Just an enjoyable time. Haven't laughed that hard at a movie in a LONG time. The story was good, the actors right on, and the location shooting, throughout Indianapolis, was just incredible. Joe Urban showcased a range of emotions and pulled you right into his character, Woody. Jim Peterson's character, Hank, was the comic relief for the film and boy does Jim have great comic timing. And those facial expressions! How wonderful to see Dave Prowse again after all these years (and without his Darth Vader costume), and able to poke fun at himself and the Star Wars legacy. Jennifer Eichler (aka "The Watson's Girl") does a funny cameo as the stereotypical "dumb blonde". George Starkey looks eerily like George Lucas...great casting there. And finally there was Lee Ann Millen. Wow. Interesting character and those costumes ! Carrie Fisher has NOTHING on this gal!

The inclusion of the Matrix-like characters just added to the comic feel of this fun movie. Go see it now. You won't regret it.


If you take this little gem for what it is: A low budget film by a first time director, with a volunteer cast & crew filmed on location at Celebration II (a Star Wars convention), it's a masterpiece.

I had the pleasure of attending a screening with with director Gary Wood and star David Prowse (who plays himself) in attendance. I enjoyed it enough to buy the DVD after the screening, and have enjoyed repeated viewings. The cast is very good and has a lot of fun with this touching and very funny script. Lee Ann Millen makes this film well worth watching. The actor playing Gearge Lucas does a great job. The director gave a copy to Mr. Lucas himself. I would love to read his review of it.

Pop some popcorn and sit back and enjoy.


Saving Star Wars by Catherine Lee

One of the things that is most charming about Saving Star Wars is how simpatico I felt about so many of the opinions he expresses regarding the meaning and significance of Star Wars. As someone who will never give up the experience of going to the movie theater to be part of a crowd in the dark, no matter how sophisticated home theaters get, I particularly admired one sentiment: in the world of Saving Star Wars, what matters most about Star Wars or any great film are the happy memories of sharing movies with people we love. I remember the when, where and with whom of many, many movies. Even a bad movie can be great when shared with the right friends.

Saving Star Wars is not a big-budget movie, but it is a movie with a lot of heart. The affection of the filmmakers for their project is infectious. There aren't elaborate sets, just found locations around the Indianapolis area. And Saving Star Wars uses the huge fan conventions that happen in Indianapolis as a background for the story.

David Prowse, the actor who played Darth Vader (the man in the suit, not the voice) makes an important cameo appearance in Saving Star Wars. He plays himself. In the movie, he's in Indianapolis for the Star Wars celebration. As Prowse says in Saving Star Wars, "Star Wars is like pizza. When its good, its really, really good. And even when its bad, its still pizza."

Full review: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387563/usercomments-enter

Another review:

Some Others Also Perceive the Emperor as Naked by Kevin P. Murphy

The final Star Wars trilogy (Episodes I, II, and III) wasn't a complete waste of time, because it/they stimulated an independent, Indianapolis, Indiana, produced film, "Saving Star Wars," that does, in a low-budget sort of way, recapture the essential magic of the original trilogy.

The movie is concerned with the conflict between reality and extreme fanout with respect to the "Star Wars" series of movies. A "Woodworks" film, "SSW" was written and directed by Gary L. Wood (who also wound up performing in the movie when a key actor failed to show up on "shooting day").

After an accidental meeting with George Lucas that innocently turns into an impromptu kidnapping, chaos becomes the star performer at "Star Wars Celebration II." Will Woody and Hank save the day, release Lucas, preserve the secrecy surrounding Episode III, avoid prison and fulfill a father's promise to his seriously ill son? One has to see the movie to answer those questions, of course, but I can tell you that seeing the movie isn't a bad plan.

While the movie has need of polishing, in that regard it is in good company with a lot of high-budget Hollywood releases that come nowhere near "Saving Star Wars" in terms of having a credible, interesting story and heart. And it is refreshingly free of gratuitous profanity, which again separates it from the mass of big-budget releases.

It is interesting to note, too, that the cast consisted of unpaid actors who did it for the exposure, or for love of "Star Wars," and for the thrill of making a "real" movie. This is not meant to suggest that professional actors should work for peanuts...suffice it to say that, while "Saving Star Wars" (http://www.savingstarwars.com ) is clearly (and correctly, I believe) critical of the parts of the second trilogy that were then (2003) known, it is a lovingly critical work.

Copyright 2005 Kevin P. Murphy

Posted: Sun - October 2, 2005 at 08:58 PM Kevin Murphy's Web Archives New Reviews-2005


and it was great. the movie had a good balance of drama and comedy, leaning more towards the comedy side as they are lots of light saber fights and David Prowse writing on a Darth Vader fake Darth Vaders light saber "David Prowse is the only Darth Vader". that had me cracking up.

at the screening, the director was there, along with Joe Urban, George Starkey, and someone the IMDb doesn't have on there cast list, the guy who played the Fake George Lucas who was Asian. no Jim Peterson, the guy who played Hank though. i really wanted to meet him, as he seemed like a really funny guy.

for any filmmakers out there, i got a word of advice for you. when your movie is lagging a bit towards the middle, put in a random fast paced event. it works like a charm to make the movie interesting again.

-Gameboybob


I took a friend to see this movie with me and as I worked a little behind the scenes I kept nudging her with my elbow saying, "That was filmed at Riley!" or wherever the scene was shot at. I must say it's different watching a movie where you have been behind the scenes.

Lets see, take 4 cups "A Knights Tale", 6 cups "Weekend at Bernie's", 2 cups "Clerks", and 3 cups "Scary Movie" and put all ingredients in a bowl. Blend with mixer until mixture is creamy. (about 40 different strokes, if mixing by hand) Place in a 16:9 silver baking dish and give to writer / director Gary Wood to bake. What you have is an excellent movie that will keep you laughing out loud from start to finish.

A story about a father (Woody) who loves his son that has been stricken with a terminal illness. They both have precious memories of seeing the StarWars movies with each other. His son makes a last request for his father to continue to go see the movies without him and remember him when he does. Woody is dragged to Indianapolis by his best friend (Hank) to a StarWars convention with a goal to talk to George Lucas (played by George Starkey) and get him to never stop making StarWars movies. Along the way Hank winds up, somehow, in the most hilarious scenarios you can imagine and learns what it will truly take to fulfill his son's wish.

Doesn't sound like a comedy you say. Well, that's where the brilliance of Gary Wood comes into play and you'll just have to go see the movie to see how he does it! When the credits hit I couldn't believe that nearly an hour and forty-five minutes had gone by. To me that says it all - See you at the movies !!!


I viewed this movie this evening and was amazed at the writing, plot and cinematography of this no-budget film that was made for $50,000 that could rival the most of the big budget movies that have been made.

If you are a Star Wars fan, it is a plus, but it is not necessary to get a feel for the story and its well-developed characters.

Even more impressive is the producer/director, Gary Wood & his wife, had not even studied in the film industry...he only had a desire to make a film and put $50M on the line to fulfill his dream. He did not limit himself to the "box" when writing the film and had the attitude from "Field of Dreams"..."If you build it, they will come".

The no-pay actors were great, as was the directing and script. Kudos the all involved in this effort and highly recommend this movie! Star Wars Veteran, David Prouse, is a plus in this wonderful film!


Starwars mockumentaries are as abundant as they are poorly made, unfortunately. Saving Star Wars is no exception. Sandwiched between lack luster cinematography is a meandering plot, amateur acting and just plain goofy dialog (even for a Starwars knockoff). This film is a text book case of a producer with money throwing it at a group of amateurs to make a film. The byproduct is not funny, cannot be taken seriously (even when it wants to) and is not entertaining even to the most rabid Starwars fan (like myself). The film fails technically as well, with poor editing and poor camera work resulting in many out of focus shots, seamed panning and lots of camera bounce. It looks like most of the work was done with a Canon XL-1 or possibly mended together with GL-1 shots as well. Scenes inside the convention center were cast in the dreaded "green" from fluorescent lights, further evidence of poor camera work and lack of gel use. No true "tone" of the film was ever established or maintained.

The occasional bright spots were performances by Jim Peterson as Hank, who becomes more annoying than funny over time, George Starkey as George Lucas, who bears a striking resemblance to Lucas, a confident Lee Ann Millen as Lisa (Princess Lea/Padme) who combined slightly odd/cuteness with toughness (every Starwars fan dream girl) and Scott Sendelweck as Dennis Bayder, who is actually quite capable of better performances. Apollo Bacala is hilarious and effortless as Melvin Lucas and provides the only true belly laughs of the entire film.

Being able to point to the many locales I know of personally and smile and say "hey, they're at so and so..." doesn't make up for the fact that this film falls flat on its face and furthers the notion that the Indy film scene is as pathetic as it is amateur.


I give this movie 10-10 because it is captivating from start to finish. Errol Flynn is charming as usual and Ida Lupino has a very strong showing. It was the first time that I've watched a Ida Lupino film, but it will not be the last. She brings a sensitivity to the screen but also strong-willed and her own person. Her on-screen passion compensates for the lack of funds put into this movie. Lupino also compliments Errol Flynn as a great on-screen couple. Escape Me Never has a great feel to it and will not disappoint. The "I hate Errol Flynn" bandwagon may have been emboldened by this film, however, because Errol is flirtatious and is as womanizing as ever. But, if you watch the entire film you will find that he comes around in the end to realizing his true love and commitment. Watch this movie! It will not disappoint.


For big fans of Errol and big fans of period romance musical comedy/drama combo,this movie will deliver the goods.The story hits the spot for the genre.Very good music,very good cast and acting as well.What kpt this movie from becoming a classic though was the low budget and average directing.The cinematography was also below average.But still,Errol Flynn is so charming here as usual and for the right audience,it's still a winner.This film was unfairly under rated due to the dreaded anti-Flynn syndrome bandwagon......


