Shame on NEW LINE CINEMA for releasing such crap like THE MAN. SAMUEL L. JACKSON and EUGENE LEVY can do a hell of a lot better than this and they have. There is nothing remotely funny or entertaining to be found in this lame attempt to make people laugh. Wait! Excuse me. I did laugh once and I will tell you what at. The only time I laughed in this movie is when EUGENE LEVY's character eats red meat and then gets in SAMUEL L. JACKSON's car. Seems the red meat gives him gas and soon the farts are coming out left and right. The expressions on SAMUEL L. JACKSON's face made me crack up. But, unfortunately, that is the only laugh to be had. All I can tell you is DO NOT, I repeat "DO NOT", watch this movie.


I actually had free tickets to this film but forwent using them after seeing the terrible write-ups: Tired buddy film; Samuel Jackson couldn't look more bored... etc. In contrast, after finally renting it, I found it to be a very entertaining film with roles that seemed to fit the actors like a favorite chair. If Jackson looked bored it was because his character was bored -- alive but not living -- and Jackson pulled it off very well. Many people here have referred to it as a rip-off buddy-film but I wonder if they aren't just buying into the dime-a-dozen reviews; or perhaps they are buddy-film connoisseur's and have some authority on it all when actually this movie deserves to be seen for itself. Personally, I can't call this a buddy film since they were not buddies in any sense of the word. More like Shaft meets Felix Unger. As well, there seems to be a consensus that there was a lot of bathroom humor. I think the fart scenes could have been left out, although the first is an almost a deserved scene to accentuate the burned out bad boy and over the top good boy irony; and the cavity search seemed totally unnecessary and basically out of character for the movie or at least out of place except the director felt uncomfortable with any "aww"s certain scenes might have evoked.

Beyond that, Les Mayfield was using slapschtick humor, and the lot of them -- Jackson, Levy, Goss and Mayfield, seemed to pull it all off with an almost Buster Keaton style; the epitome of poker-faced comedy whereby the humor is delivered in a brown paper bag instead of a piñata spewing candy all over you (or worse, a pie in the face).

Levy is perfect as the bumbling salesman whose dreams peak at the hope of having a standing ovation for his presentation on the latest dentistry tools in his text-book nerd attire and over-indulgence in self-obsessed righteousness; while Jackson is impeccable as the rouge untrusting, seen-too-much undercover agent rotely implementing his down-to-a-science head-banging and snitch chasing, which brings purpose to his life but of which the passion and excitement of it all elude him. While the entertainment value lies squarely in the interaction between these two polar opposites, there is a not so subtle gaining of qualities from each to the other. Great performances from a fabulous cast for this silly and enjoyable caper.


rosanna arquette has done a brilliant job of taking us inside the very human world of life as a rock star. we finally get to see our musical icons as they see themselves: artists who just happen to be famous and must deal with the business of being an artist. her subtle device is her hand-held camcorder that is both the source of some footage and an insulator between herself and the interviewee--removing most of the congeniality that surely exists while allowing her subjects to speak frankly without pretense. i think what struck me the most is the intelligence, sincerity, and genuineness these people resonate as they talk about how they reside within the music business. these are all such interesting people and i couldn't help but wish documentaries like this accompanied every artist's CD.

rock on, rosanna!


Have you ever sat and wondered why popular music has become plasticized and oh-so formulaic in the last ten years? This film answers that question and more. Rosanna Arquette does a magnificent job of presenting a fantastic cross-section of musical artists from every genre. From Sting, to Don Henley, to Mary J. Blige to Willie Nelson and Burt Bacharach. Rosanna sits back with her hand-held camera and allows the artist the opportunity to speak freely about their art, life and the music business. An open and honest commentary that is sorely missed in this day and age. A must see for those who appreciate music or for those who are just getting started. Thank you Rosanna!


I found the documentary to be a very refreshing look at what the artists are thinking with regards to a changing culture. While yes, I do question the artists that are complaining about the $$ they are losing because of downloading, etc. I still feel like Rosanna truly made a good effort at getting everyone's point of view, opinion (whether it be selfish/shallow/stupid/excellent/wise), and their passion for their art. More than anything it gave me hope that some artists of the past/present are still trying to make contact and teach those of the present into the future because they care about where the quality of music goes. It's TRUE!! Image is starting to be everything when it comes to the music! What happened to the art of expressing it regardless of whether your nose is crooked, teeth crooked, whatever! Lyrics and music should touch your soul, voice helps, looks should be way down on the list! Great documentary...I very much doubt these voices and artists of the past are bitter -- they are concerned for the future of true music and artisans!


Just saw this movie and found it very entertaining. It was great to see so many talented artist (going back to the 60s) all say the same thing, that the music business is a difficult, but a rewarding experience. The only thing that bothered me was that Steven Tyler was a stand out bitter bitch. He had the opportunity to point out how lucky he was, being dropped in the early 80s, and now enjoying a hugely successful career more than 20 years later. Instead he bitched about downloads, and his former manager getting 20%. Wow, sad comments from a guy who owes his sobriety, and second career in the music business to that guy. Having been in the music business, It is great to here so many musicians give songwriting credit to an unexplained force. I have heard many say that they draw from a nebulous well to create, and it was great to here from many brilliant musicians.


All We Are Saying to me was something I think everyone should see at least once. It had all the great musicians, that had an impact on the music industry, expressing their opinions on how the music has changed. The opinions all seem to stay the same, in thinking that music has lost its flare.. but seeing all those big names from back in the 60's, 70's and 80's to now, makes it all worth it. Not to mention, the in-depth conversations and the words of wisdom. David Crosby said a line, "Britney Spears is being considered for a record over Joni Mitchell, and Britney Spears is about as deep as a bird bath" and to me, is true. If you love, classic rock and new soul music, such as I do, this documentary will inspire you. Talk about better to burn out than fade away, this old timers are going out like a bad-ass firecracker.


This film gives you an unusually good look into the creative process, along with frank discussion of the problems and sacrifices that most artists have to deal with and accept in order to keep their creative channels open. The casual use of the cameras facilitates the conversational feel and the directness of the artists communication. Ultimately it allows us to share the experiences of a some great artists in their search for true expression, which is really a universal human need and it certainly evoked some empathy in this writer. Of significance is the clear communication that dedication to their art form, the performance and sharing of their music is much more important to them than the money they earn.


Ms. Arquette is hot...aside from that...she has created a film that is one of the finest films about music that I have seen.

The lady who inspired Toto's big hit...speaks with a whole lotta musicians about the business of music. They all appear to be coherent...as in Sex...Sobriety...and Rock & Roll.

The majority of the artists have been well known for over thirty years...and some of them almost did not make it this far. I am glad that they did. I just hope that Joni Mitchell does not end up like Sammy Davis Junior.

I could have watched another several hours of Ms. Arquette's interviews...perhaps not in one sitting...but certainly in two parts.


Before I got paid to photograph Hotels and Restaurants (advertising). I spent a good part of the eighty's and ninety's as a photographer in the Music industry. I've traveled with many bands doing tour photography and also was a contributor to many Music magazines. So I've been behind the scenes. Whenever I get a chance to watch these documentaries, esp Vh1 Behind the Music. I sit and watch them to see how much of it is a true realistic look at life in the music industry. I have to admit I think Vh1 Behind the Music is an excellent production (even seen myself in the background a few times). The difference between the Vh1 show and a documentary like All We are Saying (or babbling it should be). Is that Vh1 does their research and gives you an a full history and true account of the artist (good and bad) from beginning to the present. They make it interesting to the viewer to watch. Rosanna Arquette basically just sticks a camera in the faces of these artists and gives them this open forum to ramble on and on and on....30 Min's into it...I thought what is the freakin point of this? I'm falling a sleep here!

I loved hearing Steven Tyler at the very beginning of the film sitting at his mansion complaining about how his record label calls him to tell him his song that was worth a million dollars is now worth 12 cents...cause every ones downloading! But its certainly OK for him to allow the promoters and his record label  to rip his fans off by charging a $150 for an Aerosmith ticket and $20 for a Cd. That's very lame Steven. You have lost my respect.

Many artists in this production I've photographed. I didn't remember them babbling this much when I met them. Maybe..if she would have showed the full interviews or didn't cut away to so many at once. Each interview would have made more sense. The editing in this film is some of the worst I've ever seen. Unless they were trying to make a film that absolutely made no sense whatsoever, and wanted to bore everyone to the point of wanting to slice their wrist to end the pain of watching this very boring film. Then they did a great job...


This seemed like a good idea - making a documentary by finding musicians and taping the truth about how they really feel.

But who'll care? Which musicians would make an impact regarding the theme of this film? What would strike a chord with folks who really want to know the answers to this question? Well, if you're waiting for an answer - still wait. 1970's 'After School Specials' plus actress Rosanna Arquette has combed New York (mainly) and found 80% of the musicians/singers/songwriters that folks almost have forgotten about and asked them for their thoughts. Musicans...and Yoko Ono.

This could have, and would have been interesting if there were a great deal of people we'd be interested in hearing deep inner most thoughts about the industry from from many sides of the spectrum but this was like looking at "the walking dead" on celluloid. And the questions, well, I wont be looking for a Rosanna Arquette talk show anytime soon. At least, I pray there wont be any.

This is something you can readily expect to see on VH-1 under one of their cheesy shows, but this would be best called: "Behind the Music with The Cryptkeeper". This is not to say Rosanna and her crew should have found ONLY young, popular musicians and asked them, they probably wouldn't know how to answer that question at this point in their quest for "bling". Which is why at this point it may have been better to go to the near dead to talk about it. Their careers are 'done' and they would have nothing to loose, whereas younger musicians still have commercial appeal and they wouldn't want to eat and spit in the same place.

But many of the people in this effort made me cringe... I saw the sickle behind many of them and felt this was their last chance to say something about the industry that they worked in on film before Charon came for them to take them down the river Styx.

