with. In the beginning of this film Sandy Dennis and Jack Lemmon were flying in from Ohio and landing in a real airport on Long Island MacArthur Airport in Ronkonkoma, New York where I actually worked at the Army Aviation Support Facility #1. It was great seeing this entire scene of great movie stars being filmed at this New York Airport. It is a great shame that Sandy Dennis had a very short life which cancer overpowered her, she gave a great performance.


I sat down at my computer, intent on writing a brief review of 'The Out of Towners (1970).' I figured it would take about thirty minutes to complete the review, and so planned my night accordingly. At first everything went to plan, and I remained on schedule; then  with a dull droning sound, like that of a whimpering animal  my computer suddenly took it upon itself to shut down for no apparent reason. With a light curse, I leaned across and rebooted it, and this time we got as far as the Windows welcome screen. Then the lights flickered brightly, and I was suddenly plunged into darkness; the power was out. Reflecting that perhaps it was only a problem with my own fusebox, I stepped out and circled around to the back of the house, where I fumbled somewhat pathetically with a few of the electrical dials. Just as I was heading inside, the power clicked back on, something in the fusebox sparked, and, before long, my entire home was ablaze and nary a firetruck in sight.

'The Out of Towners (1970)' might just be the most frustrating film I've ever seen. Whatever can go wrong will go wrong, and at the worst possible time, in the worst possible way. For a cocky businessman (Jack Lemmon) and his neglected wife (Sandy Dennis), a meticulously-planned trip to New York City is first disrupted by a seemingly-minor delay, which gradually blossoms into a fully-fledged urban disaster. With an important business interview scheduled for 9:00AM the following morning, George Kellerman must endure every difficulty known to Mankind, including the input of mousy wife, Gwen, with whom he is forced to form a shaky alliance. Flight delays, lost baggage, monsoon weather, muggings, kidnappings, city-wide transit strikes, vicious dogs, gas explosions  nothing is neglected, and George shouts himself hoarse throughout the proceedings, declaring his intentions to sue everybody whom he perceives as having contributed to his awful string of bad luck. Even God has seemingly neglected the pair, who are unceremoniously dismissed from a church by an unapologetic news camera crew.

Lemmon and Dennis are very entertaining in the main roles, and the various supporting performances complement the story perfectly. It's interesting to note how the husband-and-wife relationship shifts constantly as they are confronted by each new setback: at first, George is rather dismissive of his wife, using her primarily to "verify" facts to be later used in the courtroom. Though she subsequently commits some rather foolish acts, such as handing over George's $200 watch to a strange caped man, the couple do eventually acquire a mutual respect towards each other. Neil Simon's story might also be interpreted as a critique of modern society, in which citizens in the bustling metropolises are unwilling to offer help to those in need of their assistance. Burdened by his own hefty share of difficulties, George is quickly consumed by the selfishness of the city and comes to care only for his own wellbeing. Gwen, however, retains her sense of moral rectitude and pauses to care for a lost boy in Central Park. Remind me never to go to New York.


This is a very funny movie; one of the funniest movies that Jack Lemmon made during his career (his role in this one was hilarious). Sandy Dennis was great as well, playing the wife of Lemmon's character. When it comes to a comedy, Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis know how to be funny. This film is about a young Ohio couple, George and Gwen Kellerman (played by Lemmon and Dennis) who are on the way to New York City for a business trip that George has the next morning. They expect to have a nice time, but as soon as they leave home, things start to get very hectic and go wrong, basically one thing after another. First, when they are on their flight to New York, the pilot says that everyone on board will have to go to Boston (after much time consumed circling over the big city, due to weather conditions), they lose their luggage when they arrive at the Boston airport (and try to find it in a panic, while hurrying to catch a train), they hustle by cab over to one station to board a train, but Gwen has to go to the women's room, but can't find it due to hurrying to make the train (the one they board has no one on but a cleaning lady, and they miss the one they were looking for, which was next to the empty one), then they hustle to another station to get on board one and try to get something to eat on a car with almost no food, they arrive later on at a transit station in New York and discover that all of the transportation services are on strike, so they walk in the rain to their hotel, and Gwen breaks the heel on her shoe while walking before they arrive, only to discover that their room was given away to someone else after the 10 pm deadline, then they walk with a man who helps them find another room (only to rip them off by robbing them at gunpoint, taking George's wallet), then they try to go to the police station to report the guy who scammed them, then go the armory by the police, only to get their route foiled by some liquor store robbers, they get dumped in the park and mugged by a stranger at 4 am while sleeping under a tree (George's watch was taken while he was sleeping), then they find Cracker Jack on a bench for breakfast (that a dog steals almost immediately, which George breaks a tooth on, causing him to whistle on his spoken S's), they get chased by a cop on horseback for an assumed problem with a child in the park, and more funny situations to come. After a few more mishaps, they finally make it to their same hotel destination with their luggage brought back earlier, thanks to the airport in Boston, but George can't get his suitcase unlocked due to the fact that the scam guy from the night before has his key in his wallet, then George goes to his interview, making it on time, in spite of his disheveled appearance (and he thought he wasn't going to make it due to the strike). But, then they realize that New York is not the place for them to live, so they go on back home. But, while they are on the plane, they find out that the flight that they boarded to go back home is hijacked en route to....Havana, Cuba!!! Uh, oh! See this movie and you will see for yourself just how funny an out-of-town trip can be!!!


Gwen (Sandy Dennis) has an annoying voice and her accent just intensifies it. George (Jack Lemmon) is a whiny jerk who just can't figure things out. The entire plot was laid bare with the first problem the couple runs into and it just went downhill. A little of the dialog was witty, but the movie took far to long to get its last gag to stagger across an airplane. If you can't take dumb humor, please, do yourself a favor and stay away.


Something many people don't know is that the theatrical version of the film ended differently than the current prints.

WARNING SPOILERS:

When they say "This plane is going to Havana" at the end, all current prints end with Sandy Dennis saying "Oh my God!". But in the real version of the film at the theaters, she said "Oh my God...we're being hijacked (or "skyjacked").

Hijacking planes (or "skyjacking" as it was called) was in the news a lot at the time as there seemed to be a rash of them going on. When some people complained that this film "glorified" or "made light" of this serious issue, this final line of the film was cut when the film first was shown on television. So now she just says "oh my God...." Unfortunately, it seems like all prints of the film which remain are now altered like this. Would love to know if the original theatrical version still exists somewhere.

