I was looking for a good horror movie to watch, and I decided on this because it got some pretty good reviews and looked fairly interesting. Also, I've never seen any sort of Asian horror before, but I like the few horror classics I've seen (Halloween, Scream, etc.). What I got was way beyond your average horror flick with subtitles.

I'm in my fourth year of studying Japanese, so I'm fortunate enough to have a decent understanding of the language and culture, and it helped immensely to know at least a bit of the rapidly changing state of Japan's culture from its proud, individualistic roots to today's insulated, tech-centered society. All Japanese are also known for being very polite, but with this comes a sort of isolation with avoidance of almost any physical contact. All three of these traits are explored in the movie; though loneliness and alienation are an element of American society as well, they are not nearly as ingrained in our culture as they are in that of the Japanese.

And if this doesn't sound like a horror film, don't worry, because Kurosawa is fortunately a skilled enough director to weave this into the slow-developing but immensely appropriate horror device unique to this movie. I don't even understand it fully after having watched it, but if you can't suspend your disbelief, why the hell are you watching a horror movie? What counts is that it is really creepy, suitably convoluted, and it serves the film's message of loneliness perfectly - the combination of all three make it gut-wrenching to see some of the things that happen.

If this piques your interest, don't hesitate to see it, and it's best to watch it at night by yourself, or at least with a friend who also wants to concentrate on it, because it has a profoundly atmospheric, desolate, and almost dreamlike mood that shouldn't be broken by side conversation. Don't see it under any conditions without a brain ready to think, and if you're familiar with Japanese culture you get brownie points for being able to understand many of the movie's subtleties that would fly over the heads of American viewers.


i watched hundred titles of Asian horror movie. and this is, my best Asian horror movie i've ever see since Noriko's dinner table and a tale of two sisters.

this movie totally different than any other Asian horror film, it has no vengeful ghosts lurking around killing people, or haunting people like Shutter or Ju-On.

after that, this movie has a deep meaning, philosophical, and totally haunting (yet beautiful). the atmosphere and cinematography were gorgeous and well done.

i think this movie was beautiful, haunting, mesmerizing, and i LOVED this movie so much!!!!

i don't have any problem with the extremely slow pace of this film. and i've watched this movie more than 35 times (yes, i counted on it). and i still loved it!! overall, i highly recommended this movie, but not for average ghost/slasher horror fans. if you want to see something different, watch this. but if you want anything about vengeful long-haired woman haunting people, you can pick many Thai/Korean/Japan horror flicks (Shutter, Alone, Coming Soon, Ju-On, Chakushin Ari, Arang, Ryeong, etc.)


As a fan of Asian horror, I had bought this movie before the American re-make. I was pleasantly scared to the bone by this chiller. Everyone I introduced to this movie found it difficult to watch, because although the gore is toned down, the spookiness is turned up. When i discovered an American re-make was coming out, my first reaction was, "you can't re-make perfection." Just in case I was wrong, I eventually watched the American version and was as disappointed as I thought I would be. So far in the Asian movie re-makes I have yet to see a movie that is as compelling in a thriller or a horror as the Asian version. The real obsessive movie fans will have the Asian films in their collection, not the English copycats. Pulse is an excellent movie if watched in it's true language with subtitles, in the original version.


For a while now, I've been trying to find Kiyoshi Kurosawa's Korei (aka. Seance). Admittedly, I'm not familiar with Kiyoshi Kurosawa's work, except for what i had seen in some asian film magazines and I was hooked already. But I truly was not prepared for KAIRO.

This film is just plain terrifying. I really, really want to explain what this film is about but it'll only ruin the film, in my opinion. Plus, there is still somethings that I don't understand, but loved anyway.

If I had to sum up this film, I'd probably have to say that it's a story about the end of the world from the most unlikely place. From within. Anymore info would just be cruel to give up.

Though I've been vague about what goes on in the film I will say this. The atmosphere makes this movie everything that it is. In modern times many filmmakers go for the character's coming out loud and clear, and the atmosphere/environment is relegated to 2nd or even 3rd place. But here the true "star" of the film is the creepy and almost unbearably docile environment surrounding, enchanting, and swallowing up the main characters. There's a thin line between good Japanese horror (Ring) and bad Japanese horror (Inugami), this flick is so far from bad that it's practically holding hands with Ring as they stroll into my dvd collection.


I saw this movie because every review I read of it said that it was one of the scariest movies of the new millennium. I really don't understand what all of the hype was about. For one thing, the dialogue in this movie was laughably bad ("What if something strange is going on?"...what????). The acting didn't blow my socks off either. It could have been because the script barely gave the actors anything to work with....the characters are purely 2-dimensional to me and I didn't give a hoot about them at all. Another thing is that the movie extremely boring. Extremely. Sure, there are a couple of "jolts" here and there, but for the movie's 112 minute length, it sure didn't use it's time up wisely. Most of the movie contains characters talking about stuff that had barely anything to do with the plot. What was the point of that??

To top it off, the movie makes no sense. Yes, I believe I understood the intentions of the ghosts, but how that fits into the events that actually occur in the movie is beyond me. Also, much of the movie is played out in little vignettes, which makes the story hard to follow at times. And don't even get me started with the ending. What exactly happened there?

I can give Kurosawa credit for placing some truly frightening images throughout the film. There are very creepy shots of ghosts and other unsettling images. If they reflected more on those images and elaborated on them, it would have made the movie much stronger. But they didn't, and instead elaborated more on social commentary, which was interesting, but again, portrayed in an extremely dull way. Yes, it's a message movie. Okay, fun. I'll just get the message of my review right out here in the open: find a better way to spend your spare time than watching this.


Would be promising if it were a student film. Never seems to know where it's going next, as if they decided on each next scene as they were making the film. As a result, much repetition and a deadening pace. There's an absolutely confusing procedure by which the ghosts affect people in this world: it involves the internet, phone calls, a computer science experiment, a suspicious grad student, withdrawn behavior, red rooms, dark stains, and _then_ suicides. Good luck figuring out the connections, or when a character is a ghost yet or just acting strangely. Characters are barely sketched, which could be OK, but they're completely uninteresting. It's far too long and ends just when it reaches a promising scenario, although the conclusion is nonsensical. Weakest moment: when "the boss" sits down to give some incoherent advice.


This film starts off with a mother and daughter traveling together and both of them are not getting along because of her mother getting a divorce and the daughter feels sorry for her dad.

As this couple travel, the daughter is kidnapped by a very strange group of young people and the mother soon finds out that it is a group of people who are well organized in dark mysteries and spiritual powers that can transform people into all kinds of creatures that love to enjoy drinking blood and all sorts of sick dark acts of lust.

This is not your average horror film, but it is worthwhile viewing even if it does not make any sense.


Sometimes you don't need frantic action or buckets of blood to have a movie that scares you out of your seat.

Like the character in I am Legend, there are few people left on Earth at the end of this movie. Tokyo is a ghost town. Where did they all go? That is left for you to argue. Good film for a discussion group.

Is there a finite space where all the souls of the departed go? What happens when that space fills? Interesting questions that are addressed in a very creepy manner by this movie.

But isn't the universe expanding? Do we have to worry now. Is death preferable to living, if you are lonely? You are constantly thinking while you experience this film, and you are never sure of the answers. Call it "adult horror," if you will. It is definitely one to see.


I saw this movie two years ago. Not a day goes by that I don't think of it. I have seen nothing like it, before or since. What begins as a simple concept grows into something truly horrific.

It's effective imagery and straightforward storytelling leaves you feeling out of place and truly haunted.

I think everyone should watch this movie. Do it soon before an American studio buys up the rights to re-make and ruin it. Certain aspects of this movie will not translate. Americans won't "get" it. But if you want to watch something that will thrill and terrify you for years, Kaïro will not disappoint.


... I'm a big, big fan of Kiyoshi Kurosawa, and I think this is the best film he's made to date, maybe even better than 'Cure'. Awesomely disturbing, with beautiful filmography, great acting and a nice apocalyptic feel. Possibly my joint favourite of all the Japanese modern horror films (along with 'Ringu'). Essential viewing.


KAïRO is a real great movie. You enter the atmosphere which is very loud and almost surrealistic. You don't really understand what is going on, but you feel it. And the night after you saw the movie, you're still in it. Too excellent ! And the story is frightening, if that would be the future ?


I can appreciate movies with subtitles from foreign countries and specially the ones in which the subtitles are weak and don't really seems to follow the story or really make sense, but this movie had too many parts that didn't really make sense.

All in all, i can admit to a few scary and freaky parts, but they are repetitive, i felt like i was watching a loop trailer; seems like it was a short film shot with different actors.

In the veins of RINGU and GRUDGE but not even close the the hype...the excessive length killed the thrill.

Unless you are a die hard fan of these types of movies (wich i thought i was), don't waste your time on this one.


Do not see this film. In most cases, such as that of Ju-On and The Grudge, the Japanese film are infinitely better than the American remake. However, this movie was terrible. The ghosts, much like a trick or treater dressed as a sheet ghost moan and wheeze in an attempt to be scary in the absence of good makeup or special effects and the acting is just horrible. The story itself is inconsistent and confusing, not everything is explained leaving the film to go from bad to worse. Do not waste your time with this movie, it's not worth it and I am sure that there are more entertaining things to do - like watching paint dry.


I never fell asleep during a movie. Never. This movie did the impossible.

While many people claim the superiority of Japanese horror films over their American counterparts, this movie was a lesson in over abundance. As in, the movie was 30 minutes too long. It would have helped if the movie had a little more movement in the plot and the camera work, but instead, all we got were awkward silences and a lot of slow movement. The acting was absolutely terrible, bordering on bad student film levels while everyone struggled to ad-lib something called a script. Did these people even get any direction? Were they coaxed to be boring and dull? Either therory wouldn't surprise me.

