I was anxious to see this film, and I honestly enjoyed the first hour of it. And then...Charlie was revealed, and I was so angry I considered walking out of the theater.

Not every horror movie has to be "The Exorcist" or "The Sixth Sense." Not every movie--horror or otherwise, has to be intelligent. With a little bourbon, even "Night of the Lepus" can be fun. Twists in a horror film are great--if executed correctly. And "Hide and Seek" misses the mark completely.

For one, it asks us to be stupid and go along with the second half of the film. The second half of the film doesn't add up, nor does it make us say, "I should have seen that coming," as films such as "Sixth Sense" and "The Others" did. There's no equation for this movie--none. In the end, I had no idea what the movie was really about (that drawing in the final scene--what IS that? What does it say?) The only thing good about the movie was the performances by every member of the cast. Hey Amy Irving! Good to see you! Same for Elisabeth Shue. Dakota Fanning is very talented, and we should keep our eyes on her. But the cast isn't worth the money.

Save your dollars for Blockbuster if you're really curious. Again, I was hopeful at 7pm this evening, and very angry two hours later. Little plot, no resolution. The film descends into utter nonsense. A true disappointment.


Hide and Seek is a really creepy psychological thriller directed by John Polson (Mission: Impossible II, The Sum of Us) and it has one of the most memorable and most shocking/surprising endings ever. Another movie that had that creepy-ending thing was Wes Craven's 'They'. (sorry, no other titles come to mind. but see They, it's extremely scary).

Anyway, Robert DeNiro (Shark Tale, Cape Fear (1991)), for once, did not over-act in this movie. His acting was actually great! And Dakota Fanning just literally blew me away. She is definitely THE BEST young actress that has ever been and that will ever be (I hope I said that phrase right, but if I didn't, I'm sure you know what Ii mean). She did the same thing in War of the Worlds, too. She has a very, very, very, very, very, very, very rare gift of acting. She has such a talent that God gave her. She just passed through the part easily, as if there was nothing too it. Her part as Emily Callaway really creeped me out. She also won an MTV Movie Award for, 'Best Frightened Performance' in this movie. She really seemed actually frightened! Everything else was wonderful in this movie! See Hide and Seek! You won't be disappointed!

Original MPAA rating: R: Frightening Sequences and Violence

My MPAA rating: R: Violence/Terror and Frightening Sequences

My Canadian rating: 14A: Violence, Frigtening Scenes, Mature Theme


I wasn't impressed with 'Hide and Seek.' If you've seen Secret Window or any of the recent horror=thrillers with endings of an identical twist, you'll understand how tired and utterly formulaic this has become. Hide and Seek lacks imagination anyways because the viewer is asked to be confounded by a series of disconnected scare tactics such as things jumping of closets, the last minute awareness of the culprit before the death of an unsuspecting victim, and above all, modern horror-thriller filmmakers determined to creep you out with some weirdo kid.

All the while, however, the story is very thin: that of a father and his young daughter coping with the gruesome death of the wife/mother who supposedly slit her wrists in the bathtub where she bled to death. However, we are led to believe that in fact, her death was no accident. And the weird little girl and her mysterious, elusive friend "Charlie," seem to be behind the whole thing as they taunt the father who just seems to want to get on with things. Something like 'The Omen,' if you will. But, it doesn't end that way, of course.

Instead, a cast of pretty good actors star in a film of cheap tricks and an even cheaper ending (including the infamous last scene where you think that all is well until there is some last minute evidence that in fact, the evil will continue unabated). Formula one hundred percent. If you've seen films like 'Secret Window' or 'Taking Lives' or other similar pseudo-mind benders (sorry, other titles don't come to mind at the moment), then you're in for nothing new if you watch 'Hide and Seek.' In any event, De Niro didn't over act and Dakota Fanning did a fine job creeping me out.


Deniro needs to stay away from thrillers and stick to playing bad guys or cops. In Hide and Seek, he portrays probably the worst psychiatrist/single father I've ever seen. Okay, I won't really spoil the ending but after "the revelation" of this Who's Doin It, it did NOT work for me. The writer of this movie Ari Schlossberg must have logged a lot of how-to-be-a-Hollywood screenwriter hours in class. Deniro's last thriller, Godsend, was also terrible, and he played a goofy doctor in that one, too! Typical stupid sheriff in this one who doesn't call for back-up and thinks his flashlight is a better weapon than his handgun. The daughter's role could have been played by anyone, but Dakota Fanning is the latest young darling hob-nobbing from movie to movie with big names. Her best-and only-good role as 'The Daughter' was in I Am Sam, where I thought she was fantastic. Famke Janssen was average and fluff as was Elisabeth Shue. The one and only good part of this movie is the one that didn't make it; be sure to see the alternate ending of Emily where she is institutionalized. A much smarter choice than the original ending. But then, making this movie at all was not a smart choice anyway.


You know what I don't get? Why is it that creepy little boys or girls seem to always get away with anything? Look, when I see a creepy little kid, I will say that that kid is a creepy little bastard! I call it like I see it. I realize that most kids in the world are not disturbed, but some are, and should you ever come across one, then please save humanity and do all us humans a favor by making sure that said creepy little kid is locked away for life. I realize that creepy little kids have been a staple for horror films, but to suggest that they should never be thought of as criminals is insane. Hollywood loves to portray kids as angels. Like I said, most are, but I think Hollywood needs a reality check.

This leads me to Hide and Seek, a movie that is mediocre even with powerful actors like DeNiro, Fanning and Shue. For some reason, Bobby makes more mediocre films nowadays then he does quality. I realize you have to pay the bills, but come on. DeNiro is one of the best actors ever, and his movie choices lately (Godsend, which is horrible)have sucked. DeNiro should have looked at the script and then decided to burn it after reading the first 3 pages. Either that or he should have demanded a love scene with Elisabeth Shue for extra compensation. Fanning parents saw the $$$$ there little girl would earn, and signed her up real quick. Well, that is my theory, cause she is way better than this garbage.

Fanning plays the "creepy little kid", and DeNiro plays her psychiatrist dad. Mom kills herself in the beginning of the movie, or at least that is what it looks like. Darling daughter becomes depressed and creepy, and daddy decides to move from the city to the country for a new start. Turns out the move is a bad idea, cause (excluding Shue's character) all the residents of this small town that we meet are creepy too. And why is it that small town folk are always creepy? Big cities have there fair share of freaks as well, but for some reason, this movie (along with many others) wants you to believe that small town folks are crazy as hell. Anyways, this movie goes from okay to flat out ridiculous in no time at all, and once the big "surprise" comes at the climax of the film, you feel as if you have seen this movie somewhere before. That is due to the fact that Hide and Seek turns into a rehash of many other films. Sad thing is the fact that Hide and Seek wants to be different........but it isn't.

I'll give Fanning credit. She does play her role well, and it was because of her that I watched this whole thing. This is a dark role for her, and she seems to eat it up. She does have a bright future ahead of her, but she needs to avoid crap like this.


All's not well at the home of the Callaways. David (Robert De Niro) and Alison (Amy Irving) have obvious tension in their relationship. When it leads to suicide shortly after the film begins, David, a psychologist, packs up his young daughter Emily (Dakota Fanning) and heads from New York City to bucolic upstate New York to try to start over. Unfortunately, the suicide was just the start of their problems. It seems that something evil may have followed them into the woods.

Hide and Seek is not your typical thriller. For much of its length, it is a much quieter, slower-paced drama, resting almost entirely on meaty, complex performances from two actors, one of whom--Fanning--was only 10 years old while making the film! It also is veers back and forth from thriller to horror territory (which have a notoriously gray border anyway) depending partially on one's interpretation of the film. The ending is marked by a clever twist that most viewers may not see coming, and which will pleasantly broach more questions than it answers long after you have seen the film. Those facts might turn some potential viewers off, but anyone able to slow down and appreciate fine acting housed in a dense, creepy environment will be rewarded. The film was a 10 out of 10 for me.

Newcomer screenwriter Ari Schlossberg has said that he grew up in the city, so just the idea of the woods, as well as children in general, frighten him. Those may be unusual sentiments, but director John Polson has translated them with remarkable ease into Hide and Seek. The country setting feels eerie from the moment David and Emily arrive, and Fanning's outstanding performance has her gradually changing from a cute kid to a scary little pseudo-Goth monster more slyly than native New Yorker slipping into the subway car before you to grab the last seat. Of course De Niro is good, too, but that goes without saying. Hide and Seek gives both performers a chance to show their range, but the biggest surprise is perhaps that Fanning can match De Niro step for step. The rest of the cast doesn't slouch, either, but they're not the focus. Their role is more to provide the necessary little nudges to justify our stars' next dazzling feats.

While I cannot talk at length about various subtexts and interpretations without giving spoilers, they range from the purely psychological to the supernatural. It is worth noting before watching that little of what you see playing out on the screen may be actually happening, and there may be something more sinister at work that is never fully stated in the film.

Schlossberg has said that among his many influences for this script were The Shining (1980), and in fact, that masterpiece is directly referenced a few times. Those are big shoes to try to fill. While the style and content of Hide and Seek are very different than The Shining--Hide and Seek is even more understated--that's also a slower-paced film that finds much of its effectiveness from its thick atmosphere and commendable performances, and fans of Kubrick's great horror film should find enough to enjoy here as well.


"Hide and Seek" is one of the best horror films I've seen in awhile. It is about a psychologist, David Callaway (Robert DeNiro) whose wife commits suicide, and he decides to move to upstate New York with his daughter, Emily (Dakota Fanning), whose personality has severely changed after her mother's death. A family friend/psychologist/co-worker of David, Katherine (Famke Janssen) disagrees with David's decision to move, and thinks that Emily should stay where she is. Then after David and Emily move into their new house, David meets Elizabeth (Elisabeth Shue), who becomes a friend to David and Emily. Then strange things begin to happen - Emily discovers a new imaginary friend, Charlie. And then people start to die.

