I saw this film at the Woods Hole Film Festival in Falmouth, Massachusetts on Cape Cod. If I remember correctly, I believe this movie walked away with the award for best picture, but what I remember most was that this film had some of the best original artwork I have seen. I am truly not exaggerating when I say that. The movie is about a female serial killer who is an artist and is acting out the murders that she paints and illustrates in this book she is composing. (very neat idea by the way... and very creative and original way to tell a story) I thought the story line for this movie was very creative, especially for this genre. So the movie is a framework for the book and I don't know if the book is available to buy. It is absolutely amazing and I would love to get a copy. As a rule, I am not fond of this genre (the horror genre). I was definitely the oldest member of the audience, sitting in a theater amongst rowdy young people. This people definitely speaks more to the younger generation. Nevertheless, besides the outstanding artwork, there are some spectacular snow covered locations worth seeing. There is also a group of talented young actors. Vigdis Anholt, who I discovered is from Norway (I though I detected an accent) as well as David Morwick (a former model for Talbot's) and Brandon Johnson (who got his start on a soap opera) are all great. But I have to say that the performance I was most impressed with was Liz Callahan who plays the teacher. It's nice to see a strong female who doesn't die at the end of one of these films (oops...sorry to give away the ending for those who haven't seen it). I don't like to even sit through this type of movie, but if I happen to catch it on t.v. in the future, I'll watch it with the lights on and one eye open to see that amazing artwork again. The only thing I would say is that this film is a little too smart and sophisticated for its genre. If I were the filmmakers, I would not market this film as a horror, but rather a thriller. If you're a hard-core horror buff, this movie will go over your head. I think that a lot of these die hard horror fans want more in the way of blood, very little story and women that are undressed or have little or no character development. But, I shouldn't be going on too much because the film world is something I know very little about considering I'm a third grade teacher... So, if the filmmakers read this- guys don't be offended. You did a superb job. This teacher gives it an A -Mary-Rita from Salem, NH


The plot isn't bad: A 'Little Red Riding Hood' serial killer stalks men (for an idiotic reason, you'll find out by the end) on a New England college campus, stabbing them to death and filling their stomachs with stone. Unfortunately, it was pretty much done (in the reverse) with the French slasher 'Deep in the Woods' a few years prior. Mix that with some 'Don't Look Now' and every other college slasher ever made, and you have your story. Regardless of its originality, I still thought it could be a cool idea. . . but it's the execution that ruins it.

The actors all seemed to be 'come as you are' kinda people. The director obviously didn't expect them to dress acceptably, or shave, or look good. . . or know how to act. But, hey, there's only so much you can do with a shell of a script, so I'll try not to blame the actors too much. I mean. . . the writer had the people rhyming. If I wanted rhyming, Dr. Seuss is the way to go. The gore and violence seems to be mostly composed of gurgling sounds, shy cameramen, and fake blood in bicycle pumps. Isn't that what we horror fans always look for in a good slasher? (Please note sarcasm.) The direction and cinematography attempts to be artsy, but ends up just plain dumb. And there were parts where I actually laughed out loud at the camera-work. For instance, in a library conversation where the cameraman seemed to forget where he was supposed to be pointing the camera, so he just jerked it to one side and, I assume, hoped no one would notice. But, if you don't notice, I suppose you should exchange braille for films.

In the end, ignoring all of the poor technical aspects of the film, it's still watchable and may be enjoyable to fans of the normal 'teen/college' (though many were way, WAY above teen and only pretending to be young) slasher flicks. . . and, while it does have a bit more intelligence to it, it's simply not enough and it only hampers the enjoyability of the film. The one thing the film did have going for it is a good amount of suspense. But, the suspense is quickly ruined for it when you realized there is absolutely NO mystery at all throughout the entire film. I mean, we saw the killer's face numerous times, and yet we were still supposed to be trying to figuring out a mystery? Don't think so. Suspense & Mystery, in a film like this, should usually go hand in hand. But if you can't utilize both, try to at least master one and just kinda hint at the other.

Overall, the film is less-than-mediocre, which (for me) is the worst thing a film can achieve. Make it awful and infamous, or make it good and famous. Mediocrity is not memorable.

Final Verdict: 3/10.


Well, my friends and I saw this film at the Woods Hole Film Festival and found it to be very interesting. A lot of the local stuff that showed there was only so-so but this one really stood out for us - first of all there were tons of people waiting to get in to the screening dressed like the film's major characters (particularly Erin) which surprised us. The film itself was really well-shot and the story and acting were a cut above what we were used to seeing at festivals. I'm sure other postings already hit on this, but the score was amazing and the cinematography really stood out - lots of interesting colors, some desolate wide shots and really inventive camera angles. Keep in mind this is a twisted and sad fairy tale, not a straight-up horror film, but it manages to be fun, campy, really dramatic and pretty eerie all in 90 minutes. It certainly deserved the Best Picture award it got there - we're waiting now to see it in a proper theater!


It's nice to see an indie film use an actual orchestra and choir rather than capitulate to the compromised sounds produced by computers and synthesizers. The film's score is not only brilliant in its composition, but equally impressive in its execution. From the opening credits to the chilling end of this film, the music proves to set an appropriate and fitting backdrop from scene to scene. Cristo, the composer, delivers us a score that juxtaposes beautiful sweeping lyrical melodies and hauntingly disturbing music. The inter-play between beauty and beast in the score reflects well both the killer's internal struggle between the forces of good and evil as well as the struggle that ensues between the disturbed killer and her innocent college-aged victims. The choir, magnificently harmonized and blended, is reminiscent of the 'Omen' in its 'hair-raising effectiveness,' but nevertheless maintains its own uniqueness in composition. The composer could be compared to venerable John Williams or perhaps a modern day Tchaikovsky for his orchestration. I don't know if the movie has been released yet, but I would highly recommend finding a release of the score on CD. I believe this film comes to us from Boston. If anyone has more information about the filmmakers, I would appreciate hearing back from you.


Just thought I'd add to some of the comments here, having seen "Erin Merryweather" in New York. This is an amazing film, beautifully paced and really quite spooky. The cast is top-notch (rare for an independent film with no big "stars"), particularly the two leads, Vigdis Anholt (who plays the title role) and David Morwick (Director, Screenwriter and Producer as well as co-star). First of all, "Erin" is lovingly shot, the camera work is fluid and inventive, and much of the story is told through some of the best (and creepiest) fairy-tale artwork I've seen. The original score - at once sad, foreboding and apocalyptic - complements the tone nicely. Can't say enough about this film, but it certainly didn't fit with some of the DV "slasher" stuff I saw at the rest of the festival. If you see this around, check it out.


Jillian Christopher-Smalley -New York

Recently I went to the New York City Horror Film Festival, which caught my interest as a contributing writer for a cultural magazine. The only screening worth mentioning was an independent film, Little Erin Merryweather. The festival leans towards the usual horror mold (soaking wet bloody scenes, torn limbs and headless corpses without regard for plot and presented in a way that borders on exhibitionism). After ten minutes, these films quickly lose their flavor. The last film screened at the festival, Little Erin Merryweather, renews the hope that creativity is still flourishing in the independent film world. It is a classy horror/thriller with numerous elements that work so well together. The excellent cinematography and choice of locations alone set this movie apart from the others. The impressive scenery here might well set a new standard and trend for future horror films. Whimsy gothic-like artwork is artfully woven into the fabric of the storyline. The music score, with its haunting leit motif, is impressive in both its professional composition and execution. Perhaps what astounded me most about this film was the naturalness of the actors, most notably Vigdis Anholt and David Morwick. Anholt and Morwick click on screen as a dynamic duo. Anholt, as Erin Merryweather, is a bewitching red riding hood who casts a spell over wolfish college boys. Liz Callahan is another well-trained actor who turns in a great performance as the college professor. Clearly these actors are not the run-of-the mill screaming victims. Unlike the usual horror hackers with high body counts and no character development, the characters and storyline in Little Erin Merryweather are well developed and fit uniquely into a script that really works. Also, a female serial killer assuming the role of a fairy tale character is not exactly the typical flat formula used in the horror films I have seen. This a creative film that gives the horror genre some spice. It is in a class of its own. Keep your eye out for this one!


New York, New York Film Fr.Pan.

New England is the physical and psychic backdrop for LITTLE ERIN MERRYWEATHER, a stunning film that manages to be both cerebral and terrifying. For anyone who has watched American horror films over the last thirty years, this is no mean achievement. Most of the bumper crop consists of cheap thrills, bad acting, laughable dialogue, gloriously nihilistic exsanguination scenes that mean nothing and only signify an audience as banal and boring as these slash-and-gash films. Prepared for the horror equivalent of a Brecht play: it will transform the audience and expectations about what the genre can do when it is permitted to move beyond its creaky conventions.

Vigdis Anholt plays Erin, a college student with a dark past, and even darker secret, whose existence is neither quite lived in reality or within the fairy tales she writes. She moves through these thresholds with dreadful consequences and the mental geographies she travels soon moves her beyond the human. Well, this may not be entirely true, and my ambivalence about commenting about her transformation has as much to do with Anholt's acting as much as the well-crafted script. In one of the most nuanced acting performances of the past few years, Anholt demonstrates how long we've been waiting for an innovative character in the horror genre. Her ability to make herself vulnerable and wicked simultaneously is moving (not typically an adjective one attributes to actors in horror films); finally, a feminine embodiment of accidental evil who is active, not passive, empowered and completely sui generis. A performance worthy of a Bergman actress. Her excellence is complemented by the rest of the cast, most notably David Morwick, as Peter, the student who removes the cloak of evil and rids the world of one of the most memorable characters you'll meet (should we applaud or scorn him for this job well done? Moral ambiguity towards murderers is inevitable in this case). Morwick, amid many solid performances, is the most natural; the character inhabits him and his sensitivity reflects a fine-tuning of the young adult roles that so often become overacting, oversexed, overkill all too often. So we have a killer possessed by family demons and a male lead possessed by his character: let's be thankful that there are no exorcism scenes.