What was even worse was the rather unscary make-up involved with the creatures from the other side. Either way, they all stunk. Don't watch this film. That's all I can say (unless you're an insomniac).


Forget the lousy acting, that can be forgiven in this sort of film. Or even the terrible, unnatural dialog and illogical events (if my subtitles actually reflected what was said). Far worse is the blatant absence of a skillful or experienced director who maybe took a holiday with the editor while the film was being made? Watching the film, it feels completely out of date even though it was 'only' made 7 years ago. A computer virus as a portal to the afterlife? lol? A dial up internetconnection? Clucky ghost images photoshopped on pictures ("He! Look over there...is that..is that a face?" -zoom in on face- -Oops, sound breaks off- 'chop' -next scene- ), scenes and sequences are poorly edited and as a result don't flow at all. You'll be watching a girl finding a corpse still hanging from the knot in one scene and then literally 10 seconds later seeing her again at some place apparently unaffected, smiling and going about.

Apart from the many problems I have with the movie in terms of production-value, it is also painfully long and repetitive and thus utterly boring.

I recommend 'Shutter' in stead, an oriental (Thai) horror movie done well.


Despite not having one scene where something ill-defined and much less pleasant to look at jumps at the viewer in that "Boo" gesture -- a requisite and staple of modern horror -- Kiyoshi Kurosawa's KAIRO is an unnerving collection of disturbing images that are so freakish in nature as to make the skin creep in bouts of goose-flesh. All throughout, there's this escalating dread that like the slow advance of these people who are not quite "there", and it just keep on tightening its noose, as if asking one to put the DVD on pause or maybe even turn it off altogether. And for someone like me who keeps on stating that the horror genre is dead, this just made me eat my words.

For years, horror movies have been about the way we encounter the supernatural, and the way it haunts us. All of the modes of employ have been used up and exist only as backdrop. There are no longer haunted houses where an ancient curse befell a family -- though I may have to cross that out as JU ON is exactly about that. No longer do Dracula or the Werewolf or Frankenstein (and a huge roster of other monsters) scare us, and the more esoteric entries into its web are stale. It was only time when what we do use on a daily basis -- phones, faxes, printers, television, and of course the World Wide Web -- would be the harbinger that could thin the layers separating us from those who are in another dimension and create an escalating panic.

Two stories play themselves out until they dove-tail at the right moment in KAIRO. The first one concerns Michi, a girl working at a plant store in Tokyo. She notices that a co-worker, Taguchi, hasn't shown up for work in a week, and decides to check in on him. When she arrives at his apartment, he seems fine to her, but when she goes searching for a particular disk she needs, he hangs himself. Later on Michi and two other co-workers notice that within Taguchi's files there is a strange picture of his own room and what seems to be Taguchi standing still to the side of his computer, which is also showing the same image. They notice a face on a second computer, and a blow-up shows it to be that of Taguchi's, blankly staring out.

Yabe then receives a phone call from Taguchi -- which is impossible -- and goes to his apartment to find Taguchi's body gone (of course) except for a black smear on the wall where he was found dead. As he leaves, he sees a door framed in red tape which catches his attention, so much that he makes the mistake of opening it. Once he does, he has one frightening encounter, one of the strangest, and scariest, I've ever seen in horror movies.

It seems that within Taguchi's disk seems to contain a horrific virus that is spreading rapidly, causing mass suicides all throughout Tokyo. One in particular is gruesome even when seen from a distance as Michi is on the phone: a woman throwing herself off a high tower, her body hitting the floor in a flat thud.

The second story makes itself present by introducing itself as another young man's incursion to the Internet. Ryosuke is getting his Internet installed on his computer, but the package seems to have a malfunction: immediately he is introduced to a bizarre website that presents images of people in the act of being alone in their bedrooms, languid, tired, on the veer of terrified. A prompt ("Would you like to see a ghost?") freaks him out and he disconnects the computer immediately, but it turns itself on again, and an unsettling image of a person, his head covered in a black bag, plays itself.

What neither of them know is that from the other side, something has seeped its way into the world of the living. It is malevolent in ways that is only hinted at, as the dead feed off the life-force of those who are alive and literally turn them into ash. One explanation points at something that began almost innocuously -- a seed -- but has grown to such size that it is now using computers as a way to filter its way through and walk among us. Kurosawa inter-cuts this explanation with one extremely queasy image: that of an empty room lit in a sick-green light, as an apparition materializes. That as well as many, are what make KAIRO so overwhelmingly terrifying.

Where KAIRO may limp just a little is in its plot pacing and decisions made by its characters. For example, computer geek Harue's (Koyuki) own crucial left turn is an exclamation point of logic but an overpowering descent into virtual hell seen in low resolution video, complete with hoots and clicks and her terrified smile of relief as she embraces something unspeakable. Despite this, it is drenched in sepia tones and suffocating anxiety -- it's the tension that doesn't find an automatic release, but gets stronger and stronger, without stopping for a rest. And nothing is so frightening as to see the vaguely formed image of a man moving so freakishly towards you as you are unable to react, and once he is up and close, all you see are his eyes, staring, quite alive, as he tells you he is real.


Albert Ter Heert does a marvelous job in showing the viewers the inside of a sensitive issue in the Netherlands - integration. A heart warming and funny, bitter-sweet story with high-octane entertainment; Shouf Shouf Habibi enriches the viewer with insight into the struggle of a traditional Moroccan family trying to integrate into Dutch society, while maintaining their "identity" as well. An all-too-familiar scenario that occurs in every nation on earth; integrating into a society that neither understands nor fully accepts you is a challenge that every immigrant must face. The Dutch and Moroccan actors in this movie were most genuine in their presentation of the topic. It's an eye-opener to the ubiquitous intolerance of the unfamiliar in every society, but is presented in a light-hearted, enjoyable way that both educates and entertains. A delight to the senses.


Shouf Shouf Habibi is a film about a Moroccan Family trying to find their way in the Dutch society. With that they regularly clash with the established Western culture, from generation to generation.

The cynical treatment of the collision between two cultures that has been applied earns respect. Ter Heerdt emphasizes both the Dutch and the Moroccan attitude, which results in a very funny story. Rightly, there is no side chosen or judgement cut down; it remains merely analysing and thereby funny. It functions as comic relief to a subject which has become considerably hot in the Netherlands; integration. As I've said before, therefore this movie earns his credits.

It gave a lot of noise when this film was released in Holland. In the cinemas where it was shown, Moroccan youngsters claimed that the movie was 'theirs'. They thought that the film didn't have the intention to enjoy native Dutch people also, and as a consequence little riots broke out. Unfortunately, the Moroccan youngsters who did this never got the spirit this movie actually tries to promote....


This is a surprisingly relaxed Dutch movie about a group of young Maroccan people, living in the Netherlands. Like many European countries, who has seen an increase of immigrants from North Africa and Turkey the last couple of decades, Netherlands also has it's own share of imported culture. But this has not always been without conflict. Especially the last few years young Maroccans are getting a bad rep.

So it's refreshing to see this movie, (the first one in Dutch history who has a predominant Maroccan cast), that deals with these much discussed, heavy topics and much more in a remarkable light tone.

*possible spoilers*

The story centers around Ab (-dullah) and his family. He is considering of finally 'getting serious' just like his older brother Sam (played by well-known Dutch comedian Najib Amhali) who is a respectable cop. So Ab wants to get a proper job and marry a legitimate Maroccan wife (in Marocco). But his criminal friends are constantly trying to lure him back to a life of petty crime.

Meanwhile there are some other little things going on: his mother's growing impatience with her nagging husband, his sister Leila (the beautiful Touriya Haoud) who is hanging around a Dutch boy, meanwhile resisting an arranged marriage her father wants to impose on her.

And of course there is the kidbrother who makes a living by taking photographs of Maroccan girls who wear make-up just to blackmail 'em. (Most Maroccan girls in the Netherlands are living a double life: timid and traditional at home, sexy and modern when they are outside their parents radar-range)

* End spoilers *

In many respects this movie is a first. It's the first movie that deals with Maroccan-Dutch prejudices. And the first movie with so many Maroccan lead players. Seeing this movie in a theatre with both Dutch and Maroccan viewers can be very interesting. At times you hear parts of the audience laugh or cheer when other parts don't get it. But all in all, this movie is a fun movie to watch, has a lot of endearing characters. A bit of drama in the last part of the movie however is not perceived properly by the audience who are in 'laugh-mode' and don't always pick up on the other issues being presented. The last part drags on a little bit, but it has a very good ending. Both upbeat and cynical.

7 / 10


I had an excellent time watching this movie. It's a great lighthearted Dutch comedy about mostly the second generation of Maroccan immigrants in The Netherlands. It deals with multiple prejudices about both the Dutch and Marrocan immigrants. Maybe far in the inside "Shouf shouf habibi!" is a serious movie but all the layers around it make it a very fun one that is filled with some good laughs. Finally a Dutch movie that dares to handle the subject of immigrants, in a fun and yet also critic way.

Granted that not every element and plot line in the movie works out fine and in some ways the movie goes over-the-top with its story but mostly "Shouf shouf habibi!" remains a perfectly good and watchable movie throughout. It handles some delicate matters and prejudices in a good and subtle way without making the movie ever 'heavy' to watch.

