If it weren't such great story, i would give rate this movie as a 2. The cast has many great actors (Keitel, Buscemi), but they are overshadowed by the range of terrible popcorn comedy actors (Arquette, Sorvino). The casting overall was terrible. The acting, surprisingly even from the good actors, was mediocre at best. I blame this mostly on the directing as the lines ALL seem to be forced. It is no wonder that this movie went almost straight to DVD. Its just too bad that they had waste such a great story, and disgrace the people who committed such brave acts during one of the most barbaric acts in the history of the world. If you want to learn about a great rebellion that took place in Auschwitz and you don't want to read a book about it, then watch this movie. But just beware that the movie sucks.


During the last days of World War II, as the soviets' bombs explode closer and closer as the days go by, the routine of concentration camp Awschwitz follows its course and represents the focus of this picture: the atmosphere of dread and death inhabiting the heavy air, the work inside the crematorium, the random executions of men, women and children,and the drama of the Jewish sonderkommando, a group formed by prisoners who, in exchange of better food and clothes, helped their tormentors in the systematic of death inside the camps, guiding the new arrived prisoners through the corridors that lead to the gas chambers, and the disposal of the bodies after wards, just to be killed some time latter. Let me just say this right from the get go: The Grey Zone is the finest, ultimate, grittiest portrayal of the Holocaust, in all its ugliness and horror. On the fact that The Grey Zone is highly underrated and little known is a complete mystery for me. Where Schindler's List bravely portrayed the dark events that went around in Germany, circa 1940's, it was built towards the light, towards an uplifting ending where hope prevails and courageous acts save the day. The Grey Zone, instead, offers no hope or alternative, nor uplifting ways, nor any of the characters show any noble redeeming actions towards their fellow inmates. Ultimately, it's about survival, and how we get our morals lost so easily when the instinct to stay alive kicks in. The Grey Zone's ugliness packs one hard punch - never in any other movie death was shown in such a realistic, brutal light. You actually fell you're inside the corridors of the crematorium, it's like you're trapped inside these tiny, claustrophobic gas chambers, it's like the putrid smell of the dead, yellow corpses piled up on the floor and the dread gets under your skin and stays there for days.Tim Blake Nelson was at the helm of The Grey Zone, and what a masterful filmmaker Mr. Nelson is...The sense of dread and dark tonalities of The Grey Zone put David Cronenberg to the shame. It should be regarded not as a movie, but as an experience.The script is tight and sober, reminded me of David Mamet in his most inspiring moments, regarding the dialogs and the exchanges between the characters. The photography and art department deserve praise: Awschwitz was worse than hell and people who visit these old concentration camps tend to say that after wards they fell this aura of pain and sadness. With Tim Blake Nelson's picture, although you're not physically there, The Grey Zone works as a tour through this place worse than hell. It is as creepy as the creepiest film can get, trust me.Performances here are all top notch and career defining. What really hurts is that The Grey Zone didn't get its deserved attention, because it poignantly proved what some movie stars are capable of, given the right material: David Arquette, an actor known for light comedies, is strikingly magnetic as the most fragile, mentally weakened sonderkommando, and his scenes are nothing short than harrowing and visceral. The moment when he is confronted by a newcomer prisoner about to be guided to the gas chamber is the stuff of cinematic history in terms of acting: as Arquette tells his lies ("you'll be guided to the bath and soon will be reunited with your family", and so on), this scared newcomer, realizing his fate, confronts him and says "It's a lie, I can't believe it's Jews doing this job!I'm going to die, but I'm going to live longer than you ever will, you're dead already!!", the desperate prisoner shouts at Arquette, and then Arquette loses his head and attacks this man to death, breaking his skull with punches and kicks, not really moved by angriness, but by sorrow and pain to recognize the awfulness of the truth spit on his face - yes, even him, Arquette, can't believe he is doing this, and the outlet of such sorrow comes into the forms of him losing his head and degrading and smashing a fellow Jew's skull to the death. Such a scary, harrowing movie moment... Mira Sorvino was a joy, and be prepared, you won't recognize her at first. The depths this wonderful actress went to create her character in a realistic light should be applauded. Mrs. Sorvino was highly commended for her work in Woody Allen's 1995 movie, but her performance in The Grey Zone rises above her other work, that's the picture Mrs. Sorvino should be recognized and awarded for.The other members of the cast have my respect, but I wanted to specifically point the performances of Sorvino and Arquette as the picture's true highlight in terms of acting. It was a crime that Lions Gate didn't work hard to promote this powerful material. The Grey Zone is a must see and a must have, a tour de force with performances for the ages and top notch cinematic achievements in every single department. A true ten, as exciting as films can get!!


The Grey Zone is so full of horror and anguish that it's a hard movie to watch in some ways.

The basic premise is 'how far would we go to save ourselves' in situations such as those faced by the Jews in Nazi concentrations camps. The answer is, of course, almost as far as necessary. This film concerns the crews of Jews who were forced to lead their countrymen into the gas chambers at Auzcwitz and then dispose of the bodies in cematoria afterward.

With the only option death, what would you do? It's a tough question to answer but this film gets it about right. By the halfway mark you are so immune to seeing piles of dead men, women and children around that I think you actually can start to feel just a tiny bit of how desensitized these men must have become as they tried to buy themselves just a few more months of live.

Most of the performances are very good though I disagree with some that Harvey Keitel's was up to his usual brilliance. The German accent didn't seem quite right to me but there you go.

Great film, great message.


David Arquette is terrific in this film and the set design is amazing. I have read many books on the Holocaust, including the one on which this movie is based (Auschwitz, A Doctor's Eyewitness Account by Dr. Miklos Nyiszli). This movie shows a part of Auschwitz/Birkenau never seen before on film (the Sondercommando-Jewish work detail in the gas chambers and crematorium)and it is riveting. The scenes are graphic and authentic. The only downside to the film is that some of the characters are miscast (Steve Buscemi, Natasha Lyonne), though talented actors to be sure. This takes a bit away from the searing dramatic effect of the film, but it is still a must-see movie for anyone interested in the history of the Holocaust. If you like the film, I strongly recommend reading the book as well.


It took me awhile to get the hang of whose bad and good. As with all war movies with me. But, it left me feeling totally sad and depressed, yet I loved it and I'll recommened it to people. Funny how it works like that. Awesome//sad// movies are the best. :D


this is the most impressive holocaust movie ever, If you have ever seen Shoa you'll agree .....

may you not be familiar with the ongoing events back in the 1940's in the death-camps maybe you should read into it before seeing this film

it's not like Uprising or Schindler's list (I haven't seen the Pianist yet but I very much doubt it'll come close)

this is the real stuff .....

MUST SEE 5 out of 5


The Grey Zone is a poetic and masterful Holocaust drama based on the true story of Jews who did the seemingly unthinkable by working for the Nazis inside concentration camps for a chance to receive better living conditions and the possibility of staying alive for a few extra months before being exterminated themselves. This is very grim stuff but also an extremely moving and thought-provoking look at what human beings in the most miserable of circumstances will do to stay alive, and how through it all they sustain their desire to ultimately fight back. Tim Blake Nelson - best known for playing comic yokels in O Brother, Where Art Thou? and The Good Girl - wrote and directed the film based on his own play, and does a superb job in both categories. The offbeat casting of perennial goofball David Arquette in one of the leads pays off with a surprisingly restrained and moving performance, and the rest of the cast is full of top-notch actors including Steve Buscemi, Harvey Keitel, Mira Sorvino, Natasha Lyonne, Daniel Benzali, and Topsy-Turvy's remarkable Allan Corduner as a Jewish doctor who assists the infamous Dr. Mengele in his horrific 'experiments.' This is one of the few truly great films of 2002 and I hope it doesn't fly totally under the radar of the Academy come nomination time.


"The Gray Zone" transports the audience to the epicenter of evil during WWII's final solution to the Jewish question. The film deals with a group of doomed Jewish Auschwitz POW's who do the death camp's dirty work, herding unsuspecting Jews into the showers, carrying cadavers to the crematorium, harvesting the dead for gold dentalwork, etc. The film takes on a challenging subject with countless moral issues to ponder as it scrutinizes the nuts and bolts of mass extermination. However, it doesn't quite measure up to the potent subject with its theatrical presentation, clipped dialogue, time wasting filler, staginess, poor character depth, confusing language and dialect issues, and a rather contrived monologue at the end. Nonetheless, the films treats the subject with dignity, does not exploit or sensationalize, and recreates enough of the horror to impart a sense of what it must have been like giving it docudramatic value. Worth a look for anyone interested in the holocaust. (B)


A nonfiction account of a group of imprisoned Jews who staged an armed uprising inside the Auchwitz camp during the Holocaust. In the vein of "The Diary of Anne Frank, the film focuses on the emotions of the incarcerated Jews, and the senseless prejudice and brutality which claimed their lives. Strong performances all-around, with Harvey Keitel standing out with an exceptional, Oscar-worthy performance as a hard-nosed Nazi officer. Harsh, harrowing, poignant, and realistic. A must-see.

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


BEGIN SPOILER:

The Grey Zone is based on the actual events in Auschwitz during WW2. Teams of Hungarian Jewish prisoners were forced to work in the crematoriums to dispose of the bodies of the Jewish victims of the Nazi regime during WW2.

END SPOILER

This film in its own way is as harrowing as Spielberg's Schindler's List, but concentrates on one group of prisoners and their captors.

This film is just one more in an extremely long list of films which deals with the horrific events in German concentration camps during WW2.

Although the film cannot be construed as the best film depicting the horrors of WW2 ever made, it is nevertheless a reminder of what went on in German occupied countries during those dark days from 1939 to 1945.

It was well made and well acted and I for one was reminded of what the human race is actually capable of. I was particularly impressed with the performances of Steve Buscemi and Harvey Keitel. Although Keitel is not one of my favourite actors, he made the part his own and I could easily equate him with the man he was portraying, Eric Muhsfeldt.

There may be some who feel that this type of film has outlived its usefulness and there is no need to continue to remind us of these black historical events.