Of course, I have to have half a brain here and think that those filmed wanted to be filmed and gave permission to be included in this documentary. This could be one of the reasons why we sat through an overblown, overlong episode of "The Dry and the Dusty" in the music industry with a few new folks sprinkled in and the few obligatory African Americans for this to look like a diverse event. If Rosanna Arquette didn't have an actress resume and the notorious Toto song "Rosanna" behind her, this documentary would have been laughed off the face of this earth by any other filmmaker.

Plus, I always cringe when they drag out Yoko Ono to talk about 'music'. I missed "The Beatles" years but thanks to other documentaries, films, TV Show appearances, etc., etc., etc., being rammed down your throat about them at every turn, there isn't much one can't know about them. I understand that Ms. Ono is/was an "artist" (atrist, a buzz word I will define, in my opinion, as a pretentious faux-intellectual, pacific rim type entities purposely scoping for burnt out/drugged out has-been musicians/producers/songwriters types to feed into an overblown ego when others wont just to finance their visions so they can sit at home and not ever get a real job), and her musings on "music" to me are about as helpful as an ant walking on an elephant's back. I'm glad Ms. Arquette, the actress, got to interview her because only an actress can say, "It is a honor to meet you" to Yoko Ono. I would suspect to Ms. Arquette it would be 'an honor' for her to meet and talk about music to Mickey Mouse too.

Many folks 60 years old and older may want watch this because many of these musicians interviewed are musicians/singers/songwriters that generation grew up with and may want to know how they're doing these days, be surprised they're still alive, may want to know how they felt about working in the industry in their day, and how their kids turned out when they weren't even home to see them grow up. Ms. Arquette gushing over them is always a plus for an ego booster, and we know these folks need an ego booster in their final days.

There are a few (a few, mind you) people interviewed by Ms. Arquette that might appeal to those between 35 and 49, but none that would draw in the under 34 crowed unless they were studying music theory and wanted to do an extra credit paper in oldies pop.

If you want to see 80% "The Dry and the Dusty" in the music industry on the east coast -- and Yoko Ono -- and want to know their thoughts as interviewed by a fading actress (another thinly veiled theme of this documentary to me, really) then this may be the film for you.

For others, please don't bother.


I pretty much agree with glazedham's review. I will add the following...one of the things that I found most annoying is the fact that Arquette is frequently seen holding a camera while another camera is filming her holding the camera. I don't know why, but this was unbelievably aggravating to me. All in all, I was left with the impression that many of these "artists" have just taken way too many drugs. If their lives are so difficult, I recommend that they get off the stage and go to a part of the world where they can witness real suffering. Hopefully they will take Arquette and her hand-held camera with them. Maybe she will eventually use footage from the hand-held camera as it seems to have served absolutely no purpose in this film.


Stephen Vittoria performs a public service with this dynamite doc on George McGovern, a man who embodies what all Americans who aspire to public service should be. McGovern's inherent decency cost him one of the nation's most crucial Presidential elections in 1972, running against the original king of dirty tricks, Richard Milhouse Nixon. Although McGovern's platform was somewhat vindicated when Nixon's White House was outed by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein as the most corrupt administration in American history (with Tricky Dick's resignation soon following), the tragedy of his loss, and his subsequent fade into the background of American history still resonates.

Hopefully our best and brightest young people will see this film and will be inspired by Sen. McGovern and his message to enter public service, and contribute to making this country and this planet a better place. As of right now, we have nowhere to go but up! Kudos to you, Steve, and bravo Senator McGovern!


What you didn't know about Senator George McGovern and presidential candidate George McGovern is captured by director Stephen Vittoria in this documentary which should be required viewing by all who care about our country and our election process. But it's far more. It's the story of how a distinguished professor of history, with all the values and integrity that we would like to attribute to those who enter politics and determine much of our destiny, sacrifices a secure and magnificent life with his family, for that which might make our country safer, more respected, and less corrupt. He does this because he believes it can be done to save the lives of those young Americans dying needlessly in an unjustifiable war in Vietnam. And he does it so that he and his family and all Americans can have real hope for the future. That's what we wanted then, that's what we hoped for in our leaders then, and that's, oddly what we still want so desperately in this perilous world now. There are moments in the film that remind us of things you will recall or be fascinated to know because you didn't really know the truth then. Some of what you had thought, which you will see, was totally false. You'll not only learn of the frailty of our democracy due to television, election time, commercial spots but with 20-20 hindsite, you'll see how we, the American voters, were tricked. The comic, genius of political observation, Dick Gregory, and so many magificant observers of history in the film provide intelligent even humorous observations about our lives and our system of government. It really doesn't matter what side you're on. Considering where we find ourselves today, where our nation's young soldiers, men and women are fighting in Iraq, the film tells us, bluntly that we have not really learned, or grown, or done much about our historic blunders. It's shocking. In the time of George McGovern's presidential bid against President Nixon, who would later resign in disgrace (lest he be impeached and thrown out of office), we had a choice. We could correct the mistakes of how we go into war, in Vietnam under two administrations (Johnson and Nixon), in which lost us 60,000 Americans, and wounded so many more, or we could "stay the course," as we do today. This extraordinary look into our past is like a roadmap to the future. It demonstrates how the nature of American politics does not change nomatter how obvious the truth is, particularly delivered by a 500-1 shot as was McGovern. Senator McGovern, for over a decade, had opposed our involvement in the war in Vietnam and pledged, above all, that if elected he would bring our troops home and end the senseless deaths of our young and brave men and women, fighting soldiers. This film is a tribute to a man, a former fighter pilot (35 missions in WWII), a respected senator from South Dakota and candidate for the presidency. Smear tactics from Nixon's party's CREEP, that will shock you and amaze you, and even the strange occurrences related to the attempted assassination of George Wallace will make your jaw drop. But through it all Senator McGovern had hope and gave the working people hope, the poor and isolated people hope where none had existed since the days of President Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. You'll see images and hear words of that time when it was marvelous to have someone with the courage. And you'll see the power of a political machine that constantly tried to crush him. I ask you to find this film. Order it online in DVD when it's out. Read the interview in VENICE MAGAZINE (written by Alex Simon and published by Nancy Bishop). This is so important to all of us if we are ever to have hope again about our nation and our leaders. And it's as appropriate now because we are again locked in a front page war that was so similar. Don't rob yourself of this great film about one great man who would have made a difference in this nation's course. There aren't many but it gives us a slim sense of hope that there might be someone to renew our hope again and make American all that we want it to be and make us safe.


Whether or not you agree with the political views of George McGovern or those espoused by the talented director of this film, Stephen Vittoria, this film should be mandatory viewing for all Americans. The old saying is true - in order to know our future we must know our past. This film shines a bright light on the life of George McGovern and his failed attempt to win the 1972 Presidential election.

Not necessarily a household name for today's generation, McGovern represented the idealism of American politics and it's fair to say we haven't seen anyone like him since.

McGovern's victory in the Democratic primary was nothing short of astonishing. A Senator from South Dakota running against 16 other candidates for the Democtratic nomination, he amazingly won and set off to battle against Nixon in the Presidential election. After a series of unfortunate events (the shooting of George Wallace) and self-described campaign errors, Nixon won in a landslide.

The film uses archival footage, interviews with political historians, influential political activities from the time period (e.g. Dick Gregory, Gloria Steinam, Warren Beatty, Gary Hart) and candid interviews with Senator McGovern. Blended with an excellent musical score, the film is not to be taken lightly.

With obvious parallels between Nixon and today's Bush Administration, it's hard not to get wrapped up in the idealism of "what if?", had McGovern won the election.

Senator McGovern is a spry 83 years old at the time of this review, with an intellect as sharp as ever. On the sad day when he passes, this film will serve as a tribute to his idealism and accomplishments during one of the blackest hours of American history.

Here's hoping the film will indeed be used as a teaching tool in high schools and colleges around the country.

ebhp


"One Bright Shining Moment" is the kick in the butt reality of what this country is, and what we should all inspire to become. Beginning with problems with the Vietnam war, George McGovern is a man who truly would have altered history as we know it. Or has he? Stephen Vittoria tells the remarkable tale of a man who, even in his eighties, could run rings around the present day administration. With great narrative by Amy Goodman and unmistakable interviews with Gore Vidal and Warren Beatty, being "progressive" takes on the dictionary's true definition.

For example, progressive means moving forward and advancing. Proceeding in steps and continuing steadily by increments, or promoting and favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, and methods.

It is my opinion that this film is a mentor of hope and should be passed along to EVERY young person in this once great land of ours! I only wish my history class was this enjoyable.


This excursion into a pivotal season of our history is essential viewing. Unfortunately our sense of history seems to be overwhelmed by our information overload brought to us at the speed of light. This well thought out, very personal film brings a refreshing blend of film making, story telling, and biography to bring out vast details, many of which went under the radar, of a complex time in our nation's history. George McGovern's life and presidential campaign became a catalyst for politics and political movements that are still reverberating to this day.

The edit and design is organic, maintaining the feel of the period the story grew out of. You may be surprised of details you never knew about the man, stirred by memories of that season, or finally get some clarity as to how our current political culture arrived to the place it is now.


I participated in Vietnam Summer (1967), campaigned for Gene McCarthy, and was an ardent supporter of McGovern's presidential bid even after the Eagleton fiasco. I hoped that this movie would bring back the excitement and conflict of that era. Instead, it exaggerates McGovern's virtues and everyone else's faults. The narrator makes derogatory comments about everyone else, even those who arguably are not so different from McGovern (smart, well intentioned, often effective, and human). Most of the movie is interviews with participants, including McGovern himself, who still has all the traits that made him attractive 35 years ago, including honesty about his mistakes. But many of those interviewed had peripheral roles at best and have little to say that is insightful or interesting. The big exception is Dick Gregory, who is full of clever analogies and insights.