I saw this film at the New York City Horror Film Festival and was overwhelmed by my viewing. The rest of the audience would concur, or so their gasps, nervous whispers, and intermittent screams would infer. The French philosopher Pascal once wrote of his fear of open spaces. The Director of Photography Michael Marius Pessah should be complimented for inflecting his widescreen vision with a tension and force that suggests terror thrives in the open air, not just in tight, dark pockets. Agoraphobics take warning! David Lean's LAWRENCE OF ARABIA comes to mind as a reference point; in each, the camera's wide-scope takes on a life all on its own, as if it were itself a character in the action. LITTLE ERIN MERRYWEATHER is a refreshing example of the industriousness of small-budget films graced with acting chops and intelligent writing. Go see it and prepare to be surprised, terrified, and delighted.


I have to say I was surprised by how great the movie was. The artwork just blew me away, and I was trying to figure out if I could get in touch with the artist to do some illustrations for a book I'm writing. But I digress. The movie really impressed me. They went back to the roots on this one and did their magic with mood and acting as opposed to blasting the audience with monied tricks. It built tension the good old fashioned way, through people and their interactions (by far the most interesting in world).

The movie pays attention to story, something that seems lost on Hollywood big budget productions this way. It's the reason film festivals are the place to go for people who love movies. I saw that Little Erin Merryweather won the Woods Hole Film festival, which is an up and coming festival. I can see why. I highly recommend it.


One of the great things about the internet having become a semi-official film distribution channel is it giving people the chance to view films they never otherwise would have had a chance to see, particularly first time film-makers and those trying to make a name for themselves.

Little Erin Merryweather would fall into that category for me. I have no idea how writer, director and actor in this piece David Morwick, feels about his film being available in the high quality divx format on the internet, but maybe he should be glad, as it will create an audience for his work it's unlikely he would have had any other way.

With the constraints of first time film making, especially lack of experience, it is always good to focus on the positives in reviewing these films. You will of course expect mistakes and it is a measure of the films success in how far the positives outweigh the negatives.

Little Erin Merryweather succeeds abundantly in scoring positives.

Already mentioned in its reviews here are its art work and photography, they're beautiful. Beautiful photography is always an asset to good story telling and in this case, along with the art work, ties in especially well with the theme of the fairy story within a story.

That theme itself is another plus for LEM. The genre is turned on its head by it's rewriting of Little Red Riding Hood and I like the idea that that was played with. Also clever was the fact that the film doesn't allow it's self to be neatly categorised into any one genre, and that too is a strength that lends originality.

All in all (and given that it had just turned midnight on Halloween!) I enjoyed watching LEM. However there always has to be negatives in criticising too! What puzzles me with LEM, given how much Mr Morwick got superbly right for a first film, is that it's actually quite silly things that let him down.

The policeman and his intervention was very, very unrealistic. I realise there were budget constraints, but if a serial killer has killed three people in three days, there will be more than one police officer involved, who will not just be sharing information with a college lecturer.

A small point maybe, but it made the last twenty minutes of the film seem more contrived and the eventual denouement a bit silly. I think he could have waited until further into the film before Erin's identity were revealed and that would have helped maintain tension for longer. If I had to sum up LEM's flaws, it would be that if explored just a bit more deeply, it's story would have had a great deal for nuance and subtlety to give up and that it would have elevated the film from excellent to something really special. Where Mr Morwick scores B+ here, you feel he definitely has the potential for A's.

Still, given its freshness and originality, I'm glad I spent the time with Little Erin Merryweather; it has a lot to recommend it.


I know one of the actresses in this film but I don't think I'm biased because I've told her when she doesn't pick the greatest projects lol.I saw this at the DGA theater in NY and I'll be completely candid about what works and what doesn't work in this movie. What didn't work for me was some of the editing/pacing. There were one or two scenes that dragged bit - the first guy that was killed in the forest plus why didn't he say anything? The other scene I wasn't crazy about was the guy wandering around aimlessly with clippers - what was the point of that? Wasn't all that crazy about the performances of Peter's friends. Here is what does work and quite well. The photography in the movie is exquisite. The color red really jumps out at you. The sound track is to die for, especially since it is an original score. I've read other reviews on here where people say this is some of the best art work they've seen. They are absolutely right. There are some very powerful performances here. Three come to mind. The woman who plays the teacher, Liz Callahan is an absolute pro. The guy who plays Peter, David Morwick is also great. He's got the natural stuff. Erin Merryweather played by Vigdise Anholt is one scary villain. She nails it. Knowing that this was low budget and not done by a studio, it blew me away watching it in the theater. This belongs on the big screen. Also, I've heard the ride to finish this film was a tough one particularly for the filmmakers so they have my respect for seeing it through. The good definitely outweighs the bad and that is why I give a ten.


I love this trailer, brings me back to the horror movies of the 70's and early 80's. Films like Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, Children of the Corn, Halloween, films that had a lot of memorable villains were so much fun to watch. I don't like a lot of the new horror movies today like Hostile, The Descent and a lot of the films that Lionsgate puts out. There is so much over the top, icky, gross violence. Watching this preview, I felt like a little kid in the theater again. Even the actors kind of have a nostalgic look to them. Actor David Morwick reminds me of Tommy of Eight is Enough who I had a huge crush on. She, (Vigdis Anholt) reminds me of Glenn Close from Fatal Attraction - fun stuff!


Remarkably funny western/revolutionary action pic stars Mitchum as a con artist who poses as a priest and Langella as the South American' dictator he and his friends have been blackmailed into assassinating. Hayworth appears briefly as Langella's tormented mother.

The action is fast and well staged, and the film's humor is so effective that it has often been seen (mistakenly, I believe) as a spoof of its genre, rather than as the fine example it is of the genre at its best. This whole line of reasoning bothers me, because it implies that an adventure movie can't be funny, that it has to take itself deadly serious. Much like "Duck, You Sucker!" this film's irreverent humor is one of its main ingredients, but it does not detract from its standing as a decent action flick. It's in fact closer to the way action pictures are made today -- I would question whether the critics and fans who see this as a "parody" also think that Schwartzenegger's "Commando" and "The Running Man" are also parodies?

As Mitchum's character becomes more involved with Langella's peasant village, giving them the sacrament because they haven't seen a priest in years, he begins to BECOME the priest of his con-game, but his actions keep his friends and Langella guessing as to the extent of his "conversion." This brings up the theme of the appearance becoming the reality, an unusual theme for a western action flick.

Good performances and an unusually good film results.


Not everyone agrees that this a parody. I have read that the film turned out confusing because of problems on the set. Including, Rita Hayworth's Alzheimer's and an actor who had a part for the first six weeks of filming. He was severly injured and couldn't complete his part properly. Therefore the confusion. Everyone wanted to just forget the whole thing but they released it anyway. All wasn't lost however, I personally found it very unique and intriguing. And as a Mitchum fan a rare, wonderful find on the classic movie channel.


To some extent Ralph Nelson's "The Wrath of God" spoofs westerns, but like Nelson's "Lilies of the Field," under the comedy is, I think, a deeply felt belief in divine grace. Both movies focus on unlikely human materials having a vocation they fail to recognize and consciously resist. Herein, Robert Mitchum plays a con man masquerading as a priest and a Catholic martyr in the tradition of Thomas à Becket or Thomas More mistaken by many as a hedonist.

In her last screen performance Rita Hayworth has preternaturally red hair (fire-engine red, not a color of any natural human hair), few lines, and is required to look devout (which she manages to do). As her flamboyantly traumatized and traumatizing son, Frank Langella gets to chew up the scenery, which he does with great relish (before "Dracula," after his memorable film debut in "Diary of a Mad Housewife" and Mel Brooks's adaptation of "The Twelve Chairs"). Ken Hutchinson does fine as the token normal guy who is embroiled in others' plots, including the romantic subplot that involves him with a mute Indian maiden (Paula Pritchett). In a Sidney Greenstreet-kind of role as a corpulent and corrupt gun-runner Victor Buono is suitably droll. Still, it is Mitchum's movie, and he is as compelling when he takes his priestly role seriously as when he plays the usual disengaged but competent existentialist who expects nothin' from nobody. <bt>
 A motley gang of foreign mercenaries getting involved in the confusions of the long-running Mexican revolution and taking a side against their financial interest recurred in a number of late-1960s and early-70s movies, including "The Wild Bunch", "The Professionals", and "A Fistful of Dynamite." The latter two use considerable humor within the genre of expatriates taking sides (which in Mexican settings of different eras includes "Vera Cruz", "Old Gringo", and "Bring Me the Head, of Alfredo García").


Very enjoyable. This is a very good Western. This movie is a must see for fans of the genre or of Robert Mitchum. I was never able to find this movie on video let alone DVD. My favorite aspect of the movie is the little boy who trails Robert Mitchum throughout the movie. I believe that the movie would have been even better if this relationship had been emphasized more. This is especially true when you consider the climax of the movie which is left a little wanting because of this lack of relationship. Nevertheless, I was still moved at the end. What a cute kid! Wise and unusual choice for Hollywood to pick a Mexican child actor for the part.


Adaptation of James Graham's western book plays like a leftover second-feature from the 1940's. Robert Mitchum is very likable playing a machine-gun toting "priest" who, along with two criminals, is cornered into an assassination plot in 1920's Central America. Curious combination of cheeky asides and formula bloodshed takes a good while to jell; director Ralph Nelson appears to be attempting a quirky approach, but he doesn't go far enough with his dark-humored take. However, the pacing does pick up after a draggy first hour, and the supporting players are interesting. Rita Hayworth, cast as a sympathetic Senora, makes her final screen appearance. ** from ****


I attended the East Coast Premiere of "Off the Black" at the Woodstock Film Festival. Having greatly anticipating seeing this film since I'd first heard about it over a year ago, and knowing a bit about the story as well as the cast and crew, my expectations were admittedly a bit higher than usual. Yet I tried to put away any preconceived notions I'd developed over time. I walked in with a clean slate. And not only was I not disappointed, but I was actually somewhat shocked. The experience of seeing "Off the Black" did what very few films have done this year; it left me with a tear in my eye and a smile on my face. I sat through over 30 films in Toronto waiting for that happen, and it did, just once. This was my first film here at Woodstock and it got me good.