Robert DeNiro and Dakota Fanning are both brilliant, their performances were extremely real and convincing. Dakota is quite talented for her age, and DeNiro gives another great performance like he always does. Famke Janssen ("Don't Say A Word" and "House on Haunted Hill") also does great, and Elisabeth Shue ("The Karate Kid") is also very good. In fact, the whole cast was great. The whole film was really suspenseful, and it tricks you a lot. The atmosphere was heavy, I loved the whole feeling of the secluded upstate New York small-town, and the large house David and Emily move into.

I liked this movie because it was more psychological rather than chop and slash gore that most horror films use to scare people. "Hide and Seek" has a good, solid story behind it, which is why it is such a good horror film, and the acting is top notch on top of it all. I don't understand everyone's problem with this movie, it was actually quite good. Sure, the ending is a little cliché, but the rest of the movie was good enough on it's own. 8/10.


I liked ''Hide and Seek''a lot! It's the first horror/Thriller movie I watched with Robert De Niro, and he is great in his role of David Callaway! Dakota Fanning is one of my favorite child actors, and she is also awesome in the role of little Emily, not only because of her acting skills, but also because of her new look, with long and dark hair who really suits her. (Much better then the natural blonde hair she has, in my opinion). I don't want to write too much about the story of this movie, because I guess it could ruin the movie. I only can say that I liked the ending of this film VERY MUCH, and it's very surprising and dark in some way, what makes it great.

Famke Janssen is beautiful as always by the way! =)


this had all the sufficient details and mystery of a typical thriller. as usual fanning displayed her enormous amount of talent, and De Nero portrayed his role or should i say roles quite satisfactory. the whole time i did not throughly pick up on the whole base of the movie as well as the plot until the near end when everything was cleared up. although things surely did not come to be as they seemed. i will have to give credit to the writers for that. it may have disappointed most but i wouldn't call it the all time worst horror movie. it was more on the physiologically thriller side than anything else.basically i enjoyed the creepiness of Dakota fanning's character through out the whole movie and the basic way everything was set up to happen and the whole time it kept the audience in silence and without much expecting of what was going to happen. i definitely think you should give a try it won't hurt. you pass the time and you have something to think about the rest of the day. although it took 2 times for me personally to completely grasp the movie other people might have understood it right away. and I'm not the type who is clueless about movies.


Don't let the presence of Robert De Niro and Elisabeth Shue fool you into thinking that "Hide and Seek" is anything more than a tacky, trashy thriller, utterly devoid of originality, credibility and suspense.

De Niro is a Manhattan psychologist whose depressed wife (Amy Irving) kills herself in the bathtub. Feeling that a change of venue would be the best thing for him and his traumatized daughter, he moves to a small town in upstate New York, hoping to start life over again in an unfamiliar setting. Almost immediately, the child begins to turn strange, claiming that she has an "invisible" playmate who is none too happy with her dad for letting her mom off herself. Soon, animals and neighbors start showing up dead, and De Niro realizes he needs to start doing some serious intervention if he's to prevent his little girl from turning into a miniaturized Norman Bates.

"Hide and Seek" takes a serious issue - the effect a parent's suicide has on a child - and exploits it for cheap commercial purposes. Rather than dealing intelligently with this sensitive topic, the film uses it as window dressing for a squalid little horror film that feels like a thousand other thrillers that have come before it. The "surprise" twist ending will come as a surprise only to those who have never seen "Secret Window" or anything of that ilk, and whole sections of the last half hour feel as if they have been lifted almost verbatim from "The Shining." And what modern suspense film worth its salt would be without that single most hackneyed scene in the horror film canon - the old cat-jumping-out-of-the-closet trick!? In this respect, at least, "Hide and Seek" does not disappoint.

De Niro and Shue are professional enough to turn in yeomen work, but even actors of their caliber can't make a silk purse out of this sow's ear. Dakota Fanning is fairly effective as the creepy child, but if you want to see a truly great film on the subject of creepy children, check out Jack Clayton's horror movie masterpiece "The Innocents" and avoid "Hide and Seek" at all costs.


I went to the opening night of this movie... and I must say, I am very disappointed. The trailers really made the movie look amazing, but when I saw the movie, I thought, "When is something actually going to happen?" I found it disappointing that it took a long time for something to happen, and when it finally did, it was a very weak way to finish off a movie. As someone stated in another comment, the only thing worth seeing in that movie is Dakota Fanning. For an 11 year old, she is very creepy and sure knows how to keep an audience at the edge of their seats. I suggest to anyone who wants to see that movie to consider seeing another one, or wait until it comes out on VHS/DVD so you can rent it for cheap.


lol one night my friend & I were watching this movie since her parents rented it. we literally hid under the blanket after all of those frightening moments. also we were afraid to go into the bathroom and look in the bathtub after watching this film. Robert De Niro & Dakota Fanning provide excellent acting throughout the movie. However, I'm not sure if I really liked those frightening moments. It feels like you're in a haunted house in your own living room. They're those "jump-out of nowhere" scary things. Also, I found some parts of it gross, like when that police officer is in the basement and they show his icky face...o_O Although I rate this movie 8/10, overall I found this film scary yet interesting. ***Dont have your kids aged 10 & under watch this movie - it might give them nightmares & they may be afraid to go into the bathroom***


this is one of my favourite movies. i always wanted it since i saw the trailers for it on TV in the cinema last year and luckily got it on DVD last Christmas. i still don't understand the story now about if Charlie was part of the dad or a thing that went into different people , cos what was with the pervy next door neighbour ??? still confused now and I've watched it lots of times. it was the first 15 rated movie i saw and it was really good ! the storyline is wicked and i never get bored of watching it, kind of disgusting some of it, but I'm only 14 so i haven't seen any films worse than that,(yet).first time watching it i had to keep pausing it. i recommend it to everyone !!! xxx- Madison -xxx


If want a ghost movie or even a hack-slash-bloody horror movie, this movie is not for you. This movie plays on your mind and less of the whole sound loud music now and show a jumpy scene. There are no supernatural characters in this movie, which makes it realistic and therefore more believable. I usually find myself hating characters of scary movies because they are so stupid or have dumb actions, but this movie is not one of them. I enjoyed the movie because of the twist. Will this movie give you nightmares? No, but once you find out what's really going on, you can't help but be a little terrified. In my book, this is one of the better horror movies.


Robert De Niro plays David Callaway with his daughter Emily Callaway, played by Dakota Fanning. During New Years Eve, there is a party. Then we see David goes to sleep. We see a hand touch his face, he wakes up, and walks to the bathroom and finds his wife in suicide. The next day, Emily is in a mental hospital and the family decides to move out. During their stay, Emily makes up an "imaginary friend". David meets a nice neighbor that he likes to spend the rest of his life with. Emily's "imaginary friend" starts to kill people. Now we don't know if that person is imaginary or not.

The movie starts off with a New Years Eve party. We just see glimpses of it. We see David's wife going somewhere. He follows without telling and the next thin we see is a face touching across his face. We see the black hallway, in which David walks, lighted by light in the bathroom door. He opens it to find his wife committed suicide. He and his daughter moves somewhere and they meet new friends. Even David meets a new woman. Emily doesn't appreciate this because she said that nothing can replace her mom. Then her imaginary friend turns out not too imaginary at all.

This movie is thrilling and is the edge-of-your-seats thriller. The performances by De Niro and Fanning are great. John Polson tries to confuse us if the imaginary friend is actually real or not. The tone for this film is dark and dull. There are some clichés in this thriller. This is not a horror film but plays like one. In some parts, it's scary. We think to ourselves that we can solve this mystery all by ourself but misses it and the last few minutes reveal the big "twist" of the imaginary friend.

This movie is smart, in the way it plays out. There are suspicions that if a neighbor might be Charlie, the imaginary friend. There are many things that Charlie has done that makes David think that his daughter, actually did them. He doesn't believe whatever Emily says. We go in our mines back and forth to solve this mystery but it doesn't work out.

This is a great and suspenseful edge-of-your-seats thriller. It's not a horror film. This film is rated R but I don't know why? It has everything a PG-13 movie needs so I can tell it's a appropriate for children under 17. Watch this movie if you're into mysteries and thrillers but no horror.


(There are Spoilers) After her moms suicide little Emily Callaway, Dakota Fanning, became so seriously withdrawn into a fantasy world. It was then agreed by her psychologist father David, Robert De Niro,and his former student and children's trauma expert Katherine, Fmake Janssen, that it would be best to get her away from New York City and move to the country for little Emily to recover from the shock that she's suffering from.

Right from the start things don't turn out the way David expected for Emily with her becoming more and more withdrawn from reality and into a fantasy world. It's in that world where Emily has this friend that she's involved with in playing games, like hide and seek, name Charlie.

Charlie at first seems harmless enough but as things start to happen at the country house that border on insanity and later even cross over to murder the "fictictonal" Charlie is someone that's not at all to be ignored. Emily is soon in danger of being committed to a mental institution for the rest of her life because, or her fantasies, of him.

We at first have no idea just who Charlie is and like David and later Katherine we assume that he's only a make believe friend that Emily conjured up. When the family cat and later one of the neighbors Elizabeth, Elisabeth Shue, end up dead and in the bathtub, the same place that David's dead wife was found, it becomes evident that this Charlie is a crazed lunatic on the loose in and around the Woodland Estates where David and Emily are straying at.

Were given clues all throughout the movie of Charlie's identity and who's behind his murderous actions with a special focus of the clock, by David's bed, striking 2:06:AM and glimpses of some kind of party that David and his late wife Alison, Amy Irving, attended just before she was found dead from silting her wrists. Were also given to understand that David's next door, and somewhat unstable, neighbors have something to do with the weird and deadly goings on at David and Emily's country home. I's not until the last ten minutes or so in the movie "Hide and Seek" that were exposed to who really Charlie is and why he's doing the terrible things that he does and also why Emily is so terrified of him.

Not bad horror mystery thriller that's a lot better then you would have expected it to be with the many negative reviews that the movie "Hide and Seek" got in he press and on TV.