Things were much more uptight in 1970 I suppose....


No offense to Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn, but this movie should not have been remade. It's not fair to Martin-Hawn that Lemmon-Dennis hit their version out of the park. Any remake would suffer.

Jack Lemmon as George Kellerman is a lesson to us on how not to act in any place out of your natural environment.

He is fantastic with his taking down names, numbers, badges, offices, titles, and whatever else he can remember (expecting a cabdriver to mail you change?). And in typical New York fashion, everybody reacts with a "Yeah? So what?" attitude.

Rule #1 when you're an out-of-towner visiting a "big" city: Don't draw any more attention to yourself than you already have. This goes double if you're not in your own country.

You just want to go up to him and say "forget a life in this city, you can't even handle a night in this city!" Rule #2 is more basic than Rule #1 (this goes even for when you're at home). Just behave yourself.


I know, "it's only a movie," but it's a movie that takes totally unfair aim at my city, the greatest city in the world, where anyone with half a brain can see the city isn't at fault for any of the couple's problems.

George and Gwen Kellerman, two hicks from Ohio, are flying in so George can accept a job at an interview the next morning. The plane can't land, so off to Boston they go. It is on the plane where we first start to see George as a total moron - he's not too bright, blames everything and everyone else for his own problems, and whines all the time like a child. His wife pretty much just obeys his commands.

In Boston, they tell him his luggage is missing, and he flips out. He has to get to NYC, so he finally manages to catch a packed train. Simply renting a car to drive to NYC never seems to cross his mind.

In NYC there's a transit strike. A NYC transit strike makes worldwide news. Doesn't he read the paper in Ohio? He gets to his NYC hotel six or seven hours late, and his room is gone, because as his reservation CLEARLY stated, after ten o'clock if they don't hear from you, the room is then open to anyone. Despite that George was too stupid to call the hotel and keep the room for he and his wife, he flips out on them.

At the hotel desk, he gets a call from the airport in Boston, his luggage was found and can be at his hotel in the morning. Great news! However, not for George. He yells at the guy and then HANGS UP!! And with nowhere to go at 2:30am, despite George's stupidity of not calling ahead, the hotel kindly offers him a room FREE OF CHARGE at 7am when others leave. He REFUSES THE ROOM!! THE MORON REFUSES THE ROOM!!! So who's fault is it they get mugged, sleep in central park, mug a dog for crackerjacks, get kidnapped by thieves, etc? Who's fault is it that he gets caught in a limo with attacking protesters, a chipped tooth, no bath, no food, no money, etc? New York City's fault? No! GEORGE'S FAULT! HE'S A MORON!! He even makes a big speech on the corner of W. 65th Street how NYC won't beat him. Hey stupid!! YOU are the reason you are in trouble, NOT New York City! And the ending, his wife makes a big speech about how bad NYC is, and that they should go back to Ohio. Hey, GO!! Don't let the door hit you on the way out! His wife is a total dim bulb, and with a husband as moronic as he is, they wouldn't have a chance.

There are a few laughs in the film, but really, NYC isn't the culprit here. It's a total fool of a husband who is completely clueless (I know I've said it, but he REFUSES THE ROOM!!) and the dim bulb of a wife who obeys his commands. Forget NYC looking bad - if all couples in Ohio are this idiotic, Ohio must have an average IQ of about three.


Anything with the great Jack Lemmon is always worth checking out, but... Sorry, I have to agree with Leonard Maltin on this rather controversial movie. I found "The Out-of-Towners" to be an endless series of mishaps that before long became extremely tiresome to watch. The characters, especially the whiny wife, grated on my nerves and the only amusing part of the entire film was the ending.

I'm not familiar with the Steve Martin-Goldie Hawn remake, but surely the main characters in that one can't be this irritating.


Getting ahead in your career or moving on with your life doesn't necessarily mean moving `up.' That promotion or `golden opportunity' that comes along may not in reality turn out to be all that it would seem, initially, especially if it involves an unprecedented upheaval in your life, like a transfer to another city. It's a situation that becomes grist for Neil Simon's humor mill in the comedy-of-errors `The Out-of-Towners,' directed by Arthur Hiller. Jack Lemmon stars as George Kellerman, a Midwesterner who finally gets that `big chance' when his company offers him a job in New York City. It sounds good, and just like that, George and his wife, Gwen (Sandy Dennis), are on a plane headed for the Big Apple to look into this opportunity of a lifetime.

	When their plane lands in New York, however, it's as if the wheels touching the runway triggers something in the cosmos alerting Murphy (whoever he is), who instantly puts his `Law' into effect. And, as Dinah Washington once said in a song, `Now it begins--' In this case, one cliche after another, all falling into place like dominoes during a tournament in the park. Missing luggage; a problem with their hotel accommodations-- as in, they have no reservation; being taken advantage of by a stranger, a native New Yorker looking for an easy mark; getting mugged; a broken tooth. Think of anything that could possibly go wrong, and it's in here. And you know what? it's funny stuff.

	Under Hiller's steady, if not too imaginative direction, cliche-ridden as it may be, this comedy works, and the reason can be summed up in two words: Jack Lemmon. The whole concept of the story is tried and true, but tired; and this is definitely not one of Simon's best efforts (good as it is). But Lemmon immerses himself in his character, takes the laughing ball and runs with it, and makes even the most weathered and worn situations seem fresh and new. And, most importantly, he's going to make you laugh, which in the end is what this movie is all about in the first place.

	What makes Lemmon so successful is that chameleon-like quality of his that enables him to become whatever character it is that he's creating. His creations may share that frustrated stammer and that tendency toward animated behavior that is so `Lemmon,' but beyond and beneath that, he has the ability to bring a definite sensibility to his characters that makes each of them unique. Here, you believe that George is a lifelong Midwesterner, and it shows in his entire countenance: His manner, attitude, body language and approach to everything he encounters in the Big City. George, however, is not your typical wide-eyed, naive and overwhelmed country-bumpkin-come-to-the-city. Instead, Lemmon creates a very real sense of an average guy facing a new experience in his life-- one that just happens to go completely awry. And by developing a character grounded in reality, he makes the humor work; it gives the audience someone to whom they can relate. It's something that Lemmon does so well, and he makes it look so easy while he's doing it.