Right now there's a DVD out with a few of the stories edited into movies, but I wanted to see it in its original form. I had one video as a kid, and the rest of the series I've only seen through low-quality internet videos.

It's interesting to see the direction the show took immediately after the original movies and before Episodes 1-3 were thought of. The character designs are fun, and even if they're sometimes cliché or annoying, they're bearable overall.

The writing style is campy for sure, but the show's a great piece of nostalgia and I'd gladly shell out the money for a good-quality set of the original episodes.


My favorite Jackie Chan film, a showcase for his physical skill and personal charisma. It has the right amount of fighting without becoming boring and monotonous; it has the right amount of comedy without being over the top. The sex farce is played like Feydeau and yet is handled deftly enough to allow one to take one's older children without squirming on anyone's part. Great!


Lots of karate antics, action, and lovely ladies as 2 Jackie Chans' try to outfox a band of hooligans intent of their demise. Slapstick humor all the way as Chan escapes one impossible to escape mess after another. This was a funny film, but it got a little trying at times keeping up with who was who.


"Twin Dragons" is both a funny and action packed movie. Two twins are separated at birth. One learns to take care of himself after living on the streets... the other becomes a talented musician.

Hilarious complications ensue when one is mistaken for the other...

This is a very entertaining movie. Jackie Chan excels in both roles- and the martial arts (especially in the last scenes) are incredible. There is also a lot of brilliantly timed comedy. Even the music score is excellent.

Watch for brief appearances by many of Hong Kong's top directors- Kirk Wong (director of "The Big Hit" and "Crime Story") as "Crazy Kung", John Woo ("The Killer" "A Better Tomorrow" are two of his best movies) as a priest... Tsui Hark's scene is especially funny. Lau Ka Leung (director of "Drunken Master II") and Ringo Lam also appear.

Don't miss this movie.


It's no "City Hunter," but this is a pretty goofy flick...It's just good fun though, and even if you think twin movies are bad---THIS IS JACKIE CHAN!!! I like it, it's just a cute, fun flick. Let's not forget to mention the ending though, it's worth the price of admission alone, with some of the coolest and most dangerous stunts I've ever seen! Can't take my eyes off Nina Li, or Maggie Cheung either!


Please note--this review is for the English-dubbed version. It's about 11 minutes shorter than the original film and I have no way of knowing how close it stuck to the original vision. It seemed to be dubbed reasonably well, but having never seen the original Chinese version, I am only guessing.

The idea of making a Corsican Brothers-like film with two Jackie Chans sounded pretty dumb when I read about this movie. And, while in parts it is awfully silly, the overall effort was far better than I expected and was one of the better Chan movies I have seen.

The movie begins with a prologue which shows how two twins were accidentally separated just after birth. The parents cannot locate the lost child and are forced to raise the remaining child. The second is fund by what appears to be a prostitute and this child is raised in a poor household. Many years later, when the rich and privileged Jackie returns to Hong Kong, he accidentally is mixed up for the poor one--the one that the local mob wants to kill! Now had this just been an action film with fight scene after fight scene, I think it wouldn't have worked as well. But, given that Jackie Chan did the movie a huge amount of comedy and clever situations involving two separate girlfriends were infused into the plot. Several times, I found myself laughing at some of the silliness of it all, but I also was impressed by how well the film all worked together pretty seamlessly.

There were only two complaints about the film. First, the poor Jackie snorted a lot. Why? Couldn't there have been a better way to distinguish between them than making one of them sound like he's a pig or has a really bad cold? Secondly, the film seemed to go on a bit too long--particularly at the action-packed conclusion. Knocking five or ten minutes off would have probably made the film a bit better--as the fight scene just went on and on and on. Still, this is a decent martial arts film and is worth a look and a laugh.

FYI--The film's second billing went to Maggie Cheung--a relatively famous Asian actress who has made a variety of excellent films. However, her role was no bigger or more prominent than the other lady in the film who didn't appear until much further in the credits. Bummer.


This is an excellent Jackie Chan film that gets too little credit and too much criticism. This movie is just plain FUN--Chan as twin brothers separated at birth who reunite many years later in Hong Kong, just in time to get crossed up in a nasty mess with vicious gangsters...how can you not love this? In addition to using the wonderful plot premise of twins (and two Jackie Chans is definitely better than one), there's some great action choreography in this movie, including some nice big explosions, and what has to be one of the best uses ever conceived of for a Mitsubishi factory.

The "psychic link" between the twin Chans is used to great effect as well, in everything from the hilarious conducting scene, to the subtly painful groin shot during the auto factory fight.

And the ending? Is simply brilliant.

I definitely recommend this understated, oft-overlooked gem to all Chan fans.


Neither bad dubbing nor shoddy split-screen special effects can sabotage the inspired antics in "Twin Dragons," a nimbly done action farce featuring martial arts sensation Jackie Chan as identical twin brothers separated at birth but reunited year later when evil Triad mobsters try to murder one of them. Originally released as "Shuang Long Hui" in Hong Kong in 1992, "Twin Dragons" cost about $1.3 million, but this chopsocky slapstick earned megabucks at the Asian box office. Along with acclaimed action co-directors Ringo Lam of "Maximum Risk" and Tsui Hark of "Double Team" and "Knock Off" at the helm, Chan starred in the movie to raise funds for the fledging Hong Kong Directors Guild. Although seven years has elapsed since "Shuang Long Hui" opened, with VHS copies of it available under a number of titles, Dimension Films not only dusted off "Twin Dragons" but also has plastered it on screens across America.

Look-a-like brothers has been a favorite theme for novelists and filmmakers long before "Twin Dragons" appeared. Mark Twain relied on same siblings as a staple plot device in his celebrated fiction. Like the 1991 Jean-Claude Van Damme thriller "Double Impact," "Twin Dragons" casts Jackie Chan as heroic twins rather than as dramatic adversaries. Anybody remember Leonardo DiCaprio in "The Man in the Iron Mask?" "Twin Dragons" starts with a grim but vigorous black & white shoot-out at a hospital. A wounded but dangerous felon escapes from a police escort. Handcuffed to a cart, the villain swipes a detective's gun, shoots him as him, blows off the handcuffs and seizes one of the twin brothers. Wielding the baby as a shield, the henchman shoots another cop and steals an ambulance. An intrepid cop grabs the bumper and is dragged along the street until he puts a bullet in a rear tire. As the vehicle lurches to a halt, the child is hurled into a public grove. A drunken prostitute finds the child and raises him as her own son.

Meanwhile, the grief-stricken parents migrate to New York City with their surviving son. Spared nothing by his indulgent parents, John Ma (Jackie Chan of "Rush hour") grows up to be a world famous concert pianist/conductor. By comparison, scraping by on bits and pieces, the other twinBoomerdevelops incredible skills as a street fighter when he isn't fixing cars. John Ma leaves the Big Apple to make his Hong Kong debut when the Asian gangsters mistake him for Boomer. Boomer and hi troublesome buddy Tyson (Teddy Robin Kwan) owe the mob a hefty $300-thousand in HK funds, and they are out to collect when Ma shows up.

Scenarists Barry Wong, Tsui Hark, Cheung Tung Jo and Wong Yik have added a fillip a la Cheech & Chong's "The Corsican Brothers" to the twin brother hysterics by endowing them with a telekinetic link. When John plays piano, Boomer watches while his fingers wriggle to a mysterious rhythm. Only near the end of the action do the filmmakers exploit this psychic power for its full potential. Separated from John by a fenced-in cage, Boomer acts out the kung-fu fight moves, and John inadvertently delivers those stunning blows to flatten his foes. Meanwhile, the scenarists have more fun with the familiar mistaken identities gag that dominates the first two-thirds of the film. Fate and destiny play an immutable part in the proceedings.

In the tradition of Shakespeare's "Comedy of Errors," Boomer and John Ma confuse themselves as well as their girlfriends. Inevitably, they wind up with the wrong girls, and the comic predicaments that emerge are entertaining. The fights and the chases are fast-paced and hilariously staged, but then look at the helmersLam and Hark. The fight scene in the Mitsubishi testing facility is a triumphant of comedy and choreography. If you can ignore the inferior dubbing and the obvious special effects, "Twin Dragons" is a rewarding riot of hilarity. Hardcore Jackie Chan fans should be able to spot how Chan has modified many of the stunts over the years and used them for full effect in his "Rush Hour" movies.


Jackie Chan plays a role of a twin separated at birth. One grows up as a concert pianist and other a street wise mechanic. Li Chi and Maggie Chuen plays the love interest of both Jackie, and the confusion the two creates with these two women is the comedy of this movie.

The good of this movie was Nina Li Chi. She looked great in this movie. One of the best movie she's starred in, and I'm sorry that she didn't star in many more movies like this one.

Action scenes are somewhat cliché, but it was standard for the time this movie was made.

I'd like to comment on other parts of this movie, but Li Chi stood out so much in this movie, that I can't think of anything else when I think of this movie.

This is a must see movie if you were a fan of Nina Li Chi.


This is a great movie. I used to watch it as a kid when I went to my grandparents house (i'm not that old, heh). Just a fast paced movie with action all the way through. If you've seen any Jackie Chan movie, you'll know that he likes to be funny even when he's performing the stylized fight scenes. The great thing about Chan, is that a) All his own stunts, and b) no wire fighting. Yep, this is the real stuff.

This movie was filmed when practical CG was still a little sketchy. In the scenes with both Boomer and Ma, You can tell that there's only real Jackie. If you look hard enough, you can see the little fuzzies around the CG Chan.

But yeah, this is like all of Chan's more recent films: A few good guys against an evil coorporation/gang. Nothing new here. Jackie Chan's just a fun guy!


This Movie is underrated I expected to see the average rating of 7 but instead I see 5.8.

