I live in Phoenix and every time I go east on U.S. 60 out past Apache Junction, near Gold Canyon Ranch, I see a spot where an episode was filmed ( or at least a scene was filmed). Today, 40 years later I still think about it and check to see if the spot is still there. Went by today----yes it is. Too bad the show only lasted that one season---one of the true greats ! The scene I remember was where he stopped to get a drink out of a spigot at a service station, and as I recall someone took issue with it. Anyway someone learned a valuable lesson from it, I'm sure. Does anyone know if these 27 episodes are available ? Never was a motorcycle guy, although I did own a Navajo for a year or so. I just identified with the wanderlust of the open road.


i guess i'm getting to the nostalgic stage in life,and Then Came Bronson is something that readily comes to mind.definitely a show of it's time,it surely borrowed from other shows(Route 66?)but added it's own touch in great writing and acting(Michael Parks).speaking of him,i thought he had disappeared from the planet,but his IMDb resume says differently.Parks difficulties with the shows producers probably caused the series early demise,and that's a pity.watching the show as a kid,i was fascinated that this guy could just pick up and move on at will(whereas i was forced to go to school),on a search to find out something about himself.this probably couldn't be made in todays world,nor should it be.you can't improve on perfection.


Swedish/British co-production of a young Swedish boxer who is framed and forced into an inside agent mission in the 80's continuing cold war in 'neutral' Sweden. Based on a fairly successful novel by Swedish writer Harry Kullman, cheap production values not used to their advantage plus clumsy, deftless direction, sink this agent thriller, despite some tight scenes... and as a Swede, hearing my compatriot actors spouting really dodgy English accents just doesn't help much...


This is by far the worst Dennis Hopper movie ever put to film. The chicks in it were nasty, the guys in it could not act, and the story was weak as it could be. The only reason I bought it was because it was on sale for $5 at our grocery store. I feel that they should give me $20 for suffering through it. Stay away from this. I am sure that it is historically accurate, and if so these were the dumbest saboteurs in all of history. Not to mention the director, and producer. I hope Dennis fired his agent after making this T@RD.

I could go on and on about this waste of film, but It simply bores me. IMDb is comparing this to "The Count of Monte Cristo" Have they lost their minds. The count is a classic tale of revenge and determination. The "Inside Man" just sucks.


This film is not as bad as you might think by reading the other user comments. Of course The Inside Man is not original or artistic thriller, but I think it is far more better than an average thriller. The production values are not high, so the filmmakers haven't even try to make spectacular action-scenes. And that's good. Otherwise the film could have been unintended humorous.

And I don't agreed what people say about the accents. Gösta Ekman's 'Swenglish' doesn't disturb me. Ekman is a charismatic actor and I like the way he talks. And i't's great to see him with such great stars as Hopper and Krüger. But I agreed with those who think that the role of Thomas Kallin should have played by someone else than Kåre Mölder. Rolf Lassgård would have been suitable for that part.


"Pound" may be the funniest movie ever made. So far as I know, it's not available on DVD or tape. But if you get a chance to see it, by all means do so. The usual cast of brilliant Downey character actors deliver some of the edgiest lines ever to grace the screen. As with "Putney Swope", its only drawback is that the audience is laughing so hard it may be difficult to hear the dialog.

Antonia Fargas, in a track suit, stars as The Grayhound. As he reminisces about his Florida racing days, a winner of the Tampa Tropicana ("Brang home the bacon, I did."), we see two other "dogs" furiously masturbating in a corner. One says over his shoulder, "Excuse me...but I need to give myself a quick jerk." Downey's son, Robert Downey, Jr., appears in the movie at the age of three or four, as a puppy. The brilliant dialog, delivered by a brilliant cast, make this an ideal movie for anarchists. Republicans may not get it.


I saw this film last night at the Barbican in London, apparently it hadn't been shown for thirty years, longer than I've been alive! We were warned at the beginning that it wasn't the easiest film to watch and with that in mind, I actually found it not too difficult to watch. All the chartacters were very different and I really like the idea of having people play the animals. It was pretty sad but also heartwarming in a way. I loved Robert Downey jr as the puppy, so cute!!!

I would say that the film was pretty bizarre and I'm not sure if I could watch it again for a while but for someone like me who is interested in they ways of past decades, I think it was a brilliant peek into the late sixties. There was one particular character, the old lady who played the dog with the mange problem who I thought was brilliant, amazing styling and directing. A film that should be available to be shown.


I've never seen any movie like this where people represent dogs about to be put down and their characters. The movie keeps switching back and forth between the actors and the animals. The actors talk and you get a feeling for the animals.

It's sad and yet funny.

One animal starts to have a baby and another tries to have sex with another dog and the viewer gets to understand by watching the actors represent these dogs.

One dog is about to be put down and you see how nervous he gets.

One gets a different feeling for one's pet after watching this movie.


Frequent television guest star Patrick O'Neal and Broadway veteran Kim Stanley are the central characters in a tale of unrequited love that has that typical "Night Gallery" stamp of macabre humor. O'Neal plays a self-centered critic that shares an apartment complex and Stanley is one of his neighbors. Try as she might to win his affections, Stanley is repeatedly spurned by the sardonic O'Neal. Even when she feigns a fall on the staircase, all she can get from O'Neal is a sarcastic comment.

The tide is turned when O'Neal discovers a spider in his kitchen sink. Fearing the little buggers, he washes it down the drain but later it appears but at a slightly larger size. Little by little the spider is growing and O'Neal is forced to go to Stanley for comfort and, in the long run, rescue.

Now, she has the upper hand for HE is dependent upon her and she gets to use his words against him, repeating some of the same lines that he gave her, only now there is an ironic twist in them.

The finale is appropriately fitting and both actors pull out all the stops of their profession.

Brilliantly acted, "A Fear of Spiders" is a classic in a series that didn't have that many.


This is one of my favorite stories from the Night Gallery. It looks so ordinary on the surface - a bright sunny day and a father is checking out a military academy he might send his wayward son to. There's no spooky music here or characters screaming in terror. In fact, if you were to stumble across this episode while channel surfing you might think it was just some boring two-star family drama. When you sit and watch it, however, the horror slowly drips down on you until you're drowning in it, not knowing if you should laugh or scream.

Pat Boone plays the lead and makes for interesting casting. He's probably the ultimate Hollywood goody two-shoes and yet here his performance leaves you wondering whether the father is a good-guy faced with a gut wrenching decision, or a bad-guy simply contemplating an evil one. Very disturbing. Good directing from Night Gallery regular Jeff Corey and some creepy cinematography from Lionel Lindon add to the chills. It's a pity that smart (or at least different) approaches to horror from Hollywood, such as "The Academy", seem to have mostly died off with Rod Serling.


"Marmalade Wine" a two person teleplay introduces us to a weary hiker caught in a rainstorm and a friendly country doctor who offers the young man refuge in the storm, only to have a truly grisly ulterior motive. The sets are really threadbare, (Not sure if that was the intention or not) but the acting is good. The doctor is very creepy and really adds to the suspense here. The ending is a stomach churning revelation which is great. When you put yourself in theyoung man's shoes, you almost feel faint.

If you've seen the Twilight Zone episode entitled "The Howling Man" you'll see a few similarities. A man who with an evil secret figure in both stories. A fun and shocking episode.


Unlike our American cousins, we here in the UK don't get to see re-runs of Night Gallery - never sure why, as there are plenty of re-runs on the Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits and occasionally Tales from the Darkside albeit on satellite, not the main channels. From my kindred youth, I remember certain episodes from 'Gallery', but the quick, 'fillers' the series put in were sometimes bizarre, but welcome. This one, where a normal 'human' couple if you like, hear their 'baby' or young son crying out for a glass of water. They argue over (From what I can recall)whose turn it is to get him the water etc. Then I think it IS the father, who hands the glass to 'Junior'. Junior replies in toddler fashion 'thank you dadddyyy!' - then we see a baby-ish Frankenstein monster crushing the glass with his hand! Great stuff from the makers! Bring it back over the pond, please!


I remember this show from when I was a child. At the time, all I remembered was being scared to death. :) As an adult, I'm more impressed with the great storytelling and artful direction. I once had arachnophobia and therefore this episode stuck out in my mind from childhood. But even when I saw it back then, I had an appreciation for the relationship dynamics between the female and male lead. And that's really the magic of Night Gallery - being able to scare you but still having a solid story to do it with. I wish that today's TV shows and movies would take a hint from Night Gallery. It's OK to have CGI (which wasn't available back when Night Gallery was done) but don't get so caught up in it that the story suffers (or is nonexistent). Thank goodness for hulu.com. Maybe some television executive will revive this series at some time in the future or at least learn from its craftsmanship. You can't beat a good story.


I thought this movie was great. I loved how it all took place during the early 1950s. The atmosphere was down right sensuous, just like the Jazz being played throughout the whole movie. The way Blue is made to undress and is transformed into a different person was very dramatic and really shows the "two shades of blue". I really enjoyed how Blue and the lead guy fell in love and I liked how Sully tried to protect Blue. I didn't like the part where JJ Clark showed up at the brothel and Blue screamed, she looked really stupid. This is the only part of the movie I didn't like. I don't know why people think its a bad movie, I own it and watch it regularly.


Zalman King is an actor and scriptwriter who expanded his capabilities in mid career to include both producing & directing (more recently he has also very successfully tried his hand at cinematography, to complete what today has become a rare fivefold). In 1986 the success of the strongly erotic film '9 1/2 weeks', for which he was both a co-writer and the producer, drew a great deal of attention and gave him a chance to build a reputation as the best known North American Producer/Director of erotic films. He accepted this challenge by co-writing and directing another very successful film 'Two Moon Junction', released two years later. Another year on and the first 'Wild Orchid' film with a script attributed totally to ZK was released. Its claim to be a true erotic film became widely accepted - largely on the strength of its last very intense love making scene between Carre Otis and Mickey Rourke. (They were married soon afterwards, and background publicity fostering an unlikely rumour that this scene was not simulated probably helped this) Two years later came 'Wild Orchid 2 - Two Shades of Blue', released in 1989. This featured another original film-script written by Zalman King, and its name was not derived from any previous literary or dramatic work, but was clearly intended to exploit the reputation which WO-1 had earned - no doubt its sub-title was also selected with the same objective. It has only achieved a relatively low approval rating from IMDb users, however as far as I am concerned it is a fine work that, despite some flaws, is the nearest approach to a true erotic film with which Zalman King has so far been associated.

