I saw this movie at the Dragon*Con 2006 Independent Film Festival. It was awarded 2 awards at that festival and rightfully so. This is probably the best short horror film I've ever seen. The simplicity of camera usage really works.The main character is brilliant. His acting is quite good and is believable. The 3 cameras in the room with Tim Russel make his insanity that much more believable. I love it. I have talked with Mike and he says that they are in the process of making a feature film compassing the first three chapters together. I can't wait. I will be first in line for that film. The effects of the "mirror" creatures are used so well. You don't see them for very long so it scares the pants off of you when you do. I recommend this film to anyone who wants to watch a good horror movie for once. Best 32 minutes of spine tingling horror I've ever seen. Thanks Mike.


This short film freaked me out. It is a little over 30 minutes, it takes place entirely in a single, undecorated room, and is almost entirely performed by a single actor. Yet, despite the austerity, I felt more tense watching this than 95% of the movies that were meant to be scary.

A man locks himself in a room with a large decorative mirror. He has several recording devices set up to document what will happen. He turns the cameras on and begins explaining what led to this "experiment." It turns out that the mirror has a history of causing violent death in every place that it has hung, including the narrator's own home. His father and mother were among the mirror's victims, and now he wants to document its effects. By shutting himself up in the room and recording what happens, he intends to prove the mirror is cursed.

I am always fascinated by one-person performances. Even on sketch comedy shows, like Saturday Night Live, it seems like such an achievement to be able to tell the story completely by oneself. In the case of Oculus, there is very little special effects or technology supplementing the performance. Yet, it builds incredibly well towards a tense, satisfying conclusion. I won't say the acting is perfect, but I was definitely into it. For much of the film, the mirror actually stays covered up by a white sheet, yet projects a sinister feel. When you actually see it, it looks like something that might hang in the Disney World Haunted Mansion. Along with Rec, The Strangers, and Lake Mungo, Oculus is on a short list of scary movies that actually made me feel something.


What can i say, i love the Twilight Zone style shorts (and i'd say this was akin to that sort of sci-fi /horror) but this has got to be one of the most affecting short films that i've ever seen without it having to lower itself to the reliance of gore and visual explicitness.Simply a gruelling and incredibly paranoid half hour. Shot on an obviously low budget with minimal casting and mininimal locations (i.e. one room) it achieves maximum tension and maximum freakishness without actually being overtly freaky. A completely different viewing experience from what the ordinary filmic audience is used to.The acting was superb from the main character and my only quarm with the entire production is the last few seconds could have been a little more in the same vein and less showy (not in an f/x sense but more in a well,was it him or was it the mirror? Regardless,it's one of the most (not terrifying, but i think psychologically draining would be an accurate summary) nightmarish shorts you're likely to see.Check it out now!!!! A+


One of my friends (zablalbaz) saw this at DragonCon and was raving about it. He managed to get it to show some of his friends. From all the hype he was giving it, I figured it was good, but did not believe it could have been *that* good. Some people say the alarms were too loud, but I think they were perfect. Amazing how a simple alarm clock can make you jump like that. I did notice how the video monitors have different things going on in them. Very freaky and scary, but not on a blood and gore scale. Very freaky on the paranoia and sanity of the mind spectrum. I was amazed at how well this film was at keeping my attention. Very tough to do for a 1 man star in a film. I cannot wait to see the full length feature films for this once completed. My wife was not very impressed by this film, she just thought the guy was insane and out of his head. But, you should watch it and decide for yourself.....insane, paranoid, or is the legacy true...


How horror should be.

I was fortunate enough to view this prior to The Call of Cthulhu at the Leeds Film Festival in 2006 and to be honest, Oculus was better.

Goes to show that you don't need masses of blood and gore and elaborate sets to produce chilling horror.

I found myself holding my breath on more than one occasion as well as looking for a non-existent cushion to hide behind!

That's how good it is!

The acting was brilliant and it was really well written - the story will appeal to any fan that loves a spine-chiller.

Looking forward to other instalments and hoping to get this on DVD someday.


I recently saw this movie at a friends house and it proves the old adage "Small things come in little packages". The stark set, brilliant use lighting and sound make this a movie that keeps building until the final moments then leaves you wanting more.

Alone the entire time, Scott Graham has no one to play off of, to react to, or to use as crutch through the film. Further more he had no elaborate set to take the eyes off him putting him even further in the spotlight. He did a superb job carrying the movie by himself and I hope to see him in more things in the future.

This movie is not for the slasher/gore-fest crowd, but anyone that loves a well written, directed, and acted thriller will love this short film.


I stumbled onto this program on the Discovery Channel completely by accident and was struck by the incredible audacity of Les Straud to undertake such an enterprise. The inherent weakness of most television involves the ever-present camera crew and their entourage. Les does it all. When you are watching "Survivor", you are always aware there are several cameramen lurking about, and you know you are seeing an edited version of "reality." With Les and "Survivorman", you know the only footage you don't see is the endless footage of him selecting a vantage point for the tripod and camera so that he can effectively function as his own cameraman. This is a great program if you are at all interested in true survival of one man against the great wilderness of the world.


This is definitely one of the most interesting shows to watch. There are lots of survival shows out there, but this one really kicks the competition. This show is great to watch because Les Stroud really does survive. Most of these types of shows use camera crews to document their survival, which isn't bad either, but this is pretty much a one-man show. The show definitely has a lot of great adventures taken on by Les Stroud, the Survivorman. This is a unique show of how insane it is to survive alone in different wilderness situations and scenarios. This is a great show to watch and I'd definitely recommend watching it if you want to see REAL survival.


If Les has written a guide on how to survive in the Wilderness...I want to buy it. The show is fantastic and informative. He never sugar coats any situation. He does not take unreasonable risks much like a normal person wouldn't. Les takes you there and you feel the experience. He also shows you how to use what is available. In one episode they haul in a crashed single engine plane. The show scenario is that Les has just crashed and is assessing his situation. He shows you how to salvage it and use most all of the plane for his shelter, clothing and trip back to civilization. He has shown how to make fire in more situations than I have ever seen. I have seen and enjoyed a lot of survivor shows...this one is tops!


Les Stroud is my hero.

Survivorman is no doubt an epic show that deserves more credit than it gets. Most people pass this show off as "boring," but you can tell that they never really sit down to watch it. You can't really judge a show by the 5 minutes that you watched. Not to mention that the information on Survivorman is useful. Man vs. Wild was good, but it featured Bear doing impossible stunts and jumping from cliff to cliff. Survivorman just seems more practical. Les beats the crap out of himself for our amusement, and we should honor him for that. Excellent show.

I suddenly have the urge to savagely rip into a pond tuber, but those taste like crap. I then bite into a river reed and break my teeth in half. It got woody on me.


Les Stroud is an extraordinary man of 45 highly experienced years as of this writing. His life's journey so far has taken him deep into the world of music for which his "blues harp" talents and compositional skills have established a solid reputation in a realm that both coexists and sublimely contrasts with his unique brand of outdoor adventures which are as informative as they are uniformly grueling.

Les circumnavigates the globe at the behest of his own production team, always seeking new and disparate locations from which to both tackle and parlay his survivalist experiences to those of us willing or wanting to watch him endure his self-inflicted ordeals. It appears that as far as Les is concerned, sometimes his greatest trial is in having to be his own expert cinematographer on site...and the technical hardware doesn't always tolerate the elements as well as Survivorman.

In fact, Mr. Stroud, aside from his incredible courage and skill, is a funny and amusing teacher of how to sensibly spend a week in an unpredictable and often non-sensible (for humans) environment. The viewer is oft awarded a brief respite in the form of comic relief. To that end, and to the Survivorman's considerable credit, Les is willing to lapse into good natured self-deprecation if he becomes frustrated by having mishandled a task or judgment call. Conversely, he's not shy to cheer himself on camera for scoring small successes. The end result of his edited filming is always as full of momentary surprises as it is with the kind of awe-inspiring beauty over which nature reigns supreme, for better or for worse.

As folks from New England are prone to say, if you don't like the weather, then wait a little...and so it is with Les, who's circumstances change as quickly as Mt. Washington's (New Hampshire) atmospheric conditions. And weather can be just one of a plethora of unpleasantries to contend with. Ultimately, Les Stroud is a master of extreme teaching. He perhaps goes to conventionally unreasonable lengths to film himself in all manner of temporarily glorious moments which are usually just the other side of an impending predicament...and he's fully aware of that aspect too.

Mr. Stroud is not a daredevil, nor a thrill-seeker for its own sake, but rather a dedicated outdoors-man and supremely accomplished survivalist among his other complimentary talents. With his production crew often stationed somewhere in the general vicinity, Les does his own thing, alone, with his trusty multi-tool and harmonica for comfort wherever there might be none otherwise. As we quietly slip into his journey, Les enriches our knowledge and entertains our senses. It's a photographic treat to follow his intrepid endeavors from the safety of our personal viewing zone. In the spotty world of reality television, "Survivorman" is as flawless as it is fascinating.


I was transfixed by this show since my first viewing. One man in the wild for seven days - no camera crew, nothing but a multi-tool and some basic equipment. The show is set up to more or less mimic a typical survival situation - lost at sea, lost while hiking, a plane crash in the wilderness, etc. It adds an extra element of credibility and realism.

The host then proceeds to do what he must to survive with what he has available, and to make use of or anticipate a use for what he is left with, be it a damaged bicycle, plane, parachute, backpack, etc. Les is alone in this, performing everything including all of his own camera work. So when we see him walking off into the distance or climbing down a bluff, he has to walk or climb all the way back to his camera to retrieve it.

The wilderness settings are incredibly varied, from the arctic to the jungles, tropical islands to open ocean. We get a taste of just about every possible terrain as well, from mountains to desert plains.

The thing I like the most about the show is its practicality. Les doesn't take unnecessary risks for the sake of entertainment. He cooks his food whenever he can, doesn't attempt unrealistic tasks that would set him up for injury, and otherwise attempts to conserve his energy as much as possible. He also stresses the psychological aspects of survival, focusing on keeping his spirits up to avoid the depression and lonely solitude of his situation.