Rober De Niro gives a very controlled but effective performance as David Callaway the befuddled father who can't grasp what his young daughter is going through and feels at first that she's the one somehow responsible for the carnage that's been going on in and around the house. Young Dakota Fanning is perfect as Emily who's suffering more from the truth then some fantasy that her father David and his colleague Katherine think that she's having.

The next door neighbor Laura and Steven, Melissa Leo & Robert John Bork, are a bit odd who's actions can be explained that their young daughter recently died of cancer and look upon Emily as a replacement for her. But later the two , especially Steven, come across as more then just grieving parents but very unstable and dangerous individuals.

The ending though a bit labored does put all the pieces of the puzzle together in just who Charlie is and what's the reason for his actions. With Charlie revealing himself to everyone in the movie but little Emily as the sick depraved and homicidal person that he really is. With Katheine, who Charlie earlier slammed down a flight of stairs, coming to Emily's rescue in a spine-tingling and deadly confrontation with Charlie at a deserted cave. Where he first met and got friendly and involved with the unsuspecting Emily and much later the rest of the unfortunate people that he came in contact with in the film "Hide and Seek".


I thought this movie was alright but nothing special. INteresting premise with a little girl who is traumautized after seeing her mother dead in an apparent suicide. Her father(Deniro) moves her out of the city and finds out she has an imaginary friend named "Charlie." He starts to get worried when she starts to recreate what she saw with her mom in the bathtub blaming him. She says she doenst' do it but her friend Charlie and of course the father doesn't believe her. Then comes the surprise ending which was very surprising but hard to believe. Such as why was she not afraid of her father who is the alter ego "Charlie' when her father is her father and also how did going to the country side bring out this alter ego which I'm assuming came about when he killed his wife.


Hide and Seek is a movie you will either love or hate. It was not really scary, and sometimes got too silly to invest in these one dimensional characters, but for the most part, the movie delivers. One reason is about to be 12 year old Dakota Fanning(War of the Worlds, Uptown Girls). The actress gives a chilling performance as troubled Emily Callaway, who after her mothers suicide, goes to live with her dad in a new town where her imaginary friend shows up...scary things begin to occur and the movie really gets going. While the ending is somewhat a washout and too out-of-nowhere, the suspense and acting carries the film. While the so-so ending disappoints, Fanning and De Niro certainly don't. 7/10 C+


I really enjoyed this movie for the most part. It had some parallels to The Shining in that the son/daughter had a mysterious friend, who apparently can make things haywire. There was another parallel with the dead women in the bathtub in both movies and the father getting crazy and going after an authority figure with an axe. This movie really kept me on the edge of me seat, and thats why I have to give it a seven. However, I had a hunch about 10-15 prior to the end that David Callaway(De Niro) was going to get killed. However, I thought Emily was going to be the one to kill him, not the lady. I figured Emily was going to stab him in the backside in the cave scene.


Dakota Fanning's performance was super, but DeNiro slept-walked through it. He's on my list of favorite actors, but I have no idea why he took this role.

The direction and editing were sloppy, and the writing even worse. I watched it because I like the people in it, and kept hoping it would improve. Sadly, it didn't, despite decent performances by Elizabeth Shue and Famke Janssen (sorry if her name is misspelled.)

The surprise ending was just plain lame. I think the idea had some merit, but it just wasn't well written or otherwise believable.

I recommend watching just about anything else.


It built steadily, kept the suspense increase well paced and kept you guessing. Too many people don't let themselves 'go' into the experience; it's been a long time since it's been 'squinting through fingers viewing'. Advice? Don't read up or have a clue about the film, drop yourself in and enjoy the fear. The premise should of been kept up and down to the wire; right to a finale, that would have seen a 9 or 10, once it hit the knowledge horizon it fell away fast and trickled into a fade. Why people are beating up on DeNiro for this is a puzzle, he did as was required by the part and as for thinking him god like and untouchable so, 'why did he do this': Analyze This??


The director of SWIMFAN tries his hand at a psychological thriller with HIDE AND SEEK, about a woman's suicide and the devastating impact it has on her husband and young daughter. The husband (DeNiro) spirits away his kid (Fanning) from Manhattan to upstate New York to try and salvage her. Things do not go well. People and pets start dieing or disappearing, and Fanning seems to have developed an invisible playmate named Charley. The plot is hokey and had been done a hundred times before, but the film is kept from self-destructing by the star power on display here. It is not a cast one normally associates with such B-level fare. A virtually unrecognizable Amy Irving, sporting a head of blonde curls, is DeNiro's distraught wife. The always-lovely Famke Janssen is the kid's shrink. And the fetching Elizabeth Schue plays DeNiro's new love interest. DeNiro is slumming, of course, but if his character had been played by virtually anyone else -- think adequate leading men like Dennis Quaid or Kurt Russell -- you'd have no movie at all. At all. On the DVD, you have a choice of five endings.


Little girl Emily loses her mother and so she and her father move to a new house to start again. Things are fine till little Emily finds an imaginary friend called Charley and then all hell breaks loose. This is the scariest psychological/horror film since Psycho and at times i was shaking all over. Little Dakota Fanning ,who plays Emily,is absolutely awesome in this film and i will be watching her career closely in the future and though this is the sort of role Robert DE Niro,the dad,could play in his sleep,he still puts in a great though slightly muted performance. This film has everything,imaginary friends,murdered pets ,suspicious deaths and enough nail biting horror to keep you awake for a fortnight. Next time your child tells you of imaginary friend then you might want to think twice because you never know...........8/10


I watched the movie because it is casting DeNiro but it looks like all actors need money and they play also in bad movies. I was expecting more, because i was missing DeNiro, but it seems like "disappointment" is the word that describes this film. "Hide and seek" reminds me of "The Others" with Nicole Kidman - there is no action but there is suspense that makes you think at a lot of things, and in the end a stupid idea comes out. Of course there is something interesting in this film. The performance of little Dakota Fanning (Emily Callaway) is extraordinary. I cannot imagine how a 11 year old girl can act as good as her. I surely hope that she will grow to be a first class actress, because we really need some!!!


The story is centered around a psychologist(Robert De Niro) and his daughter(Dakota Fanning). They move over to a house by the countryside when De Niro's wife is mysteriously murdered. There Emily(Dakota Famming) makes a new mysterious friend named Charlie. De Niro is initially happy to find her making new friends but this slowly turns to dread as he sees his own daughter turning against him and preferring to stay with Charlie himself. Add to that that he does not get to ever meet the mysterious Charlie. The scene turns ugly when Charlie starts killing people. A thriller to boot with the ultimate climax being finding out who Charlie really is.


Let's go straight for the twist, it's good. I didn't guess it at all. Well that's not true, I did guess it, but when you're pointed in every direction then you will end up wondering about every possibility. You see in a thriller that tries to surprise you mis-direction plays a huge part, and in this movie they turn from the traditional idea of taking you in one direction only to whip you back in the opposite direction. What they do is not to take you away in one direction, they point you in just about every possible one so you have no idea which could be right.

I loved this. It's very clever. The hints are gone and you're left totally guessing. Yet it did have a negative affect. When the revelation comes there's not a big moment of surprise, and I think it's because you've not been led too far from the truth, because you're pointed in multiple directions you haven't been taken that far away to be whipped back to the surprise.

There's also a bit of confusion in the moments of that revelation too, visually it's not clear enough until the final moment, I do feel that (without giving it away) if they'd film it a bit more open and recognisable you would have had a much longer time of the surprise than the short moment that you end up with.

The ending though is intense, the final scenes with the girl and the flashing torch really did get to me, it was one of these scenes I'll bring up when I'm asked about the creepiest moments in cinema.

There are a number of stars in it, another nice misdirection ploy. Fanning is stunning in this movie. She gives a performance that I've rarely seen in adult actors. Totally unnerving and amazingly creepy.

I haven't found De Niro a convincing actor in a long time, and not belonging in the class that he has been placed in on the merit of his previous work. Now this is my view, yours may differ, but in this movie although he does give a good performance, it's not to the level of Fanning. There's a degree of distance about the character De Niro plays, and he seems inaccessible, a problem I feel when he's playing a Father.

Janssen is absolutely gorgeous, and to boot she's the second best actor in the movie. Her portrayal of fear is utterly convincing, and she shows without a doubt she's much more than an X-Woman. Shue is another beautiful actress, but unfortunately she is very under used and her character unexplored. It does feel as though she's added for a simple plot vehicle, this too can be said for the equally strong performance of Baker, another missed performance.

The rest of the movie is set at a really good pace, although at times it seems against the building of the story and some of the characters. Yet the pace keeps up and doesn't give you either time to settle with a possible suspect or to settle at all. You're continually questioned and fooled, and all the time the movie is reeling you in step by step.

Picture: 2.40:1 - There's a slightly off green tinge to the picture throughout the movie, something that at times is quite distracting. Forgetting this the picture is sharp and the colours strong and autumnal, and particularly well done during the night time scenes outside.

Audio: DD5.1 \ DTS - The DTS soundtrack is very sharp, and one would expect that it could easily be overused, however it's not. It's very subtle but the audio does make use of the full range of the speakers to help in unnerving the audience.

Extras Presented: Alternative endings, Audio commentary, Making of, deleted scenes with commentary, pre-visualisation sequences and commentary - The alternative endings are very interesting, and more-so because I thought the perfect ending for the movie was one of these and not the ending used in the theatrical version. They are all available to watch as a complete movie, or on their own, and each carried with an commentary from the Director, Writer and Director of Photography. It's interesting to hear the makers take on the different endings, and how they can't even agree which is the better. It's interesting that the scene I think is the better ending is the original ending to the movie, but then those dreaded test screenings proved it too dark...wrong.

The Commentary itself is good and very incisive, but it's more about the process of how to keep the tension building and the focus away from the revelation. It's really annoying the way they talk over each other and continually say "you know". No, I don't, it's for you to tell me, that's why I'm listening!

They talk of the different drafts through the writing and filming process, as well as the actors and their processes. It's very interesting to hear the process of De Niro's acting. However through all this there is a huge feeling that the makers are more concerned about how to create an engaging thriller, and the rules of making a scary, hidden twist of a film. So you do come away with the feeling that they made a perfect, by the numbers thriller, but left out a lot of soul and feeling.