	As Gwen, Sandy Dennis is pointedly droll, so low-keyed in the face of their predicaments, in fact, that it would not have been out of character had George checked for her pulse occasionally. Her performance is fairly `theatrical,' more conducive to the stage than film, but in contrast to Lemmon's antics, it somehow becomes quite viable, and actually turns out to be one of the memorable aspects of the film. When you think about George later, you're going to have to think about Gwen, too. Gwen serves as something of a sounding board for George, a mirror in which his frustrations are reflected and enhanced. Ultimately, her non-expressiveness itself becomes an expression of her character, and though Gwen comes across as more caricature than character, within the context of the material, it works. And, as Lemmon's counterpoint, she plays it very well, and pulls it off without a hitch.

	In addition to Lemmon's presence, one of the things that makes this film so funny is the accessibility of the characters; it is so easy to project yourself into their situation, and sharing their misadventures through the magic of film makes it hilarious. And you can empathize with George and Gwen, because down deep you realize that actually having to live through such an ordeal would be anything BUT funny. It IS fun, however, to experience it from the comfort of your own living room.

	The supporting cast includes Sandy Baron (Lenny Moyers), Anne Meara (Woman In Police Station), Robert Nichols (Passenger), Ann Prentiss (Stewardess), Ron Carey (Cab Driver), Philip Bruns (Officer Meyers), Graham Jarvis (Murray), Carlos Montalban (Manuel), Billy Dee Williams (Clifford), Richard Libertini (Railway Porter) and Paul Dooley (Day Porter). After seeing this movie, who would ever be able to forget George, finally at the end of his rope, standing in the middle of the street, refusing to give up and railing at the city itself, challenging it to take it's best shot at him. And that's just one of the many moments that makes `The Out-of-Towners' such a delight, no matter how many times you watch it. At times, the humor is a bit acerbic; but in the final analysis, this is a film that's going to connect with just about any audience. It's the magic of the movies; but more than that, it's the magic of a terrific actor named Jack Lemmon. I rate this one 8/10.


Quite simply, there are few other films with as many spots to laugh at as "The Out-of-Towners." It's really a straightforward plot, with a man (Jack Lemmon) and his wife (Sandy Dennis) going on a business trip to New York and running into one problem after another, leading them from their plane to a train to the city streets. Ordinarily, a film with this plot would consist of nothing special. However, it is Jack Lemmon's superb comic delivery and mastery of coming up with funny things to say that make this a very special film. Line after line, he delivers, and the jokes get funnier as the movie goes on. It's his dialogue that makes the film what it is. Usually I dislike films with plots like this, but this one manages to stay funny without stressing its audience out. Some may prefer Jack Lemmon in films like "Some Like it Hot" and "Mister Roberts," but in my opinion, this is his best role. Never before has he accomplished comedy as great as this. A truly perfect film, from beginning to end. I have not tired of it after seeing it many times.

***1/2 out of ****


I saw this for the first time as a kid in the 70s. It has always been one of my favorite movies in this genre. In re-watching it again last night, I once again marvel at the genius that was Jack Lemmon. Other recaps about the story's premise have already been given here, so I'll forgo that. This movie is hysterical...all the way down to the score. Jack Lemmon's tension and neurotic persona are brilliantly played out. Sandy Dennis was the perfect compliment to his "fast-paced" character. Her ability to stand by her man and be the obliging wife echoes both the time period of this movie, as well as her direct dichotomy to her husband's personality. They are simply perfect together. I know others have commented on her annoying voice, but to me, that made her part hilarious. There are so many funny scenes, and I find myself smiling throughout the entire movie. From the "circling and stacking", the buckling ankles, the Cuban ambassador fiasco, all the way to the end of the movie hijackers, this film is a true gem.


This is Lemmon and Dennis at their Paul Simon best. The roles they both deserve Oscars for. Lemmon's character's pathos arising out of naive optimism is Chaplinesque, at times. And Dennis is at her best as his Edith Bunker type wife.


This movie is a guilty pleasure of mine. Maybe the stressful, what-else-can-possibly-go-wrong? genre of films is my thing (I also love "After Hours"), but I stand by my claim that Neil Simon's writing and Jack Lemmon's and Sandy Dennis' performances all combine to create one of the funniest movies ever made. Of course you wanna strangle Jack Lemmon by the end of the movie, but that's why he is so great in it. I can't imagine any two people who could have better or more hilariously portrayed George and Gwendolyn Kellerman, the naive Ohio couple on their visit to hell...er... New York City. Rent this movie if you are ever feeling like your life is going wrong... it'll cheer you up.


In this excellent Neil Simon comedy, Jack Lemmon is up for a promotion at his company's (he specializes in plastic precision instruments) corporate office in New York City and he takes his wife Sandy Dennis along for a tour of the city. Right from the get-go, it becomes a living hell for the two. It all starts when NYC is fogged in and they have to fly to Boston. Second, they can't find their luggage. Then, they miss their train to New York. It only gets worse. They lose their hotel room, get mugged by a mysterious Graham Jarvis (as Murray), become captive of liquor store looters, get mugged yet again, Jack breaks his tooth on a Cracker Jack, he is accused of molesting a child, Sandy loses her wedding ring briefly, Lemmon has temporary hearing loss from an exploding gas main, and get caught in a anti-Communist riot. When it's all over, Jack gets the promotion but has to turn it down because he feels that the city life is too much for him and his wife. But one last disaster befalls the two one their flight home; their plane is hijacked.

In my opinion, this is Neil Simon's best after The Odd Couple. Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis are perfect as the hapless couple who experience nothing but trouble in their 24 hours in New York. there are some brilliant and funny line that have somewhat become part of us ("I'm suing all of them, I don't care if I'm in court all year."). Overall, it blends into a very funny movie. Also, keep an eye out of Anne Meara (Ben Stiller's mom) in a cameo role as a purse snatching victim.


One of the greatest movie ever made. This movie was written directly for the screen by Neil Simon, and his mastery of creating a hilarious but also surreal story perfectly works in this uproarious comedy. The luggage sequence, being dumped down in the middle of the central park, breaking off the tooth scene, to name a few. Two main characters, namely George and Gwen Kellerman, are played best by always-wonderful Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis. This movie could have been just a stressful and noisy film without their lovable chemistry. I heard Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn are now remaking this movie, I don't know what kind of success the new version will get, but I am sure, by all means, they can't even get close to the quality of this original one(the original was in the early 70s, and its now 90s!!). So, whether seeing the new one or not, see this one first!!