Ida Lupino is in love with Errol Flynn but Errol loves his brother's fiancé in "Escape Me Never," a 1947 film from Warner Brothers. Flynn and Gig Young play brother composers Sebastian and Caryl Dubrok. Lupino plays Gemma, a poor young woman with a baby she calls Piccolo. She's in love with Flynn, and tells the beautiful, well-bred Fionella (Eleanor Parker), Caryl's fiancé, that she's going to marry the composer Dubrok. Parker thinks it's Caryl and takes off. Carly, Gemma, Piccolo, and Sebastian set off to find her, singing and playing instruments for money as they go. Once they find Fionella, she falls for Flynn and vice versa.

This movie is a remake of a film starring Elizabeth Bergner, and I have no idea why Warners chose it. The performances are good, with Flynn very handsome and charming, though signs of seediness were beginning to show. He plays a self-involved playboy with no practicality very well. Young has a somewhat thankless role as the less flashy brother. Lupino gives a sympathetic portrayal, though she's slightly miscast. The character is feisty but also more of an ingénue than Lupino, whose strong appearance and voice made her a leading lady almost out of the box. Unfortunately because she was at Warners, she had to take a back seat to Bette Davis much of the time. She had more in her than this role requires. Parker is excellent as a cool but lovely socialite.

There's some great music by Wolfgang Korngold of Sebastian's opera "Primavera," and some nice dancing. All in all, it's a small film that used sets rather than location. Not a great entry but some lovely moments from the stars.


I saw this on TCM and had read in several review books that this was a bomb remake of an earlier picture with Elizabeth Bergner,but I was charmed by this film and like Ida Lupino and Errol Flynn's chemistry a lot. The other actors(especially Eleanor Parker) are also quite good and the film is quite a change of pace from the swashbucklers,war filmsand Westerns Flynn was in a lot. I enjoyed it a lot,and wished Lupino and Flynn had had another outing in a better film. This is a good instance of Flynn's natural ease on screen,and his sex appeal even when playing a cad in rags! Not many actors could do as well with this selfish playboy role as Errol did-so underrated an actor.Ida is always watchable,too.


I think the casting of the actors is exceptionally good and Errol Flynn's nonchalant manner fits perfectly in this story. I felt it demonstrated the lesson that we don't appreciate what we have until it is too late and is taken from us. We mustn't take love for granted.

I was particularly interested to see Albert Bassermann appearing in this film and recognized his voice immediately because of his next and last acting performance which was in the famous 1948 film "The Red Shoes" in which he had a fairly significant role - not bad for an actor nearing 80 years of age!

Ida Lupino as 'Gemma' is cast adrift after a short union in marriage which produced a son, but she must fend for herself when tragedy ends the union. She links up the Sebastian (Flynn), a musician, who also happens to have a brother that is in music too.

I like the moderate display in this production of the film, nothing overblown or showy, but just plain and simple, almost like a stage production in a way and more true to the story.

It's an excellent movie and well worth seeing.


Of all the reviews i've read i thought it was going to suck. It was one of errol flynn's better films after his career had started to go down. He didn't make that many more good ones after this one. He made some bad choices with adventures of don juan and istanbul .


It's not a comedy but if you don't laugh, you will be wondering why you continued to sit through this till the very end. Errol Flynn carried this film most of the way with his usual charm but even he can't perform lazarus on such a poorly written screenplay. Peter Godfrey didn't help either. Perhaps he had fallen asleep while directing this piece. Having said that, it has a great cast of actors and actresses. Lupino is a good actress but I felt she was badly miscast in this film. What a pity though because the idea was good and it had potential.


If I could sum up Enduring Love in a word, it would be "unusual". Not in the sense of "bizarre", but just very "unique"; it doesn't do many things the way a "normal" film does. The first highly unusual aspect is that it begins as a quirky "art-house drama" from which emerges a surreal, tragic event in the opening, and which gradually transforms into a thriller ala Brian De Palma, all while keeping one foot firmly planted in the art-house drama arena. If you know nothing of the plot beforehand (and that's the way I prefer to watch films, if possible), it's extremely difficult to predict where this one will go.

The focus of Enduring Love is Joe (Daniel Craig), a young professor who is courting a young sculptor, Claire (Samantha Morton). The opening images of the film are beautiful landscape shots of English farm country. Joe and Claire are about to enjoy a picnic when a hot air balloon comes almost "crashing" down in the field near them. A man is trying to stop the balloon by holding on to a rope attached to the basket. A young boy ends up in the basket alone. Joe runs to help, as do a number of other men who happen to be nearby. Just when they think they have the balloon under control, it takes off again, as if by a large gust of wind. They can't hold it down and everyone lets go except for a doctor who was driving by when he witnessed the beginnings of the incident. The boy is still in the basket, and the doctor hangs on until he's too high to let go. Eventually we see him fall to his death. Joe and Jed (Rhys Ifans) go to find the body, and Jed asks Joe to pray with him. Joe is uncomfortable with this, but finally acquiesces. After everyone's lives are getting back to "normal", Jed suddenly contacts Joe and says he needs to talk. He hints at Joe knowing what he wants to talk about, but won't say exactly what it is. Jed won't let up. Joe keeps running into him in odd places, day after day, but Jed won't just speak straight with him. What does Jed want, and what will Joe do about it?

Enduring Love is based on a novel by Ian McEwan, and many people have criticized the film for being "different than the book". I think that's a mistake (please see my "novel to film mini-rant", marked in bold red in my user profile). This is a fine film that should be judged on its own merits. It's not flawless in my opinion, but it commendable for its uniqueness, among many other assets.

Much of the film hinges on the mystery of what Jed wants, or what is "wrong" with Jed. One of the benefits of watching without any knowledge of the plot is that it opens up a wider field of possible answers for Jed. One of my favorite genres is "rubber reality" films, ala Mulholland Drive (2001), eXistenZ (1999) and so on. If you're acclimated to those films, there are strong intimations that maybe Jed is going to turn out to be Jesus, or a guardian angel, or the devil, or something similar, and metaphorically, perhaps he does turn out to be some of those things. On the one hand, it sometimes feels like substantial swaths of cryptic dialogue go on far too long in the film, but on the other hand, such dialogue is necessary to sustain a high level of suspense.

Director Roger Michell also keeps us somewhat in the dark about Joe. We can see that he's a professor of some sort, but it's not clear what he teaches. He could be a philosopher, a sociologist, a psychologist, or some other kind of scientist. We only know that he's written a book (naturally enough in the era of "publish or perish") and that he buys the basic tenets of sociobiology ala E.O. Wilson (Wilson is an entomologist often crediting with initiating sociobiology in his books, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, 1975, and On Human Nature, 1978). Scriptwriter Joe Penhall includes a lot of dialogue in the film, including Joe teaching, where he expresses a (somewhat naïve) sociobiological view of things like love and meaning. This is just one way that Michell sustains a subtext related to the title of the film. Other ways include the fact that most major characters are having some relationship problems, and of course the principal conflicts are related to the title. Joe can be somewhat cryptic in his emotional arcs--the point was probably to undermine the veracity of the sociobiological view. In any event, Craig does a great job with the character. Ifans is excellent, also, but that's to be expected.

Just as unusual as the plot is the cinematography. Director of photography Haris Zambarloukos provides consistently intriguing and varied visuals, from the expansive, bucolic landscape shots to an unusual, claustrophobic fish-eye with blurred edges sequence during one of the most crucial moments of the climax. The cinematography isn't usually "showy", but it is unusual nonetheless--you just have to pay more attention to it if you want to notice it.

I also loved Jeremy Sams' score, which had a Carter Burwell flavor. Sams is able to provide emotional momentum when the film otherwise cannot (see below), but it still perfectly fits the austere atmosphere. Like Burwell, Sams has a knack for unusual harmonies and disarming simplicity.

For me, the only real flaw to the film is that it is sometimes not very engaging. Perhaps it's ironically appropriate to the subtext/theme, but Michell often keeps the film a bit cold and aloof feeling. If Sams score wasn't in place during certain sections, they might feel almost leaden. But even with that flaw, Enduring Love is a good film, well worth watching if you're looking for something different.


(Contains slight spoilers) Ian McEwan's gripping and disturbing psychological thriller has, alas, been turned into a frustratingly dull movie. Despite a successful depiction of the shocking balloon accident that sets the story in motion, director Roger Michell fails after this stylish opening to generate any of the psychological tension that made the novel such a page-turner. Characters that seemed multi-faceted and tormented in print seem merely bland and humourless on screen. Far from making one sweat with fear, the basic "temperature" of the film is glacial (and I don't mean chilling). I don't think this is necessarily the fault of the actors: while they are unable to kickstart the film into something resembling life, Daniel Craig and Samantha Morton nevertheless bring intensity and integrity to their roles as Joe and Claire. Rhys Ifans, unfortunately, seems to me simply miscast as flaky loner Jed - Ifans is the wrong kind of flaky. Nor can I recall Jed's menace or madness being made so explicit so quickly in the novel. In McEwan's measured prose it kind of sneaks up on you quietly rather than being telegraphed as it is here. Much of the inner drama of Joe and Claire's relationship breakdown is similarly lost in translation. One is left with a sequence of meals and dinner parties which provide the backdrop for a chronicle of Joe's deterioration, without particularly managing to illuminate it. And the fact that Joe never goes to the police (or even seems to consider involving them) even when Jed's stalking of him is well-established and increasingly disruptive, is a major plot weakness that's masked in the nuances of the novel but on screen looms fatally large. It's hard to empathise with a character who lets things get out of hand so easily.

The friend I saw the movie with enjoyed it and was engrossed in the story, but then again he hadn't read the book. It may be that without any prior knowledge of the novel this film works as a low key thriller in its own right, but I can't see this adaptation of "Enduring Love" becoming an enduring success.