To anyone who does feel this way I would say that these reminders must never stop until there is peace throughout the world, Firstly because there are still many, many atrocities still occurring in this world which must be addressed, and those responsible must be brought to book and the free world must jointly do everything in their power to put an end to these regimes.

Secondly, Although it is over 60 years since the horrors were first brought to the attention of the world, there are millions who were not born or know nothing or very little about how the human race can be, and still are, so cruel and evil against its fellow man.

Anyone who watches The Grey Zone I feel will be moved at the plight of these Hungarians who were forced into doing what they had to do.

Plutus1947


Like so many movies I see this one just popped up on one of the many cable movie channels in which I subscribe. And in a way that is a very good way to watch a movie. So I wasn't prepared for this one. All I can say is that it grabbed me in a way very few movies do. Definitely one of the best of the Holocaust movies of all time.

Trying to describe this movie would be like trying to describe a sunset to a blind person. It is simply an experience that will touch you deeply. It touches the very core of our human existence in a brutal and tragic way. It touches emotions and feelings in us that very few movies ever do. So it is a must see movie for those who simply love this art form of telling a story.

My only other comment is that the production value is top-notch  great acting all around. And the movie set here is very convincing. This is simply an excellent example of how this art form can touch our human souls.


This movie does the best job I've seen in portraying what it must have been like to see and live in Auschwitz. It is a better movie then "Schindler's List" which is avowed to set the standard for movies about the Holocaust. The story is about a conspiracy among some death camp inmates who have been set aside to create temporary labor in the extermination process. Their conspiracy is to destroy the crematoria which are a crucial link in the factory of death that was these special concentration camps.

It was especially good to see Keitel and Buscemi in this movie where their reputations and experience prevent it from winding up in the art film ghetto.


I had this movie in mind for a long, long time. I knew that it would make an impact, and for that reason I waited and waited, having seen so much footage from the era already. Now, I have seen it, and it once more fully confronts the viewer with the Holocaust.

The scenes inside the crematoria's and gaschambers are...well...convincing. What can one say. Some scenes and sounds were plain nervewrecking and they should be. The hate one feels against those who murdered all those people and the sadness over all those dead cannot be escaped by the audience.

This movie doesn't simply 'deliver', it smashes the Holocaust in the viewers face. It has it's small flaws, but it does the job very well. A good movie with an interesting standpoint from the Sonderkommando.

Never forget. History tends to repeat itself.


Victor Frankl's words in Man's Search For Meaning are evident in this motion picture. There are choices we all make to ensure our self-preservation, but there also comes a time when even amongst the worst of what humanity can wrought upon itself, there is hope. This movie is up there with Schindler's List in my opinion as to the testimony of the human condition. This movie is riveting. The textured performances of the leads make it an ensemble piece that will be long remembered as one of the forerunners to articulate the human suffering of the holocaust. No film could ever capture this time in history accurately, but this film, like Schindler's List and even to some degree, Divided We Fall. This has probably one of the more powerful endings of any movie I'd ever seen.


I've read some complaints about the graphic nature of the brutality of this film (even to the point of alleging gratuitous liberty with the subject). But it works: there is no way to sugarcoat what happened to the well- & lesser-known victims in the horrific physical, emotional, spiritual environment of the gaschambers & crematoriums of a concentration camp.

The film is blunt in its no-holds-barred approach, & despite of the ending's attempt at a poetic touch, effective in getting & holding your attention. Those associated with the film are to be credited & lauded for making the story stand-out above star-recognition. Some scenes are so well shot as if they were stage pieces, effectively heightening the emotional impact of thiese scnes.

I think it's become all too possible to become jaded to the events known collectively as the Holocaust (nevermind the relatively unknown horrors of NanKing or Rwanda, or...?). This film does not allow any quarter for dissociation. The routine way in which the graphic results of the gas chambers are displayed for you serve only to increase that horrifying perspective of what we as humans are capable of: not only by inflicting such horror, but by also standing-by & participating, in any manner of self-presevation. The sonderkomado's attempt at an act of redemption in saving The Girl - what a painful wish for a different sort of self-preservation. Once you've compromised so much to save your body, is there anything you can do to save your soul?

This is truly one film I would recommend, to get beyond the political, historical storytelling, & to go beyond to really take deep gut-wrenching view of the result of such crimes against humanity. You see the direct results of the violence, but you also see a more complex story of the repercussions of choices made, & a questioning of the cost & meaning of survival.


I had the opportunity to see this deeply moving film at the Denver International Film Festival this fall. I recommend the extremely thought provoking THE GREY ZONE to every student of history, which should include us all. What's more, the film included incredible Oscar caliber performances by David Arquette and Mira Sorvino. I urge everyone to seek out THE GREY ZONE in his or her community, and experience the emotions that are provoked from this historically important film.


This is the best movie I have seen this last year. Being interested in the genre of Holocaust films I found this to be the most realistic yet. It does not flinch in showing the horror that existed in Auschwitz-Birkenau and particularly in the crematoria and gas chambers. This is the movie to show to those who claim "the Holocaust never happened." It may be horrifying in its portrayal of history. Let us hope by watching this movie that more Holocausts and genocides don't occur again.

I have been interested in the Sonderkommando and read all the same source materials that Tim Blake Nelson consulted for this film. Miklos Nyiszli's "Auschwitz" and "Amidst the Nightmare of a Crime" compiled by members of the Sonderkommando (and buried near the crematoria in Birkenau) were the main sources Nelson used. His film kept true to events in both books. Some may say this film is a horror fest. Let us not forget that the Holocaust and the Nazis were a horror fest.

David Arquette, Harvey Keitel, Steve Buscemi and Mia Sorvino all deliver Oscar worthy performances. They make the characters believable. Nelson did an exceptional job directing this. Keitel had an instrumental part in seeing that this picture was made. The whole cast worked for less to be sure this important picture was made. I commend the whole cast, crew and producers for making this film. I feel it will be a contendor for many Oscars. This film is based upon the play of the same name Tim Blake Nelson wrote. When it played in New York it won numerous awards and received rave reviews.

I hail this as the best most realistic Holocaust film ever made. Go see it if you desire to know the truth.


Do not expect a pleasant movie-going experience when walking into the theater to see Grey Zone. Do expect to walk out feeling like the air you breathe is little clearer, the things you see just a bit sharper. At the screening I was at, many people walked out, briskly, within 15 minutes of the lights dimming. Grey Zone is that kind of movie. Women being tortured, lost screams, point-blank executions. This is a horror movie. Story is secondary to witnessing the behind-the-scenes crematorium politics, uprisings, and certainly the ghastly inhuman Nazi actions. Go with a loved one and walk out holding them just a little tighter.


The horrors of the Nazi death camps is brought into sharp, stark focus in this brilliant movie. A horrific study of human nature. A deeply disturbing collection of graphic images. Intense acting and very unusual direction tells the story of the Sonderkomandos... those hapless inmates who where given the terrible task of loading the ovens with the copses of their gased neighbours, friends and family. Not suitable for a first date, but definitely a movie you should see with someone with whom you can talk openly afterwards.

Watch it!


Despite all the realism depicted in THE GREY ZONE amid the actual day to day operations of a Nazi prison camp, there's a certain stage quality in the dialog that serves as a reminder that you're watching the screen version of a stage play and not what should seem more like a true life documentary. That's the fault of the script taken from David Mamet's play and other eye-witness sources--but the acting is excellent.

And yet, it does manage to convey just how those prison camps used other prisoners to operate the gas chambers, to carry out the deed with false promises--"Just be sure to remember where you hook the clothes so you can pick up your belongings when you leave"--and the backbreaking jobs of loading trucks with dead bodies and depositing them on chutes that go directly into a blazing furnace. Amid all this, various stories are entwined involving the petty quarrels among the men assigned to these tasks so they could prolong their own lives for at least four months of assured survival.

The story involving a girl who does not die during the twenty-minute gassing and is then revived and how the men argue over how to protect her from further harm, is intense and touching in that it shows the humanity that is still in their souls. Her story and how it ends is one of the film's most memorable and touching elements.

This is more of an in depth look at "the final solution" than any other recent films dealing with the extermination of Jews has ever been, with the exception of SCHINDLER'S LIST and THE PIANIST in which the accent was more on the triumph of the human spirit and a much broader view of the war itself in epic mode.

This is a darker, intimate look at the actual operation of the camps as experienced by a handful of prisoners--the brutality, the torture, and raises the question: how far would you go to survive? It also shows how not all the Jews were as passive about their fate as some have claimed, often opposing the Nazi officers and paying for it with their lives.

In the hands of a greater director, it might have been an even more impressive film than it is, so that I'm unable to place it in the same class with the two films mentioned above. The cast is uniformly good, but HARVEY KEITEL is outstanding as an SS Commander keeping strict tabs on the camp's hard-working doctor.

In its own way, it's just as important. Young students of history would be well advised to view this one for a better understanding of how "the final solution" was supposed to occur and the methods used to carry out an enormous project known as "the holocaust".


This is a very gripping story, and Elizabeth Montgomery plays the lead role with a moving, emotional performance which couldn't have worked with anyone else. The story line is very strong and I didn't feel the need to turn to something more interesting which I find often happens with this type genre. It is well thought out, and has some great moments. I would recommend this to friends, which would be more to an adult audience, as the film does contain a couple of scenes which are not family viewing. If you're a Montgomery fan who hasn't seen this yet, then put it on the top of the list, because it's a brilliantly moving film, and her performance is well done.


Don't be fooled by the # of perfect 10's this has been given or by anything over a 7.5 rating. It's not quite that good. It's more your general, run-of-the-mill, movie-of-the-week... another of those oh-so-common Based On A True Story Of A Southern White Trash Trailer Park Woman With A Wickedly Messed Up Life. The story is kind of interesting but the character development fell short as did the script and acting talent. The last 25 minutes or so woke me up and got me re-interested with the slight twists, turns, and wows but the first 90+ was a pretty big Yawn Question Mark Yawn. Why exactly did this woman do what she did? What made her so screwed up? It needed less commercials and a better writer and maybe this story could have been better told. Oh well. I won't tell you not to see this because if you're ever on a game show with a topic of Serial Killer Southern Women, you might be one up on your competition... but surely don't go out of your way to see this one. It's only average to below-average and you won't miss anything.


