Bride Wars (2009), I potentially thought this movie could turn out to be one of those quirky, funny, well thought out and acted comedies that occasionally come out of Hollywood. To be honest that is the only reason I agreed to accompany my Girlfriend to the movies to see it.

However my enthusiasm was quickly suppressed, and I realised early on that the movie might actually turn out to be like so many other, forgettable, overly sentimental and almost pointless comedies that Hollywood are also famous for producing.

What didn't I like.

Well its not very funny, there is pretty much ZERO laugh out loud moments in the entire movie. From start to end.

The men the two lead (and talented) actresses are marrying are cardboard cutouts with ZERO character development and thanks to that are totally unlikable. How can we care about their individual engagement's and marriage's if there is no bridge built between us and them.

The "War",or more like the "playground type spats" are also extremely disappointing. No originality or real fun attached to anything they do to each other.

The "I could see it coming from 10 minutes in" ending, the whole Brother/potential failed marriage issue, once again completely unoriginal.

I also couldn't quite get it round my head that two life-long friends that plainly love each other could actually be so cruel to each other.

The WTF moment....the dance off scene, what were they thinking?? Cringe cringe and lets all cringe again.

I do however agree that both Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway (particularly) are fine actresses, and are both very pleasing to the eye. The scene in which they "make-up" is actually quite touching and well acted. Shame about the rest of course.

Overall a pretty poor effort at a romantic comedy. The fact there is no romance and no comedy probably explains why.

Its not a complete car crash, but its a very empty film which I'm sure I will quickly forget I actually seen. Then one day I will spot it in the TV listings and have a vague memory of watching it.

Hopefully this is only a one time bad blip on Anne Hathaway's otherwise impressive career to date. As for Kate, well lets just think about a new agent, bad movies are becoming part of the course for her career as late.

3/10 Watchable....but only just. In my opinion not for shelling out cinema prices to experience. Leave this one for viewing via TV, rental or bargain basement DVD prices.


Director Gary Winick ought to be ashamed of himself for creating such utter garbage as this and spitting on cinema's potential. The film is legitimate "anti-cinema", sort of a big screen TV pilot that doesn't even come close to the quality of contemporary TV. It exists in a curious time warp of brainless, vapid twaddle that would boggle any intelligent mind. Clearly, "Bride Wars" isn't aimed at intelligent minds. At the session I attended with my partner, several unfortunate looking, slightly overweight women constantly texted and glanced upwards occasionally at the screen. It has become infuriating to watch movies at the cinema with these little glowing squares popping up all around you in the dark as you're trying to concentrate. I told two of these women to stop texting and was met with moronic, vacant stares. These people are the audience for "Bride Wars", although they're not the only ones texting; that's a cancer that has infected cinema going worldwide. As you would expect, the dreadful and vile Kate Hudson toplines this hideous wreck. She opted to smear her entire career with cinematic manure years ago, so her appearance in this was inevitable. Not so Ann Hathaway, who recently starred in and was quite good in the highly overrated "Rachel Getting Married". At least that had a semi-decent script and was directed by a filmmaker, not a fraud and betrayer of Real Men. Is Hathaway being groomed to replace Hudson? Or maybe Jennifer Anniston? I sincerely hope not. The story is simple and predictable. Hudson and Hathaway have been friends since childhood. They once visited a famous New York hotel and witnessed a wedding. From that moment, these vacuous, boring women have been obsessed with getting married at the same hotel on the same day. Zoom forward two decades. Hudson is now a horrible lawyer and an utter bitch. Hathaway is a slightly more tolerable, doormat-type girl who has just been proposed to. Hudson is angry about that. She is so angry, in fact, that she marches into the office of her pussy-whipped fiancé and demands he propose to her, which he does. If you're looking for strong, independent men who wouldn't put up with a minute of this woman's crap, you're in the wrong movie. These movies are all about men (most men, actually) who've been brainwashed into thinking that their job in life is to make women's dreams come true. Screw their own ambitions. These guys have no balls at all. Anyway, once these two dreadful dames are engaged, they visit wedding planner Candace Bergen, who informs them that it won't be possible for them to get married on the same day because the hotel is fully booked. That's when the film starts earning its "Bride Wars" title. Although they've been buddies for years, these so-called friends plot and scheme to ruin each other's "Big Day". This really is frightening film-making. Starting with the premise that a woman's wedding is "The Biggest Day Of Her Life" (how depressing!), it goes from bad to much worse as director (?) Winick rapes every cliché in the book in his attempt to milk laughs from the retarded script. Not only does everything end "happily" (if you can call getting married to Kate Hudson happy), the writers contradict their own logic in order to contrive a resolution. Although everybody has been told that there is no room at the hotel for two weddings (which is the basic dramatic set-up), the climax takes place at the hotel as the two weddings take place in two difference areas. Huh?! Sloppy? You bet. Hathaway is probably too young to realize that making this would do nothing for her career. Then again, she probably made a killing financially, so who cares, right? I do, but that's silly of me. Not surprisingly, the film opened with healthy grosses, guaranteeing that more of its stinking, rancid ilk will be rolling down the assembly line very soon. The fat, homely "princesses" out there should be ecstatic.


I saw this movie yesterday,even after reading some comments on this site. I found it pretty good.it's certainly not the movie of the year,but since when a comedy is?The movie is light and there are some funny moments. If you're looking for something light to watch, something just for not thinking for 90 minutes, then it's that kind of movie. I don't know what people here were awaiting for this movie?Something that would make your brain working?If yes, well they were wrong go seeing this movie. It's not Davinci Code. This movie is about two young girls dreaming of a wedding in a hotel in particular. I think the movie just shows what some little girls, when kids, were dreaming of.I think, few or many years ago, it was common to see little girls dreaming of it and maybe the movie just shows the audience what was once a dream and now with the society,well the wedding is getting a bit something people forget about,the true goal of it maybe.There might be parts of the movie that married people would find funny as maybe it was their case. I'm not talking about all the bi***y parts of it between the two girls of the movie!Yes there are some cruels pranks and some are like "come on!idiot!"and you're starting a bit to think that it's a bit over exaggerated about all the pranks.But it also showed, above all these cruel and stupid pranks, what even best friend can do to the other one. I didn't think the acting was bad. In fact,it's a C-O-M-E-D-Y!Not a big drama or action movie or something like that!I think the acting was good and I personally don't really look at the acting when I watch a movie,I'm more interested about the movie and what's happening than the acting,except if it's a really bad acting like in some movies I saw and forgot the tittle. So I think, to have a clear opinion on that movie,you should go and see it by yourself and make you own opinion than making your own only by reading the comments. It's not a big theater movie and it will probably stay a long time so maybe wait for it to come on DVD if you're not sure about seeing it or not.


i will tell you what happened at -my- theatre, full of young folks apparently on dates and so forth, packed to the gills, in flyover America.

people laughed. there were some very funny moments in this movie. i did not know there was a 'butter of the month club'. this is a line that could be found in any of the ben stiller, or Judd apatow, or will Ferrel, or Seinfeld or Larry David shows. and here, i find it just as funny.

Kate Hudson does a very good job of playing her role, and this whole 'overeating' thing is a perfect example... in the theatre i was in, it worked, the audience did, in fact, laugh out loud.

Anne Hathaway is a great movie star, because she can play the buddy thing... i mean to say that she is not trying to take over the movie, even though she could, and i loved that.

people will say she is 'wasting' herself playing these types of movies. well, maybe she should go shoot people or blow things up and make big bucks, but maybe she doesn't want to. the parts she is playing are very hard to do well, she brings so much to them. it is hard to play this ordinary life stuff.

the characters around the main are good as well. i especially liked the devious little assistant to Kate Hudson's character, he played that perfectly and it was written well, and got a good number of laughs for his antics. the crazy school colleague had several good lines, talking about "i do so much for you". very funny. and unusual. i liked seeing this type of psychology in a movie role because we all know people who act like that sometimes, but you don't see a lot of it in the movies.

why do people, then, hate this movie so much? well, i personally found the ending rather unsatisfying... it 'shocked' me out of my "suspension of disbelief"... i didn't see how things could be so 'resolved' after 10 years of courtship, to dump it all out in a few minutes. it seemed a little silly to me. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but the way it was written did not hit home with me, the way the rest of the movie did.

i can only surmise that people who hated it, found the entire thing to be what i found the last minute or two to be... a little bit too trite and neatly wrapped up.

but, i am willing to let all that slide... because at the core of the movie is a good story about relationships... which is what all movies are really, even Star Wars. OK, i don't know about Hostel because i didn't see it. but Im just saying, this movie might look superficial but it is not really.

i know they talk about dress designers and shoes and crap like that, but to some people, that stuff is the equivalent of the Rambo 'strapping on his weapons' scenes, or scenes in other movies where they go on and on about types of weaponry, or guns or techno babble on star trek episodes or whatever. or... sports. you all know the person who plays fantasy football and can go on for hours about it, well thats how these people are with weddings and everything that goes around weddings. but i think that is kind of the point..... the movie is not about weddings, its about the relationships between people.

anyways, if you are into stuff like 27 dresses, or that movie with the t-mobile lady and the dude from 'thank you for smoking', or nanny diaries, or other stuff like that... you will probably dig it, or at least parts of it. i would even go so far as to say fans of "meet the fockers" might find something in this film worthwhile.

now the other problem i had with the movie was envy, i envied these people with all their lifelong friendships and so forth and so on. but eventually it all breaks down and they find themselves just as lost as the rest of us... what can i say. i don't understand why people hate this movie so much, just like i don't understand why people hated the nanny diaries. oh well.