Unfortunately most of his more recent works have been directed more towards television presentation than to the cinema and do not provide a lot of competition. His company has created two different sets of short films for television both comprising independent episodes based on a longer feature film that provides a more detailed background for the complete series. The best known of these is probably the Red Shoes Diaries series. It started with a 1992 feature film of the same name which explained the significance of both the red shoes and the diaries. This has spawned an ongoing series of about fifty short TV episodes that have been continuing ever since. The very similar Chromium Blue series featured fantasies associated with the visit of a billionaire's private cruise ship to various exotic Mediterranean resorts, and probably had a higher unit budget. For me, most episodes from both these series were partly spoiled by the use of cinematographic techniques that are usually regarded as associated more with music videos than with the cinema; in addition their short running times makes it difficult for them to convey any meaningful message.

Unlike these later short productions, Wild Orchid 2 succeeds in involving the viewer in a story that is sufficiently disturbing to provide genuine emotional impact. The film is best described as a movie equivalent of the 'bodice ripper' paperback romances which appeal most strongly to the fair sex but men often also enjoy, and when televised they provide ideal entertainment for a couple. For me Wild Orchid 2 remains far the best of the many works with which Zalman King has been associated. Although the story is rather far fetched the film has an excellent cast and is very well acted, so most of its viewers probably enjoy it. (Some IMDb users have criticised the acting of its star, Nina Siemaszko, but this performance successfully established the foundations for her very productive acting career which has covered numerous TV productions as well as significant feature films - so enough said). The films ending is rather prolonged and is also somewhat weak, this is particularly noticeable because of the strong meat which preceded it, but Zalman King does deserve credit for ensuring that it was not made glaringly obvious long in advance. Watching it, I wished at times that he had had the training as a cinematographer which Russ Meyer received in the U.S. army. The modern cine camera is a technological marvel, capable of providing clear easily viewed images of even the most complex scenes. Unduly short sequences handicapped by excessive or inadequate contrast are used today by too many directors when attempting to create atmosphere or mood; ignoring the fact that this mood can be irretrievably lost once the audience starts wondering what they missed in the lost parts of the screen image. Despite these criticisms, Wild Orchid 2 is a fine film which successfully captured the trauma faced by a young girl being reluctantly but irretrievably drawn into a life of prostitution, whilst lacking the courage to break away and face the world on her own. It provides viewers with much more 'meat' than any of King's other recent films (except perhaps for his own performance in St Francis - another noteworthy film, but a serious study of the drug culture rather than an erotic work.)

I believe WO-2 deserves a far higher rating than it has currently been given by IMDb users, this rating seems to be the victim of what appears to have become a double standard, the upgrading of any excessively violent films (even those showing scenes of torture) because they display the freedom of film to uncover aspects of society which are normally kept under the carpet; but the downgrading of any showing intense sexual situations because they might unduly influence young people.


The story is about a beautiful young girl, Blue (Nina Siemaszko), who is approaching sexual maturity. In order to achieve a happy and fulfilling life she must avoid being corrupted and enslaved by sexual desire and lust, and ultimately find true love. But this is no easy matter in the cold, cruel world in which she suddenly finds herself virtually alone and defenseless. She becomes the unwilling victim of power hungry individuals who seek to exploit her as a prostitute. With help from more compassionate and understanding people, Blue struggles to maintain dignity and courage in her desperate commitment to be free.

While its true that the film has little connection with its predecessor "Wild Orchid", its main flaw seems to be that its just a little too cliché and at times hard to believe. This shortcoming is difficult to avoid, however, in most any book or film. To Zalman King's credit, the final outcome and the essential theme are not completely obvious from the very beginning. The exotic setting in the past also helps give the film a sense of novelty.

While the movie does have numerous sexually explicit scenes, which may offend some people, it exhibits far less voyeurism and wanton sexual intercourse that are typical of so called "soft-porn" movies. Whereas, I found Nina Siemaszko's natural beauty to be a refreshing change from the irritating plastic-boob floozies that are the main attraction of the aforementioned genre. Moreover, Wild Orchid 2 is a far more compelling human drama than stories about men from out of space who want to learn what love is, but seem to only be interested in sex. A rating of 2.8 hardly does this film any justice. I myself was quite found of the movie, and consider it worth viewing by those seek more tragic and melancholy overtones than what you may find in a typical romance.

Nina Siemaszko portrays of young "virgin", who is lonely, innocent and vulnerable, yet strong willed and independent, with higher moral values. She acted well enough to earn my sympathy, and I found myself routing for her throughout the film. Through Blue's trying experiences, we learn that in order to find true love we must be bold and determined, we must exhibit self-sacrifice and compassion, and, above all, we must look beyond outward appearances and fallacies, and seek the inner beauty that lies within ourselves and others we meet.


I noticed that the overall IMDb rating for this film was a lowly 3.2. This seems a bit unfair. The story is good, not great, and may at times be bit predictable. But the acting is quite good with a very sympathetic performance by Tom Skerritt. Robert Davi shows a warm side in much contrast to the "heavy" he played in a James Bond Film. Wendy Hughes couldn't have been more cold and calculating in much contrast to the warm and loving character she played opposite Peter Falk in "Happy New Year" or the playful character she played opposite Pierce Brosnan in "The Heist." Lastly, Zalman King as a filmmaker has tried to elevate the adult genre to an art form. If not familiar, try to see his most successful series: "Red Shoes Diaries." Sometimes you can catch an episode on late night Showtime.

It might be said that not every film is meant to be "Gone With the Wind" or "Citizen Kane." There's nothing wrong about a shoot-em-up western where the gunfighters never seem to run out of bullets. And although "The Fast and the Furious" may never make IMDb's top 250 list, it was a good enough film for the producers to make two sequels.

It's all about entertainment and since the world's population is so diverse, we all like different types of movies. One could guess that some viewers who are offended by nudity may have been "turned off" by this film, which also may account for the low 3.2 rating. But the film is worth a watch.

Finally, Nina Siemaszko is excellent in this film. She brings across her vulnerability, frustration, disappointment, etc. Her performance must have been good, because other producers noticed and she had a nice supporting role in "The American President" and a recurring role for 3 or 4 years on "The West Wing." On a personal note, I would urge all of us to respect the IMDb and the lengths they go to provide this forum. Let's give fair comments to all films we view. We may actually affect the careers of some of the industry people.


While the first film gained notariety due to it's allegedly real sex scenes, it otherwise was a boring waste of time.

the sequel (which has nothing to do with the first film other than the name) offers more of the same. it's slightly improved in that it actually has a plot and the explicit sex scenes are better integrated into the movie.

the acting is average with the only benefit being the presence of the extremely pretty and sexy Nina Siemaszko as 'Blue'. her performance is well done and the sex scenes featuring her are the better ones in the film.

overall, strictly for fans of writer/producer/director Zalmand King and boring sex flicks.

rating:3


"Rien à faire" is a watchable and enjoyable flick for one main reason. Marion Vernoux, the director had intuition by choosing Valeria Bruni-Tedeschi for the main role. It is a real joy to see fer acting on the screen and her big talent, her soft voice are widely sufficient to justify the vision of this film. It is all the more beneficial as she's ably assisted by her main partner Patrick Dell'Isola.

Marion Vernoux put very well in parallel her two main actors' living conditions. The contrast constitutes one of her best weapons between the naive and the simple-minded Marie and Pierre who appears as a lucid and clever man. This contrast is highlighted when the director evokes difference and misunderstanding about several points commented by the two characters. Another interesting detail: the supermarket plays the role of meeting between the two universes.

Then, the author built her movie around one of the biggest plagues at the end of the twentieth century: unemployment. So, you could expect to discover a bleak and hopeless atmosphere. It is not the case. The relative seriousness of the situation remains confined in the background. A certain joy of living comes out of the film. Marie and Pierre are jobless but while searching for a job, they take time to know themselves, to help each other and eventually to fall in love. Marion Vernoux lets us suggest the reasons why they become lovers. You feel that Marie gets on rather badly with her husband (Sergi Lopez). As for Pierre, he falls in love with Marie, mainly because he doesn't succeed in finding a job again.

However, this work isn't without a few faults. Certain sequences can be judged as conventional (like the one when Pierre explains to Marie why he wants to put an end to their love affair) and I think an extra touch of passion would have given the movie more strength.

Anyway, I repeat it: this movie is worth watching especially for Valeria Bruni-Tedeschi and given the treatment Marion Vernoux made of her subject, her work can be taken for a cousin of the movie: "en avoir ou pas..." (1995) by Laetitia Masson.


What a delightful little movie. What i really enjoyed is the minimalistic camera work, which was heavily based on close ups and long shots. The way the camera lingers on the characters' faces and floats between them has great insight. Also credit goes to the amazing actors, especially the girl. She steals the show with her expressive style. You can see all the hope of being loved by someone, all the agony , all the fear of being alone... Maybe the movie was 3 minutes too long but that's totally forgivable. RIEN A FAIRE is certainly a movie to discover.


The plot is not original in the least. It's the story of a lonely woman who lives a boring life and who meets a man who is bored too, they are both unemployed and it seems to be the only thing they have in common. They have an affair, and finally he leaves her. And that's all. I have seen this kind of stories too many times. And it lasts almost 2 hours...