I agree with others about elements of this story which seem anachronistic to Sherlock Holmes. The fingerprinting was definitely jarring. What makes Holmes so brilliant is that he was able to find criminals without the help of any technology. My only other real problem with this story was the incredibly terrible make-up job done on Holmes for his disguise! That was the only moment that was laughable and took me out of the story. Please! Who wouldn't know there was something weird about that face? Jeremy Brett had much more convincing disguises in the 1980s. Speaking of Jeremy Brett, he was so brilliant that it is difficult to see any other actor in the role of Holmes. However, Ruper Everett does a great job of creating his own kind of Holmes. He gives off a much younger energy (which also made the much later time frame seem odd), but definitely captures the aloofness & arrogance of Holmes. He was a pleasure to watch. Ian Hart was a hoot as Watson. The two actors play very well off each other and there were some quite funny scenes. The story wasn't bad. It didn't give anything away too soon like a lot of mysteries have been doing lately. The atmosphere was spooky and there was a tension throughout the story that kept your attention. This production was not particularly accurate with regards to the Holmes stories, but it was an enjoyable program and is worth watching.

PS- I was very sad to read in another review that the BBC won't be doing any more Murder Rooms. Now THOSE are some great stories!


As a big Sherlock Holmes fan, I was looking forward to "Silk Stocking," but was very disappointed with Rupert Everett's performance. He gave the distinct impression of being bored all the way through. Also, I was surprised by the scene of him shooting up during the case. My understanding of the "real" Holmes is that he was bored in between cases, and that's when he enjoyed his 7% solution. When in the midst of a case, he was excited and engaged and focused -- none of which Everett showed in his performance. My favorite Holmes remains Jeremy Brett, who showed actual modulation in Holmes' personality (irritation and boredom before the case presented itself; excitement, sometimes to a bizarre extent, during a case; rapture at listening to a classical concert etc.) rather than the sleepy, Johnny-one-note performance of Everett. Four snores.


Stage, screen, and television adaptations or features using Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's characters turn on one simple, inescapable point: do we believe the actor as Holmes? If the answer is yes, then a bad story is still pretty good. If the answer is no, then whatever other attractions the story holds are worthless.

The answer here is clearly yes: Rupert Everett is very good as Sherlock Holmes. The transfer from print to screen is almost flawless. If anything, too much is made of Holmes' obvious flaws as a human being: his recreational drug use, patronizing arrogance, indifference to the feelings of others, preoccupation with the workings of his own mind. This Holmes reminds me of Dorian Gray. It is only his love of solving crimes that keeps him from committing them.

The story is pretty pedestrian. This isn't quite as bad as "the butler did it," but it's close. I won't spoil the movie as others here have by saying more. I liked the scenes where Holmes is reasoning out who the killer is. This was clever, unforeseen, and quite believable. But, from the time the chief suspect is identified, until he was finally caught .. the entire climax of the movie, in other words .. was ..well, trite, clichéd, and elementary, my dear Watson ..

Kudos to Helen McCrory and Perdita Weeks in supporting performances.


There were so many things wrong I cannot remember them all. But if you, like me, have read the stories several times and remember them reasonably well, you will not like this one. 1) Holmes did not smoke opium, he disliked it and thought it was dangerous. He said so in "Man with the Twisted Lip" and also in another story. 2)Holmes never used drugs during a case. 3)He would never just sit and wait for a killer to strike, he would think about the facts! 4)He had great respect for Watson and would not be so rude or callous to him 5)The family of the murdered girl would not be attending a ball, even if royalty were there. They were in mourning! Victorian society was strict about that. 6)This is supposed to be 1901 or so based on the reigning royalty. Holmes looked a little too young. 7)A woman trained in psychoanalysis??? Even Americans had their limits! I'm sure I could think of more.

There were some good points, Everet looked like Holmes, Costumes were wonderful. He acted out Holmes' flair for the dramatic well. Nice touch to throw lines from the Canon in there ("disliked and distrusted women" during the dinner party; cannot make bricks without clay etc.) But I shudder to think what liberties this writer/director would take with one of the original stories!


The character of English writer Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes is probably one of the most popular invented detective. He is very calm and has very cool attitude when he's trying to solve a murder. This movie will help you to like even more this brilliant detective. It's mostly because of the actor Rupert Everett who is very good in this roll. Also I have to say something about script. It's not the best that it can be, but it's good, because you cannot understand who is the murder till' the end. This movie takes place in London, where someone is killing young ladies from rich families. This case is been given to the best detective on the world,Sherlock Holmes. He has help from his friend Dr.Watson and from Watson's fiancée Mrs.Vandeleur. This movie is good because of the actors and script. Again I have to mention Rupert Everett who proved that he is very good actor. Also Ian Hart played well as Watson. Please look this movie with patience and watch a good performance from a fine actor.


Not sure about spoilers, but never hurts to be safe.

Despite being a very big Sherlock Holmes fan, I try to be open minded about different interpretations, even if it's something I haven't thought of, especially so, in fact, if the actor plays it well enough. Admittedly it is fairly difficult to do so with adaptations books, as they give more detail and solidity to the character that's difficult to take different ways. Even so, there can be different interpretations, but this one was no where near Holmes at all.

I love the old 1984 series with Jeremy Brett, which I'm sure a lot of other Holmes fanatics also enjoy. The only problem I had with Jeremy Brett (and his Watson, for that matter) were their voices, which I couldn't quite fit into the tone I used to read in the books. But in all other instances, I adored Jeremy Brett and both David Burke and Edward Hardwicke for their performances, since I take also take Watson to scrupulous account ever since Nigel Bruce.

It seems the case is exactly the opposite for Mr. Everett here. To me he appears good in word and physical accuracy, but completely wrong with personality. And given the choice between which to be more accurate to, appearance or personality, I would choose personality, hands down. But it seems like they went for appearance here and I found that extremely annoying. All the time I was watching I didn't recognise the Holmes I saw on the screen, indeed, for the first ten minutes, I assumed Holmes was some other man to further the story along, until Watson followed him and called him by name. This wasn't the Holmes I read when I was seven, just like Nigel Bruce was in no way the Watson I had adored also.

The obvious point would be Holmes' cocaine 'addiction.' But anyone who has read Sherlock Holmes would know that Holmes used cocaine only when he had no case, when he was bored and listless and needed something to fill that seemingly interminable gap between cases. He used it to feel thrill and excitement in place of his work and not much else. Certainly not as someone who kept being drawn to it despite everything. He had a mystery in this episode, and so his sudden use of the needle came as a bit of a surprise to me.

But then, perhaps he did need it to feel excitement. He certainly didn't show it anywhere. No buoyancy about the case, no ebullient interest in the curiosities that arose, just stoic, ambivalent irritability to everyone he met and interacted with. Including Watson, which I should elaborate on here.

Everyone so far has commented on Holmes' lack of characterisation in this, but it was his interaction with Watson that annoyed me above all. Holmes is not and never is Holmes without his Watson, his Boswell, his friend, partner, and brother. One of the main things I enjoyed about Granada Television's serials were Holmes and Watson's interaction and dialogue, the way they complemented each other and respected each other to the highest level, even if Holmes was infrequent in saying so and it always seemed to me, to be a bit ineloquent for a moment, that they just had a whole crapload of fun. They had a companionship and understanding of each other that, annoyingly, was not shown in this movie. From the first few minutes of conversation it was already evident that this was not the friendship that Holmes and Watson should have. Even Watson's admiration of Holmes was absent and replaced with exasperation and thin temper for his friend's eccentricities. No gasp of astonishment when Holmes revealed himself from a costume that by the way, seemed rather anachronistic of the late Victorian and early Edwardian era, just a look of slight betrayal and lack of amusement.

And while we're on the subject, I found myself constantly baffled by the sudden appearances of police fingerprints, phones, and physical violence in the cells. I'm hardly a historical expert on this, so I let them go mostly when I noticed them, assuming I was just ill-informed, and yet, they are somewhat advanced for the time period Holmes is and was intended to be set.

With that said, I always enjoy a competent Watson, and so Ian Hart made me happy in that respect. Even if that was slightly dampened by the jarring sounds of his fiancée/wife's voice.

There were a few parts that I quirked a smile or chuckled for which I upped the stars, but it was definitely not enough to rectify the whole movie. The fact that they also kept trying to make it seem more Holmesish by inserting various dialogue from other stories was in itself a bit irritating.

And the music! I enjoy the soundtrack, I do, but it did really seem like they were saying "Look, we took this time to make a really good soundtrack with violins and cellos and everything, so listen! Listen!"

Perhaps the casual viewer might find this interesting, but as Holmsian I found it rather exasperating.


"Stocking in the throat. One tied about the neck. Signs of bondage. These are the killer's calling card. This man leaves his mark on his work like a painter leaves his signature upon a canvas." Sherlock Holmes says this while studying the corpse of a young woman...a girl, really, born of a wealthy, aristocratic family who had gone missing. She was the second, and now Holmes has been brought out of his bored lethargy. He will find the killer, and the hunt will take him into some of London's noblest families, where arrogance and concern over position is found far more often than love or even much affection, where the butlers are as much snobs as their masters, where hanky-panky with the servants can be excused as long as it's discrete.