When I first heard about this movie, I wasn't sure what I would think about it, but since I watch lifetime movies like they are a religion, I decided to. All I can say is that it was well worth it..I loved the cast and I loved the story line..I am a fan of Jane Krakowski, and I think that this was one of her better roles..I liked her character, a emotional, yet determined woman to become a mother..I can't imagine a better woman for the part..But of course, what made this movie, was Danielle Panabaker..She played an extraordinary part, and I think she played it wonderfully..She played a confused, scared single mother..It actually seemed like this was coming from a real 16 year old single mom..Most stories seem like they were written by a 35 year old male..This one was so well written, that you would think it came straight from a 16 year old girl's mind..It was definitely a great movie, that I would watch again in a heartbeat


Absolutely amazing.. What else can i say? I'm a 22 Year old male, and i do have a daughter of my own, this movie was great, from the start i was glued to the screen and i was still there at the end, and i didn't even move to grab a drink, or go the loo.

I found this movie very emotional, and near the end i was almost in tears, and had a lump in my throat.. i'm not ashamed to admit that.

What Jacey did was amazing and was a very tough decision for her, and i feel i can relate to how she felt, as i have been in this situation myself. I will certainly buy the DVD for this once its out.

10/10. Well done.


I've seen this movie on lifetime and i think it was great. we actually got to see how hard it is to have and raise a child and what it takes to give it up for adaption. I loved the end where Jasey gave her son to the teacher to raise and then they showed the child saying that the teacher is his mother but that he came out "of my Jasey's stomach". The part where Jasey brought her son to school along with her friends who have or will have kids. It showed that even though those girls have kids they are still just like us. It was very inspirational, especially for those mothers, when the whole room stood up to applaud the girls for their courage.


If your a fan of lifetime, you will probably find this movie "touching", "inspirational", and "realistic". If you are a teenager like myself who once and awhile stumbles across a movie such as this one, you will find it utterly phony and predictable.

The part that really annoyed me about this movie was the fact that when they would talk about girls doing slutty things in high school, or dress code violations, the girls would stand up and show themselves off while the guys whistle. Excuse me???? At least from my personal experience, that has never been the case. Yes the girls want to express themselves through clothes, but every time someone said "You look slutty in that outfit.", the girl who it was being directed to would blush or try to shrug it off.

The whole film was predictable, and I found myself saying "How much longer till she gives the baby to the blonde teacher and her husband?" The only part remotely enjoyable about it was the actress who played Jacey (awful name by the way). For some reason, I could not stop staring at her. Perhaps its because of her deep performance or perhaps the striking resemblance to Lindsay Lohan ala Freaky Friday. Those were the good IL' days...


i love how this movie shows what can happen if you are a teen mother, and if people find out. i think it was heartwarming and some points honestly brought tears to my eyes. Danielle Panabaker gives a great performance in this movie. this movie, to me, is an excellent thing for teens and their parents to watch. even people who aren't teenagers yet may like this movie. this can really show you that having sex as a teen, or even preteen, has it's consequences. all in all, i really like this movie a lot.lifetime is doing a great job by using such hot, young actors/actresses in their movies. i most definitely give this movie two thumbs up and five gold stars.


This movie is completely amazing! I'll start with the storyline. The storyline in itself is awesome, never mind the actors. Jacey is a 16 year old girl who has had a beautiful baby boy, in secret. Her mother thought that it would be best that they kept it a secret and not to tell the father, so they did. Jacey was supposed to put the baby up for adoption but when push came to shove she just couldn't give her Son away, so her mum decides that she will raise the baby and Jacey will just go back to High School and lead a normal life, like it never happened. They move away but nothing changes, Jacey still wants her baby, she wants to be a mother. Throughout the movie it shows you the lives of two of her teachers, coach bob and Mrs cooper her councillor who are married. They have been trying for a baby for a year and cannot conceive, they were going to adopt a baby but the birth mother changed her mind at the last minute. Jacey becomes close to this family, although at the start she doesn't seem to want to know them. At the end of the movie, Jacey realises what is best for her son and lets the Coopers adopt him but she is a strong part of his life.

Danielle Parabaker plays Jacey so well, you can definitely connect with the character. Now, I next to never cry but at the end when Jacey decides to let the Coopers adopt her son,Charley, is so sad but yet happy. It made me cry because I felt like I could relate to her, like I was giving away my son, thats where Danielle really shows her true talent. I totally lost it at the very end when they were making the home video of Charley's first day at Kindergarden, I was in tears the whole scene!! Defiently recommend this movie!


Danielle Panabaker gives an amazing performance as Jacey, an obviously unhappy and depressed high schooler who lives with her younger sister, her over-bearing mother, and a young baby, who's night time cries have a bad effect on her. Her face shows all her emotions. You can see how she is torn between wanting to go to the baby, and angry that her mother isn't. As you see later on in the movie, from her younger sister's home-video's, Jacey, in her hospital bed after giving birth, just can't part with her baby boy. It is the most heart-wrenching scene in the whole movie, and watching her, you can just about feel her raw pain and anguish yourself. It is at this moment that her mother, dead-set against her daughter becoming a teen-age mother and not having a normal life, basically makes a deal with her daughter. A deal that leaves her in the depressed state that she is in. The baby will not be put up for adoption, but will be raised by her mother. As her baby. She is to make all decisions, she will be the one to take care of him, and no one can ever know the truth, ever. Jacey is to go along with her life as if nothing had ever happened. It is painfully obvious right from the start that this deal is just not working out for Jacey. She is suffering emotionally. You see flashbacks and photos of the love she had, and lost, when her mother packed-up Jacey and her sister and moved them when she found out about her daughter's pregnancy to a place where no one would know them. Jane Krakowski's character, the teacher who comes to realize that Jacey's brother is really her baby, seems to bring hope to Jacey. Even though she is dying to have a baby herself, she supports Jacey, directs her to a support group for teen-age mothers, and you see Jacey becoming stronger, even bringing the support group to her school to talk about the consequences of teen-age pregnancy and motherhood, and admitting to her classmates that little Charlie is really her son. When she reconnects with her love, Charlie's father, you really start rooting for her to take back her son, and make her own life and future, however hard it may be. Sadly, watching the video her sister made at the hospital, which makes it look as though she was forced into this arrangement by her mother, has the opposite effect on her. Instead of being angry at how her mother manipulated her, she is reminded of the promise she made....the promise that she would not be his mother. Other people say they saw the ending coming all along, but I was blown away. She ends up giving her baby to the teacher who tried to help her see that she did have a choice, and that she could be a teen-age mother. Great performances from everyone in this movie, but Danielle Panabaker's stands out. Her face alone, so sad and vulnerable, shows the emotions she's feeling all through the movie. She doesn't even need to speak and you just see the range of emotions she's going through. I can't wait to see this amazing young actress in future roles. A wonderful movie. If you cry at sad movies, make sure you have a box of tissues for this one.