Although the tagline of Attack The Gas Station (1999) is `Just when you wanted to laugh, here they come,' it might as well have been `Idle hands are the devil's playthings.' In ATGS, the third and most successful film from Korean director Sang-Jin Kim, four young Korean punks, well, attack a gas station obviously (twice, the same station both times), because they are bored. As they realize running the station for an evening might be more profitable than simply robbing it, they end up taking hostage the manager and employees as well as most of the customers. On the surface, ATGS is a black comedy with a great cast, but in the end is also a wonderful examination of group dynamics. The group is lead by Sung-jae Lee, who plays No Mark. He is the most conservative looking of the four, with short, military style hair, and relatively normal clothing. He is also one of the easiest ways to recommend this movie, as he totally dominates the screen whenever he is in it, to the point where it is completely believable that he intimidates two armed police officers in their squad car as he chases them down with a moped. Oh-seong Yu plays Bulldozer, who is in charge of the hostages and swaggers around menacing people with a hockey stick. He gets less screen-time than the other three, stuck as he is in a back room with his prisoners, but is always impressive as he is shown controlling the ever growing crowd. Seong-jin Kang, who plays Ddan Dda-ra (a failed musician) and Ji-tae Yu, who plays Paint (a failed painter who likes to create nudes, then throw paint across them and shout `I'm a genius!'), are fun to watch and are more punkish, but are overshadowed by both No Mark and Bulldozer. Even considering that, all four give outstanding performances and are consistently entertaining to watch. It is as they take more and more hostages that ATGS becomes really interesting. It just seems impossible that one man, Bulldozer, even armed with a big club, can control a group of twenty plus hostages. They even ask him about this. `What would you do if a group attacked you?' to which he replies [this is an approximation] `I would pick just one. I would ignore all of the others and just beat up that one guy, no matter what. It's happened to me once. Four guys attacked me. I sent one to the hospital. Me? A couple of bruises.' As he relates his story, the hostages shrink away from him. But the hostages are not controlled simply through intimidation. Bulldozer punishes them by making them do handstands. Ddan Dda-ra makes four rival gang members sing as he and his friends eat. No Mark forces the manager to fix a broken phone, but keeps smashing it after it's been fixed (after which he yells `Fix it!'). And of course, they get the hostages to control each other. They encourage the employees to browbeat the manager. Bulldozer instigates a fight between one of the employees, a heavyset high-school kid, and a gang member who's been bullying him. After the kid easily beats up the gangster, Bulldozer makes him his number two man, even leaving him in charge of the hostages as Bulldozer goes to eat with No Mark, Ddan Dda-ra and Paint. It is these group dynamics that are perhaps the most fascinating aspect of ATGS, as we watch No Mark and his gang utterly dictates situations that seem at first totally out of control. On a personal note, I'm very glad guns are almost totally non-existent in ATGS (only the cops have them). The movie leaves no doubt whatsoever that the gang are bad-asses. It shows them beating up groups twice their size. As mentioned, No Mark is able to push around two armed police officers. But it's a bad-assness based entirely on their personal abilities. They push people around because they can, not because some gun gives them that power. If No Mark and the others had used guns, it would have been the gun that was controlling the hostages, not them. Using guns would have made ATGS much more serious and disturbing, when it is mostly satirical and relatively light-hearted. The absence of guns lets us like No Mark, Bulldozer, Paint and Ddan Dda-ra, who are criminals, but not villains. Yes, they rob a gas station (twice) and beat up a bunch of people, but their threats mostly end with a mild pummeling. With a gun, the only alternative from shooting someone in a horrible but non-lethal manner is to kill them. Without that ever present threat of death, Attack the Gas Station can provoke a chuckle as these four young men get away with (metaphorically speaking) murder.


Its been a while since I've commented on IMDb, the only excuse I have for that is that no film in the past year or two has moved me, or even made me want to comment at all on here.

Well I'm back at it and might I say its an uplifting return. "Attack the Gas Station" by Kim Sang-Jin was above and beyond what I expected for a pick off the blockbuster wall. This film takes you from the beginning all the way to the end, at first you really don't like these protagonist, but near the end you want to join their gang.

Anarchy is an understatement here, The film centers around 4 guys who have all grown a grudge with society for one reason or another, and one night decide to take it out on a little gas station and the enviorment around that station.

This film is awesome, and if you really want to have a good time(Laugh, Root, and Edge of your seat action) WATCH THIS MOVIE.... out of a possible 10, I give it a sparkling DIME!

Don't know what took me so long to watch this film, but it was sure worth the wait.


Attack the Gas Station! is an effective show case for 4 young stars and goes some way to prove that the newly revitalised Korean cinema has a lot to offer. Anarchic, briskly staged and with some genuinely funny moments, it is a film which could be remade to good effect in the West (I can see Kevin Spacey as the beleagued station owner, for instance) although I doubt that all of the verve could be recaptured, for this is a young man's film, angry and alert to wider issues.

"If they move, kill them" is a running joke through the film as the number of hostages increases and, whether or not a deliberate reference to Peckinpah's Wild Bunch, its still funny.

The least convincing aspect of the film is the flashbacks. While useful in providing some background and character motivation for the main characters, their previous lives seems sketched in too cursorily and in result the young men lose dramatic weight. It's as if that, once away from the scene of their most important and direct influence, they are morally enervated. Their stature is only significant, the film seems to suggest, as the principals go on and take direct, group action. Part of this is deliberate, as their past frustration undoubtedly feeds their current boredom and anger, yet one feels that much of the same ground could have been covered by some relevant interaction between the four, who leave their personal demons resolutely undiscussed.

More interesting is what the Gas Station represents: this viewer feels that, to some extent, it is Korea in microcosm. Just as Japanese cinema has repeatedly reworked the trauma of nuclear holocaust into its science fiction and fantasy films, so the peculiar nature of the local North-South Korean standoff and mutual hostility is echoed in this film, in which the ending threatens a peculiarly lunatic and mutually achieved apocalypse through petrol and lighters. Clearly, continued tension plays a part in the national psyche, and the repeated requests to 'fix it'(the phone) has wider implications as far as national communication or understanding is concerned.

The contempt poured upon the glib national slogans hanging in the wall is one explicit political disaffection. As the film proceeds and the shiny new gas station (a manifestation in itself of the hitherto 'economic miracle' of the east) is increasingly the scene of mini power struggles, escalating standoffs, and threats of destruction. This is a Korea in which changes are demanded, or annihilation surely follows, and in which no one it appears wants to be 'boss' or take responsibility, as the station owner's ready relinquishment of authority suggests. A country in which one might as well balance upside down on one's head, pointlessly and endlessly, as achieve any dialogue. And as the final scene shows, a forecourt packed with Koreans ready to destroy themselves is both bitterly ironic and ruthlessly apt.


Of course, you gotta be a masochist to enjoy some people's genius - you know that if you bear with them they will take you to new levels of perception.

With Lars von Trier, the voyage is often hilarious. Epidemic is funny. Funny, in a Gummo kind of way: the characters are real, reality is eerie, and we laugh to break the tension; funny in a the characters say amusing things kind of way (preacher: "this bible is in goddamned Latin"); and funny in an Andy Kaufman screwing with the audience (yes, you) kind of way.

Make no mistake: you will suffer. If you are afraid, stay away from horror movies, ya pansy!

This movie also features some great aesthetic distance! It's bold!


EPIDEMIC (Lars von Trier - Demark 1987).

This second feature by Lars von Trier reveals many of the director's obsessions with cinema. Here the self-imposed limitations on film-making in many ways foreshadow his obstructions upon Jorgen Leth in THE FIVE OBSTRUCTIONS (2003).

Or is this again von Trier's little joke on all of us? This is essentially a film about his own obsessions, or a grand parody on horror, as some suggested. Von, Trier, frustrated by the delay of his never realized project, "The Grand Mal", about two gangster families in divided Berlin, made a bet with film consultant Claes Kastholm of the Danish Film Institute, claiming that he could make a feature film for one million Danish kroner. Resulting partly in an amateur movie about a film director and a scriptwriter who must write a new manuscript in five days, interspersed with scenes from the film they are working on - about a young idealistic doctor in the late 20th century, who tries to fight an epidemic, but only manages to spread it further. The film culminates with the outbreak of a deadly plague, not in the past but in the present. Throughout the film, Von Trier shows his fascination with Germany, for example, during a ride through the "Ruhrgebiet", the industrial core of Europe, or the world, at least during the '80s.

I watched this with interest, but despite the sometimes fascinating introspective of Von Trier the filmmaker, or the filmmaker in general, this hardly is a great film, but he manages to make something unique with this strange mixture of Dogma-style improvisation and carefully enscenated scenes as the one with the doctors in the basement of the University Libarary.

Camera Obscura --- 8/10


Epidemic appears to be all stylistic self-indulgence. It is filmed in black and white, with often purposely redundant subtitles. Each shot is very very long. Some are stoic, some are suddenly goofy, some are disturbing, mostly stoic. When there is dialogue, it is intellectually stimulating, but borderline irrelevant.

Mainly, it is that director Lars Von Trier and his screenplay collaborator Niels Vorsel play themselves, coming up with a last-minute script for a producer. This strand takes disproportionate turns with scenes from their script, in which Von Trier plays a radical doctor attempting to cure a modern-day epidemic. In an warped turn, the doctor finds that he himself has been spreading it. For so long, one is left without a clue as to why there is such a coincidence between the screenplay and the outside world, or any progressions of the different narrative strands' signifying signs. But it infects you. It burns you.

Whether or not the film is narcissistic, it is not form over function. Essentially, it is a basic exercise in what metaphysically affects the viewer. Consider the scene of the darker, quieter of the screenwriters in the subway, knowing predeterminately that the other one is going to die. Or when he looks in a mirror, turns to us, the camera, then the mirror again. Everything one expects would create a cohesive, sense-making narrative film is inverted and indeed develops an immediately conscious connection between itself and the audience.