I honestly can't believe how serious some reviewers (most of them women) are taking Bride Wars. They are calling it feminist set back, chauvinistic and unrealistic. God forbid anyone let go of reality for a couple hours to enjoy a film especially a comedy and as a comedy, chick flick or not, a fun, hilarious, slapstick movie that anyone could enjoy. It's ridiculous to think that the movie is trying to anti-feminist or even try to stereotype anyone. Instead it's simply an amusing, slapstick ride about two best friends. My expectations for the film weren't all that high, I expected predictability and probably nothing too far from the beaten path but I was pleasantly surprised that the actors pulled off a riot of a movie and the story was watchable and not dragging. Screenplay co-writer Casey Wilson comes from Saturday Night Live which certainly helps with the comedy aspect but I think the style and character to the film is the lead actors. While neither actor really gets a lot of depth to her character they still have good solid chemistry and both are talented comediennes.

Anne Hathaway has really come a long way as an actor. I instantly fell in love with her style and comedy in The Princess Diaries and have enjoyed her in a lot of other roles. She is a very talented actress but she can also let loose and just have fun and that's what her role in Bride Wars is all about. She is the more serious, down to earth of the two and although some have reviewed her character as weak I think she just shows a softer side than Hudson. Kate Hudson lets loose as the darker perhaps more mean spirited side of the two. She doesn't really go so far as to make you dislike her but she certainly isn't the more likable. Still she does a decent job but honestly I think Hathaway makes Hudson look better. Hathaway just has a style for physical comedy. Chris Pratt and Steve Howey play their significant others and I'm sure they both are decent actors but this doesn't really showcase their ability. The film focuses on the two girls. Candice Bergen could have been pretty spectacular because she is a very talented comedienne but she doesn't get a lot of screen time or character development. Kristen Johnston on the other hand is hilarious as the naive and abrasive friend to Hathaway.

The key to really enjoying Bride Wars is to not take the film seriously. I mean it is a comedy and perhaps a "chick flick" but the film was made for a certain demographic and it works!! Hathaway and Hudson are great together and you will laugh out loud and just really enjoy the film. It is probably true that a female director might have made the film different but Gary Winick is not new to the concept having worked on female favorites like Ugly Betty and the film 13 Going On 30. I think it's ridiculous and to call a film chauvinistic because it features two women who have dreams of their wedding which happens to be a little bit old fashion perhaps? Point is guy or gal, date, or Saturday Night alone this film will make you smile. 8/10


Given its fusion of the spheres of materialistic excess and idealized romantic love, the immense presence of the wedding within popular culture should come as little surprise, being arguably the single most prevalent 'happy ending' plot point and often an easy way of concisely suggesting a lifetime of resolution and happiness. As such, the treatment of weddings within mainstream film tends to take on a somewhat birfucated approach, either challenging and questioning the reality of such a romanticized social construction, or relishing in the fun and overt sentiment of the sort of wedding everyone has been taught to yearn for. With this in mind, Bride Wars becomes an intriguing example of Hollywood's prevailing treatment of the 'wedding film' subgenre - while its premise initially suggests a critique and send up of the lavish excesses of popular weddings, the film can ultimately not avoid caving to syrupy cliché and delivering an adoring treatment to the social institution it initially promised to challenge.

The film as a whole reflects this rocky tonal imbalance, which only serves to expose many of its deeper and more insulting flaws and shortcomings. Despite a vaguely absurd sounding premise (two best friends, both engaged on the same day, are forced to fight for their ideal wedding venue, causing a rift and fighting between one another), the film retained promise, with 'sad but true' kernels of profundity (how easily a friendship can be thrown to the winds and the common theme of the superficial flashiness of weddings overcoming the feelings involved, among others) which could have resulted in a satisfactory satire in the hands of a capable director or careful, intricate script. Unfortunately, Bride Wars could not be more sorely lacking on either front, and as such, the film as a whole quickly descends into being more of a disaster than either protagonist's pending weddings, with the rare successful trace of broad satire often undermined by the screen writing's tendency to cave to easy, sap- fraught cliché and plot-be-damned circumstance, making even its occasional high points feel deflated and redundant.

Otherwise the film could be used as a textbook example of lazy, sloppy screen writing and a checklist of mainstream romance centered (if not outright 'rom-com') comedy clichés, pounded into the audience's head through drawn out, dreary slapstick lacking the necessary acerbic spark to be any sort of funny, and a particularly wearisome array of cathartic emotional speeches. If there is a single positive note among the deluge of negative, the film does boast a climactic twist which manages to be slightly unpredictable and vaguely realistic - both shocking surprises in a film which could not be farther from either quality overall. Of course, this brief moment of innovation is quickly superseded by yet another sloppy, cliché- inundated patch of screen writing, but for a matter of minutes, the film hints at the exponentially superior film which might have resulted from its chaotic, sickening mess. Even the musical score is woefully unoriginal, succeeding only in making each increasingly banal development all the more difficult to stomach.

It is a common practice in many such female geared mainstream comedies to have frustratingly underdeveloped male characters, and Bride Wars gleefully carries on such a trait, with the barely glimpsed male figures reduced to cardboard cut-outs, or pantomimes of masculinity which fulfill only a single note of characterisation or narrative function (the "sweet guy", insensitive jock, etc.). One scene has Kate Hudson's character lying in bed with her fiancé, expressing her sorrows at how alone she feels and completely ignoring his attempts at consoling and comforting her - while a particularly insulting moment in a film chock full of them, it also demonstrates how utterly unimportant the men in the film are whatsoever. However, a less common genre trait is to have the female characters painted in just as superficial, reductionist terms as the men in the story, yet Bride Wars proves just as determined to reduce both sexes to insulting stereotypes, including, to a worrisomely large degree, its protagonists.

As such, the film's only real saving grace is the luminous presence of Anne Hathaway. Despite being stuck with a tiresomely familiar role (the overly caring woman who forgets to look after her own needs), Hathaway refuses to succumb entirely to convention, and instead infuses her character with a spark of gutsy enthusiasm and her seemingly unquenchable trademark charisma and quirky charm - the only mercifully palatable element in the film, and clearly a far better piece of acting than such a film deserves. Unfortunately Kate Hudson does not match up, making the sympathies of the viewer, intended to be evenly distributed among protagonists, feel substantially one sided. While Hudson is not a disaster by any means, she simply appears to float by on autopilot, refusing to devote enough energy, warmth or comedic spark to breath life into her character, and as such coming across as somewhat of a selfish, unlikeable miser, a black hole of characterisation. Supposed comic relief from Candice Bergen as an obsessive wedding planner translates instead into only more tiresome drivel, and her contribution of a hilariously out of place narration only further draws to light the ignorant and lazy screen writing, as if refusing to simply let the narrative develop on its own.

But what is perhaps the most objectionable to Bride Wars is how seemingly inoffensively bland it is, as if the filmmakers and cast could not muster up the energy to be as outlandishly terrible as most other films with as little going for them. As such, Bride Wars is not only resoundingly poor on just about every possible front, but unenthusiastically so, making the film not only cringe-worthy to watch, but also rather boring. Even fans of the genre in search of light, superficial entertainment are unlikely to derive much enjoyment from such an altogether uninspired and tiresomely predictable piece of cinematic refuse.

-2/10


In Manhattan, the lawyer Liv (Kate Hudson) and the school teacher Emma (Anne Hathaway) have been best friends since their childhood. They both are proposed by their boyfriends on the same day and they plan their wedding parties in Plaza Hotel, using the services of the famous Marion St. Claire (Candice Bergen). However, due to a mistake of Marion's secretary, their weddings are scheduled for the same day. None of them accepts to change the date and they become enemies, trying to sabotage the wedding party of the rival.

The deceptive "Bride Wars" is a mediocre and corny silliness. The predictable screenplay is imbecile and never funny, and wastes the talented Anne Hathaway and Kate Hudson in ridiculous roles. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Noivas em Guerra" ("Brides in War")


I went into the cinema with very low expectations. Very low. I'm usually very lenient with films and am not picky, but this film, honestly, If I hadn't been there with a friend, I would have got up and left. My expectations weren't even close to being met.

The film surrounds two best friends, who, by mistake, have their wedding booked in the same place, same day, and oh my gosh, can you believe it, the same time!!!! Shocking, isn't it? Neither of them want to move their date, so they start fighting. Then, the film takes you through a series of weak attempts to get back at one another. Totally unpredictable, I know. That's basically the entire film, aside from what is supposedly a "surprising twist" to finish of the film.

The script was empty and there was no chemistry at all.

I had virtually no expectations of this film, but I some how came out disappointed.

Unless this is the ONLY film left in your video rental store, do not rent or buy it. You'll regret it.


After reading the reviews for this film, most of which were, to put it nicely, largely negative, I came under the impression that this movie was going to be the cinematic equivalent of being forced to watch someone kill your dog right after they were done eating your firstborn child. But after looking at the cover of the DVD package and seeing the films two leading ladies (one of whom is one of my favorite actresses) smiling and looking heart-breakingly radiant, I thought to myself, could the film really be THAT bad?

The answer to that question: Yes...and no.

Make no mistake about it: Bride Wars is a complete and utter piece of celluloid trash. It's both a poorly-scripted attempt at satirizing the Bridezilla phenomenon and a poorly-scripted fable about the unbreakable bonds of true friendship. It's told with one-dimensional characters and enough clichés to fill the Grand Canyon.

So, why don't I find myself hating this film as much as I should be? The sad truth is, there is just enough good about this film to make me realize that there is a truly hilarious comedy buried somewhere in this mess of a film.

The biggest problem I have with this film is its insistence on trying to come off at times as being a semi-serious film about friendship and the perils of romance. The fact is, the writing and performances in this film are simply not strong enough for anyone to take the film's periodic attempts at being earnest seriously, especially after considering how over-the-top the actions of the two main characters are.