Within seconds, literally, we are introduced to young Dave Tibbel (Trevor Morgan). He's standing on the pitcher's mound, sweat beaded on his brow, studying the catcher's signals. His face completely fills the screen, as if the director is saying, "here you go. If you don't like what you see, this will be tough for you. If you do, sit back and watch the story develop." The story is that of a relationship between Dave and someone else, of course. But that someone is no blonde bombshell or voluptuous vixen. The other half of that relationship is Ray Cook (Nick Nolte), the ump standing behind home plate. But this is not "Brokeback Baseball," no, although surely that may enter your mind. It's something else. It's something rarely explored in American cinema, and it's bold and daring. It's a love story -- a good old-fashioned romance between two individuals who just happen to be male, and it's totally platonic. "Is this possible?" you may ask. It sure is, and "Off the Black" will prove it to you.

This film is made with passion and care. The soft, natural lighting of the interiors allows the full mystery of the characters to flourish. Single point lighting allows interplay of light and shadow which echoes the bright and dark sides of Dave and Ray, as well as the family members who surround them. Dave's father Tom (Timothy Hutton), withdrawn and distant. Sister Ashley (Sonia Feigelson), on the cusp of adulthood, gawky and afraid. All have secrets to tell, but don't, or won't, or can't. Cinematographer Tim Orr manages to find beauty in every little thing -- contrails, dripping gutters, siding and eaves and gently sloping roofs. And the countryside -- oh my. The lush scenery of the Catskills is indescribable. As Ponsoldt pointed out in the Q&A after the screening, the setting is supposed to be his Georgia home. But it could be anywhere where sea and sky and small towns predominate. Some of the shots are literally breathtaking. I found myself gasping several times. But what tugged at my heart even more was the sparse, almost homespun soundtrack. Punctuated by the occasional train whistle in the distance, the music never distracted, never shouted, "this is important." The contrast between the beauty of the setting and the ugliness of the fractured individuals who populate it is stark. It is on this canvas that writer/director James Ponsoldt, in his first feature, crafts a work of art that is simply one of the most poignant love stories imaginable. Those who've read my comments before know that I dislike traditional reviews because they invariably give too much away. It's easy to find a synopsis of the film so I won't do that here. But in many love stories, the protagonists meet, get tangled in tension and deception, and finally fall in love. Occasionally that's followed by breakup and tragedy. Those aren't my words -- they are those of Ponsoldt in the Q&A after the film, who said that he actually wrote the film as a romantic love story. It just happened to be played by two male actors and is platonic.

To be honest, the film can be hard to watch at times. Nolte's portrayal of the seldom sober Ray is unsettling and painful, like a bad toothache that you can't wait to be pulled. Morgan's sensitive, vulnerable, sad-eyed Dave is like a puppy cowering beneath Ray's rolled up newspaper. But the bravado falls away on Ray's part, the sarcastic self-confidence and humor emerges from Dave, and the boy who needs a father draws closer to the man who needs a son. Finally, what makes this film so joyful to watch is the interplay between the two. It is all so natural that it seemed unscripted. As it turned out, much of it was. In reply to my question during the Q&A regarding how much was improvised, Ponsoldt not so surprisingly admitted that he gave free reign to Nolte and Morgan quite often, and some of the best lines in the film were theirs and theirs alone. And only the best directors are willing to step back and let that happen. And only the best actors can pull it off. Most will not be surprised at Nolte's performance -- he is, after all, a veteran if there ever was one. But "Off the Black" could be the vehicle which puts Trevor Morgan on filmgoers' radar, if it's not already. I'd seen his work before (He was Ponsoldt's first choice, largely based on his performance in the indie classic "Mean Creek"), but he carries this film so confidently and easily that I left the theater shaking my head in wonderment. And a tear in my eye and a smile on my face. "Off the Black" will do that to you.


Here's my disclaimer: I am related to someone involved in the film, so I'm not completely unbiased. Having said that, I saw the preview at Sundance and I thought it was a great movie. The beginning really conveys a sense of how painfully disconnected and lacking direction Dave Tibble (Trevor Morgan) is. As the film progresses Ray Cook (Nick Nolte), in contrast to Dave's father (Timothy Hutton), shows Dave that whether or not you are completely successful the only way to really live life is to engage with its issues, without self-pity. The cast was all excellent, especially Nick Nolte; he was awesome in in this role. The conclusion of the film is bittersweet yet hopeful.


I enjoyed this movie. Nick Nolte gives his all and Trevor Morgan, as his reluctant protégé, gives a nuanced performance. Above all, I found OFF THE BLACK believable. The premise is a bit unlikely, but the actors are up to the challenge and the director knows where to take the story. It's not an expose of rural life, but it's not an exercise in sentiment, either. There are no set-pieces, one-liners or explosive confrontations, but there are truths. This is not one of these movies which focus so much on the negative as to numb the viewer. (I can name about ten movies in the last five years which do that.) But it does insist that life isn't perfect. The world of movie distribution isn't perfect either, which is why this didn't appear at the multiplex. But the DVD is there. Grab it.


Really strong performances by all involved, especially Nick Nolte and Trevor Morgan. But it is James Ponsoldt's meaty script that is really thrilling. The depth of feeling he gets from his actors is good too. I wish he had more than 23 days to shoot, since some of the photography is marginal, but some shots are just beautiful, especially the close-ups of the actors' faces.

Mild spoiler: This is a film of the human spirit, and human nature, and the nature of families: especially ad hoc families. And it has one of the most subtle uses of a female character in recent memory (the character Debra).


Great story, very well written by James Ponsoldt. Whoever assembled the cast did a great job.

It must have cost plenty as there are some well known names here.

The interaction between everyone seems to flow perfectly. I can relate to some of the scenes in the movie from my earlier days

at High School ( the toilette paper in the trees etc.) Nick Nolte should get recognition internationally from "Off the Black" as should Ponsoldt.

Off the Black will do well at the box office if promoted. It has something of interest for everyone and is a GREAT story. I hope it does not get lost due to its lack of murder, overt sex, blood and gore. What this movie promises AND delivers is something teenagers and adults of all ages can relate to. Go see "Off the Black" and "Apocalypto" on the same weekend and I am certain you will feel better after the Ponsoldt Movie.


James Ponsoldt is an impressive new talent whose gifts are well displayed in this very excellent small film, OFF THE BLACK. Ponsoldt is that rare combination of writer/director who has something unusual and significant to say and has the skills to tell his story with genuine sensitivity and with amazingly polished skill for one so new on the scene.

In a small town anywhere in the US aging alcoholic Ray Cook (Nick Nolte) lives alone, spends his time making videotapes of himself in conversation with his son from whom he has been separated for years. He also is the umpire for the local baseball team, the pitcher for whom is a teenage lad Dave Tibbel (Trevor Morgan), a boy whose mother deserted her family leaving Dave and his younger sister Ashley (Sonia Feigelson) in the care of functionless distant father (Timothy Hutton), a man who would rather avoid any conversation or emotional support with his confused kids. Dave and two friends visit Ray Cook's house one night, empty trash on his lawn, scratch graffiti on his driveway and throw toilet paper streaming from the tree and TV antennae. Ray is sober enough to catch one of them - Dave - and makes a pact with the boy that he will not call the cops if Dave promises to clean up Ray's cluttered yard.

Dave keeps his promise and gradually Ray and Dave warm to each other, each finding in the other the desperate needs to fill their empty lives - a 'son' and a 'father'. Ray convinces Dave to pose as his son at his high school reunion and the results of that experience coupled with numerous other incidents bond the two in one of the more tender love relationships ever captured on film. No, this film is not about physical attraction: it is about the kind of love that is a basic need in each of us and one that sadly is lacking in so very many lives today.

Nick Nolte delivers a superb performance and it is refreshing to see him once again prove that he is a fine character actor. Trevor Morgan (at age 20!) is a revelation, that kind of actor who apparently excels in his craft intuitively. The supporting cast is likewise first class and the musical score by Claire Campbell, Alex Neville, and Brian Petway fits the film like a glove. Tim Orr's cinematography is so attuned to the story that it feels like the camera is another character. OFF THE BLACK is yet another little Indie film that came in under the radar and deserves so much greater an audience than it has had. Highly Recommended. Grady Harp


The third time is the charm for James Ponsoldt, writer, director and actor in a really touching indie film that everyone can relate to. Maybe that is why it died at the box office after a few weeks without really making it big. It's a story that we can all find a piece of ourselves in.

Ray's life is in the crapper. he runs a junkyard by day and comes home to a house where he lives with an ugly dog and they both drown their sorrows in beer. He umps the local games and know that is just asking for trouble.

After the local team loses their chance at the State playoff, he catches one teen who papers his house. This teen's mom has run off and his day is pretty much dead to the world. The two- Ray and Dave - hit it off and Ray becomes a surrogate dad, while Dave becomes a surrogate son.

It's funny, tender, and sad. It will make you think about your own life and count your friends - or make some if you don't have enough.


This 2006 film played in no more than 4 theatres in late 2006.

It should have played in at least 1000 theatres across the country. The R rating it has gotten is incorrect,It really should be a PG 13.

The F word is used a few times as an expression & there is one nasty sexual remark one teen ager makes to his buddy. THIS TO ME IS NO REASON FOR THE R RATING,.

James Ponsoldt both wrote the screenplay & directed with much care.

Nick Nolte one of our better actors gives the performance of his career as sick heavy drinking man, who has many problems.