I don't have much criticism for the show. Les plans to be rescued in seven days, and it is often easy to see this anticipation in his routine. In a way this reduces the tension, since we know he will be saved at a predetermined time. But then again if someone isn't rescued from being lost in a few days, then their chance of survival diminishes dramatically. It is not realistic to eschew certain safety considerations and prolong one's suffering merely because I think it might make for a more unpredictable show.

So then my complaints really are minor and perhaps frivolous, since this remains among my favorite shows on TV. Practical, interesting, often exciting, and filled with useful survival information, this show is great and deserves the success it enjoys. Enjoy with my recommendations.


This is by far my favorite show, Les is a great role model in the sense that his house is completely self sufficient ...if you have ever seen his show off the grid, you would know his water is from a well. his power is wind water and solar generated. Now sorry 4 rambling on back to serviorman. my personal favorite episode is the (canadian boreal forest) one because its in my home country and i sometimes go out it the woods and do my own little survivor thing. not for a week or anything but for like a weekend all my friends think in nuts... anyway!! this show kicks the crap out of any other survivor show GO LES!!!!!


Stay calm, don't panic, and use your head. I can't think of any other show on TV that stresses this. OK there might be some, but they don't spring to mind. Now thinking about it I still can't. The host Les Stroud is the only guy on the show. He lugs around all of his equipment(video and sound stuff) so there is no mysterious unseen cameraman. He refers to his crew but they just drop him off in the middle of nowhere and stay away only to be seen at the end. He does take in supplies but they are minimal. They consist of basically garbage and whatever is lying around. With this he survives for a week in all sorts of different climates, situations and then hikes out lugging his equipment. All this is done with a minimum of flash. Which is the best part. And as an extra bonus you can watch it with your kids and learn something in the process.


This show is so cool. I don't think there is any other T.V show out there that can compare to this. Les is such a great guy. He puts himself in life and death situations and films it all too. Even though his life is on the line in every adventure, he still makes it very entertaining and sometimes adds a little humor into it to. Some off the survival techniques he shows us is very extreme and should not be attempted by anyone unless in real danger. Thats another thing about the show that I love, its all real. Non of it is planed out or set up. Some off the stuff he does is pretty Gross too(like eating raw bugs!) But the main purpose off the show is to show you how to survive in the wild and in dangerous situations. You have to give this guy some credit.


This has got to be the fastest I have ever jumped at seeing a movie before. A porno puppet movie. Jeez, do I need help or what. Speaking of my mental state, I'd just like to say Let My Puppets Come was surprisingly good and made this little brain of mine pretty dang happy. The story revolves around group of businessmen who have failed in their latest business venture. Mr. Big, played by Rufus in Bloodsucking Freaks, backed their previous venture and he now wants his money back or else. Well, the guys hatch a plan to get his money back and make a little of their own. They decide to make a stag film. A skin flick. A porno movie! And that's just what they do. They even make some X-rated commercials to put in the movie as well. My fav being the one for women's hygiene, called Sweet Fish. Well, the movie is a nice lil treat for fans of the bizarre, fans of porn and definitely fans of Meet The Feebles. It's got bestiality and some nice puppet bj's. Can't go wrong with puppet bj's now can ya? No siree Bob. So if you're in the mood to check out something really goofy and unique give Let My Puppets Come a chance. 6.5 outta 10


Puppet Porno???

Mr. Damaino already had his spot in the industry, but come ON.

This must be seen to be believed.

It IS actual puppets. It HAS actual sex scenes involving said.

I found this for about 6000 yen in Tokyo. (About 60 bucks.) I bought it to win a 20000 yen (200 bucks) bet that I wasn't making it up.

It's a quick 50 or so minutes of the weirdest film anyone will ever find. Like a lot of bad sci-fi, the length is perfect. Just as you get hold of yourself, it ends.

Blows minds regularly.


Yes, this is puppet pornography. Easily one of the most bizarre films I've ever seen, Let My Puppets Come can only be compared to one other film, Peter Jackson's excellently silly Meet the Feebles. All I can say is that you are in for an interesting 50 minutes. It shouldn't be exceedingly hard to find a copy, heck, it's on DVD.


I remember as a youth (not to distant from where i am ATM), watching this movie at a party with my friends. THe sheer genius and at the same time, comedy made for this movie to, ten-fold, become one of my top ten porno films of all times. As a kid from Lebanon Oregon we seen little like this before. The script is wonderful and the puppetry is out of this world beautiful. If I could compliment the movie any more I would. A must have for any porno collection. Always. The puppets are like a Jim Henson type, soft and almost real human looking with a cartoon spin. Also, it gives a musical performance every now and then in the movie, making it also a musical genre. There is an extensive scene in the movie where a woman has sex with a dog, although taboo, it makes for a most needed hilarious fill in the movie.


Allegedly the only sex film (actually, there is nudity but no sex- on the part of the humans, anyway) ever made with live humans AND puppets. With a classic smut director at the helm, more weirdness than even Meet The Feebles and TWO cast members from Blood Sucking Freaks- how can you lose?? Well, OK, actually it sucks, but you know you still have to have it- if you can get it!


"Let My Puppets Come" is one of those curiosity movies due to it being a pornographic puppet flick. The movie concerns a few men (played by puppets) who need to make some quick money to repay what they owe to a mafia man. They decide to make a blue movie as a way to make that fast cash. "Let My Puppets Come" is full of comedy that falls flat. The human nudity is there without being titillating, and the puppet sex scenes are really not that interesting. There is one rather surprising (or maybe shocking) sex scene in which a puppet dog is involved. Luis De Jesus and Lynette Sheldon both appeared in the awful "Blood Sucking Freaks." Adult film director Gerard Damiano ("Deep Throat") directed this movie, and also appears in it. Another porn king, Al Goldstein, also appears in the movie. Adult actress Annie Sprinkle helped out with her production design. To sum it up, "Let My Puppets Come" is a rather bland and boring curiosity movie. "Let My Puppets Come" is a short (about 50 minutes in running time) motion picture for adults only, and is rated X for hardcore puppet action.


Well, I guess there's worse movies out there. I just don't know what they are. There is no real plot, but there is enough nasty perversion in this movie to satisfy Jeffrey Dahmer. I'm not a prude, but I guarantee that you will not like this move (unless you are a serial killer or something). I swear, most pornos aren't this revolting. BTW, it was shown at the 1998 B-Fest--and was a resounding bomb, probably because everyone had to go vomit in the toilet afterwards. I wish I had missed it like my friend.


I came to this film cold. I turned on the TV between housework and getting ready for the family to come home at the end of the day. I missed the very beginning but was soon captured by the film.

I enjoyed it that much I tried to loan the book from my local library but was told it was out of print and not available. I would still like to compare the film with the original book as I often find that by their very nature books deal with thoughts and feelings in more depth.

I feel that the film gives a glimmer of insight into the times and trials of Jewish families during the war. I am someone born over a decade after the war ended, in a European country not really touched by the ravaging of the Jews. Someone who does not know anyone personally touched by these affairs. Someone who is a parent. I'd recommend this film to anyone who meets those criteria.

I re-watched it again on 22nd January and had my 16 year old daughter watch it. I felt it warranted this second watching and my daughter also approved of it. This is the type of film that could be shown to High school students.


Director Soren Kragh-Jacobsen sure picked his young protagonist well -- Jordan Kiziuk as Alex in the Danish film "The Island on Bird Street" practically carried the film by his undeniably superb performance. The film is about a Jewish young boy, bordering teens, his survival "adventure" in Poland during Nazi occupation.

How heartwarming can an uneasy wartime premise be? It actually achieves beyond "Jakob the Liar" -- Alex's courage, his creative ways in taking care of himself when he's all alone, his tenacity and steadfast belief that his Dad would come back for himhold its own. And there is suspense: we fear for him, we want him to succeed, we pain, and we felt angst and joy with him. The set of his hide-out is somehow graphically appealing: a solitary, broken brick wall arrangement, with atmospheric lighting, and momentary interludes: a solitary dog on a street, paper off the ground dancing in the wind

Music is by Zbigniew Preisner (Krzysztof Kieslowski's "Trois couleurs: Bleu" 1993, "Rouge" 1994, "The Double Life of Veronique" 1991, also "Fairy Tale: A True Story" 1997), hauntingly complements the plot. This may not be of Hollywood stature likened to "The Schindler's List", yet it's a small film with powerful impressions. It's a life-affirming story. Alex hanged on to hope -- we can, too.


If it wasn't made by Kragh-Jacobsen I would be surprised.

But there are not many directors who can make a movie about a child, a whole movie with one child as a hero, a main character, and avoid one of two possible traps: either make a (usually low-intelligent) movie for kids (and adults who can believe it) and turn hero to superhero who can solve all problems and beat everybody all alone, or make a movie where all tragedies have to happen to a single child so the target adult audience can fill the bucket by draining their tear glandes.

Scandinavian authors are better than any others able to make a real movie about real children. They (as I wrote on another board) understand children as if they had invented them. Unfortunately, some modern, especially Danish movies suffer from Hollywoodization and though some can be good (like Klatretosen) they don't belong to the great tradition, they don't succeed the great movies from former decades.

Kragh-Jacobsen is not a typical example, but among the best. "Bird Street" is not exception, he made several movies about children in very different situations, but in similar style: these movies are about kids, can be watched by kids, but mostly try to present real kids to adults. However, he became worldwide famous by "Mifunes sidste sang". It's not a surprise because many western countries avoid Scandinavian kids movies, because they are too different. British authors used to do something in this style (sometimes even in darker mood like Loach), American kids are too infantile (but still beat adults...), Italians are too mature (because of social context), Czechs forgot that they have children (and were among the best in 70's), so only French authors can stand next to Scandinavians. And these movies don't seem to have audience in USA, either for not being interesting (for kids), or even for being controversial (for adults). As USA creates an opinion in almost whole world, things that are not accepted there usually can't make international success, and are convicted to stay within local region.