Traditionalists who are fond of a Holmes who looks like Basil Rathbone and mysteries which definitely do not include a dose of sexual fetishism may not be thrilled with this version of The Great Detective. Holmes is played by Rupert Everett, a fine actor, but who is younger than we're used to. Holmes is easily bored, we all know that, but here we don't just hear about his fondness for the seven-percent solution, we watch him shoot up. Mary Moran, Dr. John Watson's wife-to-be in The Canon, has disappeared. In her place as Watson's fiancée is Dr. Jenny Vandeleur (Helen McCrory), an American who doesn't hesitate to call Holmes 'Sherlock.' "I'm a trained psychoanalyst. Surely you knew that," she says to Holmes while she, Watson and Homes are at dinner. "I didn't know that," Holmes murmurs. "I find it so strange," she says, "that you two could be such close friends and yet not talk about someone as significant as a fiancée." "I take no interest in such matters," Holmes says. "No," she continues, "but as I understand it, Sherlock, you dislike and distrust women." "Women are one of the necessary evils." "I take it you've never been in love," she asks. "My brain has always governed my heart," he replies. She beams at Holmes and says, "Would you submit to analysis? You'd make a fascinating study."

To my way of thinking, a Holmes story can work if the actor playing Holmes is first-rate at his craft, if the mystery (and the writing) is clever, if the actors give performances that are detailed and authentic, and if the production values capture the mood and look of the period. Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking works on all four levels. Rupert Everett's Holmes comes off as a bit dissipated because of boredom. He also is intense and honorable when he's on a case, even a little vulnerable. Ian Hart is very good as Watson. The mystery is well mounted, well played and well written, with lots of condescension coming from the upper classes. The story also is off-beat sexually, and not just games with a handy footman or two. There's plenty of attention to feet along with deep inhalations of slippers. Production values are very high, with much fog in the streets and graveyards, a chilly stone morgue, the clip-clopping of horse-drawn carriages and immaculate, bespoke clothing. When the upper- class English dress for dinner, the presumption of inherited privilege almost seems reasonable.

Holmes is such a vivid concept that any number of actors have been able to make him interesting. Rathbone is one, although I think seeing what Hollywood did to Watson would make Conan Doyle retch. Ian Richardson, Jeremy Brett, Peter Cushing, Christopher Plummer...all have done fine jobs. I'd add Rupert Everett to the list now.

And with the case solved and Watson and Jenny Vandeleur married and set to leave for their honeymoon in Paris, the three of them are finishing lunch. "What will you do with yourself, Sherlock, now that your Boswell's away," Jenny asks. "For me," he replies, "there's always the needle." "Holmes!" Watson says sharply. "Good old Watson," Holmes says with a slight smile, "you're the one fixed point in a changing age. No, I shall sit and stare at the wall like Whistler's mother, a study in gray. And now, it's time you left."

Perhaps while they're gone he'll encounter Irene Adler.


Rupert Everett has the aquiline profile and world-weary vocal delivery that are necessities for a screen Holmes, but he (and the excellent actors around him) are hamstrung by a cliché- ridden script. Sherlock Holmes, telling Watson to "keep your breath to cool your porridge"?? The last two times I heard that expression on screen were both in adaptations of Pride and Prejudice--and I certainly mean no disrespect to either of them. Holmes is also made to deploy a Mary Poppins aphorism about pie crusts and promises--perhaps you remember it from your childhood Disney viewing.

This is a good-looking production (apart from the occasional wobble from the annoyingly popular unsteadicam), though I have it on good authority that London fog did not swirl rapidly around the lampposts and chimneypots. Beautifully designed interiors include a Duchess' drawing room, a Victorian graveyard, an underground lair of the villain (he always has a lair, doesn't he), and a ceramic-tiled morgue. Costumes are in a muted color palette of cream, black, olive green, and brown, and the girls in their costumes for a classical tableau look as if they have stepped out of a Alma-Tadema painting.

In addition to Everett as Holmes, the production is graced with a uniformly strong cast. Ian Hart brings an acerbic vigor to the role of Dr. Watson, and Neil Dudgeon injects Lestrade with some humor. The superb Helen McCrory, as Watson's American fiancée, initially appears brash and pushy (she calls Holmes "Sherlock" throughout, even though his best friend Watson invariably calls him by his last name), an often-observed trait of American women in British film/TV productions, but she is too good an actress to keep to that one-note character. Guy Henry is disgracefully underused--give him a bigger role!

The story is a new one, which is not in itself a criticism; it is creepy and intriguing. The most glaring problem of the show is with the script; I hope that director Simon Cellan Jones continues to make more Holmes stories--but that writer Allan Cubitt will not.


SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE CASE OF THE SILK STOCKING

Aspect ratio: 1.78:1

Sound format: Stereo

London, 1902: During a period of heavy fog, Sherlock Holmes (Rupert Everett) and Dr. Watson (Ian Hart) go on the trail of a serial killer who targets attractive young débutantes.

Simon Cellan Jones' atmospheric chiller uses the standard trappings of Holmesian lore in this all-new adventure, but Allan Cubitt's script seems as much inspired by the likes of MESSIAH and SE7EN as anything by Arthur Conan Doyle. The decision to locate proceedings within an era of deadly 'pea-soupers' adds an element of Gothic horror whilst simultaneously obscuring a multitude of budgetary deficiencies, and several crucial set-pieces unfold in a swirl of impenetrable fog. Holmes is depicted as an isolated figure, rendered separate from the general run of humanity by his ego and intelligence, who finds solace in drug use and the minutiae of criminal investigations, though his antipathy toward women is challenged here by Watson's American fiancée (Helen McCrory), a trained psychologist who shares many of his preoccupations and refuses to be cowed by her position within society. Everett and Hart never really connect as a team, and an early sequence in which Watson appropriates a number of Holmes' investigative techniques to query the details of a crime scene promises plot developments which never really come to fruition. The killer's identity is fairly obvious, too, but there are further twists - many of them linked to the hypocrisy and corruption of upper-class Edwardian society - which should satisfy most armchair mystery buffs. Watchable, but plodding; typical BBC fodder.


I gotta disagree completely with 'mgmax' of Chicago.

I watched it on TV very recently. This was the 2nd time it has been shown on the ABC (In Australia). I recommended it to everyone I know- sounds cheesy I said, but it's worth watching. Why? For Rupert Everett, that's why.

This movie is all about Rupert Everett. Forget all that stuff about the plot- this is Sherlock Holmes for Christ's sake!. Everett is simply great as Holmes.

The film has got some great one-liners, some are quoted on the website.

Sit back and enjoy the best Holmes ever.

This one goes into Holmes' drug taking as well.

We don't see enough of Rupert Everett. I just watched the Comfort of Strangers- now that's got a thin plot.


Despite the frivolous title, this was a fun and suspenseful film. Holmes has stumbled across a creepy case, forcing him to delve into the psychology of a twisted killer. Rupert Everett is a younger, more dashing Sherlock than we're used to seeing, but he plays the part well. Ian Hart also makes a different sort of Watson, but there is chemistry (and a bit of underlying tension!) between the detective and the good doctor. I'd like to see the actors take up the roles again.

The sets and costumes are wonderful, although many of the scenes are awfully foggy, even for London. Some of the discussions between the characters regarding the murders tend toward being a little graphic, but it is most interesting listening to the rather repressed Holmes discussing the details of sexually motivated crimes! Not an ordinary sort of case. The conclusion is satisfying. Well worth watching.


I'll admit, I wasn't expecting too much when this appeared on CBC earlier tonight, but I was pleasantly surprised.

Rupert Everett, while no Jeremy Brett, is a very good Sherlock. The rest of the cast doesn't draw too much attention, but they are very passable.

"Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking" could have benefited slightly from being shortened to 1 and 1/2 hour instead of the apx. 1 hour 40 minutes.

It would have tightened up the loose ends, and helped quite a bit.

The BBC is best at the Holmes stories, and I would love to see another production starring Rupert Everett, who is certainly the best since Jeremy Brett.


I don't know whose idea it was to cast Rupert (should be the next James Bond) Everett as Holmes, or to bring back Ian (his ears can pick up satellite television) Hart as Watson but they didn't do themselves any favours. I actually spent a few hours on set watching this being filmed and had a much more interesting time than I did watching it. In a word, like the previous years Hound of the Baskervilles, it was remarkably MISCAST. Worst still, its very, very cheap; you can tell this by the vast amount of fog pumped into every frame to cover the lack of extras. It probably cost about half of what one episode of the Granada T.V. series cost and besides, Jeremy Brett's Holmes would have solved the case in the pre-credit sequence. Actually, come to think about it, the case is utterly ridiculous. Not Holmesian in the slightest. Aparrantly the production team's thinking was since they had made (well, ruined) the best of the Sherlock Holmes stories the previous year (The Hound of the Baskervilles, you know the one, the one where Holmes hardly turns up at all, best my eye!) They'd have to make up their own. Let us just hope and prey the don't do it again. Oh, an if you're interested (you won't be) it was twins what done it! Yes, the serial killer suddenly turns out to have a twin brother because remember, "When you have eliminated the impossibly whatever remains, no matter how lazy, crass, talentless and brainless it proves the screenwriter to be, must be the truth." Oh, that's harsh Holmes!


It's kind of a tradition: Sherlock Holmes at Christmas on the BBC. Two years ago I watched The hound of the Baskervilles which was an excellent episode. This year a new episode with a different kind of Holmes. A Holmes I liked. He wasn't just a character from a book, no he was as real as he can be. Everett does a great job, and Ian Hart as dr. Watson makes sure we can laugh at times.

About the story: after a bit of a slow start it became very suspenseful. Even though I think the fog idea could have been used better. There is only one exciting scene where the fog creates a kind of spooky atmosphere.

The BBC has not ruled out the possibility of further Sherlock Holmes films in the future. So I read from a press release on their website. This is good news!


Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking is an insult to Sherlock Holmes and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

This film is a very bad serial killer film, and have nothing to do with Sherlock Holmes, actually it is an insult to Sherlock Holmes, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and to the viewers! The story is week, and predictable. The characters are nothing like the original characters. In the film Sherlock Holmes smokes cigarettes and not a pipe, and have a problem to solve a case that a monkey solves. A woman psychiatrist in the time of the film is another joke!

This film is a real waist of time.