The movie has a great fact pace, which makes this movie perfectly watchable for its targeted audience; Teenagers. It's very direct in its storytelling and it also doesn't hold back. This movie will certainly appeal to most Dutch-teenagers, as well as the second generation of Marrocan immigrants and immigrants of different descents of course. Everybody will recognize some of the situations and story lines that are present in this movie. Will persons outside of The Netherlands appreciate this movie as well? Hard to say. It's a fun movie to watch but I'm not to sure if anyone without any knowledge of the situation in The Netherlands will find this movie as fun and entertaining to watch.

The acting is above average, although it's quite obvious that the Maroccan actors in this movie aren't very experienced yet, with the exception of Touriya Haoud maybe. The movie is filled with some well known actors but yet all of the Marrocan characters are played by unknown actors. The reason for this is of course very simple, there aren't really that many Marrocan actors around in the business. It does give the movie a sort of natural feeling at times but also at times the weak acting worked distracting.

Simply a must-see for the youngsters here in The Netherlands. Also certainly watchable to those who don't live in The Netherlands and aren't familiar with the culture and situation here but those persons will probably experience this movie differently as it was intended to.

A surprising good comedy about a serious subject.

8/10


This movie is meant to relax the tensions built up in the dutch society between the 'natives' and the immigrants, in this case Marrocans.

The story revolves around a Marrocan family which tries to start over their lives in the Nethelands with all cultural differences and prejudices depicted with a comical note to it. This film was well received for both audiences, dutch and immigrants.

The intro movie was hilarious, but the more the movie advanced, so did the seriousness of the story. I liked this one, but I still miss the artisticness that some of the French or Japanese movies have. It seems that every movie to come out of Holland must have a comic tone to it to make it more acceptable for the masses.


I laughed and almost cried about this movie. Its a typically Dutch made movie for which one needs a bit of knowledge about dutch culture. A Film you most see. As a member of a etnic minority I saw a lot of simularity in settling and about intergration and its difficulty. I read a comment about this movie being Dull,´Well´, then Dutch culture has its dull sides, are you willing to see beyond!


Although I normally do not like comedies (I prefer subtle humor in films that are about something else then just making jokes), Shouf Shouf Habibi definitely put some smiles on my face. Some subtle, intelligent jokes, some tougher. Good acting, interesting actors. To me this film showed that the general image about Moroccans that is spread in Holland can be true, but isn't always, and that there are always different stories for different people. Good humor, making you think, what else does a comedy want?


Stylistically, the _noirs did much for imposing an aura of machismo and coolness. In this sense, they worked for promoting an appearancenot for deconstructing, but for creating a _legendry of machismo and coolness. Payne is rather cool, as the lead. The movie is supple and deliberately suspenseful. The cast is a very good one. The film acquires, achieves a certain narrative depth.

The pace is worthy of a noir's master. After an ingenious robbery, an excon is framed ,then released; he decides he has earned a share and is willing to obtain it. The film is violent and stylistically ambitious. The ultracool approach, deliberately stylish and classic within the genre's canons and in a highly aware mode, is sustained by an able cast. KCC may be seen as a lesson of noir, as a core film, and as a rehabilitation of the genre into the class of the adventurous thrillers (rather than the cheaply philosophical fatalism).

It has a considerable, significant dramatic energy and elastic vigor that might remind one of Welles' _noirs, but on a small scale, with humbler means, and also smaller ends, with a compelling dynamism and concision, explicit this time, but without Welles' inventive subtlety and hazy perspectives. With KCC, these seem _pastiched or quite borrowed (yet they are still functional and did not get the _movieish character of later pastiches that are merely laboratory abstract products)but then again, such the things were the good of a whole era in cinema . As it is ,KCC is a fine dynamic adventure moviea thriller. If in Welles' _noirs the economy was like hidden and secret, in "Kansas " it is explicit and open.

KANSAS  has some of the ingredients of the noir (it is a rather pleasant surprise not to have a standard femme fatal); yet on the other hand, it seems a bit too selfaware, selfconscientious as a cool noirin a way that better movies (like DOA and SUDDENLY) are not. It's coolness is a bit too obvious and rather overstated. Yet KANSAS  is all the way an interesting, nononsense film.

The noir is a huge umbrella, encompassing, covering many and various things ,from the bleak, grizzly fatalism to the adventurous, suspenseful thriller to comic books approaches and to the mere police procedural; it refers to a historical cultural phenomenon that began before it is generally acknowledged that it did, and ended later than it is generally admitted.

The _noirs' flaw is often the monotony, the poverty of ideas; here again, a vast spectrum is between the intimidating inventiveness and creativity of the greatest (Welles, Wilder, films such as DOAthe _noirs of the most striking originality) that may make a film a thing of many joys, and the dire disappointing monotony of others that have but one note to play. In this important respect, "Kansas " is certainly way above the average.

Nor the fatalism, neither the coolness and machismo typical of the _noirs had their origins here. They both came from the wide popular culture of the epoch between the warsincluding the hats and images. They were widely defining of the ancient cinematographic tradition that took shape in times of transition and ample changes in society. The fatalism and the macho and the cool tough guy came all from the popular culture and were not inventions of the noir.

The core of most of the _noirs is a naive popular aspiration of both telling sincerely what is perceived as the truth about destiny, life, marriage, society, etc. (that is, a tendency towards sincerity and immediacy), and of creating mythical or at least legendary representations of fatalist machismo and coolness, in a cheap and tooexplicit way. This double aspiration is contradictory in itself. These people want to say/intend to say the truth about many things, yet they end up in worshiping fake, phony images of wholly imaginary persons. The people can not afford to be radically sincere, naturalistic ,wholly realist; it always resorts to some kind of (illusory, cheap, silly) compensation that sometimes ends up by taking up the whole intended denunciation. The denunciation of the evils in society and people took the form of a creation of arbitrary images of men and women. The common lies were thereby replaced by more convenient ones.


One of my favorite films. My Dad took me to see this movie when I was about 8 years old. Seeing the movie available on DVD made me want to purchase and analyze it. What great acting work by John Payne. Three of the greatest gangster villains were cast in this movie. Seeing Lee Van Cleef as a ladies man was very believable. One of the best plots involving the ex police chief masterminding the bank robbery for the reward money was outstanding. Preston Foster was excellent in the portrayal of the father of John Payne's romantic lead and being the robbery mastermind. The movie moves swiftly from Kansas City where Payne's character Joe Rolfe is before Miranda thoroughly grilled to where he takes over the identity of gangster Phil Harris who was one of the robbers. This movie is well worth seeing with a decent ending.


It was films like these that put American movies on the map! This picture comes at you like a punch in the gut.

In English-speaking countries all over the world: Britain, Australia, East Africa, audiences must have looked at movies like this one and said, This is how it is; This is real. The French coined a term for them that stuck: **film noir**, "dark film". The action is almost all indoor, mostly at night. The dark and the darker sides of human character are depicted.

There were no gee-whiz special effects in 1952. Even color film was relatively rare. In the seamy, sordid world depicted here it would have been out of place, anyway. It was great acting, great directing and a sharp script that made these pictures fly.

By great good fortune, the fifty plus year old print is well preserved.


This simply blows my mind backwards. With its low budget this film managed to do everything and more than your average classic big budget picture of its time. This is as simple as it can be said a timeless and true classic and one of the best crime/noir films ever produced. My congratulations to director Phil Karlson as well as John Payne and the rest of the fabulous actors who makes this superb film possible.

I actually think this film although very overlooked where on the the great noir flicks that launched the entire crime genre cause the mood, the style and the plot can be found in later movies, even the ones made today.

9.5/10

YOU NEED TO WATCH THIS!!!!


John Payne stars in "Kansas City Confidential," a 1952 noir also starring Preston Foster, Colleen Gray, Jack Elam, Neville Brand and Lee Van Cleef. Payne is Joe Rolfe, a WW II vet who delivers flowers for a living. He finds himself accused of a spectacular robbery of $1.2 million because the thieves used a truck like his as their escape vehicle. With the help of a buddy, he finds out that a criminal has split town suddenly for Mexico, and he goes there to locate the man and hopefully clear his own name. What he doesn't realize is that there were four thieves, and all of them wore masks to shield their identities from one another. When the man he's tracking is killed, Joe assumes his identity and goes to the place where the other thieves are supposed to await further instructions from their boss.

Phil Karlson directed this good noir, which has an excellent cast that includes a favorite actress of mine, the lovely Coleen Gray as an ex-cop's daughter. She shows up at the locale to surprise her dad (Preston Foster), who is actually the mastermind of the heist.

Like any actor who worked for 20th Century Fox, John Payne had to be versatile, and he was. Here he plays a rough-around-the-edges war hero who has to survive among thieves by being tougher than they are. The the man known as "The Singing Tyrone Power" at Fox pulls it off. A handsome leading man, here Payne steps into John Garfield territory with ease. Elam, van Cleef and Brand are as mean and low-down as you can get, and the film gets quite violent at times.

The print I saw was very grainy; this wasn't a studio B movie but one made on the cheap, though the film was distributed by UA. However, it stands up very well next to other noirs of that era.


While I can see why some people might not like this movie (low production values) I found myself very impressed. Right off the bat you know this is a no nonsense crime film. The heist in the picture is well plotted and believable. It's got more in common with ODDS AGAINST TOMORROW than it does GRAND SLAM.

What I liked about the story was that the person set up to be victimized is not just some ordinary guy but an almost equally hard nosed crook. Of course the robbers are unaware of this when they set up their master plan and it proves to be a major thorn in their side.

Also, I found the dialog (especially in the beginning) to be very high tension and raw. I've read comments it was cheesy but c'mon! The film was made in 1952...and is consistent with other films of the genre made in the same period, except here it much more violent and heavy.