I read a comment which claims this movie is bit dull but thats not true. This movie contains action combined with comedy, real comedy only few slapstick ones.

This movie me a wise guy will say its very good I'll give it a 5/6 rating its very enjoyable and has great music in it.

This is definitely worth watching for anyone that likes action comedy movies. The fight scenes aren't serious they are normal comedy ones you see in the late 90 and early 2000 Jackie Chan movies, but 1 of the Jackie Chans character is hot headed


I liked this a movie a lot. Everyone that likes comedy and action must watch this movie! I give it a 9.5/10! Comedy and action make a great team. I can't get enough of it, its too funny! The action was great too especially at the end and beginning. The funniest part is where when Boomer conducts John Ma's concert and doesn't know what to do. Its really funny! Infact, everyone should see this movie. I have it and watch it over like at least once a day or twice. Well not for the rest of my life. Its also funny because lots of people fainted because they thought they saw Jackie Chan twice, one after another.


Twins separated at birth meet again blah blah

But it's fun to watch and you get to see Jackie Chan's hilariously imaginative fight scenes!

With a couple of babes thrown in and the inadvertent swapping of partners from one twin to the other, you can but tempt to imagine the glorious fun that results. This is Jackie at his silly best, a dignified world-famous conductor in one role whilst a bumbling bad-ass mechanic in the other, we get to see how versatile, if unique, an actor he is.

For much of the film, both twins keep meddling in each other's lives causing havoc and confusion without knowing the cause until finally they come face to face...

I saw it 10 years ago, several times because of its watchability. The soundtrack was excellent -- I still remember some of the tunes now.

Feeling down, need a lift? This flick will rejuvenate your spirit for open-hearted fun living.

9/10


I'm a big fan of Jackie Chan. And this movie is my favorite Jackie Chan film! This movie made me a Jackie Chan fan! I saw it in 1996. This movie is great because, there's two Jackie! He is very funny and sexy in this film. There are a lot of action scenes and jokes. If you are a Jackie Chan fan like me, you'll like 'Twin Dragons'. The last fighting scene is one of the best of Jackie's. You must see!


This is one of my favorite Jackie Chan movies, even though it's so light and fluffy it seems ready to just float off into thin air at any moment. Jackie is just a delight to watch playing the two separated-at-birth twins, and the final brawl at the auto-testing plant is a terrific example of Chan's amazing physical comedy.


This was a fun movie. It's more comedy than action. The action scenes are good and will have you wishing you knew martial arts like a lot of Jackie Chan movies. It's your usual story of two twins separated at birth and raised in completely different identities. One grows up on the tough streets and the other is trained in classical music. They run into each other in Hong Kong and of course are mistaken for each other by the bad guys and two attractive women.

The sidekick gets to be really annoying especially during the final action sequence, but try to ignore him and enjoy the movie.

If you aren't one of those people who have developed a preconceived idea of what makes a Jackie Chan film good or bad you will probably enjoy this film.

It is dubbed. On the DVD release I wish it had a choice of dubbing or subtitles.


This is actually a Chan film low on action! The boat chase is as good as it gets in the action zone. However, this movie is very funny!! Sometimes the funny gets dumb though and this movie should be taken about as seriously as the 3 stooges. Expect stupid and silly and you'll be pleased.


This isn't one of Jackie Chan's better films. Two babies are separated at birth; one becomes a maestro and another becomes a mechanic. For some reason when one brother is doing the other one start doing the same thing. The two meet in a washroom partly thanks to their girlfriends. Two Jackie Chans produce less action then one Jackie Chan not much happens during the movie. The movie has some good moments of humor, but there are no good action scenes until the end of the movie. The black and white beginning is a true testament to bad acting. This idea of identical twins being separated at birth is not an original idea. Jean-Claude Van Damme did a movie just like this but a lot worse. Watch "Who am I" instead of this one.


This is an old film cashing in (in best Hollywood style) on Jackie Chans recent success in the west. The Hong Kong film makers are still the masters of this type of silly action comedy. It's badly dubbed, poorly edited, the plot is silly... but the martial arts, stunts and jokes are excellent and so it's as much fun as all those really old Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee movies. I hope this success will get more of the Hong Kong movies onto the European film circuit.


This is a funny Jackie Chan film, that's great fun to watch,with some awesome stunts, and two knockout performances from Jackie Chan!. All the characters are cool, and the story is very entertaining, plus Jackie Chan is simply amazing in this!. I really liked the opening in black and white when they showed the twins as kids, and I loved the reference to Stallone and The Rocky movies with Tammy's(Nina Li Chi) boyfriend Rocky, plus it has some pretty good fights in it too. I actually found this to be more of a Comedy, but that's OK because it was highly enjoyable, and I think this should be higher then 6.0, plus the ending is absolutely hilarious!. As always Jackie does some amazing stunts, and the scene where Jackie and Tyson(Teddy Robin Kwan) escape on the boat is pretty exciting, plus while some of the humor is incredibly silly I couldn't help but laugh at it. The scene where Boomer plays at the Orchestra and does John Ma's work is a scream, plus the fight at the car wash is also hilarious! (since the brother John Ma can't fight). This is a funny Jackie Chan film, that's great fun to watch, with some awesome stunts, and two knockout performances from Jackie Chan, I highly recommend this one!. The Direction is great!. Ringo Lam and Hark Tsui do a great! job here with very good camera work, good angles and just keeping the film funny and at a very fast pace. The Acting is lots of fun!. Jackie Chan is amazing as always and is amazing here, he is hilarious, extremely likable as both Boomer and Joh Ma, had great chemistry with both Maggie Cheung and Nina Li Chi, kicked that ass, and was absolutely charming! (Jackie Rules!!!!!!!). Maggie Cheung is gorgeous and does fine as Boomer's(well technically) love interest, she was likable and did a great job I really liked her. Teddy Robin Kwan is funny as Boomer's best friend Tyson, he was likable and added a lot of laughs I dug him. Nina Li Chi is beautiful, and also did fine as John Ma's love interest (well technically), I really liked her. Alfred Cheung is good as the villain and was menacing. Rest of the cast do fine. Overall I highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5


Great fighting! Extremely funny! Michele Yoh's performance as a drunken and jilted woman was perfect. This is one of the best examples of the hell for leather fighting film punctuated with lots of laughs. All the tricky stunts looked real. There was some wire fu. The story is based on a legend and the setting is atmospheric. A classic and two thumbs up.


Great stunts, decent story, good fight scenes, but some of the action was just plain silly. Most Jackie Chan movies try WAY too hard to be funny, and this one is no exception. It just isn't funny and the attempts are silly and unintelligent. They should just stick to fighting and stunts and they'll be fine. Jackie Chan is terrible at comedy.


I've had my fair share of experience with Jackie Chan films, and have come to learn that the stories in his movies do not make or break them. Rather, they're merely a backdrop upon which countless hand-to-hand fights and slapstick humor are placed, and while they're not necessarily thought-provoking, they are by no means a waste of time to individuals who enjoy more intellectual entertainment.

But with "Twin Dragons," it appears as though the story did indeed destroy the movie, to the point where even the action scenes couldn't salvage the film from its inherent ennui.

The film's worst traits are perhaps its predictability and repetition. For example, in the beginning we are introduced to the two single elements which will play out implacably for the remainder of the film: confusion in regards to which of the twins is who, and how when one of the twins performs one action, the other is psychically affected and carries it out as well. The film apparently thrives on this to the point where it becomes tiresome after about half an hour, and the manner in which it does it leads one to seriously question the mental capacity of the individuals involved. Never in a movie have I seen women portrayed to be such imbeciles.

A couple of the action scenes are worth mention, but the unfortunate aspect of the matter is that unless one watches them separately from the rest of the film, there really isn't much to attract attention. That is, by the time that we have been subjected to the asininity of all the supporting characters in the dialogue sections of the film, we really do not want to see them partake in the fights--and more than once I found myself wishing that the screenwriters had done away with these characters earlier in the story so as to not involve them in any but one or two of the action sequences.

For the casual movie watcher, I would consider this to be poison--stay away at any cost, even if you're paid to watch this film. Die-hard Jackie Chan fans may enjoy a couple of scenes, which display a little wit as to how to incorporate Chan's natural charm into the eccentricity of the situations, and some of the stunts are somewhat impressing, though nowhere near the caliber of some of those that he has performed in the latter half of the '90s.


Jackie is ok, but this is clearly not his best work. This is just a movie that was made in 1992, and wasn't good enough to show in the states, but now since Jackie is famous, and has done good in his other films, they snuck this one in. No out takes at end of film, I felt short changed.


I know it's an action film but it would help if there was a vague plot, rather than just one long drawn-out joke about muddling twins. yes, the fights are good but the rest of the film is just rubbish, esp. compared to "Rush Hour".

the worst Jackie Chan I've seen to date.


This movie is being promoted as a new Jackie Chan flick. Don't be taken in! Having seen(and really enjoyed)his last 3 movies I eagerly waited in line for my ticket. Once the film got to "present day" (the film starts with Jackie's characters' birth.) I waited and waited...and waited for anything resembling the humour and action of his most recent films. It didn't come, and hadn't come when I walked out almost an hour later. The technology alone was enough to make any modern film goer cringe. You could actually see the blue line between the 2 Jackies!! All I can say is that Jackie Chan must have signed and released the rights to this film long long ago! I will go and see the next Jackie Chan film but only AFTER checking the production date! Poor Jackie!


there's a gag in this movie that's utterly stupid. it happens near the end when it's discovered boomer has a twin...john ma runs past onlookers, then boomer follows him. the onlookers faint, apparently in shock over seeing identical twins. they decided it would be funny if they repeated this gag. SIX TIMES. there are SEVEN occasions when people faint after seeing twins, which wasn't funny the first time. lots of people get hit over the head in this movie, but it's not thugs, it's the audience with lame chinese jokes.


