Warning to guys - you will probably hate this movie. But I think most women, judging from the user comments, will love it. This is a quintessential chick flick. It shouldn't be taken too seriously as it is a fantasy piece. You will have to suspend your sense of reality to enjoy this. But that's the point.

At the heart of this story is the idea that we all have one true love we are destined to be with. Call it Fate, Destiny, or even God-ordained - but it's the notion that forces will conspire to put us in touch with our one and only soul-mate.

This movie reminds me of another one of my favorite contemporary movies, Serendipity(2001), in the sense of being destined to find our soul-mate (although it is not a fantasy piece). I think guys probably find the fantasy, imaginary friend notion of IHTBY a little too corny for their tastes. But if you like a good, cheesy romance story, then you should like this picture.

I've notice several reviewers criticize Rogers for her little girl, squeaky voice. But I think in this role, it enhances the story. If you look at it from the idea that she is like a little girl who has never really grown up - but is somewhat frozen in time to back when she was 6 years old, when she first meets her "soul-mate". I know this is a stretch, but that is how I interpreted it and it worked for me.

I love the sets and costumes in this movie. It makes for a visual feast. Rogers' gowns are unbelievably gorgeous, especially the wedding gown at the very end. But even her dressing gowns were quite elaborate, adding to the notion of just how wealthy her family is. I find it hard to believe women actually wore these - they look incredibly uncomfortable! If the beautiful mansion set with the incredible staircase looks familiar, you may recognize it from Holiday (1938), the George Cukor film starring Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant. That staircase is just amazing - the most beautiful I have ever seen.

There is one thing I did find hard to swallow, and I didn't notice it until Rogers and Wilde are in the car and he finally decides to marry her. How did he not notice the huge, honking diamond engagement ring on her finger and not know she was already engaged? Also, look closely at Wilde's left ring finger in this scene as well. He looks like he is wearing a ring on that finger that is being disguised so as to not be noticeable. What is that about?


This is probably my favorite movies of all times and I would love to be able to buy it. If anyone know how to get this movie please let me know and if it is possible please put it where I can buy it as I would love to see it again and if not please let me know when they show it on T.V so that I can watch it again. When I first saw this movie I was 12 years old and I would come home from school and run to the T.V. and look for it again and find it and watch it again. I must have seen it every day for at least a month.If you have missed this movie please try to watch it. It has comedy and romance in it and it is really a cute movie.If I tell you any more it will ruin it for you but this is one of the best movies I have ever seen in my opinion.


As a single 20-something I've had to watch seemingly hundreds of romantic comedies with girlfriends. "It Had to Be You" is probably the only one I would consider watching again.

I was half asleep when this movie came on Turner Classic Movies this afternoon. I've been trashcan-by-the-couch sick all week, so what's been on the TV is a complete blur.

Before I could cycle through what was on the DVR, the movie had gotten its hooks in me. When I got up and ran urgently to the bathroom I did something I never do: I hit 'pause.' I'm probably a dream subject for people marketing to the 21- to 35-year-old bracket. I like violence, video games, electric guitars and scantily-clad women. None of these things are in "It Had to Be You," but it kept me entertained anyway.

It's not a classic by any means, but this movie is solid. Its humor carries through 60 years later and the actors felt right for their roles. Also, the story is believable in its unbelievability - I still like to think my kindergarten-crush will pop up and be right for me.

The movie also has that post-war wholesomeness that's hard to describe. There are a lot things left unsaid in the film that would be brought up in a modernized version, mainly about a live-in male friend who is not the fiancé. As it stands it feels fresh compared to the last half-dozen romantic-comedies I begrudgingly saw in theaters.

If you want to see a quality, lighthearted, funny and fantastic 40s-era movie, then check this one out next time it's on TCM.


Total stinker involving Ginger Rogers who says no to 3 guys during her wedding ceremonies.

She finally meets up with Cornel Wilde, dressed as an Indian, at a station. Wilde is supposed to be some guardian angel.

The film is an absolutely stupid series of events where Wilde emerges as a fireman, the only true love for Rogers. Seems that the two of them knew each other years before when she was 6. He also has left 3 women at the altar.

The film might have been better had it try to develop further the relationship between a wealthy society girl and a fireman.

Wilde looks like he is having a good time here. The audience certainly was not.


I remember this movie from tv when I was a kid. Terrific music, "My Ship Has Sails". I believe written by Kurt Weill. Would love to see this again and definitely own on VHS or DVD. Would put it right next to my copy of "One Touch of Venus". They don't make movies like this anymore unfortunately.


When reading the reviews, I agreed with Neil Doyle's, though I felt he was still way too kind to this incredibly annoying and stupid film. Quite simply, this is among the worst films Ginger Rogers ever made--partly because of its terribly unfunny writing and partly because Ginger has never been more unlikable and irritating. Like the film RUNAWAY BRIDE, Ginger plays a woman who uses men--leaving them again and again at the alter. All this is intended to be kooky, but I found myself hating her character from the start due to her selfishness and whiny voice. I honestly would have loved it if one of her many fiancés had just slugged her! While all this wasn't very promising and Ginger's performance was VERY broad and "kooky", the film abruptly got worse while she was on a train trip. During her dream, she imagined an American Indian beau (played by Cornell Wilde) and when she awoke, he was real and pursued her rabidly. Some of his lines were admittedly funny, but this plot wore thin almost as soon as it began.

Perhaps one of the better (and this isn't saying much) acts in the film was the part played by Ron Randell--as a very, very effeminate and ineffectual boyfriend. He wasn't that good, but compared to Rogers and Wilde, he looked like Olivier! Try watching this tedious film if you'd like, but understand that I am a huge fan of classic Hollywood films and I really wanted to like this movie--which came off like a bad episode of GILLIGAN'S ISLAND. However, no matter how hard I tried I couldn't like this movie or recommend it to anyone I like.


A holiday Romance tries to overwhelm us with sentimentality. Like most sentimental films, they sometimes annoyingly tug at your hart strings.

However, "sappy" would not do this movie justice as an overall consensus of the film. The movie will hold your interest, and certainly does contain more than one dimension to the story-line, and most importantly to the characters. Besides the romance that is brewing between McRaney and Judd, the film also conveys the importance of music in our lives, and does a proper job in expressing its virtues. More importantly the film makers for "A Holiday Romance" point out how instrumental a single individual can become in our lives, especially to children.

Also, an extremely nice inclusion, is the much loved Andy Griffith as McRaneys Father.

By-the-way, Naomi Judd looks absolutely great in this film, you would never guess that she is two years McRaney's senior.


A Holiday Romance reworks the story of White Christmas for modern times. It is a pleasant movie, worth watching for the Christmas season. However, expect a double dose of the overworked situations of an authoritarian parent and the child who suffers. The Major General's story of White Christmas is split between two characters so that the movie works well as a separate tale. Only if you are familiar with the original would you get an inkling that the two stories are related. Gerald MacRaney does his usual strong character. Music is a plus if you like Christmas carols jazzed up a little. Naomi Judd does a credible job. Andy Griffith shows his Matlock image rather than the lighter Andy Griffith Show personification.


I personally have thought this movie was fantastic! i am a huge fan of Naomi Judd and thoroughly enjoyed her part in the film. Gerald Mcraney seemed like a good match for her in the story. McRaney always seems to play a tough guy in all his roles. which is another reason i loved his part because Judd simply softened his heart and made him sweet. a first for Gerald. Alison Pill was simply wonderful! her voice was captivating and the love she had for her music teacher was enormous. Surprising to see Andy play such a hard core ex soldier. but he played the part of a stubborn old man very well. i was amazed at how greatly the characters clicked with their parts. the directer made very wise choices on actors.


Hello,I just wanted to say that I loved the movie,the ending with the duet song was just great,I cried.I love movies like that.I have been trying to find the movie to buy ever since I seen it,please tell me how I can order it.Thank you so much,God Bless.Naomi was just great in the movie and the young lady that sang with her has a great voice,I am surprised that I haven't seen a album out of her.It was as if it could be real life.All the actors and actress were just great.I have also seen Naomi in Touched by an Angel she does so good in movies like this.I cant wait to see more movies like this,thats what we need on TV more family stuff.


Darkness prevails already at the very beginning of 'La Moustache', Emmanuel Carrère's proper adaptation of his novel of the same title, which he published back in the 1980's. Accompanying the opening credits is Philip Glass' perfectly composed and utterly gloomy Violin Concerto, which re-emerges throughout the movie and constantly supplies the global atmosphere of the film with an ominous and bewildering touch.

Welcome to this year's most abstruse film, and eventually the most challenging psychological experiment since 'The Machinist'. Presented at the 2005 Cannes Film Festival in the 'Quinzaine des Réalisateurs' category - a category promoting abstract and rather unusual movies - 'La Moustache' follows the intricate story of Marc Thiriez (Vincent Lindon), an ordinary Parisian architect who slips into a vicious identity crisis after he spontaneously shaves off his moustache.

"How would you react if I shaved off my moustache?" Marc asks his girlfriend Agnès (Emmanuelle Devos) before they visit some friends for dinner. Her reaction is not immediate, and she simply replies "I don't know; I love you with it but I've never known you without it." So while Agnès leaves the apartment for a short time to do some shopping, Marc takes the risk and cuts off his beloved moustache, just like that, in order to see his lover's face and analyze her reaction when she returns home.

However, Marc will be severely disappointed: upon Agnès' arrival, she does not utter one single word. She seems not to notice the major physical change in Marc's face. Nor do their friends. Even Marc's colleagues at the office fail to perceive the absence of his moustache. Is he on the verge of madness? Or has he become the target of a massive conspiracy triggered by his own girlfriend? More weirdly, did he even ever have a moustache? Or was it part of some unexplainable imagination? Marc has no clue at all how to react to his baffling new situation

When you enter the official movie website, a big question mark appears at the end of the flash intro. This question mark is totally appropriate, since it clearly illustrates what kind of movie 'La Moustache' really is: namely a confusing, puzzling drama with an open ending and a number of unexplainable twists, flashbacks and mysterious appearances by characters when you least expect it. "What is 'La Moustache' about?" is the first question of a recent online interview conducted with Emmanuel Carrère. The director himself has no answer to that crucial question.