Which segues into the other major problem I have with this movie. The screenwriters were pulling their punches far too often with the comedy; as if they were too afraid of being so over-the-top that nobody would take their film seriously. The fact is, no one was rightly going to watch a film titled "Bride Wars" expecting it to be sincere, heartwarming social commentary. While some critics have, understandably, harshly condemned this movie for making its main characters seem like shallow caricatures who are disturbingly obsessed with the superficial aspects of their respective weddings, I believe that these criticisms are overblown and assume too much about the apparent progressiveness of our society. The fact is, humans can be absurdly obsessed with the superficial at times, and just because this movie overblows this concept a bit does not automatically make the film wrong just because the main characters happen to be women.

That said, this movie was at its best when it was at its most over-the-top. For example, seeing Anne Hathaway's character walk around the busy streets of New York with a beyond-gaudy pumpkin-orange tan as a result of a prank pulled by Kate Hudson's character was goofy and fun, and I think that the writers could have done more with that circumstance than what they conjured up. The same could be said about a number of other parts in the film where the main characters were acting spiteful towards each other, such as Hudson and Hathaway's showdown at the bachelorette party and the climactic cat-fight between the two during the wedding ceremony. Both scenes were well-conceived but ultimately came up short in terms of just how fun they wound up being, especially after considering the comedic talents of both Hudson and Hathaway.

I can only wonder just how crazy these scenes and others in the movie could have been had the writers had enough guts to admit to themselves that the insanity in the film was its best aspect, gone for broke, and made the feud between the two ladies truly rambunctious and demented. This unwillingness to be truly zany extends to the characters themselves, as the writers are either unable or unwilling to let the characters embrace their inner caricature to a point in which the film's comedy might have taken flight.

For what it's worth, Hudson and Hathaway (both of whom are shot by the cinematographer in a manner that makes them glow a bit) do the best they can with what they have to work with, with Hathaway's performance a bit more well-rounded due to her character actually being given a chance to develop somewhat. The chemistry between the two is a bit hit-and-miss, but generally they play off each other pretty well. Her annoying voice-over narration of the film aside, Candice Bergen does a decent job with her control-freak wedding planner character, while Kristen Johnston's performance as Hathaway's lousy co-worker is memorable mainly for being irritating and unfunny. The rest of the performances in the movie are thankless and forgettable.

When all is said and done, the film's insistence on not embracing its inner cartoon winds up costing it dearly in the fun department. What results is a bland, inoffensive chick flick that, at best, might make a decent rental for a young bride or bride-to-be willing to stomach its saccharine sentimentality and its half-baked characters and attempts at humor.


It was because of circumstances beyond my control that I was dragged in to watch Bride Wars in the first place, and while I can't avoid admitting that I was truly, truly suffering for the first 30 minutes, I would be lying if I said the film is devoid of laughs. By that, of course, I mean that I did laugh out loud once or twice, briefly, and I was even pleasantly surprised by a mildly unexpected plot development late in the movie. But don't worry, everything else goes strictly by the age-old wedding movie formula.

Anne Hathaway and Kate Hudson play Emma and Liv, two twentysomethings who have been inseparable best friends since childhood. They have always shared everything, their triumphs, their failures, their emotions, their struggles, their hopes, and of course, their dream of getting married in exactly the same place, the luxurious Plaza Hotel (yes, it's a hotel). Much effort is put forth to get us to understand how close this friendship is, but in their efforts to get themselves engaged, a deep streak of competitiveness is revealed in both of them. Particularly Liv, who doesn't know better than to go jogging into her boyfriend's office and, dripping sweat, blurt out some nonsense about how he should propose to her.

Thus is revealed the massive fallacy of logical thinking that permeates the entire movie  ladies, I'm sorry to sound like a chauvinist or whatever, but the run-up to your wedding is not the best time to start acting like a lunatic. Just a suggestion. Not that the grooms would notice, of course, especially not in this movie. Their sole job in the movie isn't just to not notice things, but to not be noticed. They are as unimportant as the honeymoon, which is never mentioned because the girls childhood dreams never extended beyond the wedding ceremony. Maybe they just planned to head on upstairs for a June honeymoon at the Plaza, too?

Anyway, the girls get engaged within like, you know, minutes of each other, and then, due to a moronic clerical error, they accidentally get scheduled to be married at the Plaza Hotel at the exact same time on the exact same day.

And henceforth, ladies and gentlemen, it's war.

First of all, I will say that I have a tough time relating to this belligerent scramble to get married absolutely as soon as humanly possible, but that may simply be because I'm a guy. And if you take nothing else from this review, understand this, Bride Wars is NOT a movie made with the male audience in mind.

But I'm willing to accept it, at least as an offshoot of the unspoken jealousy that seems to be finally emerging between them. You see, Liv has enjoyed some success as a lawyer while Emma is an underpaid schoolteacher, and ultimately Liv's sense of entitlement combined with Emma's decision that she's just not gonna take it anymore set up the escalating conflict that takes up the rest of the movie, but from here there's nowhere else to go except down the well-trodden path of half-assed romantic comedies.

The biggest problem with the movie is that it tries to get us to laugh as we sit bewildered at how these life-long friends came to such childish blows as viciously sabotaging each other's dreams for reasons of such astonishing selfishness that not only their own grooms really factor into their heads. In fact, I'm surprised the movie didn't get an R rating for all the violence! Blue hair! Orange spray-on tans! Beware, this stuff is not for the squeamish!

Of course, my favorite one was where Emma sends Liv enormous daily gift baskets consisting mainly of chocolates and cookies and, you know, butter (actual quote: "You mean you sat around eating sticks of butter from all over the world?"), because Emma was hoping she would gain enough weight to where she wouldn't be able to fit into her Vera Wang dress (for those of you who don't know Vera Wangs are supposed to be like, super super tight for some reason, and thus insanely expensive). Of course the plan succeeds, but the movie never really lets us know if it was the candy that made her gain weight or the sheer quantity of stupidity inside her that would be necessary for her not to figure out what was going on.

But I will tell you this. Something happens involving one of the weddings that may even qualify as more than mildly surprising, because you just don't see this kind of thing in this kind of movie anymore. You'll know what I mean, it's the part just before Liv and Emma forget about their months of hatred toward each other as they lay amidst the ruins of both of their weddings surrounded by the surely disgusted families.

Oh, yeah, they're best friends at the end. Is that a spoiler? I don't think so. Maybe. But if you can see a movie poster like this one and not immediately see the arc of the story, well then, you have bigger problems than some guy online ruining the end of a bad comedy.

Besides, wouldn't it be more dishonest if I allowed you to spend your time and money watching this thing without knowing what you were getting into? In a situation like this, just trust me, it's better for you to be warned about the movie than to be warned about spoilers about the movie.


I don't even know where to begin with this wretched excuse for a movie. Two very unlikeable (and hard to look at) women are obsessed with their selfish desires to have the "perfect" wedding that they can't even share it with their best friend. In the end, it says "Don't fight with your friend...they'll give up eventually and let you have your own wedding." I can't even stand to look at the poster for this crap. I don't even want to write this review. It's a waste of time. Just like this movie. Only worse. I'd rather cut off my big toes and run from Maine to Mexico non-stop while simultaneously sticking blood-sucking leaches all over my crotch. That's how bad this movie is (if you knew me, you'd know how important my crotch and toes are to me).

The utter selfishness of the two lead characters just pisses you off so much that you do hope something bad happens to both of them and when such things (and believe me, not nearly bad enough) happen, you won't laugh. You'll just sneer evilly because that's what you want to happen. Honestly, I was hoping one of them would either kill the other during a childish cat fight or accidentally stepped in front of traffic. Hell, a murder mystery does sound a hell of a lot more interesting anyway.

This is going on my list of the worst of 2009. Without a doubt. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must redeem myself for putting my mind through that kind of torture and watch something good.


Okay, I liked "Bride Wars". Admittedly "Bride Wars" is not any sort of Oscar threat. It is a funny and sweet, albeit clumsy erratic romantic comedy. Anne Hathaway and Kate Hudson are great. In particular Anne Hathaway provides the emotional anchor in this fluffy romance. Director Gary Winick directed "13 Going on 30" a few years back which was really well done. "Bride Wars" is not as good. However, I think it redeems itself for its heart and sentiment. Hudson and Hathaway play childhood best friends Liv and Emma, who always dreamed of getting married at the Plaza Hotel in New York. 20 years later Liv and Emma find themselves engaged and hire Wedding Coordinator extraordinaire Marion St. Claire (classic Candice Bergen). They get their wish: dream June Weddings at The Plaza Hotel. Liv and Emma being soul sisters, of course will be each other's Maid of Honor.

Predictably due to a glitch by Marion's assistant Liv and Emma's weddings are booked on the same day. Of course type A driven corporate attorney Liv (Hudson) initially expects "nice girl" school teacher Emma (Hathaway) to acquiesce. But neither will back down. Thus, begins the "Bride Wars". This is nearly as ridiculous as "The Clone Wars", although intentionally funny. We witness catty exchanges. Emma says, "Your wedding's gonna be huge, just like your ass at prom." Liv replies, "Your wedding can suck it." Not always inspired repartee. There is a hilarious bit where Liv expounds the Zen quality of Vera Wang.

When Liv and Emma are at each other's throat there are hysterical moments. Liv causes Emma to turn orange at a tanning salon. Emma fattens up Liv by sending gift food baskets to her office-- Liv thinking they are from her fiancé Daniel (understanding Steve Howay). They include cookies and sweets. But the classic is that Liv actually consumes the butters of the world mix.

Despite the unevenness, writers Greg DePaul and Casey Wilson delve underneath the high jinx: looking at whether Liv and Emma have found their respective soul mates in Daniel (Howay) and Fletcher (Chris Pratt). It's not entirely what we expected. At a narrative catharsis the vulnerable Hathaway's Emma exclaims, "I can't do this" This goes to perhaps the underlying theme expressed so eloquently by Bergen's Marion," the one person who knows you sometimes better than you know yourself is the same person who's been standing beside you all along."