When I sat down to watch this it was purely because I had nothing else to do; this subject area's been done to death. Unlike anything else I've seen, this film showed the young mother's perspective and I could actually feel Jacey's pain as she didn't know whether she'd rather have her baby or keep her secret. I also think it showed the incredible sacrifices mothers will make; most other films and programmes about this subject show cold mothers who either kick their daughters out or resent them if they stay, which is not always the case. I would recommend this film to anyone and I hope to see Danielle Panabaker in something else soon as her acting is second-to-none.


This was the most amazing and touching movie I ever saw. I'm a teenager who's mom got pregnant at a young age and she tells me nothing about her troubles as a pregnant teen so I think that this movie was very helpful and inspirational. When this girl got pregnant, she was faced with humiliation and the fact of raising a child but through it all she got to see what was right and I was just touched by this movie. If I ever got pregnant and gave the child up, I couldn't forgive myself but it was good to see that she could be a role model to all teenagers who want or have a baby. The fact that there are people who are trying to have a baby and can't and people who have a baby that don't want it is a fact that everybody should know.


You see so many telemovies on the same subject and most of them follow the same script lines. Mom At 16 started, and I had no intention of watching, leaving it on for background noise. But a few minutes in, and I was glued to the screen. The acting was convincing and the dialogue natural. The storyline didn't follow the usual pattern, and the casting was well chosen. Mercedes Ruehl (Jacey's mum) has had several roles like this, and I thought at first that I'd find that off-putting. But she played it so convincingly and I felt her love for her daughter and her fierce determination to protect her family. I loved seeing Jane Krakowski in something after Ally McBeal, showing her definite talents as a dramatic actress. Overall, this telemovie had me so involved I felt Jacey's emotions with her, and at the end I couldn't even read the credits through my tears. Well acted, well scripted and well made. Surprisingly good for a midday movie and one that I'd happily (in tears!) watch again.


I had some issues with what I felt were this movie's attempts at achieving emotional extremes through completely unrealistic portrayals of high school students, but overall I felt that the movie's many engaging elements outweigh those negatives. There were also some questionable elements which I think are positive but can't really decide. I'll start with the positive.

The film generally employs a hand-held style of cinematography, which I think was a good idea; however, if you are watching it online as I was, this can blend with occasional choppiness to make it look like your whole computer screen is jerking back and forth. You can do hand-held without going the full Blair Witch!

Danielle Panabaker, who plays the lead character Jacey, is exceptional. She really gets into the character, and her performance is compelling throughout. I like the way that Jacey wears glasses at home and contacts when going out -- I don't think I've seen a movie take that much attention to detail. And I don't think I've ever seen actors in her age range sell sex as well as she does in Jacey's brief romantic encounter with Brad. Also, I liked the scene in which she just kind of confusedly visits her teacher. We've all had days like that, where we wind up at the house of a trusted acquaintance, don't really know what we're doing there, and maybe wind up falling asleep on their couch. Clearly a lot of thought went into this screenplay.

The film employs kind of a gradual-reveal style of exposition, in which we don't definitively learn that Charley is Jacey's baby until about a quarter of the way in. It was perhaps hinted at, but it came across as a genuine surprise--somewhat rare today in movies--that we start 5 months into the baby's life.

The slow reveal also applies to the introduction of Brad to the film, which occurs maybe halfway through. What I found interesting was that the film had, up until this point, portrayed Jacey as intelligent and mature for her age. She hadn't really done anything to bother the viewer. But from Brad, we learn that she 1) hadn't spoken to him in several months, 2) nor had she told him about her pregnancy. It serves as a reminder that Jacey, though precocious, is only 16 and capable of erring.

The idea of Jayce's atypical loss of infallibility is emphasized too in the story, by Macey. Moving now into semi-negative territory, I found Macey's going-wild subplot to be more than a little strange, but I guess that the purpose was to show the influence that Jayce's irresponsible behavior had on her younger sister. Anyone with younger siblings may appreciate that subplot, even if its depiction was a little over-the- top.

It was refreshing to see Jane Krakowski in a role outside of 30 Rock. I generally liked her performance, except for her outburst in the first scene at her home, which seemed so overly dramatic that I could easily imagine it being a 30 Rock soap parody with Jenna Maroney cast as a character.

But then there was the high school. Now, things got off to a good start, and I do have to give the movie credit for showing rather than telling: as Jayce first walks the halls of her new school, the camera pans to show the very revealing clothing worn by many girls. After this, however, they dispensed with realism and went a very generically unrealistic route. You can't walk into the restrooms at this school without seeing people either smoking or having sex, making no effort to conceal either act. A dress code is often mentioned but never adhered to. In real life, a dress code violation means that you get into trouble; repeated violations lead to serious disciplinary action. Finger-length shorts, for example, isn't just a recommended guideline: it's a rule, the breaking of which can result in being kicked out of school. For this reason, students generally avoid breaking dress code; when occasional violations occur, they try to be inconspicuous about it, so as to avoid getting in trouble. Paradoxically, it seemed as if the screenwriters could accurately write individual high schoolers (Jacey) but not groups of high schoolers. (A standing ovation? Really??)