Indeed, 'La Moustache' is one of these attention-grabbing cinematic mysteries that first baffle the spectators, and then leave them behind with a bunch of questions unanswered. There are though, in this ingeniously structured and passionately filmed movie, some easily detectable themes. For once, 'La Moustache' is an analysis of a dysfunctional couple tumbling into a conflict driven by mistrust. Marc soon accuses Agnès of plotting against him, but Agnès is deeply persuaded that Marc has in fact never had a moustache. This marks the beginning of a series of violent arguments and disputes.

Moreover, Carrère's film closely focuses on a man struggling with the inevitable loss of his personal identity. Marc is unable to distinguish between reality and imagination, and so he struggles hard to uncover the origins of the problem. He is a man all on his own against the rest of the world. In his apartment, he finds some old pictures from a vacation in Bali, all of them showing him with a moustache. But is he really the only one to see it? Is the moustache on this photo real or not? He does not know, and we do not either.

Especially the first part of 'La Moustache' is intensely compelling and dark, examining the relationship between Marc and Agnès, and closely focusing on Marc's progressive battle to keep his emotional and moral nature under control. When his consciousness slowly begins to shut down, the tension mounts as the suspense grows and the atmosphere becomes more and more threatening. Carrère has a brilliant vision, and he captures Marc's way into madness in a diverse and appealing way.

Marc is the perfect role for Vincent Lindon, whose look is continually as puzzling as the story itself. He masters his role with ideal perfection, always acting authentically. The same can be said about the brilliant Emmanuelle Devos ('La Femme de Gilles'), who delivers an enigmatic performance as Agnès. Her complex character is a true object of curiosity, and no one can trust her. Is she the evil woman ruining the mind of her partner? Or is she the reasonable person? Question marks à gogo.

The last twenty minutes of 'La Moustache', which follow Marc to Bangkok, where he repetitively embarks and disembarks ferries all day long, are quite debatable, yet very challenging. The film reaches yet another climax, takes another abrupt twist, and once again challenges us spectators by sparking our curiosity. Please do not expect a satisfying explanation towards the very ending, because 'La Moustache' ain't going to give you one. Many pieces of the puzzle remain untraceable; but that's exactly what makes this masterpiece so intriguing and unique. (Grade: B+)


"The Moustache" is a comedy that, starting from the most trivial of pretexts, quickly turns into a true Kafkian nightmare. A man shaves his mustache. No one seems to notice, and in a surrealistic parody of male mid-life crisis this causes conflict, pain and uncertainty. But more and more threads come undone in the fabric of his reality.

Excellent self-adaptation of a short novel by Emmanuel Carrère, La Moustache delivers the spectator with much more than it promises, in these days a rare occurrence indeed. Vincent Lindon as the troubled protagonist is good and measured, and the movie has an excellent pace and nothing is overdone. Even the theme, a Philip Glass "Concerto pour violon et orchestre" could not be more effective. Will we ever see this movie in the USA? Maybe in a parallel reality.


Read the book some time ago and after watching the movie felt much the same sort of existential exhilaration - if there is such a thing. Maybe it was just the cold that I have, though. A little overacted at times, but otherwise like an exotic episode of the Twilight Zone, shot in glorious colour. The film reminded me another French film I saw in the theatre recently by the name of Cache, which I enjoyed very much. As for it's American counterpart, I suppose that you'd be looking at something like Lost Highway, David Lynch's bizarre account of a modern, urban couple trying to grapple with the unknown. This seems to be something of a genre for the French and they are quite good at pulling it off - as is evidenced with this film - with considerable style and enough depth of plot and character to leave you considering and reconsidering the film for far more than the sadly customary 10 minutes.

I almost shaved my beard off after watching it just to see what would happen. But I haven't yet. Or have I?


This movie is a prime example of how the simplest things can mushroom out of control. Architect Marc (Vincent Lindon) has had a moustache since he was knee high to a blueprint and it is, he feels, part of him, then he takes it into his head to speculate on just how much he is identified via the moustache. He starts by asking his live-in lover Agnes (Manu Devos) whether she would still fancy him sans moustache; since she's only known him with it she can't answer. So, out comes the razor and THEN comes the uneasiness that segues into genuine fright. Not only does Devos not notice the difference but neither do their friends and his colleagues at work. We are now on the fringes of a Kafkaesque scenario which isn't really resolved satisfactorily. For reasons that eluded me Marc, by now convinced that Devos has some hidden agenda he can't fathom, lights out for Hong Kong literally in just the clothes he stands up in and spends a few days - weeks, months? - riding the ferry before Devos shows up, or does she? For one thing how did she know where he was and/or track him down to the fleabag where's he's taken a room. Lots of food for thought here and the acting is out of the right bottle if anybody asks you.


wow ! this movie is great ! If what you want is to be an active spectator and interactive with the movie, you'll not be disappointed. You'll try to think about what you see and try to solve this whole strange piece of art.

Its about the choices that we make (small choices as to deceide yes or no to cut the moustache) and what are the consequences on our life and the impact toward us by the people we know. Am I important to their eyes even if they are called friends, will they notify any difference on our life. It's also about the search of our identity, and how our identity becomes the one of the other in a relashionship with a lover.

You choose what ever is the meaning of this movie but I believe the director has it's own precise explanation about every detail. I have my own, I think most of the movie is imagination of the character, and the only reality scenes are the ones where he walks everyday in the metro of Hong-Kong, depressed after his wife would have left him during the vacations in Hong-Kong, where he shave his moustache. Even those vacations are a little bit transformed mentally by the reconstitution, it's a flash-back, and all the scenes in Paris are imagination of a life he would have had with his wife if they would have stayed together, with constantly rethinking of his choice of shaving the moustache. It's like Hanneke's "Caché" or more like Lynch's "Mulholland Drive". We travel into the infinite spiral of the human spirit, everything is interior and subjective. The music of Philip Glass is sublime and will obsess you.

You won't forget this movie, even if you don't like it.


The premise for "La Moustache" should be enough to grab the attention of any film fanatic, especially one who gets thrills from the psychological twists perpetrated upon an audience by the likes of Hitchcock and those he inspired. The film begins simply enough with a man in the bath, inquiring of his wife whether or not he should shave off his mustache. Soon enough he's rid himself of that same lip hair, and no one seems to notice. In fact, maybe he never even had the thing in the first place. How genius a premise, right? The minutiae of daily life are oft overlooked subject matter, so it's refreshing to see something so basic given major importance. Things go along smoothly enough as the man starts to come unwound due to this, but then what? By the time the end credits roll, certain thoughts are running wildly through the mind of the audience. It goes back to wondering just how much can be perpetrated upon an audience before they are either too stumped to get it, or too mentally manipulated to care. This is an interesting film worth a peek, and possibly a discussion about its genius or likewise about where it goes sadly astray.


At first, through the first third of the movie, I was sure that the film was an allegory about the architect's family and friends never actually noticing him (or his moustache). Things got confusing to me when he didn't press his wife about the Bali photographs (which appear to confirm he's NOT crazy), his wife is apparently trying to have him committed and he suddenly escapes to Hong Kong.

Though I did enjoy the film immensely in all its detail, I kept feeling there must have been a link between his moustache (and the identity crisis shaving it off led to) and his father's death. His father's death seemed to have discombobulated him.

Did his own confusion about his moustache symbolize his inability to digest the death of his father? Was he dreaming all of the confusion about his moustache?

In the end, I'm left with questions only. Nonetheless, I did enjoy this film and would like to know what other people think of it and what they make of it.


This review reveals almost everything about this story. So, if you want to enjoy the mystery first, then stop right now...and come back after you've seen the film.

The title is classic misdirection by writers. This story has nothing specific to do with a moustache. It is merely a symbol used to highlight the idea of identity and, more particularly, the extent to which a husband and wife are aware of each other.

The story is as follows: the fade in opens with a successful Parisian businessman, Marc Thiriez (Vincent Lindon), shaving off his moustache while having a bath. When confronting his wife, Agnes (Emmanuelle Devos) she fails to evince any surprise. Somewhat puzzled  because, only a few moments prior, Agnes had said how much she liked his moustache  Marc says nothing but continues on to a dinner engagement to Serge and Nadia Schaeffer (Mathieu Amalric and Marcha Polikarpova) where they all say nothing about his new look. Later, suspecting a trick, Marc confronts Agnes at their apartment where she categorically denies Marc has ever had a moustache...

Oooops!

Dumbfounded, Marc has a troubled sleep but goes to work the next morning, convinced that Agnes and their so-called friends are out to get him, for some unknown reason. At the office and the nearby coffee shop  where Marc has dined all too often  the same situation persists: nobody makes any comment about the absence of his moustache.

Hence, for Marc, the puzzle worsens...

He begins to panic: he searches for the remains of his moustache in the garbage; he seeks confirmation from a stranger that a photo, from a 2003 holiday in Bali, shows him with a moustache. But, later that day, he asks Agnes to cancel a lunch with his parents - and she replies that his father died a year earlier! Questioning her further, Marc realizes with mounting horror, that she cannot even recall their friends, Serge and Nadia!

What's going on here? Am I crazy, thinks Marc? Confused and shattered, he falls into a stupor and sleeps again, allowing Agnes to slip a knock-out Mickey Finn to him. Hours later he wakes to hear Agnes and Bruno (Hippolyte Giradou), his office associate, discussing plans to have him committed to an asylum. Frantic, Marc runs off to find his parents, but is unable to contact them, and calls Agnes to meet him, while watching from a taxi. After she leaves with Bruno, Marc quickly gets his passport, a coat and money, and goes to the airport where he boards a flight for...Hong Kong!

When he gets there, he wanders around a bit, alternately ferrying from Hong Kong to Kowloon and back a few times  a great metaphor for his indecision - then pays his way onto a coastal trader to finally wind up at an un-named coastal village. He wanders off from the boat and ends up at a run-down hotel where he pays for a room and falls asleep, exhausted...

Okay  stop right here: all of the above is Marc's dream  or nightmare, I guess.