Only one quick thing to point out. If holmes is believed to be born in 1854, then in 1903 he is 49, Rupert Everett was about 45 when he did the film so he was certainly in the correct age range. In fact if stories are really to be done faithfully, then from 1887 to 1893, the actor in the role should be between 33-39. In any event this is never brought up because of the belief that holmes is an elder statesman. Remember he is 60 around the time of world war one. So please give all of us a break with this age nonsense.The overall production was well mounted and since the original stories have been done so well by Jeremy Brett, a new pastiche always fun because it is new. We are sometimes married to these movies being complete retreads of the old stories. The reality is that new stories can also have value of fleshing out and perhaps exploring situations we have not seen Holmes in before.


For over 40 years I have read and re-read "The Complete Sherlock Holmes", and have never found an adaption as far from the original as this one. Even the patriotic versions of the 40s with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce are better than this. I gave up after 25 minutes. The only thing close to Conan Doyle's creations are the names of the main characters. Holmes is rude to Watson, who was a friend of Holmes. Here, Watson is portrayed as an annoyance to Holmes. Holmes looks around and announces results, without any of the explanations of why. There is nothing of the atmosphere or feel of late 19th/early 20th century London found in Conan Doyle's work, except maybe fog. This is modern day tripe dressed up in Victorian clothes, or as Holmes might have put it, "The curious incident of a pastiche in the night!"


Sherlock Holmes, Dr Watson and Inspector Lestrade investigates the killings of young aristocratic women in 19th century London.

Ian Hart is fine as Watson (as he was in "Hound of the Baskervlles") but - Rupert Everett as Sherlock Holmes??? No, totally miscast - right down teaming with Charlton Heston as the detective in "The Crucifer of Blood".

The plot is not too good either. Well, it IS a well-planned detective story. But it seems more like a plot for series like "C.S.I." or "Inspector Lynley" than for a movie about Sherlock Holmes. There is no Holmesian feeling at all.

This said, I enjoyed it in some moments. It's in fact rather creepy, and the sets are beautiful. 3 stars of 10.


Rupert Everett as the Master Detective? Yes please! It's all in the nose. You can spot an actor who is ideal to play Holmes as soon as they turn sideways... they just have to have The Profile. And the fact that Mr Everett can act is obviously a given... A glorious bit of arrogance with a few insights in Holmes's more unsavoury side. This is clearly a Holmes for the post Silence of the Lambs generation. To say any more would constitute a spoiler. One question (and I shouldn't think this is in any way a spoiler) - did they use the word 'pimp' in Victorian times? I'm not so sure... Well, I've ticked the spoiler box, so that's me covered! I was rather fascinated by Watson's ears... but a wonderful bit of acting as literature's most put-upon-best-mate-and-colleague. It's a good story which was a lot of fun to guess along with, with quite modern twists to it. The supporting cast did exactly that, and with aplomb. The main star, London itself is seen through tantalising gaps in the fog. Which, let's face it, is about all one would have seen!


I thought Rupert Everett did a great thing in impersonating sherlock Holmes. I have read Conan Doyle's books, and i always thought that many of the actors, including the classic ones, came short when it comes to his arrogance and eccentricity. Everett on the other hand really plays the eccentric hand very well, and of course proves to be right always.

Ian Hart as the ever dumb assistant Watson obviously is having a lot of fun in his role; the Watson inherent vanity contrasts superbly with Holmes superior mind. Though the story in its foggy setting is in itself a very nice thing to watch on a dark December evening, I guess the acting part of the two lead actors is more exciting than the allover predictable course of investigation.

A very good scene indeed is the moment when Holmes throws some dice to estimate depth... look out for it.


This modern retelling of Sherlock Holmes casts Rupert Everett as a Holmes who is clearly out of his element, much like Basil Rathbone in those cheapie Holmes flicks from the mid 40s that are set during WWII. Modern times (or 1902, in this case) foist upon the still-Victorian Holmes, and us, such unwanted contrivances as routine fingerprinting, telephones, cigarettes and crime "game" rooms. If you didn't know better, you might think you were watching an episode of LAW & ORDER. The plot is straight out of L&O as well: it's Holmes and Scotland Yard versus a fetishist serial killer. Holmes is so befuddled, he fails to see what we clearly see when it is discovered early on that the primary suspect's fingerprints do not match those taken from the crime scene. We then have to wait for Holmes to play catch up. How sad. I could have taken the change in era if the filmmakers had used an actual Conan Doyle plot. Everett is wasted, playing a chain-smoking, doped-up Holmes. We even get to watch him inject himself with cocaine in one scene, as if this was needed. We also get to watch Inspector Lestrade perform an L&O-style big whupping on the suspect.


When I heard that they were making a new Sherlock Holmes to be shown at Christmas and that Rupert would be playing the lead, I was quite excited. The trailers looked promising.

Unfortunately, then I watched the program and I was really disappointed.

The story was dull and felt rushed. I was disappointed also with Everett's performance which lacked the spark or energy shown by Jeremy Brett when he played Holmes in the TV series.

Alas I don't think it was anywhere as good as The Hound of The Baskervilles that was on the other year, which had Richard Roxburgh as Holmes; he was much better.


Now here's an original idea-- Sherlock Holmes after a modern-style serial killer! By now half a dozen Holmeses have caught a veritable busload of Jack the Rippers, not to mention Holmesian imitators like The Alienist or From Hell, so to make that plot work one would need an especially novel and surprising solution for the great detective to unravel. And here we get... the oldest, most obvious cheat of a solution imaginable. Even genteel Masterpiece Theatre viewers must have been throwing shoes at the screen.

But in fact the plot isn't all that's wrong with this Holmes adventure-- nearly everything about it is misconceived. Rupert Everett, excellent at playing dilettantes and spoiled playboys, fails to convince us that he has the brainpower to be the great detective (and his voice is oddly tentative, especially after Jeremy Brett's barking-- why won't someone cast Richard E. Grant as Holmes? He would be ideal, and might have half saved this.) The female lead is irritating, there is nothing of Conan Doyle's cleverness or borderline surreality in the clues, most of the remaining characters are colorless-- its sole virtue is a stalwart Watson in the form of Ian Hart, a worthy companion to modern non-simpleton Watsons such as Robert Duvall, James Mason and Edward Hardwicke.


As a long-time Holmes fan, and particularly of the Jeremy Brett interpretations, I was fully prepared to dislike this one intensely. However, I did enjoy it and can recommend it, though with some warnings.

As several have mentioned, the time warp is annoying for those who know the genre. While it's certainly possible that Holmes might have "come out of retirement" at a young age, this is pushing it a bit far. Holmes and Watson were at least in their mid- to late twenties in the 1880s, so an Edwardian (1903?) setting would have them each pushing 50.

I don't recall seeing this Everett guy before, but I think they could have done better. However, after seeing poor Charlton Heston doing Holmes, I won't squawk too loudly. Everett seems to play up the jaded, effeminate Edwardian dandy routine a bit much for me.

Aside from the earlier-mentioned telephone disparity and perhaps too-routine use of fingerprints, I was particularly aggravated by the reference at the end to James Whistler's famous work commonly known as "Whistler's Mother. Holmes refers to it as something like "Portrait in Gray," whereas the actual title is "Arrangement in Gray and Black (or Black and Gray)". If as screenwriter is determined to be that pretentious, he should at least do the research and get it right.

The plot seemed to be "cheating" a bit to me, too, as others have mentioned.

But I did like it, warts and all. Maybe a 6 or 7 out of 10.


Once you get by the endless Holmes clichés and crutches, the weak plot and the fact that this Holmes is rather distasteful, it's a passable film. But no more than that. But then most of have have been spoiled by the late Jeremy Britt, undoubtedly the best Holmes ever. This Holmes is an arrogant bully and his Doctor Watson is a bit of a simpering goof. Lestrade is a poor clone of Poirot's Inspector Japp about thirty years down the line. And where were Mycroft and Moriarity who could have added some zing to this zingless portrayal. Most of the ingredients are there...Victorian manners and clothing...London fog...hansom cabs on cobblestones. But somehow it just doesn't fit to-gether. It's not bad but it's also not very good.


After the excellent BBC version of 'The Hound of the Baskervilles', I was really looking forward to 'The Case of the Silk Stocking', although not in general a great fan of Conan Doyle. How disappointed I was to find myself waiting for the end of this tedious, hackneyed serial-killer plot. Before long I suspected that Conan Doyle had no connection with this story, apart from the name of the main characters, and from then on it became a game of 'spot the anachronisms', of which there were too many to count. Rupert Everett was okay, I suppose, but the splendid Ian Hart was completely wasted in this production. So unlike the dynamic partnership between Holmes and Waterson in 'Baskervilles'. By the time the story had dribbled to its silly conclusion, I had become convinced that it had originated from a recently written screenplay, so I scrutinised the credits, beginning and end, for any sign of 'Conan Doyle'. No, nothing. Not even a 'Based on characters created by'. I'm surprised that the script was written by the man who did the screenplay for 'Baskervilles'. I would have thought he would have realised that aristocratic girls back then did not 'pass out' but rather fainted. Very disappointing indeed. Please, BBC, don't continue down this road!


This episode was simply exhilarating. It has been a long time since we last had some insight into John Locke's character. We finally learn how he ended up in that wheelchair and we figure out that he and Ben have many connections and similar feelings about the island. In addition, the ending is amazing and it foreshadows more interesting things to come. Also, in this episode, we witness Locke in a mood which we have never seen before. He is frustrated and has a goal to reach. He also feels very frustrated that Ben can guess his thoughts. This improves this episode's plot. I highly recommend any one who has not yet watched this episode to watch it.


Kate and Sayid are captured while trying to rescue Jack, but John Locke escapes and finds Ben Linus trapped on his bed. John asks Alex to bring Sayid's backpack with the explosives, and then he goes to the submarine to destroy it. Meanwhile John recalls how he became paraplegic.