The shortcoming of "Bride Wars" is not sustaining this eloquence throughout, when it deserves it. Hathaway infuses some of the needed poignancy here: As she really looks at her life when she talks with her dear friend, who also is Liv's solid brother Nate (charming Bryan Greenberg). Hudson, although seemingly having a bad hair movie, is at her quirky and spirited best playing the strung too tight Liv. What "Bride Wars" misses is more quiet time between gags, so Liv and Emma can just be. It's hysterical seeing Hathaway pole dancing. But it is also touching seeing Liv hug Emma's Dad.

Hathaway, Hudson, and Bergen make up for much of the rougher spots of the screenplay. "Bride Wars" works, because it is the story of best friends and soul mates who get distracted from what is really importantlove. In the end "Bride Wars" gets it right.


If you really feel the need to go to this movie, please leave anyone you know of the male gender at home. This movie is.... terrifying. My friend and I went to this with two other girls, and 1/2 way through the movie, he left, and it was just me and them. This movie was not funny at all. If you have seen the preview, you have seen the movie. They do not do any more 'funny' things to each other than what you see in the preview. The rest is full of bad, bad jokes, and very terrible plot twists, if you can even call it that. Please, do not make any other men see this movie, for the sake of his sanity. I hope you can understand, and I'm pretty sure the 4 1/2 star rating helps you understand my cause here.


Bride Wars is a movie, that has thankfully been erased from my memory, for the most part. How are we supposed to care for the two leads in Anne or Katie, when they act like spoiled little brats, to see who can get there wedding jammed in 1st?. Katie's character is so self centered, that it completely ruined a lot of the movie, and it disgusted me when Anne started stooping to her level. I didn't find this payback revenge funny, in fact I found it overly cruel. Romantic Comedies are supposed to be light hearted, with a sense of seriousness to it, but this goes far beyond mean spirited, I ended up hating both of them, when all was said and done!. The male love interests I didn't care for either.

Performances. Kate Hudson is an actress I like a lot of the time, but here she is too unlikable, for her own good. Her chemistry with Hathaway was OK, but nothing overly memorable. Anne Hathaway is her usual charming self, but becomes increasingly dis likable, once she starts stooping to Kate's level. Candice Bergen adds some classy support, but that's about it. Kristen Johnson's character I did not find amusing. Her whiny, it's all about me performance, often grated my nerves, I know that was the point, but still.

Bottom line. Bride Wars often tortured me, and I was glad when it was all said and done. This is not the way to make a Romantic Comedy. Some people might find this funny, but it's not for me. I'll most likely get a non useful for this review, but I don't care.

4/10


When Bride Wars first came out, the critic Mark Kermode was so confident that it would be on his Top 10 worst movies of 2009 that he declared he would give up movie reviewing if it wasn't (it was). Having now seen it myself, I see exactly where he was coming from. This is a horrible, horrible movie. There is nothing at all good about it.

The plot is totally nonsensical. Two best friends getting their weddings booked on the same day, and immediately turning on each other with pranks and sabotage efforts? How does that sound like a good movie concept?

But many things combine to ensure that nothing can be salvaged from this awful premise. It's no good as a comedy: none of the jokes are funny. The acting is as bland as it gets. And the characters themselves are wholly unlikeable: they are just selfish, two-dimensional people who have skewed priorities and are never properly called on it, and it is impossible to understand just why they're being so horrible to each other.

Regardless of your gender, do not watch this movie.


...because I wanted to watch this movie when it came out in theaters. Then I didn't rent it at Blockbuster for reasons I can't remember.

I watched it when it aired on HBO. And man, what a letdown.

The gorgeous Anne Hathaway was the main reason for me to watch this pile of crap. She doesn't save the day. Kate Hudson does her job but it isn't enough.

There isn't a single funny moment. This shouldn't be considered as a comedy or drama, or anything.

It's a dull, silly, pointless movie that doesn't delivers a single positive message for it's audience.

The sexy Anne Hathaway at least shows some skin during her dancing sequences and I thank her for that.

The humor is bland and you won't even smile. What was the intention of this movie?

The ending that deals with the pregnancy was an insult for cinema.


i loved this movie, i saw this movie when it came out on DVD,because of Kate Hudson, i had recently saw how to lose a guy in 10 days from my sister and loved that movie. when i saw this movie i thought it would be so funny,it didn't really have that many funny parts, there was a couple, me and my sister were cracking up when Kate woke up in the morning and her hair was blue and she went to work because she forgot to get it dyed back to blond,and she used her shirt and wrapped it around her head so the people she was working with wouldn't see her blue hair, and so during her meeting all she had on was her pants a suit jacket and her bra,and it was so funny.then when the shirt fell off her head and she was telling the people that she was fighting with her best friend and everything and then she sat down and she ripped of part of her hair and was like "oh my god i'm gonna be a bald bride"that was funny....it is a chick flick/comedy, for that reason it was good and i would totally watch it again. but its not like one of those comedy's where you are gonna keep laughing


I am so far removed from the target audience of this cartoonish, estrogen-heavy 2009 farce that it became a challenge to sit all the way through its blissfully brief 89-minute running time. The by-the-numbers screenplay by Greg DePaul, June Diane Raphael, and former SNL regular Casey Wilson could have been a sharp satire on the excesses of wedding-related commerce or a black comedy about competitiveness among the superficially entitled, either approach of which I would have praised. Sadly, it's neither, and as limply directed by Gary Winick ("13 Going on 30"), it seems targeted squarely to privileged pre-adolescent girls because the two principals reflect the obsessive, childish mindset of that age. Their emotional immaturity and sitcom-level behavior become draining.

This contemporary parable focuses on childhood best pals Liv and Emma, which of course in this movie's simplistic terms, means they are opposites in every possible way. Liv is the wealthy, über-ambitious lawyer and naturally the less sympathetic one, while Emma is a doormat struggling to make ends meet as a middle-school teacher. To meet the plot's dimensions, it is Liv who has the perfect boyfriend, all understanding and patience, while Emma has a live-in boyfriend who apparently has issues with her budding emancipation. Waiting in the wings is Liv's brother who is made to look so ideal that the screenplay might as well telegraph the resolution. The plot turns on a consultation with Manhattan's leading wedding planner Marion St. Clare, whose administrative assistant erroneously double-booked Liv's and Emma's wedding on the same June day at the Plaza Hotel. The rest of the movie is about how they one-up each other with fraternity-level pranks until the inevitable conclusion.

Kate Hudson (who also co-executive produced) seems to becoming a worse actress with every movie, as she plays almost every scene as Liv with the subtlety of a mime artist. I don't recognize any of the talent she showcased as free-spirit groupie Penny Lane in Cameron Crowe's "Almost Famous" nearly a decade ago. Anne Hathaway comes across marginally better as Emma, but that's like saying the Roadrunner has slightly more credibility than Wile E. Coyote. As Marion, Candice Bergen keeps playing the same role over and over again that I'm starting to wonder if a decade as Murphy Brown was a fluke. Kristen Johnston delivers the film's one truly sardonic note as Emma's fellow teacher-turned-maid of honor. The three men are mere background filler, although Bryan Greenberg ("Prime") looks to be making an attempt at a dimensional character. At least cinematographer Frederick Elmes gives the movie the appropriately polished sheen. The 2009 DVD contains three deleted scenes, all excisable, and an extended commercial for designer Vera Wang, whose wedding gowns are spotlighted in the film.


MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!! well I had my mind made up for this movie to be just plain horrible, according to the reviews, but since I had no choice but to buy it I did and wasn't REALLY disappointed.

I totally agree that the movie isn't really funny as it may seem in the trailer. I mean the fact of making ur rival fat and turning ur friend orange MAY seem funny 'but' they don't crack me up. But there was SOMETHING about it that made me keep watching it.

Let me make myself clear, this movie is NOT outstanding in my opinion. There are little things that are really little, but they are very important.

Emma (Anne Hathaway)is the quiet and caring, while Liv (Kate Hudson) is aggressive and strong willed. But this experience makes them realize that it's not who the REALLY are. First off Liv has a lot of moral support from her fiancé while Emma doesn't. And at the end of the film we see them as opposites from who they were at the start.

It may seem silly but if you watch carefully, you will see what I mean. So if your looking for a good chick flick comedy, maybe this is ideal. But if your just looking for a movie on a rainy day, it isn't that bad.


This is my first time posting. I just watched Bride Wars on HBO. I loved it. Sometimes people take movies too seriously. It was not meant to be a Oscar worthy movie. It was just supposed to entertain you for 90 minutes.

Yes, females can be catty. But the movie showed how two best friends can work out their differences. Every little girl dreams that her wedding day is going to be perfect. Some women do go a little crazy when it comes to their wedding day. Anne and Kate played their roles to the hilt.

The dresses were beautiful. It was great to see Candice Bergmon in a movie again.


I've just got back from watching this delightful film at the London Film Festival. I have to say that I was not expecting a lot as I had booked the tickets on a whim, But wow! was I glad I did.

This film is a show case of everything good about European cinema. Characters that the audience really care about with a gripping story which makes you laugh and cry, all carried by an everyday reality. Everything lacking from much of Hollywood's output.

Essentially the story covers the troubles of daily life of 3 generations, the young seeking sex, drugs and rock and roll. The middle aged repairing or seeking new relationships and the old saying goodbye. However what binds this story is the way the three generations interweave and rely on each other to get through.

I found this a really funny, touching film and a genuine must see.


This film contains more of the real Spain than any other that I've seen. Funny, lovely, sweet and about real life. Best film to remember your country and the important things of life when you're away. Fantastic script, but gonna be really difficult to translate... If at any point you can understand this film in Spanish, you won't need to pass any real language test. Actors do a superb job as well. Photography shows the Barcelona out of design made of the small warm and sweet feelings. Maybe you won't experience that when you will visit the city or Spain but that's what make a difference...And I hope we won't loose it...Enjoy it!