The next (real) scene, we see Marc, unshaven with many weeks growth, wolfing down noodles at a local restaurant. After the meal, he wanders back to the hotel where he finds (and, as the viewer, we also find) Agnes packing their bags to return to Paris. She tells him to shave off his growing beard and suggests he also remove his moustache. When he does so, she remarks how much it suits him. They go to bed; they make love; she sleeps. Marc lies there for a long while, eyes closed. Then, he opens his eyes wide, blankly and silently screaming: am I awake or is this a dream? Fade to black...

So, here's the real story: Marc and Agnes are on holiday, near Hong Kong, where he hopes to resurrect what he thinks is their dead or dying marital and sexual relationship. One night, he has a nightmare about his innermost fears and desires. The next morning, fortuitously, Agnes suggests he change his image, more or less in keeping with his prior dream, and so he does. Happily for Marc, she actually notices the difference and things appear to be better. Unhappily, however, aspects of his dream remain, most particularly, a post card that he wrote out in his dream. Or did he?

Hence, when Marc stares into the darkness, is it truly reality? This is where the writer/director weaves two fundamental issues together: first, there is the male angst about whether his wife still loves him - which generates the bizarre dream set in Paris (while they are both on holiday in China) and second, there is the deeper philosophical issue about reality itself. As the final scene very slowly fades to black, the camera fixes on Marc's troubled eyes, the unspoken question screaming at us: am I in a dream now, or have I woken up? So, does Agnes truly love me, or no?

That's for you and all of us to decide...

When you see the movie, watch out for the clues that tell you it's all a dream: as the credits roll, there are city lights on dark water  water heavily connoting sex  with a sampan just in view; a long column of lights from skyscraper  a phallic symbol, much repeated later in the story; the photos from Bali, every lover's dream destination. As they drive to the dinner date with Serge and Nadia, Agnes makes a shocking admission to Marc about the way she dresses; at work, Marc is so confused, he says to himself: "I must be dreaming!" And, just when Marc leaves to go to work, Agnes calls him back and says: "Marc  this is like a bad trip!"

Some trip! See how you like it...


Marc decides, before he and his wife Agnes go to dinner at friends, to shave his mustache. He says nothing about it, expecting Agnes to comment on it, but she doesn't seem to notice. And neither do their friends. And neither do his co-workers. And Marc is quietly freaking out. Finally, he breaks down & says something to Agnes, who says he never HAD a mustache, and every one else that he's expected to notice tells him the same thing. Marc, however, becomes somewhat obsessed with proving that he DID have a mustache, which worries those around him until he's asked to seek help. He's even produced pictures of them on vacation with him with his mustache, but Agnes never really looks at them & later they've disappeared to, and Agnes denies they ever vacationed in that place to begin with.

But things get even stranger as Marc is to have lunch with Agnes at his parents the next day, & his father has called to remind him, only to have Agnes tell him that his father's been dead for some time. And their friends that they had dinner with recently? Where'd they go? Did they never exist? Marc, of course, is getting more & more agitated & Agnes drugs him when he goes to lie down for a while...Marc comes to just in time to hear Agnes & his boss, Bruno, talking about "the men in the white coats" that are coming to take Marc away, and using all his conscience strength to dress himself & make ready, he manages to bolt & impulsively takes a flight to Hong Kong, where he rides the ferries and wanders, eventually taking a room.

And the film gets weirder from there. I don't quite know how to categorize this film...a dark comedy/psychological thriller? Maybe..it is very interesting and pretty darn good though, even though you never really know what you've just witnessed. Is it a conspiracy? Is Marc losing his mind? Or is it just a strange dream? Can't tell you, don't know, but it's well worth seeing. 7 out of 10.


LA MOUSTACHE forces the viewer to grapple with a conundrum; "What is real, and what is not?". Carrere (who wrote the novel and directed the film) is a writer and fan of the late, great science fiction author, Philip K. Dick. In fact, Carrere's, I AM ALIVE AND YOU ARE DEAD:A JOURNEY INTO THE LIFE OF PHILIP K. DICK is an excellent biography of this gifted author. Nearly all of Dick's work concerned the shifting nature of Identity and the ontological basis for Reality. This movie examines the possibility of "Change"-shaving a moustache, and the impact on a life. In a sense, the film is kind of a Black Comedy, in that such a minor adjustment would not seem to lead to such dislocation. But, that is not the case in La Moustache. The movie begs all kinds of bizarre interpretations, so don't expect an easy ride from this French 'Chinese Puzzle' of a film,


*La Moustache SPOILERS*

Marc Thiriez (Vincent Lindon), a middle-aged Parisian architect, decides one night, before going to some friends' house, to cut his mustache, but neither his wife Agnès (Emmanuelle Devos) nor his friends notice anything, and Agnès is especially adamant about his never having a mustache.

There is evidence that he did, though, and somebody outside Marc's circle of friends confirms it, but other things change; his friends seem to disappear, his father (who called that very day) is said to be dead, his childhood home seems to never have existed... what is the truth? If Pirandello (a great Italian writer, who dealt with similar material in his books, especially 'Uno, Nessuno E Centomila') ever decided to write a thriller, this is probably what would've come of it; an intense, disquieting and thought-provoking little jewel of a movie, effectively written, directed and acted, with Vincent Lindon as the best of the bunch.

It does not have a definite resolution, though, so anyone who cannot stand that is already warned.

Italian Title: 'L'Amore Sospetto' ('Suspicious Love')

La Moustache: 9/10.


Because I'm about to tell you you've been had, like someone swindled by a two-bit fortune-teller.

Before I explain why, let me start by saying that it did not bother me that this film didn't resolve itself. I've watched some pretty challenging and experimental films that leave a LOT hanging, and I love them! Try El Topo sometime. There are more mainstream ones too like Naked Lunch, or Brazil. These films do not have nice tidy plot lines where everything makes sense -- they are still brilliant films.

The difference in the case of "La Moustache" is that while this film also happens to lack nice tidy plot lines, the film-makers seemed to think that that, all by itself, makes this film brilliant too.

I have never before seen a film that was so elitist, so vapid, and so disrespectful of its audience in assuming it is more clever than they are. The really sad thing is that, judging from reviews here, and even many professional reviews, the film succeeded in pulling the wool over many peoples' eyes.

Who the hell am I to say these things? Well I watched this film with a professional artist, and man with a PhD in comparative literature (who did extensive work in film studies). And you can probably tell from my writing, I'm no dummy either.

And the three of us were in total agreement: This film is like an inside joke whose punch line doesn't make sense, and yet everyone, maybe for fear of appearing not to "get it" starts nodding and laughing nervously.

Why is everyone doing this? Because the punch line SEEMS like it should make sense. We want it to make sense. There are all kinds of symbols and portentous happenings that are vaguely related to one another in some way or another -- like tarot cards sitting on the table. Stare at them long enough, and squint, and suddenly you can see "the answer".

But your subconscious is really just inventing whatever story it likes, and omitting any details that didn't fit. The movie is not smarter than you are. It is a bunch of seemingly "deep" events that strut around like a Chinese emperor in his newest outfit. (Psst, he's naked!)

As a film maker, if you're going to make a film that doesn't tie things together neatly, then you need to realize you have an obligation to make your film about SOMETHING more meaningful than the incongruous events you are showing on the screen.

Naked lunch was about the visions of a writer who is losing his mind. Brazil was about how dreams are powerful enough to transcend even a post-apocalyptic nightmare of a future.

This film is not about ANYTHING, except how you can make your audience follow a carrot on the end of a string, just by editing together a lot of scenes with great acting, great direction, and high production values that don't actually make any sense.

It's apparently what happens when you take a neat starting idea (a man shaves off his mustache, and everyone seems not to notice, then they claim he never had one), and then you become more interested in making yourself look clever than in actually telling a story that bears some relevance on our lives.

Very, very sad, or the French would say: Pathétique.


Just like the rest I was confused at the end, had many thoughts running through my mind... time travel!! wifes playing a prank, this guy has some serious mental issues..??? hoping the movie would not end without an explanation and to my surprise it did, well googled and found this is one of those movies.. read many reviews skimmed through the movie again and finally understood.. or i think... so here goes people, the first half is his dream!! all his thoughts played out very carefully... starts out with a simple dilemma on his moustache (identity>> does he understand himself well) lets leave the moustache out to understand better, the dilemma grows deeper with his doubts over his wife... is she being honest?? (theres even a scene in which she says she only says the truth, again his thoughts). The scene to the goddaughters birthday is his imagination considering his recent friends at the boat, what if they meet back in Paris. Brings in his office environment, confusion do people really know him there?, then the clown jacket where he imagines his wife picked it up for him, running off home to get the next flight hong kong to free himself from all the dilemma in his life >> well thats his vacation, thats how he imagined his vacation to have kicked off, freedom from his confused and stressed life.

Reality starts when he's sitting in the boat with the red shirt, bearded and eating noodles...

Post card incident is a trick a big trick, its shown him sitting in a hotel window writing to his wife, well if this takes place in his dreams then in reality while he is with his wife later after saying goodbye to their recent friends how could he have the card??? he then flicks it to the water.... thats confusing!!!

well I agree with most other reviews the key is the hongkongs night lights reflecting from the water, its shown at the beginning then in the middle while he is dreaming and at the end....thus confirming its all his dream...


serious spoilers below

i really loved this film, and i didn't expect to! i always log onto IMDb (while viewing netflix) to see what people think (and to figure out the ending b/c i hate suspense.) :D

i felt like i was in marc's head the whole time. i related to him running to hong kong, and i related to him being on the boat, back and forth, over the water, clearing his head, regaining a sense of balance and normalcy. (if you've ever traveled where you can't communicate the language, you tend to think... A lot... and it can be very soothing.) i loved the way the carrére showed this bit by bit, as marc started going with the flow in the culture he was a guest in, by moving the seat for the lady, getting proper change for the boat, etc.

i loved that when agnés showed up, marc didn't try to argue about anything, he just went with the flow b/c he was so happy to have her back. and in true french film fashion, we get to see agnés as a beguiling woman (doing simple things like brushing her hair and packing) through marc's eyes

i recall, many years ago, a great (male) pal of mine said "the way to make a woman happy is to say 'yes dear!'" now - i don't agree with that per se - but it has it's strong points, believe me - on account of we women can make very little sense to our men at times. i thought (within that concept) it was very brave of marc to shave his mustache at the little hotel. hence, he risked "losing" her again. but he finally puts the past behind him when he tosses the postcard in the water.

going with the flow is something one must do as a tourist, and it's something one must do to effect compromise with one's mate. oddly - it's also something one should do to enjoy this film (judging from the comments.)

this is a gorgeous, gorgeous film. all the tension in Paris is released over the water in hong kong (and glass's score suddenly feels peaceful, as opposed to totally triste.) and vincent lindon's subtlety as marc blows me away.

to me, the key is in what marc wrote on the postcard, and the fact that he threw it in the water (if that makes sense.) that, to me, was the (unexpected) moment i was waiting for as a viewer. i wish i could truly define and dissect this movie as an experience - but i don't have the educational chops for that. all i can write is that i felt an emotional shift at the end, and very light. much like seeing an excellent live show, when the band is in their groove and the audience is right with them. it's a little bit of a give and take, i guess, between carrére and us.