Trevor Morgan was not yet 20 when he did this film,he too is a troubled teen who is befriended by Nick Nolte after he does a bit of vandalism to Nolte's house. Young Mr Morgan will be an actor to watch for many years, This is not his first film BUT the reason is obvious why he got this plum role/ HE WILL BE A STAR.

Timothy Hutton is Trevor's very silent & distant father. & is just excellent.

Rosemarie Dewitt is charming as Trevors younger sister.

In fact the entire cast is excellent,.

HOWEVER PLEASE NOTE the film is slow moving, Please see this & stay with it,you will be rewarded & at the very end find out what the title means

Ratings ***1/2 (out of 4) 93 points (out of 100) IMDb 9 (OUT OF 10)


I loved the trailer for this movie because it looked interesting and funny.I really liked the 2 leads Nick Nolte and Trevor Morgan.They work really well together and I could easily see them working together in other movies.I liked the relationship they built.Ray was estranged from his own son for reasons we don't know and David looked to Ray as a father figure since his own dad couldn't be there for him because of a disability.It isn't uncommon for males to bond this way whether it be platonic or not.Throughout history older men have often had younger male companions.Unfortunately society nowadays has to put their ugly spin on it and make assumptions.Even in the movie David's younger friends ridiculed him about spending time with the older ump even though there was nothing happening except they were developing a friendship and Dave was like a son to Ray, and I think Dave looked up to Ray and respected him and later obviously really cared about him.The only problem with this movie I had was their relationship was over as quick as it began, and it seemed there was way too much more that had to be done and said.I agree with what another person said about why even mention Dave's mother since she wasn't even in the movie period.None of her absence made sense and wasn't explained well or explored at all.Also the 2 kids turned out remarkably well for having a disabled dad and being abandoned by their mother.I didn't find that believable.And then there was this whole back story about Ray's past that got thrown in and also not explored.If these missing characters were in the movie it would be easier to understand the characters better and understand how they ended up being so broken.I mean for Chris'sakes! something made them reach out to each other to have their needs met.It was ironic and comical how they ended up meeting.There were so many comical moments in this movie and played so genuinely funny I laughed hard.The reunion and the bullshitting was a riot and the look on Dave's face was priceless the more he learned about his new buddy.It also had it's serious side and was very realistic and this type of thing does happen.I know people who are living this. But like I said, it's a good movie but had potential to tell more and to go way deeper.


This comment is intended as a guide to help people who have time to see only one movie about a dying grizzled athlete way past his prime to decide if they want to spend 94 minutes with Nick Nolte or 111 minutes with Mickey Rourke. (This is sort of like the late comedian George Carlin's famous routine comparing baseball to football; be warned, I still pick baseball.) On the basis of sports action, OFF THE BLACK is limited to ONE pitched ball--the TITLE pitch--while THE WRESTLER has many scenes of body-slamming, chair-bashing excitement. In terms of sex, Nick Nolte's character (Ray Cook) has prostate cancer and presumably the cuddling and kissing he does with his old high school sweetheart Marianne (a thankfully fully-clothed Sally Kirkland) is about all he's up to, while Mickey Rourke's Randy "The Ram" Robinson gets to spend a lot of screen time with topless Marisa Tomei (playing his exotic dancer lover Cassidy). In regard to substance abuse, Ray pretty much limits himself to a refrigerator full of beer, plus dinner wine and the occasional bottle of whiskey (contributing to the delinquency of a minor through promoting under-aged drinking with his 11th-grader surrogate son Dave Tibbel, played by Trevor Morgan), while The Ram seems to keep his life in shambles through over-medicating himself with every drug known to mankind. "Poignant" and "bittersweet" aptly describe both films, but the producers of OFF THE BLACK very obviously threw in a few crudities to obtain their desired "R" rating for a movie which could have just as easily been PG13, while THE WRESTLER is definitely a very "hard" R. For what it's worth, I rated the latter story one notch higher than BANG THE UMPIRE SLOWLY, at "9."


During nights scented with the perfume of WILD ORCHIDS, a Javanese prince woos the beautiful wife of a visiting American tycoon.

Although really little more than a story about a romantic triangle, the excellent acting & superb presentation make this a very enjoyable film.

Greta Garbo, exquisite & serene, shows once again that she was more than just a perfectly sculpted face. She was also a very disciplined actress who used her tightly controlled body to convey emotional depths and subtle nuances. Even in what for her was a rather minor film, she is a marvel to watch, beyond superlatives, exhausting all adjectives. She is simply Garbo and that is enough.

For sheer exoticism, few Hollywood male stars of the period could compete with Garbo. Nils Asther was one of these. Although Scandinavian, something about the bone structure of his face made him ideal for Asian roles. He had already enjoyed much success as a matinee idol by the time WILD ORCHIDS was filmed. A fine actor, he seems loath to accede all of the viewers' attention to Garbo. (Swedes both, they must have had some interesting private conversations on the set.) Asther makes his characterization of the Prince a compelling blend of charm & cowardice - a creature quite capable of seducing his sultry costar into marital infidelity. The onset of talkies would prove difficult for Asther, his heavy accent making it hard for MGM to cast him effectively and he would eventually return to Sweden. However, when given the right role, as in Frank Capra's THE BITTER TEA OF GENERAL YEN (1933), Asther was able to exhibit the natural talent he was seldom called upon to use.

Lewis Stone is the solid fulcrum over which his two extravagant costars teeter. While they exude passion & sensuality, he revels in the simpler virtues - duty, dignity, and, when he finally catches on to the Prince's depredations, righteous wrath. He manages to infuse all this with a quiet sense of befuddled humor, which only makes his character all the more human.

The film's first rate production values make the heat & hedonism of Java come alive for the viewer. The Javanese dancing is of particular interest. The use of sound effects in this late silent film is of some significance - they perfectly illustrate where some film purists thought the cinema should remain: with music and effects, but definitely no dialogue.


This is not a silent film - this is an early sound film. Although there is no dialogue, the film has a continuous fully orchestrated score and sound effects. It is rather overlong and could have been trimmed by half an hour without any ill effects. Timings vary - Maltin times it at 102 minutes, the MGM/UA VHS box times it at 119 minutes, but my timing of the VHS itself within that studio release comes to 109 minutes.

Garbo is married to an older man, Stone, who neglects her with business duties while on a trip to a tea plantation in Java. A Javanese prince sees his opportunity to seduce the bored Garbo and proceeds apace.

SPOILER ALERT - SKIP THIS PARAGRAPH. When Stone finally catches on, he manipulates the Prince into accompanying him on a moonlit tiger hunt, but first empties the Prince's gun of bullets.

Garbo is most alluring and gives a first rate performance. Memorable close ups include: her reaction to the servant's whipping, a dolly in as the Prince is introduced to her, in her bed on board the boat. There are other well composed moments, most memorably when she is on her balcony at the palace at right of screen in a shaft of light - the shadow of the prince in the doorway is cast upon her and the camera slowly dollies in with the Prince entering the frame from left when he and the camera are upon her.

The sound effects are numerous and well coordinated: traffic, crowd noise, ship's whistle, whipping, triangle dinner call, doors closing, train whistles, hand claps, insects/birds, gongs, gates closing, campfire voices, tigers growls, rifle clicks, rifle shots. There are also two sequences, one a chorus singing a title song, the other an elaborate (overlong and rather boring as well) presentation of native Javanese dancers, complete with a chorus, claps, calls, stomps etc. to illuminate the dances).

It is certainly not Garbo's best silent but holds the attention for the casual viewer and is fascinating as an early sound film for the music and sound effects.


While "Wild Orchids" is not a major classic, the film does illustrate the magic of the Silents at their peak. Within a few minutes, director Sidney Franklin establishes the vulnerable relationship between Lewis Stone, a businessman with an interest in commerce and hunting, and Greta Garbo, his younger and neglected wife. The couple embarks on a sea voyage to Java in search of tea plantations, and competition for Garbo's affection soon appears in the guise of an exotic prince. Stone's apparent and puzzling preoccupation with business over his beautiful wife is hard to fathom. Garbo could be described as Stone's trophy wife, and trophy she is. As garbed by Adrian and photographed by William H. Daniels, Garbo would be a prized trophy for any man or woman anywhere any time.

Once aboard ship, with the same economy of style used to illustrate the marriage of Lillie and John Sterling, Franklin quickly sketches the character of Nils Asther, the Javanese prince. Garbo watches in horror as Asther whips a servant outside his cabin, and his dark eyes and pencil-thin mustache speak volumes. Although too pretty and occasionally fey to be totally convincing as a Lothario, Asther works hard at befriending Stone and seducing his wife. Unfortunately, Stone's indifference towards his wife only helps propel this film down a familiar road.

The Danish Asther as the Javanese Prince De Gace is as Asian as the realm he rules, which was conjured in the frenzied minds of MGM's art directors. The welcome banquet is reminiscent of the feast in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," but without the snakes and eyeballs. At one point, Garbo dons a local costume and, although she fails to charm her husband, she does presage her subsequent appearance, opposite Stone once again, as Mata Hari. Despite Asther's occasional lapses, the performances of the three leads are naturalistic. Stone is always solid and dependable, and Garbo, well, she is always captivating whenever on screen. While not among her greatest, "Wild Orchids" is vintage Garbo, representative of silent films at their best, and worthy entertainment.


MGM had Greta Garbo quite busy making films during 1928 and 1929 as the studio saw the approach of sound film possibly destroying one of their top assets. Nobody knew what the outcome of Garbo's career would be at the time.

Thus Greta Garbo made silents until 1930's "Anna Christie". This silent film is not really silent at all. It has a very sophisticated score for its time, including sound effects, crowd noises, and even singing during musical numbers, with long shots of the singers so you can't see that there is no true synchronization with the singers themselves.