Overall- It's a very good thriller with an excellent unseen twist, yet I don't feel it delivered. For all the build up for a moment of realisation just seems a shame. Add to that the fact that one of the poorer endings was chosen for the theatrical movie and the chance of a twist bigger than that of the main movie was missed. A hugely impressive performance from Fanning with some excellent supporting roles makes for a really watchable movie.


Dr. David Callaway (Robert De Niro) and his daughter, Emily (Dakota Fanning) decide it is best to move from New York to the country to care for her more after the suicide of David's wife. However all is not what it seems when Charlie, Emily's violent invisible friend. Everyone becomes very concerned with her mental state.

"Hide and Seek" seems to me to be like 'Secret Window' meeting 'Amityville Horror'. The mystery from secret window and the eeriness from Amityville, makes this film one of a kind, and not to be missed.

The only downfall I feel that this film may have is due to it drags during the beginning, however once we get into the story your on the edge of your seat until the end.


To quote a line from Seinfeld, "that's gold, Jerry. Gold!" Is it possible that in only ONE night, Conan O' Brien has surpassed 17 years of Jay Leno? Yes, it is very possible. Conan's first episode as host of the Tonight show was, to say the least, hilarious! He began the show by running from New York to L.A. to host the show. That's right. Watching Conan run across the country was funnier than Leno's monologue. Then, he began the show by doing his usual monologue in the set Universal built just for him. It's different from Leno's set since it's a more traditional talk show set with a little New York flavor. However, he did keep Leno's lighting which I thought was interesting. Conan followed the monologue by showing two hilarious remote pieces. One was Conan giving a tour of Universal Studios and the other was him driving his 1992 Ford Tarus around town. Then, the show lost some steam during the interview segment. The guest was Will Ferrell. I like Ferrell and he was funny but you couldn't ignore the fact that a show owned by Universal, being shot at Universal was promoting a movie by Universal. The show went from 30 minutes of hilarity to 30 minutes of promotions.

Either way, it was a great episode. And I hope there's more great episodes to come. We've been waiting 5 years for this and it lived up to expectations. The best part is that Conan didn't really change a thing. It's classic Conan!


No offense to the late Johnny Carson, or Jay Leno for that matter. But I think Conan O'Brien is the funniest talk show host of all time. Better than Letterman, Kimmel, and Jack Pahr as well. There's not a minute of the show that my abs are not still recovering from my last gut-wrenching outburst of laughter. Conan knows what's funny, and he's got a wit that is unmatched by any comedian I've ever seen. And of course Andy Richter does a GREAT job as Connan's Ed McMahon. He should definitely go back to sitting on the couch. McMahon did it right? Leno is a decent comedian, but he didn't have the charisma and fast paced sense of humor like Conan does. He made Tom Hanks, Will Ferrel, and Julia Louise Dreyfuss ten times funnier than what they actually were. And of course CoCo and Coop was hilarious as well. I have to say that I had HUGE expectations for Conan in his Tonight Show debut, and he's surpassed them with an enormous surplus. The Tonight Show is my new favorite show. And I think that if NBC doesn't fold under pressure, it will soon blow David Letterman out of the water with ease.

PS: I've watched Jimmy Fallon too. It has potential. He just still seems pretty uncomfortable being the leading man on an unscripted show.


To be really honest I hate talk shows and I avoided Leno's shows because well I didn't like him. But CoCo a.k.a Conan is awesome. I haven't missed a single episode. I agree not all of his episodes are good but still he does an awesome job of making that show worth watching.

I did watch some of Leno's episodes and compared with Conan they do seems a bit dull. I know after watching 66 episodes that the Tonight Show is really an awesome show to watch thanks to Conan unique hosting style.As the show is progressing it is becoming more streamlined and unique. Also,thanks to CoCo unique charisma even the dullest of jokes make you laugh or at least smile.

If you haven't seen the show do watch it. If you don't like it at first then wait and watch another episode.


I always loved Conan! He is so different from Leno, Fergunson, Kimmel, Fallon, Letterman,... He is absolutely and extremely funny! He cracks me up every time. I love his monologue, his comical bits and his interviews. Max Weinberg and his "gang" are better than ever. And I really like Andy Richter. Some of the new bits are not that effective like the Twitter Tracker or the TMZ Zoo. The Paris Hilton appearance was not funny or enjoyable. A dark moment, indeed.

Overall, it's still good old Conan! He is fitting just fine. The crazy hair is back so... be cool my babies!

10/10 (Or is it?)


I stayed up late this past Friday to watch Conan's last Tonight Show. It is his last due to the poor management of the NBC Network more than anything else. NBC has done nearly everything it could possibly do to end it's late night reign that it inherited from Johnny Carson. This might put the final nail in that coffin. Conan now has the record as the shortest tenure as Tonight host due to the nonsense of self-destruction going on at NBC.

I found this last show with Will Farrell to be a very good show. Conan bowed out with a style as defiant as anyone- his last appearance was on stage with the band, grinding on a guitar like a hard rocker behind Will Farrell singing a defiant song. This is indeed appropriate. He lost a short battle to keep Tonight to the consummate Leno the same way that Letterman did when Carson left. The decision here has everything to do with politics & nothing to do with talent.

Cross reference http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1445990/usercomments-1

NBC has really messed this up, as the ratings for both Leno & Conan's Tonight had gotten better since the feud started. NBC as Leno quipped recently, doesn't care about ratings and as soon as both these shows started to soar, they acted quickly, way too quickly against their own financial interest.

I believe you will see Conan Tonight on FOX in September, unless he gets a better offer from the Home Shopping Network. I mean, Conan can sell & with his punch I am sure he could move Ginsu Knives better than most folks. If Conan does get started in September, watch for Leno & Letterman to both take a ratings hit.

I have one suggestion for FOX, since your trying to build your Late night ratings to become the number one network, try & talk Conan into doing Conan Tonight like Carson originally did the Tonight Show, for 90 minutes. This would give FOX the opportunity to smash into the ratings of the folks who follow Leno & Letterman as well.


I think Conan O' Brien is so funny and I believe he is doing a fantastic job on the Tonight Show. I have complete faith in him and the show because to me he is an inspiration. I believe that no matter where Conan is in this world, he will all ways be funny and entertaining to those who love and respect him,especially his fans. I think that everything about the show is very funny. I also think it is better that the show is on at 11:30pm, instead of 12pm. What makes The Tonight Show and the Late Night show very exciting is Mr. Conan O' Brien. I say that because he has a different kind of sense humor. I hope that one day I can go out to LA, to see his show. I believe it would be so exciting to meet Mr.Conan O' Brien in person. The Tonight Show is wonderful because he makes it so entertaining to watch.


Conan O'Brien is already disappointing die-hard Leno fans, like me for one, with his egotistical, self-centered and clichéd jokes and antics. His monologue, so far, is barely funny. O'Brien continues his increasingly irritating impressions (of who anyway?!) and his jokes barely make you laugh. Richter is boring and doesn't compare to Eubanks or any of Leno's crew.

You literally have to be stupid to laugh at, or with, O'Brien. There is simply no depth, no insight. The worse part is that O'Brien is not even laugh-out-loud kind of stupid funny. He's just boring.

The first episode featured Conan running cross country and then forgetting the key on the window sill - how much more clichéd can you get? I had even predicted that he would do something about moving from NY to LA. A commentator on IMDb actually found that part funnier than Leno's monologue. Spare us your sense of humor, will ya?

The obsession with the new set and the Universal lot is already getting lame. When O'Brien did the tour, you could notice that most people on the trams were bored out of their minds. His antics included emotional outbursts, making the tram go round and round, becoming scared by everything, and so on, none of which were even remotely funny. You could tell the laughter was mostly canned.

Leno's monologue was funny - if it wasn't, Leno made it funny. Leno's face and expressions are funny. His jokes are intelligent. Leno's jokes ranged from stupid funny to intelligent funny to laugh-out-loud funny. You could enjoy Leno, regardless of your taste or age group.

Leno was number 1 for a very long time. Letterman's going to finally top the ratings after more than 17 years.

Yay 10 o'clock!


I think Jay Leno's Tonight Show was considerably better. Conan does a decent job on the show, but somehow Leno's style worked better, and Conan's style worked more on his Late Night program. While they can be funny at times, Conan's jokes and routines (with the possible exception of in the year 2000, which I believe has now been renamed in the year 3000) aren't as funny or as clever. Admittedly, it can work sometimes, and his interviewing style is passable, but I prefer Leno and can't wait for Jay's new talk show to debut in the fall. My final verdict:passable. Just barely. His off-beat wit is Conan's saving grace.


A must see for all Americans! This film must be brought to America's theaters as soon as possible. If we don't learn from our mistakes in the past we are bound to repeat them. This movie has today's stars playing the "true" characters of November 1963. If this film doesn't make you mad, check your pulse because you are not alive. I am asking the producers to please find a way to get this gem in front of men and women, boys and girls, the young and the not so young. The Commission message to me is not pro conspiracy per si. The message to me is the Warren Commission failed in almost all ways to investigate the murder of President Kennedy. As a result of this film and this film alone the viewer can follow the lack of investigation and now demand that any and all Kennedy related material be opened NOW.


Mark Sobel's The Commission provides an insightful look into a period of US history around which many doubts and shadows have been cast. His interpretation of how events unfolded around the Warren Commission is worth seeing. He does a remarkable job using primary source material to comprise nearly 100% of the film. There is significant historical value in Sobel's approach for anyone interested generally in US history or specifically in the JFK assassination. The impact of watching actual real-time footage combined with Sobel's rendering of the Warren Commission's inner-workings is compelling. It will perhaps encourage viewers to consider whether the US system of appointing commissions to study important events is the best and most valid approach to answering difficult questions.


I see this movie as being more like a living document. Something in the vein of a Ken Burns documentary. What is extraordinary about it is that is does not pose any theories. Just gives you the facts, especially the ones missing from the final report, then lets you make up your own mind about it.