"Gummi Tarzan" was one of the first movies which seriously admitted that bullying exists and is a problem. "Skyggen af Emma" (his best work in my opinion) strongly opposes modern world widespread paranoia that makes our lives miserable, almost worthless. In both movies kids are involved in different and firm interactions with other people.

"Island on Bird Street" is a one-actor movie like Spielberg's "Duel". Unlike some dark power personalized in Spielberg's truck driver this movie deals with a very recognizable, yet equally dark power of nazism. And, what some other comments declare to be a fault, I find to be brilliant: Alex is not a superhero. He didn't do much exceptional things. His biggest success was that he survived. He often simply had luck. There are no cartoon Culkin tricks: he is afraid, he hides as every normal kid would do, and sometimes when he seems to do something brave, it is more because of hopeless resignation. But in the same time he can still feel joy in small things and in spite of accelerated maturation he keeps the soul of child and his real age comes to surface whenever allowed by the circumstances.

Two flaws: First, English language, and there is nothing to justify it. Second, the ending which is too false-romantic for reality (not fitting in harsh, cruel world of former 100 minutes)), and too vague if not realistic (being e.g. a dream in agony).

Neither of it should give second thoughts to any of those who believe that kids are still kids, despite what modern society tries to make them to be or make us believe they are. And if you are this kind of person, probably your children are ready to watch it with you.


I don't know if the story's true - it might be. Makes you think. At times makes you even feel that it is real - right in very front of you.

I found myself from all the hiding games. The boy's events were partly an adventure - playing hide and seek with the gestapo (panthers) all by himself with his assistant Snow (Friday). And partly a nightmare where the war grips everything away and leaves you no choice but to crawl into your hideout and cry. You really feel&fear for the kid when soldiers come to find the last of the Jews again and again and again...

I think the director made quite a decent job (at least above the average) by telling the story so visually. Not too much talking here - and it is mostly in English, which is odd. Although some scenes I would've done differently.

I didn't know the composer was Z.Preisner until read it here, but you sure will notice a meister at work. At least when the ending credits roll.


Not least because it is apparently a true story. Alex is an 11 year old boy, stuck in an almost empty city awaiting his father's return. The plot, though slow is tense, holding an audience's attention throughout. What I most liked about this film was the sense of realness, as I watched it(though the language was English) I felt that somehow I was in fact watching an actually documentary as it unfolded. the clothes the sets the streets, everything was real. The acting is so well performed I could easily assume that these were real people, in particular Jordan Kiziuk's performance of Alex. The ending was tear-jerking, and I mean big blobby tears that swam in torrents. It was an all-round wonder to watch.


This movie is fantastic, one of the best I have ever seen in a long time. I was surprised to see that it is from 1997 because until I turned onto BBC2 today, I had never even heard of it.

Although this is a simple, some say linear story of Nazi Germany vs the Jewish community telling of one boys struggle to survive on his own to wait for his father, it really draws you in.

In the same vein as movies like DARYL, or Finding Neverland, it does not rely cheap gimmicks. Instead we find a gripping a story that draws you in. You become attached to the characters and really feel for them. It stirs up quite a bit of emotion. I was dancing all over the room at one point biting my nails.

This is a fantastic story with some brilliant acting. The main focus is on Alex, played by Jordan Kiziuk. Im surprised he hasn't done anything before or since as he played a brilliant part, even if his accent is a little dodgy.

The director has done a fantastic job in the telling of the story. It is one of those underrated films that you must watch if you ever get a chance.


i was a little uncertain when i was first introduced to this film...my friend had bought it and it really didn't seem interesting, i mean come on...another nazi v. jew film but i was surprised...

this story is origional following a little boy who is left alone and is being hunted by the nazi's. his courage comes from a book and his best friend is a little mouse named snow...

the story follows the boy as he decides to wait in dangerous territory for his father, whom although was taken away, promised to return...

this is a touching story and a great chapter for anyone iterested in this tragic time period...


This story was great. I was on the edge of my seat worried for the boy the whole time. It brought out a strong emotional response considering there is so little dialog. Almost as good as Schindlers List if not so much an epic. Makes you want to go after the Nazi's yourself. Because of the Nazi's this boy endures and is forced to do things that a Little boy should never have to do. He survives only due to his ingenuity, bravery, and the compassion of a few that don't agree with what the Nazi's are doing to Jews in Poland. A must see, but bring your Kleenex. It has very little dialog, but the visual story and the music set the mood.


I only heard how awful the struggle was, but watching the movie made me empathize for the struggle. This movie almost transformed me there into the ghetto. I could almost feel what it would have been like for a Jew in the Nazi regime. One of the best movies that I have ever watched and I suggest anyone interested in this topic to watch it.

I would rate it in the same class as Schindler's list, but a contrast in story, since here it is a small kid helping himself and others, at the same time standing his ground in the worst circumstances. One other movie to watch is "Life is beautiful".

Lastly, I think a 10 line review is not necessary to sell a movie of this class


To see this movie gave me the feeling of what it was like during this time in our history that is sad at what the Jewish people went through. At the same time amazed at what a young boy of 11 could do to survive and live in this period.


A beautiful story of a little boy's love and faith in his father set during a time of great shame for all mankind. A lesson we still revisit now! Good acting etc but the script dragged at times and I would have liked to know more about the other characters that came and went.Who was the character that was shot and then nursed by the boy? A polish freedom fighter or a Jewish man on the run? Why was the Doctor arrested? etc etc. 7/10


An amazing account of the struggle of an eleven year old boy to survive in the Warsaw Ghetto during WWII. Excellent photography and a remarkable performance by the young boy.


Left alone to fend for himself in the rubble of the Warsaw ghetto, 11 year old Alex (Jordan Kiziuk) must try to survive and also avoid the ever-present Nazi soldiers in this gripping, intensely moving film. The viewer becomes totally involved with Alex and his plight, as he courageously and inventively continues to avoid detection. The acting, particularly that of young Kiziuk and the late Jack Warden as his kindly uncle Baruch, is superb. The dialog is fairly sparse, letting Alex's expressions and body language show his fears and emotions, which are masterfully rendered. The production design is incredible, and one feels transported to that time and place. The musical score is appropriately somber and haunting, and the cinematography stunning. Some reviewers have commented on the British accents of several characters, but I don't feel that it's a detriment. Overall, an outstanding cinematic achievement, deserving of its many awards. Appropriate for older children (12 and up), though there are several scenes that contain violence. Well worth seeking out, this is a film you won't easily forget. Highest recommendation.


I saw this film at the 2005 Toronto International Film Festival.

L'Annulaire is the second feature film from director Diane Bertrand, who also wrote the screenplay for this adaptation of Yoko Ogawa's novel.

The film follows Iris (Olga Kurylenko), who moves to a port town after cutting off the tip of her ring finger in an industrial accident. She quickly finds lodging in a hotel down by the harbour, but is forced to share a room with a sailor who works at night and sleeps while she is out in the day. While searching for work, by chance she comes across an old girls' school that now houses a man (Marc Barbe) who preserves and stores personal artifacts that people bring to him.

Taking a job as the man's office assistant, she soon becomes involved in a sort of relationship with him, while at the same time being intrigued by the sailor (Stipe Erceg), whom she only knows through the things left in their shared room.

The movie, filmed in Hamburg and just outside Paris, is beautifully shot. Bertrand favours many tight shots of the characters, giving a more intimate feel to many of the moments in the film. Noah Cowan, the co-director of the festival, described the film as combining the contemplative feel of Asian cinema with the sexual energy of European cinema. Thus, the film is very spare in its dialogue, leaving only the words that are spoken and the looks between characters as the framework on which to interpret the story.

The preservation of personal artifacts in the film causes one to wonder about the nature of memories, loss, and the desire or need to move on, extending even to Iris' own life. This helps to draw the viewer into what is a very quiet and meditative film.

I found the actress playing Iris was quite good, especially given that it was her first film and that she had to communicate so much non-verbally. A few of the scenes between her and the preservationist were charged with a lot of sensual energy, even in something as simple as him putting a pair of shoes on her feet.

Notes from the Q&A with director Diane Bertrand: - L'Annulaire is very open-ended, and Bertrand herself admitted the film doesn't give any answers; the audience can imagine what it wants.

- She tried to be faithful to the novel, but it is very short. Bertrand added the sub-plot with the sailor.

- When asked why she adapted this novel, Bertrand said when she first read the book, she couldn't stop, and had all these images in her head, which was unusual since the atmosphere in the book is not European. But even upon re-reading the novel she still had the same feelings. She felt aspirations to explore the desire, love, and mysteries of the story.

- Olga Kurylenko is from the Ukraine, and this was her first film, thus making it difficult to obtain financing. Thus, there was lots of time for her to work on her character; Bertrand asked her to watch lots of films and read a lot of books. Kurylenko felt a bond to the character.

- The director of photography is also a photographer, which accounts for the look of the film.

- Bertrand wanted to film something slow like a painting, to make the audience feel as though they are watching moving images.

Minor spoilers below:

- Bertrand had less direction for Marc Barbe, but she did ask him to not play his scenes with Kurylenko like he wanted to seduce her, even though the character seems to know exactly what she needs. Iris is supposed to feel that he sees inside her as soon as they meet. Barbe agreed that the character does not need to explain himself.

- In the novel, the shoes which play an important role in the story are black, not red, however Bertrand has a bit of an obsession with the colour red.

- Bertrand feels the story really starts with the scene where the preservationist puts the shoes on Iris' feet. It is Ogawa's theme that Iris has a feeling of being possessed by the shoes. But when Barbe's character tells Iris that she can't take the shoes off, she gives him a quick look that says "ok, so you want to play this game" and decides to do it, preferring to live something rather than nothing.