I am normally a fan of Ian McEwan's fiction, but have never got round to reading "Enduring Love", so came to this film with an open mind. It has its positive aspects: beautiful English countryside; quasi-Vaughan Williams soundtrack; some good cinematography, particularly in the excellent opening scene, which is by far the best part of the film. For the most part however it is a case of watching good actors wrestle with a dire script and an implausible plot. There are many weaknesses in the script, but the most obvious is its failure to give any of the characters any real sense of where they come from, what motivates them, and why they behave as they do. For example, Joe (the main character) is a university lecturer: I gather from what I've read about the film, that he is a science lecturer, but this is far from apparent from the short lecture sequences we see, in which he is seen talking about love, which he suggests is a matter of biology. He could be lecturing in English, sociology, psychology - there's no obvious scientific context to what he's saying. Although he was apparently about the propose to his partner, Clare, before the accident in the opening scene, there is some unspecified strain in their relationship which prevents her being at all supportive when his problems begin, but what this is remains completely obscure. There are numerous other glaring omissions of information. One of the most irritating things is the lack of any sense of timescale: it's not clear if the events take place over days, weeks or months.

Perhaps the plot worked better on the page. Joe witnesses a shocking balloon accident, following which he suffers nightmares and flashbacks, but neither he nor his partner nor his friends ever consider that he might be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and suggest counselling. They are all highly intelligent Guardian-reading types - surely one of them would have suggested he should get some help. He never sees Jed (the stalker) after the accident until Jed telephones him. But an unusual accident of this kind would undoubtedly be followed by an inquest at which evidence would be called: surely they would have met there? Joe becomes the victim of Jed's stalking, but never considers contacting the police, or seeing a solicitor. At one point, Jed is standing, late at night opposite Joe's house. He suggests that Clare look out of the window to see him: she just stays in bed. Even if she's is sceptical about Joe's tale of being stalked, surely she would have had a look?

Daniel Craig does his best with the part of Joe; Rhys Ifans is reasonably good as Jed (my experience (as a lawyer) of stalkers is that they not generally as obviously barmy as Jed, but that is the fault of the script, not the actor); there's a good performance in a minor role by Bill Nighy. Samantha Morton as Clare is quite shockingly poor: she delivers her lines in a stifled mutter and appears to have only two expressions - sullen and very sullen. Perhpas, with the lines she is given, you can hardly blame her.

Many years ago Ian McEwen wrote a play called "The Imitation Game" for the BBC. It was a subtle, thoughtful, sad and elegantly written piece about self-deceit and male attitudes to women. Twenty years later he is responsible (albeit with a co-author, the much praised playwright Joe Penhall) for this lazily-written film. In recent years he seems to have found a role as novelist to the middle classes - the message is: Look although we may appear to be comfortable and well-off, nasty things happen to us! People stalk us! We are menaced in the street by thugs (this is in his latest novel)! You shouldn't envy us - we really have a horrid time! Those of us who can remember his early novels and short stories (The Cement Garden, First Love, Last Rites) may feel that this is not progress.


STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs

One day,novelist and science lecturer Joe (Daniel Craig) takes his girlfriend Claire (Samantha Morton) out for a picnic in the beautiful English countryside.He has an ulterior motive-he means to propose to her.But then,suddenly and completely without warning,their lives are changed irrevocably forever when a red hot air balloon falls from the sky and a desperate struggle ensues to save the people on board.A man is killed and Joe is plagued with feelings of guilt and failure for sometime after.After a while,he does his best to put the incident behind him and move on with his life.But there's one person for whom doing that obviously hasn't been so easy for-fellow rescuer Jed (Rhys Ifans) who begins obsessively following Joe everywhere,leading him down a nightmare path of fear and madness.

All of the cast do exceptionally well.Craig crafts a perfect portrayal of a retiring English gent desperately ill-at-ease with the troubling situation in front of him.This is the making of a promising new English talent we are seeing here,following on from his success in the lead role in Layer Cake.Ifans,usually a comedic actor (sometimes even in films where the tone is pretty serious),here successfully starts to broaden his range with an impressively unhinged portrayal of a man unable to let go and desperately trying to make sense of the demons burning inside him.Supporting players Morton and Bill Nighy are also very good back up to these two actors who are shining their socks off.

The film has an impressive use of the camera,with inventively flashy visuals here-and-there and still shots that skillfully add to the tension of the story.This is complimented with a clever use of soundtrack that further revs up the story some notches.

Sometimes the story doesn't come together that well,and the plotting goes a bit wavey.Also,some of the dialogue and delivery can't help but feel a little uninspiring.But for the most part,Brit director Roger Michell has crafted a film that hangs together very well and proves to be very intriguing,as well as further high-lighting some fine British talent that deserves to go much further.***


A couple are about to open their Champagne and have a picnic in the beautiful Oxfordshire countryside when an out of control hot air balloon descends into their field, and, in so doing it perhaps disrupts or radically alters their lives forever.

After an extremely well shot and directed opening the film then never managed to live up to the expectations created by such a prolific beginning. The story became the study of the insane adoration of one man for another, as well as philosophical questions with regards to the nature of love and how we can understand this huge but largely overlooked phenomenon.

The acting by Daniel Craig was again impeccable, he really portrayed his part well of the University lecturer who becomes obsessed with being obsessed by, and is surely headed for the big time if he wants it. Samantha Morton was brilliant as Craig's artist girlfriend, but less convincing was Rhys Ifans who I can never really take seriously which was a problem with the character he played here.

The film techniques were impressive, the music was a little dramatic but good, and the editing was very well done. I did not mind the detached and at times hand held camera-work, it gave it a realistic and authentic quality. This was a strange but refreshing film that had great acting, an OK story and more or less maintained my attention throughout.


Notwithstanding its popularity, just how bad a match for "Notting Hill" was Roger Michell? "Changing Lanes" was about as substantial as a studio thriller can be; somebody ought to give this guy at a good, commercial chiller that isn't masquerading as anything else. He'd knock it out of the park. The opening sequence and the climax of "Enduring Love" are startlingly effective, and held me in rapt attention as no two scenes in any film the past year. If "Enduring Love" finally proves less than the sum of its parts, well at least there was some math involved.

No doubt Ian McEwan's novel provides the film with what depth it has; the ideas aren't original (Daniel Craig's professor is the kind of talking-head that should exasperate anyone) but their intersections are provocative. How much stress can we take, just how tenuous are our ties?

At its core it is no more than a stalker movie with art-house pretensions, but at least the trials of the main character are less a result of his own transgressions (unlike the the all-time champion in the genre, "Fatal Attraction," which can be boiled down to, Don't commit adultery!). "Enduring Love" demonstrates just how fragile our relationships can be, and how useless rationality is in the face of obsession, or even genuine affection. That its outcome seems inevitable only increases the tension.

In movies today, Rhys Ifans practically has a patent on a certain brand of loser. This one's got an actual (albeit rare) disorder to blame, not that the movie stops (or bothers) to explain that for us or to differentiate, as it does for marriage and infatuation, between fanaticism and faith: it's the part Mr. Ifans was born-again to play!

Most unfortunate are the Psycho-esquire score and the coda, which is a head-scratcher: is there going to be a sequel? I don't think so.

The Beach Boys' "God Only Knows" will never sound the same. Of course, that only goes to show that you can ruin any pop song by putting it in the mouth of a movie psycho.


Did the cameraman have Parkinson? Why is the camera spying them when they are on their own? Why does it fall on the floor every two seconds? What type of script is that? I'm sure, without reading it, the book has to be better. The poor guy just suffered this terrible drama and the only thing the girl can say is 'get over it, I've got work to do'. Did I miss when the stalker falls in love with the guy? Not a hint of it!. The first scene is very promising, after that is one mistake after another. Nothing is believable, not even the friends. What about when the guy goes, drunk, to see his friends and they let him hold the baby?, I think it's a very unpleasant film to watch. It gets on my nerves.


On an idyllic setting, we watch as Joe and Claire are getting ready in a lush green field for their picnic. Joe prepares to open a bottle of champagne, indicating, perhaps, some sort of celebration was to follow. Out of nowhere, a red balloon appears as it is trying to lift up again. The man pulling the rope to halt its ascent, is helped by Joe, and other three men that appear on the scene almost simultaneously, without we having seen anyone around. There is a young boy inside, who is asked to jump out, but instead, he pushes the device for lifting and it flies away. The four men that were trying to hold it, fall to the ground, but the father keeps holding on until we watch in horror as he falls to the ground.

Joe and one of the strangers, Jed, a mysterious man, run to where the man has fallen. When they arrive, it is obvious he is dead; the men feel helpless. Jed, who has tried to have Joe look at the dead man, is a man who, at first, seems harmless, but he will reappear again in the story.

Jed, who lives with Claire, a sculptor, is a university professor. He can't forget the scene he witnessed. What appears to be an easy going relationship gets complicated because, suddenly, Jed begins to obsess with the accident. Even their good friends, Robin and Rachel, begin to get concerned about Joe's mental state.

Jed, the man in the field, reappears innocently enough, one day. He becomes a nuisance that Joe can't shake. It becomes obvious that Jed has fallen in love with Joe, something totally unexpectedly. Joe can't shake this man out of his life until he shows up at Claire's studio where he and Joe have a final confrontation.

Roger Michell seems to be the right man for bringing this strange story to the screen. Ian McEwan's novel of the same title serves as the model for a film that has nothing to do with traditional love. The title itself is deceiving, one wonders who really is the who endures the love in the story. Is it Jed whose love for Joe is unrequited, or is it perhaps Claire, who sees her life shattered after an innocent day when her life with Joe was at one of its best moments? Joe Penhall's adaptation of the novel works well in the film.

Daniel Craig gives a good performance as Joe, the man who awakens a love on another man and can't cope with what is doing to his life. Rhys Ifan's Jed is the more interesting part because one has no clue if he is serious enough, or whether he is mentally insane because of the way he pursues Joe. Samantha Morton does a fine job as Claire, something that is always the case. The supporting players are good as well. Bill Nighy, Susan Lynch, and Corin Redgrave, especially, enhance the picture.

It must be noted that Jeremy Sams' music score works brilliantly in the film. The cinematography of Haris Zambarloukos and Nicolas Gaster's editing make the film much better. Finally, it is Roger Michell who pulled it all together to bring all the characters of Mr. McEwan alive for us in the film.