That is not to say it eschews any fundamental aspect of quality. Udo Kier delivers one of the most amazing, fantastic performances I have ever seen. Really, many of the performances, whoever these actors, or characters, are, shock and deeply move us. Some scenes are entirely made up of uproarious laughter or breakdowns of screaming, in spite of the unapologetic stoicism and quiet permeating the film.

This hypnotic abstraction is truly very atmospheric and creepy. It is a transcendental, almost physiologically affecting virus that infests you for days upon being subjected to it. It is something that has to be seen and can hardly be explained. And that makes it a true work of art.


The plot: a director and a screenwriter lose the screenplay they've been working on due to hard disk corruption and start working on another project called "Epidemic". The film follows their misadventures but in the meantime a real epidemic is starting to develop around them, but goes by unnoticed. Oh and also fragments of the film-in-a-film "Epidemic" are shown in-between. Oh and Lars Von Trier (the director) and Niels Vorsel (the screenwriter) are the protagonists playing, ahem, the director and the screenwriter. Lovely.

And if by reading this the first thought that came to your mind is "black comedy", then go to the top of the class cause you're absolutely right. The best thing about this film is how it ridicules film-making and yet somehow is a good example of artistic pompousness. But then again we know that Von Trier is a cynical little bugger. Udo Kier's cameo recalling WW2 is brilliant. Be warned though, definitely an acquired taste.


Lars von Trier is a genius when he actually makes a film, as he did with Element of Crime and Europa, two visually stunning films that I absolutely love. But here, von Trier does not so much tell a story as tell a story about people writing a story and then give us all-too-brief segments of that story. If von Trier had just filmed the story about the doctor who tries to cure a plague but instead ends up spreading it, we would have had another masterpiece. Indeed, the segments that tell this story are wonderful. But to get to these gems, which make up perhaps 5 percent of the movie, we have to wade through intolerable stretches of 16mm excrement. Lars and his friend think up this idea, visit this place, talk to Udo Kier, frustrate and infuriate the viewer with impossibly boring stretches of cinema verité. The experience was painful. In fact, I'll deduct some credit for pain and suffering.


The idea of the film is great. Mixing the creation of a movie and his viewing. It's done in a very ambitious way, incredibly sophisticated and elegant when we know the budget who was assigned to the movie.

A lot of scenes are incredible, specially the one who shows the contamination of the priest, adding a reflection on the condition of the black man. Obviously the last scene is one of the most incredible things I've seen on a screen, but we can doubt the mental health of Von Trier and his crew. However maybe it's the reason he's so good...

I didn't like a few things. I think there is too much time about the creation of the movie, a few ridiculous and unappropriated moments as the story of the American letters of Niels


* SPOILER WARNING * Director Lars Von Trier, who stars as himself in this mock documentary meta-horror black comedy drama (!), comments early on that "a film should be a pebble in your shoe". With this, he may have accomplished just that. It´s an annoying mess of a movie, which tries to make sense in the last scene, but by then you have been subjected to tons of extraneous footage, bad dubbing, clues and a pretentious movie-within-a-movie, also called Epidemic. Von Trier and cowriter Niels Vørsel tries to finish their script and convince film institute executive Claes Kastholm to finance their movie about a mysterious plague spreading through Europe, but the epidemic seems to have started in real life as well. Or something. The chilling giallo-inspired climactic hypnosis sequence (with real life hypnotist Svend Ali Hamann) is effective, but Von Trier´s ad hoc filmmaking style will test the viewer´s patience. He does, however, make an interesting visit to the hospital, as a sort of premonition to his later hits "The Kingdom 1 + 2". Udo Kier appears briefly as himself. A box office disaster; well two, actually, if you count the vastly ignored re-release in 1997. *½


Lars Von Trier seems to be able to make just two kind of movie: awful ones and excellent ones. Epidemic has been scheduled in order to obtain money for another movie - Lars intended to ask money for two different movies and to use almost all of the money to realize the first one (Europe), leaving few dollars to realize the second one (Epidemic). Epidemic has no script, no actors and almost no director. It's just a funny joke. It can be amusing if you are really involved with Lars, Niels, and his wife, otherwise it makes no sense. I rate one star just because it is not possible to write "rating does not apply". If you are interested in Lars Von Trier visual and poetic art, try to consider before the more recent (and in some way, more "accessible") works like "Breaking the Waves", "Dancer in the Dark", and "Dogville". "Europa" can be the following step and, if you like it, maybe "Idioterne" and "Forbrydelsens element" can be the following one. The TV series "Riget" I and II are really enjoyable and are an all-audience product - Lars said it made them just for money. Obviously, they're not a mixture of "E.R." and "Twin Peaks", as someone said. The style of "Epidemic" is very similar to that of "Riget", but the plot is meaningless. From a certain point of view, "Epidemic" is like an home made movie: it can be funny according to the ones who made it, and maybe it can be appreciated by their friends, but shouldn't be programmed on the big screen (...unless someone has given you some money to make it...)


I have sat through some crappy movies, but 53 minutes in, I just don't care. The movie has found my inner apathy and it has embraced it.

It has some pretty B&W images here and there, but not enough to garner interest. Even Lemmy Caution couldn't save this stinker.

In my mind's eye I see a buxom Bugs Bunny on the back of a fat horse and Elmer Fudd in a horned helmet.

Into the mail-DVD-service (not the "red" company) return envelope it goes, unfinished, unenjoyed and rejected in favor of an hour of spider solitaire on my notebook computer. They should pay me to watch this one.


Lars vTrier is a genius,no doubt.Everything he did,especially The Kingdom is extraordinary and very very good,shocking..but there is something that makes me feel humiliated.In Epidemic this feeling comes to its peak.It is like 'you stupid audience,watch whatever I do with your open mouth where I can put everything I want,it can be a candy or ..it'.The first I saw from him was 'Breaking the Waves' that impressed me so much that I begun waiting for the next work of the director.That was 'Dancer in the Dark'and I became a child who ate a chocolate bonbon(Danser in the Dark) after a caramelized bonbon(Breaking the Waves).In the meanwhile I found the opportunity to see Riget on the TV,this was a box filled with chocolate candies filled with caramel.Even though,all those candies were taken with no finishing,I was still a child with wide open mouth.And then 'dogville'came.Another big different candy.

After finishing 'Epidemic',I felt as if I've just eaten a big piece of ..it.Very much experimental,very much B&W,very much LvT,...But I am still with my wide open mouth,waiting to eat 'Mandelay'.it is worth risking!


So what? Maybe we should come to the conclusion that he/she who teases evil is destined to be hit by it. But I don't like this film. I didn't like its joking evolution and disapprove the final, never-ending, gore scene where the young hypnotized girl's sufferance, a prologue to everybody else's, is depicted in a hard-hitting monologue. It reminded me of a similar scene seen in the contorted, convolved "Baby of Macon" (the film that signed the end of my love for Greenaway) and I hated it, notwithstanding the evident difference, that being a scene of external violence while this is more a self-inflicted violence scene. The only appreciable side of the film is the grainy black and white used: too few, ain't it? And as far as I found "Breaking the waves" terribly boring either, the score is 2 thumbs-down out of 2 for Von Trier.


Whenever one thinks of Steve Buscemi the actor, one probably thinks of the line about his character in FARGO, where a girl says, "Well, he was funny looking...more than most people, even." That has more or less summed up the parts Buscemi has played throughout the years, way back to the mini-series of LONESOME DOVE. But he's got more range than that, as he showed in LIVING IN OBLIVION(1995), and this movie, which he also wrote and directed. The nice surprise is he also has the makings of a fine writer and director. There's no real plot here, which undoubtedly will throw some people(and has, if some of the comments are any indication), just observing a certain type of people(working-class and barflies) and how they live their lives. While it may drag at times, there's enough truth and detail to keep you interested. Buscemi also directs actors well; this is the film which convinced me Chloe Sevigny was for real. I understand Buscemi is making another film; I look forward to it.


This semi-biographical tale centres around a down on his luck, yet charismatic bar fly, set on his way to self destruction. Buscemi'second self directed/penned feature is slower paced than some might expect. This in no way detracts from the overall brilliance and charm that trees lounge conveys. Tommy's character, while on the surface, demands both pity and sympathy. It's in his anti-heroic attributes ie. selfishness and callousness, that make the film so human and believable. American releases as passionate and warm as Trees Lounge do not come around as often anymore, with only The Station Agent coming close. So enjoy.


There are plenty of movies I can think of that I wished were a little (or a lot) shorter. Trees Lounge however presents mme with one of the rare movies that I wish were longer. I wanted this movie to keep going, I wanted to see what else would happen to the characters. While the film doesn't entirely paint the happy bar room existence that Barfly did it does make a pretty accurate portrail of good portion of the drinkers culture. Every actor in this movie hits just the right note especially Chloe Sevigny, who has never looked more fetching. One of those silly Baldwins even turns in a fine performance. Steve Buscemi wrote and directed this movie and I shall be rather intrested in any subsequent work he does in either field.

10 out of 10.


If John Cassavetes was alive, he'd have a copy of Trees Lounge in his video library. This is a story that is hard to tell, let alone find an audience. Although many can relate with the cast of lost souls hanging out at a bar most of the day, many will not admit to being somewhat connected to any of the characters. Filmed for less that 2 million, this independent, low budget, and somewhat of a masterpiece is brilliant as well as entertaining. Much of the cast has gone on to do other known films. Carol Kane, Mark Boone Junior Steve Buscemi, Bronson Dudley, Anthony LaPaglia and Steve's brother Michael Buscemi star in this Minnie and Moskowitz type story. Seymour Cassell and Mimi Rogers add their touch of magic to this story as well. A deep story with deep characters, this is a movie worth watching.