Saw this at TIFF 2005, my buddy and I went into this movie with no expectations and it ended up being a favorite (top 3 for me) of the film-fest. Unlike most at the fest, the pacing was perfect and each scene was necessary, it's a rare movie today that has such tight editing. The mystery and eros has a slow-burning build....

This was the only film I attended at the fest that left the audience hushed during the credits as well. I wouldn't call it 'eerie', maybe 'otherworldly'? Reminded me a little of polanski's ninth gate somewhat (and that's a good thing), but I doubt that anyone else would make that comparison :) I've been thinking about this movie for five months, figured it would be a shoe-in on the art-house circuit, but haven't heard much yet, this movie deserves to be seen!


A city with no name, a young woman with no history, a house apart - a strange island in a sea of trees. I like the lack of references to anything external to this system. The world of this movie is airtight. I'm reminded of the famous story retold by W. Somerset Maugham, "Appointment in Samarra", where a man, upon bumping into Death in the streets of Baghdad, flees to Samarra to avoid his wrath, but instead runs into Death who is waiting for him in Samarra, and whose anger at the jostling in Baghdad is revealed to have been mere surprise, as he had been expecting to see the man in Samarra later in the day. The sealed nature of this film demands a focus on inevitability.

A young woman, Iris, wanders alone in the port area of the city, along superannuated towpaths, past the gigantic hulks of international shipping; outside of work the closest she comes to really being with others is staring at prostitutes behind plate glass, or contemplating entering a bar. There's something brutal about the isolation of Iris by the filmmaker. When I reviewed In The City of Sylvia, similarly a beautiful movie with an isolated character, I said that the filmmaker should either have won the Golden Lion at Venice or have been brutally murdered; I've similar feelings here.

Today is Sunday and I've been sat in a deserted office building writing this review, ostensibly here to study for exams, but procrastinating somewhat. The morning streets are almost empty, a white contrail hints at faraway adventures that I'll never be part of, the river is full of empty boats. There is nothing good about being alone; the beauty of it is only a subtle form of cruelty.

The soundtrack of the movie is done by Beth Gibbons of Portishead; its fractured entropised lilt is just right; you only ever catch fragments of lyrics.

Iris gets work as the sole employee in the strange set aside laboratory. The laboratory offers a simple service whereby people may come and, for a fee, have items preserved and stored away. This seems quite a perverse thing to do. Memory, which it seems this film is about, IS perverse. Recently I wrote three poems to a woman I love, who I later learnt has no desire to be with me, I never gave them to her. A colleague tells me I should burn them, and that is perhaps the best thing to do, but perversity wills me to preserve them, to torture myself. Memory becomes viscous ooze in which you are trapped, finally it solidifies and turns into amber. People (mostly children) who can live in the moment, truly do not know how lucky they are.

Some have called the film erotic, however the erotic whilst present, is as intangible as a passing cloud on a sunny day. Marc Barbé's conserver remains inscrutable and devoid of passion during sex scenes. Sex scenes with him are no more or less sensual than seeing a spider cocooning a fly, trapped for inclusion in its larder. One quite disturbing picture from above shows us an image of his head on Iris' body, he is merely consuming her.

Other aspects of the erotic are fetishistic, the focus on the shoes that Iris is made to wear for her work, her clothing, which the sailor who sleeps in her room in the morning feels and smells in her absence. The movie brought to mind for me Magritte's two famous fetishistic paintings, The Red Model, and Philosophy in the Boudoir, both of which show clothing suggesting the female form. (Philosophy in the Boudoir also came to mind during In The City of Sylvia).

Mahjong came into play as it does in all good surreal movies (cross-reference to Robbe-Grillet's The Blue Villa). You could if you want see Iris as a flower tile, and the laboratory door as the white dragon tile (which is a blank tile in Mahjong, or blankness with a rectangular border). These are symbolic, but I don't want to spoil the movie by mentioning how.

Do not watch this movie, arrange to have all copies burnt!


A girl cuts her ring finger in an industry accident. The tip of her fingers will float in a container that was supposed to be filled with water but will be colored red instead. This will be the first and last occurrence of explicit violence in this weird film but violence will be ever present. The girl's way will cross with a preservationist and an absent roommate and this is all I will say about the plot. What preservationist stores will be mentioned early in the film but what he really does, no. There are many ways to interpret this story and almost all of them begin in the ending moments. It seems otherwise as the film is going but it's not. What it depicts is totally fascinating but it is only the tip of "what it suggests" iceberg. Its extraits of silence, eerie fractured music pieces, strange ideas, empty surroundings and odd images (and also the lead actress) are why it works. L'annulaire makes it way through its subjects with the accuracy of a surgeon's knife. It's a film so masterfully made that leaves few to complain and much to think about. Images and sounds call extremely little attention to themselves at first but each scene and each movement ventures further into your soul and once it's there, it never leaves. It's creepy, it's scary, it's thoughtful, it's atmospheric, it's mysterious, it's glorious. I haven't seen anything like it. Hal Hartley and the great Kiyoshi Kurosawa come close but ... no. Diane Bertrand is a name worthy of preservation.

I can write more or at least tell you what the hell is this film about, but I won't. I just say that it's about the fractures of memory and how loneliness is meshed with them, and about the silence and how it can evoke our deepest fears. We don't think (as) much about our past when we are not on our own and with the same logic, relationships can be defined as different forms of escapism, and this goes pretty much unnoticed all the time. It's better not to be noticed at all. The world may have been a better place if this fracture would have been erased from memories. Collecting the pieces of mahjog from the floor and putting them on their right place is a painful task but doing so for those pieces of mind is impossible. This is a film about the people who want to leave themselves behind but their artificial solutions are no match for a legacy of painful remembrance. We all know that done can't be undone, but it can be covered. Good enough ... but maybe not.

You should walk into this film with the least previous knowledge possible. I know this is a clichéd statement but it's really true in this case. Do yourself a favor and see this brilliant movie as soon as you can.


While this isn't the first foreign film that I've watched, it's certainly the first one that I've done a review for. Admittedly, what got me interested in checking this film out was Olga Kurylenko. I'd first seen her in the James Bond movie, Quantum of Solace - which wasn't exactly a great movie, but I thought she did really good in it. Therefore, I held out hope that L'annulaire (or 'The Ring Finger', as it's called here in Australia) would prove to better utilize this talented actress. Thankfully, it *does*.

The opening scene is of a young girl talking to a man in a white coat (Marc Barbé), asking if she can get a "specimen" of the fungi she's brought to him. We then get quite a beautiful piece of music (with a twinge of eeriness to it) playing over the interestingly-filmed opening credits, featuring the fungi.

Olga Kurylenko plays a young woman named Iris. When Iris is first introduced, she's working at a bottling plant (until she has an accident, involving her cutting off the tip of her ring finger on a broken bottle). Apart from the gushing blood from her wound, there's also a gruesome shot of the blood filling up the bottle on the conveyor belt. She then hallucinates the bloodied cut-off tip of her finger boiling in a glass of water. The sweltering heat doesn't help matters. Iris ends up moving to a port town. After getting accommodation, she takes an interest in a sailor named Costa (Stipe Erceg), who just happens to be the same person who shares the room she's staying in. He works nights at the docks, and is only there when she is out).

Iris manages to find work, but it's at a creepy place, and inside is a creepy bloke (the man in the white lab coat from the opening scene). He informs her that their job is to "prepare specimens and preserve them". People bring in personal artifacts they want to keep forever and get a 'specimen' made of the objects. From this point on, she finds herself drawn to her employer.

He later takes her down to his "inner sanctum", which it is cooler, but also isolated. Everything's quiet down there, where he goes to "unwind" (apparently, preparing specimens is "tiring work"). He observes that the shoes she wears are "not stylish enough" for someone her age, and he gives her a pair of shoes that he's bought her. When she asks how he managed to guess her size (the shoes fit "like a glove"), he says that all he had to do was look at her foot to know its size. It's actually a very sexual moment, as he removes her shoes and puts on the ones he's given her. He tells Iris he would like her to wear the shoes every day, all the time, whether he's looking at her or not. As if his behaviour wasn't already questionable enough, on a day where she arrives at work in the rain, he gets her to undress in front of him.

Iris then meets a shoe-shiner, who compliments her shoes, but warns her that keeping them on all the time will lead to the possibility of losing her feet. He says that the shoes are "taking her over" - which becomes very important. There's a bit of humour injected when Iris informs a potential client that a specimen cannot be made out of a malevolent shadow. She then spends some time with her employer down in the bathroom, where they have a light-hearted moment of calling out, letting the sounds of their voices echo. One thing leads to another, they eventually end up having sex (he's quite forceful with her, but she seems to not be entirely against it). At one point, after asking her if there's not a specimen that she would like preserved, he urges her to remember her most painful memory. She then tells him the story of how she lost the tip of her ring finger. There's a great moment later on, with Iris swinging on one of the crane hooks by the harbour.

She eventually finds a note in her room from the sailor, saying that he's leaving and that he'd like to meet her before he goes. When she goes to meet him, however, he's kissing some other girl (the fool!), thereby totally blowing his chances with Iris. She's more interested in her boss anyway. Although Iris learns that other girls who'd worked for him had "vanished/disappeared", not to mention the fact that he makes her spend all day picking up the pieces of a Mahjong set she accidentally drops (and, oh yeah, he's a CREEP!), she still has sex with him. As she explains to the shoe-shiner later, she's unsure about her feelings and feels it is impossible for her to leave the place. The shoe-shiner informs her that if she doesn't take the shoes off immediately, she'll never be able to get away. He suggests she get a specimen of the shoes, so that her feet can be free, but she tells him she doesn't want them to be free.

She eventually asks the lab director to take her to the basement, but he won't do this unless she wants a specimen preserved. In the end, we see her take off her shoes and leave them as she disappears into a white light. The ending is open to interpretation. This was an odd movie, but not necessarily a "bad" one. Olga Kurklenko portrays Iris with lots of nuance. She's able to say SO much, with so few words. It's all there in her expressions/her eyes. You really feel for her character, and she's the main reason this film works. The haunting music and the beautifully-shot scenery contributes to the unnerving atmosphere. It's a film that you definitely have to think about, and you'll appreciate it more after repeated viewings.