I saw the Jed figure as existing in Joe's imagination, welling up from his unconscious mind to haunt him. Yes, Jed was at the triggering event but he haunts Joe without reference to anyone else, and challenges him on the most difficult subject for many English intellectuals: love for thy neighbour. Joe dismisses love publicly in his lectures and privately to friends: according to him it's just "biology". Naturally, this conviction makes him unaware of insulting his live-in lover. He is trapped inside his inability to love. Jed's professed love makes Joe extremely uncomfortable, and he uses all sorts of evasions to escape it. This passage of the film, roughly the first half, was rivetingly significant to me. It is dealing with a central English issue. As the plot developed and Jed emerged from the shadows into Joe's life I thought the film lost its way a little. Joe never confronted his inability to love, and Claire left him. The symbolic representation of this disaster was brilliantly theatrical, but raised some difficult issues of plot resolution that were uncertainly handled. To call this picture a stalker film is like saying Hamlet is about mental health: the more you see the stalker and the less a haunting, the less the film will entertain and challenge you.


Joe and Claire are about to share a romantic picnic when a stricken hot air balloon drifts into the field. With a young boy on board and petrified, and the pilot desperately trying to anchor the balloon, Joe and three other men rush to help. But it will end in disaster and bring into Joe's life, Jed Parry. It's the start of something that threatens to spiral out of control.

Enduring Love is an adaptation {screenwriter Joe Penhall} of Ian McEwan's novel. It's directed by Roger Michell and stars Daniel Craig {Joe}, Rhys Ifans {Jed} and Samantha Morton {Claire}. I think the first thing that should be noted is that the film differs greatly from McEwan's excellent page turner. Tho the essence of the source, such as obsessions, loneliness and to endure love, exist in the film, it does have a number of significant changes. If they be for better or worse,? well that's for others to decide should they enter both mediums.

Enduring Love is a fascinating, if at times uneasy, viewing. One that is actually hard to sell to potential first time viewers. It struggled to find an audience at the box office on account of its complex themes and unwillingness to pander to the norm. And! it's cold, very cold {something that is brilliantly enhanced by Haris Zambarloukos' photography}. So ultimately it's a film that has no specific target audience, this in spite of some lazy observationists trying to lump it in with the formulaic stalker genre. Personally it took me three viewings and a deep delve into the DVD goodies to finally understand and get the movie. So with that I'd urge those who watched once and hated it to maybe try again. For film's of this type don't come around that often, and when they do it feels like a breath of fresh air. Even if that breath is tainted with a chill brought about by the human condition and all its intricate possibilities. 8/10


I have read a number of comments that criticised the film in light of it being a better read than it is a movie. I have not read the book nor am i likely to as i prefer visual entertainment most of the time. To compare any film to its paper bound inspiration is unhelpful and unfair. If one has heard it once then we have heard it a million times, books rarely get translated into faithful or superior films unless of course the book is about 10 pages long or pure drivel. so, do not be persuaded by any such comparisons, simply ignore such comparisons and let the pixels do the talking.

If you haven't read the book the film will surprise. It is dark and morbid with just about enough realism to keep it from turning into an irrelevance. It does walk a tightrope between credible and confusion briefly but this just kept me focused on the story and the characters which perhaps did need more development however it works well enough to keep the overall feel of the film moving in a consistent direction.

There are some annoyances within the direction that may cause one to ask how? why? but again they become part of the frustration and panic that maybe the director had in mind for the audience.

I liked the film and more than anything it was an enjoyable experience which is what after all we watch films for.


Without getting into supreme spoilers, Enduring Love opens so well and exhilaratingly I doubted if the movie could live up to it's superb beginning subsequently. The disappointing answer is - it didn't - not quite. There's a bit of stale air in the derangement and lost sanity of the main character. (spoiler) This is in no small part thanks to a clichéd stalker-esquire mood that grows tiresome. Why cant the main character simply goto the police and report the weirdo? Guess that must be too logical. Some of the better parts of the movie though involve the dialog and how it examines love and/or how the main character looks at it vs. his tormentor, lover, and class. Daniel Craig is an excellent actor and holds the picture together pretty well. The acting of the support is satisfactory. At the conclusion, you may feel a bit disappointed, but you can help wipe that away by recalling the first 15 min of the film - that alone makes the movie more than average fare.


Enduring Love is probably one of the most thrilling books I have ever read with its exciting storyline, memorable characters and--of course--McEwan's brilliant prose. I was very excited to find out there was a movie based on the novel, even though I stayed cautious, not wanting to be too disappointed.

Fortunately, Enduring Love is a fine adaptation of its source material. Though it doesn't go as deep as the novel does, it certainly delivers as a smart, different type of thriller.

Daniel Craig is one of the highlights of this film, playing the lead character, Joe, with intensity and believability. Seeing him bounce off Rhys Ifans in their awkward confrontations is equally entertaining as the latter portrays the antagonist, Jed Parry, with skillful nuance. Samantha Morton and Bill Nighy on top of all that ? Heck yes !

Though many details have been altered, one can see that the filmmakers have a good feel for the novel because its atmosphere is brilliantly transferred to the screen. The first frantic scenes, the paranoia throughout, the looks the characters exchange, it feels right.

The only true criticism I would have would be with the pacing. It suited me but someone who hasn't read the book and really got to know the characters might not really care about seeing some things happen and at such a contemplative pace.

Anyway... A good film which I enjoyed, but if you want the full "Enduring Love" experience, get the book (preferably during your vacation ! ) and savor it!


On form, Ian McEwan is the outstanding novelist of his generation. Unfortunately, Enduring Love is not one of his better works. The story could perhaps be made to work better on film, but this outing suggests not. The spectacular opening to the novel is faithfully captured here, when the main players quite literally drop into our lives. The other strong point of the novel is the suggestion that Jed may just be a figment of the protagonist's imagination, an intriguing plot device sadly not employed by the filmmakers. In the novel, the fact that Joe never calls the police hints at delusion on Joe's part; in the film, with Jed clearly all too real, the absence of any report to authority about Jed's stalking punctures our suspension of disbelief.

Craig puts in another wide-ranging performance, while Morton, never less than awe-inspiring, is flawless. Rhys Ifans redeems himself for The Replacements with a genuinely unnerving performance. Who thought that soppy Welsh git from Notting Hill could be this scary? However, outstanding performances alone cannot redeem a less-than-compelling story. A two-hour film just does not allow the time and scope for the exploration of themes involving religion, psychology, biology and physics that McEwan dissects so well in his prose. In the film version of Enduring Love, there is something arid and stilted about all the clamour and confusion in the relationships. A lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing, to paraphrase the bard.

De Clerambault is a fascinating, but obscure and rarely glimpsed syndrome. I read the novel when it came out, and remember thinking after reading the last page, 'So what?' In that sense, I suppose, the film is a faithful adaptation of the book.


Enduring Love was directed by Robert Michell, Joe Penhall wrote the screenplay,adapting Ian McEwan's novel.

Daniel Craig,Rhys Ifans & Samantha Morton star in this rather strange drama. It starts off with a tragic accident, & one death. This part is very interesting, exciting & well done. This is the first 10 minutes of the film, then the remaining 90 minutes is all talking,(low key), It does get more dramatic towards the end. The script at times seems confusing, even though its mostly 2 or 3 people talking.

The talk is interesting (its about love & life). The acting is the main reason to see this film. Daniel Craig made this 2 years before he became James Bond. Here he is not as pumped up as he was in Casino Royale. He is an excellent actor & definitely handles this role very well, so does Samantha Morton & as his girl friend. Miss Morton is very talented.

The third character is Rhys Ifans, one of the newer actors & He will be a top draw performer very soon, (Think of a younger Christopher Walkin). Bill Nighy gives another delightful performance as he usually does.

This is a hard film to review for me: as much as I liked the acting, sets, locations etc. I found the story on the dull side.. my 3 star rating (below) is at the bottom of the 3 star range.

Its easy to see why this did not play in many theatres.(maximum of 50 in USA late 2004) Its R rating is mainly for the F word used throughout, BUT this is not a film for teens & younger.

Ratings: *** (out of4) 80 points (out of 100) IMDb 8 (out of 10)


In contrast to the comments Tresdodge's featured on these pages, I found Enduring Love compelling viewing. I saw it at the cinema and was blown away; subsequent viewings on DVD have continued to move me. While The Lawyer finds the lack of detail, background and explanation frustrating, it seemed to me a perfect study of miscommunication between adults, especially the well-educated, and a comment on the pretensions creative types have for apparent perceptiveness in others; Samantha Morton's character is the most prone to misread her partner's behaviour, and an up and coming artist, no less.

Surrounding Craig's scientifically-minded character are similarly well-read arty north Londoners all either completely oblivious to Joe's distress or the cause of it, preferring a rather British 'take no notice' view of Jed's stalking, which I found entirely believable. Jed's protestations of love in the Tate Modern was a classic example to me of the irony present throughout the film: a man declares his love in an art gallery, a hallowed place where fierce emotion is channelled into high art. But he is merely rendered a nuisance and shooed away. How very English! The film is remarkable for what it does not discuss openly; the lingering silences and awkward pauses as Joe's mind starts to unravel at dinner parties illustrate how ill-at-ease these Guardian-reading, latte-drinking middle classes are discussing unpleasant aspects of life in general. Which is a cliché but not altogether untrue. No, there isn't apparently an inquest, nor any police involvement, but it's not a documentary, it's a study of how people react the fallout of a violent event; it brings to mind Peter Weir's Fearless (1993), which examined the extent to which people withdraw when coping with severe stress. A rational mind such as Tresdodge's would perhaps enjoy Joe's sessions with a counsellor but the point is Joe's identity is fundamentally in crisis here; he is unable to explain Jed's attentions, nor Mr Logan's motivations for hanging onto the balloon, nor his perverse sense of guilt that he could somehow have stopped the whole thing from happening. What good is science in the face of such overwhelmingly human behaviour? To put Tresdodge's mind at rest, I read the book after seeing the film and didn't find much in the way of explanation there, either, except more elaboration on Joe's rigid belief there is a rational explanation for everything. Which would also explain the tension between Joe and Claire, who as an artist is presumably of the opposite view. On the surface, Claire has more in common with Jed's character; while obviously disturbed, Jed wholly embraces his emotions, regardless of how inappropriate they are.