Far from trying to be smarter than it is, this beautiful little film actually achieves to be more honest and lyrical than most of the films on the market. It is a nostalgic, outstanding opera prima of its authors; an honest and caring photograph of a certain neighbourhood and its people. Although not neutral nor indifferent, it accomplishes to be non judgmental, and tells a story of people in different stages of life; the hidden secrets we all carry within and the solitude that accompanies us all. I highly recommend this film that is funny but never lightheaded, melancholic but never pretentious, humble but never loses its love for its characters with their imperfections and secrets. Like life itself. A joyful example of new European film making with heart and soul. 10 out of 10.


This pleasant collage by first-time directors José Corbacho and Juan Cruz is made up of three loosely interwoven stories of various people in a Barcelona neighbourhood, with a tapas bar as the central location, where most characters' lives intertwine. The title not only refers to those small appetizers Spain is famous for, but also to the Spanish verb "tapar" which means to cover up, or to hide.

I found the story of Lolo, the bar owner, the most engaging. His wife abandoned him, he is full of prejudice against women and foreigners, cannot show his emotions and has developed a deeply rooted incapability of engaging in any meaningful relationships. He needs a new chef and ends up with Mao, a Chinese immigrant who's kungfu-ing all the time but is the most efficient cook he ever had and suddenly people are flocking to his bar because his dishes are actually really good now. Some of the insights springing from this story are a bit contrived. Lolo who's learning that not all Chinese are communists or illiterate paupers seems like 40 years too late to me, but somehow the actors and the low-key filming make even obnoxious Lolo seem sympathetic and near the end of the film, I really rooted for this man.

Rubén Ochandiano gives an exceptional performance as Ruben, a teen supermarket worker who engages in a sexual relationship with middle-aged shop owner Raquel (Elvira Menquez). A very talented young actor, a natural screen presence. I hope it ensues in more prominent roles in the foreseeable future.

It's all low-key and unpretentious, with sober direction and cinematography, but surprisingly effective. Many of its characters could easily have befallen victim to stereotypes but the cast does an amazing job to give this a real breath of fresh air. Hard to resist.

Camera Obscura --- 8/10


For an American, regularly exposed to American movies, "Tapas" is a unique and unusual experience. There are no special effects. There is no computer scenery. It is an Altman-like ensemble piece with closely related multiple story lines performed by the most talented of actors. The main characters include a middle-age divorcée looking for love, a bistro owner with a low opinion of the human race, two young supermarket stockers with party on their minds, an old lady who peddles drugs to finance her and her husband's declining years, and a Chinese chef. This is one of the most realistic and entertaining European movies that I've seen in some time. Highly recommended.


Tapas is a film, funny, sad, tender... There are different stories in a neighborhood of a big town. The story of the barman, the most pathetic and funny character, and his relationship with Mao, intelligent, patient, and almost perfect. The story of Cesar and Raquel, a young man and a middle age women, and at the same time her relationship by internet with another man. The story of Mariano and Conchi, the most sad situation. The story of Opo,the friend of Cesar, with tree basic things in his head, sex, drugs, and Bruce Lee. Good people doing bad things. The loneliness, the fear to the illness, the hope, the egoism, the meanness. Good dialogs and very good actors.


José COrbacho is a Spanish humorist known for his gross humour sense and scatological jokes. People was frightened about the film he could do in his opera prima. Unexpectedly, he astonished everybody with this film. No comedy, no bunch of stupid jokes mixed together. We can find a correct mixture of little stories that happen in a workers town (the one the directors are from, l'Hospitalet de Llobregat, near Barcelona). Poor people with their fears and their hopes, their dreams and their desperation in order to survive in this life, always being able to face the world in an optimistic way. We can find the story of the old pair, that has to sell abuse drugs in order to pay the drags he needs for his cancer. The young pair whom only want to enjoy their lives, the barman that finds a new way of living when he contracts an Asian cooker. All these are little everyday stories, correctly filmed and with good acting. It has all the problems of the opera primas (lack of cash to spend, some scenes not totally thought) but it is a great surprise in Spanish cinema. If all his films are as good as this, I'll follow Corbacho's career as a director. A dramatic comedy of everyday stories, it is just a little film that wants to tell the existence of the "little unknown" people.


Here in Rijeka this month we've got a month of Spanish movies and on Friday night it was great choice to watch one Spanish movie. I love Spanish movies so I had great expectations from this one and first time directors Corbacho and Cruz did great job in my eyes. Their story is so real and very simple. We're actually watching 4 stories about lives of ordinary people in suburb of Barcelona. Lolo is owner of the main restaurant in town and his wife (cook in his restaurant) left him because he never really paid any attention for her, only for money. So Lolo hires Mao, Chinese who is a great cook. Raquel is middle-age woman who is very lonely (because her husband left her), so she keeps some sort of relationship with one man on internet. Doña Conchi and Don Mariano are one old couple, that are hit with news that Don Mariano is dying of cancer. Doña Conchi tries to make his life beautiful by selling low drugs to others. She gets money so she can buy him everything he needs. César and Opo are two teenagers who only wants to have some good time. Their conversations about sex, Bruce Lee and life are great. Main message of this movie is love. Cause love connects every character in this story.

"Tapas" is drama with elements of comedy and I really recommend it to everyone who wants to hear stories about life and love told in beautiful simplicity.


I came across this movie as there was nothing else on TV. I missed the beginning, but I kept on watching as I found it really interesting. I'm from Barcelona myself and live, at the moment, in one of the suburbs here. The characters in this film couldn't be more Spanish, or should I say "Barcelonians"? The movie follows the lives of normal people, with normal jobs, as common as they could be: a bar owner (there's at least one bar in every street here), as stall owner (there are lots of markets as well) and an old couple struggling to survive (as it happens, pensioners don't have a lot of money also) Their lives intertwine magnificently and you really feel sorrow and happiness for them. The lives they live could be the ones from my neighbours next door, if you know what I mean. The two young guys that work in the shop just remind me to some of my friends; their language, expressions and their whole life styles. The bar man is exactly the way some bar men are here: sexist, ignorant, fat,... I mean, if you come to Barcelona all you'll see is Sagrada Familia, Ramblas, the beach...and will eat a lot of overpriced tapas. If you really want to know our life style, get the Metro to a place like the one in the film (which actually is Mercat Nou) such as Hospitalet or, where I live, Nou Barris. You'd actually meet some real people like the ones in the movie, plus eat well for a reasonable price as we do. I know, maybe I got a bit carried away, I'm supposed to talk about the movie, but I just loved it and thought it was better than all that Almodovar stuff as they're always about sex, transvestites or whores. Don't mean to offend anyone, but real Spanish people are pictured in "Tapas", not in an Almodovar film!


This is a great example of "film noir," as every scene has some sort of shadow pattern on the wall, the floor, the faces. All shots are done with key light on the faces. The patterns suggest "jail," "locked up," "flight" (as in a train track), "trapped," (as in a cobweb), and others. There isn't one scene that doesn't have a shadow in it! Even the day time sequences. And the actors that had great careers: Stanwyck, Gary Merrill, Claude Akins, even Jesse (the original maytag repairman) White, and, of course, George Sanders, who plays a "deNazified" ex-Nazi. Whew! Great stuff.


I was surprised to come upon this film "Witness to Murder" tonight on TV as I hadn't heard of it before - always nice to discover an old movie with excellent, familiar actors. I get the impression of it being a part of the transitional period for some actors from movies to early TV dramas, in live productions that carry such realism as this film does.

I tuned in late and missed the first few minutes of the movie where wily Albert Richter (George Sanders) is purported to have committed his evil deed; unfortunately Sanders has always been one of my favourite actors, one of the best ne'er-do-wells (as in The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, Samson and Delilah, and All About Eve), and I wasn't a little old lady in those days but a budding teenager. His suave demeanour always fascinated me and he carries this over from film to film. By the way, in this 1954 movie his few lines in German weren't very convincing but his villainous role is very well set forth.

It's obvious that Barbara Stanwyck as the frustrated witness, Cheryl, carries a huge emotional burden throughout, and does it well - a real pro! This is a moderately predictable melodrama when crime inspection was more simple somehow. The music is very prevalent in most scenes and seems to override everything at times especially near the climax but that's to be expected.

Good popcorn fare! Enjoy some reminiscing moments of 'film noire' in top form.


Barbara Stanwyck sees a murder through her window, the problem is no one will believe her. George Sanders plays an author with a twisted mind who taunts Stanwyck through out the film. A little predictable but never the less enjoyable to watch.


It's interesting that both this film and "Rear Window" came out in the same year, since the base plot is identical: person witnessess murder through apartment window in opposing apartment and spends rest of movie trying to convince everone else what they saw. While the Hitchcock movie is more stylish and elaborate, this film definitely keeps your attention. Typical of movies of the 50's, the villain is disposed of in the climax, thereby eliminating any necessity of bringing them to justice. Stanwyck, as usual, gives her best "woman in distress", hysterical performance.


The story begins on a windy night in Los Angeles. Cheryl Draper gets up from bed to close her bedroom window, and lo and behold, she looks across the street at an apartment facing hers, only to see a man strangling a woman. She calls to notify what she had witnessed, little does she know she is dealing with a cunning man, Albert Richter, who will make her life miserable.

This 1954 film was clearly a vehicle for an aging Barbara Stanwyck, even though the woman in the story must have been in her twenties. There are things that don't make much sense and holes in the plot, but director Roy Rowland and his writer, Charles Erskine, did what they could with a plot that goes nowhere and things are not properly explained. Nunnally Johnson cooperated with the screen treatment, but he gets no credit for it. We decided not to fight it and went along with this implausible story that shows why Barbara Stanwyck was one of the best in the business.

The suave George Sanders plays the evil man that is trying to frame Cheryl by any means. Mr. Sanders was not at his best though, even as the man who's always a step ahead of our heroine. Gary Merrill is not totally convincing as the police detective Larry Matthews attracted to Cheryl. Jesse White plays his partner.