The performances are mostly good, though some of the smaller roles seem very stiff, as though he was using non-actors. Sam Waterston is great as he comes off with a full personality. And, of course, it's always great to see Joe Don Baker.

Definitely a movie worth seeing.


What a fascinating movie!

I loved the style and information. I saw the short version and hope to one day see the longer version. What even the most ardent supporters of the lone-gunman theory cannot say about this film is that it was made based on conspiracy beliefs. On the contrary, every bit of dialogue is based on actual testimony and telephone recordings of the persons portrayed.

Director Mark Sobel is neither a lone-gunman theory supporter or conspiracy/truth theorist. Sobel has taken quotations from the historical record and organized them into an outstanding film.


I was present at the showing at the Dallas Film Festival, where the attendees were privileged to be one of the first audiences to view the movie. The director explained the logistical difficulties of making the movie - getting the actors together in one place; budgetary constraints, etc. - which makes his achievement even more remarkable.

The whole cast was superb - apparently they all worked for free and were totally in sync with Sobel's intent to serve the "client of Truth" - and the final output was a refreshing, disturbing and no-holds barred reenactment of the work of the Warren Commission. It stands to be compared favorably with the "big budget" movies of the same or similar genre such as Farenheit 9/11 and the Fog of War. Many congratulations to the cast, crew and production teams - I hope that the movie obtains a wider commercial distribution platform.


The big premiere at AFI fest. Martin Landau present, Corbin Bernsen present and a handful of other trustees, but the screening went all wrong! I had looked forward to this 'special movie' about the commission that was put together to investigate the actual facts around the assassination of JFK. However, after the director addressed us all, also announcing that he added a sepia tone color to the print, oh and by the way, he hasn't seen this print yet, so please comment afterwards! Well, the sepia tone was distracting, the editing was wrong, the sound mix was very poor and except for the opening 3 minutes, the rest was all titles and talking heads. Don't get me wrong, because Landau, Corbin, Martin Sheen and the rest of the commission are all very charismatic and a joy to see talking, to a certain extent. The pacing though was student film like, the information presented ambiguous and thus a great topic executed so inadequately that it became unbearable. But here comes the best part. Reel 2 kicked in and suddenly everything is out of sync! No seriously, it was not the projector messing up, 'cause we're watching an answer print, or at least a hazeltine. No, it's just pure stupidity that as a director you allow your film to premiere at such a big event, with a packed house filled with celebrities, but you can't seem to make/take time to check your print first before screening. A travesty! That, and the fact that there was a lack of visual and oral storytelling, it all looked more like a projection of a vanity fair article, at best. I beg your pardon, but this was not film-making.


I saw "The Commission" in September 2004 at the AARC meeting on the Warren Report in Washington, D.C. I had high hopes, but was disappointed. The producer and the actor who appeared to introduce and discuss the film were personable and dedicated, to be sure, but the results did not live up to their billing. While the film was entertaining and contained a great deal of information, I found it to be quite biased against the commission, its results, and its integrity. It resembled the typical JFK conspiracy conference, with lots of innuendo and little proof. It stereotyped the bad guys (the commissioners that the film-makers disagreed with) as well as the good guys (the ones they agreed with). Most importantly, the film glossed over the powerful fact that the Warren Commission's two major findings (that Oswald did it all and that there was no solid evidence that he was helped) have stood the test of 41 long, hard years. The WC and WR were not perfect, to be sure, but this view of them was a little too slanted for my taste. B for effort, C- for results.


The Cremaster Cycle 9/10

The Cremaster Cycle is a series of five films shot over eight years. Although they can be seen individually, the best experience is seeing them all together (like Wagner's Ring Cycle) - and also researching as much as you can beforehand. To give you an idea of the magnitude, it has been suggested that their fulfilment confirms creator Matthew Barney as the most important American artist of his generation (New York Times Magazine).

The Cremaster films are works of art in the sense that the critical faculties you use whilst watching them are ones you might more normally use in, say, the Tate Modern, than in an art house cinema. They are entirely made up of symbols, have only the slimmest of linear plots, and experiencing them leaves you with a sense of awe, of more questions and inspirations than closed-book answers. The imagery is at once grotesque, beautiful, challenging, puzzling and stupendous. Any review can only hope to touch on the significance of such an event, but a few clues might be of interest, so for what it's worth ...

Starting with the title. The 'Cremaster' is a muscle that acts to retract the testes. This keeps the testes warm and protected from injury. (If you keep this in mind as you view the piece it will be easier to find other clues and make sense of the myriad allusions to anatomical development, sexual differentiation, and the period of embryonic sexual development - including the period when the outcome is still unknown. The films, which can be viewed in any order (though chronologically is probably better than numerically) range from Cremaster 1 (most 'ascended' or undifferentiated state) to Cremaster 5 (most 'descended'). The official Cremaster website contains helpful synopses.)

Cremaster 1 features four air hostesses in each of two identical cabins, centrepieces sculpted from vaseline on respectively green and red grapes. An androgynous looking woman beneath each works a hole in the tablecloth and plucks grapes which direct choreographed patterns of dancing chorus girls. This seems to suggest the splitting and multiplying cells of a still androgynous gonadal system.

The Guggenheim Museum (which houses a parallel exhibition) describes the Cremaster Cycle as "a self-enclosed aesthetic system consisting of five feature-length films that explore processes of creation." As film, the Cremaster Cycle is one to experience in the cinema if you have the opportunity to do so, or to experience and re-experience at leisure on DVD (the boxed set is promised for late 2004 and will be a gem for lovers of art-cinema fusion).


It's a bit difficult to look at this film, because it's hard to figure out what it is. At first you think it's rife with symbolism, that useless tactic that can be "figured out" and then explained as great movie-making. But the way Barney forces us through long, long takes -- silent -- I think is intended to make us evaluate the images not as symbols but simply as images, and that's a lot more artistically credible, to my mind. Yes, Barney has offered up his explanation of the film as being some visual allegory of gonads and whatnot, but I think that's really only interesting from a little joke perspective. The importance of the movie is in the way it resists explanation. It's hypnotic in its way -- you could watch the dancers on the football field emulate the grape formations in the blimps above all day.

There are some really strange images we see, the women picking out grapes from underneath a table, or the molds of Vaseline atop them. But Barney isn't much of a filmmaker (there is very simple editing, and the film looks as if it was filmed in the '70s); he's an artist who happens to be using film as his medium at the moment. For this reason the film doesn't feel alive as a film -- it is cinematic, a succession of moving static images, but it's really just a bunch of posing. From the smoking fashion models and from Barney. 7/10


This is a dull and badly choreographed and performed dance film. There is a group of women in white dresses with permanent smiles on their faces walking around on a blue field. When seen from above, they form shapes. There are two airships above them, with stewardesses sitting around a table with a large pile of grapes on it. Under the table, another woman is stealing the grapes through a small hole. Other reviewers here have called the film beautiful and symbolic, but I saw neither any beauty nor symbols. The only thing this proves is that it's not as easy to make an "artsy" film as some people might think. There may or may not be some meaning behind this film, but meaning is far less important than making a film that's interesting to watch.


Matthew Barney's highly symbolic film is done as bizarre musical, taking place simultaneously in two twin Goodyear blimps and on a football field below. If you don't have patience with art films, you wont like this, but if you do, it's a strange film about fertility and birth. It features 1930's style choreography on a football field filled with female models dressed up as whirling dervishes, there are overhead shots of them make formations of vaginas, eggs being fertilized, and the fertilized egg subdividing. On the blimps is "Goodyear" (played by actress "Marti Domination") who crawls around on both blimps simultaneously(?) taking grapes and choreographing the dancers below. Sounds bizarre? It is, but at 40 minutes it's just about the right length and I didn't look at my watch once. Worth seeing if you're into this kind of arty stuff. 8 out of 10.


Glad to see this very witty political satire finally beginning to improve its scores on this site. It's overall shape is definitely familiar, but to see it as just another 'Castle' knockoff totally underestimates it. It's by far the cleverest of all the recent 'Aussie battler' comedies, as a few critics pointed out, and it's by far the best performed, with a great appearance by Kevin Harrington (who I see scored an AFI nomination for Best Actor for this, which is pretty unusual for an Aussie comedy), and Shaun Micallef (who should have won an AFI for his performance). 'The Castle' is funnier overall, but the Micallef political ad is by far the funniest thing in any Australian comedy I can think of. Also, this is the most honestly touching of any Australian comedy I can think of, except perhaps 'The Big Steal' or 'Malcolm', and the scenes between Harrington and his wife, played by Ros Hammond, are lovely. In time, this will be regarded as an Australian classic. It's a bit slow moving in parts, and it could have been funnier, but corrupt Aussie politics has never been taken apart better by an Australian movie, and this is a movie I can watch again and again, just for the great one liners and moments.


This is a very funny movie, with hilarious performances from a host of famous Australian comedians, especially Kevin Harrington, HG Nelson, Micallef and Brian Dawe (of the Clarke-Dawe interviews series on '7.30 Report). I'm very surprised by the film's low score on IMDB. As some critics pointed out at the time of the film's release, the scene between Micallef and John Singleton (Micallef's fake political ad) is just about the funniest thing I can remember seeing in an Australian comedy. The film copped some flack when it came out, but I think most of that was tied up with the very bad rap most Australian comedies got in 2003. There was also a bit of controversy when the film was chosen to open the Sydney Film Festival (a pretty snooty affair usually reserved for 'arthouse movies'). Over time, I really hope this one will be up there, with 'The Castle', 'Big Steal' and a few others, as a classic example of laid-back, Aussie comedy. If you get a chance, don't miss it! Ted Emery (Fast Forward, Kath and Kim) has done it again.


I've seen some less than flattering reviews of this film. I have to say that anyone with an understanding and/or experience of politics in Australia will appreciate the intelligent humour and satire. I've also seen other comments that say there is nothing funny about this film. That's complete garbage. The Ken Oats political advertisement is the wittiest and sharpest piece of satire that has appeared in an Australian film in a long time. I give this five out of five.


I played a small part in 'Wally Norman" as the bookmaker.