The story is that of 50ish John Sterling (Lewis Stone) and his young wife, Lillie (Greta Garbo). The two are embarking on a cruise to Java so that John can mix business with pleasure. His business is to look over some plantations that he may buy. The pleasure is his desire to hunt and shoot a tiger while in Java. On the boat the couple meet Prince De Gace, played by Nils Asther. John is by no means a neglectful husband, but at age 50 he has largely left his romantic days behind him. This makes Lillie a likely target for the charming prince and his silver tongue. He makes a play for her right off the bat, and continues his chase as the Sterlings remain guests in his home. Lillie is torn, but tries her best to avoid the prince and his advances. One night during their stay, after returning from a day of looking at plantations, John sees the silhouettes of the prince and Lillie on the drawn shade of the house just after the prince has grabbed her for a quick kiss. What will John do about this situation? The acting in this film is quite well done. Asther comes across well as the slimy but attractive prince, and Lewis Stone was a wonderful silent actor. His surprise when he first sees the couple in an embrace, and his look of both great disdain and knowing when he later sees the prince flirting with a servant girl says it all. Yet, like Garbo, some of his best performances would come with talking pictures where he could both artfully play the cad in the MGM precodes as well as Judge Hardy of the Andy Hardy series fame.

Existing prints of this film are quite well preserved, and I highly recommend it for silent film enthusiasts.


The reason this silent film is still viewed today and enjoyed, is simply because the director of this film was Sidney Franklin who was a very famous director during the 20's 30's and 40's. His famous film was, "The Good Earth",1937, a story written by Pearl Buck, and received large audience attendance. Of course, Greta Garbo,(Lillie Sterling), looked very sexy and rather young and having an old looking husband, who was Lewis Stone,(John Sterling), who loved and adored everything about Lillie. Things go smoothly for a while in the jungle, but a two legged gigolo decides to have some fun with young and hot looking Lillie. It is great entertainment if you like the old time Classics and great acting and directors.


I really enjoyed this movie because I just sat back and listened. Dissection is no fun in film. This is a breezy romp rather than ART! I laughed and had a good time. I enjoyed Cary Grants early performance and adored Grace Moore's singing. Ailene McMahon was a regular Eve Arden pre the spunky Eve herself. The odd part is that Grace plays an Australian opera singer with her American accent while Cary Grant plays an American with his English accent. Miss Moore needs to find a way into the country since she doesn't have permission to enter the states. The border guards must have been much tougher in the 1930's! If you can get your hands on this film just sit back, relax and enjoy.


Another light hearted romp from the 30's. Who doesn't like Cary Grant? This is an early glimpse into the comedic side of the Cary Grant we loved in so many films he made afterward. Miss Moore lights up the screen with her singing. Grace Moore was an opera star from the Met that found her way into film. She was nominated for Best Actress for her 1934 film "One Night of Love". Here an Australian opera singer needs to get to America but cannot get over the border and agrees to a plan. This movie has quite a bit of charm. I love the scenes of Mexico. One song in particular is a bit overdone but, all in all this is a nice romantic film. It may not be Shakespeare but it's a lot of fun.


The sole directorial effort from Robert Riskin (the talented screenwriter behind many of Frank Carpa's best films), WHEN YOU'RE IN LOVE is one of many films that attempted to re-create the success of 1934's surprise hit ONE NIGHT OF LOVE. This film boasts the advantage of featuring opera singer Grace Moore, the star of the previous film, in the lead role, yet it never really seems to amount to much and was not well-received by audiences upon it's original release. The film's basic premise (famous Australian opera singer "hires" an American man to pose as her husband in order to enter the country) is a workable enough set-up, but the picture fails to generate much momentum or interest. Riskin does a respectable job for a first time director, but displays a poor sense of pace and allows the picture to become plodding.

Moore is acceptable as the film's Diva (she never really commands the screen, but she has a odd sort of like-ability) and Cary Grant is in fine form as her "rented" mate, but they are playing stock characters who only seem to behave in the manner that is necessitated by the script. Their relationship suffers numerous ups and downs throughout the course of the film, but I never really cared whether they ended up together and that is a serious determent for this type of picture. The film is also marred by far too many piecing musical numbers that seem to exist only to pad out the film's runtime and serve as a defacto showcase for Moore's shrill voice (even "Minnie the Moocher," which is often referred to as the film's highpoint, is virtually unlistenable). The film's true saving grace is Aline MacMahon in a fresh and intelligent performance as Moore's assistant - MacMahon's good-natured portrayal is a minor comic gem surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.


"When You're in Love" is notable for two trivial reasons, neither of which brings any merit to the movie.

The first trivium is that silent-film star Louise Brooks appears in this film as a chorus girl. In 1929 Brooks had poisoned her Hollywood career, refusing to participate in the re-shooting of one of her silent films as a talkie. Eight years later, trying to recover her brief stardom, Brooks was desperate enough to strike a one-sided bargain with low-budget studio Columbia: former Denishawn dancer Brooks would accept a chorus-girl role in "When You're in Love", at a chorus girl's wage and indistinguishable from any of the other chorus girls. Columbia would circulate photos of Brooks in the chorus line, hoping to drum up publicity for this film with the angle of the ex-star beginning all over in the chorus. The back end of this deal was that Columbia promised to give Brooks a starring role afterwards. The chorus-girl angle did nothing to save the box-office of "When You're in Love", and the starring vehicle never came.

(I find Louise Brooks very sexy, but most of her fans seem very creepy. The Louise Brooks cult is determined to delude itself that Louise Brooks herself was identical to the character she played on screen. Most Marilyn Monroe fans are creepy too, for the same reason.)

The second trivium is that "When You're in Love" is the only film ever directed by screenwriter Robert Riskin. Riskin was the principal scripter on most of Frank Capra's best films: most of the distinctive touches that define Capra's movies are actually Riskin's creations. When Riskin resented that Capra got all the credit for their collaborations, Capra suggested that Riskin should try to direct a film himself. This movie was it... and a very bad directorial debut. In his autobiography, Capra was openly gleeful about the flop of Riskin's one directorial effort.

"When You're in Love" stars opera singer Grace Moore, which is part of the problem. Opera singers tend to be failures as movie stars. The success of Jeanette MacDonald was due much more to her sex appeal rather than to her singing voice. Ironically, one of the few opera singers to succeed in movies was Geraldine Farrar: a box-office hit in *silent* films. Grace Moore lacked Jeanette MacDonald's sex appeal and acting skills. Hedging their bets, the producers of "When You're in Love' have larded this film's score with music that's highbrow, lowbrow, middlebrow and everywhere else on the brow spectrum: some genuine opera, some operetta, some Jerome Kern. The most ludicrous moment occurs when Moore dresses up as Cab Calloway and sings 'Minnie the Moocher' with bowdlerised lyrics. It's not pretty, folks.

The plot, you ask? Nobody sees a movie like this for its plot. Well, if you insist. Grace Moore plays a successful opera singer, who - as an implausible publicity stunt - gets married in name only. Her husband is a charming ne'er-do-well, played by Cary Grant. Guess what happens in the last reel. Go ahead, have a guess. It really irritates me to see movies about a woman who falls in love with a completely irresponsible jerk because he's handsome and charming. This happens in real life too, but I don't need to see it in the movies.

"When You're in Love" is froth, utterly without substance. That's no crime, but the bubbles in this champagne have gone very flat indeed. I found this film tedious. Many of the musical numbers were extremely dull, and all of them were badly staged. Some character actors whom I've liked elsewhere (Henry Stephenson, Luis Alberni) give listless performances here. Robert Riskin was a brilliant screenwriter but this is one of his poorest efforts. Based on this one film, he shows absolutely no talent for directing, although perhaps he might have acquired the proper skills if he'd continued. (One of the greatest scriptwriters of all time, George S Kaufman, also directed only one film ... but Kaufman was a brilliant stage director.) I'll rate 'When You're in Love' precisely 2 points out of 10.


Nick Cassavetes (Son of John), Mike Norris (Son of Chuck),Eric Douglas (Son of Kirk) star in this pointless sequel which finds them cast as gung-ho commandos who go to the middle east to keep a nuclear weapon out of terrorists' hands, along the way these commandos are aided by Russian commandos led by John Ryan (Not John P. Ryan) their mission goes well and they bring the terrorists down without breaking a sweat, which is why this movie is such a dud. One of the problems faced in Delta Force 2 was that Chuck Norris and his team seemed invincible and therefore the action was fairly one sided, in Delta Force 3 this is taken to an extreme level and therefore none of it is excited. Also the movie is poorly staged and cheaply made making it an embarrassing effort at best. Worst of all is that where as the first two had the coolness appeal of Lee Marvin,Robert Forster, Martin Balsam,Robert Vaugn, John P.Ryan, Billy Drago,Richard Jaeckel and (maybe) Chuck Norris, Delta Force 3's biggest name is Nick Cassavetes. Wow.

1/5 Matt Bronson


Delta Force 3 is your typical mindless action fest that you usually get stuck watching at 3:00 am on HBO when you can't seem to sleep and there's nothing on regular tv but news, infomercials and endless loops of Sportscenter. With this movie unless it's a real good case of insomnia your problems will soon be over...because for an action movie its pretty boring and the acting isn't anything to write home about either. Not to say it's horrible, it's really not bad...it's just not good either. It's one of those movies you watch and then you just kind of forget it eventually because it wasn't very memorable. I will say this about it though they did use a creative way to get the bomb in a tv studio.That was about the only memorable event in the whole movie.


The thin plot is weakened by poor acting and worse army skills. The soldiers combat in a hostile state shirtless, shooting only from the waist, never aiming, but always seem to hit the forehead. They never crouch or lie down for better aim, they rather stand up in clear sight. The Arab enemies never shoot from behind a shelter, they too are always standing up, usually in the middle of the corridors. The chase scene in the end of the movie is ridiculous. The Arabs send all of their vehicles to the same spot where they are all butchered at once. The interrogation scene in the airplane is preposterous, as the US army interrogates the terrorist with a pull-down screen, without the terrible noise of the engines sounding anytime. What a waste of time...