However, being that Heinlein was one of the few sci-fi authors I +didn't+ read (I'm more of an Asimov and Bradbury fan myself) as a kid growing up, and I haven't seen the original film, I didn't have any problems with this movie when it came out in theaters. In fact, I found the premise genuinely creepy, the effects highly believable, and the presence of Donald Sutherland to be a masterful touch. It may not go down in the all-time pantheon of "greatest sci-horror films" ever, but if it was playing on HBO I wouldn't change the channel. Sometimes I think people get too caught up in whether a story is true to the original, and forget that it's JUST a movie and they should try to enjoy it on that basis.


It really makes no sense how this film could not have worked. Working off a script based on a Robert A. Heinlein novel, with the venerable Donald Sutherland in one of the lead roles, and with alien invasion the subject matter, this should have been at least a seven star Science Fiction film. As Sci-Fi goes, the superior ones focus more on futuristic and/or scientific concepts, with action and/or special effects adding to the spectacle. That is why films like the Star Wars saga really aren't Sci-Fi, but action/adventure first (and in the case of Star Wars, fantasy) and science fiction second at best. This film does delve into the biology and culture of the aliens, but just barely. Mostly it focuses on hokey special effects and a few watered-down action scenes to fill up screen time. The aliens themselves are quite realistic and original, a plus for the film. The chemistry between Donald Sutherland as the leader of a secret government agency and his son, played by Eric Thal (an unknown at the time) is actually quite good. In addition, Julie Warner actually does well as the scientist working for Sutherland and of course plays the romantic interest for Sutherland's son. While not a superior actress, she performs adequately, although her talents are more suited to television, as it appears this movie was. While most will think, as I did, while reading the plot synopsis of the film that it is a rip-off of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (Sutherland starred in the remake of this film in 1978), the actual book was published in 1951, prior to the original film as well as the novel written by Jack Finney. Bottom line: not a bad movie to watch when you know you will be distracted as it requires very little of your attention and there are enough action scenes to move the pace along, but science fiction and Heinlein fans will be disappointed.


I strongly disagree with many of the other reviews of this film. It is a very faithful adaptation (given Hollywood's history of adapting for the screen), and one of my favorite movies. It is not entirely faithful, i.e. Operation Bareback (which I would have enjoyed) was forgone, probably due to the mass nudity that it would entail. The love interest, the storyline and the characters were very close to the novel. Some criticize it as a ripoff of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers, but the novel actually pre-dates that work, so who copied from whom? The scope of the movie was scaled back and little mention was made of landings and conflicts in other countries, but this may be due to editing exigencies. The aliens are suitably creepy as my wife will agree, as she still refuses to watch it again, and it manages without the gore of many similar movies, although it is rather violent.

Compared to another recent Heinlein adaptation, Starship Troopers, this film was much truer to the author's original work and is a thrilling and thoughtful treat. Sadly, it looks like no sequel will be forthcoming to carry the battle to the moons of Saturn.


Problem #1: The chief problem with this film is its ridiculous screenplay. The film can't decide if it wants to be a mindless action flick or a character-driven sci-fi drama. So what you get is an alien invasion story where all the leads get "infected" by the aliens but are somehow saved by their friends while scores of infected extras get mowed down by machine-gun fire. If a lead character is infected, their buddies come up with all sorts of ways to peel the alien critter off, but if Farmer Joe comes running at them with a lug wrench, no one hesitates to pump him full of holes.

Problem #2: Richard Belzer is in this movie and he is given not a single funny line! SPOILER: When his character ices himself, I felt like it was Richard Belzer's way of saying, "This flick stinks, I'm outta here." Problem #3: The final, cliché helicopter action sequence. It seemed like it they filmed it for another movie or something and just tagged it onto the end of this one.


I can't believe people actually attempted to take this film seriously -- none of the actors involved seemed to! Especially the always dapper Donald Sutherland, who devours lines like "I can fly a helicopter!" with campy relish. If you're a hardcore Heinlein freak, don't bother with "Puppet Masters" -- it'll only break your heart -- but if you're a fan of extremely goofy, preposterous sci-fi nonsense, run out and rent it today, grab a couple of your more cheese-tolerant buddies and a couple of six packs, and settle in for a couple of hours of goo, ACTING!!, clumsily depicted paranoia, and some gut-busting laughs.


Despite being one of the key dozen or so science fiction writers of the 20th Century, relatively little of Robert Heinlein's work has been filmed and, with the exception of Starship Troopers (turned on its idealogical head), nothing from the 60s onwards, when his work started to carry more serious subtext.

The Puppet Masters, a book from the 50s, is essentially fairly lightweight albeit the invasion motif is similar to that of much 1950s science fiction in echoing a fear about the spread of communism - indeed, the parasitic slugs in Puppet Masters form a single entity - a commune if you will - and are therefore a fairly obvious analogue for the red menace. The novel was also fairly saucy for its time, with large chunks of the population having to peel down to their skivvies and beyond to prove that their clothing was not hiding the alien slugs.

Well, as usual, Hollywood doesn't like to present the naked body to the viewing public, so the protagonists in this film version of Heinlein's story encounter more difficulty than they need to, simply by virtue of everybody keeping their clothes on. Apart from that, it follows the main sequence of events fairly faithfully, albeit updated to be more contemporary.

Donald Sutherland is a serviceable "Old Man", albeit quite different to how I imagined the character from the book (which hardly matters). There are several well-known albeit minor names in the secondary case, but the main leads are taken by Eric Thal and Julie Warner. Neither has had major success before or since (Warner had a lengthy run in Family Law) and, to be perfectly frank, this movie gives a good idea why - they have little charisma, and no chemistry despite the fact that they supposedly fall in love during the film The story demands lead players who don't come across as insipid, but it doesn't get them.

There is relatively little in terms of special effects, but what there is does the job. The major effect is the slugs themselves, and they are pleasingly unpleasant..

There is some offensive - and entirely unnecessary - use of the F-bomb. I don't mind it when it's there for a purpose: here it service no purpose whatsoever. It doesn't advance the plot or illuminate character, it simply makes an unpleasant comment even more unpleasant, and it could have been omitted entirely without any detrimental effect on the movie.

With some promotion, this movie could have been rather more successful than it was, albeit it came on the heels of what might have appeared to be similar epidemic-type stories. Perhaps Heinlein's time in movies is still to come.


This is a unknown very satisfying alien film. This film moves along at a nice pace. The aliens are creepy and the action is almost non stop. They throw a lot of great turns in the story and the acting is pretty solid. The film even has a cameo from the talentless Richard Belzer who actually does a decent job. I would have liked some nudity in this story but you can't have it all. This film is pre CGI so it has an awesome selection of effects done on set. It's hard to believe they could make such a good movie from a Hienlin book. Whatever, just see it.


The most fascinating thing about this movie is the wildly diverging responses it produces.

I thought it was rubbish from beginning to end.

The way in which the alien functions is not made clear at all, perhaps deliberately to camouflage the inconsistencies in the plot, so that many events make no sense. The obligatory romantic interest is as boring as it gets. The ending seems copied from any old slasher movie where the monster simply won't stay down.

A waste of Sutherland (who's always worth watching) and Warner (who's extremely beautiful in a low-key unglamorous way).


This was a great flick. I love the Donald Sutherland character. Kind of reminds you of his role in Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I saw this movie when it was released and have been looking for a copy of it on DVD since then! Right now it is only available on VHS.


Here we have yet another Hollywood butchering of science fiction. Unfortunately Hollywood executives seem to think that Science Fiction fans are either idiots who cannot see the cavernous plot holes (ala Independence Day) or like the butchery of a good book into a movie that seems to use only the barest plot parts and character names.

Times and places are changed. It becomes something that only America can solve. Love stories get thrown in for no sane reason. Parts that would make the movie seem more plausible and give an insite into the reason for the invasion in the first place are chopped to a couple of minutes. The easiest way of identifying who does and doesn't have a slug on their back is completely ignored for some unexplained reason. The authorities (e.g. the President) are in almost from the start in the book, but not in the movie. More than one state is involved in the book, compared to three town in the movie. In fact the part of the book that involves other countries is completely ignored. And in the book, there is no "happy ending" where the hero goes wandering off hand in hand with his obligatory love interest.

Judge for yourselves, but I bet the rumblings from RAH's grave were heard for months after this travesty was foisted on the public.


This movie has all the elements I like. Donald Sutherland is one of my favorite actors, I like Science Fiction, Robert Heinlein is one of my favorite authors. I also like horror movies. How could all these potentially great elements be combined into one of the worst movies I've ever seen? It is forgivable to change the story, if the changes make for better filming, but in this movie the changes don't improve anything. The added material is pointless as well. I could go on for many lines, but this abysmal movie is just not worth wasting the time. What's the line? "They managed to snatch failure from the very jaws of success"!


This was a decent sci-fi flick. Good performances by Julie Warner and Eric Thal, and of course there's no role that Donald Sutherland can't pull off. Alien effects were revoltingly good. OK, it's not completely true to Heinlein's magnificent novel. Hollywood has a formula, (the happy ending, the obligatory love interest of one or more of the stars, etc.) and any deviation from it is exceedingly rare. That's why foreign films are good, because they are not bound by the formula. I've noticed that great sci-fi movies are almost always originally written for the screen, rather than adapted from books. Books are always better than movies, but science fiction seems to be particularly so.


It's pretty obvious that director is mostly active in the TV-series and TV movie genre. "The Puppet Maser" has at times an awfully TV-movie looking visual style and the characters and story are mostly wasted. Still the movie is entertaining enough to find it watchable and perhaps even also recommendable.

Still it's a shame, because the movie had all the potential to become a science-fiction classic in the style of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". The story is very good and also original. The execution of it is just plain bad at times. All of the characters are wasted and the movie is filled with some plot holes and illogical moments. Seriously, I'm convinced of it that with a different director at the helm, this movie really could and would had grown in to be a classic science-fiction masterpiece.