The score and cinematography is as integral to the success of the film as the script, which I found perfectly satisfactory, although Tresdodge is right when he says the opening sequence of the ballooning accident is the best moment of the film. The tension begins right there, before the balloon has even appeared, as you can see a proposal is about to take place, and it never leaves the screen. This film is complex and uncomfortable to watch, but deeply satisfying; I get something new out of it every time. Even the title can be read in two ways - think about it.


Ian McEwan's novel 'Enduring Love' tells a complex story that touches on the nature of human relationships. But on reading it, I was also struck by how much like a thriller it seemed, with its plot centred on a character who undergoes an experience both frightening and unusual; in fact, so unusual that it isolates him from others and forces him to handle it alone, with an ever-increasing sense of paranoia. So it's not so surprising to see it now adapted as a movie. In fact, the central thriller is downplayed compared to the book and this is not necessarily a bad thing, as that part of the story is relatively one-dimensional (in the way that thrillers often are), whereas it's the hinterland of this tale that is more ambiguous and interesting. And the mood and themes of the novel, with its rationalist narrator, are ably reflected in the movie, with Daniel Craig excellent as a very un-Bondish protagonist.

Director Roger Michell shows a generally sure touch, though in places the score is a little intrusive. While the compressed plot is a mixed blessing: the book, I thought, went on too long in the same vein; but equally, made a little more sense than the shortened version here. An element of playfulness present in the text has also failed to transfer to the screen. But it's still an intelligent rendition of a story that could easily have been butchered; and a modest success.


The performances in this movie were so convincing that I found myself wanting to sit the starring trio down for a cup of coffee and a good old-fashioned intervention. It's so seldom that I find a movie of this caliber that's more gripping than it is entertaining. Only the most "grown-up" of movie goers will appreciate this truly compelling slice of life film. ENDURING LOVE is not for those who suffer from immaturity, ADD, or Mainstreamitis, although I find the three ailments are often interchangeable. If you couldn't care less about Paris Hilton's latest fiasco, or even better, you don't know who she is, then this movie is for you.


Despite some criticism of the film and quite a low general rating on IMDb, I liked the film and thought that it was a tense and interesting film by Roger Michell.

I liked the more unusual tragedy and how it started off the film and gave a background of what was to come in the film, and i thought that the build up of Joe or Joe-Joe (Daniel Craig) character was very well done, the sophisticated London style lecturer and entrepreneur life in which he leads.

I noticed that the plot is quite slow in building up and reaches its climax, at the end quite abruptly and for most films, i would use this as a deterrent but i think it suits the genre of the film, as a tense thriller but think it is more than just another thriller, ripping off other films of its kind, i think it has some amazing and typically thriller-esquire moments but i think the film is so much more than that, i love the colours in London and in the rural field outside Oxford and i think the music perfectly fits and interlinks with the plot, creating a classic film.

The end is quite predictable perhaps, in parts but is a perfect send off to the film. The finale with Jed at the end, with the kiss, is perfect for the film, despite being very gruelling on the eye, not meaning to be homophobic. And on the field at the end of the film, is a good sort of twist, but nothing to complex and the events bring you back to what happens at the beginning, and i like this aspect.

Having not read the novel, by Ian McEwan, i do not know how it fairs as a novel to film adaption, most readers of the novel, however, seem to dislike the film and i admit, perhaps if i had read the novel, it may have put a downer on the film.

I watched the film as a part of Film Four's thriller movies, along with One hour photo, another thriller i was impressed with, despite not normally taking a liking to thrillers. I preferred Enduring Love, however, because i think it is more unique and has the right balance to a thriller film, and thought the actors suited the characters well, especially, Daniel Craig. I do admit, however, before the films having a doubt about the casting of Rhys Ifans as Jed, however, i am glad to have been proved wrong and was impressed with his performance of a Jesus-freak psychopath.


I wish I could give this awful film a zero. It deserves it. Reading the box: it looked like an interesting and good movie. About 40 minutes into the movie I just couldn't take it anymore... skipping a few things, seeing all the gore. It is really a bad, bad, bad movie. I wish I could get the time and money I wasted on it back. There really are no words to describe just how much I disliked the movie. My boyfriend will sit through nearly anything... he gave up after 20 minutes. I'm jealous, I should have been smart enough to. I don't really know what else to say about the film. I'm into depressing drama, like the English patient, American beauty, even maria full of grace for crying out loud! Really, Enduring Love does nothing to keep a person interested. It's boring... boring... boring!!!


I understand that this film was intended to portray a deeper story of a man's understanding of life, but it was very poorly executed and in my opinion, failed miserably. I was hoping for a gripping and thrilling story yet I was bored to tears and found that I had to force myself to watch it in its entirety. The only captivating part of the movie was the balloon crash... the rest could have been summed up in a short film. Not to mention that the ending was a total cop-out. I was disappointed in this film, but gave it a 3 because I've seen worse. It could have been slightly better had it been shorter or if the story had been told at a faster pace.


After the exhilarating opening scene, Enduring Love becomes a strange mixture of Claude Chabrol and Adrian Lyne (Fatal Attraction); not that its strangeness is something negative, it just seems this is a film with many tricks up its sleeve but without a coherent directorial identity. Director Roger Mitchell has fashioned a film that apes many others but not his own style, so it seems this is a director in search of his own vision. Stylistic gripes aside, Enduring Love is a very good film with excellent performances by Daniel Craig and Rhys Ifans as hunted and hunter, or to be more precise stalked and stalker. Samantha Morton's role as the suffering girlfriend to Craig's Joe is a disappointment though. Her role is underwritten and Morton does the best she can with the blank canvas she was given.

I would call this film commercial art house because it has enough mainstream appeal and intellectual rigour to merit multiple viewings. At the heart of this film is the notion of eternal love, in the spiritual and material realms. Ifans's Jed represents a combination of the spiritual and the material dimensions of love, albeit marred by psychotic urges, whereas Joe's is a cynical disavowal of domestic love. Joe's cynicism about the meaning of love is targeted throughout the film, and it seems his inability to express emotion is what binds him in the cul de sac of Jed's obsession. Since each character is obsessional to varying digress, the film is also an exploration of how sane or insane loves makes us feel. While Jed feels an excess of love that Claire cannot express to Joe, Joe's failure to deal with Jed's advances, leads us to question Jed's love for Claire.

We do not see a single kiss between this couple, yet Jed is bristling with passion that is uncontrollable. And even though Joe is perplexed by this, he is drawn into Jed's tantalising web, the essence of which destroys the cosy veneer of heterosexual normalcy Joe takes for granted. So is Joe gay? Did Jed trigger Joe's denial of his own homosexuality? These questions are not answered by the film, but you sense Mitchell's ambiguous approach to expressing Joe's torment might suggest something far more complex.

Enduring Love hits the right notes most of the time, including the deft use of music which recalls the score of Lemming and at times Swimming Pool. Some have complained the music is obtrusive, but I feel it enhances many scenes and creates a troubling, and at times unexpected atmosphere.


This film is a mood piece about the complexities and nature of love. The characters are interesting, with the main protagonist (Daniel Craig, actor) pondering love, along with other internal and interpersonal mysteries. This search at times puts his relationship with his significant other (Samantha Morton, actress) at risk. A compelling story combined with breathtaking cinematography, especially of the countryside, along with evocative music that follows the dynamic range from tuneful, haunting bucolic melodies to more strident dissonance, and profoundly natural and nuanced acting performances come together to craft an unforgettable cinematic experience. Rhys Ifans is an actor of Protean skill, and has a knack for choosing off beat and interesting roles, his role in this film being no exception. I highly recommend this film as a provocative and original work of art.


Enduring Love (2004) tells the tale of a tragic hot air balloon accident that brings to mens life's together. Joe (Daniel Craig) a university lecturer who teaches the values of love, (which is closely examined in the film) and character Jad (Rhys Ifans) who appears mysteriously where the balloon accident took place, and starts to bother Joe. Both characters are played brilliantly by the actors and send an overwhelming feeling towards the film. Showing the passion of love, and loneliness.

The films camera works are also used brilliantly, and the visual style from director Roger Michell, and Joe Penhall screenplay helps adapt Ian Mcewan's novel. Its a modern British film, that includes suspense, drama and a feeling of sadness for the characters involved.

8/10


The film opens with one of the truly extraordinary set pieces. Rather like a dying star it draws all the characters in only to explode the order of their lives. Director Michell and the adequate Daniel Craig successfully manage to keep us guessing that Joe may also be losing it. Rhys Ifans is a bit overwhelming as the truly unhinged Jed. If only they were both as a balanced as the excellent Samantha Morton (Joe's girlfriend Claire).

The slightly lumpy casting continues right down to the teeny parts: Ben Wishaw's student is entirely superfluous to the film but utterly watchable whenever he's on the screen. Conversely the use of Alexandra Aitken (who says no more than half a dozen words in her one scene) is a horribly offputting, nepotistic stain on the film.

For all this shifty assembly (often, the script manages neither to bind the chat nor the drama) it is beautifully filmed and has dramatic poise. Above all I really enjoyed Jeremy Sams' score, borrowing a French-inflected soulfulness from Debussy, Messaien and even Bartok. Thank goodness for the success of this meditative facet as the film could fall apart without it. 4/10


I got this film free and didn't know what it was about - I guessed from the box cover it was some sort of romantic comedy (what other sort of film has hot air balloons?). How wrong I was! Daniel Craig gives a really excellent performance as the stalked university lecturer and Rhys Ifans manages to keep his trademark pantomime acting style under control enough to be convincingly creepy. Poor old Samantha Morton is left without much to do - and her character comes across as quite callous. Why the Daniel Craig character would want to marry her after she's so unsympathetic about his mental problems caused by the hot air balloon mayhem at the start of the film is a mystery. I found certain aspects of this film irritating - ie the endless dinner parties, the middle class media circles the characters inhabit (from this film you'd guess every person in the UK gets their picture in The Guardian) and the Samantha Morton character - but over all I was pleasantly surprised! It works well both as a creepy-stalker thriller and an examination of how easy it is to end up hating your loved ones.