Excellent film dealing with a group of unhappy people who drown their sorrows in booze, powder, and sex. The chief sorrowmeister, Tommy, was a pathetic loser who spent inordinate amounts of time swilling beer and shots in a shabby bar which boasted a temperamental barkeep, a postage stamp sized men's room, and one table. When not turning his liver into plywood Tommy halfheartedly attempts to find work as a mechanic but winds up driving his uncle's ice cream wagon and getting in over his head with a troubled teen on the verge of bolting from daddy's violent household. A sad picture for sure, but I couldn't help laughing out loud at some of these characters' antics. A very fine movie depicting a realistic looking slice of the ugly side of our human existence.


Watched this with some trepidation, having seen the absolutely excellent trailer. So few movies live up to their trailers, especially indies. Anxiety increased by having read Buscemi's fairly harrowing account of making the film in one of those 'The Directors' books.

Shouldn't have worried. Great flick. Totally engrossing, especially to a *cough* former *cough* barfly like myself. Beautifully understated, funny, very sad, nicely paced and Buscemi very wisely NOT trying to dominate every scene, although he certainly dominates the movie.

Movie appears on first sight plot less but actually it isn't at all: Buscemi's search for a second chance to escape from the morass of his own making is riveting. Everyone involved seems to have had a good time and the beautifully relaxed performances are the reward. Only the two knucklehead goombahs fall below the otherwise uniformly excellent level.

A real treat, and thoroughly watchable-again able. My DVD was in TV format, which sucked, but otherwise the low budget doesn't really intrude.

Nearest movie to it I can think of offhand is KILLING OF A Chinese BOOKIE. Radically different subject matter but similar bittersweet texture.

A slightly, but only slightly, generous 9/10 from me.


Just happened upon this channel hopping In the early hours saw Steve Buscemi and wondered what's going on here? Not a lot as It seemed but that's not the point. Just sit back - preferably with a lager and allow Tree's Lounge to charm your trousers off.

Wonderfully subdued comedy showing that Buscemi Is not only a cult anti hero on screen but that he has much promise as a director. The characters stand out as they can be related to - everyone will recognise the Bill type regular permanently attached to the counter. Mark Boone's wife also as a seriously difficult woman who hasn't a clue what she really wants, stereotypically so. Tommy yes, Is a manchild aimlessly squandering his life away, for sure It Isn't a good role model to aspire to approaching middle age but hey that's his perogative.

This Is Steve's film and he's got charisma by the barrow full to make Tree's Lounge a real treat. That trick with the glasses will work once - provided your not too hammered practising. But It's Uncle Al who gets the best lines - "he loves your mothers", his excuse for his lecherous behaviour on the couch will bail a lot of people out of a lot of trouble.

This film Is very hard to track down, 90% of video shops I went to hadn't even heard of It and It's been on terrestrial Tele twice - once a week late- the reward Is well worth the effort.


Steve Buscemi has long been one of the premiere character actors in the business; his resume reads like a veritable Who's Who of interesting, complex characters who run the gamut from psycho hit-man to regular guy, all of whom he has brought vividly to life in film after film. And whether or not a particular project is a hit or a flop, Buscemi is always good, and can always be counted upon to add that extra something to any given film, as he has in `Trees Lounge,' an affecting drama he not only stars in, but with which he makes his debut as a writer/director-- and an impressive debut it is.

	Tommy Basilio (Buscemi) is an out-of-work mechanic who lives alone above a bar called Trees Lounge in Long Island, N.Y. He's more than a bit down on his luck; not only did he lose his job, but his pregnant girlfriend of eight years, Theresa (Elizabeth Bracco) recently dumped him for his former boss, Rob (Anthony LaPaglia). He wants to pick himself up and get his life back together, but he doesn't seem to know where to start, and the garages to which he's applied for work aren't exactly knocking his door down to hire him. So he gravitates to the Trees, where he can at least interact with others who seem to be in situations not entirely unlike his own, though at different stages and for different reasons. But they all have one thing in common-- they're people just trying to get through the day; they're trying to get through life. If they can only figure it all out.

	With this film, Buscemi proves that he is more than just a talented actor, but rather a true artist in every sense of the word, with his chosen medium being film. He has an eye for detail which complements his insights into human nature and enables him to effectively translate his material to the screen. His characters are finely drawn and complex, and with each and every one he manages to successfully avoid the stereotypes to which a setting like this could easily lend itself (and no doubt would, in lesser hands). Even with the minor characters, he succinctly gives you enough of who they are that it allows you to see beneath the surface and know what makes them tick. And he does it imaginatively-- by filling a room with photographs or items that reflect who a certain person is, for example, or simply by training his camera on someone's face and allowing that extra beat that affords the viewer a telling glimpse of what's hiding behind a character's eyes. Buscemi has an innate sense of knowing how to convey what he's trying to say, and he does it in a million small and different ways that are subtle and incisive. Simply put, he knows what works-- including how to get what he wants out of his actors-- and he presents it all with a pace and timing that are right on the mark.

	In Tommy, Buscemi creates a character to whom many will be able to relate and identify on any number of different levels. To say that Tommy is a `loser' would be too much of a simplification, because the character is too complex for that tag alone to be accurate. Tommy is blue-collar, down on his luck, and like so many people in real life, just can't seem to put it all together, can't figure out how `life' is supposed to work. And that's what Buscemi conveys so subtly and so well, and it's the key to the success of this character-- it's what makes Tommy believable and real. Obviously, Buscemi knew exactly what he wanted when he wrote this character, and he puts it across with a brilliant, memorable performance which also demonstrates his ability to star in and carry a movie on his own. Certainly, he has a wonderful supporting cast that gives him plenty of help, but few character actors have ever been able to step into a lead role with such facility and achieve the level of success Buscemi has here. And it's work that deserves to be acknowledged.

	There are a number of notable supporting performances in this film, as well, beginning with Mark Boone Junior, who as Mike captures the essence of a guy who is successful, but a loser nonetheless; LaPaglia, who gives a solid performance as Rob; Bracco, with a performance that is introspectively revealing; Debi Mazar, who with very little screen time leaves an indelible impression (and her eyes are absolutely mesmerizing); Kevin Corrigan (another of the finest character actors around), as Matthew; and especially Chloe Sevigny, as Debbie, Theresa's mature-beyond-her-years, seventeen-year-old niece.

	Rounding out the ensemble cast are Carol Kane (Connie), Bronson Dudley (Bill), Michael Buscemi (Steve's real life brother, playing Tommy's brother, Raymond), Suzanne Shepherd (Jackie), Rockets Redglare (Stan), Seymour Cassel (Uncle Al), Annette Arnold (Sandy), Michael Imperioli (George), Mimi Rogers (Patty), Daniel Baldwin (Jerry) and Charles Newmark (Puck). An involving story presented with a rich assortment of memorable, convincing characters, `Trees Lounge' is a drama about life-- about the things going on in your own neighborhood, or downtown or two streets over, no matter where you are in the world. Wherever people are, there are situations like the ones depicted in this film, problems that have to be solved and life that has to be lived. And that's what makes this film so good; it gives the audience a chance to connect with, or at least examine, things that anyone anywhere will be able to recognize. It may have taken a collaborative effort to make this one what it is, but in the end, it's Buscemi's film from start to finish, and a satisfying little gem of a movie it is. And that's the magic of the movies. I rate this one 8/10.


TREES LOUNGE is a film about Tommy Basilio , an unemployed mechanic who spend most of his time drinking in a bar or snorting drugs . " What`s so compelling about this movie ? " you ask , well I think you`ve hit the nail on the head with that question because there`s nothing really compelling about TREES LOUNGE . It`s a really low concept ( ie character based story ) movie where not much happens . Written , directed and starring Steve Buscemi it feels like one of those indie projects actors come up with now and again to increase their cred with major Hollywood studios and I`m guessing Buscemi ploughed much of his own money into the project so maybe I shouldn`t be too critical

!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!

I should perhaps also give some praise to Buscemi for writing a screenplay with an obvious subtext of never getting what you want : Tommy want`s to snort yet more drugs but someone comes into the bathroom , Tommy wants to take a woman he`s picked up in a bar but she falls asleep while he`s in the bathroom , a young kid wants to buy an ice cream but the ice cream man suddenly has a heart attack , so the theme to this movie is very clear . Such a pity realism takes precedence over an exciting plot


After hearing this film mentioned on steve buscemi's comentary while listening to Pine Barrens an episode of sopranos and felt i had to see it. Once i (finally!) found this film i was imediatly drawn away by the tag line "Mr Pink makes a movie" it still makes me shiver today. But I decided to buy it despite the DDT like qualities of that line.

The film itself has to be watched twice to apreciate it as the first time all i got from it was a story about a drunk. Buscemi is great, a very convincing portrail of a lazy bum for such an intelligent guy. The story is simple'ish but has some funny one liners. A must see for any Buscemi fan like myself.

Only one question why is Sam L Jackson on the back of the box when he has all of two lines? Pitty Buscemi could just let the movies speak for itself rather than using his past successes and cameo roles to push it.

Smashin


There was hardly a character that I didn't identify with or at least have compassion for in this film.

There but for the grace of god go I...and apparently Steve Buscemi. I'm giving it a 10 of 10!


Steve Buscemi is one of the greatest actors of all time, in my opinion, for the simple fact that he makes all of his characters memorable.

This film is an accurate look at life for the guys who never really made the cut and were left behind in a world full of unused degrees and previous money.

The film is depressing, and therefore I'd recommend everyone watch it, especially those who were born into their own perfect little worlds and became what they are because of their parents' money. This one is for the tools of society that don't think that these people exist or think that they are merely peons. Get a clue; this was once the working population of the country.


For once (at last) extremes inform the middle, the down-and-out the up-and-in, Long Island blue collar barflies the rest of us so-called well-adjusted's. This demands the proper mix of compassion and dispassion, which for Buscemi, as for others similarly gifted, leads to an almost inseparable mix of comedy and pathos: up is down, down is up.

 Buscemi plays himself, or what he probably would have been had he not found his talent in movie making, namely, a "loser" trapped in a downward spiral of unemployment, drugs, alcohol, and loneliness, familiar ingredients of endless movies, TV docudramas, talk shows, and news, all humbuggery and false preaching; so familiar, in fact, as to pose an American fixation, something we see so much of that we no longer see at all.