To me, DF3 had the best plot of the 3 films, however the lack of Chuck Norris brought the intellectual achievement down. This movie missed Chuck's cool catch phrases, and his ability to shoot rockets out the back of his bike. This movie was somewhat of a disappointment, but overall, I still give it my approval. I would recommend it to someone who likes action, and wants to be entertained without all the glory of Hollywood superstars. When compared to other 3rd installments of trilogies, it still is up there with the best. Much better in comparison to the Godfather 3, and Die Hard 3.

8/10

Don't submit to the man, fight the power!


David Lean's film Madeleine tells the true story of Madeleine Smith, a young woman from an upper-class Scottish family, who was tried for murdering her lover in 1857. The case, which was a media sensation in its day, ended with Ms. Smith being released after the jury reached the verdict of "not proved", which, in Scottish law, meant there wasn't enough evidence to convict her but sufficient evidence to entertain doubts about her innocence. The movie maintains the same ambiguity about her guilt or innocence of the crime, indeed ending with a voice over narrator asking the title character as to whether she was guilty or innocent. She just looks at the camera and gives a vague half smile that could mean either of the two.

The strengths of the film are considerable. The lighting and overall cinematography give the film both a wonderful Victorian-era feel and a film-noir aspect as well. Indeed, the film has much in common with film-noir aside from the lighting. The story, like many noir films, has a dubious heroine who leads a fundamentally disadvantaged man, in this case, a lover from the wrong side of the tracks economically and socially, to his destruction. Indeed, given the situation presented in the film, the lover couldn't have realistically expected Madeleine's domineering and strict father to have ever accepted him given his poor social and economic prospects. Adding into the mix was Madeleine's own ambivalent handling of their relationship, promising one moment to tell her father about them, then pleading it was too difficult to do so. As history indeed bore out, it was a recipe for personal disaster.

My main criticism of the film is that virtually nothing is told of how Madeleine managed to meet her lover in the first place. Some accounts I've read indicated that they first met in a Glasgow park. I think Lean should have shown that meeting to show how Madeleine had a mind of her own and how willing she was to defy her conventional and strict Victorian father. That would have added to the ambiguity of Madeleine's character, seemingly compliant to the demands of her family in terms of love and marriage and yet defiant of them as well.

Still, the performances, especially Ann Todd as the title character, are top notch and this is a film well worth seeing. As I've said, this is the closest David Lean came to film-noir that I've seen.


Madeleine is one of a number of costume dramas produced around the late 1940s to focus upon psychological conflicts from a female perspective. Other notable examples are Vincente Minelli's Madame Bovary and William Wyler's The Heiress, both released in 1949. However, whereas those two pictures were based upon great literary works from the 19th century, Madeleine is a dramatisation (I would imagine a fairly liberal one given its melodramatic style) of actual events.

Director David Lean was always one to immerse the audience in the psychological states of his characters, often through use of attention grabbing shots and expressive use of sound. There are some fairly routine examples of this in the first half of the film  eerie shadows of Emile twirling his cane, the blaring bagpipe music of a village dance at Emile and Madeleine's secret meeting, and so on.

Another of Lean's characteristics was that, in order to tell a full story, the narrative would switch between the multiple points-of-view. This can be done fairly easily with a director who treats the audience as a passive, externalised viewer, but with Lean's constant involvement of the audience it could occasionally give his films a disjointed, unbalanced feel. This is somewhat the case with Madeleine, which begins as a psychological drama in which a young woman from a strict household must choose between her heart's desire and loyalty to her family. About halfway through however the story becomes a murder mystery and eventually a courtroom drama, and the narrative fragments as we see the points-of-view of various witnesses to supposed crimes. All the psychological set-up of the first forty-five minutes becomes forgotten.

In spite of the fragmentary nature of the whole, there are some strong scenes and the occasional touch of class here and there. The pivotal scene in which Madeleine's father discovers his daughters affair, while at the same time Madeleine learns of Emile's death shows Lean's dramatic staging at its best. Intelligent use of space and positioning of actors in this scene best shows off the varying reactions. The final scenes in court are a carefully constructed blend of points-of-view and reaction shots, and Lean's background as a renowned editor is in evidence.

A great cast was often a hallmark of a David Lean picture, but Madeleine suffers from a lack of classy actors. Having said that Ann Todd, whom I don't normally rate that highly, is not too bad here, emoting well in close-ups. Apart from that the only standouts are Andre Morell in a powerful performance as the defence counsel towards the end of the film, and an unfortunately brief appearance from Scottish character actor John Laurie as a fanatical mob leader.

Madeleine has its moments, but all in all is a bit of a mediocrity. Lean was at his best when he could go all out on the emotional drama, but this foray into the courtroom is simply not enough of one thing or the other to be a really strong picture.


Ann Todd is "Madeleine" in this 1950 film directed by David Lean. The film also features Norman Wooland, Ivan Desny, Andre Morrell and Elizabeth Sellars. The film looks at the true story of the famous Madeleine Smith murder trial in the mid-1800s. Pressured by her upper class family to marry, Madeleine is in fact secretly intimately involved with a man from a lower class, L'Anglier (Desny) and has agreed to marry him. She doesn't want to tell her family, so she urges him to elope with her. L'Anglier was planning on marrying into the upper class lifestyle and insists instead that she tell her father (Leslie Banks) about their relationship. She can't, and believing that all L'Anglier wanted was her money all along, she breaks off with him and requests the return of her letters to him. She then agrees to marry William Minnoch (Wooland), who has been courting her.

L'Anglier doesn't return her letters, and after she purchases arsenic, he dies of arsenic poison, having become ill at her house once before. Madeleine is arrested for murder.

The film seems to follow the case quite accurately, but it's pretty cut and dried. There are some marvelous scenes - the two dancing in the moonlight is one, as an increasingly wilder dance goes on inside. The structure of the courtroom was interesting, as I had never seen a prisoner walk upstairs into the dock from what is almost a trap door in the floor. The view of all the faces looking down before she starts the climb gives an idea of what it's like to be put on trial.

Ann Todd is a good actress, though an internalized one who comes off as rather cold. She was married to Lean, which may be the reason for her casting. At the time of the murder, Madeleine's father was displeased that she wasn't married, complaining that she had met many men but none of them have worked out. She was twenty when she took up with L'Anglier and 22 when she broke it off. Todd was 41 at the time this film was made. She was not carefully photographed and looked her age - way too old for this role. Andre Morrell is excellent as Madeleine's attorney. The rest of the performances are very good, with Banks a strong, intimidating father and Desny hinting at the slime that's below the surface of L'Anglier. Norman Wooland gives a charming and concerned performance as Madeleine's suitor, Minnoch.

Lean's opinion of what happened is made very clear in the last moments of the film. Someone said the story needed Hitchcock's hand, but he was not successful with "The Paradine Case." There's something about these stories that is very detached and unemotional. Maybe Hitchcock could have cracked it; this early effort by David Lean doesn't quite make it.


Excellent and unjustly overlooked David Lean film starring his then-wife Ann Todd, "Madeleine" is terrific drama, and perhaps one of Lean's best-directed films. Todd is the young Glasgow beauty Madeleine Smith, brought to trial in 1857, accused of murdering her lover by lacing his cocoa with arsenic. In sensational scenes, Madeleine was allowed to walk free, proved neither guilty or innocent through a lack of evidence. Lean takes an interesting approach with his subject matter here. The casting of Ann Todd, a blonde, glacial and enigmatic presence serves to be the director's strong point, as the ambiguity of Madeleine Smith's motivations are increased.

Cinematographer Guy Green worked with Lean on the two Dickens adaptations before this film, and he once again shows absolute mastery of black-and-white images in this film. There are many strikingly composed shots in this film, not least the scenes between Todd and her lover, played by Ivan Desny. Madeleine hands him his cup of cocoa, and the shot is framed so the cup is in the foreground, alerting the viewer's attention and questioning Madeleine's motives as she focuses on the drink. At once we suspect her, knowing she has bought and used arsenic, but then doubt creeps back into our mind. Why would she let the young shop clerk and her maid both witness her buying arsenic, when it would have been much more clever of the woman to procure the poison by less public means?

Another striking scene has Madeleine's tryst with her lover played out in the dark of night as she removes her shoes and dances to a Scottish song playing in the distance. At once Madeleine is free of the ties that bind her in the staid Victorian England, and her joyful, seductive dancing is inter-cut with rollicking, very physical scenes at the dance. Soon Madeleine is on the ground, losing her shawl. We fade to black, and Lean has very implicitly informed us about the nature of their relations.

The acting is generally very good, with the leading players adding authenticity to their roles. Norman Wooland plays the wealthy, upstanding young man who courts Todd while she is still carrying on an affair with Desny. Elizabeth Sellars is also memorable as Todd's maid.

Most historians believe the woman was guilty of the crime, as she certainly was in possession of arsenic in the weeks leading up to her lover's death, but Lean chooses to direct in a detached manner, and by the film's end we are still pondering "Did she or didn't she?". Todd gives a curious half-smile to the camera in the final close-up shot. Is it a smile of a woman who has survived a terrible ordeal, or the smile of a murderer?


Enjoyed this 1950 true story about a young woman named Madeleine Smith, (Ann Todd) who lived in Glasgow, Scotland in 1857 and the story begins with the Smith family looking for a rather large home. Madeleine is very excited about a room in the basement of this house and I wondered just why she preferred such a location and of course the story will reveal the reasons for this decision. William Mennoch, (Norman Wooland) was an older professional man and was interested in Madeleine and wanted to marry her, but she kept putting off any discussions or decisions in this matter of marriage. However, the father and mother approved of William becoming their son-in-law. As the story moves along, you find out that there is another man that Madeleine is very much in love with and he is French and not very well off financially. This man's name is Emile L'Anglier and he was determined to climb into Glasgow's high social class and found that Madeleine and her family would be able to help him accomplish this task. This story holds great mystery in black and white and all the actors gave great supporting roles in this true story about a strange woman.