Most egregiously unrealistic, there was the the student body's reaction to news that Jayce is a teenage mother. At first, I thought that I was watching either a dream sequence or a Jayce's exaggerated internal paranoia, where everyone was conspicuously and audibly talking about her and, later, THROWING FOOD AT HER. Where did that come from? At what high school do kids start throwing food at someone just because she is a teenage mother? Answer: none. Even less believable considering that Jayce is beautiful and intelligent. I would think that her main problem would be receiving too much positive attention, being courted by lots of guys and worked into women's cliques and power struggles, a la Twilight or Mean Girls. Juno was a bit similar in this regard, as we had to believe that someone as smart, funny, and hot as Ellen Page's character would have only one close friend. Anyway, this was one extreme that I felt was contrived. but like I said, overall a great movie. 8/10 on a general scale, but 9.5/10 as far as made-for-TV movies go.


Finally, a realistic TV movie that does not irresponsibly trivialize the serious issue of teen parenting. Jacey is 16 and the mother of a 5-month-old little boy, Charlie. Her bitterly divorced mother is raising Charley as if he was her own, in an attempt to give Jacey her "life back". But Jacey can't stand living a lie. The living situation causes constant tension in the household, and Jacey's younger sister Macey is suffering from being in the middle of all of it. In the meantime, they are all adjusting to living in a new community, and the girls are adjusting to attending a new high school, one where teenagers have sexual relations on school grounds during classes. The promiscuity and casual sex is so overexposed in the school, Jacey finds it hard to concentrate. But the main idea, to this story, in my opinion, is that mothers will do anything for their kids. The relationship between Jacey and her mother is rocky, but remains the centerpiece.

Acting is first-rate, especially by Mercedes Rheul as the mom, and Danielle Panabaker, as Jacey. Also very emotional and positive.

Never before as a TV movie ever actually brought tears to my eyes. This is an enjoyable movie with a deep message.


The movie is about a sixteen year old whose mother takes care of her baby. This sixteen year old had sex and gave birth but assumes no responsibility for the child. Jacey the sixteen year old lives at home with her mom and sister. Doesn't every teen mother wish they could have their parents raise their child. NOT!! I was angry, its not a good idea to have a movie that praises a sixteen year old to have a baby and just let MOM take care of it.. It is all MOMS idea also to move the family and not tell the father of the child that he made a baby. How nice!! And yes predictable..This movie is so predictable about the couple that can't have a baby, which oddly enough is Jaceys sex education teacher..I am like okay how long till we see Jaceys baby in the crib of this teacher. Just give her the baby already. This teacher is being portrayed as very jealous woman. A woman who is jealous of young sixteen year olds that can get pregnant. YEAH thats something to be jealous over being pregnant and sixteen. This movie is just not realistic!!


Well-meaning but somewhat unrealistic "Lifetime Original Production" that has actress Danielle Panabaker as a lovelorn good-grade getting teenager who suddenly finds herself pregnant during her sophomore year of high-school. Like most young women who make the same mistake at this age, Panabaker looks to her mother (played by a loving but intense Mercedes Ruhl) for advice and in response she promptly pulls her out of school, picks up and moves as quickly as possible to another town where no one will know who they are, warns Panabaker to never contact the child's father and tell him about the situation and ultimately decides that instead of having to explain her grandchild's origins and the whole messy problem itself to a new set of people she just pretends the infant is hers...one of those late-in-life babies born to a middle-aged woman shortly before her divorce through what seems like some sort-of miracle and without the hassle of the whole in-vitro process. Of course, that plan backfires in the mother and daughter's faces shortly after their new adjustment due mostly to the racked-up guilt that the young woman has for not being a real mother to her child, and instead having her own mother build up a facade around the actual truth of the situation just to save face of both her mother's and her own, also for not telling the baby's birth father her reasons for running out on him was that she was pregnant and scared and finally because of the interest a childless sex-education/sociology teacher (played by Jane Krackowski), herself trying desperately to become a mother with little luck, takes in her seemingly odd situation eventually forcing Panabaker to reveal the truth behind it leaving her character wondering if putting her baby up for adoption wouldn't be the best answer to her and her family's pressing problems. In and amongst the somewhat complicated story we see Panabaker's much younger sister (played by Clare Stone) falling apart at the seams, a la becoming more and more introverted and wild, even going so far as to attempt a quick runaway one night which she finds to be a big mistake because the streets are a dangerous and frightening place to live on at any age. All of the actors here are pretty good in their respective roles. And I personally was particularly impressed with the discussions about love, sex and young parenthood which are all dealt with in a surprisingly tasteful and very matter-of-fact way making it sound and feel as if it were an important and meaningful touch added to the film's already tedious and heavy subject matter. However, even with those somewhat high marks added to it, "Mom At Sixteen" still fails in it's attempts at coming across as realistically as possible due greatly to the facts that the characters are not as well-written nor nearly as fully-developed as they should have been, and even the story itself takes too many twists right smack in the middle of it which ultimately causes the remainder of the film to fall apart towards the extremely unsatisfactory and sadly contrived ending. Overall, the film virtually leaves us as an audience to feel, when all is said and done, that it is little more than an artificial and slightly shallow misrepresentation of many real-life situations similar to what Panabaker's character goes through here. (**1/2 out of *****)


A great short, one of the two best created by Canadian auteurs to serve as Preludes for the 25th Anniversary of the Toronto Film Festival. (The other MUST-see from the group is Guy Maddin's "Heart of the World".)

It is not a two-character piece (as misstated elsewhere), but a somewhat rambling, splendidly written monologue "filmed" by an intriguing on-screen crew of unlikely film makers. Warm, funny, ironic and profound (not qualities normally associated with Cronenberg), yet a wee bit little creepy (and with this director, could it be anything else?), it will haunt your memories. Inspired by a dream, it captures the irrational clarity and lurking unease of the dream state in a way that may remind you of Altman's "Three Women" or Lynch's "Eraserhead". This feeling of lucid drifting is a feat that many films attempt but few achieve.

All in all, "Camera" is a splendid few minutes of film, not easy to find, but well worth seeking out.


This is an extraordinary fable about aging and about film-making.

This old actor, unhappy with the route of his career is also the symbol of the great problem faced by the elder ones: looking back and not finding something to be proud about.

However youth comes to rescue him, giving him a chance to always be remembered by spectators and to feel useful to a new generation.

Especially well achieve by Cronenberg is the camera motion and positioning, which seems that of a child discovering all the potential of the found camera.

Pure brilliance!


I saw this short on youtube and have watched it twice and probably will watch it again. Camera deals with an aging actor that has passed his prime, both in life and career vise. The old man talks to the screen about life, acting and the effects a camera that ,,the children" brought home will have on them all. He speaks about the camera as it were a curse that would destroy them all as the children make the camera and other film equipment ready to film the old man.