 He's not afraid to let things get ugly, really ugly, down right squalid. An unemployed, unemployable car mechanic ends up by default driving an ice cream truck through the sun-drenched tree-lined streets of suburbia, a peculiarly American version of hell. Strange to say, the whole mess is uplifting and absurd; Buscemi loves his characters, warts and all; he warms us to them with a wealth of detail, emerging us in a whole crowd of people, complete with its own history and past, each member whole and completely formed, with hardly a trace of exaggeration or artifact, a false note or cliche.

Because more is at stake--the "American dream"--this is a better movie than Buscemi's i Living in Oblivion (1995), which was about the trials and tribulations of making an independent film on a shoe-string. Because both films are centered on the social life of a bar, comparison to Barbet Schroeder's i Barfly is inviting; but the latter's hero is a diamond in the rough, while the one here is just a schmegegge.


This is a good movie to sit and watch on a night when you have nothing else to do.

It's an interesting character movie where you sit and watch the life of a person for a short time frame out of his life.

Nothing special, but if you like movies like me, then every once and a while a good independently made character film is enjoyable to watch.

Steve Busceme's character was interesting and he played it well. An interesting slice of life yarn about a man down on his luck.

I will rate it 7 out of 10. Based on the IMD rating scale this achieves the minimum 7 rating, that in my opinion, makes a movie worthwhile to watch.


One of the best movies I've seen. Buscemi has an incredible talent for depicting true life - a task not as easy as it sounds. This could've been my life. This could be YOUR life! Join the Army - but see this movie first.


A man stuck squarely behind a past he can not regain and a future he can not avoid. The past being happiness with the woman he loved, and the future being alcoholism and a premature death. All this in the guise of an upbeat comedy. Steve Buscemi is established here as a master film maker. Every word every gesture is perfectly placed and important to the forward flow of the film. And not a hint of the usual self-indulgence that finds its way into so low budget films. See this film! Then see it again! Then see it twice a year for the rest of your life!


Trees Lounge was an excellent movie. Steve Buscemi displayed his multi -talentedness as writer, director, and star of the movie. Also, a terrific performance by Anthony Lapaglia. If you're a Buscemi fan, or just a fan of good movies, don't miss this one.


OK, who guessed that Steve Buscemi's directorial debut would be a quiet little story about small-town ice cream van drivers hanging out in the pub? No-one? Thought not. A tiny, magical little film, this oozes more charm than you'd have thought possible. You'd like to see a sequel just to find out what happens to these guys next.


Steve Buscemi plays a loser who hangs around a bar called the Trees Lounge, who keeps making his own life worse. He picks fights with his friends, loses jobs, and generally gets drunk and gets into trouble. There's a great scene where Buscemi takes a job as an ice-cream truck driver, he's completely the wrong person to do the job. Still, the movie doesn't really have many happy or fun moments, it's the portrayal of a guy who just doesn't care anymore and wants to spend his time hanging around a bar with a bunch of other regulars with no aim in life but the next drink. This movie is not as fun, clever, interesting or memorable as it could have been, it's hard to care about any of the characters, they live such boring, banal lives, and there aren't any quotable lines in the movie. It is worth watching once, however.


After looking forward to seeing this movie directed ,written by and starring one of my favourite actors Steve Buscemi and with a big name cast I was left disappointed . This film tried to be funny and failed miserably at every turn and the story really dragged on at 95 minutes although it felt longer . The characters I couldn't relate to and the relationships between all characters weren't believable . Buscemi has tried to portray himself as the lovable loser and we are meant to laugh at his shortcomings , however I must concede Buscemi is the best character in the film the rest I found irritating .

Of course this is merely an opinion and Buscemi fans should give it a watch anyway I just personally never enjoyed it at all .


This great flick is directed by and stars well know character actor, Steve Buscemi as Tommy Basillo. Tommy has lost his girl, lost his job, and now doesn't really know what to do. After a weak attempt to find work, he ends up driving an ice cream truck directly into the cross hairs of an old, violent friend played by Daniel Baldwin. Other cast include a younger and thinner Anthony Lapaglia of Without A Trace fame, Mark Boone Jr. who now appears in the FX series, Sons of Anarchy, and a special appearance by Samuel L. Jackson. It is basically a day in the life of a "regular Joe." Another good film directed by Steve Buscemi is "Lonesome Jim.". It stars some of the same actors and the always beautiful, Liv Tyler. If you like "Tree's Lounge" you're safe with "Lonesome Jim.". So enjoy!


This is real life stuff at its best. Two hours flew by while I was watching this movie because I felt like I was there at Trees Lounge. It was like I had my own barstool just watching what was going on.

The character development is superb. Even though nothing much happens in the movie that is really profound, you feel like you are rewarded by watching because you get to know the characters, especially Tommy, played by Buschemi. You can almost feel that he is not really acting in this role...it feels more like he is re-living part of his life experience in the movie.

It is a slice of life from the outskirts of NYC or Nothern NJ that seems like it would actually happen.


From the quirkiest of the quirky, Steve Buscemi premieres his first film with a nuclear blast. The cast, which most have gone on to really big films, all artfully create the character study which is what Tree's Lounge really happens to be. Each cast member should be awarded an Oscar for how real they portray this sad set of characters. Like a step into the daily wrongness of a typical craphole which can be anywhere in the USA, Buscemi's breakout performance as the alcoholic ice cream man captures a rawness of how a man can be degraded so swiftly in the morays and questionable social structures that permeate our culture. Brilliantly written, Buscemi makes the assumption of just how relationships are all based in fear and the fact of this fear is why the characters act out and react as they do throughout this film but as we all do in the real world as well. When looking for a slice of life that reminds us just how not to be, Tree's Lounge is the perfect example. This film is a triumph.


I loved this movie from the first time I ever saw it. I had it at the end of a video tape I'd recorded (off IFC) after 'Monument Ave.', a Boston-mob film that had a similar "bar tone" to it, but was nothing like 'Trees Lounge.' 'Trees' takes place on Long Island and the vast array of crazy characters are a lot to choose from! There's a lot of humor in this film - and a lot of secrets & desires. The lounge is a bar that has a lot of losers who frequent it - the main one being Tommy (Buscemi)! There are the standard barflys who sit there all day drinking, and who must be on a fat social security paycheck to pay for it all! Anyway, we follow Tommy through his break-up with a gal he treated like crap and who has left him for one of his more-stable friends who owns a garage, going to family funerals and getting beaten up by a certain 'guido' in the 'hood. The only thing Tommy has, and the rest of his drinking buddies for that matter, is drinking his blues away. One of the cool people Tommy meets at the Trees is 'Mike', played by Mark Boone Junior - who gives a great performance as a guy who's wife is also threatening to leave him if he doesn't straighten up his act. So Mike & Tommy drink together and at one point, bring home 2 teenage girls to smoke some pot and dance to some records, in a bout of drunken bad judgement. When the wife returns, she asks Tommy if there were any girls there and Tommy, as a pro, covers for his new friend perfectly. There'a also a small part with Debbie Mazar, who Tommy almost gets to take home - until she passes out and her friends tell him to leave her alone! And Carol Kane is wonderful as the feisty bartender who keeps Tommy in line when he needs it. Also look for Kevin Corrigan as a coke-head loser, similar to the one he portrayed in Buffalo '66. By the end of the movie, you really start to feel sorry for Tommy. You wonder how much of it is based on Buscemi's life in New York, before he made it in the business. They say he actually drove an ice cream truck for awhile in NY, so that part must be true. All in all, Buscemi gets totally DICKED OVER in this film. But it is still a great film. And real. If you're a drinker, you might just see a bit of yourself in this film. 8 out of 10 stars


This is an excellent film. The character development is delicately wrapped in the plot and very richly told. What unfolds is a very sensitive portrayal of the loneliness and hunger that drive a sometimes unfounded sense of optimism drowning in indulgence. Everything about this movie struck a positive chord within me. It's flawless, meaning, not one scene made me wince.

Steve B is a both a tremendous writer, actor and director.


This movie so aptly depicts the typical local pub and its immediate environs like no other movie I can remember. No phony props or gussied-up stars need apply for this amazing blend of humor and pathos, centering on Tommy Basilio, a drifting, booze-loving, socially inept, confused 20-something, who is in the throes of a pre mid-life crisis. Steve Buscemi's genius lies his total absorption of the central character and his ability to extract much of the same from his fellow actors. One is totally immersed in the middle class consciousness of this typical Long Island suburb to the point that you actually feel you are watching this happen on a sidewalk in the town, rather than in a theater or on TV.

You gotta love the character interaction between him and Chloe S. from the ice-cream truck to the "Munchkin" song. The cameo-ish performances of T. Lapaglia, Sam Jackson, etc. really augment the story line impeccably. Samuel Jackson has to crack you up when he says to Tommy's new-found drinking buddy: "Your wife likes the city because she is a city girl, and you are too!" Whoa..a city GIRL too??

In short, great comedy, drama, romance, real life stuff...GREAT MOVIE!


Genius and all-round hero Buscemi shows his legions of fans his true brilliance with this, his own feature in every sense, in which he shines as the central Tommy, drinker and all-round slacker whose trials and tribulations are played out with such gentleness and subtlety you just can't help loving him. Lots of great quirky characters and fun goings on, a nice mellow mood and a solid cast make Buscemi's film a really pleasant experience guaranteed to lift the spirits.