However as entertainment this movie is good enough. Science-fiction fans will certainly enjoy this movie which is mainly due to the original alien invasion story and the above average special effects.

Don't expect great things from the cast though. The dialog and acting is at times B-movie like. Eric Thal is a failed movie-hero and Donald Sutherland is wasted. Also Will Patton and especially Yaphet Kotto are criminally underused.

The movie is certainly watchable but to most this movie will probably seem like a silly science-fiction movie. The movie is perhaps best and possibly only watchable and recommendable to the fans of the science-fiction genre.

7/10


I read and still re-read, the book and must agree with other commentators; the film is NOT the book or even reasonably "based on" the book. Hollywood can never get the idea that a book is famous because people read it, because the author got "it" right the first time--in published form. They buy rights to film a book, but then change the guts out of the book! I loved only three things in this flick: Julie Warner's comment "bet your dad isn't happy he hired me, can't even do my job" Sutherland's cool emotionlessness until Sam almost dies--it's like without Sam he won't have anyone to abuse who won't tell him to go to heck! The family feeling of the Team. Everyone loves each other enough to be willing to die for their comrades! Too cool! That said, the story is told as one we've seen Way too many times before. And better before too! I suggest to all our readers and commentators on here--Do what I do--make your own movies and show them on public access cable channels in your area! My crew and I have over the years, made 12 films shown all over New York State and Connecticut(though now I live in Florida--near Disney World where the real aliens live and work, LOL)


This is a very generic Scifi-thriller with very little originality to it.

We've seen this type of thriller before. Can anyone say Invasion of the Bodysnatchers? That one is also a lot better made (even the very lame remakes are superior to this dung).

Essentially it's a communist rehash. Who can you trust? Who's to not be trusted?

The movie is like the 50's and 60's but with aliens attaching themselves to your back instead of some sneaky russian.

There are so many elements that are borrowed from other borrower-movies (pun intended) that this becomes a very mediocre mess. The cheesy way of noticing non-humans was the first thing that made me roll my eyes. Also funny how the puppets are quite human in the beginning of the movie and then towards the end are really robotic.

Well, not to give too much away, but this is really lowbudget action-scifi. It's not scary, and it's done in a very generic way. The cheesy plot-twist at the end was what really killed any originality IMHO.


Slimy, disgusting aliens invade Earth. They attach themselves to peoples backs and control their minds. Sam Nivens (Eric Thal), father Andrew Nivens (Donald Sutherland) and Mary Sefton (Julie Warner) are all part of separate government agencies who join together to fight the invasion.

Not a faithful adaptation of Heinlein's book but still a good film in its own right. The script is good; it has realistic, believable characters; the aliens are agreeably disgusting and the action scenes are good and violent. Also, with the sole exception of Sutherland (who appears to be sleepwalking) all the acting is good--especially Thal (tall, handsome and hunky) and Warner (beautiful, intelligent and strong). A very good sci-fi film. Also, I agree with some previous posters--one of the best scenes in the film is Thal's nude shower scene. Woof!


I don't understand the whining about plotholes and other negativity because this is simply a great film with a nice reference to Invasion of the Body Snatcher, with Donald Sutherland in optima forma! All the acting was good, especially the relatively unknown Thal. The supporting cast was simply splendid, I really enjoyed seeing those familiar faces, especially the geek scientist (I had seen him as a redneck cop in The Client) and the black actor (from The Thing). The special effects were also masterfully done, considering the modest budget for this film. I also loved the story, and for those who think it's unoriginal, consider it's borrowed from an early Robert A. Heinlein novel!

I wish more sci fi fans would know this movie because it deserves a lot more fame than it got. But this way, it's a very nice cult hit which has an appeal of it's own. I have enjoyed this movie twice and want to see it a 3rd time on DVD even tho it has no extra's. It's just a wannahave for my collection.

I give it 9/10, there wasn't simply anything wrong with this movie as far as I could see!


The Puppet Masters is a very good alien film.Donald Sutherland was good and it was unusual for male lead by Eric Thal.Julie Warner acted good and looked great!Will Patton's role was very different.Richard Belzer was the same as always and Marshal Bell was good but I was kinda disappointed by the role they gave to Yaphet Kotto as he didn't do much.The music is great!The Puppet Masters is a good alien film that is action packed and is never boring!I think all fans of alien films will like this!


This movie had nothing to build up on. The action started right away so there was absolutely no suspense to get you going for something to look forward to. These small alien creatures latch on to human's spines and control their nervous system and their entire bodies. They can shut down their hearts, speak for them and kill them. It's not exactly an original story so I didn't expect much and it wasn't good at all. Also what took away any suspense is every main character was eventually controlled at one point by the aliens. Very little action and absolutely no suspense or comedy. And there's no nude or sex scenes involving Julie Warner so that was disappointing too, she's cute. 3/10


I seem to be in the minority here. I can't understand why this

movie isn't getting the most enthusiastic reviews.

Sure, the plot has been visited again and again in books, movies

and TV (including Richard Basehart's mind being taken over at

least 34 times in Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea). Does that

matter so much? Haven't we seen "Saving Private Ryan" and "A.I."

before? Did anyone criticize them as "just another Longest Day,"

or "just another 'robot wants to be human'" movies?

The Puppet Masters is expertly handled. The direction is tight and

suspense-building. The early scenes of the kids with the UFO

roadside attraction are clever. Sutherland is great. The dialogue

is realistic. This remains one of my favorites


I am giving Brigands the highest mark. However, I believe it is virtually impossible to appreciate the movie without sufficient knowledge of Soviet history and perhaps some involvement into Perestroika and post Perestroika cultural context.

The film is an antithesis to very famous movie by Tengiz Abuladze (also a Georgian as Iosseliani) Monanieba (Confession). The later was one of the first attempts to rethink and reevaluate the past involvements of all layers of society in Stalin terror. It was of special significance that a Georgian has made such a film because Stalin even until now possesses a status of icon in his home country. Confession took a stance that all that had happened was a great tragedy and everybody was guilty to have let it happened.

Brigands, on the other hand, portraits the Stalin terror as something very mundane and boring, pushing a viewer to only one logical conclusion that it was unavoidable having in mind that authorities in all times had been no more than ordinary brigands, gangsters and robbers. Iosseliani uses the same cast to play historically parallel roles from medieval Georgia to the very recent events of collapse or the Soviet Union. The same actors and repeating at least in spirit parallel events create some static recognizable core in seemingly distant and different stories.

The film appeals to various known historical facts such as personal Stalin involvement in criminal acts of bank robberies before Bolsheviks had noticed him.

It is a masterpiece in both cinematographic and philosophic way.


One of Director Otar Iosseliani's stronger films. The movie takes place during several periods of time in his native country of Georgia: in the Middle Ages, in the early 1900s, during the Stalinist period (the bulk of the movie) and in the chaos of the early 1990s. The same actors often play different characters at the different periods of time (for example, the guy playing the medieval king also plays a Stalinist henchman and a contemporary smuggler). The movie works through vignettes full of deadpan humor, and a common thread of all the stories seems to be the absurdity of life, the arrogance of power and man's inhumanity to man. Iosseliani even plays a couple of roles here, as a Stalinist torturer, and as a present day bumbling projectionist, in one of the film's most elaborate gags. Overall, a great movie, with Iosseliani's caustic humor telling us, as the old Latin proverb said, that homo homini lupus, man is a wolf to man.


if i hadn't seen his Otar Iosseliani's next film, 1999's masterpiece "Adieu, Plancher des vaches !". So my comment will probably be linked to the two films rather than only to this particularly strange journey, adrift in a Parisian's tramp mind. War is the main thread that links his dreams, as he embodies a medieval king, or a communist leader, or remembers of his east-european country, ravaged by war. But more interesting is the permanent obsession, for Iosseliani, of typical features like Cinema in itself, Paris, where the director actually lives (he's from Georgia), tramps, alcohol and songs. The scenes which I think are 'real' in opposition to 'dreamt' ones, mainly show the hero, with his unfortunate friends, but still happy singing beautiful harmonies. Just like the last scene (and others) from "Adieu,..". It is a bit difficult to follow the plot, since there are so many different ages edited together, but as the very first sequence shows us, this is only Cinema. So just let your mind wander with the pictures.


Very few votes so far, but I can't understand why they're so low. This is an excellent, throughly entertaining documentary that lets you make your own mind up about a very interesting individual's teaching methods, and the results he gets.

I guess a lot of people just didn't approve of Paul and, as such, have given low ratings to register their disapproval. Idiots. How would you have come to feel so passionately about him if you hadn't seen such and insightful documentary? Speaking of which, this is one of the best I've seen in recent times. A love of the music involved will enhance your enjoyment I suppose, but it's not really about that. Check it out.


I wish there had been something like this when I was younger rather than my 70 year old music teacher who had no idea what was going on in the music I was listening to at the time other than the certainty that "that's not music that's just loud banging and screaming!" It's one thing to understand notes and technical aspects of being a musician but an understanding of attitude, performance, vibe, etc is a necessary trait that most music instructors lack. I got a kick out of watching him treat the kids as peers instead of condescending to them. Great finale as well. I really dug the movie. Teaching kids to rock is a noble calling indeed :) Can't wait to see it again when it comes out proper.


As an old rock&roll road dog who played for years and later went into production and management of younger rock bands, I think this movie has a lot to say on many levels.

I'm not going to comment on a review as such BUT the internet TV view listing I saw when I went to see if it was going to play again said that these kids had gotten good "dispite" the way the teacher had gone about doing it...

To me it's funny how a little rough language towards the kids says somehow the teaching method was a failure.

Without giving away anything about the movie I will say this: I remember going to a school as a young child where I was in a talent show. I rehearsed for weeks and won!...After it was over I realized that EVERYONE had won something.....all 50 kids!