Had a blast doing the role and meeting the rest of the cast.

As time goes by this comedy gets better.....each time i watch it i see something new.

The cast and crew worked so hard on this flick and the movie deserved better at the box office.

Seems like the average movie goer here is more interested in the Hollywood blockbuster than the subtle film.

This comedy was very well written but not everyones cup of tea.

The pub scene when Wally comes back after the goat race was a hoot to shoot with free beer flowing all day.

The goat ate the wreath of flowers round it's neck but luckily the cameraman got a shot of it and it was used in the movie.

Anyway have a great life everyone.

Cheers Paul Makin.

ps Singo for PM.


I loved this film, and can't believe the low score it has on this website.

You don't need to be a Kath and Kim fan to enjoy this film, which has a few of the funniest scenes in it that I can remember from an Australian film since 'The Castle'. I saw it with a bunch of people recently, and we were all laughing hysterically.

See it, and you won't be disappointed.

The scene with Sean Micallef as a soldier is worth seeing the film for all on its own.


A film that sets out to make fun of the politicians should be number one at the Australian box office but this really fails- it just isn't funny. The problem lies with the huge number of main characters. It has absolutely no focus and fails to generate the laughs.


The promotional trailer had been promising, but unfortunately all of the amusing bits of the film were in that trailer.

Consequently all I got out of the rest of Wally Norman was one snicker and a smirk (and I had to wait 30 minutes for the snicker).

The film is incredibly bland, and for a comedy that's pretty disastrous. There was a good sized crowd in our session, but very little real laughter - and several people, like myself, were clearly unimpressed.

It's got a fairly crappy script, old jokes, nothing more than predictability in its plot and some pretty shabby editing.

I would have walked out after 30 minutes, but there was a slight suggestion that Wally Norman's son might be gay, so I stayed on to see where they went with that. The son smiles whimsically on two occasions when he's looking at another young male character. The smile was obviously taken by some of the audience (who guffawed briefly) as meaning that Wally's son had as much interest in this man as did his daughter. However the son's sexuality is never even alluded to in the rest of the film, and the son doesn't look sideways at the other character again - proving that this was merely a directorial blunder.

It'll be interesting to see what the "Kath & Kim" devotees make of it (that's a popular current Australian TV series by the same director) - perhaps you require a special bent to see this film as being truly funny, rather than merely pleasant.


Saw this with a group of friends on DVD and thought it was great. I was quite sorry I didn't get to see it on the big screen, because most of the Australian movies I saw last year were pretty crappy. This is the funniest one from 2003 by a long way. I agree with some other comments about the scene with Micalef in his political ad. Absolutely classic stuff. Its a bit similar to some other Aussie comedies, like Castle and Crackerjack, but just as good. How has it got such a bad rating on this website? Must be a lot of people with bad taste in movies. But then again a lot of people watch Rove, so go figure. I can really recommend this film.


I did not necessarily expect this to be a real good movie. Stories taking place during the Nazi regime and WW2, especially when made by Germans, sometimes tend to be ultra-politically-correct. But, surprise, surprise. Rolf Schübel's first feature (he did documentaries before) uses backdrop of Nazi-occupied Budapest to deliver a meaningful "menage-a-quatre", wrapped in a free interpretation of creation of famous suicide hymn "Gloomy Sunday". Fine acting all over the place, especially by Krol and Becker (still brave in German moviemaking to show a Nazi not as a complete monster, even if he is, after all, the bad guy), and despite the overall sad story executed surprisingly lighthanded. Drama, a touch of humor, some suspense and even some sex (however, the latter seems to be unnecessary sometimes - it would have worked without or with less). Not to be forgotten: excellent soundtrack album, including several versions of "Gloomy Sunday". Definitely one of the best German movies of 1999.


The charm of this film consist in the way to tell old things, in the description art of a well - known world.

"Gloomy Sunday" is a kind of Frankenstein's creature: pieces of "Lili Marleen", "Casablanca" or "The story of 1900", slices of Hungarian's atmosphere, Nazi ghost and menage en trois.

For all that, it is a good movie, his virtue is, in fact, just absence of originality. Like many other movies, the spell is result of a mysterious flavor who persist in your memory months, years and in special moment it saves the image of a sweet trip.

Undoubtedly, it is the story of a song, in same measure that the song is the only character. But, at second sight, it is a warm homage to Mitteleuropa, the gorgeous Kakania's spirit. The lost of youth and the last recollection's skin. The shadow of Goethe's "The Sorrows of Young Werther" is powerful and insidious.

A subtle wishfulness anatomy. And a song like his backbone.


Beautiful Budapest, end of the thirties. Lazlo Szabo a middle-aged jew Hungarian runs a chic restaurant with a beautiful waitress,Ilona who is also his mistress. One day they decide to hire a pianist, and it's Ilona who choose. And it's a good choice because the handsome young man, Andras, creates a wonderful mood on the premises. Little by little he falls desperately in love with Ilona and composes specially for her a song, very melancholic, and a bit misterious. He calls it " Gloomy sunday ". This song brings surprisingly a lot of suicides. The love-triangle functions pretty well until the time a german customer, Hans, who comes regularly in the restaurant falls in love with Ilona, without success.A few years later the german army invades Hungary, Hans is back as a highly placed officer and the jewish condition of Lazlo is going to complicate the lives of the four protagonists. This movie is a master- piece and I'd bet if the film had been produced in Hollywood with Stone, Douglas and Harrison Ford, directed by Cassavetes it would have gained several Oscars. It has all a movie fan can expect from a good film -and more. Beautiful scenery, very good story, marvelous music, talent of the actors, and even a bit of sex. I rarely see a picture twice on the same day. This time I did.


Fact and fiction combine to provide a delightfully entertaining film about a restaurant in Budapest. Clientele flocked there for the good food, the good music and I daresay the beautiful Ilona who served on the tables. What more could one wish for? Unfortunately the good times do come to an end when the Nazis sweep into Hungary and decide forthwith to eliminate the Jewish population.

Strange as it may seem the whole theme of the film revolves around a plaintive tune which first gained popularity in Budapest, later in Europe and then the whole world. The words to the song called "Gloomy Sunday" are full of despair.

The clients who came to the restaurant always asked for this particular melody to be played on the grand piano. It is played many times during the film. It is haunting and addictive. We find ourselves wanting to hear it again and again such is its hypnotic power.

All praise to Erika Marozsan who provides the romantic interest as Ilona in the story. I am told she is a newcomer to the screen, but as an actor she will surely be much sought after in the future. She is beautiful and her close-ups full of feeling. She has lovely hands that caress a lover's face with such gentle charm. She is much admired by Lazlo (Joachim Krol) owner of the restaurant and also by Andras (Stefano Dionisi) newly appointed pianist and composer of "Gloomy Sunday".

All goes well for the threesome until the arrival of a Nazi officer (Ben Becker) who takes a fancy to Ilona despite her constant rebuttals. In their position of power Nazis have the means of disposing of people who stand in their way.

This is a film of contrasts. First we have the beautiful setting which is Budapest, romantic songs and people in love. Then we have the Nazi occupation, loss of freedom and threats of Auschwitz.

This film must be seen to the end. There is an amazing twist of Fate in the last few minutes and it seems to me that at last in some remarkable way justice is seen to be done.


Rolf Schubel, the director, has created a movie around a menage a trois that was very civilized. Ilona loves Joachim, but she also loves Andras, the piano player. Andras, is the composer of the suicide provoking song that was the rage of the 30s in Budapest, as well as in the rest of Europe.

The setting is a somehow fancy restaurant in Budapest at the onset of World War II. Laszlo, the owner, is having an affair with Ilona, his assistant, who also works at the restaurant. Enter Andras: Ilona is instantly smitten by his good looks, his obvious youth, in contrast with Joachim, who is much older but might not be exactly what she wants to find between her sheets. Joachim goes along with the very civilized arrangement among them. One night is spent with Andras and the next one with Laszlo, who after all, is the one with the money and paying the bill!

Of course, the story is too good to be true. There is Hans, the young German that adores the fine cousine offered at the restaurant and is taken with Ilona's beauty. Hans will return as a Nazi officer and he'll be the force that destroys the happiness of this trio and who, at the end, has to pay for the horrible things he did in his youth. This part was very predictable, since one knows after seeing so many stories like this, it always ends tragically because of Nazis, even friendly ones, as Hans was, deep down inside hates Joachim because he had what he never could have, Ilona. Therefore, Joachim will have to disappear from the picture.

The film is easy to watch. The melody will stay with the viewer forever, but alas, like a good Hungarian dishes, too much paprika will spoil the goulash.


Beautiful acting and directing. Very well written script.

One woman and three men.

Human Relationship at its best.

One woman can change everything wrong in life...

Restaurant ( Food ) is the most important thing beside woman.

It is better to feel than to think and be creative...

Thanks and Regards.

Sam Rupani

Houston, Texas, U.S.A.


This beautiful and moving film provides via a sensitively handled love affair an intriguingly subtle morality play.

The owner of a restaurant saves the life of a German who is trying to commit suicide after being turned down - by the restaurateur's mistress.

This character goes on to achieve power as a Nazi. He uses his power to save 1000 Jews from the concentration camps, and makes a fortune for himself in the process.

He does good simply to benefit himself. Was it right to save his life? Had he died, so many other lives would not have been saved. His life is interlinked with the lives and deaths of other people.

It would be unfair to elaborate further on this theme, as it would give away the plot.

The film also returns to the idea of life and death with its theme of suicide; suicide being the ultimate way to take control of your own life.

With all of these thoughts, it is still an entertaining and uplifting movie, with the most exquisite theme. Life and death are united in the English lyrics given at the end, which combine gloom and hope in the most extraordinary fashion.

A fair bit of philosophy built into a simple and tastefully done move makes for good entertainment.