This film portrays a few interesting weeks in the life of a suburban New York slacker. Any five minutes taken out of context would lead one to believe the movie is full of mundane humor. However, this movie as a whole asks some deep questions and believably portrays members of the suburban working class. At the end of it you're left wondering how close you've come to the predicaments Buscemi's character invites. Or perhaps you empathize more with people you've know who are like him and others in the film.


being a huge Steve Buscemi fan i was estatic to hear that he had written and directed (as well as starred in) this film and immediately went out and rented it.

the movie, while low key, is well written and one of the better and more sympathetic profiles of alcoholics that i've seen in recent memory. they are given surprising depth by Buscemi's well written screenplay and the actor's portraying these drunks.

if this is any indication of future movies written and directed by the multitalented Steve Buscemi, then we're in store for a lot of great movies.

rating:8.5


He's probably one of the most underrated actors out there. Maybe because he chooses quality independent films and not the big money movies? I dunno, but I think he's great. And Trees Lounge was one of the best movies I've seen in the last three years. Great acting all around, Debi Mazar, Daniel Baldwin, Anthony Lapaglia and CHLOë SEVIGNY. Check out PALMETTO for more of her.

10/10 I give this movie


I'v watched the TV show Hex twice over and I still can not get enough of it. The show is excellent and would range from people my age which is 13 to people as old as 82. The show is an excellent combination of drama, comedy, romance and thriller.

My personnel comment on the best character in the show would have to be Telma, because she doesn't care what any one things of her. She is a lesbian ghost and proud to be one.

The show is sometimes compared to Buffy or Charmed but both of those shows don't have the specialness that Hex has. I now they all are about demons and chosen ones but I would gladly watch Hex over and over than watch a marathon of Charmed or Buffy.

I think that the producers of the show should make another 5 to 6 series because at the end they just left you hanging with the characters, because almost anything could happen to them even though Malacky(sorry about my spelling) has taken over the school. I would still like to now if Ella finally gets her revenge and her and Leon finally get to have a normal relationship.


This show rocked. It had something for everyone, love, hate, lust, magic, good, evil you name it, it was in there. It was the kind of thing that appeals to anyone who watches it, as it had the perfect balance between the supernatural and the natural, with great story lines between each of the characters.

Each of the characters were typical sex-driven teenagers, but they were being driven into a world of magic without realising it, and it was done in a painfully addictive way. This said, the adults in the show also played an important part, and without them (Jez, Azazeal etc) the show wouldn't have worked.

There's only one thing I don't get: Why did they cancel it?!


I was so excited to see a show that encompasses the genre I love so well , and it got better each week. Then I found out that is was actually a series that had ended in the UK in 2004. So I guess they will s how the remainder of it this year some time, and alas another good show will bite the dust for me. Why can they not keep fantasy/horror going is beyond me. I've lost so many shows in 2006: Blade, the series, Invasion,Surface, and Threshold. Yet we have Law & Order on 3 channels 24/7. I can't wait to see Michael Fassbender in "300" when it comes out. The girl who played Cassie was very good also. I've seen a few other shows I like on the BBC channel as well , one about ghost hunters (a man & a women). So I guess people who like Sci-Fi or whatever you want to call this are in the minority as usual.


OMG this is the best show ever I just got season 2 on DVD (i already had season 1) and spent the whole night watching it again my God I love it so much. It mixes the right amount of humour with romance and horror, the story lines are brillaintly written and fast paced enough that you are never bored you are always sitting on your seat waiting for the next epsoide. All I can say is that you must watch it and you will get hooked. BTW the 2nd series is way better than the 1st so if you watched it and believed it was mediocre watch the second season cause it is brill. PS I DO NOT GET THE COMPARSION WITH BUFFY HEX IS 100 TIMES BETTER. XOXOXOXO


Best show ever. the characters are awesome. my favorites are Cassie the witch and Thelma the lesbian ghost. but Azazel is hot. watch it because it would be like nothing you've ever seen before. who ever came up with the idea is a genius. the chemistry between characters it fantastic. you might recognize Cassie from "what a girl wants", this is a major step up for her and she is a great actor and should get more offers after this show. Thelma is also not a new face, she was is in the famous five movies. as the tom-boy George (georgina).its nice to see her with a change of clothes and looking more like a girl. Azazel is a hunk of gorgeous man. he is the fallen angel who is working with the devil against god. this show has a brilliant plot and I'm gonna keep watching


"Hex," more than any other show I can remember, plays for keeps. If henceforth all TV shows were this brave then TV would easily pass film as the most important artistic medium today. The problem is that TV depends too much on maintaining the status quo. Of course this problem has gotten better in recent years (and I'll happily give the credit to HBO), but still producers are too afraid to alienate their audience. Thus if you look back at any given show you will notice that very little changes from one season premiere to the next. The Desperate Housewives still live close by and Vince Chase still has his Entourage. My point being that "Hex" is not afraid of change. New characters replace old ones and nothing ever stays the same. If this season were a film instead of a TV show you would be hard pressed to find the lines between the episodes. We have also been trained to never believe a characters death (I'm looking at you "Alias"), and because of that this show had the ability to legitimately rattle me, in a good way.

The story is quite Harry Potter-ish. A student at a boarding school gains supernatural powers and is thrust into a battle between good and evil. The main difference being that our hero here, Cassie, is not all good and much better looking. Strong characters are established from the get go. Besides Cassie we also have Thelma, her lesbian ghost roommate. Jemima Rooper who plays Thelma is the star as she represents the moral center of the show. She is good-hearted, but defiant, sex crazed but unable to do anything about it. If I were to have a complaint about the show it would be the shorthand they use to distinguish between good and evil. The theory of the shows seems to be that only evildoers enjoy bodily pleasures such as sex and smoking. This line of thought is very Puritanical and I found it annoying. By the time the monsters showed up on campus I really wasn't very excited to see them. I wanted more of the relationship between Cassie and Thelma. I know the otherworldly stuff is why people tune in to a show called "Hex," but in this case they didn't need it.

If I were to find one theme from this season it would be that it sucks to be a girl in modern society because you are exploited for your body. We ca probably all agree that this world we live in is filled with evil. But being a guy I really have no concept of what it is like to have everybody I meet only be interested in having sex with me and my child bearing ability. These two things are the only things Azazeal wanted from Cassie. And because Cassie gave in to him she had to pay the price. This show is no masterpiece but it is darn good. The comparisons to "Buffy" are obvious, but this show is twice as good as that one. "Buffy" was a slave to the episodic nature of TV, whereas "Hex" sheds that skin and creates an experience that is nearly cinematic.


I really really enjoyed this show, especially the unpredictable way it took us through its dark Gothic set. Sure there is things that are not great, it feels a bit like the logic kind of jumps out the window from time to time, but that does not really matter! this show is about feelings(mostly sad ones) and about both avoiding and facing your destiny...

**major spoilers ahead**

True the first season were very different from the second one, but they had the same mood and theme. I liked the way Azazel and Cassie interacted in s.1 and the dark sense of a coming doom.. which do come, and facing her dark fate Cassie utterly fails, she dies giving way for our new heroine Ella. I liked this unexpected twist and how it affected the characters, this also makes the change in series 2 more warranted, with the Antichrist born and free the story arc about Cassie and her family history is not needed anymore, a bit sad and strange at first but it keeps the show much more interesting. I like the way Ella is far from perfect how she struggles and kind of fails and keep trying and fails again etc.. and how minor characters from earlier get bigger roles, especially Roxanne and Leon. When malachai appears (and he is a great Antichrist I must say) he seems less than happy about his role in the world.. he wants no part of his evil destiny, and also Ella seem to just wanna run away from her fate.. this unwillingness to abide to your destiny is a very interesting plot development I think, and is the whole Azazel-Cassie all over again but just a little different of course. Towards the end they both accept their fate to fight after a little help from heaven and hell (the question though, is who actually helped whom.. an excellent twist which runs through the whole show, almost no-one seems to be only good or bad, in the end everybody makes mistakes, even big ones, and everybody have strong feelings, and acting more or less selfish from time to time.) This changing in characters is the shows strongest (and sometimes weakest) point, I love it how everybody changes during the show but just feel that they change a bit too fast sometimes. Especially Thelma, who is the best character of the show, makes a lot of bad choices for selfish reasons.. but she also makes good ones, and like when it came to Amy, who can blame her? she has a very though fate indeed, facing a lot of sadness and only a little happiness.. I also like the sexiness of the show, it fits very well together with fallen angels, witches and the generally Gothic setting.

Even though I really would like to see more I have trouble seeing what a 3rd season would be about, after all the evil won in the end, and the end of days came. True I am not completely happy in the way it ended. I like it that the bad guys won, they just were not clear enough about it, probably because they wanted to have some room for a third season, fir me just another 20-30 minutes to end it properly would do.. maybe just showing a scene of angels and demons battling each other in front of the burning school and Leon and Thelma hiding in the forest where we left them, crying of fear and failure over Ellas dead body.. and then suddenly meeting old friends (Cassie, Amy, Max, Roxanne, Tom, etc) and everybody then slowly goes away to heaven(or maybe hell) together (a semi happy ending, at least for our main characters getting the chance to meet and be together in the afterlife at least) A scene where Azazel, Raphael and Mephistopheles having a last drink together sitting quiet together seemingly contemplating their bitter and unhappy fates, of course with a close up on a tear falling from Azazels check before everything erupts into light/chaos, could be a kind of fitting/funny final scene

anyway I really enjoyed this show. It was not completely logical, but in a way much more so than a lot of other series. With all the rambling above I basically just wanted to say that this is the best supernatural show out there with great interesting twists and turns.

A lot of humor, attitude, sex, and cool music that fits the mood very well is also good reasons to see the show.