I was placated into thinking that was how life worked, then wham, the reality of musical life hit me when I went on the road in the real world.

Let's face it, people as a rule (and young people in particular) are basic under-achievers. Sometimes all it takes is a little bit of "frustration love" to make it all click.

Music itself is a passion, not a method, and rock music even more so than most.

As a parent myself I would suggest this movie to anyone who has a musically inclined child not matter what genre' they wish to pursue.

Competition is within ones self, not against everyone else. If the fire of music is in a child it will come out if handled right, if not, then thats OK also, but don't let it just die as a faint ember of creativity...fan it into a full flame of artistic expression.


I must admit that if seeing Paul in mid rant were my only knowledge of him I would share other's concerns about his teaching methods. But let's face it, he was playing to the camera and 6-9 months worth of interactions were condensed down to the most entertaining cursing sessions. You could see the counter balance to the rants, in the end sequences there was much affection expressed all around.

But, lets focus on the film here; it is funny, moving and shows what kids can do when expectations are high. Go and see this film, if you like to see kids amaze you, and surpass their teacher.

Rock school is not for all kids, it has been a source of great growth - both musical and personal for one of my kids, but I know that it would not be the right fit for his sibling. So for those of you who are stuck on why any parent would pay to submit their child to this "abuse", I would say that in reality many different wonderful teachers ( including Paul) are involved with this school and just as this movie will enhance an evening, this school is enhancing many lives.


I actually am a student at the school of rock, the movie should be released in theaters sometime in march. Paul can be a dick sometimes, but he isn't as bad as the film portrays him to be, i think he kind of over reacted when the camera was around just for show. but otherwise this movie is great and shows through everything the students go through. it's all worth it to play in front of crowds with thousands of people to. it's gonna be really cool to see how people react to the film, or if it even gets out of select theaters, students got to record a soundtrack with actual artist like the last living ramone, and Ozzy Osbourne. And napoleon from project object, Frak Zappa's band.


The hard part about writing this review is separating my feelings about this man (Paul Green), his school (The School of Rock in Philadelphia), and the documentary about both (Rock School). Paul is an arrogant, selfish, and demeaning man, but his school produces some incredible talent, and the movie that director Don Argott made is clever, witty, and downright funny.

Paul Green's "School of Rock" has 120 students, ages 9 through 17, who learn to play everything from Black Sabbath to Frank Zappa, and most importantly, Paul gets his students on stage and teaches them how to perform like a rock star. But he's horrible. He's like Simon Cowell in that really mean and insulting kind of way. But perhaps that kind of cruelty pushes them to work even harder and practice more to perfect their craft. He does everything that any other teacher today would instantly get sued for  he curses at them, yells at them, makes them cry, hits them, tells them that they "suck," and asks them if they love Satan (he does that to pump them up for the Black Sabbath concert they're about to put on).

It's endlessly amusing to watch 9 year-olds wear all black, smear eyeliner all over their eyes, draw crosses on their foreheads, and write "OZZY" on their knuckles. And to see their mom doing all that for them is even funnier! The coolest moment of Rock School, however, is when the very top students are flown to Germany to play at "Zappanele", the largest Frank Zappa Festival in the world, and they perform with an original member of Zappa's band. Then, to have the original band member, plus the entire Zappanele audience, blow before them in praise (literally bowing!) was out of this world! Not every music student gets an experience like that.

Argot does a great job at showing us all sides of Paul Green's personality. I hate him in one scene and love what he does for these kids in the next. If Rock School does anything, it will make you want to get off your butt and start practicingwhat ever it is that you love. You'll want to pick up an instrument, or start painting, or get back to studying. This movie makes you want to be the best at something, and it makes you want to work for it.


First off, I'm a huge fan of documentaries. A lot of times I really enjoy them but am slow to recommend them to friends as broad appeal is sometimes limited. (American Movie being a huge exception). Rock School is just great, both as entertainment and certainly succeeds as a documentary. I would like to address the heavy handedness that others reviewing this film seem to take at the Zappa-heavy content or the tearing apart of Paul Green, the namesake of the Paul Green School of Rock. It is true that there is a lot of Zappa, a lot of fiery temper, and some harshness from the man himself. I guess I would ask those who attack the film with low ratings (because of the man) if they have ever had crowds bow down in front of them in a foreign country after performing so well? This film succeeds in its ability to deftly pull you into the reality of the school. You meet the kids, the instructor, and some parents and are constantly and linearly drawn to what feels like a very organic conclusion. I was very impressed at the rate at which you identify with the kids and the parents, and the ability of the director to edit in such a way to provide just the right amount of emphasis. Paul Green is completely right in his teaching technique. Paul Green is completely wrong in his teaching technique. Doesn't matter. Rock School is extremely entertaining and very interesting and compelling because of one thing Paul says early in the film... "It's easy to be a novelty act, a bunch of kids playing rock, but the goal is to do it very well..." The kids can indeed play. I especially enjoy the confession that "The Guitar teacher and the Guitar Player inside me are always at odds, as a teacher I want to make them better, but the player doesn't like that at all". The best part of the documentary is the way there is the prodigy juxtaposed with the sad emo kid, who was my favorite character... each has his own relationship to the instructor and each has a different outlook on life, on music, and on the school. I especially enjoyed Will O' Conner's (sad emo kid) candor in addressing a newspaper article in which he was misquoted. I felt that Mr. Green was indeed hamming it up in parts, but it didn't hurt the documentary at all. In fact, the character and role he has created for himself is one I find fascinating. I think and genuinely believe he cares about those kids. And wants them to succeed. And refuses to grow up. And gets results. The film itself is 1.78:1 and looks great, sounds great. Those of you used to docs looking and sounding sub-par despite being great (I'm looking at you, Paper Clips) and having genuinely fascinating moments but being very unevenly paced (Spellbound) will find this fresh and fun. The performance footage shown is just enough. Not so much you feel it's there to artificially pad the run time, and not so short you can't get a feel for their talent. The interviews are well placed, well directed, and very well edited. There are a lot of moments in the movie where you'll wish it were longer... but not so much you feel cheated. A good documentary is one, in my opinion, has got to show equal parts of an obvious passion for the subject material and those the camera capture as well as the courage to be honest. In today's land of multi-movie propaganda lectures, this is a great relief from the Greenwalds and the Moores... they could learn a lot from the masterful pacing and invisibility of Don Argott. You forget this is a documentary entirely... there is no agenda. Andrew Jarecki's BRILLIANT Capturing the Friedman's is one of the slight few other examples I can think of that play that card so well. Here it's raised to an art form. The exception being the last minute or two of the film that really tie it together in a very nice way. Kudos all around, I'll be keeping an eye out for more from Mr. Argott.


The problem with this movie for me, watching it with my 6-year-old daughter, was that this absolute jerk running the show clearly has no idea about what rock and roll is as I know it. It's about individuality, not conformity. It's about DIY, not this-foot-here-that-foot-there. I kept thinking about Dana Rohrabacher or some other such conservative jock-fascist chameleon, using their obvious rock/pop music knowledge to advance the most un-rockin' conformist agenda possible. Or Sonny Bono. Sure, there are those of you who think that musical rebellion knows no politics, but when you aren't at least a libertarian, when you're truly in the conservative jock headspace, your attitude and danger are as safe and salable as mayonnaise. Zappa would've known this asshole for what he is. A mean dick-head coach, whose only concern was that championship. Listening to this jackass put down '3-chord flannel' rock, I can only assume he meant Nirvana. A band whose converse he wouldn't be worthy to lick if they would have ever allowed anyone to lick their shoes.

I still get my mailbox money from my music days--we had a lot of fun and I'll always be grateful for the recording and tours. But to see everything I love polluted down to a competitive sporting event--really turns my stomach. I said it years ago and I'll say it again now, "F*ck you, coach!"


I am surprised that so much of the negative response to the movie revolves around Paul's antics. If you watch the movie, with your eyes open, you can see that everybody is laughing through most of Paul's more volatile moments. If you are one of the people who is down on the movie because "I wouldn't let him do that to...", clearly they don't belong there. The truth is that Paul knows who can and can't take it and adjusts accordingly.

The other criticism is generally... Does CJ really get anything from the school. I am one of CJ's biggest fans. Lets get that out of the way right now. But without the school, that allows him to play with equally talented people, he may be just like so many of the best guitar players that I have known.... the best guitar player in town in a local garage band with a revolving door membership that may get to play to the local drunks on Wednesday night for beer. Through his association with Paul, he has been to Zappanale, completed a west coast tour, been featured on MTV and played in more places than I can count. They do very well for each other.

I will say that the movie was more than I expected going in... but I would have liked to see more of the Sabbath show.


I'm puzzled by some of the reviews I have seen. How many documentaries are over before you know it and leave you wanting more? I found it pretty amazing what these kids are capable of as well as how this all seemed to come together by accident. Paul Green teaches his students with a great deal of passion and more importantly has the respect for both their ability AND their potential ability. How many kids get to share the stage with actual rock icons? Some people seem put off by the "tough love" thing that is part of the instruction but it seemed to me that the only time he got impatient was when it was obvious that certain kids weren't trying their hardest. Besides, you can't really argue with teaching kids that they can get where they want to by working at it.


As a die-hard classic rock fan, I absolutely love this movie! "Rock School" is a movie that every future rock star should see.

The person I was most amazed at, was 12-year-old CJ. I've never seen so much talent in a young boy. When he was at the Zappalan festival, everybody was bowing to him at the end of his performance.

Will, Asa, and Tucker also had potential in music.

Paul Green is a really good teacher when you think about it. Even though he can go off sometimes, it's usually for a good reason. I like people that know what real music is.

In other words, everybody go see that documentary. 10 out of 10.


This is the only DVD I have had so far that I have not managed to watch all of (and I've had Alone in the Dark!).