"The Man From Tallahassee" is a great episode centered in John Locke, disclosing how he ended in a wheelchair and his innermost fears and feelings. On the other side, the personality and Machiavellian character of Ben Linus reveal his unusual intelligence and power of manipulating people. Ben's attitude, strategies and actions recalled me the contents of the books "The Prince" and "Art of War", using the adverse situation to overcome and defeat his opponents. The last scene increases the mystery of the island and leaves us, fans of this magnificent series, anxiously expecting for the next episode. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): Not Available


Jack Bender directs a battle of wits between Ben Linus and John Locke. Yep, you guessed it: a great LOST episode. Michael Emerson and Terry O'Quinn are arguably the two best actors in the series, and they have a way of elevating the already well-written dialogue even higher through their intonations and facial expressions. Add the revealing Locke-centered flashbacks, which begin with a brilliant misdirection about his "disability" and contain the biggest shock since the bus scene from "Not In Portland", and you have the best of the first 13 Season 3 episodes, along with "Flashes Before Your Eyes". And I haven't even mentioned the look on Jack's face when he finds out why Locke was "sorry", or the look on Alex's face when Sayid tells her that she looks like her mother. ***1/2 out of 4.


So who, or what, exactly was the "Man from Tallahasee?" Was it a code for "I've got a man in my closet and I want security to allow him to go destroy the submarine?" :) I mean, seriously. Did I miss something in the episode? He asks for the MFT to be brought to him, but no one is actually brought to him. The only person you see with Ben is Jack (and Juliet). They showed up unannounced.

I just don't get it.

anyone have an idea?

What gives?

Damn.. really annoying.

I have to have at least 10 lines in my comment.


On one sight,we have masterpieces like Poltergeist,Salem's lot and The Texas chainsaw massacre(1974).On the other sight we have craps like Lifeforce,Funhouse and the remake of Invaders from Mars.With this thing,I wanna say that when there's an opportunity to see a Tobe Hooper's film,it's very possible that we can see a masterpiece or a crap.Toolbox murders(2004)is not a masterpiece and it's not a bad film...it's a good horror film which kept me very fun.A very little quantity of people will remember the original film,The Toolbox murders,made in 1978,which,by my point of view,is a very mediocre and clichéd film.This remake is a lot better than the original movie(surprise!)because it's funner and more ingenious.In Toolbox murders(2004),the tired formula of the masked killer has a thanked twist which explains the motives of the killer and the nature of its surroundings.Angela Bettis showed she's a brilliant actress on a masterpiece called May.She does a good work in Toolbox murders(2004),but her talent is beyond her role on this movie.This film has some fails(the edition is a little weak and the script feels forced on some occasions)but it kept me very fun and it never bored me.


Toolbox is 'a jump out of your seat screaming' horror with fast paced laugh-out-loud fun. The perfect get-away from the real world, scare me to death, make me smile, send me home, hide-the-toolbox kind of horror movie I love!


Poor Tobe Hooper! Once proclaimed as a horror film messiah, the creator of the masterfully creepy 1974 classic "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (and the two mainstream delights "Salem's Lot" and "Poltergeist"), keeps making one bad movie after another. This is his latest attempt at reclaiming his title as a horror master. It is a remake of one of the most infamous exploitation movies of the 1970s, but you know that you have problems when you cannot improve upon such dubious material. It is a real snorefest, about a serial killer targeting the residents of an old apartment complex. It is a silly movie, which does not even qualify as a good/bad movie. The last third of the film is an improvement over the lethargic first two thirds, but the movie ends refusing to explain itself. Very embarrassing.


Tobe Hooper, a well-known director of one of the greatest horrors ever made - "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", came back to his roots and shot good, low-budget slasher. I must admit that "Toolbox Murders" has a generic plot. However, one cannot deny that the idea of somebody prowling in an old, neglected apartment without certain rooms seems scary. Unfortunately characters' behavior is illogical and improbable, which is a frequent sin of this kind of flick. I also regret that the murderer becomes so similar to his predecessors at the end. (trying to avoid spoiler here) On the other side, the film has numerous virtues which, to my mind, fully compensate derivativeness of screenplay. First of all, the story develops very well and in the course of time characters gained my sympathy. Secondly, as the plot develops awe-inspiring, gory scenes, which should satisfy every horror fan, occurs. I liked that the director plays with viewer's expectations, as horrifying scenes with the usage of various tools happen unexpectedly. What's more, Angela Bettis is outstanding as the main heroine. To conclude, this flick surpasses most of horror films produced nowadays.


The star of this show is the hotel, it is a awesome and atmospheric set piece.

The acting is fairly average, which is fine for a movie like this. The direction is strong and the camera work good. The story is a remake of an older movie that i have not seen.Basic story: A being/man is killing people to feed off of them in some evil ritual that keeps him alive. The death seems are a blast, reasonable gory and full of jumps. I have not had this many jumps in a movie in a long time, makes these fun to watch.

All in all a great bargain bin movie or 2.00 rental.


I feel a lot of horror fans expect too much from Tobe Hooper after Texas Chainsaw Massacre. As do fans of John Carpenter who always compare his work to Halloween, George Romero to Dawn Of The Dead and Wes Craven to Nightmare On Elm Street. What Tobe gives us here is a fantastic grim horror film that never lets up in pace and shocks.

A masked killer who bumps off residents in an apartment block is about all this film has in common with the original. The film does have a similar feeling of decay and an ingrained, necessary violence that was present in TCM.

The acting is top notch for a horror film: Angela Bettis is truly convincing as the paranoid heroine who investigates the strange goings on in the Lusman building. Rance Howard is also notable as the gentle old resident who gives Bettis' character hints along the way.

All in all a highly recommended modern day horror film.


Back in 1974 Tobe Hooper was the Next Big Thing for creating THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE. Then he was King of the World when he directed POLTERGEIST.

This was followed by a series of disasters of Old Testament proportion's. LIFE FORCE, a quickly forgotten (but very nicely done) remake of INVADERS FROM MARS and a really bad CHAINSAW sequel.

After doing lots of work for TV he hit rock bottom. If you think it hurts seeing a cool guy like Peter Jackson do big budget crap like KING KONG, it's even worse when a cool guy like Hooper does no budget crap like CROCODILE.

But with THE TOOLBOX MURDERS Hooper is back at the top of his form.

Like POLTERGEIST, this deals with the theme of The Bad Place. In POLTERGEIST it was a subdivision built on an Indian burial ground.

THE TOOLBOX MURDERS is set in an elegant old hotel (actually the Ambassador Hotel on Wilshire Boulevard) which has seen better days and is being cut up into apartments. The hotel had been built in the Golden Age of Hollywood; it has a mysterious history that the main characters learn about to their peril.

The movie's great strength comes from the collection of excellent actors that Hooper has assembled here. Angela Bettis, the leading lady, ought to be a big star. Correction, make that a huge star. Her performance is the heart and soul of the picture. She plays a would be schoolteacher who moves into the strange old building while her husband completes his medical residency. She's troubled by the strange noises she hears in the building, and the strange events that cause her to dial 911 and then find that there's no real emergency. This does nothing for her credibility with the police.

She makes two good friends in the building. Rance Howard (yes, Ron's dad) plays a retired actor who may know more about the building than is good for him. Juliet Landau plays a neighbor who mysteriously vanishes. When a secondary character speaks of having lost a large amount of weight, you know the person shouldn't start reading any long novels.

This causes the heroine to go into full Nancy Drew mode. She ties her hair back in a sensible ponytail and begins to explore the building, acting on mysterious clues that have been given her by the old actor. She learns that there are secret passages in the building, unaccounted space big enough to hide a whole townhouse within the walls of the apartment complex.

There is violence. There is blood. But, like Hooper's CHAINSAW MASSACRE, some of the goriest footage is projected by the viewer's brain. Hooper stated that in going through old papers from CHAINSAW's production he found that they only purchased 1.5 ounces of stage blood, while the remake probably bought it in gallon tanks. Quick cutting and effective use of light and shadow let his CHAINSAW have the grossest possible gore effects almost entirely coming from the viewer's imagination. Toward the end, though, the blood and gore in THE TOOLBOX MURDERS gets more overt and that costs the film the other two stars.

Watch this one twice. Once for the movie itself. Then watch it again for the director's commentary. It makes you appreciate just how good this movie is, and teaches valuable lessons on how clever artists create solid work without massive budgets.

By the way, this is a "remake"- note the quotation marks- of a movie with the same name. Different setting. Different decade. Different story. Different characters. Different dynamics between them. Completely different type of villain. Other than that it's a pretty faithful remake. Not.

I can't close this without a nod to the awesomely beautiful Sherri Moon. She plays Daisy Rain, a would be actress who plays what I call the Janet Leigh character: remember the very first time you saw PSYCHO and then boom the whole story dynamic shifted?

I'll grant you, there are some things about the story that are hard to deal with in the context of the real world, a lot of Why didn't and Why couldn't questions about bodies and body parts that are stacked like Lincoln logs in a secret part of the building. Corpses have been accumulating since the early days of talking movies, but nobody in the area notices the smell? I can answer all those questions in one statement: Because this is a thrill ride of a movie, not a documentary on The Discovery Channel, that's why.

I'm looking forward to seeing MORTURARY. There was a Canadian film by that title many, many years ago but I don't know that there's supposed to be any connection.

By the way, both Hooper and Angela Bettis are from Texas, both from Austin. Being a Texan myself, I see that as a good thing.

I turn sixty next month, so I figure I'll have another twenty years of movie-going left in me. I will live long enough to see Angela Bettis become a big star. I will. I will.

A footnote: The outtakes are far bloodier than the movie itself, and were probably cut to ensure the R-rating as opposed to an NC-17. For my two cents worth, I'd suggest that you skip them. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.


I have to admit that Tobe Hooper's career has taken a nosedive. That said, his most recent effort, 2004's Toolbox Murders (not to be confused with the 1978 crap fest of the same name and similar plot) is much more than one would expect. Nell Barrows (the underrated Angela Bettis) and her husband Steven move into a historic Hollywood apartment building, full of old world charm (constant construction, odd symbols, hair and teeth hidden in the walls) and charismatic people (a hippie chick who sings late into the night, a teen who uses his computer skills to spy on women, a pathetic but suspicious handyman). Naturally, tenants begin to disappear without a trace, and Nell (already troubled by the recent death of her father) finds herself in your average "people are being murdered and no one believes me until they get killed" situation. When a trusted friend (Juliet Landau) goes missing, its up to Nell to try and save her.