La Moustache opens with a man thinking about possibly shaving his moustache. There are theories in both spiritual and scientific circles that postulate that whenever we make a decision like this we in fact make them both. We "filter" out the decision that we "didn't" make and continue to live our normal seemingly-linear life, but another reality exists, just as real as "this" one, in which we made the "other" decision.

To understand this movie in a multiple-timeline context, we have to back up to the beginning of the main character's adult life (before the movie starts), in which he made the decision to grow a moustache at all. In timeline A he never grew one, in timeline B he always grew one since he could. The movie thus begins in timeline B. To keep things simple, let's pretend there are only these two timelines to worry about.

The movie opens with the main character making the decision to shave his moustache. In one reality, timeline B, he keeps it. We don't see this reality for the next week or so of his life. Instead, the decision to shave his moustache is so jarring that he "jumps" to timeline A, or more accurately he jumps to timeline A but elements of timeline B are still known to him, such as the photographs of his vacation, the license in his wallet, and his overall consciousness and memories are still from timeline B. Most of the movie, however, takes place in timeline A.

The fact that he is caught between timelines is psychologically disturbing to him and his wife, neither of whom understand the predicament he is in, and assume that he is either going crazy or, as he assumes at times, someone may be playing an elaborate prank on him.

Overhearing that his wife might send him to a mental institution, he escapes to Hong Kong. He immediately misses his wife and writes a postcard to her that he will be back by the time she gets it, but doesn't mail it. He takes a ferry from the city side to the airport side of a river, but before boarding the plane, changes his mind again and goes back on the ferry. Then he _keeps on_ going back and forth across the ferry until the end of the day when it closes. He never does go back to the airport.

The ferry riding is a very interesting element in the film. A decision - the decision to shave his moustache, was done hastily in the beginning of the film. Again, another decision, to not get on the plane and get back on the ferry, was made quickly. Was he perhaps trying to "trick time" into getting him back into the right timeline? Or is the ferry simply a way to experience the same space over and over again - a "sameness" - that is in fact "different" every time (every time he rides the ferry there are new people, and he sits in a different place, etc. Even the chairs on the ferry seem to have adjustable backs on them that can swing one way or another, so that the rider can make a decision to face backwards or forwards. Only the ticket seller is the same, and she never seems to recognize him or wonder why he is riding back and forth) Normally we experience sameness (e.g. going to work) that can seem very much the same every time (same co-workers, similar work, etc.) and the ferry is a break from that. Or does the ferry "between" the city and the airport represent his state of "betweenness" of the timelines? He doesn't want to go back to France, where they might put him in an institution, but he doesn't want to go to his Hong Kong hotel, where he will be missing his wife. He decides to stay "between" for this day, and he seems content in this between-ness. He doesn't seem that nervous or worried on the ferry. He is cordial, even smiling to teenage schoolgirls that are giggling at him. He is learning to be OK with betweenness.

The movie then jumps to what seems like days later (or perhaps even longer) and the main character now has a moustache grown out. The moustache being present is the catalyst to get him back to timeline B, and when he gets back to his hotel his wife his there, and it is as if she has been there the whole time, with him, on vacation.

That night he asks if she would like to see him without a moustache, and she says that she might like to have him try it. This is a different answer than at the opening of the movie, where she says that she has never seen him without it, and she doesn't seem to be that into the idea of him shaving it. He shaves the moustache, but stays in timeline B. Perhaps this time the move is not so jarring because he has done it before. Or perhaps it is because his wife seems more approving this time while they are happy on vacation. Or perhaps it is because he has learned to live in and accept "betweenness" after his experience on the ferry. All is well. Or is it? As the lights dim in the room, the viewer is wondering if he will wake up in timeline A all alone.


At face value LA MOUSTACHE appears to be an exercise in far-fetched, existential conceit. The trailer certainly doesn't allow a prospective viewer any more information than its premise: a man shaves off his moustache in an effort to change his image. His girlfriend doesn't notice. As a matter of fact... no one does. He begins to get increasingly disturbed that no one would notice something as elemental as facial hair... and then things suddenly spiral out of control.

Certainly it would make anyone think: "Come on, now. A thriller about a man losing his mind because no one has noticed he shaved his moustache off? Isn't this taking it a little too far?" The truth of the matter is, it's not -- LA MOUSTACHE is merely a set-up in the most elusive of ways, creeping up on the viewer like the best of the Polanski apartment thrillers (where nothing is as it seems) -- and it sends the hapless Marc (Vincent Lindon) into a world that doubles in on itself one-fold, two-fold, while seeming chillingly normal.

Maybe it's a commentary on the dangers of being too wealthy (because had we had a struggling couple, something as banal as a moustache wouldn't even enter the picture). Marc and Agnes (Emmanuelle Devos) live what can be called a life in the lap of luxury in a sleek loft apartment. They seem to be elementally happy, until one minor, laughably trivial incident throws them into an increasingly jarring descent into marital alienation of the likes of the unhappy couple in George Cukor's GASLIGHT with the genders switched, which grows creepier as Marc suddenly becomes suspicious of everything around him and wonders if events in his life have even occurred. Because as simple as that, from the denial of a moustache's existence, now his own is in peril.

And from here on, the story manages to go into uncharted territory, and giving more details about it would be essentially spoiling the fun that this very suppressed, very elegant thriller is. LA MOUSTACHE is an intriguing puzzle in some ways akin to the puzzle of CACHE, where another couple's happiness becomes ensnared in an intrigue that may or may not be happening. Sparse, deliberate while not being too slow (yet not revealing too much too soon), this is a high-concept thriller that should be seen.


LA MOUSTACHE is a very well acted and conceived Belgian film that starts with a terrific premise that could be the opening for either a comedy or a drama and ends up wondering which path to take. Writer/director Emmanuel Carrère (with co-script writer Jérôme Beaujour) takes us on a mind trip that becomes increasingly disorienting and frustrating as the film progresses. It challenges the audience to think but then there is no payoff for the effort.

Marc (Vincent Lindon) is a handsome middle aged man married to Agnès (Emmanuelle Devos) for fifteen years and one morning, in what in retrospect is in response to a bit of relationship ennui, decides to shave off his mustache which has always been present since his marriage began. The surprise to Marc is that Agnès doesn't even notice. At work Marc quietly shows up and no one notices, not even his close associate Bruno (Hippolyte Girardot). Marc is at first perplexed, then he confronts his wife and fellow workers with the fact that he just shaved off his mustache and no one believes that he ever had one! Marc begins to search for photos showing his previous face and gradually the photos disappear and his wife denies ever seeing them, ever traveling to Bali where the photos were taken, etc. People begin to wonder about Marc's sanity and his wife suggests he seek psychiatric care. It is at this point that Marc enters a fugue state and ultimately disappears to Hong Kong on a never ending quest for discovering the truth about who he really is, whether he actually exists, whether he is the pawn in a cosmic game....it just gets more ludicrous.

Both Vincent Lindon and Emmanuelle Devos are superb in this peculiar roles and the film has solid production values. Perhaps it is the director's point to leave the audience in a confused state, one that calls forth the existential questions, but as a film it merely peters out, leaving the viewer a bit frustrated by the lack of substance. Grady Harp


One day a middle-aged architect of Paris suddenly cuts off his mustache, but his surrounding claim he has never had one. Somebody is wrong, and since nobody shares his opinion, he has to escape to Hongkong from the forced mental treatment. Here, in the meantime, he cuts again his regrown mustache, and because this time the change was recognized by his wife, they, again, find each other. What is this film all about? Perhaps about the importance of the everyday matters of no significance, which can still, somehow, ruin our life. About whether we really know each other, listen to each other or even our closest relationships are superficial? Or are we a witness of a disintegration of an instable personality? There is a short-story with the same title Moustache" written by the French novelist, Maupassant in 1883, which can elucidate a different way of interpretation. The story is a real ode to the mustache by a fictitious lady. But one can read about other interesting things in that letter  And mainly I adore mustache because it is French, pure-blooded French wear. We inherited it from our Gallic ancestors, and deserve it, like the symbol of our national character." From this point, the saucy mustache of our hero becomes the last symbol of a national identity. He and his wife live a life of a typical citizen of a Western world in the multicultural Paris. They prefer sushi to French food, travel Bali for holiday, and buy Chinese dresses and trinkets in Hongkong. His close surrounding, his wife and his friends, do not even notice the change caused by the disappearance of his mustache, but from an objective point of view (policewoman) the difference is obvious. The past is coming to an end, which is presented by the death of his father, and the vain search of the house of his childhood. This necessarily leads to the development of a split personality: is it himself who is insane or the others? Is he a victim of a conspiracy, or is he suffer from persecution mania? The never-ending ferry-boat journey between two coasts representing a loss of his footing, and the spin of the drum of a washing machine in his dream (head) becomes a symbol of a brainwash. This film is a story about a man who has lost his national identity, and if there is a chance to get it back. There is no answer but perhaps he has to travel to the other part of the world to make even his wife understand; yes there is something what we have lost, but it is good as it is. Still, the last picture is quite worrying: a man without a mustache is lying in a dark sleeplessness, like in a grave.