"Enduring Love" is an above average Brit flick all about Joe (Craig) who finds himself in wrestling with potential guilt over a hot air balloon accident. And, If that weren't enough, he finds that tragic incident also beset him with a peculiar sort of obsessive stalker which eats away at his peace of mind and infects his relationship with his girlfriend, Clair (Morton), until he finds himself slipping over the brink of destruction. A very well managed film with a good cast and production value and a plodding and plaintive story, this film builds slowly to a crescendo between two horrific incidents. "Enduring Love" should be an engrossing watch for realists into of psychodramas. (B+)


I foolishly watched the film because I studied the book and it was probably the worst mistake I made. A lot of people will be drawn in by the trailer, but unfortunately the trailer holds all the best parts of a film which misses the integral parts of the novel and because of that suspense is ruined somewhat.

While slight name changes are acceptable, what isn't acceptable are the cutting of some of the mainstays of the book. One of the few scenes out of the film which I felt was missing was the library scene in the book where Joe goes to study and is watched by Jed. Also missing out of the film is the part where Clarissas colleague is shot by Jed whilst they're having a meal and the desperation for Joe (a rational man) who wants himself free from Jed and his quest goes in search to find a gun whilst being high.

While Rhys Ifans was great casting for the character of Jed, I felt that Daniel Craig was miscast. I couldn't hear what he said for the mumbling half the time and think there are better actors who could've played the role better.

There are also scenes that try to be too intelligent and could lose the viewer. The scene where they're eating at the table and Clare (Clarissa) becomes angry. There must have been some kind of coding in it, but I couldn't understand which made me as a viewer feel patronised. Because half the scenes are cut from the book and the character of Joe isn't well played, you end up feeling sorry for Jed rather than thinking of him as abnormal. You can see his anger for Jed but in some scenes it looks like he loses it for no reason at all...while these are the signs of a desperate man there isn't enough ammunition to react in that way and so the viewer feels confused.

I loved the book and still do but I feel that the film is a massive letdown.


Good actors. GREAT story (Ian McEwan is a legend!) Definitely read the novel of the same title before seeing the film! This film was fantastic. I finished reading the novel two days before seeing the movie, and although it had it's differences to the novel, I was gripped. The screenplay made necessary changes to the story's plot. For example Joe Rose is a scientist-turned-journalist in the book, this would not have been very effective on screen, and so they made him a lecturer. *SPOILER below* The end scene was absolutely fantastic, I was expecting the novel's ending with the gun to be used, but the knifing was extremely shocking and poignant. Similarly, the small clip as the credits run, of Jed in an institution matches well with the 2nd Appendix of the novel... eerily emotive!! :: The film makers did a great job of turning the book into a film, and I recommend this movie!


The film starts on a hillside where a couple begin to have a picnic, but it quickly turns into a nightmare as a hot air balloon sails past, clearly in trouble. Despite the efforts of Joe, the protagonist, and others in the area, a man dies. This begins to affect Joe badly, especially as it seems that one of those who tried to help with the balloon, Jed, has now developed an obsession with Joe. All in all, problems are piling up! Well, to be quite honest, particularly in comparison with Atonement which did the novel perfect justice, this film completely ruined the book. What was subtle and ambiguous, has here the subtlety of a man smashing up another man's dingy flat. It all just worked so much better when Jed was a well-off liberal, rather than a man who seems tantamount to being a vagrant, when Claire was a poetry enthusiast, when the audience was actually left in doubt, like Claire, about the state of Joe's mental health. Here, it is virtually impossible to sympathise with Claire: isn't it obvious that Jed is following Joe around, singing 'God only knows'? That poor man: what is he still doing with someone who so clearly does not understand him! When reading the pages, I flew smoothly through the pages, feeling shocked, anticipating, interested, while the film just left me feeling vaguely sick. To say that it made for difficult watching is an understatement. I never want to see it again. In fact, I have taped over it. I could easily, however, read the book again.


the storyline created by the director is imaginatively transferred, under the restraints of a low budget, he succeeds in bringing his artistic expression onto the screen that of the soulless world of vampires that inhabit the new jersey area. a slightly surreal atmosphere that transcends nicely! considering the budgetary limitations, one can only wonder what this talented director, could express with say a twenty million dollar budget?


I love low and no budget horror flicks. Ironbound Vampire was probably made for five bucks. It's got it's saving graces, but they may not appeal to everybody. The look of the main vampire is perfect. His vampire bride is excellent. The casting of Conrad Brooks and Delores Fuller is a treat. Conrad Brooks is really effective (maybe I've been drinking too much of the wine he was pushing in this movie). There's good music too. The story contains some decent creepy ideas that really appeal to me also. There's quite a few good artistic touches in this movie, but in the end it's still a very low low budget video. This is a good start even if the movie never manages to fully rise above it's severe budget restraints.


I just got this one on dvd and loved it.. With a lot of cool bonus stuff and a blooper reel that is to die for.. all i can say is "THE CHEESE THE CHEESE" BEST BLOOPER EVER..

As for the movie with it extended scenes was very well done. love the cast that was used for the days of old to the new actors and actress. Can't wait to see their new film "The Ghosts Of Angela Webb" on dvd. A true Ghost story of a haunted house in New Jersey..


Just watched Ironbound Vampire, in my continuing search for the absolute worst movie, and this is a contender. I would be less harsh if I knew that it was somebody's class project, with relatives and friends participating; i. e., not professionals but amateurs. The story: a soldier's WWI wounds are a feast for a vampire, which causes the military man to become an undead. Thereafter, the recruit settles in the Ironbound section of Newark, NJ, and is responsible for many of that area's unsolved murders and missing persons since then. Among the characters to whom we are introduced during the film are a detective, who writes a book about these events; and a doctor, who helps capture the never-aging bloodsucker. Gore is almost nil. Make-up is Halloweenish. Effects are not special. Watch this flick only to realize that anybody with a camera could do just as well - probably better.


Any feature that has to pad out its barely hour length with unrelated bump'n'grind footage has really got problems. There's no pace, no acting, no talent, no interest. The vampire looks like a member of the 80s band Whitesnake. The cult appeal of cameo appearances by PLAN 9 actors Conrad Brooks and Dolores Fuller is totally wasted. This video feature is beyond bottom-of-the-barrel.


Let's give it its due. There is some nice amateur cinematography here. The story is interesting and much better than many horror stories. Unfortunately, the actors (who probably aren't actors) mumble their lines. There is little give and take or timing. There are a lot of street elements thrown in because I suspect the filmmakers know some of these people. Things unfold sort of slowly. Still, I was somewhat captured by the thing. I disagree that anyone with a camera could make this film. It's far from even a good film but I think the movie shows talent behind the camera. That's worth something. There are a few good isolated scenes as well.


STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs

Caroline McKeever (Donna D'Errico) is a Los Angeles artist in an unfortunate predicament-she's the last living descendant of the Candyman!!!Eager to keep his myth alive,the hook-handed one goes about his business of slashing people from groin to gullet,trying to get Caroline to come with him into the next life and let his myth live forever.

Oh dear,where do I start?!?It wasn't inevitable that a third Candyman film would be made (highly likely,in fact) or that the Candyman franchise would branch out into the video market,but,all the same,what a mess...

It opens well,but it rapidly descends into the worst Candyman film of the series.The first and foremost problem is that it is just not scary at all,ever.It's pretty gory here and there (much like it's predecessors) but at no point does it ever jolt you or put any sense of dread into you.Another thing is that the performances are absolutely rubbish.D,Errico is okay in the lead role,even though she kept reminding me of Midlands glamour model Jakki Degg (she looks about ten years younger than she actually is,too),but Todd,as the Candyman,is here unable to liven up the proceedings,just robotically churns out his lines much less effectively than in his last two outings as the titular monster and even appears slightly bored,like he popped a valium or two before filming began.The supporting cast are what really weigh the film down,the most witless,inept bunch of hopeless nobodies who'd probably have trouble getting work in a daytime TV show (except maybe the one who played Caroline's mum!)

Overall,this is,well,as I've said,the worst of the lot.It lacks the impending,desolate,isolated sense of dread of the original and the well orchestrated shocks of the sequel.It is,in fact,a sorry,pandering mess to these far superior two films that have gone before it and a definite video work all round.Avoid.*


I was kinda looking forward to seeing how they ended the Candyman trilogy and the story actually looked entertaining. I remember when I was younger getting a peek at the movie on HBO, but I think I remember falling asleep, so it was at least something I could put to rest of what the rest of the movie was about. Candyman 3: Day of the Dead turned out to be an ordinary sequel with nothing to remember and it wasn't up to par with the original Candyman.

Caroline, the great great grand daughter of Candyman, is still haunted by the dreams of what her family and Candyman had to go through. No one believes her of course that he is still real, Candyman is back though and he is murdering her friends one by one while she gets the blame. She tries to uncover the legend and figure out what he wants from her, but she might end up loosing the only true friend of her's.

This film was sadly typical and even for a horror movie it was plain pathetic, I do like a little cheesiness every once in a while, but for a great story like Candyman, this was really sad. Well, I can see why they didn't make a fourth installment to the Candyman series, big surprise there. Well, at least I'm done... or am I? *Insert cynical laughter here*

2/10


"Day of the Dead", the 3rd of the Candyman movies, is really just the first two movies put together. Sometimes the special effects look kinda cheap. But you have to remember the movie didn't cost that much and was shot in three weeks.Tony Todd is good as Candyman and seems even more evil than he was in the last two movies.Even though the movie is less scary than the other two, Todd himself is still as frightening as before.The movies story is good, probably one the best ever in a horror movie."Day of the Dead" isn't on level with "Farewell to the Flesh",and it sure doesn't stand up to the original"Candyman", but nevertheless its worth watching.


'Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers', 'A Nightmare On Elm Street 2', 'Childs Play 3', and 'Candyman 3' all have something in common.If you're thinking that they're all sequels, you are right, but there's something else.All of these movies are examples of underrated sequels.I liked all of these movies and I don't care what other people have to say about them.I thought that 'Candyman 3: Day of the Dead' was a pretty decent horror movie with another groundbreaking performance by Tony Todd.Nobody will ever play a better Candyman than him.That's a fact that we horror fans should know.I haven't seen the 2nd movie yet, but I do have to say that the first and the third were pretty good.Maybe the third wasn't as good as the first, but I still found it to be a good movie.After you're finished reading my review, I want you to go to a mirror and say Candyman 5 times.If he shows up and tries to kill you, then it serves you right for thinking that this movie was totally pointless.If the Candyman franchise wants to be really popular, then there needs to be a 4th installment.Let's hope that Tony Todd is willing to play Candyman again.


while i actually liked the first two Candyman movies,i didn't' like this third and(so far Final)installment.i found it boring and repetitive and i didn't like the story very much.there's a lot of filler here,which suggests to me that the filmmakers didn't have enough of a story for a complete movie.i also wasn't too impressed with the acting.there was a lot of overwrought theatrics.as well,there were some things in this movie that did not fit with the previous movies,basically throwing out certain aspects of the lore.maybe i'm just imagining things,but this is my opinion on things.finally,this movie has none of the style of the second movie.adding it all up,this third installment in the series is much lower in quality on all counts.my vote for Candyman 3:Day of the dead is a 3/10


It doesn't destroy the memory of what was once a wonderful horror movie franchise, but Candyman 3: Day of the Dead is certainly an immense embarrassment to its predecessors. The first two films in the series  Candyman and Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh  were creepy, well-acted and sublimely scary. This third iteration is a bland, horribly acted, complete waste of time. Speaking of the acting, the most entertaining aspect of the film is watching Donna D'Errico (from television's Baywatch) try as hard as she can, in hilarious futility, to act. She fails so miserably at acting that you almost feel bad for her. The most offensive aspect of the film, though, is its storyline, recycled from bits and pieces of the first two films to the point of idiocy. In fact, there are parts of the Candyman myth that the film even gets wrong. It's a really bad sign when a sequel doesn't even get its own background story correct. I'd fill you in on what the film is (trying) to be about, but there's really no point. If you're interested in a film that got it right, instead of horribly wrong like Candyman 3: Day of the Dead, pick up a copy of the original Candyman instead. At least then you'll be entertained.


The third movie of the once promising Candyman myth.

Candyman comes back to haunt his last descent a girl named Caroline. She tries her best not to believe in his curse so he starts killing people to prove it to her. Then she starts telling everybody he's back but no one believes her of course. And she's also the prime suspect ya-da ya-da ya-da. What else is new?

So on to the juicy stuff.

Death count on screen: four definitely not enough. Off screen old Candy slashes some punks but by some unknown (STUPID) reason we don't see it. Good call there... NOT

Gore: plenty but still not enough.

Nudity: quick breasts flash from two unknown girls. Could be better.

Sex: you wish you sick bastard.

Cheese Factor: Medium. There's this old lady that looks just like Yoda and keeps repeating the same phrases that was too funny. And Donna D'Errico's acting is pretty amusing too.

So what is there to see? Not much. Yes Donna D'Errico runs around bouncing her fun bags but don't expect to see the goods. How could they? A curse on you all! Turi Meyer whoever you are how could you direct this and not give us a good long shot of Donna's only talent?

Tony Todd is still cool and he's not overused as in the previous sequel but with such awful material it's hard to shine.

This is actually quite boring and galaxies away from the quality of the original,

If you have nothing to do and everybody's out having fun and you're home alone on a Friday night and eating cold pizza and thinking how the hell did your best friend got your girl well then this might be for you if you want to feel REALLY BAD.

If not save your time.


Clive Barker did a good job on the original Candyman. It was truly a cut above most horror movies. The second movie was mediocre at best in my opinion but this one was just horrendous. There is no suspense at all in this movie and the acting is deplorable. Donna D'Errico is soft on the eyes but too bad she talks. Lets hope this is the last sequel to this series.


This movie was truly horrible. How anyone could compare this to the other 2 is beyond my scope of imagination. Farewell to the flesh was by FAR the best one of the series as it explained the story behind Candyman very thoroughly. This movie was mindless T&A and nothing more; Donna D. couldn't act her way out of a paper bag with her overacting and inability to wear a BRA!! There's one scene where she thinks her friend is being attacked and I had to laugh cause it sounded so bad (turns out the friend was just 'acting'). The plot was taken almost directly from the last 2 movies, different actors and loads of unnecessary boob shots (I don't think ANYone wore a bra in this movie) The scary and ominous voice of Tony Todd has been replaced with what sounds like a cheap effect discarded from Lion King. The only thing that I can credit this movie for is the gore, it lived up to its predecessors. There's also one scene during the festival when a cop is running after Donna, it seems reminiscent of another movie....oh yeah Double Jeapordy!! wow where do these people get their ideas, I sincerely hope this is the LAST Candyman movie cause they destroyed it with this one.


I don't know why they do this direct-to-video sequels. Like recent "Wishmaster 2", this sequel to the very enjoyable "Candyman" and "Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh" only intends to offend the fans. It reashes the ideas from the originals, and its plot setups. It has twists like the leading woman discovering she is the great grand daughter of the Candyman. Well, I'm the great great great grand son of those guys from "The 13th Warrior", so let's make a sequels. Bad visual and gore effects, worst direction and lousy acting, specially from Tony Todd. The dramatic ending is pathetic, ridiculous.

This "thing" humiliates its original. It's the kind of sequel no movie should haver had to have.


Candyman Day of the Dead was really good. The movie was based a Myth and Legends. The Candyman played by Tony Todd was really neat because you would never know where he was going to pop up. And Caroline played by Donna D'errico which who is the great granddaughter of the Candyman. And the neat thing about her part is every time she would dream the Candyman would be there in her dreams. And by the way what good acting by Tony Todd and Donna D'errico. I give the movie 7 Stars. It's the best out of them all. *******


Truly a horrible movie. Except for one thing: Donna D. looked incredible. I couldn't get enough of her and her three sizes too small t-shirts. With that said though, this was one lame horror movie with no substance, flair, or even good gore/special effects. Don't waste your time with this one. Unless of course you're a Donna fan..........


The first two "Candyman" films were interesting, well paced horror films. This one is just empty trash made by some greedy producer. Nothing new is added to the storyline, and in fact, things explained in the previous one get butchered up, to a bad effect. No explanation is given as to why the Candyman returns either, nor what the heck he is doing in LA all of the sudden. Phillip Glass's creepy little score also disappears. Instead, what we do get is the director making some glaring mistakes when he was aiming for some gory scene, no real sense of horror, a nonsensical plotline, the same type of cheap film used for most late night Cinemax flicks, several pointless lines, bad twists, and a lead actress with gigantic breasts who wears a tight shirt and no bra at all times. WHY?

Not an awful or annoying movie, just a very flat one. You are not missing anything...


Oh, how can I star? This movie was so awful. I love the first two Candyman movies, they were creepy, scary and they had a plot. In this third installment there is no good acting. Donna D'Enrico should leave her career. I was very sick of hearing her stupid screaming. The only one right in this movie was Tony Todd. Oh, and Tony Todd said in some interview that Candyman 3 was a load of crap. Leaving the awful acting, the stupid ending and almost everything about this movie behind, it was OK. Imean, I liked the gore and the performance by Tony Todd. God, they even missed the excellent soundtrack by Phillip Glass. Bad, bah, bad sequel. I know it was inevitable, but now they should make a Candyman 4 to end the story, cause it's a shame that THIS CRAP was the end of the series. But, what can I say? What's the end of the series in Halloween, Hellraiser and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre? They have been remade cause those series had no salvation. Look at Halloween: Resuurrection, Hellraiser: Hellworl and Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation. If you want a creepy, scary well-done movie, just watch the original Candyamn, and then if you liked it, go watch Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh, but stop right there. Candyman 3 is a big mess: 3/10


I was quite disappointed watching this movie because in no way does it live up to the first one. It misses the atmosphere and general feeling of Candyman that made it scary. This is not such a bad movie if you can get over Donna D'Errico's cheap acting and her lopsided nipples as well as the production.

There is enough gore for anyone though and I kind of liked the way the director tried to experiment with white lights to create a different atmosphere.

So maybe you should see it and judge for yourself because our opinions may be very different.


I´ve seen the original Candyman once and it was quite an effective horror movie that seems to be regarded as a modern horror classic. I have not seen the first sequel and I have no intention whatsoever to even think about renting it. Maybe they´ll show it on TV and I can catch it if I don´t have anything better to do.

Candyman 3... The third part in a horror series can´t be that good (the only exception being Scream 3), it just can´t. To be honest, the only reason why I bothered to watch this movie was that I was sure they would show the leading lady naked at some point. At least in teen horror flicks you get to see naked ladies. Well, we do get some breasts, but they don´t belong to the main lady. I kept waiting and waiting till the very end and what did I get? NOTHING! Instead of some skin the people who most likely accidentally ended up seeing the movie got a stupid brainless movie with mediocre-at-best performances and hilarious one-liners. If it´s blood that you want then check this one because there´ll be lots of it.

I´m sure everyone who was involved in this production is proud of this piece of crap. It must look so good on one´s résumé. How come people accept roles in movies like this? Why???? Why do people write garbage like this???? I wish I knew...


Donna D'Errico of Baywatch fame stars in this second sequel to the 1992 modern horror classic Candyman' as Caroline, daughter of Annie Tarrant from the previous instalment. After unwittingly summoning the Candyman (Tony Todd) she finds herself embroiled in a cat and mouse game as the Candyman tries to make her join him by killing off those close to her so authorities are left to believe that Caroline is a sadistic killer.

Unfortunately this is yet another case of third movie blues as Candyman: Day of the Dead' soon becomes a virtually intolerable bore of a horror movie with little redeeming features. Abandoning all the interesting ideas from the previous instalment, writer and director Turi Meyer seemingly tacks on a ludicrous storyline to resurrect Danielle Robitaille aka the Candyman and in doing so turns the Candyman into nothing more than a typical slasher villain. While the previous instalment stayed somewhat true to the original this movie just turns the unnerving mythological presence of the Candyman into a joke. The first thirty minutes seem like nothing more than a cheesy soft-porn movie which is regrettably the best thing I can really say about this movie in terms of storyline. While the more brutal scenes which feature some good kills should satisfy gore fans those who want a little more to think about will be extremely disappointed especially considering this movie's roots.