And last, a great cast of actors makes the film even better. These guys talk tough and back it up. There's a great scene where one of the crooks gets slapped around similar to Cobby in ASPHALT JUNGLE, except this one looked like it hurt.

If you're like me and you like to watch movies about bankrobberies and heists you'd better check this one out.


Kansas City Confidential is an excellent film noir on the cheap. It stars John Slightly Scarlet Payne playing a revenge-minded ex-con trying to even the score. (He's framed while driving a truck full of posies - probably the most unlikely guy to be framed for a bank job.) Like his part in 99 River Street, director Phil Karlson has Payne playing it both tough, street smart and at the same time good hearted. Yet there's no doubt that he could turn into a killer at any moment. The heist and eventual double crosses are good and very clever for this type of crime picture. I was also surprised (in a good way) that the movie showed some of the police as corrupt - by showing a false arrest and eventual beating. Not to mention a very bad cop behind it all. This movie proves once again that b-noirs were just as good as the big budget ones with Mitchim and Lancaster. And how about the bad guys? Lee Van Cleef AND Jack Elam. Nice.

The film's title is misleading, though. Only a very small part of the film takes place in Kansas City. Almost all of it is in Mexico.


Over the years I have seen John Payne sing and dance in all kinds of MGM Musicals and in this picture, John played an entirely different role. John Payne was an ex-con,(Joe Rolfe/Peter Harris),"They Ran for their Lives",'68, and got himself involved with some hard nosed criminals. Coleen Gray,(Helen Foster),"The Late Liz",'71, fell in love with Joe Rolfe. However, her father, Preston Foster,(Tim Foster),"Law & Order",'53, did not want his daughter to get involved with Helen and did everything in his power to stop this love affair. Neville Brand,(Boyd Kane),"Evils of the Night",'85, played the crime boss who would stop at nothing to blow your head OFF! If you like veteran actors with a good story, this is the film for YOU!


With the help of three low-life's, an ex-cop robs a bank but the gang must contend with the vengeful man who is initially accused of the crime. A terrific B-movie with Payne quite effective as the man intent on clearing his name and settling the score with the bad guys. The actor never rose above B pictures, but had a commanding screen presence. Gray is pretty as the love interest. The bad guys are well played by Foster and a trio of actors who made careers out of playing heavies: Brand, Van Cleef, and an unbelievably thin Elam. Karlson, who made two other films with Payne and specialized in these kinds of low-budget action films, keeps things moving at a nice pace.


A tense noirish crime drama with fine acting and a nicely twisted plot. The movie features a flawed hero, convincingly played by John Payne, who delivers a superbly nuanced performance as an ex-convict war hero who is framed in a diabolically clever bank heist.

The brains behind the caper is a bitter ex-cop, consummately played by Preston Foster, who recruits some of the meanest, nastiest, and ugliest villains of the genre. Lee Van Cleef, in one of his first film roles, is perfect as a slimy womanizing punk. Jack Elam delivers a great performance as a dissolute chain-smoking gambler, and Neville Brand is in top form as a surly menacing thug.

Although the movie lacks a femme fatale, Colleen Gray adds a nice touch but is not convincing as an aspiring lawyer. Nevertheless, the convoluted plot is well written and builds up to a satisfying denouement. Not classic noir but an absorbing, well-crafted movie worth adding to your collection.


My pursuit of the best in noir continued with this classic from the height of the era, newly released in a beautiful DVD. Starts out with plenty of action and suspense as Mr. Big (Preston Foster) hires four ex-cons to help him in a big bank heist, while putting the frame-up on another ex-con, a deliveryman for the florist down the block from the bank. Foster and his crew dress in masks  in fact, none of them except Foster know what any of the others looks like  and drive a truck made up to look just like the florist's van, then split up and agree to meet at a to-be-specified-later date and split up the loot. Herein lies one of a few major flaws in the plot (why would any of the hoods believe Mr. Big and just accept that he's getting his share later, when none of them even knows who Mr. Big is or what he looks like?) but the film is told with such fluid pacing and style that one can forgive the holes. The twist that was the most interesting was that the floral delivery guy (John Payne) actually becomes the "hero" of the film as he becomes an amateur sleuth and hunts down the men who framed him, eventually winding up in a Mexican resort with the group and pretending to be one of them after witnessing the hood come to an unlucky end at the hands of Mexican police. For the most part this is a sunnier and funnier than usual noir, particularly light in tone when the action goes south of the border, and some of this is probably due to the simpler charms of Payne  no Bogart or Mitchum though effective enough  but also the screenplay which keeps the hoods and pretend-hood switching guns and one-upping each other often enough that it becomes more than a little comic. And the ending is fantastically blunt and dark on top of it all. One of the best noirs I've seen in a year of seeing many fine ones.


This a pretty suspenseful tale. It has some great heavyweights. John Payne (The Restless Gun) plays an ex-con who is set up in a robbery. He must infiltrate the lair of the bad guys to clear his name. It seems like an insurmountable task. There is a nice covey of bad guys who are not traceable because they wore masks during the robbery and never saw each other's faces. Payne is kicked around by the cops, the villains, and by society. He hooks up with an aspiring female attorney who is unwittingly connected to the crime. While the conclusion may be a bit unsatisfying, there are some neat tough-guy scenes as the crooks position themselves to get their hands on the loot which is being held by "the big guy." Jack Elam is great as the nervous, almost spastic first victim. He wears his paranoia on his sleeve and his nerves get the best of him. It was a lot more than I expected.


The documentary "Alien: Evolution" follows the history and production of the wildly successful (well, in the 70's and 80's, anyway) "Alien" franchise, and offers quite a bit of amusing and interesting information about the making of the first film, and, to a lesser extent, the sequels made in later years. The show is hosted by Mark Kermode (also of "On The Edge Of Blade Runner" fame), who narrates the whole show, and is on hand to give little quips about the production of the films.

The documentary primarily deals with the 1979 original masterpiece, and Ridley Scott, Dan O'Bannon, Sigourney Weaver and other participants are on hand to talk about their experiences making the film. Of course, where the real meat is (and is something that wasn't included on the cut version of the doc on the Alien Quadrilogy DVD set) concerns the making of Aliens, Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection. Granted, all of the participants in the Aliens interviews have nothing but glowing praise for the film, but when you get down to the later entries, people have some surprisingly interesting things to say, including H.R. Giger, who compares the alien suit design in Alien 3 to a piece of excrement, and Lance Henriksen talking about how the third film destroyed all the work that was put into the first two entries, it sheds a whole new perspective on what it was like for the cast and crew to experience these films.

It is understandable that Fox would want to cut these offending bits (seeing as how they cut an hour of candid footage of David Fincher out of the Alien 3 Special Edition documentaries), so they recut the film and had it focus on the first movie instead. I don't believe this was a wise move, and I think that if the studio heads have a chance, they should release this documentary in it's original form for everyone to see.

Bottom Line: I am giving this a 9 out of 10, because, as it is, the documentaries featured on the Alien Quadrilogy set actually have better in-depth coverage of the same material posted here, but not everything. If you can find it, the documentary airs on television sometimes. Watch it if you get the chance.


I had the chance to see the North American Premiere of Alien Evolution and I was quite impressed by it. As a fan of this franchise and thinking that I knew everything about it, I have learned many things while watching it. It's a lovely documentary to see because it talks a lot about what the actors, directors, producers of each films think about all four movies. It's a must-see for every movie-goers especially for the first thirty minutes, I would say, because everyone who was involved in the 1979 classic "Alien" give their point of view (and H.R. Giger as well) on the creature and the sets where the story took place. It is great! Also, there is some actors from the first three movies who appear to say their impression about all kinds of things. Ridley Scott, H.R. Giger and Sigourney Weaver had many good things to tell us about.

My only disappointment, I think, would be that Alien Resurrection was a little bit ignored in this 1 hour and a half long documentary. The only persons interviewed who were in this 4th installment were the director, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, and of course Sigourney Weaver. It made me a little bit sad because Alien Resurrection is my favorite of them all but Alien Evolution was so well done and what the people had to say was so interesting that I still give it a perfect 10 on 10 because it was excellent!

*I wish we could put 11...


Alien Evolution is a documentary-maker's dream. It gives you everything you could possibly want to know about your favorite creature feature franchise.

It is a 64.21 minute long inside look into the minds of the writers, giving you the story behind the story. Many critics have dogged this work since its release saying it spent to much time with the writers, when in fact, many millions of fans were clamoring for more back story and conceptual histories of these wonderfully Machiavellian Aliens.

There are also interviews with the Producers, special effects departments, actors, directors, and more, more, more.

I thoroughly enjoyed this comprehensive and inspired Supplement which was Disk 9 of the Alien Quadrilogy Collector's Set.

Fantastic.

It rates a Documentary Scale 10/10 from...

the Fiend :.


This was great to watch, and as a fan of both the ALIEN saga and Michael Biehn, I enjoyed it a lot. The interviews with cast members like Harry Dean Stanton, Tom Skerritt, Jenette Goldstein and Michael Biehn were particularly enjoyable. I have to admit, it started off boring with "Alien" as the recollections of the ageing producers were not very exciting, but as the show moved on, it became very enjoyable. A rare treat to see Michael Biehn on an interview, especially on british TV, it's about time my idol got the status he deserved!


Dealing with an autistic child, his demand for the family's attention, and their inability to focus their lives on anything other than this child. Realistic rather than sentimental, an unpleasant topic successfully presented with first-rate editing, acting and direction. Kirstie Alley, as the child's harried mom, comes up with a mesmerizing and utterly convincing portrayal.