I watched this movie because the idea was intriguing. I felt right away that it wasn't going to have much of an ending; it's not really the sort of story that would ever have a solid ending, unless it was an episode of the Twilight Zone, which it clearly was not meant to be.

So I can accept the weak ending, and I'll even accept the analysis of one of the user reviewers here, Richard Burke (or was it Robert) whose analysis struck me as completely reasonable and well though out, and thus accept that the movie more-or-less makes sense.

The problem is, this is a really boring movie. I don't know what the people who talk about it being "suspenseful" are thinking, because this movie moves like grass growing. It is so slow that after the first half hour, I put it on fast forward (the advantage of subtitles is you can watch a movie like that). Even at double the ordinary speed, it was still slow moving.


The basic story idea for LA MOUSTACHE is unique and intrigued me. A seemingly insignificant action occurs and then a man's entire existence changes! This occurs when the lead, on a whim, shaves off his mustache. Oddly, his wife didn't notice nor did his friends. At first, it's no big deal, but later the man becomes angry--how could they be so self-absorbed that they didn't notice or care?! Oddly, when confronted, they have no recollection that he had one, even though the audience saw he had one and saw pictures of the man with the mustache! This part of the film was interesting and pulled me in very well.

However, out of the blue, the man disappears to Hong Kong and from then on the plot really makes no sense at all. At first, I thought I'd missed something when the film ended--there were just too many dangling plot points and things that just confused me. So, I watched the "making of featurette" on the DVD and one of the main characters confided that she read the script and she was also confused and it made no sense. Some people might like this and normally I don't mind a film that leaves unanswered questions, but this goes way beyond this to just confusing and...well, stupid. It took a film that might have earned a 7 or 8 and made it, at best, a 4.

Decent acting but a bad script sink this film. But, like so many sub-par films, the DVD case made it sound amazing and worthwhile with phrases like "A paranoid thriller in the manner of Alfred Hitchcock" or "...a mini-masterwork". Yeah, right. The film had little to do with Hitchcock's style and comparisons to Hitchcock are a dime a dozen. Many of Chabrol's films (even his bad ones) are also often compared to Hitchcock's and I'm getting sick of this disingenuous advertising. One of the very few films that might really deserve this comparison is the original LES DIABOLIQUES. In contrast, LA MOUSTACHE seemed about as "Hitchcockian" as MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III!


Marc is sitting in his bath one morning (yes, a grown man taking a bath in a little tub) and asks his wife, "how would you feel if I shaved off my mustache?" She doesn't think it's a great idea, for the 15 years they've been married, she's never known him without his 'stache. He shaves it off anyway, but when he sees his wife, she doesn't notice, neither do their friends at dinner that night, neither do his co-workers. Marc finally flips out, shouts at everyone, tells them he's tired of their little joke, and what do they really think. His wife and co-workers are appalled, what is he talking about, he's never had a mustache. In fact, he's imagining other things as well, or is he? This off-beat drama/thriller about a man questioning his own sanity remains fascinating throughout. Is it an elaborate plot, has he gone insane, is it just a dream? Throughout, I was intently searching for clues and trying to help the hapless man make sense of his out-of-kilter world. Emmanuelle Devos as Agnès, Marc's wife continues to astound me with her expressiveness. (See La Femme de Gilles to see her at her emoting best.) This movie is like a hunk of baguette with creamy butter. The lightness and commonness of the bread are enlivened by the rich, smooth butter. The two sides play together well, creating food synergy. The crisp crust, the fluffy interior, and the almost sweet butter with a bit of salt to enhance the flavor is difficult to resist and can become the most enticing part of a meal. 7/10

http://blog.myspace.com/locoformovies


I saw this in Italian, in Italy. Apparently Italians don't like sub-titles. I missed the start and came in only at the moustache-shaving scene, so, as I don't speak Italian or French I think it's a sign that it's a better film than it might appear that I understood and enjoyed it so much, though I thought it very sad.

If I understood it correctly, it's extremely misogynistic, but most men will have recognised the situations and understand the feelings.

I just think it's a good sign that such an apparently wordy film can be made to communicate on a non-verbal level.

I didn't recognise any of the actors ( though my wife tells me that the actress who played the mother is in the Lurpak ads ) so my understanding wasn't led by anything I might have expected from them.


a '4' only due to the brilliant (Vincent Lindon as Marc, & the equally brilliant Emmanuelle Devos as Agnès) performances in this pretty much 2- person movie. F.Tabouring's above review was excellent, but he seems to miss the most obvious & real point of the movie, which is, quite simply, ridiculous. the premise is excellent, & the movie begins & continues halfway excellently, unfortunately Emmanuel Carrère, the novelist, screenplay & director has no idea what to do from midway to the end. i did not read the novel, but if this is a faithful adaption, then i can only assume the book is as convoluted as the subsequent movie. it is not anywhere near an accurate picture of an individual's fall into insanity; it is not thought-provoking; it is not Hitchcockian in any way; & turns into a farce when the main character either physically or unconsciously supposedly travels to Hong Kong, where he repeatedly rides the ferry between Hong Kong-to-Kowloon "as if" searching for "something"? the ending scenes are equally ridiculous, as well as not thought out, & reminds me of a very young, untalented, unsophisticated director, who "thinks" he is an artist.

i say unfortunately in my summary line above because this could have been a brilliant story of loss of identity, & subsequent fall into insanity, & told in such a way as to not have any neat conclusions, but carried the viewer along for the ride. this movie attempts to challenge the viewer, but seems to have forgotten how to tell a story. even the insane have moments of clarity, which this movie clouds by being obtuse & simplistic.

it's a shame to have wasted two brilliant actors & their brilliant performances with such a terrible script, & by association, an amateurish & clumsy interpretation by the director/novelist, proving that a novelist should not write the screenplay, & not direct the finished product.


Everyone is trying to be so sophisticated with their analyses of this film - as if it's some sort of legitimate puzzle to be solved. This is not "2045" nor "8 1/2" nor "M. Hire." This is a filming of sequences of events which cannot stem from one another.

Folks, the reason the director has no answer to the question of "what is this film about?" is that the film makes no sense. The viewer has no idea what's happening, especially at the end. What is the reality of the situation? No way to know. And no reason to care. This is food for thought? Not. This is nonsense.

Even giving it a 'bye' for making no sense one cannot forgive the flaws in the story line. Why would Marc not show his wife the picture immediately? Why did he not try to follow her to his mother's house? What reason does he have, really, to doubt himself.

Worse, the film, though short, drags. I thought he was on that dang ferry for a week!


Saw this movie a couple of nights ago at the Sydney Film Festival and really wish I'd given it the biggest of misses! What were the festival directors thinking??? What an absolute waste of time, yes the lead played a guy with and without "La Moustache" very well but what was the point?? Who cares if it was his imagination, who cares if his wife and friends were playing a nasty trick on him, this was the most indulgent piece of film making I've ever had the misfortune of sitting through.

Watching him travel back and forth on the Hong Kong ferry was tedious and just plain STUPID! Hallelujah, it finally ended and I got to go home! You've been warned.


I didn't even know Laura Dern existed until 6 month ago when I saw "Wild At Heart". Maybe I did see her in Jurrassic Park, but she didn't leave a mark on me. This time she did!! Wow!! what a great, super actress!! I found that after seeing LD in several movies, she is great in factual stories, like October Sky. Whatever she does, she makes a believer out of me!! Here, she is a top grade doctor who blows the whistle on the HMO doctors. Well, I always thought there was something wrong with this system, anyway. There is something wrong with the new American people, that whenever they can steal a dollar, they'd rather do that than earn it. This is a story about such people. Not about poor people, but about rich people who want to get richer and they use the poor peoples money to do it. Thanks, Laura, I love you more today than I did yesterday. By the way, if you ever see this, I only give "10" rarely, but your best movie, a brave movie, was without question, was "Citizen Ruth". I ought to know, I've watched it 10 times or more. Please give my best to Alexander Payne, greatest Director of all time.


I saw this movie again recently. The first time I saw it I was incredulous, and the second time, even more so. Is this really truly how health care is funded in America?? Isn't there any kind of public system at all?

I just can't get over the apparent fact that a country that claims to be the most advanced of the so called developed countries would only have private health care. It's ridiculous.

Here only elective surgery is rationed, hip replacements, cataract surgery, that kind of thing. If you've got insurance, then you can go private, but otherwise, if you've got enough points, you get put on the waiting list and you eventually get your op for free. (The thing with the heart transplant would *never* happen here, that sort of thing isn't covered by our main health insurance company, as it's fully funded by the government.)

Although people are constantly winging and moaning about expensive doctor visits, (about NZ$50-$60 for an unsubsidised adult) if you need to go to A & E, you just go. In an ambulance, or otherwise. You don't have to ask permission.

What, prey tell, do people do if they can't afford health insurance?


Damaged Care is an excellent, must see movie which centers around the state of ethics in medical care and what happens when corporations get involved in medical decision making and make the bottom line take precedence over sound medical care. It delivers it's message both intelligently and poignantly, and without any over-dramatization; showing the dilemmas faced by the doctors, as well as, the plight of their patients. The script, acting, and direction were all realistic and superbly done. Laura Dern's performance as Dr. Linda Peeno is totally engrossing and believable. You'll stay riveted to the screen. Go see this movie, but be forewarned: even though most people are aware from the media or their own experience of what's going on today, watching this movie may make you become motivated enough to go out and help change things, if even in some small, personal way.


This movie wasn't a blockbuster though it did make an important point about US health care with its rising cost and declining quality. This made for TV movie portrays an honorable doc called to be the hatchet - woman for the dishonorable insurer out to save its Yankee green. Theee is much feel good liberal predictability in the denouement. To an extent the movie does show how doctors are willing conspirators or accomplices in the process. The acting flagged in places but overall the film did portray the essential ethical conflict between being a doctor and being the hatchet person kaboshing medical procedures treating doctors thought necessary. Too much feel - good liberalism enters the picture. In real life, insurers have little trouble finding replacements for such as the honest doc portrayed here and few docs if any ever become whistle blowers.