"Gloomy Sunday" was a movie I happen to see by chance. Apparently my city is the only city in North America that is showing this movie. It is playing in one theatre in a small suburb. My father and I went to see this movie he wanted to see it because we are Hungarian and wanted to hear what kind of music would be played. To my surprise I found that I had actually enjoyed the movie. My expectations were low, only because I didn't have a clue as to what to expect but, I'm very happy I saw this film. It's one of the best films I've seen so far this year. The movie is about a few things. One of it's main story-lines concerns a love triangle concerning Laszlo (Joachim Krol), Ilona (Erika Marazan) and Andras (Stefano Dionisi). Laszlo owns a restaurant and Ilona is his girlfriend. Laszlo is hoping to have some music in his restaurant and hires a piano player, Andras. Andras likes Ilona. And Ilona it seems likes Andras. So he movie it seems will be a love story set during the beginning of WW2. But, there's also another story building. Andras has written a song called "Gloomy Sunday". He has written for Ilona. But soon the song becomes a hit. It's a beautiful song that seems to have a very strange effect on whoever listens to it. Soon afterwards people are committing suicide. And here we have a case of fact stranger than fiction. For it is this part of the story that is actually true. "Gloomy Sunday" is based on this story with the love theme used as a backdrop. I don't know if or when this movie will be wider release in North America. But I hope people will go see this movie. In fact though I doubt that people from this country have even heard of this movie. Here is a movie that NEEDS to be better known. It is a small gem. *** out of **** or a 7\10.


Gloomy Sunday - Ein Lied von Liebe und Tod directed by Rolf Schübel in 1999 is a romantic, absorbing, beautiful, and heartbreaking movie. It started like Jules and Jim; it ended as one of Agatha Christie's books, and in between it said something about love, friendship, devotion, jealousy, war, Holocaust, dignity, and betrayal, and it did better than The Black Book which is much more popular. It is not perfect, and it made me, a cynic, wonder in the end on the complexity of the relationships and sensational revelations, and who is who to whom but the movie simply overwhelmed me. Perfect or not, it is unforgettable. All four actors as the parts of the tragic not even a triangle but a rectangle were terrific. I do believe that three men could fell deeply for one girl as beautiful and dignified as Ilona in a star-making performance by young Hungarian actress Erica Marozsán and who would not? The titular song is haunting, sad, and beautiful, and no doubt deserves the movie been made about it and its effect on the countless listeners. I love the movie and I am surprised that it is so little known in this country. It is a gem.

The fact that it is based on a story of the song that had played such important role in the lives of all characters made me do some research, and the real story behind the song of Love and Death seems as fascinating as the fictional one. The song was composed in 1930s by Rezsö Seress and was believed to have caused many suicides in Hungary and all over Europe as the world was moving toward the most devastating War of the last century. Rezsö Seress, a Jewish-Hungarian pianist and composer, was thrown to the Concentration Camp but survived, unlike his mother. In January, 1968, Seress committed suicide in Budapest by jumping out of a window. According to his obituary in the New York Times, "Mr. Seres complained that the success of "Gloomy Sunday" actually increased his unhappiness, because he knew he would never be able to write a second hit."

Many singers from all over the world have recorded their versions of the songs in different languages. Over 70 performers have covered the song since 1935, and some famous names include Billie Holiday, Paul Robeson, Pyotr Leschenko (in Russian, under title "Mratschnoje Woskresenje"), Bjork, Sarah McLachlan, and many more. The one that really got to me and made me shiver is by Diamanda Galás, the Greek born American singer/pianist/performer with the voice of such tragic power that I still can't get over her singing. Galás has been described as "capable of the most unnerving vocal terror", and in her work she mostly concentrates on the topics of "suffering, despair, condemnation, injustice and loss of dignity." When she sings the Song of Love and Death, her voice that could've belonged to the most tragic heroines of Ancient Greece leaves no hope and brings the horror and grief of love lost forever to the unbearable and incomparable heights.

8.5/10


We have seen hundreds of portrayals of the horrors of the Holocaust. This bittersweet romantic piece however, does not revolve around it, but keeps a balance between a sensitively depicted threesome of one beautiful woman, a restaurateur and a pianist-composer and the historical background which influenced it and eventually sealed its fate. The film also creates a rather fictitious legend around how the infamously harrowing hit song Gloomy Sunday conceived and left its mark not only on music history but also on demography.

Gloomy Sunday is a very intelligent piece, co-production of Germany and Hungary with the best assets of the two diverse cinematic visionaries combined. It is realistic yet playful, bitter but hope-inducing. A good cast and nicely composed pictures are an extra value. Very well done. Get your handkerchiefs ready. It surely will move you.


It doesn't happen very often that I rate a movie 10 out of 10. Not even "Citizen Cane" got this highest mark.

But "Gloomy Sunday" really deserves it. A film that brings real pulsating life onto the big screen: Love - (mainly) three men who try to find their luck with the same woman.

Friendship - between two men and a woman. Loyalty to the end. Betrayal - Hans turns out not to be a real friend of Ilona and László. Melancholia - they do what they have to do, what life demands of them. Passion - in the good and the bad sense of that word. Revenge - not all sinners can get away with it, even if it takes time... The background for all this is the 30s and 40s in Budapest, Hungary, the Nazi threat right before your entrance door.

You might argue that the song itself isn't as powerful as you might expect it. All right. But the script is superb, a story that could really have happened like this, a narrative that doesn't bore you and develops it's characters properly so you understand them. Without inflating them to some unrealistic capsules. The figures aren't painted black and white, there is the grey you usually find in real life. The performances of the main actors are superb. Thinking of Ben Becker and Joachim Król this isn't a surprise. But also Erika Marozán and Stefano Dionisi, which I haven't seen in another movie before, do everything to grant them an Academy Award.

Maybe I can't express my admiration properly in English (which is a foreign language for me), but if anything I wrote gave you the idea that the movie might be interesting ... give it a try!


Contains minor spoilers: Well as you can see in the trivia, the film has been playing at the Arts Center Academy Cinema in Chch, NZ for the past 5 years. I live in Chch, NZ and went to see it yesterday in this very cinema. Cinema- well it's actually a black room with 11 seats, 2 speakers and a 60 inch screen, and a small café outside of it. Going 5 years and still going apparently...

Now I'm no drama lover. Gimme action, horror, scifi any day. Anything with sex and violence and explosions are good. So I had reservations about seeing this. But wow I must say, this is a contemporary classic. It's the sort of film they must be showing film students in Germany, since the film is in German with subtitles.

The 4 main characters are Laszlow (restaurant manager), Ilona (Waitress), Andras (Composer) and Hans (Nazi corporal). It's set in Nazi occupied Hungary during the time Hitler was effecting his 'final solution'. The title 'Gloomy Sunday' comes from the song the composer writes which gains him notoriety, and attracts attention to the (Jewish) restaurant. The film is largely about the love triangle between Andras, Ilona and Laslow. At least until Hans returns half way through the film.

The character of Hans appears initially as a lonely, rejected young German man, who after being rejected by Ilona, comes back years later a changed man, a Nazi colonel on charge of the rounding up of Jews in his area. He turns out to be one of the films most 'important' characters. (I won't give away the ending).

So all in all, there's romance, there's (some) comedy, there's mystery, and it's all tied in with the Nazi's 'final solution'. After you finish the film you walk away feeling the film is very thought provoking... still thinking about each of the characters and how they changed during the course of the film. It's also worth noting too, that this is not an 'artsy fartsy' film. The dialouge is simple and the story is easy to follow. WHich is appreciated since I don't speak German and was reading subtitles.

So anyway, if you don't like dramas but you do like a genuinely good movie, then give this one a try.


the review by Julane stated "who knew?",everybody who knows about music history,thats who.Gloomy Sunday ,the song, has been the subject of so many movies,TV shows,plays,books,etc..Several of the "odd tales" type of TV shows,i.e.twilight zone,amazing stories,tales from crypt,etc..have all had some story about a diabolical tune that drives someone mad.Even a crow stairway to heaven episode had this plot line with Eric Daven hearing the "devils song" The real story is extremely sad,and full of dark subject matter. The writer,Rezso did in fact commit suicide. His widow,was found dead outside her apartment,She jumped out the window.When authorities arrived on scene,her record player was still spinning,Gloomy Sunday.


This film is about the life of a woman, who got caught between 2 lovers against a backdrop of the turbulent times of the Holocaust.

Words cannot describe how beautiful and powerful this film is. Everything is excellent. The sets are beautiful, and the scenes are beautifully composed. Ilona is great as the lady which every men would fall in love with. She has this graceful elegance which is very magnetic. Laszlo's work as the restaurant owner is convincing, he has every detail of the restaurant under control. The music is great. When I listened to the song "Gloomy Sunday', I felt this chill spreading through my body, as if I was going to be the next victim. Another highlight for me is the uptight secretary who lives by the book, which is clearly a satire about the German culture. The plot is highly touching and powerful, and I do urge everyone to see this beautiful film.


Wartime Europe provides the backdrop to this tale of three star-crossed Hungarians blessed and cursed by the attractions of the superlative-defying Ilona. While male suitors László and Andras are the plot's most obvious victims, Ilona herself falls prey to her own powers, and the musical piece they inspire.

In these IMDb days it is so difficult to come to a film completely cold, and I always feel a little sorry for audiences who do not get to experience films like Gloomy Sunday completely unencumbered. The blurb for the film tells you it is in one sense a menage-a-trois story, but that is already giving away too much for my taste. There are truly surprising and dramatic moments in this film: László dares to tell a joke that could cost him his life, Ilona makes an ill-fated decision to seduce Andras, and a moment of wonderful pathos climaxes the film as László is about to board a train. This is the film's cathartic climax, the resolution of the wartime tale being told in flashback. The actual 'resolution' of the film that takes place in the present time is just a shade formulaic and overcooks an otherwise superbly balanced and nuanced film.

Excellent performances, a seductive musical theme, and extra plaudits for employment of a too-often neglected technique these days - leaving off-screen action to the viewers' imagination. Two suicide attempts and a character's ageing by 50 years are all conveyed through clever editing rather than expensive stunts, CGI or prosthetics. Maybe it was a budgetary rather than aesthetic decision to do so, but bravo nonetheless.