After an hour of this American fool yacking on about how great he is and how well he can teach these children (apparently by shouting at them, humiliating them and being generally abusive)I couldn't take any more.

It is simply one guy on an ego trip, he even states that he hates it if any of his pupils get better than him.

A complete waste of time, would not have been made if it wasn't for the success of School of Rock, and shouldn't have been anyway.


I have an unnatural bias against this film. First off, Paul Green is one of the worst people that I have ever met, and this documentary falsely glamorizes him as some sort of savior of rock & roll. Wrong. Paul Green is a failed musician, who got a good idea in his head. And even though I believe that his teaching methods should be classified as child abuse and should be thrown in prison, the idea worked. You may wonder, why do I have such a strong hatred for the guy, well, here's a little back story.

I was a student at Rock School for year when I was 13 and was the subject of much derision and psychological abuse from both other students and Paul himself. I only stayed for a year, because I learned a lot of my guitar teacher Nate, and enjoyed playing with the other students who didn't hate me. Fast forward 4 years later, after seeing this film, and looking for work in the music business, I got the chance to co-direct a show for the school, and for all the hard work I put into that, was (methaphorically) thrown under the bus by the institution.

As for the film. I was definitely excited at first, but after being back in the belly of the beast and being treated so horribly, I curse this film and the subject.

However, I certainly give all the props in the world to the kids who can stomach Paul and his despicable actions, and yet come out of it with a great talent. And I do have the deepest respect for my peers from my time at Rock School who have successfully developed their talents, and gone on and become successful. As for Paul, go f--- yourself.


This could have been very interesting but the film maker wanted to talk about "the characters" in the school and the school director (who comes off as a 40 y.o. peter pan with ADD and a foul temper) rather than the obviously hard working and gifted musicians that make up the "star group" of the school. That is a pity because they could have had for once a documentary about kids finding their way rather than losing themselves but the filmmaker went rather with the caricatural: -the genius overachiever (the good) -there's the tortured teenager (the bad) -the 9 year old twins who would not know what a beat (or singing in tune) is if it came up and hit them in the head (the comic relief) -the school director who spends his time screaming and berating these kids like it's boot camp time in full metal jacket (bare in mind these kids are between the ages of 9 and 17)- (the ugly) - Even after their triumph at the Zappa fest you don't see him once high five a kid or give him or her a compliment. Mind you that might be on purpose: You get the feeling that the filmmaker had a rather set agenda and wanted the characters to be seen in a manichaean fashion. There is a lot of editing. Overall not worth the watch unless you want to spend your time reading between the lines.


Bon jour. I am attending the Cannes Marche du Film and just saw this. It is really good. It is much better than the Jack Black movie which I could not stand. Although, I must admit that Jack Black as Paul Green was perfect casting.

If you have any recollection of 80s hard rock, I think you'd like this. These kids do a great job with Billy Idol, Alice Cooper, Black Sabbath and Zappa.

I am a fan of documentaries and enjoyed Rock School. I didn't think it was as good as Dogtown & Z Boys (which I loved). But, if you enjoyed Spellbound, you will probably enjoy Rock School.

I hope it gets picked up for wide distribution.


I don't know if it was intentional or not, but I, and most of the audience laughed at this one all the way through. The suicidal kid reminded me of one of my exes. I think people have judged this film a bit too harshly for what it is.

It plays out almost like a mockumentary. I would say if you liked The School of Rock, this is its bastard cousin, filled with profanity and a guy who starts screaming and then says he needs more coffee. I have to praise the editor for linking those bits together.

I got into this movie for free, so I would say if you have the means to get into the movie for free, you should. It is definitely an eye opener.


This is my first review ever, please be gentle....

This movie gives hope to a new generation of music lovers, real music, not the crap the monopolizes the radio stations today. Paul Green, while some of his antics aren't typical of music teachers, really gets through to the kids. I really enjoyed how the movie was well rounded, not just focusing on the best highlights, but also showed how he used positive and negative criticism to motivate the students, as well as their reactions to it. I enjoyed how it followed the students, those with exceptional talent and those who really enjoyed music (but lacked in the natural talent department). The culmination of the film (seeing how the film doesn't thrive on a what could happen type ending, I don't think this is a spoiler, if anything I would think it would make people want to see the movie), a performance of the most talented students at a Frank Zappa tribute festival. Wow, what talent! They really brought people to their knees. CJ will make your jaw drop. Overall I would say this movie really made me want to dive back into music. The movie is inspiring and optimistic. With talent like this, they really make you believe that Rock and Roll will live forever.


Here we are taken inside Paul Green's School of Rock. Why are we taken in there? I don't know. The man himself is an obnoxious, immature wannabe who stopped trying to be and who know finances his life on the money paid by parents who want their kids to be rock stars or to find a new outlet or learning environment. This is no learning environment, at least no in the traditional sense. From what is shown, all the viewer can gather is that those who are already gifted are given the best opportunities and those who struggle are left to struggle but as long as the money keeps coming in, they can stay in the school to be shouted at and verbally abused. The documentary maker really failed for me in that he really made no point at all and failed to really question or press Paul Green at all. So we are guided through a time when some students are preparing for a Frank Zappa festival in Germany. We see toward the end that Mr. Green has no problem taking limelight and applause at the festival's end but what had he really contributed? Frank Zappa may have been revolutionary to some but his music is mostly aimless for me, rather like this film. I shall never watch it again, ever!


Rock school (more like a platform for a frank Zappa fan). not much rock other than Zappa. I love Zappa don't mistake it. I saw the film over a month ago so I don't recall the teachers name, however I think he is a idiot, i have to give him credit for being different...and sharing his love of music with kids but its outbursts seamed like a mimic of the classic "rock" artist. rebel, outcast, temper...the guys not on the road with frank Zappa, hes teaching music to kids. tough love works yes, but not in every case. I have been playing guitar for thirteen years, and as a guitar player I am sensitive, had a teacher treated me like that I would have whacked him upside the head with my guitar. Anyway There is a part where the ass**** teacher is playing a blues type jam, and had said he hates it when a student is better then him, well it seams that is easy cause he sucks, he had no licks, no soul and no vibrato...then the film seams to play him up as the "mentor" when your ear can tell you he blows.... what grounds then does he have for yelling at the kids, when his own playing fails to impress..The one kid I hope keeps rocking is the 12 year old who at the end plays a amazing solo, kids got it....(teacher don't) thats all oh yeah, most adults who act like the butt monkey teacher end up profiled as weird........aside from the yelling I act the same way its fine, however I play a meaner blues and I am not as much of a honker as said butt monkey....Ps I know my grammar sucks, then again this is not about me........Peace movie fans M.Run


Different, fun and like life itself doesn't have an exact Hollywood outcome.

The main characters learns and teaches others. One of my favorite scenes is about the reason for taking off shoes before going into the house - it's basically so you leave the world and it's chaos outside your sanctuary and not to avoid getting dirt that can be vacuumed up later.

Also, when you put two different cultures together you learn a lot about each. The good and the bad. There is some basic dishonesty in our own culture and also many humorous sayings that arn't to be taking literally.

I also recommend renting Shall We Dance.


I first watched 'Tokyo Cowboy' at a film festival in Tromsø, Norway, and at that time considered it one of the best films I have ever seen. Now, 12 years later, I have gotten the DVD (after a lot of struggle...) and re-watched it. The conclusion is the same, in spite of the many films I have seen in these 12 years. This is a top-ten for me. Delightful story which combines humor and depth. The much-more-talked-about 'Lost in Translation' does not come up to this one, but 'Translation' is of course not a bad movie.

One could say that the wisdom of 'Tokyo Cowboy' is a bit simple and obvious, yet these themes one cannot discuss and dwell over enough. To find oneself in this complex world, "the road in my heart" as the main character puts it, will never go out-of-date. Highly recommended, watch it! You will not be disappointed. Greetings from Oslo, Norway.


This is a perfectly balanced film. The timing is all right as it moves between tension and humor, sentiment and meaning, uncertainty and resolution. The movie never wastes its time to pull out tears or laughs from the audience. All the enjoyment flows out naturally and uncontrived. Nor is the director's artistry on parade. Rather the film's beauty is subtle and supportive. The cross-cultural clashes are much more bilateral and accurate than in the more acclaimed "Lost in Translation." Though the "coming out" theme is old, this handling of it is fresh; and the script is well written. The cast works very well together. I wish I could see more of them. I'd especially like to see some other of Hiromoto Ida's works. I also very much appreciated Anna Ferguson and Alec Willows in this.


Nice quirky film that plays on different aspects of social and cultural stereotypes. A refreshing look at the passions that move the human heart, with a few interesting, if somewhat predictable, plot twists and a surprising ending.


Ok. You do not expect much from a 1994 movie you have never heard of and is being given for free with the purchase of a bad magazine. Least while for strange developments in your life all of this happens to take place in Bilbao, Spain.

But this is a fine movie. A very good one. The plot flows very ...well... very fluidly. It goes surprising you on and on, but in a subtle, soft way.

At the end, you feel a lot of empathy for the naive Japanese guy, and, in my case, a deep love for Shelly... I can´t tell you more about it without spoiling it.

Watch it.


Puerto Rico provides a bright and beautiful backdrop for this dark Film Noir thriller which gives a modern twist to this neglected but classic genre.

Aside from a rather dark view of humanity, noir films rely on suspense, plot twists and relationships. This film cleverly utilizes all three.

Knocked for being a rather wooden performer, Lamas is well cast as the stiff, almost emotionless lead, making a strength out of what would in other circumstances be a weakness and Brenda Strong is effectively evil and always hot.

The plot has enough twists to keep from being predictable but builds slowly enough to keep from being confusing. The slowness of the story is counterbalanced and punctuated by action, violence and nudity.

This isn't a kid's film but then again Film Noir probably isn't a kid's genre.