I knew who Charles Nelson Reilly was from the old game shows on TV when I was a kid. This movie is pretty much a film of his stage act (I didn't know he had one). The guy lived an incredible life and if he were to read this he would stress that he "STILL IS LIVING an incredible life." This is a great stage act brought to the screen and it has a real neat feel to it. The camera angles and editing add to this man's story telling. It is a very unique movie and I can't recommend it enough. I saw it down at the SWX film festival and everybody was raving about it. I think you walk into the movie with low expectations (who really wants to see an older man from cheesy game shows in a one-man stage show talk about his life?!) but the movie grabs you.


I just had the opportunity to catch this at the 2007 Madison Film Festival and thought it was such a wonderful film; equally entertaining, touching, and funny. The content of this film, which is Mr. Reilly's stage show that recaps his life and work, is absolutely fantastic. Equally important was the editing and capturing of his performance, where I felt the impact and intimacy of a live show.

Thanks for sharing your wonderful life, Mr. Reilly! And for all the lifetime of laughs, even if you want to forget about the TV material. Thanks to the film makers that brought this performance to a wider audience.

I can't recommend this enough and look forward to its release on DVD, so I can share it with my friends.

While watching his performance, I realized that performers of his caliber just don't grace the screen anymore. A thought that is quite depressing.


I saw this at the Waterfront Film Festival in Saugatuck, Michigan.

As the film opens, some people on the street are asked if they know who Charles Nelson Reilly is. Several of them say they've heard his name but don't really know him. Well, before seeing this film, I feel into that category. I didn't even realize until right before seeing the film that he has recently passed away.

The movie was very entertaining. I hadn't heard of the stage production, so I didn't know that the movie was a filming of his one man show. But I really enjoyed it. Charles Nelson Reilly was quite the character. He was funny and witty and never worried about making fun of himself. In the film, Charles mostly talked about his childhood and how he started out in the entertainment business. There were a lot of great stories and some inside jokes. I liked whenever he talked about a new person from his family or someone close to him that he would cast a famous person to play the part.

This film was a lot of fun and I really got to know who the real Charles Nelson Reilly was. It's sad that he's gone, but he lived a long life and the film seems to show that he enjoyed every bit of it. And he gave an excellent finale.


Well, it is the end of May 2007 and Mr. Charles Nelson Reilly has recently died. I just learned of it today and, while I know it's silly, I've been sitting here at work getting teary-eyed. Sure, as a kid I knew him only from The Match Game, but when I saw "Life of Reilly (Save It for the Stage)" last fall I understood at last what a fascinating person and enormous heart lay behind the outrageous public persona. And, finally, it seems that even the game-show Charles Nelson Reilly was not really ever a mere persona, that he was never anyone but who he was, histrionic and unapologetic and, if you took the trouble to look, enormously dignified. The movie shows both the man and the artist, a veteran stage actor whose craft at storytelling never ebbed, even as his final years slowed him down physically.

As it happens, I ran across the "Jose Chung" episode of the X-Files, with Mr. Reilly in the title role, last week, just before he passed. That long, serialized interview scene with Gillian Anderson's Dana Scully is just a delight; I think you can see the fun Ms. Anderson is having playing off him. And it surely contains some of the series' best comic writing.

*Sigh.* Mr. Reilly, I shall miss you greatly.


This is a unique movie as it is the last performance Charles Nelson Reilly ever did of his one man show. To watch him tell his stories is to see a master weave his craft into words that keep you consistently engrossed by what he has to tell.

CNR's life is fascinating. There is much more to him than most people will ever know. For years you just knew him as the guy on match game, and that funny guy on the Lucy episode, or wasn't he on ghost and Mrs Muir? Something about him in all of those things stuck out enough for people to remember him. The man is an amazing performer, and his words are rich in with the history of Broadway, Hollywood and his personal life.

This film needs to be released on DVD or somehow the gameshow network needs to make a deal with the film maker and show it on the gameshow network, or release it with one of the DVD sets! People need to see it!


Just watched the unedited three hour version of The Life of Reilly filmed in San Francisco in 2001. This is a two DVD set that is superb quality and crystal clear. It appears that the filming is authorized as CNR sees everything from the stage, throwing barbs at the audience now and again and would unquestionably have commented on the filming had it been done without his permission. Not having seen the version shown in theaters I have to assume that this is the complete show as opposed to the mini-documentary which most of the posters on this site are referring to. This is a brilliantly funny one-man show, witty and dramatic, funny and tragic in the telling of stories from Nelson Reilly's life and career. His performance covers a huge range of subjects and his delivery is masterful. Strange to believe that his talents will essentially be remembered only for his contribution to Match Game.

A one-man show that is both touching and very, very funny. For anyone who knows anything about show business from way back when - and I'm talking about the great Vaudeville stars of the 20's and 30's, this is a nostalgic mind-blower. When Nelson Reilly talks about his family, describing them as "portrayed by" Burt Lancaster or Shirley Booth or any one of a multitude of movie stars from the 40's and 50's, the result is hysterical. What a wonderful memorial to a talented and loving personality.


For anybody who grew up between 1960 to the early 1980's, the name Charles Nelson Reilly should click with you (especially if you watched a ton of kid vid & game shows). The documentary,filmed mostly at his one man play/monologue/diatribe, on the last two performances should be worth you while. Reilly recalls his tortured childhood,up thru his late adolescence with a mix of snide humour & pained memories (how he even got through childhood & adolescence with a vile,racist,homophobic control fanatic Mother,a alcoholic,manic depressive Father,a comatose Aunt & other dysfunctional family members is a small miracle in itself). He also recalls his early years on Broadway (only after he was rejected by the President of NBC for being gay),and his eventual rise as a television celebrity, makes this for a film to be taken upon. About my only beef is the occasional clumsy camera & editing work that makes this film a wee bit of a challenge (the camera seems to be everywhere it's not supposed to be more than a few times,plus the framing seems to be way off,giving the film a rather clumsy,home movie look, such as 'Ziggy Stardust & The Spiders From Mars',which was marred by bad camera & editing work). If you can get past that, 'The Life Of Reilly' is one to seek out.


I just saw a screening of this film at the Seattle International Film Festival. Everyone was in great spirits with some pre-show Charles Nelson Reilly t-shirts being given away. Knowing that CNR was more than just a television perma-guest, I was looking forward to hearing him tell stories as only he can. He didn't disappoint. It takes a gifted storyteller to wring humor and pathos out of a painful childhood, and a sharp observer to make the life story so fresh and consistently surprising. As long as the cameras held steady on CNR and just let the man express himself, the film was excellent.

Unfortunately, it seemed that the film-makers wanted to constantly remind the viewer that this was a FILM documentary. I wanted to hear more stories, especially about his life in the theater, but the film-makers edited three-plus hours of stage material down to barely ninety minutes. This lead to some jarring transitions and title screens explaining what surely must have been great stories. Black-and-white film clips interspersed with CNR's monologue detracted from the stories rather than enhance them. But my biggest complaint, however, was the totally distracting soundtrack. Electric guitars and synthesizers played constantly, often making it difficult to hear CNR's words. The director attended the screening and explained that they were still editing the film, and he seemed to acknowledge that it was difficult to hear at times. I recommend more Charles, mellower editing, and far less soundtrack.

The good news is that the director announced the production team's desire to include as a DVD bonus feature an uncut film of CNR's stage show from 2003, which runs about three hours and has plenty of stories and anecdotes. Maybe my problems with the film are really to disguise my disappointment at never being able to see CNR's show live on stage. I hope that uncut film will provide the fix.


Due to Gillian Anderson's real-life pregnancy, she needed to be written out of the show for a little while to deliver her baby. Duane Barry begins the storyline that was written to get around this situation. I think the Scully abduction storyline was very well done throughout the course of the series. It's funny that this real-life event brought about this fantastic storyline. Continuing with its tradition of great guest stars, Steve Railsback gives an incredible performance as the abductee, Duane Barry. This episode is low on action but high on drama as Mulder negotiates with Duane Barry in a hostage situation. My only hang-up with this episode is the about face of Agent Lucy Kazdin. At first she tells Mulder that what Duane Barry needs is a "friend, someone who appears to understand him and can appeal to his sense of reason." She also say, "So whatever crap you got to make up about space men or UFOs, just keep him on the phone." Then later, she abruptly changes her mind and tells Mulder not to feed into Duane's psychosis when Mulder says he believes him. I don't see those two strategies as compatible. Either you go along with Duane's "aliens" or you don't. It just doesn't make any sense. However, it's a minor issue, and the every other aspect of the episode is great. The ending scene in Scully's apartment is chilling and memorable.


An episode of very high tension as Mulder finds himself in a hostage situation with an alleged abductee. Very little action , but keeps you hooked all the way through , and nicely kicks starts the story of Scully's abduction due to Anderson's real life pregnancy. Although i would advise people with conditions like epilepsy not to watch this as there are many scenes with flashing and strobe lighting. Also contains a lot of good alien scenes , with good special effects. The ending is extremely chilling and will stay with you. A good episode , one which would make anyone want to continue watching th X-Files!

8/10!


The alien-episodes have always been my favorites, but this one wasn't as great as i hoped for to be honest. The black lady in the FBI was pretty darn dumb about the tactics, that annoyed me. I didn't really understand if Duane was lying or not. If he was telling the truth, why would they add the whole "he was shot in the head blabla"-part? And if he was lying, the episode would be kind of pointless. Something that was also annoying was the blinking lights in the alien-scenes. I actually had to close my eyes to not get a headache! The last scene was good, was scary when Scully saw Duane in the window. Duane Barry was an exciting episode. First episode we got to see aliens alive!

Best moment: When Mulder got Duane to get to the door

Worst moment: When the black lady was talking about the tactics


By far the strongest and most important Mythology until now. And probably one of the best Mythologies of the entire show. It's not as vague or slow moving as previous episodes, and thank the lords of Kobol that it wasn't filled with tons of cheesy lines including the word 'truth'.