In over six minutes Cronenberg manages smoothly to summon up the most common human flaw: fear, and its effect. As soon as the old man finishes talking about the terrible effect the camera will have on them and the children start filming the old man starts lying and the short film changes from being realistic to being a fraud.

After watching this film I finally ,,discovered" Cronenberg and what it is that he has been trying to say with pretty much all of his films. Cronenberg has dedicated his career into revealing the ugliness behind mechanism by connecting it with monstrous things such as the scientist who becomes a fly, the victims of a car crash who become perverse, the TV producer who becomes illusional, computer game players who can't separate the game from reality, the exterminator who starts sniffing bug spray and also becomes illusional and can't separate truth from imagination, and most of his other work like in Dead Ringers, Scanners and The Dead Zone and probably in his older work that I have yet not reviewed. They are all trying to examine the horrifying side of machinery and the cause it will have on us in the end. Camera is the piece of film that made me realise the genius of David Cronenberg, even though I had loved most of the films I have seen by him I now have a more profound respect for him and I'm going to watch all of his work that I can get my hands into.

Camera - 10 out of 10.


As it is with most brilliant, potent, abstract pieces of work - the "meaning" is in the eyes of the beholder.

So what did I see? Well - I read what other people had to say, and I think what I saw was a lot scarier than most.

This is a movie about time, I think - and how slippery it is. We are forced, as viewers, to dissect what time is, and how it relates to film (cameras). The camera zooms in and out, isolating the narrator - making him look alien and organic at the same time. Every time he said the word death, my heart skipped a beat. After all, just as the Aged Actor who forms the center-piece of the film explains to us, film is time, and time is death.

This is a movie about birth and death. The old Actor (Narrator) personifies the camera - almost making it out to be a tinkering toy and a monstrous beast at the same time. I think this is a movie about isolation as well - you feel isolated watching it - you start to look at yourself and your "time". There is also the isolation of old and yough, and the gap of understanding.

And the end is the ultimate punch - where I think, if you look close enough you can actually catch the darkness between the frames (As they flick by at mindnumbing speeds) where death waits...

So that's my take on it.

I don't want to give too much away - you just have to watch it. It's very short, only like 6 and a half minutes long, but it hits you in the stomach like a truck and stays with you.

In case your having trouble finding this movie, let me tell you that I couldn't find it anywhere for purchase, but I did find a low-res version of it on google video.

Later I found out that it's an extra on the Criterion Collection version of Videodrome - so now I have to buy that.

Later folks! -jay


I found this short to be uninteresting while watching it, but afterwards it did stir up some thought in me about the horror and beauty of film.

I don't really know if this is a spoiler, but just in case you may not want to read.

The Old Man mentioned something about the camera captures the death of a moment and the old man says he is a retired actor. To me at least that meant that this Old Man has been slowly dying in front of the Camera his whole life (reference from his dream). He has a new life until the children bring the Camera into the house, and he notes that children and camera's should not be put together. Obviously again noting since that this Camera "captures the death of a moment" that would make sense because the children should have a life instead of slowly dying like the old man. Write something back to me if you want to discuss.

Also I liked how it was a sort of criticism on cinema itself, but at the same time honoring it. Plus the idea that the Old Man is dying, but is being immortalized by the same camera that is killing him.

I gave it a 4 strictly because of visuals. Other than that, at least it was better than Fast Company.


I just recently watched camera for the first time (there showing it on www.lovefilm.com for free).

What i gathered that this film somewhere along the line parallels with cronenberg's life (just speculation). Les carlson (the old man) seems to talk about the anxieties of not working and that the thoughts/dreams or physicality of the film world keeps him motivated and feeling less anxious. we also see the kids (these are the secondary subject, or maybe the primary)as they plod along setting up the camera but not in a childlike or juvenile way, they rig, set up the mixing boards, set the lights and rig the camera completely. Some thoughts on this subject made me think of the new generation of filmmakers Cronenberg has to encounter (he also could be calling new filmmakers 'Kids', but this illustrates a more profound answer - maybe they are not, and they are taking over). I mainly state this as the solution to the old man talking as the kids are setting everything up around him - he doesn't notice whats going on, he's to busy talking about his own problems and the fact that he is a retired actor.

you really have to watch the film to get what I mean.

It could also just be a fragment of cronenbergs sense of humour.

I hope more people watch this short film and offer their thoughts as to its subtext and maybe even symbolism.


Camera is a loving exercise to the magic of movie-making as the subjects are an aged man who became that way while watching a movie in a theater (based a dream Cronenberg really had), and a bunch of kids who have a 35mm camera and sound equipment and are getting ready for a shot. "They just figured it out," says the old man on how they're able to operate film equipment. It's a moment like that which puts a genuine smile on my face- Cronenberg does love cinema, and not simply for the reasons that could be taken from his most notorious work (i.e. Videodrome, Naked Lunch, Crash). The only times when one feels the old Canadian maverick kicking in is when we see the video camera moving in on the man's face (Leslie Carlson as the actor, who has a great, unique face for long, lingering hand-held close ups). This is contrasted with the straightforward, innocent shots of the kids setting up the equipment. And then that final shot, where it becomes like a moment out of the best theater, if only for a moment. It's a nifty little piece that is a good accessory to see as a Cronenberg fan- the big pyshcological dramatic points are lessened for the sake of an intro to a film festival.


David Cronenberg's Camera is a great short.There's is only 2 people in the film witch's makes it more interesting to watch.The film is pretty rare so I hope that anybody that is a fan of Cronenberg will try to find.this .I was lucky enought to find a copy on the internet.On a scale of 1 to 10 Camera gets a 9, Highly recamended to a Cronenberg fan.


This is a totally excellent man vs. nature drama. An outstandingly dramatic soundtrack is coupled with some of the most powerful and unique visuals I've ever seen. If you thought Tarkovsky was a one-shot in the Soviet Union when it came to beautiful yet haunting images, you'll definitely think again after this movie. The characters and the story are perhaps not too well developed, but this somehow adds to the sense of not being totally in control, which is important here. It's nothing short of a tragedy that this movie is totally unknown; it would probably have been a candidate of reaching IMDb's top 50 if it were. Those looking for unknown classics should hunt this one down at all costs.