Finally, a film which portrays autism with some realism. this film describes the challenges of raising a disabled child, how it may affect family relations, and its rewards. David is severely autistic. He has no savant skills (Hollywood's usual obsession with the disorder), think Rain Man; similarly there is no 'miracle cure' offered. For other autism films which are far less accurate and therefore damaging, see: Mercury Rising, Silent Fall, Molly, House of Cards, I am Sam, The Pit. A generally well acted film. Kirstie Alley is excellent. Stockard Channing has her moments, but regularly verges on serious over-acting. Sam Waterson, if not actually autistic himself (surely he is!?) is amazing. Well worth a watch, particularly if only to find an alternative to the inaccurate representations of autism which Hollywood thrives on.


Kirstie Alley won an Emmy for her performance in DAVID'S MOTHER, an uncompromising look at a blue-collar, boorish mother, who seems to be at a total loss at how to deal with her autistic son. Alley, cast against type, loses herself in this role of an uneducated, trailer-trash kind of mother who wants to love and help her son but is never really quite sure about what she should be doing for him. The always reliable Stockard Channing is also featured as her snobbish sister and Sam Waterston is charming as a man Alley gets involved with but this is Alley's movie and she forsakes any pretense of glamor to realistically portray an unsympathetic character in a difficult situation who somehow still manages to make us feel for her even though we know that a lot of what this woman does and feels is just wrong. Alley makes the most of a rather unpleasant role and gave us a memorable television experience, light years away from her role as Rebecca Howe on CHEERS.


I caught part of this movie by accident when it first came out. I had a four year old daughter and two year old twin sons, one of whom was not normal, a husband who didn't want to be bothered with raising them, and had given up my shop to stay home with the children. I had no idea what was wrong with my son, who was only very slightly developmentally delayed, but was strangely aloof. This movie presented some of my son's oddities, and I was terrified by much of what I saw. I modified some of my behavior with him beginning that day and talked to our doctor, family members and educators I knew about whether he could be autistic. All were sure that he was not, and I deeply regret that I didn't pursue a second or seventieth medical opinion. In kindergarten my son was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, an autism spectrum disorder. I've been a single mother for 14 years now, and my son is generally viewed as quirky and shy rather than disabled: only time will tell how well he will do in the world.

I can assure you, firsthand, that David's mother would indeed have been far too frazzled and depressed to carry on a relationship with a man even so patently wonderful as Sam Waterston's character (and I've had a crush on Waterston ever since he played Benedict in "Much Ado About Nothing"). I also have a problem with the all-or-nothing ending: David's mom surely should have found a way to see him daily, while allowing him the advantages that trained professionals could offer. But then, I think the same thing about myself.


I actually enjoyed this movie's portrayal of life with a severely autistic child. I loved the mom's mouthy way of dealing with her life and her reality. I could easily relate to her life and the way she was handling things. I could also understand her amazement at finding that her son could do more than she thought he could.

But having the movie end with her putting her child into an institution and walking out the door.... and her final speech to her son where she tells him that she has been holding him back... that spoiled it for me a bit.

This movie's very unfortunate message seems to be that it is the mother's fault that her child is autistic and the best thing for autistic children is to go live in an institution and the best thing for moms of autistic children is to put their children in an institution and get out and have a life. There is also a point made that moms who don't want to put their children into an institution are just using their kids to make themselves feel special.

I believe that this movie is a very good representation of 1994. Kirstie Alley did a fantastic job of conveying the complex emotions involved in raising a child who simultaneously needs her desperately and barely acknowledges her existence.

The speech that she gave when her husband was leaving her was exactly right. We do what we have to do no matter how hard it is to do. And the unfortunate truth is that most fathers of special needs kids do leave. They can't handle it and they give up, leaving it all to the mother to handle on her own. And by the time some actually nice man comes along who wants to accept and help and be part of the family the mother is so worn out she cannot feel anything except what must be done. The complex combination of hope and despair was beautifully portrayed here.

I would love to see this movie made again with the same cast but with a different ending. I would like to see the mom find a school that was during the day only to take care of and teach her son and then she could have her days free to pursue her own interests. She could see her son's progress and learn how to help him learn life skills at home. As she begins to relax and have more hope and less despair on a daily basis she becomes able to reconnect with her own self again.

Of course I love Kirstie Alley, Stockard Channing and Sam Waterston so much I would watch those three do just about anything. It was such a treat to see all three of them together and doing a show about a subject so close to my heart.


Hmmmm, a small town of peaceful farmers is taken over by bandits who force them to do what they want, and give them all of their food and supplies.

No, I am not talking about Seven Samuri, nor the western remake The Magnificent Seven. I am not even talking about the Disney remake A Bug's Life.

Except instead of 7, there are only 5 or 6 heros in this movie. And instead of Yul Brynner we get Roddie Piper. He does an OK job of acting, but the tired worn out script was so bad, nobody could have saved it.

I can only say that I bought the DVD for $3 on sale, and the movie was worth the $3. But I would not pay anything more for this thing.


Unfortunately, this movie is a totally missed opportunity. At first, it looked really interesting. A team of mercenaries was going to Texas to take on some right wing white trash people. It showed a lot of promise when the leader of the mercenaries was doing his recruiting of different characters. With people like Robert Davi, Ralph Moeller and Roddy Piper, this is going to be fun at the end, I thought. But no. The movie just goes on and on without nothing really happening except boring dialogue and lots of preparations.

Take Roddy Piper, for example. Almost all he does here is being a driver. Really disappointing. And Ralph Moeller, who is some sort of a fighting champion in the beginning, never fights again in the movie. He is totally under-utilized, and only talks and delivers a few gunshots near the end. The guy was great in Best of the Best 2, so I just don't understand what he was doing here.

The last action scene that the whole movie was building up on is just terrible and utter trash. I guess this movie got killed off because of the budget, and overall it must have been braindead people being responsible for this. One of the right wing guys even speaks with an accent!!!

Stay away from this, unless you have to watch every action movie ever made.


OK, let me start with the best (if not the only good) thing in this movie: Shawn Huff. I don't know if the word "WOW" is enough to describe her. Her portrayal of an expert markswoman / assassin is picture-perfect, and she delivers with conviction such lines as (after shooting two guys point-blank) "Hell yeah I think you're afraid of me!". I think she is Brent Huff's wife, but she's so good in her role that I don't care if she got it only because of that. The rest of the film, however, is one disappointment after another: Roddy Piper is an ex-wrestler. Does he fight in the movie? No. A big German guy is shown at first as an underground fighter. Does he have any more fights? No. The villains (a para-military group) are shown training during the opening credits. Do they get to put their training to use? No. And so on. The action (what little there is of it) is of generally poor quality, apart from a few decent motorcycle stunts. Ultimately, "The Bad Pack" is the poor man's "The Magnificent Seven" (*)


As a female I rarely watch action films, but The Bad Pack is fun from beginning to end. The film has great characters as well as an exciting and often funny narrative. The Bad Pack doesn't take itself too seriously. The writer/director obviously has his tongue firmly planted in cheek. This film should have recieved more attention.


I cannot praise THE RAKES PROGRESS too highly. It has a witty script, extremely fine performances, a good William Alwyn score (including the famous Calypso he wrote for the film), good-looking sets by Norman Arnold and handsome cinematography by Wilkie Cooper. It told a good story as well.

Yes, Rex Harrison was quite a bounder. At the time of the film's release some critics were disappointed in how the character's life suddenly changed at the film's end - a valid objection which, had the script inserted at least one "transitional" episode, might have made it more believable. However I find this a minor point, having taken great pleasure in such a beautifully made production. It gave Harrison a good opportunity to widen his acting range considerably. Hitherto only light comedy roles were offered him but in RAKE'S PROGRESS we see some serious sly villainy. It was this performance that took him to Hollywood, by the way. A special bouquet to Lilli Palmer for another sensitive, touching performance. She was, without doubt,one of the finest actresses on the screen.

Highly recommended.


At first, I was interested in seeing this film since it was named after a series of prints by Hogarth. In them, a rich young man wastes his life and ultimately ends up in the "looney bin" (or so they called it in 18th century Britain). When I found out that Rex Harrison was the star, I knew I had to give it a watch--as I have often found he can make even routine material fascinating.

The film itself is very much like the prints in that Harrison does play a rather useless rich jerk, though the ending was quite different. Despite all his breeding and money, he manages to squander away all his family's good will by always managing to screw up his rather easy life by drinking, lying, womanizing and using practically everyone around him. He's not all riotous living and selfishness, though, as at times he shows a spark of decency. But despite meaning to reform, he always seemed to find himself playing the rotter--that is until he ultimately joins the military and makes something of his wasted life.

Excellent acting, an involving and interesting script and a nice way to make a wartime propaganda film that isn't obvious or ultra-jingoistic. This is a very lovely old British film worth your time.


"How can I live among this gentle obsolescent breed of heroes, and not weep? Unicorns, almost, for they are fading into two legends in which their stupidity and chivalry are celebrated."

Keith Douglas wrote of his fellow-officers in an armoured car regiment and it might apply to Kenway too. Others have said that his switch from parasite to hero is unnatural, yet in the film the whole of his career and all of his qualities- good and bad- have been shown to be fitted- and only fitted at that time- for war. His good qualities- his sympathy with the lower-class outsiders on the coffee plantation and his generosity and unaimed courage in peacetime- damage him as much as his bad ones. A superfluous man in that peace who can only fulfil himself in that war.