As far as the golden age of musicals were concerned, the back trackers were always Paramount and Warner Brothers, who never quite achieved the magic that MGM created, despite their most valiant efforts to produce MGM-esquire musicals.

One such film that could have been a great deal more magical had MGM been at the helm is Anything Goes.

Bing Crosby stars in his second big screen version of the Cole Porter Broadway smash, although this plot has been modified slightly and brought up to date 50' style..it therefore tells a completely different story to Crosby's first version twenty years earlier.

Donald O'Conner, who in my humble opinion was one of the most underrated performers Hollywood ever had, provides the dances and comic turns whilst he romances the beautiful Mitzi Gaynor.

O'Conner was a natural at almost everything he did. He was a superb comic, a gifted actor and a dancer of extraordinary talent on par I think with Fred Astaire and his 'Singing in the Rain' co-star Gene Kelly, yet his contributions to film, have on the whole been overlooked. He was therefore demoted to 'B' movie comedies like the god awful "Francis" films.

Bing sings his way through Porters songs in his usual effortless way, as he tries to discard, appease and finally woo a French Ballet star played by ZiZi Jeanmaire, billed here simply as 'Jeanmaire' Another pleasant appearance is made by 40's band leader Phil 'Balloo in Jungle Book' Harris, and he is a welcome addition although regrettably he is not given an opportunity to perform some of those comic southern songs like 'Woodman, Spare that Tree' or 'The Dark Town Poker Club' with which he made his name.

The plot is scratchy too with Crosby and O'Conner forming an effortless partnership whilst collaborating on a new Broadway show.

The clash of styles and the obvious comparisons of youth and novice against age and experience are hinted at in the beginning, leaving you wanting more of the same, but alas these differences trail off into nothing and they are not exploited to full effect. It would have made this film a lot more enjoyable to see the two male leads spar more together and therefore classic entertainment is unfortunately denied us.

One of the previous reviewers said that there was something missing from this film that they couldn't put their finger on....I think that this was it.

But despite the bad script and leaky predictable plot, the performances are great and the songs as ever are timeless. Porter, Sammy Cahn and Jimmy Van Heusen were three of the best song-smiths in the business.

Watch this one when you can, but don't cancel anything important in order to do so.


I haven't met a musical that I couldn't find something to like about it, so although the story is somewhat bland one can still enjoy the good highlights. It's wonderful to see these stars in their prime -- Bing, Mitzi, Donald, Jeanmaire, and Phil Harris as the father figure.

The dance routines of "You're the Top" and "It's Delightful" are great musical show stoppers. Basically Bing and Donald play the part of two showmen who unknowingly sign two different dancers, Mitzi and Jean, to be the star in their musical. Obviously they have some sorting out to do on this matter while all are sailing back to America.

In my later years I'm learning to appreciate Bing's movies more than when I was young. All in all this is pleasant entertainment that leaves you with a good feeling.


It has all the trappings of an entertaining musical, but the chemistry is not there. A few of the musical numbers are worth seeing, but many are mediocre at best. The most peculiar thing about the movie is its substitution of boring, pedestrian new songs to take the place of Cole Porter's songs. Although Jimmy Van Heusen certainly composed some good songs in his day, the present "Ya Gotta Give the People Hoke," "Bounce Right Back," and "A Second-Hand Turban" are embarrassing. The producers couldn't find 3 more Cole Porter songs to use instead? Adding to the embarrassment is the bowdlerization of the song "Anything Goes," in which Mitzi Gayner is not even permitted to refer to authors' "four-letter words." Instead, we are nonsensically told that authors nowadays use only "three-letter words." Of course, such censoring of the lyrics of this song negate the entire premise of the song, which is that anything is permitted nowadays.

Donald O'Connor has a very nice dance routine with children and a lot of bouncing balls in "Bounce Right Back," which is the most original number in the film. The comedy duos by O'Connor and Crosby fall flat, as does the vocal by Jeanmaire. Indeed, after hearing the mangled arrangement of her trying to sing "I Get a Kick Out of You," I actually stopped the movie and played a Frank Sinatra version in order to get the bad taste out of my ears. Mitzi Gayner is lively and attractive and does a good job in belting out her songs. Crosby is always good, although the arrangement and photography of his performance of "All Through the Night" were so anemic that one might doze through it, without danger of anything happening to wake one up.

The plot is actually a very good basis for a musical comedy (a mix-up in which both Gayner and Jeanmaire are hired for the same part), but the writing is corny and stilted, there is little real humor, and the comic potential of the situation is simply not realized. Although the drama is of course not the most important part of a musical comedy, if it does not help to motivate the songs and does not create any suspense about what will happen, then the audience is just tapping its feet waiting for the next musical number.

I think that if someone were to edit the film to include five or so of the best musical numbers only (no plot, no weaker songs), one might have 20 minutes of decent entertainment. But to watch the film for 106 minutes to get those 20 minutes of entertainment is not that pleasant.


I had never seen the movie before I went out and bought it the other day. It was an impulse thing I know. But there are very few musicals that I've seen and not liked. Also I have yet to see a movie with Donald O'Connor in it and not love it and him even more than I already do. It was my first Bing Crosby film and though I thought he was okay in it I have to say the only reason for me has to be Donald. I love his dance and song solo number of bounce right back. It makes me smile and laugh each time I see it. It's a cute movie and puts you in a good mood each time you watch it. SO I'd get it a 10. It's one of Donald's best. It's a must see.


I will let you all in on a little secret. People do not go to musicals for the story. They go for the athletic dancing, the fashions and the musical style of the film. Repeat after me: They do not go for the story. As incredible as it may be, the story is a just a vehicle to carry the dancers and musical talent along. It is NOT the main reason. If MGM or Paramount or whoever place major musical stars in a picture, it means it wants to see them PERFORM. As the audience does. The story, well it is - just a what did I say....... A vehicle to show off their talent on celluloid. This one, set on a ocean liner is as snazzy as 50s pix get is only dulled by the awesomely boring mummy's boy of all time BING CROSBY. However it is livened by effervescent clever Donald O'Connor and Mitzi Gaynor.. and Edith Head clothes. The Porter songs are great and the pic/look is sent up later by Kelly and Maclaine in 1964 at Fox in WHAT A WAY TO GO. Gorgeous fun. And not so much about the story.


When the film "DeLovely" recently rekindled my love for Cole Porter's music, I encountered this DVD on sale and thought it would make a great addition to my collection. It didn't. For the most part, what a clunker.

I realize that as great as the music is, "Anything Goes" is a bit dated as a musical, but this story, which has nothing to do with the original, is just dreadful.

In addition to the uninspired plot, the songs that were added by Sammy Cahn and James Van Heusen are remarkably banal. Even more so, when one compares them to the Porter originals left in. It's sad that anybody watching might actually think they were Porter's own.

Additionally, because of the prudishness of Hollywood, Porter's originals get censored too. An example of the lunacy is when, in a lyric, "4-letter word" becomes "3 letter-word." How trite can Hollywood be? 2 Porter songs in the beginning that get transformed into '50s-style jazz-dance numbers for the female leads lose all their charm from the butchery. The song "Anything Goes" has never been given a worse rendition.

Bing Crosby, in his last Paramount picture, sleepwalks through it. Jeanmaire is not much better (especially her acting). It is no surprise that her career gravitated back to France after this.

Mitzi Gaynor was her usual perky self, but the film gets saved somewhat by Donald O'Connor's presence and energy. The one Porter song that seems to have kept its charm is a nice Gaynor/O'Connor duet on "De-Lovely."

While Porter purists will retch over this film (which was probably what his reaction was after seeing it, especially the added songs), it does offer up a period glimpse of Hollywood choreography from the mid-50s, along with the previously mentioned duet.

Otherwise, it's the bottom, not the top.


This seemed to be an attempt at bringing the classic Bing Crosby movie into the future. And by the future, I mean the 1960s. This is a mid-50s movie, but much of it really felt like it was in the 60s. The styles, the art direction, the camera shots, were, for this movie, ahead of their time. But for a Bing Crosby buddy movie, it failed. First, it was overly sexualized with sexual overtones and currents throughout the whole film. Secondly, many of the songs and dance numbers felt tacked-on to the plot (which started to wear thin quickly). The dialog and humor were sub-par, and the ending felt tacked on as well. The last thirty minutes seemed to be a rush to an ending that really failed once you got there. I think Bing gave it his all, and he never faltered. But trying to shove a classic Bing buddy film into this mold leaves you with a weird and tiresome movie.


What the movie The 60s really represents (to those of us who growled around in the belly of America in those times) is the turbulence and diversity of the decade. Despite the exaggerated, stereotyped characters, the genuineness of the issues remains clear.

Not only were those radical times of change, but also very confusing times. Two basic things changed our world then: the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the overwhelming influence of the media. Those two new freedoms began social changes that soon became institutionalized.

From chaos came sensitivity, from disorder came values. Bear in mind however, that the bulk of Americans were not involved in this... they worked, they played, they watched the news... and slowly they became effected by the efforts and struggles of the minorities... the Civil Rights workers, the Political Activists, the Anti-War efforts, the War on Poverty....

The representation of the power of the press and TV in particular, was well reflected, although the conflict between the general public's attitude and those seeking to change things was at best ignored... and at worst, misrepresented.. Middle class Americans weren't all standing around angrily holding baseball bats, or disowning their wayward daughters. They were confused too. Let us not forget how Folk Singers suddenly became Protest Singers, and how The Beatles began an onslaught that killed the Folk-Protest Movement. There are no Beatle songs in the movie, or even any mention of them.

I think if you didn't live the decade, you might not have a sense of what the movie is about, the overall picture is a bit dim. At one point I held down a steady job while my sister lived at the Hog Farm Commune and went to Woodstock. At another point I was in Haight Asbury and in the Detroit Riots while she worked and played the housewife in Maine and Connecticut. Roles were constantly changing.