The camera work of John Alton and the editing of Robert Swink make the film even better than it should have been under another team. Best sequence is the chase through the building under construction.


besides the obvious Rear Window storyline, all of the following in this movie are also signature Hitchcockian themes or devices . . . the sudden overhead shots during interiors for dialog transitions; the use of shadows (the darkness and the light); the wrongly persecuted (Stanwyck) trying to prove the truth; the inept police wanting to incarcerate the innocent person; the average working-class Joe (or Josephine) getting thrown into a sinister web by no fault of their own; the dramatically different stories within each rear window, i mean each door in the apt. building where the victim lived; the stair-climbing climax to the top of the cloister tower, i mean State of Liberty, i mean skyscraper.

not to mention fellow Brit George Sanders who features prominently in some of Hitch's biggest pre-50s films. and Then! there's even a cameo by Hitch himself! or at least an effective stand-in -- the super in Sanders building baring an obvious resemblance to Hitch's profile.

This is Bizarroworld Hitchcock.

it's The Woman Who Knew Too Much. . . . The Wrong Woman. . . . Saboteur-ess -- withthe opening scene being the crime, and the only person who knows the truth being committed / convicted by the police, with no 'authority' to turn to (except, perhaps, the highest one), and the climax up a long flight of stairs (and then a ladder!), and evil (the bad guy) falling off to his death (down to hell) with a nice direct overhead shot.

It's the Spellbound amnesia, but instead of Dali, the lead character is a surrealist painter. It's Shadow of a Doubt with Sanders playing the suave and 'angelic' Uncle Charlie / Joseph Cotton role.

not to mention the whole anti-fascism angle that ran through most of Hitch's '30s and '40s films.

this has gotta be one of the most Hitchcockian movies ever made that wasn't made by Hitchcock. almost like a "lost Hitchcock".

i'd love to know the backstory on this film -- whether it was a cash-grab rip-off, or a loving homage. the script directly acknowledges the TV show Dragnet at one point, which makes me hope the portly superintendent was a nod to Sir Alfred.

this is either a heck of a forgery, or a heck of a tribute. but either way, it's a heck of a film.


WITNESS TO MURDER is one of the great unsung noir gems from the 1950s. Sharply directed by Roy Rowland and brilliantly photographed by John Alton, it is criminal that this terrific film has yet to see a DVD release.

Barbara Stanwyck stars as a woman who inadvertently witnesses a murder one night when, awakened by a thunderclap, goes to her window and sees her neighbor in an apartment across the street (George Sanders) strangle a woman to death. Shaken but collected, she phones the police who respond to the call but are unable to detect anything out of the ordinary when they arrive to question Sanders. The detectives (Gary Merrill and Jesse White) leave Sanders' apartment convinced that Stanwyck imagined the killing.

Determined to prove the cops wrong, she begins to relentlessly hound Sanders who, it turns out, is a former Nazi and author of books promoting the ideology of the Third Reich. Sanders, a cunning adversary, initiates a retaliatory strike against Stanwyck which, before long lands her in a mental asylum. But will she be able to convince Detective Gary Merrill (who by now has fallen in love with her) that her assertions are, after all, true?

Darkly suspenseful, albeit preposterously improbable, WITNESS TO MURDER follows a similar thread as REAR WINDOW, released the very same year. The most significant difference being in the Hitchcock film James Stewart is a consciously willing voyeur, drawn into a secret world of spying brought on by his own inertia; Stanwyck succumbs to the ramifications of her voyeurism purely by an accident of nature, the victim of circumstances far beyond her control, placing it much more squarely in the domain of film noir than its better known counterpart. Highly recommended!


Cheryl Draper peers thru her bedroom window one night and sees a woman being strangled by the man who lives opposite her. She rings the police but after visiting the man they can't find any semblance of trouble or threat from the man accused. Nobody believes her and she refuse to give up on bringing out the truth, but the suave killer starts to turn the tables on her and sets about having her committed for being insane, the cat is well and truly after the mouse.

Witness To Murder is a highly efficient Crime/Drama, boasting smart turns Barbara Stanwyck & George Sanders in the two main roles, the picture is something of an ode to grainy noirish story telling. Excellently photographed by John Alton, the story is perfectly simple, thankfully the pacing and writing is spot on and it gives us a tight piece that climaxes quite brilliantly in a way that Hitchcock most surely approved of, into the successful mix is that Roy Rowland's direction flows a treat and his use of shadows is great and adds to the mounting suspense. I mention Hitchcock because his Vertigo some four years later has striking resemblances to work in here, not copies of course, but certainly genre staples being noted me thinks. Also coincidental that Rear Window was released the same year as this film, and this probably accounts for why this film with the similar theme was largely ignored.

Shame, this needs more people to see it it would seem. 7/10


I know I'm going against the grain here, because most of the comments have been favourable, but this movie is about as plausible as the Tooth Fairy. I knew from reading the premise that the movie would be predictable, but it was worse than that.

OK, I have to admit, I missed the first ten minutes of the program. I came in where the two detectives, (OK, one detective and a Maytag repair man) returned to the apartment of Cheryl Draper, and told her they found nothing. I don't buy it. Police detectives are by their nature and training very suspicious, and make mountains out of molehills. You won't find many detectives willing to dismiss an allegation of murder out of hand.

Spoilers follow: The murderer wrote a letter to himself, purportedly from her, in part so that he could get into her apartment and slip the latch. Once in her apartment, he used HER typewriter to write the second letter to himself, which he then mailed to himself. It would be shown to have originated on her typewriter. The thing is, it was not shown that he had an opportunity to write the first letter on her typewriter, so the typefaces would not have matched.

That the sanity of Cheryl Draper would be called into question was as predictable as a sunrise. That she would, in the police station, with her sanity questioned, begin to ACT as though she were not quite right in the head was also predictable, with predictable results.

If the detective had spent half as much time looking into the case, rather than trying to convince her that she imagined or dreamed it, he might have solved the case sooner. When people are dreaming, they don't realize that they are dreaming, but when they wake up, they do know that it was a dream.

BIG spoiler here: The real downer came at the end, when Cheryl was being chased by the crowd, at the head of the pack was the murderer, bent on killing her. What does she do? She runs into a building under construction, and goes up the stairs, where she will ultimately run out of stairs and room to run. She will be trapped, and what a convenient place for the murderer to pitch her off the roof. Right. I think the writer of this Dreck had a bad dream, and should be referred to a pshrink.


Maybe Alfred Hitchcock got ideas for the film "Vertigo" from this- Especially the long shot down the stairwell of the unfinished building.

More of a "Psychological Thriller" than a Film-Noir: This movie had elements that could have put it on a higher level, the editing, the effects, the film stock were all high caliber. However, as a story, I found it highly unbelievable- And on the verge of being unintentionally Laughable.

Sanders as an ex, or even current, Nazi would have been scrutinized a lot heavier by the police. Stanwyck would not have been shoved into an insane asylum so easily without her own permission or a court order. That the police chief was singly able to commit her was totally unbelievable and the scene in the police station that precedes the asylum scenes is a laugh ready to burst from my gut, but does not quite escape, because we know it was not intended to be funny. One asks if the whole asylum scene was even necessary, but in fact I'm glad it is in there, as we get to see (And hear) Juanita Moore, with Adeline De Walt Reynolds and Claire Carleton. as additional inmates and great character actresses.

However bad the script and story was, and it appeared to me that maybe Nunnally Johnson wrote a lot of it "on the fly" - There was actually a core of a great story, and if one ignores the small shortcomings of the film I mention above, then it is fairly enjoyable.

The whole production seems to play like an elongated Television Episode from the mid-50's.


Its a shame that the previous comments seem to have focused on so much negative and missed the positive of what was always intended to be a very lighthearted comedy in the style of the Carry On films.

Sets, budget and production are certainly low priority but the script is classic British humour from the 70's and to me is easily as funny as the best Carry On's .. and some parts still make me laugh out loud despite having viewed the film many times to cheer myself up on a rainy day. The best of which has to be the wonderful Ray Kinnear's encounter with the stripper/love interest in the bushes outside the house.

As for the 'self referential marxist theme'comment (??!) I can only say lighten up! This is a silly piece of comedy, not a Chekov play. In a world where CGI is beginning to replace any semblance of a script, its refreshing to see something so simple and intended purely for entertainment.


I think its one of the most funniest films I've ever seen, makes a pleasant change to have a film with NO BAD LANGUAGE in it. Makes me laugh from start to finish,and sadly not many films do that for me these days. I would love to get a copy of it on any format I can get, preferably DVD though, but video would do. There are a lot of famous people in it which play their part perfectly, and the music is enjoyable too. I don't know why every one gives it such a bad write-up, I would sure like to see it over and over again, hence why I want a copy from somewhere. The TV stations don't even seen to want to show it, its most frustrating. Can any one help me find a copy?


True stage farce is a very rare thing, even in an actual theater. Even more rare is capturing the experience on film, which this film successfully does. Leave it to the critics and theorists to say film has no business doing this. It's still a good laugh.


This has got to be one of the lowest budget films ever produced in Britain , and considering it`s a British film that is indeed saying a lot . In fact it`s somewhat insulting to consider NOT NOW COMRADE a " film " since as one contributer mentioned it`s a stage play . It`s like someone has gone into the local theartre with a film camera and started filming . The interiors resemble those you`d see in a theartre and you can clearly hear the CLUMP CLUMP CLUMP as the actors run around the wooden floors like you would in an auditorium . I guess some people might be pretentious pseudo-intellectuals and say the film has a self referential marxist theme because of the title and therefore that`s why there`s been no money spent but I`d say correctly that even in 1976 it would have been an outdated British B movie with limited appeal hence no one would want to invest money into it


Where can I start on this hot mess of a film?

The plot, and there's very little of it, is that a werewolf is loose on a mountain and killing people. That's it, nothing else. Some useless rangers attempt to halt the killings, thinking it is a mountain lion. Surprise! A bunch of idiotic 20-something campers are also on the mountain providing easy prey for the lycanthrope. Snore.