I saw this film and I was so blown away. As a gay man I haven't really been able to see the gay marriage debate beyond, "sure, we should get what they get." But this is a great documentary that totally changed how much I value gay marriage. Besides the message, the storytelling was extremely well done and, you couldn't have asked for a better bad guy in that incumbent that Carl was up against. But that was just one of many things that were well executed. Open minded interviews with BOTH sides of this issue make it crystal clear why gay marriage is crucial to the survival of the gay community- it appears to be far more than a label of equality or simply being fair with financial rights.


Saving Marriage is an aptly titled movie that chronicles the struggle to legalize Gay Marriage in the state of Massachusets. It portrays not solely the political and legal battles, but the personal issues. For those less familiar with the cause, it gives not only the background but puts faces to the issues. It is respectful to those who do not know why gay marriage is such an important goal and educates its audience in a non-threatening manner. As someone who as always been supportive of civil rights issues, it motivated me to want to be more vocal about this cause.

There is one quote from the movie that keeps coming back to me....to paraphrase: it's not really about gay marriage, but an acceptance of gays. This movie chronicles legalities, but in essence it is about accepting gay people as equal citizens with equal rights. As a heterosexual, I need to get over my learned prejudices -- we all have prejudices -- get rid of knee-jerk responses, listen and learn from others.

This movie is an attempt to make the world a better place. Well worth my time and yours!


Saving Marriage is a moving, emotional documentary on the struggle for civil gay marriage in Massachusetts. More generally it is a film about human rights and hopefully will be seen by a general public, not just the already convinced or the gay community.

If you've ever seen "Eyes on the Prize", a film about the Civil Rights Movement in the 50's and 60's, you will understand the tone and emotional power of "Saving Marriage".

This is not exactly your mainstream action flick, but it really holds your attention. The interviews were riveting. It's really top-notch documentary film making, and, as icing on the cake, illuminates an issue that should be of concern to all Americans who value human rights.


I loved this documentary. Our people around the world are entering a new age of equality but there is still a struggle in securing more equality and retaining the gains that we have already made. This film covers that struggle in Massachusetts and documents the great efforts made by so many people in defending their right to be treated as valued and equal human beings. It's easy for an LGBT audience to be drawn into this and feel it personally. Told from a Queer perspective, the film makers have tried to incorporate all points of view in a fair and real way, showing those on both sides of the argument. It puts a human face on same-sex marriage, profiling several weddings and focussing too on some same-sex headed families. From high points when we see both lovely long-term and youthful couples exchanging vows and the election of a gay man to the Massachusetts Parliament, to low points where an elected official of that same government forthrightly denies historical injustices against LGBT people and contemporary realities of abuse, harassment, discrimination and worse, and finishing on the sad reality that bigotry still prevails in much of the American public, a bigotry which could strip same-sex couples of this right, I recommend that everyone with an opinion on same-sex marriage view this.


What an amazing film this is. It is possibly the only film I've ever seen which made me feel joyful, sad, angry, hopeful, and inspired all at the same time. I walked away from this film feeling great, and wondering what I can do to help. It is truly amazing to see how far we've come on this issue. I was in Boston while that was all happening, and I'm kicking myself now for not participating in any of the rallies. Now that I'm in LA, and when this happens here, I'll be sure to take part. This certainly will be a popular film in the gay community, and I certainly hope that it will reach out to those who need to see this to understand what we're fighting for.


Gay or straight, this film illuminates the emotional undercurrent of the gay marriage issue on many levels. Beyond the political talking points (which are engaging and amusing in and of themselves), the film points to what it means to have the allowance of marriage as a "goal" or "purpose" in a relationship at all ... and how that resonates in a person's life. The film is incredibly well made, beautifully shot, tightly edited/structured ... and just flat out blew me away as a shining example of what intelligent and evocative film-making can be. Everyone should see this film. Especially those who are so vehemently opposed to the issue. Everything is quite fairly laid out ... not overly condemning one way or the other. A wide exposure of this film would create a more productive and human conversation on the topic so we could collectively move forward as a society without such judgment and fear. And this is all coming from a very private, non-politically vocal individual. Congrats to all involved!


"Saving Marriage"

A Must See

Amos Lassen and Cinema Pride

I had heard great things about Michael Roth's documentary "Saving Marriage" so when I sat down to watch it last night I was ready for something amazing. This is one of the most powerful and well made documentaries I have ever seen and it is absolutely a must see film for everyone regardless of sexual tendency or political alignment.

When the Commonwealth of Massachusetts became the first state to recognize gay marriage, a constitutional amendment suddenly is presented to take that right away. With that the Massachusetts legislature became a battleground and activists and newcomers found themselves involved in a fierce political war. The future of American gay rights was the prize to be won and it is very, very close. The battle to save gay marriage would change the way people view same-sex relationships and the history of civil rights takes n a new meaning with this fight. The movie is a record of that. This is the movie that will change the way one values gay marriage as it shows why it is an absolute necessity to the our survival as a community.

"Saving Marriage" is moving and highly emotional and it is not just about gay marriage but about the rights of all humans. It is a detailed view of the entire gay marriage issue in Massachusetts and presents both sides of the issue. One of the main things that it does is give a very careful explanation as to the difference between marriage and civil unions. Civil unions are only band-aids for a short term solution, a kind of appeasement and not a term of equality. The message of equality and creating a better life for all is the true values of "Saving Marriage". We are taught that the government is supposed to protect citizen rights and not deny them. I would venture to say that many of us have no idea of how the issue of same-sex marriage came about and this film gives us a time-line of events showing the role of the courts and legislatures. The interviews are enlightening in the way that they explain why politicians voted "yes" or "no" on the amendment but it is even more engrossing to see the process by which an ordinary person, the man on the street, can make difference.

By seeing the first gay marriages in Massachusetts during which the amendments were proposed to shoot down and ban the practice, we are taken on a tour of emotions as both politicians and "little people" fought out the battle for equal rights in the New England legislature. Coming together for a cause such as this shows how laws can be changed, altered or done away with and that we as ordinary Americans can change lives.

I have always considered myself an activist, especially since I moved to Arkansas but after seeing "Saving Marriage", I see how little I have done. Here are people who have devoted their entire beings to bringing about change. I feel so insignificant.

This is also a film that is filled with passion and as you watch you heart fills with pride. I found myself wondering why I have not worked harder in the fight for equality. The beauty and sadness of the personal stories in the film is an extremely moving experience.

Told from a GLBT perspective, the filmmakers incorporate all points of view, showing both sides of the issue. Here we get the human face of the same-sex marriage debate. We see wedding ceremonies, we see same-sex families. We see love. Anyone who claims to be apathetic about what the word "marriage" means as opposed to "civil unions" has to see this film.

As Americans, we are all entitled to the very same rights and privileges without regard to gender, race, creed and sexual identity. This movie will make us realize how important that is. The suspense, emotion and drama in "Saving Marriage" should be a wake up call to all of us who have nothing to advance the way our community lives today. This just one beautiful film that shows us not only how we live, but how we should live. It is one film that everyone, straight, gay, black, white, Jewish, Christian, whatever owes it to himself to see.


This powerful and beautiful film succeeded on many fronts: the filmmakers provide the audience with a compelling cast of characters, complete with Heroes and Villains, whose lives are impacted in one fashion or another by the issue of Gay Marriage. They also do a nice job fashioning a clear plot for the audience to follow and become emotionally invested in (I was personally moved to tears a number of times during the film) and did a nice job building the drama around the key turning points for the bills under debate.

Where I really think the film succeeds is in making all the people in the film real and three-dimensional, there wasn't a lot of jingoistic talking points being tossed around, just real human drama and real emotion in the discussion of the issues faced by gay men and women...and that will go a long way to softening the hearts and minds of the general public who really doesn't understand the issue (like the lobbyist says in the film...it plants little seeds that can eventually grow large enough to break down the walls in people's minds).

It's easy when taking on a subject like this to show the opposition as cartoon characters and the film tries to show the other side and does a fairly decent job of balancing the argument by not making Gay Marriage opponents too over-the-top or making too much fun of them.


Living in Southern California and being a gay man I never really spent much time thinking about not being able to marry my partner or the ramifications of an amendment to any states constitution banning same sex partners. This film made me laugh and cry and made me remember what being an American and gay human being is about which is equal rights for all. If other states can take on this issue it gives hope for places where the rest of us live and is relevant for all gay and straight people who love and know gay people. After time you learn to accept and forget the want to say in front of your loved ones and the world that you are gong to marry the man you love and be able to legally call someone your husband though that is what I call my boyfriend now. Thank you Mike and Doug for putting your heart and soul and time into this project. I hope my partner and I will soon be able to marry here in California and I am now going to be more proactive about making that happen in part due to the inspiration I gained from watching this film.


This documentary manages to both explain a complicated legal process, and tell an emotionally affecting story. I wish everyone could see this, as it has the power to inspire more people who are pro-marriage equality to take action -- and possibly change some hearts and minds on the other side. Though there are plenty of ultra-conservative types who may never be swayed, I think many others could be if they connected a human face to the issue. We see it happen over the course of this film with one Massachusetts legislator in particular, and that effect could be replicated in other states if we all take the time to share our opinions and stories -- and mobilize ourselves into a political force to be reckoned with. Change is coming no matter what, but let's make it happen in our lifetime!


The film is a documentary, but it has so much drama and passion it felt like a feature film. I loved the juxtaposition of the various characters presented. It gave it a real 'cliffhanger' feel, and I also felt like I was there in the middle of the action.

The execution of this film is formidable. With a complex subject such as this, it could have been boiler plate predictable. But instead, it brought so much heart into the mix I felt compelled to participate in the debate from my theater seat. And, humor and love play a big part in the denouement. It's just impeccable.