Donna D'Errico does her best to perform well in such an ineptly written and totally dull role and one does start to take some enjoyment from her performance even though it is only that of a B-Movie actress. The rest of the cast perform as well as you would expect from a group of B-Movie actors with the obvious exception of Tony Todd. Poor Tony is completely wasted here! In the previous instalments he had such an intimidating and foreboding presence whereas here, although he tries, it is impossible to take his character seriously and while he is certainly the most accomplished actor amongst the group his talents are wasted with a completely worthless script featuring some of the worst sustained dialogue it has been my displeasure to have ever heard.

Those who are yet to see the original Candyman may find some enjoyment in the movie, despite his inept writing skills Turi Meyer's direction was generally fairly tight for such a farcical movie and one has to give him some credit in that department. If only the movie had not tried to continue from the first sequel with such a senseless premise and had decided whether it were a horror or a soft porn film then maybe something good could have been created. Unfortunately Candyman: Day of the Dead' is a rather ghastly entry in the series and I'm sure will not fare well amongst fans of the original. My rating for Candyman: Day of the Dead'  4/10.


I liked the first one.the second was poor and not helped by the narration by a DJ.This is far worse with a very low budget,a terrible script.and for a horror film minus scares chills and thrills.The acting is bad and the movie is just rubbish.1 out of 10


Candyman 3 day of the dead is pretty much one of the best horror movies you can find. The plot is not any thing special because it is pretty much the same plot as candyman 2 farwell to the flesh but the movie itself completely makes up for it believe me. This movie is about a women named Caroline(Donna D'Errico) who is an ancestor to the candyman(Tony Todd). Candyman wants to bring Caroline back to the grave with him. This movie is probably the second goriest movie in the series behind the original candyman. I would highly recommend this to a fan of Candyman or Scream. I give this 2 thumbs up.

Roosterz review for parents, My ratings are either Minor,Mild,Moderate,Heavy,Strong,Graphic or pervasive.

Sex:Moderate Violence:Graphic Nudity:Moderate Gore:Graphic Language:Heavy.


I walked in to the third act of a three-act play. Unfortunately, I have not seen Candyman 1 and 2, so I have to judge this on it's own merits.

Tony Todd makes a good villain. I was interested in seeing him after watching him with a group discussing horror movies the other day. I like Candyman and will certainly look for the other two.

This was my first time seeing Donna D'Errico, and it was painless. She didn't have a great role, as she spent most of the time screaming and running, but she did OK. Apparently you have to watch Playboy videos to see all her assets, but they were impressive jiggling in beater tees here. At least mommy wasn't so repressed.

Worth watching, but probably better as the end of a trilogy instead of the beginning. Have to get the other two parts.


Plain Out a Good Movie. As Usual, Candyman is Stalking his latest Obsession. He Does the Killings and The Girl is Blamed. Seems Familiar? Here's The Twist. This One is the most Enjoyable From The Whole Series. When I Say Enjoyable, I Really Mean...Terrifying, Stunning, Brilliant, A True Master Piece. I Could not See Myself Thinking so Highly Of The Candyman Without This Latest Installment. It's Just That....Well....I'm Sure The Candyman Will Return for More Thrills Due to This "Odd" Ending. Better than Part 1. Check This and Other Candyman Movies Out!!!!!


Seems only fair, given you have to speak his name five times to get him to show up. Which points out one of the flaws of the movie: _why_ do you have to speak his name five times? He shows up so many times in this movie that summoning him is usually the least of your problems.

Anyhoo, this movie is thoroughly unlikeable, without a likeable or interesting character in the lot. Basically, CM shows up, kills someone, frames our "heroine" (I use the term loosely, as she basically whines, jumps in startlement a lot, and wanders about in her undies) and disappears until the next time.

I could go on at greater length about how bad Tony Todd is (although he does the best he can with what little he is given), or the excrutiating dialogue, but I won't waste my time or yours. Avoid at all costs. There's a good reason this wasn't released in theatres or direct-to-video.


Better than a lot of movies out there, but could have been done a little better...changing the story from slave to artist was dumb, and that actress was horrible!!!!


Tony Todd co-produced and appears for a third time as candy-man in Day Of The Dead as the scary man with the bad handshake. The movie was directed by Turi Meyer, but maybe it's supposed to be Russ Meyer; because, there's an abundance of female body parts exposed for no other reason then to ...well...be exposed I guess (reviewer blushes). Baywatch bubble-head Donna D'Errico stars as the great great granddaughter of candy-man. She's the daughter of Kelly Rowan's character from Farewell To The Flesh if that helps. The movie replays the same plot over from the first candy-man movie, minus any real horror or suspense, while D'Errico prances about in very tight clothes, panties, and tank tops made for infants. Her acting is at about the blow-up doll level, literally, as she inadvertently finds herself in close company with the candy-man (reviewer winks). Tony Todd spews "be my victim" so many times that I thought Meyer should have given him a sandwich board to wear to announce it. Maybe the writers could have given Todd more dialog then. The three films contain an escalating quantity of gore, which reaches its zenith in this movie; because, well...zeniths have to be reached. There are several of those red herring "boo" scenes again too. You know, it's the kind of scene where something or someone jumps into the scene (to say "boo" to the audience) when the director says "action", punctuated by excruciatingly loud cue music. Dum, dum dum dum (to borrow from Dragnet). Then we have a Lt. Detective Kraft, who is hell bent on putting the handcuffs on poor Donna; because, it looks like she's a murderess! To whom? Not the audience. For the next candy-man movie, I think the producer should lock all directors, writers, and film crews that want to make horror sequels in a room with a ceiling mirror, play the Sammy Davis Jr. tune "the candy man", and have all those present sing along. The direction is absent, the gore is gratuitous, and the script is laughable. They couldn't even afford to have Donna D'Errico wear a bra. 0 of 4 stars.


"Candyman:Day of the Dead" is an incredible pile of garbage.The script is not only awful,but extremely predictable with a totally pathetic ending(I won't go into it,but you might kick in your TV set after viewing it).The acting is really pitiful,with dialogue to match.OK,there are some nice splatter scenes(I like especially the sequence in the car when one guy is slowly gutted),but the rest of the film absolutely sucks.To sum up,"Candyman:Day of the Dead" is one of the worst horror movies ever made-bland,boring and mind numbingly stupid and gets 3 only because of some pretty good gore.I really like bad horror movies,but this is an insult.Avoid it at all costs.Not recommended.


I know a lot of people on here gave this movie a bad review, but when I read those the only words going through my head are "What the f**k???" Geez, people. Don't you get it? The point of this movie is to be a spoof of all the other lame ones, but to be enjoyable because it's not really one of those at all. I mean, it is (but only because it's spoofing...SPOOF-ING!), but it has a good sense of humor and tone to it. I couldn't get enough of the dog. I taped it back in...probably 6th grade, and I'm planning on watching it tonight!!! I really enjoy this movie because, who can't love a dog with such a human-like character to him? Hmm??? And the people he meets along the way too, haha. It's great. It's a great comedy, I love the part where the crooks are trapped by the police and they realize all the hostages are gone, so they look at Bingo and in the next scene they grab the dog and say "one move and the dog gets it!"...well, it's funnier in the movie. But it's definitely worth the watch. I mean, if you keep an open mind and don't act like the rest of these dufuses who probably started the movie with a negative response and kept with it not even WANTING to enjoy it. Geez, give it a chance. And even if you don't like it, I think it was worth the experience. Either way there are funny parts in the movie. Has Lassie ever gone to jail? Has Willy ever been to a place where they serve killer whale meat on the menu?????? Well, have they?! No. So watch it because it's a SPOOF, not just "another" one of those movies. It's great for everyone...except for angry men, and bitchy women.


Normally I am not much for any movie that features an animal and as a result I avoided watching this movie as long as I could. However, since my grand daughter and my wife watched it over and over for months it was inevitable that I would be exposed to it. What a joy. To my surprise it was a parody, and a clever one at that. Once I realized the film was a spoof and being played for laughs I couldn't stop laughing. The well written script and hilarious sight gags make this fun for adults and children. However, I do have one complaint about the writing. Why was the limited profanity in the script? It adds nothing to the movie and worst of all is not funny. I can't believe that a guy like me who likes "Pulp Fiction" would be making this complaint, but without the needless profanity this is a perfect family movie. Profanity aside "Bingo" is a hoot.


BINGO, in my opinion, is a cute movie about a very special friendship between a boy and a dog. I thought that Hal and Natalie (David Rasche and Cindy Williams) were a little cold-hearted, but Chuckie (Robert J. Steinmilller Jr.) was a very sweet kid. Bingo was a sweet dog, though. He even saved Chuckie in times of trouble. Way to go, Bingo! If you ask me, that's one thing that made the bond between them so special. When Bingo was trying to catch up to Chuckie during his cross-country movie, I felt really moved inside. In conclusion, I highly recommend this movie to all you dog lovers or Cindy Williams fans who have not seen it.


I've noticed from some of the reviews here and from remarks made by a number of my friends who have seen this movie that far too many people seem to be judging this movie as a children's film. Strange as it may seem this film isn't a kids film, nor is it a documentary, it's not a sickly-sweet boy loves dog movie either, this has got to be one of the most scathing satires ever made. The film lumps together elements borrowed from "Lassie", "Rin Tin Tin", "The littlest Hobo", "Skippy the bush kangaroo" and many more and then gleefully turns them all on their head in a brilliant parody. Unfortunately too many people see only a kids film and judge it on that basis when in reality it is a movie aimed at adults poking fun at the films those self same adults enjoyed as children. My only criticism is that the movie seems to have missed its intended target. Either the director and screen writers misjudged their audience or the audience are misjudging the film. What a pity as this movie is a pure gem.