The acting by everyone in the cast is completely horrible, not a decent performance in sight. I mean really, unrelentingly bad acting. I was rooting for the werewolf.

Next, the werewolf costume. The outfit is so poorly done that they have to show each scene with the werewolf in soft focus to cover up the unconvincing wolf suit. The head is an oversize papier-mache looking bit of rubbish, with great big teeth. The body and arms look mangy and in need of a haircut. You can buy a better costume at the Halloween store yourself. The soft focus is incredibly annoying and really does little to hide the tragic werewolf outfit.

****Major Spoiler Ahead****

Top this all off with a lame-ass ending where the wolfman is killed by a silver tipped arrow shot into his neck. Naturally, the girl shooting the arrow has to fire off a one-liner before she can release the arrow. The werewolf is apparently so stupefied by the idiocy of the situation that he is kind enough to stand stock still waiting for her to line up the shot, say her line and, finally, release the arrow.

Truly, this is one of the worst horror movies I have seen in a long time.


The Feeding is a terrible werewolf movie about a group of campers who begin getting killed off by a lycanthrope running loose in the woods. Two cops are sent in to bring down the beast as it continues with it's feast (no this is not a poem). The plot for this is identical to many other mindless, cheezy micro-budget monstrosities and all of the actors look as if they are reading their lines off signs a crew member is holding up behind the camera. It also contains a very cliché moment in which two characters want to discuss a personal matter while trying to survive. The werewolf costume is laughably stupid looking and seems to be constantly drooling. Plus it's facial features never move. Just stay far, far away from this atrocious movie.


I'd like to start out by saying I really liked this movie. It has all the good B-movie stuff. For instance, hunters in a werewolf movie. You know they're not gonna fare well. Low budget effects, low budget costume, and four female hikers skinny dipping, c'mon. The werewolf get-up is all fine and dandy in my book. A bit over the top, but definitely in good fun. The acting is certainly good enough for a B-movie. I would also like to point out that horror cliché's are like gold for a low budget movie. How much fun would it be if it were excellently acted and had a complex story. Not so much for a B-movie. This is exactly what Independent/B-movie's are supposed to be like. Good campy fun. I would certainly rather watch this little gem than most of what is being shown in theaters these days. Watered down Horror/Drama for the masses. Yes, I believe I'll stick to seeking out B-movie horror such as this, and watch in great delight.


Now, a movie that starts with the elimination of two Bambi killers can't be all bad.

The premise is this: A know-it-all Ranger (Robert Pralgo) and his much smarter partner (Dione J. Updike) are trying to kill a predator before he gets a passel of hotties and hunks going up the mountain. At least we get a go show out of the hotties skinny dipping in the river.

The chase is on and bodies are being torn apart. One by one they fall prey to the wolf-man until there is .....now, you didn't think I would tell you who wins, did you? Nothing original, but still worth watching. Great wolf costuming, and four great hotties in the river. Most gore was blurred, so it wasn't bad.


I made the mistake of renting this on pay-per-view while I was alone one night. THE FEEDING might have been bearable with a crowd to make fun of it with, but flying solo, it was just excruciating. In addition to being dreadfully acted, the characters (and the script) is simply imbecilic. I was especially irritated because the dumbest, most volatile fool of the bunch...the one who's stupid actions get I lost track of just how many people killed....survives in the end. There are maybe one or two decent gore effects, but overall, they're as bad as everything else. Oh, and the monster suit wouldn't scare a kitten. But the nude scenes might! YIKES.


"The Feeding" was the worst werewolf movie, if not worst movie,that I have seen for quite some time. Absolute and total rubbish, a fly-infested dung heap of cinematic failure...I stayed up late last night to watch this on the SciFi Channel, as I am a huge werewolf/zombie movie fan and I do enjoy a good cheesy B movie(of which the SciFi Channel now obviously owns the patent for:). Having said that, there is only so much I am willing to put up with(exhibit 1-House of the Dead!) The plot was ridiculous(something skulking around on 2 legs is killing deer and other wildlife on a mountaintop;and now it's moving on to humans...so the forest rangers figure it's gotta be a cougar or wolf, since everyone knows they are bipedal predators, right?!) The acting and character development was horrendous(imagine if the director/producer rounded up some students and/or friends and offered them lunch to be in a movie. Most of the actors sounded, and looked,as if they were reading from cue cards. You want the werewolf to eviscerate them all to make it stop, it's so bad!) The dialogue seems to have been written by a monkey on a bender(I won't even go into this, just pick a line...any line) And lastly we have the "werewolf"(I put this in quotations b/c it is quite possibly the single worst werewolf I've ever seen on celluloid, and I've seen all of the "Howling" movies-lol. The head looks like a papier-mache project some middle-schoolers threw together, and the suit looks like a brown wetsuit with hair haphazardly glued to it. Not to mention every time you see the creature the director has applied this out of focus technique to cover-up how underdone, and ratty,the costume looks.) There was some gore involved, but like everything else in this movie it was a hack job at best. As I stated in the beginning of this review, I like a good B movie...trust me folks, this is an F movie and should be avoided like Paris Hilton. Save yourself now, and run screaming into the night if this movie ever turns up on your telly or some well-meaning friend/spouse brings this home for your enjoyment:)


first of all, i would like to give this a minus rating but they only allow me a 1 as the lowest.

werewolf costume is very bad. they had to hide it with a foggy camera work.

the acting is not so good. got even worse near the end when they are attacked by the wolf. did i say the wolf look terrible. the costume at your Halloween local store is probably way better.

you only see the wolf a few times in foggy lens. no transformation scenes at all.

i want my rental money refund. wait, i got it for free. OK, i want my hour and a half back.

uurrrgggggg. this video suck big time. i cant believe i didn't go with an American werewolf in Paris. that is way good. the only reason i went with this trash is because i have seen the werewolf in Paris already.

did i mention that this video is terrible and horrible. aaaaarrrrggggg.


I love B-movies, but I have to admit, this was pretty bad and nearly unwatchable.

I work in the indie film industry, so I respect the fact that the filmmakers were able to get enough people together to make this stinker, so I give them that, but that's about all.

There is a scene towards the end, when three survivors are in the cabin, the chick ranger is explaining what the hell is going on (she all of a sudden becomes the expert) but notice her head turning as she addresses the other two survivors. But if you look at the scene, the other two survivors are standing one behind the other. Bad editing indeed. I had to rewind the DVD to see if I missed a 4th person in the room.

The werewolf, though a commendable SFX effort, looked more like a Power Ranger villain.

I guess I wouldn't be so critical if the filmmakers intended this to be fun and campy. If they did, it didn't work.


this direct to video horror movie has quite a low rating on this site(3.1/10).i'd have to disagree with such a low rating.while,i'll admit it' no masterpiece, i did like it.it is pretty much your typical teen horror film,but no worse.there is some nudity(yay!)and some pretty decent kills,with a good amount of gore.there are your typical teen stereotypes getting high out in the wilderness.the problem is,the movie takes too long to get to the gore and really good kills.once the blood starts flying though,it doesn't let up.the movie borrows a bit from the 1981 movie "Wolfen",giving us some shots from the creatures point of view.other than this movie and "Wolfen",i haven't seen that done in any other movie.not that it's a great effect or anything,but it is something most movies of the genre don't employ.the acting isn't that great and some of the dialogue is pretty bad,to say the least.However,i really liked Dione Updike,who plays Aimee,Johnston,one of the game wardens who hunts the creature.She was very convincing in her role and easy on the eyes too.finally,the creature itself.not quite realistic looking,but not as bad as some movies of the genre.oh,yea,the creature is basically,half man,half wolf.the difference is,it retains the intelligence of man.i guess you'd call it a werewolf,although they never actually say the word in the movie.the ending i thought was kind of odd.overall,though, the movie is entertaining and should satisfy gore hounds. though this puts me in the minority,i give "The Feeding" 7/10


I had never heard of this movie when I first saw it. My friends had rented it among some other (and better) movies for Halloween. It turned out we were lucky we had each other, because this would not have been near as fun to watch if I had been alone.

"The Feeding" is possibly the worst horror movie I've ever seen. Everything about it...okay, I'll go through this systematically.

THE CHARACTERS--These are some of the flattest, most one-dimensional, most overused characters I've ever seen. We have the typical "young campers lost in the woods" thing going, so they're all out there making love, getting naked, smoking pot, and saying things that would make them sound stupid enough if it weren't for the fact that the acting is ATROCIOUS. There's the black guy, who talks and acts like black guys always do in these movies (he gets shot with an arrow right near the heart and just says, "DAMN!" I kid you not.) The cops are also really lame...you got the overly headstrong male cop who realizes only too late that he can't take on the werewolf with his gun, and the female cop who's supposedly smarter than anybody else but isn't always listened to until towards the end. They are all so boring, so stupid, and so poorly acted that you really don't miss any of them when they die. In fact, you're wishing the wolf would get every last one of them. Except...

THE WEREWOLF--My God, the Werewolf was so hilariously bad. All the scenes with the wolf use some kind of ugly disorienting camera effect to try and hide how cheap the wolf was, but it didn't do anything. It's head is some sort of cheap, papier-mache wolf-meets-alligator monstrosity that never changes expressions or anything, but drools incessantly. The rest of the wolf looks like a mangy, moth-eaten Muppet. The wolf gets way too much exposure from the very beginning, so even if it had been scary there's no tension at all. You always see it well before anybody dies, and the only horror is based off of cheesy and overblown gore which is more disgusting than scary.