This film is a moving, authentic look at an issue that should not even be an issue. I'm hoping more people have the opportunity to experience this film and understand the importance of participating in our democracy.

Joanne Fish


This film gave a detailed view of the history of the gay marriage issue in Massachusetts. It gives the viewer both sides of the story (though in truth the opponents of gay marriage border on self-parody) and allows the viewer to make up their own mind. The film opened my eyes to the difference between "marriage" and "civil unions". As a former supporter of the notion of civil unions I now realize that is simply a term of appeasement, not a term of equality. I emerged from viewing this film a more educated and compassionate person. It would be beneficial for people across the United States to be able to view this film and see the story behind the controversy for themselves. This film will impact anyone who sees it.


John and Mike captured it perfectly. I spent hours at the Massachusetts statehouse over the years this battle has been going on, and watching the film brings me right back there--the songs, the instant friends that were made, the love of the supporters---it's still raw and they capture it on film. At the same time they capture the real hate and ignorance which was on the other side of the street from us.

The film's value is in it's message of equality and making life better for all citizens. While it's the story of activism, passion, and politics at work---things which are applicable in any state in the country. I hope John and Mike can find a distributor to get the film into the hands of people who can be impacted by its beautiful message---and now that the epilogue will be more grand than the last time I viewed it, I can't wait to see it again!


This film is about same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, but it's really about everyone's rights and how government is supposed to protect, not deny, citizens' rights. Most people outside of Massachusetts (and probably a good number inside as well) don't have any idea how this whole issue of same-sex marriage came about in the first place, so this film does a great job of showing the time-line of events, and how the courts play a role, and the legislatures play a role. It was really interesting to watch the legislators explain why they were voting either "for" or "against", but even more interesting to see the whole process of how ordinary people can make a difference, working with the legislators, or opposing them. I learned a great deal from the film and I hope to see the day when the other 49 states will stop denying gay people the right to marry. "Civil union" instead of marriage is like the old segregationist policy "Separate but equal", which the late Thurgood Marshall argued, if it's separate, it's not equal. Likewise, if it's called "civil union", it's not "marriage". And that's wrong.


By following the landmark first gay marriages of Massachusettes during which amendments were immediately being proposed to ban the practice, the film "Saving Marriage" literally takes the audience on a roller-coaster of emotions as politicians and people who want their equal rights battle it out in the legislative halls. This film is for everyone--for or against same sex marriage--because it is a ringside view into how banning together for a passionate cause can change laws, and how ordinary Americans can participate in politics that change lives.

The film is extremely moving, educational, inspirational, heartbreaking...Where is the DVD? This film should be in all libraries, all classrooms and all state and federal elected offices.


I have always thought of myself as doing my part for LGBT causes but after seeing this and how people dedicate there LIFE to it and how even straight people are dedicating there precious time away from family to do give us what we deserve, I gotta say I felt guilty.

Saving Marriage shows the passion these people have for this 'cause' even though it shouldn't be an issue, it was truly heartfelt and is just what we need in our fight for equality. I hope this gets the chance for distribution because if any doubters watch this and is not moved by the fight, the sadness from the personal stories and dedication from these people then you can't be human.

Peace out, Marcus


I recently saw this film at the Queer Documentary Film Festival in Portland, Oregon. It was one of the highlights of the festival. It is an excellent documentary which captures all the political, social, and very emotional issues surrounding gay/lesbian marriage. It can also be used very effectively as an educational tool when trying to educate straight audiences about this issue and why it has become so important to the gay and lesbian community on all these levels. Even very supportive straight friends do not really understand the depth of this issue. The film is long enough to be very substantive in content but short enough to grab your attention. It really is like a twist and turn mystery. Thank you directors and participants for this wonderful film.


As someone who was apathetic about the semantics of "marriage" vs. "civil unions", I found this movie to be very informative and very well done. It made the struggle for marriage rights real, not only for Massachusetts residents, but for the rest of this country. After watching this movie, it all makes sense - as Americans, we are all entitled to the same rights and privileges regardless of our race, creed, gender and sexual identity. That's the bottom line. Yes, the movie comes off as pro gay rights, but as the filmmaker stated after the viewing, the other side was approached, but for the most part, they refused to respond on camera. Now why is that? What do they have to hide? This film puts it all out there. It's about protection of all of our civil rights.


As a heterosexual female that is involved in protecting the rights of people, I know how hard it's really been for me to display to the other's that are not gay, the importance of how something that you may feel isn't so important and does not affect you, can really affect other people.

This movie has also actually changed how much I value gay marriage! "A right of another human being that should not even be questioned."

It should be viewed by everyone who believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, so please drag one person who isn't interested in seeing the movie, to the movie. It can change the attitude of someone lightly stating the gay marriage debate as, "sure, everyone should get equal rights, but I think they marriage should be between a man and a woman." This movie brings the people on the screen beyond only fighting for equality or financial rights, it really brings out true emotions. I was amazed how my friend talked about it for days after and may even accompany me to the next fund raiser event. Make sure to also see Saints and Sinners, directed by Abigail Honor, another great movie, dealing with gay marriage. Thank you directors, Mike Roth and Jay Henning for bringing this film to us and to the pride festivals!


This movie is going to make the world wake up in so many ways. Excellent!!! Everybody should see it! I recommend with all my heart! The prejudice all over the world needs so much more of this kind of knowledge. Here in Brazil I hope it helps to start for sure the fight to assure everybody the same rights, cause we all have the same duties and it is not fair to have this mistake for homosexuals. One day in a near future some people will see how much we struggle to be equal in all matters. Looking back having this work done to help future generations how was hard and tough to change societies and rules created by human beings who use the name of God in vain. I hope tomorrow will be a better place for my son and grandsons. This movie is for the present and the future. Great Work!!! These are some words from a human being touched so deep by this piece of images putted together to make history come through and help to make everybody understand everybody. Some dream! Uh! However, it can come through anytime we just need to want. As Jesus said everyone should love your brothers and sisters cause we all are! Truly yours, Lucy from Brazil


I was very moved by the personal stories in the film. The movie had suspense, emotion, music, and drama, which I didn't expect from a political film. I think the movie can be very useful for communities trying to understand the legal process of changing gay marriage laws, and the personal ramifications of the changes themselves. As we left the movie tonight, my husband said, "That was much better than I expected it to be." We were both very impressed by the professionalism of this film. I hope it makes it to the big screens.

I really like documentaries. I would put this one right up with Michael Moore's and Jesus Camp for bringing home an issue in a very personal, and profound way. Great job.

The only small complaint I have about this film is that the scenes with the political election near the end seems to go on too long. I would love to see that edited some more, and then an update on what has happened since. The film needs a more dramatic ending, but 99% of it was stellar film-making, in my book.

I wish them well with this extremely important subject.


Saving Marriage gives an emotional and compelling look into the controversy surrounding same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. This film informs viewers of the struggle it took to achieve that feat, and the fight that know goes on to have it overturned.

Saving Marriage weaves its way through both sides of this political issue in a way that's easy to follow. It also puts a face to this volatile issue, and it makes you confront your own prejudices. If you have an open mind and view this film objectively, you might find yourself changing your opinions towards gay marriage. It's extremely well done and I applaud the filmmakers efforts to tackle this issue head on.


Saving Marriage is what a documentary should be - informative, factual and laced with stories that cater to the emotional side of the audience without excessive drama.

The documentary has taken a volatile issue, which has the potential to be very one-sided, boring and repetitive due to it's association with politics and the law and made it digestible and easy to understand for the general audience. It's not preachy and insular as many documentaries dealing with gay issues are. It's objective and just hearing what some of those politicians had to say for themselves left me speechless.

The interviews were captivating and the storytelling fluid. It hits the social, political and human points of the issue accurately.

This documentary should also be a must-see for any straight married couple - it may make them stop taking their union and each other for granted - after all, it's a right that is not afforded to all.


The film humanizes the gay marriage debate, focusing not only on the emotional impact of marriage for individual same-sex couples, but also the under-dog fight faced by local legislators and those in political action committees who have devoted their lives to the issue. Framing same-sex marriage as the next great civil rights challenge, Saving Marriage navigates the long, complicated political and legislative process with a human context, giving a face to a topic that is often eschewed as empty political rhetoric. If the film doesn't convince you of the justness of its cause, it at least offers a means to understand the issues and measure what is at stake for gay couples who seek the rights and validation offered by legally sanctioned marriage.


The film is powerful from the start, delivering the struggles in the movement for gay marriage. It focuses around the ground breaking legislation that has Massachusetts at the forefront of this generation's civil rights movement. Put into three very tight, well organized beats, the story opens with ground breaking legislation which brings hope for the future, but has a huge uphill battle. Spawning a need for more gay political leaders, the legislation fuels a grassroots movement to obtain a larger political influence which in the third beat, may or may not turn out the way the viewer would expect. From open to close, this 90 minute feature flows well giving insight to the emotional, political and judicial struggles surrounding gay marriage. Whether the viewer's interest is political, religious, personal or educational, Saving Marriage is a must see.


This film impactfully informs viewers of the efforts it took to change history in Massachusetts. I found myself being educated while riding the emotional roller coaster of those events as marriage equality was advanced and people were educated. Regardless of the final outcome of marriage equality in Massachusetts, films like this greatly inform people of what everyday individuals can do to be part of historic efforts towards advancing equality and fairness in our country for lgbtq people. I was inspired and felt better educated on the issues and strategies for moving forward. Many thanks to the filmmakers for making a movie that documents this history and educates people across the country, not just those living in Massachusetts. As such, the film is a call to action, not just a passive documentary record.