The movie depicts three siblings of a middle class family. They represent the hippie child, the political activist, and the active military personnel. Dad represents the typical attitudes, and mom represents the voice of reason, tolerance, and sometimes compromise... for the sake of peace.

The Black family comprises a minister and his son... disproportionately, I think. I assume the producers knew all the variables and had to settle on limitations, or else the film would have become a long, boring, documentary. Dad's message was that anger produces bitterness, and bitterness produces chaos. It was clearly a message directed to today's youth.

We are looking at a unique solution to social problems, and also how issues divide us... The 60s were unusual in that way, and only the Roaring 20s compare. In other words, this movie has a moral after all. In the end, it is our Collective Individualism that survives. Put that in your oxymoron list.

Everyone was a God, a Guru, or a free-spirited genius in the 60s. It was a time of magic and madness. No one will ever nail the 60s down right... it was too diverse (this movie is close). At least we can say we are not ashamed of it, that we learned and grew from it, and that for once, a generation shaped and changed America... for the better.


The 60's is a great movie(I saw it completely in one night) about the hippy movement in the late 60's. Although the title would suggest otherwise the first 5 years of the 60's are not really important in this film.

The main character of the movie is Michael,a political activist who goes on the road in the US against the Vietnam-war. There he meets his girlfriend,Sarah.Michael's brother,Brian,goes to Vietnam to fight(what a surprise!).He comes back from the war and changes in a "Tom Cruise Born on the fourth of July" look a like and then into a Hippy.His dad is a pro-vietnam war type of guy(what a surprise!!).Michael's sister Kate gets pregnant from a Rock & Roll artist and runs away from home and goes to San Francisco during the summer of love. The ending is very poor(father becomes a liberal and everybody is happy),but I let this slip away from my vote(the rest of the movie is very good!).

The performances by the actors are pretty good and the soundtrack of the movie is absolutely brilliant. All the main events of the sixties are in the movie,like the murders on JFK and Martin Luther King aswell as the big hippy protests,the summer of love and Woodstock! Look closely for Wavy"Woodstock Speaker"Gravy(What we have in mind is breakfast in bed for 400.000!) as a first aid employee at the Woodstock festival!

In the end,the 60's is a beautiful movie about a beautiful decade! 10/10


Me and my sister rented this movie because we were in the mood for something trashy and not so demanding to watch. However the movie greatly exceeded my very low expectations.

It is so much more than just a representation of a century. It has very real portrayals of the characters within it and most of the actors do an amazing job. The different stories are baked together with actual footage from the time that gives it a very unique touch. While watching it I really felt that I CARED about what happened to the characters.

I would also like to give endless amounts of praise to Julia Stiles in her portrayal of Katie, she was great in a way that stood out!

I would recommend this movie to anyone..


Can any one help find out the title and artist of the song, that was played at least halfway through the movie. I can't remember what scene was playing. The words in the song are of a ballad. Some of the lyrics go like " It's natures way of telling you somethings wrong." It's natures way of telling it in a song." "It's natures way of forgiving you." Please Help me with this question. Thanks so much! I have been searching the internet for days, I can't get this song out of my mind. So now this will challenge me to find some one out there who may be able to help mer with this matter. I wish I would of been paying attention to the scene, when it was playing.


I accidently felt on this movie on TV, and I wasn't able to leave it.... It's really an excellent movie which makes people learning about american's history with the Vietnam war, the flower power's time, the racism's fight.... It illustrates the conflict of generation, of political opinion, of race which took place in the 60's....I'm born in 1980 so I didn't know all that stuff before...In france, USA's history is not a priority and that movie really learned me a lot of facts ! By the way, I think all the actors are great; especially Jordana Brewster, Josh Hamilton and Jerry O'Connell. Now I can see this film more then 1 time each day !! It's really great.... what a shame it only appeared on TV not in cinemas...


I love the movie. It brought me back to the best time of my life.

We need that time again, now more than ever. For me it was a time of freedom, learning, and finding myself. I will always miss it. There will never be another time like the 60's, unfortunately.


The 60´s is a well balanced mini series between historical facts and a good plot. In four deliveries, we follow a north American family, with 3 members. But we don't only see them. We also follow the story of several characters as a black reverend, an extremist student leader, and a soldier in Vietnam. The filmography is just extraordinary. In the first chapters, we see some shots of the Vietnam war, in between the scenes. The next chapter, doesn't start where the last one finished, it starts some time after, giving us a little mystery on what happened. In general, The 60´s mini series, is a must see, not only for hippies fanatics, but for everyone with little curiosity about the topic.


Great, great, great! That is all I can say about that movie, but imdb want at least four lines of text so I'll elaborate. The cast was great (Jerry O'connel is soooo cute!), the music was great (The sixties had the best music ever, imho), the historical material was interesting, and so was the way they made the actors of the '90s seem like they were actually there in the '60s. And most of all - the stories of the main characters brought tears to my eyes, and that is the greatness of any drama. BUT IN ONE WORD: GREAT!


I can agree with other comments that there wasn't an enormous amount of history discussed in the movie but it wasn't a documentary! It was meant to entertain and I think it did a very good job at it.

I agree with the black family. The scenes with them seemed out of place. Like all of a sudden it would be thrown in but I did catch on to the story and the connection between the families later on and found it pretty good.

Despite it wasn't a re-enactment of the 60s it did bring into the light very big and important landmark periods of the decade. I found it very entertaining and worth my while to watch.


Well let me go say this because i love history and I know that movie is most important piece in our history and it was beautifully executed movie and Julia Stiles became my #1 favorite actress after seeing her in "The '60s" and i own this movie in my video box with many movies and i suggest you to look for her new movies in the future and try to enjoy history!!!!


I lived during those times and I think the program caught the heart of the era. I do think it should have dealt with more of the Afro American issue but I think it cover a lot in the program. It was scary to sit and watch the riots on T V hoping that they would not go as far as your families home and that it would not get burnt down. I thought Jerry O'Connell did a great job portraying a vet coming back from the war. I went to school with guys who came back. Some had changed more than others and some not so much. It bothers me when someone comments that an issue was not covered enough or it was not entertaining enough. Live through it and then make comments. I thought the movie was great and that everyone in it did a remarkable job. Thank you for a trip (sad and good) down memory lane.


This movie started slowly, then gained momentum towards the middle. However, the fact that the movie ran over two nights broke that momentum at its peak. The second part really got interesting, but then gave way to a simply pathetic ending. Playing football in the yard? Really, could it get any more sappy and maudlin? Now I hear plans for a similar movie based on the '70s. I won't make any great efforts to tune into that one if it's anything like "The '60s."


Do we really need any more narcissistic garbage on the Baby Boomer generation? Technically, I am a Boomer, though at the time when all the "idealistic youths" of the '60s were reading Marx, burning their draft cards, and generally prolonging a war which destroyed tens of thousands of lives; I was still in grade school. But I remember them well, and 9 out of 10 were just moronic fools, who would believe anything as long as it was destructive.

This is just another excercise in self-importance from the kids who never really grew up.


As I saw the movie I was really shocked to see what the 60's was about. I know I may be wrong about some things, but it seemed like the 60's really had an effect on people of the time. Some people said they would want to go back to the 60's. From what I saw I would say yes for the excitement and no for the outcome. But that's my opinion.


I wasn't alive in the 60's, so I can't guarantee that this movie was a completely accurate representation of the period, but it is certainly a moving and fulfilling experience. There are some excellent performances, most notably by Josh Hamilton (of With Honors), Jerry O'Connell (Sliders), who play brothers divided by the war. Bill Smitrovich, a character actor who has been long ignored by many, gives a heart-filled performance as their strict father, who is forced to question his own beliefs and values as one of his sons makes him proud by going to Vietnam but returns empty inside, while the other is exactly the opposite. All in all, this is a powerful and heartwarming film that I hope everyone gets a chance to experience.


Sometimes you have to look back to go forward. The 60's did just that. We need to remember the past. The past is part of the future.

Great mix Gary J. Coppola. I see a great future. You deserve to be nominated and win, The 60's best mixer of the year.

Best mini-series of all times.

Thanks Ursula


Is there any other time period that has been so exhaustively covered by television (or the media in general) as the 1960s? No. And do we really need yet another trip through that turbulent time? Not really. But if we must have one, does it have to be as shallow as "The '60s"?

I like to think that co-writers Bill Couturie and Robert Greenfield had more in mind for this two-part miniseries than what ultimately resulted, especially given Couturie's involvement in the superb HBO movie "Dear America: Letters Home From Vietnam" which utilized little original music and no original footage, letting the sights and sounds of the time speak for themselves. This presentation intercuts file footage with the dramatic production, but it doesn't do anyone any favours by trying to do too much in too little time; like so many of its ilk, it's seen from the point of view of one family. But the children of the family seem to be involved tangentially with almost every major event of the '60s (it's amazing that one of them doesn't go to the Rolling Stones gig at Altamont), making it seem less like a period drama and more like a Cliff Notes version of the decade.

The makers rush through it so much that there's little or no time to give the characters any character, with the stick figures called our protagonists off screen for ages at a time - the children's father is especially clichéd - and then when they're back on BLAMMO! it's something else. Garry Trudeau could teach the filmmakers a thing or two about doing this kind of thing properly. In fairness, Jerry O'Connell, Jordana Brewster, Jeremy Sisto, Julia Stiles and Charles S. Dutton give their material the old college try, but they're wasted (especially the latter two); it's undeniably good to see David Alan Grier in a rare straight role as activist Fred Hampton, and Rosanna Arquette (in an uncredited cameo in part 2) is always welcome.

What isn't welcome is how "The '60s" drowns the soundtrack with so many period songs that it ultimately reduces its already minimal effect (and this may well be the only time an American TV presentation about post-60s America never mentions the British Invasion - no Beatles, no Rolling Stones... then again, there's only so much tunes you can shoehorn into a soundtrack album, right?). Capping its surface-skimming approach to both the time and the plot with an almost out-of-place happy ending, "American Dreams" and "The Wonder Years" did it all much, much better. Nothing to see here you can't see elsewhere, people... except for Julia Stiles doing the twist, that is.