The acting is top notch, and there are parts that actually made me jump, something few horror movies are able to accomplish anymore. The ending is a ripoff of another, more popular film (I wont say which), but overall, I'd give Toolbox Murders 7/10. USELESS FACTS: Look for Sheri Moon Zombie as Daisy Rain, the first victim; The writers of Toolbox Murders, Jace Anderson and Adam Gierash (who played handyman Ned), were later chosen by none other than Dario Argento to write the screenplay for the long-awaited third installment in the three Mothers trilogy, the recently announced Mater Lachrymarum.


"Toolbox Murders", while being interpreted as a "remake" of an earlier film with the same name, is given a powerful upgrade and the story shines thanks to the duties of fright master Tobe Hooper. There is something "wrong" with the overrated and creepy looking "Lusman Arms" apartment complex. For years, this old place has been catering to the best Hollywood has to offer, but now, it seems that the "Arms" has been caught up in controversy as well as strange hammering sounds heard in the night. For many who live here, it will not be a heavenly voyage to the stars and screens. The guests who live here are a beautiful struggling actress, an actor going into his most recent audition, a former overweight woman, a dysfunctional family and their brainy son, and a newly married young couple. Our married youngsters have had stormy money problems and have moved into the decrepit housing project. While the husband is out "on call" usually at his place of business, the hospital, his wife Nell(played well by Angela Bettis) is left at home, usually scared by the continuous "knocking" noises and drilling. As she is finding clues to find out what is going on, her neighbors are systematically slaughtered, drilled, and hammered by a masked man who somehow lives in the bowels of the building. Here is where we find Hooper at his best. We go through caverns and unknown tunnels, not knowing what we will reach. He has approached this "exploring the unknown" in several films including "The Funhouse", "Poltergeist", and of course, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "Toolbox" really brings us back to the classic form of screen terror we have longed for since we traveled to "Salem's Lot", which was also masterfully done by Hooper. If you thought Tobe Hooper was done with you, think again and give this "power driller killer" a spin. There's always a vacancy at The Lusman.


I had no idea what to expect from this movie, so I was very interested to view it. Once it began, it was easy to see the premise and then I decided to have it become a guessing game to see who was behind all of the action. This review will contain some spoilers, so please don't read on unless you've seen it.

The movie opens up with a very grizzly murder and just goes from there. It begins as a normal slasher flick... innocent people dying for no apparent reason and everyone seems confused as to what's happening and how to make it stop. Throughout the beginning, I was guessing to myself who was responsible for the murders, up until my choice got his head taken off by a power saw. At that point, I decided that I wasn't going to make anymore guesses. The movie is very well done, the action scenes are well-shot and very gruesome. The use of music is very good to heighten the mood. All-in-all, it was visually a very well done movie.

Once you finally get to the ending and see what's responsible for all the killings, you realize that it's like no movie you've ever seen before and that's what makes it great. In this movie age, it's always good to see something new and fresh. I recommend this one highly... watch it with the lights out. It gets really creepy.


Tobe Hooper is well known for his hit cult Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Whereas I did enjoy this film, I didn't think it was as good as people said it was. Everyone stated it was excessively gory and violent, however when I watched it I didn't think it was too bad. When I read reviews of this film...everyone stated how they didn't like it. Over the top violence, poor plot and lack of depth is what the critics said. When my friend brought it over I watched it and found it a pleasant surprise. It opens up with a good, solid, brutal and violent murder. What follows is a series of other deaths of tenants in an block of apartments, and one woman trying to see out what's happening. The murders are very original, and gory but I think could have been better if the director had a bigger budget = making the death scenes even worst and bumping the rating to an 18 (UK). The only thing I have against this film is that the killer isn't properly explained. He's said to have been fighting out of his dead mother and therefore being born as a part of death. This could have been explained a bit more, and the reason why he is disfigured is never explained either. The ending is a bit more to be desired as well. The police arrive, and the body is missing. Next thin you know he' jumping through a window (on the third floor) to attack the victim again, and ends up being hung outside. Again when the police arrive the body is gone..... What would have been better is if he would have won, and killed the victim in the way he tried to (sawing her in half) - but that's just my sick opinion.

Overall this film is impressive with good scares, gory deaths and a suspenseful and indulging plot. Much better than I expected and a well deserved 8/10.


ToolBox Murders is often compared, and often called a "remake" of the 70's "The Toolbox Murders" it is actually not, it takes on a life of it's own Deep in the shadows an evil being "born of death" lurks in the shadows and structure of an old run-down apartment building that has recently reopened, which has awakened this enigma's rage. As people move in, so does the killer slowly, and quietly killing them one by one.

The cast is great and Angela Bettis as Nell, offers a great performance, i'd say one of the best in her career so far. When you need the strong husband that guards the hesitated and timid wife, you get Shawn whom is played by Brent Roam who does a great job as the guardian, safe-keep of his wife. This movie also has a kooky supporting cast that is also well played out one that stands out in remembrance is the character of the weird and shy repairman, his look is that of a grungy, careless non responsible individual and often leads you to believe that HE could be the man behind the mask....is he? Also it was really great to see Rance Howard (father of Ron and Clint Howard) in this film, he's such a great talent.

This movie is definitely a must see on my list of lists, so please take my advice and rent/Buy this film as it is highly well executed and shot, by Hooper.

Some of the gore is so brilliant and innovative, some that other movies have tried....but it never looked this good! The gore alone is what makes this such a film....Finally Tobe Hooper brings to life another enigmatic, mysterious being, just as he did in 1974 with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Gunnar Hansen as LEATHERFACE.

- Rick Blalock


"Toolbox Murders" is the scariest American film since "The Ring." Hooper manages the neat trick of paying homage to the slasher tradition that he himself launched so long ago with "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" while also adding some dimension and wit to the proceedings by virtue of a nicely detailed Hollywood urban legend angle. The atmosphere is positively claustrophobic and palpably creeeeeeeeepy, and the terror -- which starts early and brutally -- is unrelenting. The tech aspects of the film, from the lushly dark camera-work to Joseph Conlan's inventive and eclectic score, prove that cheaper can be as good as, if not better than, a big budget extravaganza. Performances are uniformly solid, especially Angela Bettis in the classic scream queen role and Juliet Landau, finally getting some post-"Buffy" work. Great scary stuff!


Hey, Jamison Reeves, hopefully you read this and get back to me. It's your old pal, Shannon---coffee partner--L.A-1995-1996. Long time...I always knew I'd somehow run into you again. I tried contacting you about a year ago or so through your film. I guess you were on my mind, I did the internet thing, and there you were. A lot has happened in my life. I'm doing alright. Hopefully you get this somehow and try and contact me. I always knew,also, that you would stick with the acting thing.(Denton used to be my last name).I wish you luck in everything if I don't here from you. I'm sure I'll run into you eventually. It would be great to see you my friend. Remember my red bug?


finally a gory slasher movie that is comparable to the early eighties slashers.this remake kicks the crap out of the boring original that's for sure.hard to believe this was made buy the same guy that made that horrible comedy chainsaw massacre 2.tobe hooper has not made that many good movies besides this one there is the original chainsaw massacre and lifeforce.this movie has got some incredible and inventive gore scenes in it.the killer has a gory deformed face that kind of reminds me of the way darkman looks.no cgi in this movie at all and the location in the hotel is great dark and dreary.the return of the slasher film is here and it is called the tool box murders


Tobe Hooper's little seen remake of genre "classic" THE TOOLBOX MURDERS is a wicked little exercise in fear, terror and all-out horror. This creepy tale centers around an old-Hollywood style apartment building where tenants move in, but never seem to move out. Angela Bettis (tv's "Carrie") give a solid performance as a new resident who suspects something more sinister than her neighbour's scene-readings are taking place when she beings hearing noises, hammering and screaming emanating from within the walls of the building itself. No pulled punches and not a speck of self-referential wit here, just classic stalker/slasher mayhem, presented by Hooper in a style that skillfully evokes the low-budget, grainy realism of such earlier fright flicks as his own '74 classic, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.


i didn't like the original Texas chain saw massacre, or poltergeist, but tobe hooper really out did himself in toolbox murders. the acting was really good. for once the people were smart , so was the killer. it had a great story behind it, i would give it 3 1/2 stars, but - 1/2 for the gore and violence. i usually like the gore parts so + 1/2 but it looked a tiny bit fake so - 1/2. = 3 / 4. but plus 1/4 for Angela Bettis's + the killer's acting = 3 1/4. it was over all very creepy, but a little predictable, still really good. it had few weak spots, probably the only one was ned. he was creepy, but not so good at acting. the script and music were good, so was the way it was shot, and the way the building looked. they made the building look so creepy, like there had to be something inside it that was evil. 9/10


Greetings again from the darkness. And this time I mean darkness in the literal sense. What an excellent glimpse into the real process of transitioning a country from socialism to capitalism. Make no mistake, this process is tedious and painful for everyone involved. Some get rich, most suffer tremendously. This documentary is centered on the world of electricity in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia. The politics and power struggles cause nothing but frustration, confusion and darkness for the citizens. One of the citizens speaks of the feeling of oppression from living helplessly without electricity because the electric bill is more than a months pay. As a viewer we feel this oppression and frustration from the comfort of a heated theatre with plush seats. This movie reminds me of how lucky I am to live in the U.S. and how so many struggle with the basics of everyday life - things I take for granted. My only complaint is how the film glosses over the real (alleged) ties to Enron with the management of AES. No matter, the points are made and in contrast to most documentaries, Mr. Devlin does not attempt to force his views on us. He presents the picture and allows our minds to experience the frustration of not providing a solution. Tough issues that at times border on a lack of humanity. Powerful stuff.