I had the great joy of watching David Lean's MADELEINE(1950)for the first time ever on TCM early this morning, and can say without any reservations that though it is one of the great director's lesser-known works, but it is by no means lesser in either acting or direction.

Featuring the glacial blonde Ann Todd(then Mrs. David Lean) as the real-life accused murderess Madeleine Smith, the film skillfully portrays the travail a foolish and willful young woman goes through when she follows her heart instead of her head and gets ensnared in a sticky situation. Caught between her tyrannical martinet father, James Smith, played excellently by the great Leslie Banks with his paralysed profile which added an extra flourish to his cold unsympathetic manner and her charming but unscrupulous gold-digging French paramour, Emile L'Anglier played skillfully by Ivan Desny, Ann Todd's Madeleine is veritably "caught between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea!" It would seem that there is but one recourse for Madeleine, that of shutting two-bit Casanova and lothario L'Anglier up so that her fire-breathing dragon of a father does not bite her pretty little head off, in much the same way that I have enjoyed biting into pastry Madeleines! But the ambiguity throughout the film of whether Madeleine actually did the deed and put paid to her paramour is maintained even up to the end when Madeleine gives her leprous Madonna half-smile which could indicate either guilt or innocence, leaving it up for the viewing audience to decide on their own.

The splendid direction of Lean, the superb moody photography of Guy Green contrasting various shades of darkness and light as well as interesting character studies of familiar character actors' and actresses' faces, the excellent film editing of Clive Donner(later to become a great director as well) and Geoffrey Foot, the authentic costume design of Margaret Furse all add to the moving drama. Jewel-like performances by such thespians as Barbara Everest as Madeleine's mother, Jean Cadell as Mrs. Jenkins the careworn landlady, Kynaston Reeves as a lugubrious Dr. Penny, Amy Veness as the sympathetic police matron Miss Aiken, John Laurie as the hypocritical Bible-spouting religious maniac and fanatic Divine rabble-rouser exhorting the crowd to condemn Madeleine, Edward Chapman as the worried Dr. Thompson, Moyra Fraser(more than HALF A CENTURY later, 55 years to be exact, in Dame Judi Dench and Geoffrey Palmer's "As Time Goes By" latest 2005 episode as one of the regulars, bumptious Penny, a role since 1993) as a spirited Highland dancer! Irene Browne as Mrs. Grant, George Benson as the Chemist, Eva Bartok as the Girl, Ivor Barnard as Mr. Murdoch, Anthony Newley! as Chemist's Assistant, Wylie Watson as Huggins, and many, many more, bear in mind that from Jean Cadell onwards, these were all UNCREDITED roles in Lean's film! They join with the credited cast Barbara Everest, Leslie Banks, Ivan Desny, Ann Todd, Norman Wooland as the ever-stolid and respectable William Minnoch, Madeleine's would-be-husband-to-be, Elizabeth Sellars as the harried but loyal pretty housemaid, Patricia Raine and Susan Stranks as Bessie and Janet Smith, Madeleine's younger siblings, Eugene Deckers as Thuau the unsympathetic French consul and friend of L'Anglier, and Barry Jones as the merciless Prosecuting Counsel. Last but not least is Hammer films stalwart and a superb actor, the late Andre Morell(husband of the late Joan Greenwood) as the Defending Counsel, who gives an impassioned and heart-wrenching yet cool and logical defense of Madeleine that has got to be one of the greatest courtroom speeches in Cinematic history! At least I think it is! The next time I bite into a pastry Madeleine I will recall Andre Morell's defense!

All in all, a FIVE STAR ***** film rating for the actors' performances alone!


This film has a very open ending - just as in the true case upon which the film is based you don't know whether or not Madeleine killed her lover, as the jury renders a uniquely Scottish verdict of "not proved" which splits the difference between outright acquittal and conviction. Such a film would have been difficult to make in America at the time, as the U.S. production code of the period so demanded clear villains and heroes and swift and sure punishment of the villains.

There's a great use of lighting and shadow in this film, effectively differentiating the dark back-alley scenes where Madeleine meets her poor lover on the sly from those well-lighted ballroom and daytime scenes where she is courted by her family-approved suitor, William Minnoch. Ann Todd gives a very guarded performance here as Madeleine, and maybe that was necessary to add mystery to what and how she was thinking about her predicament.

I was particularly impressed by Ivan Desny as Madeleine's backstreet lover, Emile L'Anglier. He reminded me a great deal of Orson Welles in his physical features and even some in his acting style. Desny's performance is also subtle, but not so subtle that you can't see that his character is more in love with the idea of becoming a moneyed gentleman again than he ever could be with Madeleine herself.

This is one of David Lean's early films, and there is one scene in particular that reminded me of his last - "A Passage to India". That scene is when Madeleine is being conducted to court in a carriage accompanied by a police officer with the mob getting out of control outside. It's not just the alleged crime that has the mob stirred up, its Madeleine's rank and privilege as well. There is a similar scene in "Passage to India" as Judy Davis is conducted to court to testify. In that film it's her accusations of an Indian of the crime of attempted rape combined with her status as a member of the British aristocracy that has the crowds riled up. I wonder if Lean borrowed on the ideas from this film when making his last.

At any rate it's worth a look, just don't expect things to be wrapped up neatly as they almost always were in courtroom dramas in American films of the time.


"In 1857 a citizen of Great Britain (from the Channel Island of Jersey)" At least I do not think so.

Jersey like the other Channel Islands is an Independent State otherwise, for example it would have the same income tax regime as applies elsewhere in the places Governed by the UK parliament which are currently England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, although in 1857 the whole of Ireland was under UK law.

The film is nonetheless of interest apart from the error in the comment that I record.

One wonders whether a better portrayal of a fascinating story would have been achieved with the lead played by a more natural actor, rather than the wife of the director. However, this rather stiff style is of it's age and so hardly surprising as it was not made in the times of Susan Sarandon or Meryl Streep.


"Midnight Blue" is a rare case of a soft core flick that is interesting not only because of the sex scenes, but for the plot.

Here the cinematography, acting, and even clothing looks very early 90's and that could be labeled as a negative point but when the story starts to develop and some of the sex sequences get steamier, you can truly find yourself enjoying it good time.

It had been said that the Director uses some Hitchcock references and it's true but it's hard to use a solid plot on a film like this. Still, the result is more than satisfying.

There are hot women, good sex, and interesting plot. This is a classic by all means.


At first, this movie seemed like your typical Playboy film. Two sex scenes within the first 20 minutes, woo! But then things actually develop into this weird Hitchcock-esque story with multiple twists. All in all, however, the pure brilliance of the writing is ultimately ruined by the poor acting and subpar direction.

Definitive Brode!


Absolutely magnificent. Brilliantly written and directed--although most of the actual dialogue was cut out to make it a little less verbose. I guess that could be a good thing. All in all, exceptional. Especially the sex scenes. Totally classic Brode.

-R


To start off with, I heard a lot of good things about this movie when it was on the big screens but never got around to see it before it disappeared. Sitting here, long after in the aftermath, I might never forgive myself for missing that opportunity. Eventually I did get around to see it, though a small TV never does a film the same justice a theater does, and being a bit sceptic about the small hype this movie caused made me prejudice about it, but I must say I have never been so wrong before. And I am happy saying it.

This movies biggest crime, and yet its biggest asset, is that it is in French. Subtitles just does not bring full justice to a movie like this, and it is bound to scare off most of the audience not used to subtitled movies. Sad to say so, but I believe it is the truth. I do not know any French at all, but I sure wish I was fluent watching this movie!

Compared to most other films "Amelie" (and I will stick to "Amelie" since "Le Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain" is a bit long to write) is based on a rather ordinary and plain story everyone can relate to, but it is given to us in a very special kind of way, mixed with wonderful little subplots and an almost chaotic amount of details. We get to see and experience the world and especially Paris through the filtering eyes and fantasy of Amelie, A Paris that might feel small and limited on the screen but in fact is just as big as it is in the eyes of Amelie.

Director Jean-Pierre Jeunet brings to life the world of Amelie with colors, masterful camerawork and a few special effects (Well, I have certainly felt like melting a couple of times too in my life!). Some people I spoke to before seeing "Amelie" criticized it for being too childish and unrealistic, but I believe it is an essential part of the movie since Amelie herself is a very childish and imaginative young girl. She just happens to fall in love one day when she decides to embark on a quest. Jean-Pierre Jeunet manages to bring us along without losing control of the set or the plot. It is exactly this kind of movie that could easily be overdone and lose all of its magic in the hands of the wrong person, but Jean-Pierre Jeunet never slips a single time. For you who think you never heard of him before he is actually the same man who brought us "Alien 4" back in 1997, (I still refuse to believe he was involved in that horrible film...), and the wonderful "Delicatessen" in 1991.

Audrey Tautou could not be overemphasized for her importance in portraying Amelie. I am a bit embarrassed admitting it but I was almost falling in love with Amelie myself, forgetting she was only fiction on the screen. However she does not carry "Amelie" solely by herself. The cast makes an excellent whole and it is hard imagining switching anyone without affecting the whole outcome. Everyone manages to make the most out of their role and even though we only get to know some of them briefly they come alive just as much as Amelie herself does.

I could go on forever about "Amelie". It contains so many details and switches in tempo and camerawork it has to be seen more than once to take in and understand everything. Damn it, "Amelie" made me happy, laughing out loud at times, and very few movies affects me like that.

I very rarely give movies a 10, and I was indeed considering a 9 for a while, but for me this is one of those movies I will come back to time after time. Long after the CG thrills of hyped fantasy movies and big budget Hollywood productions have faded and been forgotten, Amelie will still be jumping around in my heart, doing all those silly and charming little things I wish I dared to do too...


A slice of heaven right here on earth, "Amelie" is a joy to behold, and has some of the most gorgeous cinematography I've ever seen in a movie.