Gloomy Sunday is a quality film with images and sounds that will remain with you long afterwards. Tragic but uplifting, my estimation of it grows with each subsequent viewing.


must have seen this over 10 times in 5 days.movie grabs your attention form the very first frame.three things that stand out, the haunting theme song,the very lovely waitress in the restaurant and beautifully photographed budapest.also the very impressive performances by the three male performers.


This wasn't what I expected out of a WWII film. The whole film seemed like a total insult to what people had to go through during WW2 and the only thing that this film shows is how a stupid love triangle got broken up. At the beginning when the 80 yr old man dropped dead after hearing "the famous song" and people saying that it's cursed, I already had impatience for it. I don't like superstitious themes in any kind of film genre except horror; any other kind of genre seems totally out of place. Pet peeve. The worse part of the film were the characters who I couldn't identify with or hold sympathy for any of them. They were at best self-indulgent, debauched, selfish, had lack of humanity and uncaring for the world around them. I thought the most despicable character was Ilona who expects the world to revolve around her fingers, self-absorbed, manipulative, depraved, and unadaptable. At least Andre had some sort of conscience and killed himself knowing that his music caused suffering instead of getting rich off dead people unlike Laslo. It was war, people (Jews, Poles, Gypsies, etc.) where being hauled off in cattle trains by the minute, Nazis shoot people as sport and seize control of government, homes, businesses and yet a menage a trois was living a happy dissolute life because they have each other... that's suppose to be touching?! Give me a freakin' break!!!


Have seen this superb film twice no thanks to the poor distribution and availability on DVD.

Beautifully made old style film with great plot, acting and characters. One of my favourite all time films. It is basically the story of a tragic love triangle set in Budapest during the war. The song "Gloomy Sunday" provides a constant atmospheric backdrop. Like others have commented it has a feel akin to Casablanca and if you enjoyed that classic film you should like this too.

A pity that because it was made in German so few people in the UK and USA are likely to see it. Sad that whilst poor quality popcorn films with no plot or value are everywhere real quality like this is so hard to find.


"Gloomy Sunday" was based on a real song that was actually thought to be responsible for an outbreak of suicides. The music is quite haunting and lovely, although I still feel quite strongly that "Life is good" and I am not struck with a desire to end it all.

I'm not sure how much of the rest of the film is 'true,' but I found it quite enjoyable. It screened here in Austin as part of the local Jewish Film Festival, and I found it as interesting as anything I saw a couple of weeks ago during SxSW Film.

It almost reminded me of one of my favorite films: "1900." Not quite, but it might have been better to mimic that film's beginning and ending just a bit more closely.


This is not an ordinary love story, although love is always lurking in the background. It begins in Budapest in the 1930's and tells the (partially true) story of a restaurant owner, his girlfriend and the pianist who plays in the restaurant.

There are so many holocaust and war stories I was not expecting this one to be different, but it certainly is. The charming characters, unpredictable events and surprise ending make this one stand out. The story takes unexpected twists and turns which kept my attention throughout the movie. I was sorry to see it end.

I thought that using the title of the featured song, "Gloomy Sunday" as the title of the movie might keep some people from seeing it. If you can forget about the word "gloomy" and enjoy pictures from this period, this is one you should see.


This was my favourite film I saw at the Calgary International Film Festival this year. It was amazing.

"Gloomy Sunday" delivers in all aspects of world cinema. The plot is intriguing and keeps your attention. It is an interesting story.

That along with great performances from Joachim Król and Erika Marozsán make this film even more worth seeing. The location of Budapest is beautiful, the camera work is great; the film had comedy, action, suspense and thrills all wrapped up into one. Something for everyone. I am definitely looking foreword to Rolf Schübel upcoming film "Blueprint". I'm sure we'll see more of what we got in "Gloomy Sunday", which is exactly what cinema needs.

Rolf Schübel's "Gloomy Sunday" 9/10


I was amused to read of bafflement at the long run of Gloomy Sunday in NZ, especially Christchurch. To begin with, it is based (very loosely) around a truish story... the song itself did cause a stir when reports of its association with suicides were circulated. It is atmospheric, the cafe evocative of life in the 1930s, a haunting melody, and a nice twist at the end. Yes... it continues to play in Christchurch and so ensures its own success....

I went just after seeing LOTR:FOTR, and found Gloomy Sunday to be a more introvertive and rewarding film..... it was just one of those days... just like going into see Fitzcarraldo with no expectations....


"Gloomy Sunday" is the title of the famous music that has lead over a hundred people to commit suicide. The story begins with a death of a 80-year-old Hans at the restaurant after listening to "Gloomy Sunday". Now it focuses on the beautiful woman's picture and goes way back to Hungary during World War Two.

This film's about people's love, jealousy, hate, and betrayal. The actors were stunning. To understand the whole concept of this film, you must watch it for yourself. "Gloomy Sunday" is a masterpiece.


This film is in many ways reminiscent of "The English Patient" and even "Casablanca" (the love-triangle in times of WWII, the beautiful cinematography and the use of a melancholy song as a central motive). Still, the story is different enough, so that "Gloomy Sunday" stands on its own as a wonderful movie. I especially like the style and elegance. Although there is a lot of passion involved there are no big emotional outbursts which I find refreshing for a change. The way Laszlo, Andras and Ilona keep their dignity reminds you that the 20th century could have been an age of reason and enlightenment (even AFTER WWI) if there hadn't been the barbarity of fascism.

On the other hand I'm also grateful to the director (and to the great Ben Becker) that Hans Eberhard Wieck isn't portrayed as a soulless monster. He rather seems like the dark reflection of Oskar Schindler to me.

There is even room for some humour (of the pitch-black variety) which is still very brave in a German film about the holocaust. While some of it can be understood everywhere (the glass-eye joke), other funny scenes will probably be understood in Germany only (Ms. Häberle and her "Duden"). Thanks to the wonderful actors and to Rolf Schübel for making this film (which should have been selected as the German entry for the foreign film academy award instead of "Aimee und Jaguar" IMO).


I fell in love with this movie because of its brilliant actors, beautiful photography, intense atmosphere (ranging from serene to depressing) and last but not least because of the main musical theme. During the credits at the end there is an extra goody: THE song is performed once more - this time by Heather Nova. It has been released as a single cd in Germany, but I could not find it anywhere in the U.S.A. during my vacation. So now you know where you need to search.

See this movie, you will not regret it!


Somewhere in "Gloomy Sunday", instead of a distant dream, love triangle could be so harmonious as to be possible.

As I put it like this, there's no intention to protest against "one-on-one relationship", just can't help saying- kudos on Rolf Schubel!

With a somewhat experimental modos operandi, "Gloomy Sunday" does add a more humanely layer which diversifies the definition of love and human relationships. Such love is definitely unwordly and beautiful- second to none as well.

However,here comes the realism catch- no man could ever conquer envy(I refer to Andras), which accompanied by fragility, resulted in his self-destruction. It's also an artist's perfectionism to blame. Otherwise, he could have survived to keep Ilona's company.

The triple binds each to each with pure(Ilona), kindness(Lazlo), and beauty(Andras). Just as a perfect blend of touching story, melody and scenery shown in the film.


This flick has one of the most incredible casts ever assembled for a B-movie! You've got Christopher Lee, Donald Pleasence (fresh from "Halloween"), Barbara Bach (former Bond Girl), Woody Strode (those who've seen "Spartacus" aren't likely to have forgotten him), Capucine (Inspector Clouseau's wife in "Pink Panther"), even the legendary director John Huston (not his first useless supporting role; remember "Tentacles"?). Unfortunately, none of those performers get a chance to stand out and do anything memorable, the story is confusing (although the main villain's "hidden" identity is easy to guess) and karate expert Lewis, who stars, knows all the right moves but has little acting charisma. (*1/2)


Lay the blame for this one where it belongs: with the filmmakers. In his first at-bat as a movie star, Joe Lewis shows glimpses of some genuine acting ability. Unfortunately, director Pintoff (whose resume, I see here, reads like a season by season who's who of forgettable television shows) wasn't up to the task. JAGUAR LIVES! looks and feels more like a travelogue than anything else, with establishing shots of internationally famous landmarks and reel after reeling reel of home-movie style sequences that add up to nothing at all in the end. Allow me to belabor this point: Lewis, the first full contact heavyweight karate champion of the world, apparently took his acting lessons as seriously as he does his martial arts- and it shows (again, briefly, in glimpses). I remember liking his next film, FORCE: FIVE, better than this one, but I've been unable to find a copy of it (this one I found at Netflix). Lewis fared no better than in JAGUAR LIVES! in DEATH CAGE- but, even there, he demonstrated some acting ability. That his career wasn't handled better by those entrusted with it is nothing less than a crying shame.


To sum up the plot of Jaguar Lives! in a couple of sentences  Jaguar is a secret agent with a mission that takes him around the world to locate and bust-up up a large-scale heroin ring. If along the way he's able to find out who killed his former partner, so much the better. Joe Lewis (1979 World Karate Champion) is Jaguar. While his acting may be a bit stiff, his moves certainly aren't. The man knows how to throw a kick. He's joined by one of the most amazing casts for a nothing movie like this that I've ever seen  Christopher Lee, Donald Pleasence, Barbara Bach, Woody Strode, Joseph Wiserman, John Huston, and Capucine all lend their varied talents to the film. None has very much to do or much screen time, but Pleasence makes the most of his role as a South American dictator. Unfortunately, none of these actors is able to save Jaguar Lives! from mediocrity. The plot is pretty much a muddled mess, relying on set-pieces featuring fights to move the plot along. The big reveal of the head bad guy at the end of the movie shouldn't surprise anyone who's been paying the slightest bit of attention. And Lewis just doesn't have what it takes to hold the movie together.

So, while I'm impressed with the supporting cast and the money spent shooting in exotic locations around the world, Jaguar Lives! just isn't all that good. With all that being said, I'm a bit shocked to see that Joe Lewis didn't many more movies. Sure, his acting may have been lacking, but people with similar acting ability but with only half of Lewis' martial arts ability were churning out movies in the 80s.