The purpose of Documentaries is usually to inform, but they are also the best character studies, filled with real people in real situations. Great documentaries can have social messages and come to conclusions about society (Bowling for Columbine, Fog of War) while others are great but on a much simpler and human level (Spellbound, Winged Migration). Power Trip is a documentary which attempts to do both and succeeds partially, but not completely and not to the level of greatness. It is a good film at most. It is about the electricity problem in Georgia. Director Paul Devlin interviews many people, all of them interesting, some of them touching. He interviews Piers Lewis the most, a man who will not cut his hair until they get something right in Georgia. It was filmed in the course of three years with a handheld camera, and this shows. Some of the most touching moments come when Devlin decides to show us some of the beautiful Georgian countryside, or zoom in on a child's face. Some characters are boring, though influential, some overstay their visit and some you wish for more, like an old man who shows us his vineyard in the countryside. The film is well done in the end, informative and touching at the same time. Interesting variety of characters, boring to trajic, this movie is at the same time political and individual. However at the end, it is a bit incomplete and inconclusive, which is perhaps the point, but leaves this documentary only at good.

My grade: 7/10


What problems do you expect as an American "global power company" when you purchase the former national power distribution company of the Georgian capitol Tbilisi? Maybe not even half the problems AES Corp. has to deal with once they did purchase the company. Corruption, political assassinations, street rioting, major blackouts and people who were never used to pay for their electricity at all. Manager Piers Lewis must try to make this expedition a success, but does he succeed? Very amusing documentary with beautiful Georgian music.


A disturbing documentary on a Capitalist electricity company trying to "bring the light" (efficient electricity service) to Georgia, the former Soviet republic, which has been tauted as "entertaining" and "funny", as if it were a "Saturday Night Live" sketch. One has to have lived in a Socialist country (as I did) to fully understand the situation of the Georgian people (or any other country previously ruled by a Socialist regime.) I found nothing funny about the situation of Georgia. It's rather tragic. After you've lived in a system in which you may have paid 40 dollars for rent, 5 for telephone or 10 for electricity, it becomes completely absurd when your bills take most of your salary, as in the Capitalist society most of us live in, to pay for the wealth of the Earth that belongs to every single soul on this planet. The sudden presence of a transnational company (that is ruthless, no matter if its officials claim the opposite) in those countries, where political corruption, greed and totalitarian methods helped to mine its social and economic system, has very little to laugh about. On top of that, foreign official in Georgia Pier Lewis, who constantly makes fun of the company's methods (as cutting power for a few minutes in an airport for not paying its bills, when a plane was about to land) and the Georgian people's reactions, is a rather pathetic character, making one wonder if he's ever heard the word humanism. 2/10.


wow. i love this film. i saw it when i was pretty young and absolutely loved it, as i do much of Dante's flicks from this time - The Burbs, Gremlins, InnerSpace - and i still love it to this very day. in fact, i understand the ending a little better now. i remember the ending being quite disappointing in some senses - the aliens just dont live up to the majesty that proceeds them - but this is exactly how the main character played by Ethan Hawke feels. So in some senses this could be seen as truly amazing film-making. But maybe i am being a little silly through my love of the film, which also i must add, has one of the best themes. A theme which only arrives half way through the film, when their craft is almost finished in its building. I love this film, but i can understand that some people may not enjoy it or even find it to be that good a film. I of course dont agree with this in any way - and less than 6/10? Outrageous. it deserves at least 7 anyway. But nevertheless, people have their opinions, and in mine i shall give it 8.5/10.


This is a fun little story about a group of kids who are inspired by alien transmissions to build a spaceship from old junk parts. It features some of the early performances by Ethan Hawke and River Phoenix, back when they were young and enthusiastic performers. I'm actually totally green with envy at River Phoenix's role; it's the sort I always imagined playing as a kid.

The climax is very similar to a classic Star Trek episode called 'The Squire of Gothos', and the effects and showmanship of this story is very cool. A great piece of entertainment.


The '80s yielded a number of movies about kids going on adventures, but "Explorers" was something else. On the surface, it seems like any other movie, but the aliens aren't what anyone is expecting. Mostly, the movie is about Ben Crandall (Ethan Hawke), Wolfgang Muller (River Phoenix) and Darren Woods (Jason Presson), and their fantasies.

And then there are director Joe Dante's touches. Dick Miller - whom Dante always casts - plays a cop who discovers the boys' spaceship. Robert Picardo (another frequent Dante player) voices one of the aliens. And of course Dante has many allusions to '50s B-movies. Maybe "Explorers" isn't anything special, but it's still pretty fascinating.


I had the pleasure of seeing this movie with my parents when I was ten and I really enjoyed it. In fact, whenever I see it on now I still enjoy it. This movie is a movie the whole family can get behind. This one is not about some obnoxious little brats outsmarting their parents or some other adults at every turn ala "Home Alone", this one is about kids doing something that all kids really enjoy exploring. Though they do their exploring at a very extreme level. It starts with a series of dreams that one friend tells another and pretty soon they make the device that was seen in the dreams. It apparently makes some strange spherical airtight shield. They decide to make a ship to put the device around and they put in some air tanks so they can breath. They then take their device for a rather humorous test drive, but near the end of their first run something seems to take control of their ship...they avoid disaster and then another dream shows them how to make a device that seems to provide air. The next time they try the ship they let the force take them to a spaceship far away. In it they meet up with some aliens. The movie goes at a rather good pace and is very funny. I really enjoyed it at the theater and so did my parents at the time. A few surprises are also included as well in this one.


A great movie, the sci-fi Goonies, if you will. Maybe it's because "Explorers" only sports three main characters, and "The Goonies" has seven (plus Sloth) ... but I'd hold this movie up with that one any day.

The humor comes from strange places, and truly lands in bizarro world during the last act, but it captured my imagination seamlessly when I first saw it at the age of eleven. I'm older now, so maybe it's just nostalgia, but if you're into the whole 1980's retro thing, this belongs in your collection with the rest of the Disney-ish buddy movies. Clever idea, and one of the last good movies Joe Dante made. Having a cast like that, though, sure doesn't hurt.


The best film ever made. That is what I thought as a child. And now fifteen years later, I still believe it.

This story shaped my whole way of thinking as an adolescent, and maybe even helped make me the person I am today. It is not about a message, or a favourite scene. Just the way you feel after seeing the film.

If todays world of witnessing the 'Terror wars' gets to you. Then watch this. It may just give you a different perspective, or at the very least, escapism and maybe hope.


I have a soft spot in my heart for this underrated Joe Dante pic, though I'm the first to admit it has more than a few problems.

It starts out with a great concept. An outer space-obsessed kid (Ethan Hawke) starts having weird dreams which seem to be some sort of message from aliens. He confides in his computer geek friend (River Phoenix) who happens to be working on a concentrated force field that defies gravity and can move at incredible speeds. They talk about the possibility of actually being inside one of these force fields, thus giving them the ability to fly and travel incredible distances at amazing speeds.

Meanwhile, Hawke has struck up a friendship with school bad kid Jason Presson, and lets him in on Phoenix's new technology. They figure out how to control the field and decide that they should build a vehicle in which they can all fit. They find an old amusement park ride, and customize it into a spaceship they christen the Thunder Road. After a reckless test drive, the ship is taken over by aliens who bring it to their mother ship. It's here that the movie jumps its track.

The aliens turn out to be cartoonish buffoons that communicate by quoting old TV shows, due to the fact that they've learned English by watching TV signals picked up in space. Hawke is disheartened by their incoherence, but realizes that they're so confusing because human life makes no sense to them (e.g. war, violence, Hollywood's malignation of extraterrestrials).

The kids narrowly escape the ship when the aliens' Dad (!) returns, and rips them all a new one (the alien kids stole the Dad's "car"). Hawke, Phoenix and Presson return to Earth, but land in the lake and watch sadly as their ship sinks to the bottom. For some reason, the girl Hawke likes (Amanda Peterson) has some sort of psychic link to the guys and looks on as they walk away from their doomed spaceship. The next day, they all (including Peterson) have a shared dream of signals from the aliens, thus ending the movie on a resoundingly positive note.

Overall, Explorers is immensely entertaining, but also wildly uneven. There's an overwhelming sense of child-like wonder during the first half (and again at the finale), but the scenes in the alien ship are dreadfully out of place and hinder the movie's power. The alien sequence itself is often very funny (Dante regular Robert Picardo is terrific as the "brother" alien), but does not belong in this movie. It never quite regains its footing after that, though the final dream sequence is nicely uplifting.

Another problem is a subplot about a helicopter pilot (Dick Miller) who has always dreamed of going to outer space and discovering life. The movie goes to some trouble to set this up, then proceeds to do nothing with the character, who manages to find out what the kids are up to, and simply watches as they fly away to meet the aliens.

This movie has so much going for it--terrific performances, great special effects, wonderful music by Jerry Goldsmith--that it really is a shame when it falls apart. This could have been one of the great science fiction movies of the 80's; instead it's become little more than a curiosity (the movie flopped upon its initial release), showing up on cable TV here and there.

But I urge those who insist on defending other "bombs" like 1941 and ISHTAR to give this one another chance, if only to see future indie-grunge thespians Hawke and Phoenix as geeky junior high students. B-movie fans will get a kick out of the phony sci-fi movie playing at the drive-in, complete with bad dubbing and string-propelled spaceships.


I was 14 when I went to the theater back in '85 to see this movie. I remember also that I was going to go see it again but it was gone. Watched it again on it's first run on VHS and now I own the DVD.

I liked what one review said about this film: "This movie is the Goonies of Sci-Fi." I agree.

Now then, with the exception of the outer space scenes, this film easily keeps your interest. Ethan Hawke's performance makes you believe Ben and everything he feels about space and his desire to know "what's out there."

Problems with this movie start and end with the alien-scenes. Their behavior was too corny to enjoy, and the costumes were absurd, causing a beautiful film to completely fall apart.

The idea for the story however was solid and this would be a good film to be remade. The ending was left wide open for a sequel. I found myself wanting more story when it was over. Still do.

River Phoenix was great as a computer-nerd. Film buffs may also remember Jason Presson (Darren) from "Stone Boy", but not much else. All in all, those three guys played well off of each other, and it would have been nice to see them get a chance to play the characters again if an Explorers 2 had ever been made.