Saw this at Tribeca Film Festival in Spring 2007, and was absolutely floored. I walked out of the theater afterword amazed at what I'd seen and thrilled that such an amazing film existed and had been maintained by a tiny number of appreciators in such excellent quality for so long.

The story is not the strong point of the movie. Rather, as with Terence Malick films, the story is just a starting point for the film, which is another beast entirely. What shines and carries the film from scene to scene is the cinematography. I didn't know if this was happened elsewhere at the time, but I didn't expect to see hand-held camera work in a 1959 Russian film, let alone the kind of early spinning, impossibly-filmed shot that appears early in the film. Later, there is a sequence that makes me long to know how they created the opportunity to film in such conditions.

If you've read this far, you must track down this movie. My understanding is that Francis Coppola has a California archive maintain the only copy in the Americas, and that it's usually shown just one a year.


Director Mikhail Kalatozov and his loyal companion, cinematographer Sergei Urusevsky, two years after the dazzling visual tour-de-force of THE CRANES ARE FLYING, venture into the frozen wastelands of Siberia for a harrowing adventure on loss, purpose and redemption. An expedition of diamond hunters is dropped in the Siberian plateau with the mission of discovering a rumoured diamond vein. In the course of the movie diamonds acquire a further symbolic aspect as the purpose in life. As the expedition is befallen by a raging fire and forced to make a hazardous escape through burning logs, saving the map which points to the location of the much sought-after diamonds becomes a struggle to preserve purpose and meaning in a world that defies it. As the surviving members of the expedition stagger through the charred landscape, amidst billows of smoke and torrents of rain, nothing there to answer their pleas and curses but the echo of their voices, the world seems indifferent to their plight.

The star of the movie however is Urusevsky's cinematography. Kalatozov fails to harness his tremendous visual talent as he did in THE CRANES ARE FLYING, certain scenes flailing for attention but lacking the dramatic pull to justify them, but still someone who likes movies for their pictorial quality, for the endless possibilities of capturing images with a photographic lens and moving inside a thridimensional canvas; such a person will be left in awe and admiration of what Urusevsky achieves. His rapid tracking shots through branches of trees, as though the nature conspires to ensnare the protagonists, the amazing clarity of the closeups, the maize of hand-held shots thrusting the viewer right there in the middle of the action, the beautiful dutch angles transforming the geography of the landscape into something that can only exist for and by the camera.

Although the plot has its heart in the right place, much like its predecessor, it suffers from being too overwrought and from lapsing into moments of melodrama. Plot threads that are emphasized early on, like Sergei's unrequisite love and the growing tension with Tanya, are never really resolved and come to a screeching halt when the fire erupts. Traditional Soviet values, like the leader's dream of a Diamond City and the portrayal of civilization as a collective good, don't chime with my sensibilities. The score is often jarring and obtrusive but that's 50's cinema for you.

Overall this is a visually marvellous film aimed at the cinephiles who can appreciate such things.


This relatively unknown 1959 movie from Soviet director Mikhail Kalatozov is a great adventure film. A guide and three geologists go to the virgin forests of Central Siberia in order to find diamonds. The geologists include Sabinin, the older leader, the young, nerdy Andrei and the pretty Tania, who is Andrei's fiancé. Soon, the guide will start having strong feelings toward Tania (the movie seems to imply you should never include a beautiful woman in an otherwise all-male expedition). Diamonds will be eventually found, but before they can return to civilization, the team will be engulfed by a vast forest fire, and they will die one by one. This film may be nothing more than a paean to muscular Soviet man (and woman), but it is very well done. The black and white photography is astonishing; there is a particular scene of the young couple running through the forest at high speed that is extremely beautiful; at times, the scenes are so realistic one wonders how they did this (did they actually put the actors next to a real forest fire?)


With a sharp story, tremendous irony, brilliantly low key performances, and elegant direction and cinematography, THE LOST LANGUAGE OF CRANES received tremendous acclaim when it debuted in 1992; a decade later it has lost but little of its original punch.

Based on the notable novel by David Leavitt, CRANES offers the story of Philip (Angus Macfayden), an attractive young Englishman who has fallen in love with the wealthy and manipulative American Elliot (Corey Parker)--and on the basis of that love decides to inform his parents that he is gay. But Philip's announcement precipitates a crisis that he cannot imagine: his own father Owen (Brian Cox) is homosexual, a secret he has concealed from wife Rose (Eileen Atkins) since their marriage. At the same time, Philip discovers the foundation of his love with Philip is considerably less stable than he thought, and suddenly all concerned in the story find their lives built on shifting sand.

The performances are what make the film work, and while Mcfayden and Cox have the showier roles (and are excellent in them), it is really actress Eileen Atkins who emerges as the powerhouse performer in the complex role of a woman who has deliberately lived in denial--and who must now respond to a double-whammy that undercuts the very foundation of her existence. Carefully controlled, Atkins delivers a flawless performance with incredible weight and realism.

The flaw in the film is the script, which tends toward a certain clinical, slightly artificial awkwardness from time to time, and although the film offers many interesting visual metaphors, it ties them so loosely to the overall story that it is often difficult to know to what these metaphors refer. Even so, THE LOST LANGUAGE OF CRANES offers a powerhouse punch in its message of the need for honesty lest one be trapped into a way of living that slowly and but inextricably destroys the opportunities of youth--and leaves one with the bitter realization that the effort of keeping the lie alive has left one with little more than the lie itself. Powerful stuff; recommended.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer


I have not read the David Leavitt novel on which this film is based, and though I'm certainly keen to do so, I do not believe it would be a prerequisite for any sensible person to follow the storyline or to empathise with the struggles and joys of these characters.

Nigel Finch has done a magnificent job in allowing us to study every nuance of interaction between the characters - spoken dialogue is certainly a minor aspect of their communications.

This is the only film I know of which deals with angst over what must be a common enough fact of life among gay men and lesbians - that one of their parents is also gay. This angst has nothing to do with genetics, but as shown in the film, everything to do with a culture which stifled honest communication in favour of dutifully mimicking the apparent norm.

Beautifully textured in sight and sound - and with superb acting from all players. This is an ideal conversation starter for any husband or wife with some (perhaps unsurprising) news that they need to share with their partner.

An especially empowering film for any gay man who suspects their dad could have made some radically different life choices if born in the current age.