Duane Barry was an extraordinary character and his abduction scenes featured some of the best scenes of the series. They were very well done and some of them borderline creepy. The hostage scenes were also superbly done, the hostages all did their part. and the scenes between Mulder and Duane were also superbly done.

Scully's character, although not that important in this episode had some really nifty scenes. She and the tracking chip, and the cliff-hanger with Duane attacking her at her home. Yeah, if you didn't care for the Mythology yet you would after this episode.

FIVE stars, easily. My second favorite episode yet.


Duane Barry the Limerick:

An ex FBI man Duane Barry

Gets taken by aliens scary.

"Oh no not again!"

"I must make this end!"

He takes hostages cuz he is weary.

Duane Barry has always been one of my favorite season 2 episodes. I remember when I first bought the season 2 DVD set and watched the episodes in sequence. Before then I had never seen this episode and I hadn't realized just how early in the show Scully's abduction had been.

The episode deals with an ex-FBI agent who has become an impulsive liar or something like that, who is a repeat abductee. He finally snaps and decides that in order to keep from being taken again, he needs to get someone else to take his place and thus, kidnaps his doctor and takes a travel agency hostage. This is the first episode of a two-parter and this takes place mostly in the travel agency, and plays out like your typical hostage crisis storyline with the task force talking to the killer and doing everything they can to get a shot on one end and the hostages and shooter on the other end. I'm always reminded of the movie with Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey. I think its called The Negotiator. Anyway, Mulder is called in to help talk to Duane because of his "special" background and instead Mulder ends up buying into Duane's "delusion" which we will later find out was true. Duane is eventually shot and taken to a hospital where an implant is found and removed from his body. Scully takes the implant and scans it at the grocery store causing the register to flip out. Shaken, she goes home and immediately calls Mulder to relate the experience. As she is in the middle of leaving a message, Duane Barry shows up and kidnaps her and we are left with a "To Be Continued..." The episode is entertaining and is an important part of the mythology. There aren't exactly a lot of novel or singular moments that make it stand out other than the very unique character of Duane Barry, but nevertheless I do enjoy watching it every time. I will give it a 8 out of 10.


This episode is very interesting and it is start of a new era. This is the beginning of the Scully abduction story line, which increased and became a great success. Without the abduction, half the story line wouldn't have happened, all thanks to Duane Barry. Duane Barry is a very interesting character. Anyway, now I will say Good and Bad things about this episode,

The Good: Wow, that was very brave of Mulder to go in there. =O

Duane Barry talking in 3rd person. xD

Finding out her might me lieing in the end. Wow.

The Bad: The torture scenes. =[[

Conclusion: A good episode all over. 8/10


I consider my watching of the Hanna Barbera cartoons at its peak to be in the late 1970's. Other than the original Where Are You? series of 1969,I felt the next best animated Scooby Doo shows were the ones made between 1976 and 1978. The Scooby Doo Show had lots of great and memorable episodes. The only guest characters who surfaced in this series were Scooby's retarded cousin Scooby Dum. As annoying as he was, I say give me Scooby Dum over the likes of Scrappy Doo any day!! Also, there was Scooby Dee in that one episode. I noticed that when I acquired the Scooby Doo Dynomutt Hour on DVD, they only had the episodes from the 1976 season. Apparently, Hanna Barbera is skipping over the other half of these shows, though I don't understand why. I'm assuming the other half of these shows must have aired in 1977 as part of Scooby's All Star Laff a Lympics.

Anyway, I noticed that in the late 70's the group split ups this time had it where Fred and both the girls went off together leaving Shaggy and Scooby together to provide all the laughs as opposed to the Velma hanging with Shaggy and Scooby while Fred and Daphne paired off like the old series.

As for the villains, we saw the likes of the Spectre, The Gator Ghoul, The No Face Zombie and Gorilla, the 10,000 Volt Ghost and more. SO apparently, the Scooby Doo Show had three seasons. The third season sticks out in my mind more than any other. These 16 episodes are what some people say is supposed to be a continuation of the Where Are You? series, only with late 70's style animation. There were no guest characters in this series and the villains ranged from the Willowah, Iron Face, The Cat Creature, the Jaguaro,the Lock Ness Monster, the Disco Phantom, and more. These shows were a little spookier than the previous seasons and what really sticks out in my mind about these episodes is the stock music that Hanna Barbera used in these 16 episodes. These 16 episodes aired in 1978 as the opening segment of the new 90 minute Scooby's All Stars series and these episodes are coming out on DVD later this year. But what I was saying music wise, these 16 episodes had stock music that was also heard on Challenge of the SuperFriends, both the Challenge and Non Challenge episodes of 1978.

Bottom line, I feel the best Scooby Doo shows were the original Where Are You series and these 1976-1978 episodes and also, the Scooby Movies of the early 70's. But it stops right here. Up next, disaster called Scrappy Doo!! Please WB, release the remaining Scooby episodes of 1977 on DVD as well as the Laff a Lympics. DYNOMUTT: DOG WONDER: This was not only a spin off to me from Scooby Doo, but also a parody of Batman and Robin, only in this case, the sidekick (a mechanical one) is the actual star while the hero is actually the costar. Dynomutt was hilarious as the mechanical Dog Wonder who although being a state of the art (at least at the time) crimefighter, Dog Wonder always malfunctioned. The real reason I liked Dynomutt was because of the Blue Falcon, who to me was nothing more than a Batman ripoff. Oddly enough, without Dynomutt around, BF is quite efficient as a Super Hero. But Dog Wonder's malfunctions always hindered Big Citys hero instead of helping him. And who can forget the likes of his arch enemies like Superthug, the Queen Hornet, The Gimmick, FishFace,the Worm, and Lowbrow. I also enjoyed the few episodes where Scooby Doo and the gang of Mystery Inc. guest appeared.

Only a few episodes of Dynomutt are not on the DVD, so I am assuming they ran in 1977 on the Laff a Lympics shows. Either way, you can't miss with these Scooby Doo/Dynomutt Hour episodes on DVD. If you're a major Hanna Barbera fan, I highly recommend this series.


The Scooby Doo is a very good show, though not as good as my childhood favourite Scooby Doo Where Are You? and this is coming from a biased Scooby Doo fan. The animation is perhaps a little dated by today's standards, but not that bad at all. The theme tune is perfectly fine too. Scooby and Shaggy have still got their fun and charm, and there are one or two appearances from Scooby Dumb. As much as I love Fred, Velma and Daphne, Scooby and Shaggy will always be my favourite characters, these two never fail to make me laugh. There are some very memorable villains like the Ice Cream Ghosts, The Gator Ghoul, Ironface and the Jaguaroo, and again, I can't decide which one's my favourite. All in all, not as good as Scooby Doo Where are You, but is still an improvement over most of the stuff with Scrappy in. 9/10 Bethany Cox.


Opinions and taste is up to an individual: logic is not.

Having worked in five countries and been around the block...a few times,I know the value of being able to chill out in order to get positive goals done! Dynomutt allows people to relax and it is a no brainer. Good nostalgia cartoons? You bet we need'em in this,sometimes,too serious world being materialistic (and look where that did go since last year). A good laugh is priceless and well needed nowadays.

Anyway,isn't it amazing that this DVD has been redone in 2006 shows,somehow,its popularity: trust me,in business they do not do it because they feel like it. They did it because there is a demand...

Even me,being French dig the coolness of this cartoon.


I remember watching this movie. It was like 10 years ago. I was only 13 and I still remember it. Because of all the excitement and nice working. I really think that this is one of the real classics of movies! What gets me even more is that the story doesn't end "good". The main character dies and that is a rather suprise ending. All in all a real classic of a movie. In my opinion


What a mess of a film. This was Toho's first-of the 1980's-foray into Tokusatsu, after a hiatus in 1977 with The War In Space. It was made a year before Godzilla 1984 as well as a year before 2010 came out-and this film bears some striking plot devices to that one, as well as some of the set and miniature designs. The plus is perhaps some outstanding effects work by Koichi Kawakita, for the time; some mesmerizing cloud chamber work, and nice miniature ships,planet scapes and matte and optical work. I'd say it well matches anything by Gerry Anderson(think Space:1999) from the late 60's or early 70's. The story is another matter-a black hole is on collision course with earth-however it can be altered if Jupiter is blown up to become a sun. The "Jupiter Solarization Project" is being undertaken to create a new sun and thus, colonize the moons of Jupiter. However some space hippies of the "Jupiter Church" don't want this to happen. They hang around-when not casually attempting to sabotage the project in orbit around Jupiter-on a beach on earth with this head guru guy who pulls out a guitar and stops the film, and does a musical number! I kid you not. This happens about four times. Accompanied by a montage of images of animals, beaches, dolphins,etc. There is also perhaps one of the biggest rip-off scenes from Jaws ever done, so blatantly. Characters zip back and forth from earth to Jupiter with the edit of a scene. There is also a "space sex" scene which they use "Love Gas" to achieve. It's corny, cheesy but inexplicably...you can see nary a string or harness on their buck naked bodies! How'd they do that? It goes on forever but you can't take your eyes off it, not knowing how "hot" this will get. The hippies turn out to be terrorists and somehow we are supposed to empathize with their desire to kill everyone for no reason whatsoever. There are some grand set pieces, devices, and a "large" epic look to things. But it never really comes together. They steal everything you can think of from the aforementioned Jaws,Star Wars, The Black Hole and, another blatant effects rip off shot from 2001:A Space Odyssey. The songs are amazing-they don't miss a beat to get one into all four acts of the film and, the end titles, complete with strange lyrics like "We burn out like a comet's nest" and "I will transfer all your pain to me". The English speaking actors are atrocious for the most part, just completely ruining whatever grand set they are placed in. There is also a scene where a guy is speaking German to a Gaijin guy who speaks Japanese back at him. Huh? There's a Godzilla in-joke that's quite funny, and works, as clips from Ghidorah(1965) manage to make it into the film as one guy seems to be a Kaiju fan. The film was never released here in the states legally, until now. It's been a rarity for American Tokusatsu fans to try and find. And, to me, a letdown.