Audrey Tatou is perfection as the title character. A combination of Audrey Hepburn, Dolly Levi and Roger Rabbit, she involves herself in the world surrounding her as a means of really enjoying living. There are moments when she finds complete and total joy just walking down the street.

Some of it is hilarious, too..like when her pet goldfish habitually tries to commit suicide, or when she is on the telephone with the man at the porno shop, or when a character is asked "Are you a congenital shmuck"?

But for the most part, its a human comedy, about love, of course.

Just beautiful. 10/10.


This might surprise many, but i stick to what i feel. I liked this movie. The best part of this movie was the perfect background score given behind particular scenes. There was emotion, romance and comedy in it to make it worth watchable.

Agreed there were many similar movies of these types. But one thing i can say, this one is slightly a cut above the rest. There was no stretching of any particular scene. In other words, you wont get bored and say like " Oh Cmon, get moving, isn't there anything else?" In fact there are some instances where you would wish that the scene would go on for a bit more time.

The actors gave a decent performance and the supporting cast also made their presence felt. So all in all i would recommended this movie to teenagers. It is somewhat similar to Trojan War released in 1997.


Not really, but a sleeper holiday flick for your Xmas party back pocket. I hadn't even pegged it as a holiday film until the ultimate scene. Nice! Stefanie von Pfetten is a scream queen gift to the masses -- one I need to catch up on -- and the movie, while not awesome, combines horror and humor elements to good effect. The loss of the hero's friend isn't overly convincing or deserving of much mourning, and the exchange student scene at the sorority house is slightly unnerving, but on the whole, this is a fun flick worth watching once. I don't really understand IMDb's 10-line text limit for reviews. Is it 10 lines of written text -- in form? -- or on screen? I guess I'm about to find out. May the 65% of this review actually commenting on the movie serve you well.


I think I must be feeling generous giving this movie a 3. It's probably not even that good. A good measuring point of a movie is how many time you pause it or walk away WITHOUT pausing it. I did each several times.

The movie did get to the point / horror of the movie quickly, which is good. Unfortunataly, a movie about blond alien women who 'love' dudes to death, better have some serious nudity. Sadly, this was missing.

Missing as well, was a plot, characters you can believe or truly gorgeous women. (Why would Nicole Eggert sign onto this movie? She's good looking, but she's in a freakin' parka the whole time!) Did I mention the FX? No, that's because they're better left unsaid.

The twist at the end...never saw that coming...

Skip this flick.


(MAJOR SPOILERS) Low-budget B-grade Canadian horror flick is the same vain as 'The Faculty', where aliens disguised as humans have become a part of the campus. Except all these aliens inhabit a college and happen to be hot chicks who love cold weather, and mating men- except, err, the men don't survive the process, and they literally turn into frozen corpses. Of course, this all baffles the police, yet one guy is onto these dastardly hot girls.

And that guy is Luke (Corey Servier), who happens to witness two of the ladies in their room spring tentacles out of their chest. Of course, none of his pals believe a word he says, and they all want to get laid. The Detectives think he did it. And his good lady pal, Alex (Meghan Ory), is the only one willing to help him- and, of course, she actually wants to be with him, but he can't see. Don't get me started on the tacked on ending involving them! If the movie wasn't tacky enough, the ending doesn't save it.

The acting from the guys is generally bad. Corey Servier is a likable hero, but he needs to act better, and the guy who's playing the wannabe homeboy couldn't act to save his life! Elias Toufexis does the best as Luke's virgin frat buddy, who gets involved with one of the so-called chicks, but his performance is up and down. The girls do better acting wise, but then again, they act as the standard cliché eye-candy too. There is an interesting turn in the story, which could have made the film decent- involving Toufexis' Roger, and his alien girlfriend, but the filmmakers ruined it with unbelievable character actions and unconvincing acting. Soon after that, we get memorable lines from Luke such "how about the belt of O-FRYIN!' which really displays the B-grade aspect of this movie.

The cinematography and visual effects are pretty decent, and I guess 'Decoys' doesn't take itself too seriously. I wish it did! Even within the context of the plot of the movie. The acting is so unconvincing, that it "feels" like a movie, and the storyline had potential to take an interesting turn, but of course, they had to have that tacky cliché horror-movie ending! Not the worst I've seen, but this was still extremely bad!

*½ out of *****! (1.5/5)


Flirtacious Lily (the stunningly gorgeous Stefanie Von Pfetten) and aggressive Constance (the equally foxy Kim Poirier) aren't your standard run-of-the-mill tasty hot blonde college babes. They are actually dangerously alluring and enticing extraterrestrials who have come to Earth to mate with human males. Unfortunately, these delectable intergalactic honeys cause men to freeze from the inside out while having sex with them. Plus they sprout icky tentacles when aroused and don't have navels. It's up to aimless slacker freshman Luke (winningly played by Corey Sevier) to stop them before they turn every last libidinous party hearty dude on campus into giant frosty popsicles.

Director/co-screenwriter Matthew Hastings has an absolute infectiously inane ball with the enjoyably ridiculous premise, skillfully blending raucous humor and off-center horror into a highly amusing and entertaining synthesis. Moreover, Hastings keeps the pace speeding along at a brisk tempo, elicits spirited acting from a fresh, attractive and appealing young cast, and stages the shock scenes with rousing go-for-it aplomb. Daniel Villeneuve's crisp, fluid cinematography, the catchy, thrashin' rock soundtrack, the nifty special effects, a smidgen of nudity, genuinely likable characters, the shivery'n'spooky score by Daryl Bennet and Jim Guttridge, the stirring conclusion, and a dandy surprise twist ending are all up to par. Elias Toufexis is an amiably goofy hoot as the sweet virginal Roger, Meghan Ory registers strongly as Luke's scrappy'n'spunky best gal pal Alex, former "Baywatch" TV show regular Nicole Eggert pops up as a feisty lady cop, and Richard Burgi jerks it up delightfully as a gruff homicide detective. Good, solid tongue-in-cheek Grade B sci-fi/horror fun.


Where do I begin, to tell the story of how bad a movie can be?

Here is a list of the tripe which makes this movie a sham:

1- College-age sex scenes masked as drama.

2- Aliens coming out of any orifice of one's body. (Writers, please stop writing movies with this as a plot element. It is so overused that only a writer with no imagination would be tempted to use this now stock piece of "alien occupation" as anything even remotely approaching originality.)

3- Bevy of blondes and bimbos used as an element to demonstrate the cultural diversity of the average population. (Here it comes off more as an element to bring in the little boys and their salivating glands..if not a cringe or two from this viewer.)

4- An ending which is so predictable to be almost blasphemously criminal. (Who of you who have seen this movie did NOT see this coming?)

5- Hard-rock soundtrack in place of a real one.

6- Direction and editing which strikes a new low in vapidity.

Only one scene even approaches the word "good":

***********PERHAPS A SPOILER***********

I am talking of the scene where Elias Toufexis has a sensitive encounter with an alien near the end of the movie. In this scene and in this scene only does one get a taste of the acting abilities of Toufexis. He demonstrates a very believable range as a young man who will do just about anything for real love. I hope we see more of Toufexis. He shows real promise.

************END OF SPOILER*************

Othewise, this movie was a terrific waste of an evening. I do not recommend it for anyone but the youngest sci-fi aficionados who may not yet know the difference between a sci-fi movie and a sci-fi film.

Doink!


Set in a New Brunswick college town,our heroes are a pair of easy going roommates named Luke and Roger.After sneaking into a sorority girl's room to return some quarters,Luke spies the girl sprouting tentacles in front of her friend-who's casually huffing liquid nitrogen.Luke reasonably comes to the conclusion that the two are aliens-though none of his friends believe him(he was drunk at the time).After a pair of suspicious deaths,Luke becomes convinced he's right and begins investigating."Decoys" is loaded with fake scares and plenty of bad CGI imagery.The almost complete lack of gore and violence is also hard to forgive.There are some mildly humorous moments,but the pace is rather slow and the acting is weak.So if you want a proper and intelligent Canadian horror watch again "Ginger Snaps" or check out late 70's slasher classic "Rituals".


They can seduce anyone, the tag line reads. But it doesn't seem to apply to virgin nerds as they keep resisting. A college campus is current home to beautiful aliens out to seduce young men. A difference in body temperatures usually results in the guys being left frozen stiff.

Enter our virgin nerd and his ability to resist the naked charms of the aliens (even when he thinks they are normal). The real question is not why the aliens are here, but are they good or bad. Are they intentionally killing guys or is it an unwanted side effect? That question helps drive the second half of the film.

When all is said and done, this really just seems like a college sex comedy. Sure it has aliens and death but there is no real tension to make it really qualify as a horror film. No real comedy either (but that is common with a lot of sex comedies). There is a sequel in the works that is either just trying to make a quick buck or might actually explain some of what happens in this movie. Good for eating popcorn to as it requires little thought or attention.


In St. John College, the freshmen and best friends Luke (Corey Sevier) and Roger (Elias Toufexis) meet the sexy blond cousins Lilly (Stefanie von Pfetten) and Constance (Kim Poirier) in the laundry of their building. They are next-door neighbors, and the experienced girls invite the young men to visit them anytime. Lilly forgets a package of coins in the laundry, and Luke goes to their room to return it. The room is empty, and he sneaks around, when the two girls arrive. Luke hides himself in the wardrobe, and through an opening, he sees Lilly with many tentacles on her breast. Luke tries to convince his friends that the girls are aliens, planning to attack Earth, but nobody believes in him. Meanwhile, some friends of them are found dead, with the internal organs completely frozen.

"Decoys" was a great surprise for me. I bought this DVD because of its low price and the beautiful cover, but without any reference. When I saw IMDb Rating, I thought that I might have lost my money. However, although having some flaws in the story, the movie is very funny and attractive. In the end, I found IMDb User Rating very unfair and "Decoys" very underrated. The surprise in the last scene was excellent. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Decoys"