The 1960's were a time of change and awakening for most people. Social upheaval and unrest were commonplace as people spoke-out about their views. Racial tensions, politics, the Vietnam War, sexual promiscuity, and drug use were all part of the daily fabric, and the daily news. This film attempted to encapsulate these historical aspects into an entertaining movie, and largely succeeded.

In this film, two families are followed: one white, one black. During the first half of the film, the story follows each family on a equal basis through social and family struggles. Unfortunately, the second half of the movie is nearly dedicated to the white family. Admittedly, there are more characters in this family, and the story lines are intermingled, but equal consideration is not given to the racial aspects of this century.

On the whole, the acting is well done and historical footage is mixed with color and black and white original footage to give a documentary feel to the movie. The movie is a work of fiction, but clips of well-known historical figures are used to set the time-line.

I enjoyed the movie but the situations were predictable and the storyline was one-sided.


I really enjoyed The 60's. Not being of that generation (I'm waiting for "The 80's") it was interesting to see a unique four hour capsule for that era.

One major problem in the movie, however, was how unbalanced the film was in the portrayal of the families. According to promos I saw for the movie on NBC, the story was basically about two families struggling with issues in 1960's America. Now, I may have missed something, but I think we learned more about the white family than the African American family.

I really think that The 60's uses music to describe the scenes better than any dialogue that could come out of the mouths of the actors (all of which are very talented.) This is very visible at the end of the first part (about two hours in) of the mini-series.

Very good movie!


The 60s (1999) D: Mark Piznarski. Josh Hamilton, Julia Stiles, Jerry O'Connell, Jeremy Sisto, Jordana Brewster, Leonard Roberts, Bill Smitrovich, Annie Corley, Charles S. Dutton. NBC mini-series (later released to video/DVD as full length feature film) about the treacherous 1960s, as seen through the eyes of both a white family and a black family. The film's first half is driven by the excellent performance of Dutton as Reverend Willie Taylor and evenly spreads the storyline between the families. However, Dutton's character is killed halfway through and the black family is completely forgotten in a dull, incoherent, and downright awful 2nd half. RATING: 4 out of 10. Not rated (later rated PG-13 for video/DVD release).


I like a lot of the actors/actresses involved in this project so being insulted by the movie felt even worse than if they used a unknowns .The main problem was this movie was clearly just a concept created to appeal to baby boomers .In 20 or 30 years Nbc will probably do a movie just like this about the early 90's . I can see it now a black family where the kids are involved with the la riot's and the white family has the kids rebel and listen to grunge rock music .The soundtrack will feature bands like Nirvana , N.W.A , Public Enemy , Soundgarden etc .The movie like this will be just as cheesy as The 60's and I gurantee you NBC will do it .See the biggest problem with period pieces when done buy networks is that when you are living in a certain time period you aren't thinking i am living in the 60's or whatever decade is trendy retro at the time .Next time someone does something like this they should put more weight into there project


The '60s is an occasionally entertaining film, most of this entertainment is from laughing at the film. It is extremely uneven, and includes many annoying elements. Take for instance the switch between black & white, and color. If done right, this could of been fairly effective, but because it was done poorly , it turned into a nuisance and only detracted from the already bad experience; much of the film had an odd feel to it. The acting wasn't extremely bad for a made for TV flick, but then again it was downright embarrassing at other times. Many of the events were not coherent, and ending up being confusing. How did this family somehow end up being at many of the big events during the 1960's? The ending was much too sappy for my tastes; because it was hollywoodized, everything had to turn out right in the end. I would advise you to not waste your time on The '60s and do something else with your time. I'm glad I watched this in class, and not on my own time. I think I can safely say that the best part of the movie was the inclusion of Bob Dylan's music. Those are just my rambling thoughts on the flick. I hope you take my advice, and stay away from this.


Even if you could get past the idea that these boring characters personally witnessed every Significant Moment of the 1960s (ok, so Katie didn't join the Manson Family, and nobody died at Altamont), this movie was still unbelievably awful. I got the impression that the "writers" just locked themselves in a room and watched "Forrest Gump," "The Wonder Years," and Oliver Stone's 60s films over and over again and called it research. A Canadian television critic called the conclusion of the first episode "head spinning". He was right.


Somehow they summed up the 60's, ten years that radically changed our country, in four hours. And what a painful four hours it was. They trivilized the major events and happenings and they "claimed" it was about two families yet you barely saw the african-american family. If I were NBC I would be ashamed and embarrassed for airing such trash. What was amusing was this happy-go-lucky family you saw in the very beginning was tortured in so many ways, but managed to attend every major 60's event through the country. And the second family was such a non-factor. They devoted maybe five or six scenes total to this family. That poor son... Please NBC, do not make any movies about any other eras....leave that to PBS and the History Channel


A "water-cooler" entry-- I expect people all over the country were talking about this tense 30 minutes the next day. Big-wig executive Joseph Cotton is mistaken for dead, and he better figure out a way to let the authorities know before they begin the slice and dice of the coroner's table. Trouble is that he's totally paralyzed except for gradual movement in a little finger. Will that be enough? We suffer bucket-loads with him as the gurney edges ever closer to the coroner's scalpel.

Really off-beat and well-thought-out premise with fine ironical ending. Don't overlook the first five minutes even though it's an uneventful set-up for what follows. Because there we understand that Cotton really does deserve to suffer some poetic justice, extreme though it is. If you think about it, there's a moral here. Anyway this is one of the initial episodes that really put the series on the TV map and continues to pack a wallop fifty years later.


This is an episode that I saw when I was a small child. It involves a cold blooded businessman who fires a long time employee and then chastises him for his tears. He is a bitter, mean man who looks only at the bottom line. One day, driving impatiently, he is left in his convertible, paralyzed. Unfortunately for him, the only people around are a bunch of prisoners on a work detail. They loot his car and steal his clothes. They don't check on him. The entire episode is told from Joseph Cotten's mind as he attempts to come to grips with his situation. He hopes to have someone help him but realizes he has no way of letting them know he is alive. There are some real problems with the medical people who show up. Did anyone notice that there was no rigor and that his skin was warm. If he were dead, why did he look so fresh. Nevertheless, the point is made at the very end. A remarkable lesson here.


While taking a working vacation in Miami Beach, a heartless employer (Joseph Cotten) fires a long-time associate over the phone and berates the poor fellow for displaying too much emotion and shedding tears. After justifying his decision to all within earshot, he further admonishes the fired employee with this contemptible statement: "He should have learned to control his emotions."

Driving back to New York City, Cotten is involved in a freak accident while passing by a Georgia Chain Gang. Smashing into the prison guards and their vehicle, he is paralyzed and pinned to his own steering wheel. He is literally left for dead as the convicts scramble to make their escape. For the rest of the episode, Cotten's conscious mind and thoughts are relayed to the viewers as his horrific experiences continue. Even when the authorities and emergency workers arrive at the scene, he is still mistaken for a dead man. Finally, after spending a terrifying night alone in the morgue covered over with a white sheet, the coroner notices something that immediately tells him Cotten is very much alive. He sees TEARS running from the former heartless employer's eyes. At the conclusion, host Hitchcock (with tongue firmly planted in cheek) wryly informs the audience of the the distinct possibility that Cotten will fully recover from his injuries and most likely reinstate the fired employee. You could say he's had a life-changing experience. Of special note to viewers is a quick glimpse of a very young Aaron Spelling as an escaping convict from the chain gang.


Hitchcock, of course, understood exactly how to create suspense. His typical explanation involved a bomb under the table: if it explodes out of nowhere, then that's surprise. If the audience knows that the bomb is under the table but not when it will go off, that's suspense. Thus, the secret for mastering suspense was to allow the audience to know something that the film's characters didn't  for, whatever we may know, we are absolutely helpless to do anything. Hitchcock occasionally transferred the elements of this director/audience interaction to his own characters, as we see in 'Rear Window (1954),' in which Jimmy Stewart sits immobile and helpless in his apartment. "Breakdown" (Season 1, Episode 7) was the second episode of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" to be personally directed by the host, and, tellingly, it's also the best of the series so far. Hitchcock once again utilises the premise of a central character who, like the audience, is powerless to influence the events of the story.

Joseph Cotten plays William Callew, a callous businessman with little regard for human emotion. After a long-time employee weeps uncontrollably after losing his job, Callew unsympathetically condemns his lack of self-control. However, poetic justice is about to ensue. After becoming involved in a ghastly car collision with a truck of chain-gang prisoners, Callew wakes up paralysed from head to toe, but conscious enough to thinking logically. The fleeing prisoners offer hope of rescue, but instead  believing him to be dead  seize the opportunity to loot his clothing. Despite regaining slight movement in a single finger, nobody seems to recognise that Callew is still alive, and he seems destined to be buried that way. Hitchcock uses point-of-view shots to powerful effect, and Cotten  though not called upon to do much in the way of acting  delivers a creepy monotone voice-over that communicates his overwhelming paranoia. Though a lesson is proposed by the conclusion, its presence seems to be tongue-in-cheek, with Hitchcock spelling out the necessity of a "moral" in his introduction.


This episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents is probably one of the best episodes I've seen. Maybe "the" best. The whole concept of the episode was brilliant. Sometimes you get a groundbreaking idea that is poorly executed and a good idea is wasted. This is not one of those times.

Breakdown features Joseph Cotten in the lead as William Callew. Callew is a stern businessman and a real mean SOB. Callew is away at the beach relaxing when he gets a call from an employee that was canned. The man is frantic and crying on the phone. The suddenness of being let go is too much for him and the poor man doesn't know what he's going to do. Callew, who is anything but compassionate, is disgusted by the man. He doesn't want to hear it and just hangs up the phone. Raymond Bailey plays Ed Johnson, a friend of Callew's. He heard the whole thing and like the audience, cannot believe how unfeeling Callew is. Callew tells Ed how disgusted he was by the man showing that kind of emotion on the phone. Callew says, "I hate that kind of weakness."