I first thought the film was okay, but I enjoyed it only because of my curiosity stemming from the film's rarity. Not too many people in the Godzilla fan community have seen it, and it should stay that way. When I rewatched it, I started getting bored within the first minute. Many scenes drag on needlessly (e.g. the sex scene against a space backdrop), stretching the film's running time to an unbearable 2 hours, and no "good bad" movie can be 2 hours long. Many scenes are inane (e.g. the sex scene..., the hippies). The characters trying to sabotage the Jupiter Solarization Project are horribly annoying because their merely brats who want to be responsible for the deaths of 200 billion people. They have no motivation for this. They're just stupid, annoying, selfish, sanctimonious punks (and of course their leader is French-looking). Despite the running time, you barely know most of the characters, and then they try to milk some tears from you by some pointless death scenes. It breaks the "don't show a good movie in the middle of your crappy movie" rule by intercutting a fistfight with scenes from GHIDRAH THE THREE HEADED MONSTER in what I assume is a vapid, nongermane, and utterly pointless social commentary. The music is something out of a high school graduation, repetitive and grating. There's gratuitous cruelty to animals mixed with a laughably bad rubber shark and dolphin. The only good part of this movie are the excellent special effects (excluding the shark and dophin), but they are too few and far between.

This entire movie just ticks me off, especially since it took money and good special effects people away from GOJIRA (1984). It just tries to grasp at your heartstrings, but it's filled with stupid, dull, annoying characters you'd just love to beat the crap out of and filler on the level of the refueling scenes from THE STARFIGHTERS. Absolutely one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

1/10 (It'd be 0 if IMDB's ratings went that low)


I watched it once about 8 years ago or more, i am a sci-fi fan thats why i rented it. To this day i havent seen a worst movie. Ridiculous plot, lousy acting, crappy Ed Wood-style special (d)effects. Steer clear away from this.


This is one of the worst Japanese big budget films I've run across. The plot has something to do with a project concerning Jupiter going horribly wrong and... you really don't want to know. Trust me as bad as you think some of the Godzilla movies and films like The Green Slime are, this is worse, but not in a good way.

This is just stupid, the hippies being the last straw on a short list of reasons to watch, none of which are good. I have no idea why anyone would like this on anything but a technical level since the plot, which I've finally been able to erase from my mind only thanks to years of very expensive therapy. All I remember is that the film seemed to want to be a flower power film but was made by people who didn't know what that was and were 15 years too late.(these people couldn't plot a film even if they were handed it)

This film was suggested to me by a friend who loves it, "saying you'll either love it or you won't, but I think you will". He was wrong.

Trust me, there are better ways to spend two and a half hours, many much more pleasant


VARALARU , is a very good movie, and lot of hard work in that film, P.C.Sriram, work is excellent, and A.R.Rehman, did a wonderful job.All songs are feast....The Director, K.S.Ravikumar, has add his stamp from the first scene itself. A fast-paced narration with some interesting incidents weaved in, which doesn't allow you much time to ponder on the flaws, and which camouflages the inadequacies of the script, makes 'Varalaru' engaging viewing. And the soul of the film is undoubtedly Ajit, who performs his three diverse characters with panache. The actor has put in much effort, demarcating each role with such finesse and understanding that it is a sheer delight watching him on screen. There is Shiva, the ageing business tycoon, bound to his wheelchair, sharing a strong bonding with his son Vishnu. Indulgent, while Vishnu whiles away his time with his cronies taking life easy. But then suddenly Vishnu starts behaving out of character, his drunken bouts and acts causing the father much shame and embarrassment. And when Vishnu professes to remember nothing of what he had done, the father takes him to a psychiatrist.With 'Varalaru' Ajit has bounced back with a vengeance and re-established his credentials as an actor who can deliver if given the right role and projected suitably. The famished look of 'Tirupati' is gone, and we get to see a handsome, eminently watchable Ajit here.Then appears Jeeva, Vishnu's look-alike, and the cause of Vishnu's woes. Jeeva's target is Shiva, and his motive vengeance for the wrong done to his mother decades back. The flashback episodes has Ajit playing a classical dancer, and it is here that the actor scores. With his perfect body language to go with the character of the dancer, and the feminine mannerisms he adopts to go with it, Ajit cuts a fascinating picture. His classical dance number is performed with such finesse that it takes you by sheer surprise.

While Asin peps up the scenes in the earlier part with her vivaciousness, Kaniha gets the performing role as the older Ajit's pair.

The songs are nice to hear, going to hit the chart list soon. One of the great work of A.R.Rehman, Director K S Ravikumar, who had struck the right chord with the actor (in a dual role) in 'Villain' earlier, has done it yet again here too.

Everyone did their job perfectly. I recommend everyone to watch this movie.....i am sure you will love it.


VARALARU is a great movie, and lot of hard work in that film, P.C.Sriram, work is excellent, and A.R.Rehman, did a wonderful job.All songs are feast....The Director, K.S.Ravikumar, has add his stamp from the first scene itself. A fast-paced narration with some interesting incidents weaved in, which doesn't allow you much time to ponder on the flaws, and which camouflages the inadequacies of the script, makes 'Varalaru' engaging viewing. And the soul of the film is undoubtedly Ajit, who performs his three diverse characters with panache. The actor has put in much effort, demarcating each role with such finesse and understanding that it is a sheer delight watching him on screen. There is Shiva, the ageing business tycoon, bound to his wheelchair, sharing a strong bonding with his son Vishnu. Indulgent, while Vishnu whiles away his time with his cronies taking life easy. But then suddenly Vishnu starts behaving out of character, his drunken bouts and acts causing the father much shame and embarrassment. And when Vishnu professes to remember nothing of what he had done, the father takes him to a psychiatrist.With 'Varalaru' Ajit has bounced back with a vengeance and re-established his credentials as an actor who can deliver if given the right role and projected suitably.Then appears Jeeva, Vishnu's look-alike, and the cause of Vishnu's woes. Jeeva's target is Shiva, and his motive vengeance for the wrong done to his mother decades back. The flashback episodes has Ajit playing a classical dancer, and it is here that the actor scores. With his perfect body language to go with the character of the dancer, and the feminine mannerisms he adopts to go with it,Ajith cuts a fascinating picture. His classical dance number is performed with such finesse that it takes you by sheer surprise.


The movie is really good due to Ajith's excellent performance in the role of a man with feminine character.

Since most part of the movie is shot when Ajith was during the period of reducing his weight, his looks are not same throughout the movie. This is really intriguing in the flow of the narration.

K.S.Ravikumar is in his usual stuff taking the plot of prostitution for the romance of the lead pair.

A.R.Rahman's songs are hummable and good to watch.Overall Ajith's performance raises this movie and it lived to its expectation and the long wait was worth.


Varalaru is an good movie - It has the dubious distinction of failing at every imaginable level.

Featuring Ajith in a triple role, Varalaru represents a combination of all the worst elements in Tamil movies.

A pitiful story, horrible acting by Ajith, mediocre music, crude action scenes and juvenile comic interludes combine to deliver a stinging migraine to unsuspecting viewers.

Varalaru is so bad that it can easily be showcased at film schools as an illustration of an egregiously bad movie.

Ajith plays the role of a father Shivashankar and his two sons Vishnu and Jeeva. He overacts in all three roles but is particularly bad as the father. Ajith is only slightly better in the character of Jeeva, the vengeful young lad intent on killing his father whom he blames for his mother's madness.

Apart from Ajith's acting (or is it non-acting), the other big weakness of Varalaru is its asinine story, which gives new meaning to the term bizarre.

The totally unconvincing story dooms the movie from the get-go. It's weird to even conceive of a mother who harbors affection for her daughter's rapist.

Then there are Varalaru's dialogs, which never rise above the banal.

Asin plays the lady love of Vishnu but does not have much of a role. Which is a pity since the young girl is showing signs of becoming a good actress. Since the story revolves around Ajith's three roles, there is little scope for Asin to demonstrate her talents here.

Music genius Rehman has failed to deliver the goods in Varalaru. None of the songs rise above the ordinary. Katril Oru Vaarthai is perhaps the best of the lot.

Vishnu, the son of a rich businessman Shiva, generally likes to have a good time in the company of his friends. While visiting a village called Thottapuram on a social service mission, he meets a young girl Divya (Asin) and is smitten with her.

Soon, the youngsters are engaged to each other and set to marry shortly.

But things start to go terribly wrong for Vishnu soon. He commits various violent acts that he has no recollection of later. When Vishnu's violent behavior gets worse, his father has him admitted to a mental hospital.

We quickly realize that the evil hand behind Vishnu's violent activities is actually his look-alike Jeeva.

But why is Jeeva doing all those criminal acts and shifting the blame on Vishnu? The answer lies in Shivashankar's distant past as an

dancer who is jilted literally at the altar. Unable to bear the shock, his mother dies sending Shiva into a violent rage that leads him to rape the girl (Kanika) who jilted him.

Although Kanika has a short role, the young lass shows that she can indeed act, a rarity in Tamil movies.

All in all, Varalaru is awful to endure, rotten to contemplate and unpleasant to narrate


I don't know if its the way the lead guy and his stupid friends see the group of helpful women as possible prostitutes or whether its Ajith Kumar's incredibly irritating screen presence or the director's total lack of judgment or the incredibly stupid title, that makes me think this is another of the really crappy movies that come from Tamil Cinema. The movie is incredibly bad, too bad that even A.R.Rahman couldn't save it with really lackluster music and songs, he cant be blamed though there was nothing to get inspired to make even decent music. Ajith was great during his "mugavari" days when he portrayed such a likable character. He is plain pathetic now. I don't even know why I waste my time writing him reviews.


There's a proverb in Tamil

"Kannal kanbadhum poi. Kaadhal ketpadhum poi"

It means, "Things u see with your eyes are illusions. Things you listen with your ears are all lies"

This movie is like tat... Impossibly the worst movie...

I saw this movie... The tile of the movie is "Godfather"... But, the story has no connection to the title at all... Guess, the director doesn't know the meaning for Godfather...

TO ALL TAMIL DIRECTORS... BEFORE TITLING A MOVIE LOOK FOR THE MEANING IN THE DICTIONARY BEFORE DOING SO...