This comprehensive and moving documentary dealing with the hopes and aspirations of gay and lesbian couples to be able to be legally married raises a lot of issues that straight people have probably never considered. I know I never did. The points raised are very valid and moving, and the need to recognize and acknowledge them becomes very evident. I was very moved by some issues that I had never considered.

As a result of the new insights I have gained from watching this film, my ideas have certainly changed and my previous prejudices have been eliminated. No matter what a person's views may be regarding the issue of homosexual marriage, this film is well worth watching and thinking about. I wholeheartedly recommend it.


Best documentary I have seen on a gay-related issue since "The Times of Harvey Milk". Very good quality film and sound. Story flows well...keeps you drawn in. The information is presented in a pragmatic way making it easier to understand the politics behind the story, but then the filmmaker delves into individual stories making the topic very personal. His selection of people in the film representing couples and individuals whose lives are effected by this issue is optimal. As a viewer you really feel for them, and they make their story understood even by those who are not directly affected by the gay marriage issue. Very grateful someone took on this historic topic in such a superb way!


A while back, I bought a multi-pack of exploitation films (oddly misnamed "cult films") and this was one of twenty films in the set. However, unlike most of the other films, this one just wasn't very interesting and really bored me. The production values were a bit higher, but it still was a very bad film--just not bad enough to be funny or memorable.

This movie is about the "white slavery" problem--women being forced into prostitution and other vices by evil mobs. The film begins with a sweet young lady being kidnapped but ultimately escaping from these thugs. Much of the rest of the film concerned tracking down the jerks and prosecuting them, but despite being very salacious in nature, the film was so very dull and poorly acted it was a real chore to finish.

Barely watchable--and that's the BEST thing I can say about this one.


1st watched 2/13/2007 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Elmer Clifton): Slightly watchable tale about a traveling prostitution circuit that sets up shop wherever it can until the police get a lead. The heads of the group disguise themselves as self-made rich people who somehow just know how to make money. The two heroines in the story, a couple who give links to the local newspaper, are just trying to get on their payroll to make enough money to get married but keep getting caught in the middle of this thing. The hero gets put in jail after the leader of the ring, Mr. Murray(who also happens to be a customer of his girlfriend), plants marked money on him and sends the cops in to arrest him. The rest of the movie, the girlfriend is trying to get him out on bail and is pulled into and introduced to the prostitutes by her boss at the nail saloon(who's doubling as the other leader of the ring). The acting is actually decent in this B movie, but the story is slow to progress and it just doesn't pull you into the plight. The situation just seems a little too canned and Hollywood'ized(as if that we're a word) to have any believability in the characters and their problems. I realize this is a late 30's movie with low production values but the artists don't have enough to make the story worthwhile to watch or credible. Not bad, but definitely could have been better.


Lona Andre often played dizzy blondes but when she retired from films she became a successful real estate business woman. I can't find much evidence that she had many leads - A's, B's or Z's, her name was usually found in the middle to the bottom of the cast. At first she had parts in a couple of Bing Crosby movies - "College Humor" (1932) and "Too Much Harmony" (1933), then it was uncredited parts for Liberty Films "Two Heads On a Pillow" (1934) and "Let's Be Ritzy"(1934). So Lona, who seemed to be a bit dizzy in real life as well (her 4 day marriage to Edward Norris) must have jumped at the chance to star in a film that would give her the leading role. It was a J.D. Kendis production, who made films as cheaply as possible but managed to get reputable directors and familiar screen faces.

A girl, Mary Lou (Louise Small), is found wandering along the road and is taken home to her mother. She jumped from a car driven by a gang of hoodlums, who were planning to kidnap her for prostitution. Acting on her information the police raid "BerryWood" road house and rescue 7 girls. She also identifies the driver "Good Looking Freddie" (he isn't)(Matty Roubert). Her friend Dona (Lona Andre) is a manicurist in a beauty salon that is a front for criminal activities. She doesn't realise this, but she is a bit suspicious of the bevy of pretty girls that are constantly applying for jobs.

Dona and her fiancé, Phil, (Donald Reed) are on the spot when "Good Looking Freddie" is rubbed out. Phil, an unemployed reported gets the scoop, but the editor is suspicious - how was he lucky enough to be an eyewitness - he must be involved with the mob. He isn't but he does bet on horses and when placing a bet is given stolen money and then goes to jail for extortion. Dona goes to her boss for help in raising money for his bond. She directs Dona to Murray (Wheeler Oakman) who, she says can help. Mary Lou thinks she recognises Murray from her nightmare car ride but Dona refuses to believe her. When she later meets Murray at the "Bubble Up" Club, she is shown around and realises it is a brothel and the girls were the applicants for the manicurist jobs. One thing that makes this plot a bit different - Dona is innocently entrapped in the world of vice - she is not a crusading reporter going undercover. Undercover is what the plot seems to be. As with a lot of these exploitation movies - it is hard to figure out what "vice" is involved - unless it is the crime of bad variety acts!!!


Well the title is a lot more suggestive than the story ever gets to be. The most exploitative this flick ever gets is showing a half dozen or so young girls in their undies, and they didn't seem to mind all that much. The trigger for the plot occurs right at the outset with a botched kidnap attempt (the girl was walking home from church!!!!), and from then on it's about getting the goods on a traveling prostitution ring. Darn if my timing isn't just SO coincidental with the Eliot Spitzer mess, but no one here looked anything like 'Kristen', Ashley Alexandra Dupre, or whatever name she might be using right now. But it was made seventy years ago, so I guess we can cut it some slack.

You know, I couldn't figure out why Good Looking Freddie was such a klutz - didn't he ever read the newspapers? He would have known he was a hot commodity before Big Jim Murray (Wheeler Oakman) and Belle Harris (Florence Dudley) ever put the finger on him.

And holy cow! - what was with those two boarding house guys with the goofy acrobatics? You would think that for an exploitation film, the principals involved could have made use of more stimulating filler related to the topic. Like a few more shots of the hookers in their underwear. It's all a stretch, I know, but there are so many good grief moments in the picture that it strains credibility on so many levels.

I doubt you'll catch this one on any of your favorite cable channels, but stay alert and it will pop up as part of a four disc, twenty film DVD set from Mill Creek Entertainment, that's to be commended for putting out tons of old material like this under various headings. This set goes by the way of 'Cult Classics', and it's a hoot to catch a whole barrel full of 1930's era 'educational' films related to the evils of the day, which quite coincidentally managed to make it to the present time. I guess we haven't really learned that much since, have we?


I was really impressed with how well this movie has "aged." Walter Natthau plays that role of the alcoholic wash-out to perfection, and Tatum O'Neal portrays the struggle of a young girl trying to enter adolescence without losing her sense of "self" with delicacy and skill. It's a good story,with quite a bit serious to say about human nature and the understandings and misunderstandings between generations; it makes me mad that it never received the attention it deserved because it's "just" about kids. On a sadder note, I also couldn't help being impressed with how far this culture has regressed since 1976. The children's use of even mild profanity would never be permitted now in a "family film," and the wonderful scene at the end would certainly send the Thought Police running for their placards and boycotts. It's worth watching this film again just to remind ourselves that only 30 years ago children still enjoyed some autonomous space in which to grow, and the iron doors of the Nanny State had not yet completely swung closed upon them.


"Bad News for the Athletics!" This movie should be required viewing for parents and coaches of any sport at any level. It reminds me of what is wrong about youth sports, but at the same time what makes youth sports great. There are many lessons to be learned from this movie. It is sad, but many parents and coaches continue to make the game about themselves and not about the children playing. Bad News Bears shows just how ridiculous that type of attitude regarding youth sports is.

Bad News Bears is the original kids/sports movie without the Disney cliches. There isn't a clear cut bad guy, each coach (Buttermaker and Turner) have there faults and motivation. It is also refreshing that the movie does not have the typical Hollywood ending, but instead one that is fitting for the team sponsored by Chico's Bail Bonds.

Bad News Bears is also a great reminder of life in the late 1970s, the uniforms, clothes, cars, etc. Finally, it is an entertaining movie, especially for anyone who has played little league baseball (or any youth sport). It makes me laughs every time I watch it.


Scrappy pool-cleaner (and former ballplayer) in Southern California gets talked into coaching Little League to a bunch of no-talent boys. I don't think I've ever seen another movie that captured this bit of Americana so vividly: you can almost smell the freshly-cut grass and the cigar smoke in the air! One of Walter Matthau's many triumphs, and Tatum O'Neal as the pitching ace is also terrific (especially in the dug-out scene where she tries involving Matthau in her life and he cracks, sending her away in tears: "You don't wanna go, fine, no big deal."). The young boys are mostly all wonderful: Alfred Lutter, from "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore", as the nerdy brain; Jackie Earle Haley as the cool kid with shades and motorcycle; Brandon Cruz, from "The Courtship of Eddie's Father", as the pitcher for the enemy-team. The film has some overacting and is occasionally sloppy (with the boom-mike showing, as well as O'Neal's stand-in in a wig), but is otherwise extremely well-written and designed and directed. In 1976, this had kids and adults lining up to see it, so I wouldn't consider the picture a 'sleeper' or an underrated film. It was a big commercial box-office hit and there is an audience for it wherever there's a DVD player and a screen. ***1/2 from ****


Hilarious film with a darker side that sometimes pokes through, especially in its serious moments. This is classic Walter Matthau, and classic Jackie Earle Haley, too! (Love that air hockey scene!) It reminds me of my childhood, and not many movies do. I can watch this film a dozen times and never get tired of it.