THE PLOT--You basically know it already. It's absolutely predictable and lacking in any interest, from start to finish. Some sort of predator is moving across the country, killing all the wildlife and then framing some local predator somehow. (I've never heard of a cougar ripping somebody's spinal column out, but...never mind.) A couple of cops in the Appalachians have heard about some deaths, which they figure out is caused by some unnatural force. And of course, there are the campers, who are unaware of what's going on and too stupid to really do much when it does come. They more or less get picked off one by one, but we really can't care who is dying because the characters are all so damn similar. Of course, there is one girl who survives to the end and finishes off the wolf, but unlike in most horror movies she's just as thick as everybody who dies. They manage to make some silver arrows in a cheesy forge montage, and the hero says some one-liner before shooting the wolf. When it dies, it becomes some ugly guy we've never seen before, except when they show it from the side. Then it's still all hairy and stuff.

OVERALL--If you really like making fun of bad movies with friends, you might rent this. Movies don't get much worse. If you want to be scared, or you're expecting any sort of quality or redeeming factor, then I tell you you will not like this. I have not even begun to lay out how awful The Feeding is.


This movie was almost unwatchable... the only thing that keeps you from banging your head against the remote is that you want to see the "were-crocodile" for the laugh itself.... It had the cliché "token black guy" (in the Pacific Northwest.. yea!!! We'll stay away from there then, lol...) with the farmer's daughter white girl. They can never act either, they just have to be "black", and half the time they can't even pull that off.... (See Get Rich or Die Trying' for an example, he couldn't even play himself convincingly).... of course all the typical stuff is here, but in bad taste.... Lakes, woods, naked chicks, pot, camping, full moons, about the only thing they missed was rain... Garbage.


This movie is totally pathetic! Don't waste your time. The werewolf costume looks like a cheap team mascot and the actors (if you can call them that)are less talented than any that you would find in a high school play.It seems that for most of the movie the actors are just sitting in the woods smoking weed and talking about the sex that they have had or that they are going to get. The actors appear to be more afraid and spooked by one another than by the werewolf mascot and there is a great deal of unnecessary screaming. I spent the entire movie rooting for the werewolf to kill them all. this movie truly deserves one of the top spots on the "Worst films ever made" list. It appears to have been filmed with a home video camera. This flick is nothing but pure punishment. TIRED to the core!!!


I've seen this one a few times now and thought it was good horror fun. The opening scene went straight to the murdering action and looked totally realistic (the wolf's teeth in the rear view mirror, when the guy in the trucks head falls off - awesome). I loved the werewolf - usually we see something that looks like a standing wolf or something resembling a overly large rodent. Not with this one. It really takes on a cross between a human and a wolf. The eyes closer together like a human, smaller amounts of hair with human skin showing through...the kill scenes were great, some of the characters are likable. The only parts I didn't like was the blur effect when the wolf was on screen. It limited the viewers ability to really get to check him out and took away from the experience. This is likely the fault of Lionsgate though. If you like the off the beaten path, fun horror flick, this one is definitely worth checking out.


The Feeding was an interesting werewolf movie using the same effects from the howling with a little more fog to hide the wolf suit and continuity problems. Teenage campers and a forest ranger couple meet the wolf in the woods and fight for their lives. Some funny scenes and some good suspense, but nothing truly scary. Its set up like a B horror movie and it fulfills that niche very well. Most of the camera work was pretty dark, but it did the job. The acting left a lot to be desired, but not as bad as some B movies. Special effects were very rudimentary, but not too poorly done that they detract from the film. It is what it was meant to B.


I read a lot of previous posts about this movie. This is one of the best films of the year, and of recent years. This is a perfect blend of action, suspense, thrills and film-noir. The plot is intelligent and fresh. People saying it is not original must have slept through the movie. Tom Cruise is fantastic, Colin Farrell is amazing, as well as Samantha Morton. Spielberg again proves that he is the master of cinema. A truly great director. I'll agree, the ending was a little too happy, but not worth complaining about. This film is not about product placement as previously suggested, it is simply a entertaining and yet realistic glimpse of what our future may look like, as advertising becomes more advanced and intrusive. The film creates many moral questions and issues, and should leave you thinking. Is being arrested for doing something you actually havn't commited yet fair? It is worth seeing again and again. As a film lover and critic, i can say it is one amazing movie.


This is spoken in Minority Report by a drug-dealer on the streets with no eyes at all, so I suppose its free advice for John Anderton, our hero, or a bit of wise-sounding advice meant to get across to the audience but with no other good place for it to fit in the film. This is fine with me, too, because Minority Report is such a taut futuristic thriller that an incongruous little bit of wisdom like this is not to have any negative impact on the film as a whole. John Anderton, played with precision by the great Tom Cruise (oh shut up, the man's awesome), is the chief of the Pre-Crime department in the District of Columbia, which has successfully eradicated murder entirely for the last six years. He works with a group of `pre-cogs' that, together, dream of murders that have not yet taken place and project enough information for Anderton and his team to watch the video emanating from their heads to determine where and when the murders are to take place and to get to those locations and stop the murders from happening before they happen.

This is obviously a formula for a highly successful action movie, but the thing that really makes Minority Report succeed is that it pays so much amount of attention to things that would occur in this situation in real life. It is explained very early in the film that the invention of Pre-Crime has eradicated premeditated murder, as this is most easily detected by the pre-cogs. The majority of the `business,' then, of the Pre-Crime division in the District of Columbia, are crimes of passion. This not only provides the possibility of a lot more tension in that these crimes leave a lot less time for prevention, but also avoids complicating the plot with the details of premeditated murders. We don't care about a guy who wronged another guy five years ago or drug deals gone bad, all we need to hear about are a guy who comes home to find his wife in bed with another man and loses control.

Given the fact that the movie involves some sort of time-travel (even if information is the only thing traveling through time), it leaves itself open to criticism about plot holes. This is obvious, because plot holes like this even permeated the unparalleled Back to the Future series, which obviously had plenty of plot holes but handled them spectacularly well. Given the amount of movies that I have seen that involve time travel, I have come up with this equation: Time Travel = Plot Holes. This is a universal equation that is never escaped, but it does not mean that any movie that involves time travel will be brought down by the subsequent and unavoidable plot holes. Minority Report did not suffer from its necessary plot holes and neither did the timeless Back to the Future series (which has FINALLY been released as a complete set and which no respectable movie collection could possibly be without).

My esteemed colleague and close friend Christopher Brown (see his brilliant reviews at http://us.imdb.com/CommentsAuthor?625436) points out one of these plot holes in his review of Minority Report, but makes the mistake of suggesting that, given the nature of the precognition and of the crime itself, Anderton's murder should never have been predicted since it did not entail premeditation. Sorry, Chris, but you've missed the boat on this one. The only thing that this does is bring up the fact that it's impossible to tell where precognition starts. It could be argued perfectly well that the pre-cogs played a part in their own precognition. They predicted that Anderton would commit the murder under the circumstances that he would have been watching the thoughts of the pre-cogs and seen that he would commit murder, and then obviously sought to find out for himself how he could have been expected to commit a murder against a person he has never heard of. In this case, if he had called in sick that day, all of this would have been avoided. But he's the best at what he does, he has personal reasons for wanting to stop murder, he does not slack off, he does not call in sick. John Anderton was predicted by the pre-cogs to commit murder because he was at work that day.

The action in the film comes from the possibility that the whole prediction of Anderton's murder might be what is called a `minority report,' where the pre-cogs disagree on something that is going to happen. If he can prove that only one of the pre-cogs came up with the vision that he was going to commit a murder, it might cancel out the entire prediction because it is unreliable. On the way to this goal, we are presented with everything from a tremendously dedicated investigator (played brilliantly by Colin Farrell) to some amazingly creepy but strangely accepted identification spiders that scan John's implanted eye in one of the more uncomfortable scenes in the film.

Minority Report is one of the best and most unique thrillers to be released in years. It is the conglomeration of such a dizzying array of films that it is difficult to contemplate them all at once. We see elements of action films, futuristic thrillers, crime films, science fiction, and of course, the influence of Stanley Kubrick is never far off. There is even, especially in the later portion of the film, a heavy influence on the soundtrack by Bernard Herrman, who was the composer for most of Alfred Hitchcock's films, among many others. It's always nice to see such a respectful homage like that, and it is only one of the many things that makes Minority Report yet another addition to Steven Spielberg's extensive list of high-end films (the last of which was the spectacular A.I.). The only thing I can think of that holds Minority Report back from joining Spielberg's list of timeless classics is that it does not have the scope as far as its target audience as such films as E.T. and Jurassic Park. However, despite not having quite as large of a target audience, Minority Report stands as a strong entry in Spielberg's growing list of great films.


Steven Spielberg is at his directorial best with this action, adventure. Tom Cruise is at his acting best as a futuristic cop on the run. I was pleased to see one of the best directors team up with one of the best actors to make a brilliant movie.

Tom Cruise plays John Anderton, the chief of the Pre-Crime unit of the Washington D.C. police department. This unit stops murders before they happen, with the help of the "Pre-Cogs." The "Pre-Cogs" are three psychics who see the murders before they happen, and Cruise is the one who puts their visions together to predict the location, the killer, and the victim of the future crime. So far, the "Pre-Cog" division has been successful, with its six-year span going on with no murder ever happening. Things get complicated for the future of Pre-Crime when Detective Danny Witwer, played by Colin Farrell, is sent to inspect the operation. Anderton is suspicious of him, because he starts to see cracks in the system. When Anderton believes that the cracks are minor, he believes wrong.

Anderton sees another murder happening in the Pre-Cogs' visions and is shocked to see that he is the man committing the murder. Now that he is on the run from his own men, which of course is under the command of Witwer, Anderton must unravel the mystery of why he has to murder a man whom he hasn't even met yet. As time runs out, Anderton finds clues that there is a conspiracy behind it. Can he figure them out in time, or will Pre-Crime see its first murder in six years?

"Minority Report" is a movie with a fantastic storyline, one of the best I've ever heard of. The actors are great, the directing is great, of course, it's Spielberg. Even the effects are great, they are done with ILM. Roger Ebert says that this movie "reminds us why we go to the movies in the first place," and I agree with him.