Joseph Cotten, as always, gives a great performance. He spends the beginning of the episode getting us to hate Callew and he succeeds. But this is only one way Cotten plays the part. After Cotten's character gets into a horrific car accident, Cotten pretty much has to play a corpse for the rest of the episode. Cotten actually pulls it off. Callew is pinned behind the steering wheel and looks dead. He isn't dead, but he is paralyzed. He literally cannot move a muscle. Callew is just sitting there with his eyes open and looks like he really is dead. Of course, Cotten does a voice over, to let us know what the character is thinking and feeling. Cotten's job for the whole rest of the episode is to make his character sympathetic. He pulls this off too.

The whole episode is pretty much Joseph Cotten. There are instances when different people approach the crash thinking Callew is dead. Callew realizes the bad spot that he is in. He has to find a way to let people know he is still alive. Time is running out and unless Callew can show he's still alive, he is going to be declared dead.

I found this episode very effective. The whole episode you are on the edge of your seat wondering what will happen. There is a particularly chilling scene of Callew ending up in the morgue with a sheet over his face. At the end of the episode there is a surprise ending that no one could've ever saw coming. I won't give anything away.

Check out this brilliant episode with masterful directing by the Master of Suspense himself. The writing and acting to the show are also great. Check out one of the best episodes of Alfred Hitchcock Presents. This is by far, some of the best work I've seen from Alfred Hitchcock and Joseph Cotten. I also commend Francis Cockrell and Louis Pollock for writing something so original and so riveting. You are in for a treat with this brilliant episode. See it and I promise you won't be disappointed.


This is one of the very best of the first season episodes of 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents.' It was directed by Hitchcock himself, and like his excellent 'One More Mile to Go' (1957) with David Wayne and Steve Brodie from the second season, depends a lot on silence and trademark Hitchcock cutting and POV shots.

In this one, Joseph Cotten plays a mean employer, who during the first five minutes fires an employee for showing too much emotion. Maybe we can't predict what kind of come uppance he will get or how he will receive it, but it does finally come with strong irony and moral implications. Well done by all!

So what are the top thirteen episodes? Chronologically they are: episode 1, Ralph Meeker in 'Revenge,' ("That's Him!"); episode 2, 'Premonition,'; episode 5, with his daughter Pat, but which is really a twenty-two minute version of his film 'The Lady Vanishes' (1939) and is called 'Into Thin Air,'; this episode 7; episode 10, the amazing 'The Strange Case of Mr. Pelham,' with the goofy looking Tom Ewell, but the episode may have won an Emmy; the performance of Barry Fitzgerald in the 12th episode, 'Santa Claus and the Tenth Avenue Kid,'; episode 17, 'The Older Sister,' with a strong performance by Carmen Matthews; episode 22, 'Place of Shadows' with Mark Damon and Everett Sloane; episode 23 'Back For Christmas' with Hitch's main star, John Williams, also directed by Hitchcock; episode 26, 'Whodunit,' with John Williams and Amada Blake; the anti-drinking episode 30, 'Never Again,' with Warren Stevens and Hitch's anti-drinking speech; episode 37, 'Decoy,' with Robert Horton, Cara Williams and Frank Gorshin, and then finally, the great 'Momentum,' a 22 minute film noir with Skip Homeier and Joanne Woodward.

Whew! Burn those on a DVD!


This episode is the best I've seen of this show!It's so creepy...I love it! When I watched it I was terrified and shaking all over! I was like "Feel his pulse, feel his pulse! Can't you see he's alive?!" And when they brought him to the morgue I was like "Oh my God, they're gonna bury him alive!" It was almost out of my worst nightmare! I was so relieved when he started crying and the people noticed! My brother thought the episode was utterly boring! How could it be boring! My hart still starts thumping when I think about the episode. Hichcock was so good! I haven't seen any of his movies yet except half of Rear Window in school, but I'll watch The Birds this weekend. I'm sure it's great!


Boy - this one scared me - because - it shows what can happen in a blink of an eye. by the way - from personal experience - I found out what canhappen in the blink of an eye. So - I can relate to this film - very much so. Very good story line - very good casting - very good acting. It was very unnerving to watch him suffer - real psychological suffering - can almost fell it yourself. It seemed so very realistic in its filimg & acting - scared me no end. Often wondered what others would think of this movie. I enjoyed it immensely and hope others did to - wish they would write their comments - however - my only concern is - haven't seen it since mid 1950's - have never forgotten it. I only wish it could be shown again - this time - I'd tape it & watch it a lot. Please advise ml2348@att.com


Just picked up the DVD after years of growing up to the movie. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw that it was coming out! Sweet! I don't think anyone expects Citizen Kane when you see a movie called Roller Boogie but I think it is campy and fun, especially the large skating scenes on the boardwalk and in the rink. Jim Bray.. well what can I say? Fabulous skater (and the movie shows him off very well) and pretty hot to boot. Acting? He tried his best, and in a few scenes he is actually very endearing. His costumes are the best; teeny tiny shorts, tight tight pants, feathered hair.. I wonder if Mr. Bray will pick this DVD up, watch it and laugh about all the bad stuff he and the rest of the cast had to wear. Great movie. The DVD has the original trailer and that's it, since I'm sure no one wanted to sit down and do a commentary on this wonderful little slice of 1979. I don't blame them! You just have to appreciate it for what it is.


Trying to cash in on the roller disco craze, this movie starring Linda Blair, has a cute and innocent atmosphere to it. It is no academy award winner, and it is hokey in parts, but all and all it is a nice time capsule that highlights the fad of the late '70s and early '80s. The plot line was actually re-used in the movie "Breakin'2:Electric Boogaloo" (1984), which is another great pop culture movie. The California atmosphere, the music, and the skating sequences make this movie worth watching over and over again. A definite title for anyone that likes 'dated' movies.


This one is a complete hoot. I caught this low-budget, formulaic 1979 film this past weekend on the big screen at the fully packed Castro Theater in San Francisco as part of a roller-disco midnight madness program. The crowd went wild at every absurd turn of the plot, and it's no wonder. Directed by potboiler specialist Mark L. Lester, this ultimate cheese of a roller disco musical avoids a permanent home in the video junk heap simply because of the sheer idiocy of the storyline and the wealth of unintentional humor permeating the film. There are movies that are intentionally vile and not worthy of reviewing, but this one is actually full of good spirits albeit with nothing in the way of taste, wit or common sense.

In what has to be the steepest career free-fall for a former Oscar nominee, an extremely nubile, twenty-year old Linda Blair stars as Terry Barkley, a prodigious flautist on her way to Juilliard, who tires of being ignored by her wealthy, 90210-based parents and decides to run away for a whole night. Upon meeting Bobby James in Venice Beach, the king of the disco-driven roller skaters, she decides she wants to learn some moves to win the big roller boogie contest at Jammer's, the local roller disco rink. My favorite plot point is Bobby's aspiration to become an Olympic roller skating gold medalist...even though no one tells him it isn't an Olympic event. Of course, Terry is rich, Bobby is poor, and consequently, romantic sparks are inevitable. Complications, however, occur when a thuggish land developer blackmails Jammer to sell his rink, so he can raze the building and build a shopping mall. The rest of the plot is not worth disclosing except to say that it is as preposterous as the convoluted set-up, and thanks to the wooden acting, horrendous dialogue and hilarious skating sequences, it makes for grade-A camp entertainment.

In skin-tight leotards and enough make-up to scare off a Santa Monica Boulevard hooker, Blair makes a sincere attempt at portraying Terry's teen-aged angst. Of course, it helps her professional standing that she is playing opposite real-life roller skating champion Jim Bray, a non-actor who was cast as Bobby only because the producers could not find a leading man who could actually skate. Innately geeky, the never-to-be-seen-again Bray certainly tries hard, though he is defeated by the film's numerous skating sequences which have been inserted so we can be impressed by his expertise. Instead, they provide the film's biggest laughs - the opening where he leads dozens of fellow skaters to the boardwalk to the strains of Cher's disco-diva anthem, "Hell on Wheels"; the ridiculous chase sequence through the streets of Venice where Terry and Bobby are chased unsuccessfully by a speeding car; the concluding roller boogie contest (of course); and in what has to be the absolute nadir, a solo skating number full of cornball treacle dedicated to the drunken Jammer.

Familiar faces from the baby-boomer TV generation dot the supporting cast, among them Beverly Garland ("Scarecrow and Mrs. King" and "My Three Sons") and Roger Perry ("The Facts of Life") as Terry's parents; and Mark Goddard ("Lost in Space") as the villainous land developer. If all that is not enough, there are other lures to consider - the blaring disco music; the groovy, circa-1979 clothes; the forced slapstick (in particular, a fruit-throwing mêlée and a very non-spontaneous pool dunking at a garden party). It's hard to think of a movie more execrable, yet the film has an endearing charm for all its misguided inanity. It's worthwhile just for the unintended guffaws. In the 1979-80 holy trinity of roller disco cinema, "Xanadu" may be "Gone With the Wind" and "Skatetown U.S.A." may be "West Side Story", but this one must certainly be "Citizen Kane".


Another great, awful movie a la "Road House", this movie is a time capsule of crap.This movie reenacts all the cliché plot points from so many other movies: i.e. The old man with a heart of gold, the rich girl and her boyfriend from the wrong side of the tracks, Acting: terrible. Writing: terrible. You have to see this movie to believe it. On a lighter note, Linda Blair and some of the other female leads are HOT!!! The absolute best scene in this entire movie is the local mobsters being pelted with fruit and running away. This movie is a nightmare that you don't wake up from, but its one of those weird psychedelic nightmares that you just have to sit through because its so surreal...Check out the costumes...God awful, especially the overweight bike cop who wears SHORT shorts. Hysterical.