I started watching this show in '04. I watched the pilot and loved it. I like Cassie because she is just a typical teen in school. Few friends, not part of a big crowd but she wants it a lot. When she discovers her powers, things get interesting. She can move things without touching them, set things alight with her mind etc. But, her powers are part of the cause of her mate Thelma dying. Cassie has a love hate relationship with Azazeal leader a group of fallen angels. As the show progresses , Cassie becomes pregnant with Azazeal's child. The child grows at a quick speed. Cassie tries to terminate the birth but Azazeal manages to stop it. I turns out Cassie only had a C-section and gave birth to an evil son (born on Christmas day). In season 2 Ella arrives to kill the child but Cassie's feelings get in the way and she sacrifices herself for the child. The child ages about 16-18 years in 6 months! He takes over a school and plans to destroy the world. A good show if you want drama, comedy, a little action and romance with a lot of horror. 10/10


i started watching this show when bbc America started airing it here in the states i watched the pilot because i thought it looked a lot similar to buffy the vampire slayer(my favorite show... rest in peace). the first episode was OK but as the series progresses it seems to get better and better. ill make it plain that hex is by no means my favorite show ever but it serves a good purpose of being a good summer show. up to episode seven it has been good and interesting with many plot twists and cool character. i ask that you try out this show and give it a chance because it really is worth it. it might also be a good show to pick up the season for because that way you can watch it at your leisure


I came because I heard it was a cross between Buffy the Vampire Slayer (The Seried) and Charmed, I stayed because it was something so very different.

Don't get me wrong, I'm an avid BtVS fan, and a former fan of Charmed, and I was aching for some new dark fantasy / supernatural material. I've only seen the two episodes, but you can be sure I'll watch more.

Where BtVS and Charmed may have dealt with some dark issues, they were in general light shows. Hex is a dark with light moments. From the very beginning, this show made it self stand out from the current supernatural shows simply because it's so dark. This is not a funny show, but a dramatic one that draws you in to watch the journey that Cassie must face. Though, I must say that as I saw the end of the episode, I declared a pure Joss Whedon moment - even if he had nothing to do directly with this show.

I highly recommend this show, if you like British dramas and dark fantasies.


Having not seen season one, I was unsure of how I would react to Hex. I didn't have to worry though, as I found Hex season two to be absolutely brilliant. After the first episode I was hooked, tuning in every Sunday to see the next episode. In my opinion it is one of the best series on TV at the moment. It has humour, suspense, horror and can sometimes be plain shocking. Much darker than Buffy and seemingly made for a more mature audience it also deals with the problems of teenage life. A great program to watch on those dull Sunday evenings. Jemima Rooper is superb as Thelma and was easily my favourite character from the first episode. The characters are likable and can be very easy to relate to. You just don't see shows like this very often anymore and it is a real breath of fresh air. Bring on season three!


Witty, dark, and just hot!! American fans want SEASON #3!!!! It is unfair to bring the U.S. this jewel to sci-fi/fantasy fans who fall in love with HEX, to then be disappointed by not producing a Season #3. Buffy is gone,Angel, Dead like Me, and Charmed, now this too!!! It is a travesty with all of the crap movies and TV that is produced to lose this show called Hex that is so refreshing in the land of crap TV such as One tree Hill, Pepper Dennis, and pretty much all of the other shows being produced for TV!!! I really want to stop falling for the shows that have cult followings. Legions of fans that the networks do not care about or listen to when they are asked to bring them back!!! Maybe we could petition the Sci-Fi network to stop making crap made for TV movies and help produce shows like Hex for true fans who would tune in worldwide!!


The British Buffy? No. The British Charmed? No. Buffy meets Charmed? Very no. What is this need promoters have to compare a new show to established shows? Is it laziness? Well, it doesn't matter. It is true that there are some similarities between Hex and other supernatural shows, but they hardly bare comparing. The similarities for the most part between Hex and Buffy/Angel are, in my opinion, incidental. Ideas like demonic births, forbidden love, magic and the necessity to fight the paranormal with the paranormal is hardly a new premise. To assume that Hex got its ideas from already established shows does it a disservice because in the end, Hex is nothing like them.

While Buffy/Angel and Charmed tend to rely on action to carry much of the story, Hex relies a great deal more on dialogue. This does not take away from the show but rather allows for the watcher to get to know the characters and to develop their own relationships with them. The show also is unafraid to hurt or even kill off main characters if the story warrants it. I believe this is important in a show. And since Hex has no title character it is possible to remove any character if the storyline demands it.

Those who like shows such as Buffy because of the action might not enjoy Hex as much and might find it slow, but Hex is not the first show to carry the story through the characters and their relationships. Rather, I found that it made the story more real and interesting in some ways, especially since the majority of the characters are higher class snobs with the attitudes and personalities to match. At the same time, most of the main characters are round and dynamic. They grow and change and even the Annointed One has various depths to her character rather than being the typical self righteous do-gooder, whining teen who just wants to be normal or rebellious adolescent who either gets out of control or does what she wants because she can. There are stereotypes but they are less pronounced and most of the characters are sympathetic.

I, for my part, enjoy the show. There are the occasional episodes or moments that don't bare watching, but every show that's ever existed has those moments. I for one enjoy watching it and am currently watching the show a second time. Those who are interested in action may not enjoy it but those who like to develop relationships with characters and see the change and growth in relationships and characters that seem fairly real probably will.


The Brits have crafted a story that is compelling, interesting to look at, complete with the supernatural, and, with a shoe string of a budget, something quite believable. Hex, is a show of which I have seen three episodes on BBC America. Cassie, a startlingly unpopular girl at an English (either college or Prep School) has had some very strange dreams since she discovered a little piece of pottery hidden away in her room. It turns out, she's a witch, being pursued by an Angel named Azazeal, who wants to make beautiful music. Her best and only friend is her roommate Thelma, a dark-haired lesbian who is infatuated with her. The plot moves along at a moderate pace, with enough twists and turns and subtle effects that the very atmosphere of the show is compelling. Unlike the American Buffy the Vampire Slayer, character development is the most important piece of the show. I'm sorry to hear that the actress playing Cassie does not continue with the show in season two, and will be sad to see her go. Thelma, you will find out, is probably the most interesting character, after she is killed in the first episode by Azazeal. She becomes a ghost, who eats constantly, snoops about the castle, and even wanders into her classmates dreams for midnight rendezvous. The implications are delicious, as is this gem of a show.


This was an absolutely brilliant show, the character Azazeal had to be my favourite. Michael Fassbender is such a brilliant actor, and his good-looks kept me watching this show. However, after Azazeal leaves Malachi to fulfil his destiny on his own, i continued watching the show! I would definitely like another season to see what happens after the finale of the second season. I'm not at all religious, but the religious side of the story made the plot more interesting for me. I didn't particularly see Azazeal as truly evil, even though he was supposed to be. I mean, he was still like-able as a character despite the things he did.

My least favourite character has to be Roxanne, she seemed like a dressed-up little tart only after one thing...sex! She was a waste of time and i'm glad she is killed off. This is one show that i'll definitely watch time and time again


Similar theme and plot. But not a snappy action show. A thriller dwelling more on the sensual and personal aspects leading to downfalls rather than, as in Buffy, merely showing the heroine entering and leaving the bedroom then skipping to the resulting disaster and fight scenes.

Shouldn't be a spoiler to say the heroine is more like Willow than Buffy if you are drawing general comparisons.

If all you want is fight scenes, special effects, and stunts -- then this not the show for you. If you like sex with a background of creeping horror ready to jump out -- then try this.


OK, so it says it started in 2004 and the final season is summer 2007. I only saw it this season, could be cause with being Military don't always know where going to be. Can the first season if its before this summer, be downloaded or purchased on DVD? I really wish it wasn't ending so soon as have really enjoyed it. I do agree that without Cassie there is just something missing. We have really enjoyed the show thus far and are looking forward to seeing it next year, but will not be thrilled when the show comes to an end. would really appreciate anyone letting us know where we can get a copy of what am assuming the first season, it would be appreciated, or are we possibly a season behind here in the US? because Cassie died mid way here and from what I read, she was there for the first 2 seasons.

Blessed Be Deb


When I first saw in the DVD shop I thought it would be a nice show like Buffy or Angel, but I was wrong... IT WAS SO MUCH BETTER! This show is perfect. The first few episodes it was a little slow (and I mean little) but it started to pick up speed and it snowballed and its just each breath-taking episode after each other now.

There were so many themes and metaphors that I was impressed that they managed to include on a television program. This isn't a kids show (although it is safe). It makes you think and not just about the actual show, but about your own life and what you believe.

Definitely the best show I have ever seen. It's like watching heaps of awesome movies after each other. I have laughed, cried and been incredibly shocked by this show. It is simply superb.

I thought Angel and Buffy were good... they really don't compare to Hex. Each script, character, stunt, special effect, camera technique is done perfectly. The opening theme... I honestly can't describe how good this show is without raving.

Don't be discouraged by my enthusiastic answer either, I am very critical when it comes to film and television, I am a film maker myself. This show is way beyond its time and better then anything I have ever seen.


Hex is a one of the best programmes, need i say more, loved every minute of it, i just hope they make a third series as bot the first two series are fantastic, no sorry, MAGNIFICENT. It is one those programmes that you start to watch and can not get enough of as i said i hope they make a third series. Looking at this television it can be named in the same league as Buffy the vampire slayer in my opinion. When watching the programme you get a great sense of satisfaction from the storyline as is gets more intense as it goes along. first series gets the viewers to get a feel for the programme and teach important lessons about witchcraft and superstition. this makes the programmes great to watch with the feeling of something is around the corner waiting to come out and make you jump but not like a horror film. If i was to compare this with a film it would be the film from 2006 called 5ive Girls, this is a film based on witchcraft and has the same similarities to Hex.


I am so sorry, after all of the online hype I REALLY wanted to like this. I was finally able to catch the first 7 episodes here in the states on BBC America & I was disappointed. The idea was there, even if it was ripped off from Anne Rice & her Mayfair witches, even the atmosphere and setting was pretty decent, and no one can really speak badly of Thelma. However I am a true fan of this genre and I have been spoiled by the high quality of the X-files and Buffy the vampire slayer. After experiencing what Chris Carter and Joss Wheden have given the world in paranormal storytelling I am appalled that this dreck could so easily satisfy so many. Hex is awful! The character's are not particularly interesting or sympathetic due to a severe lack of development - this blame can go on the writer's. It shouldn't be a welcome relief when a main character "bites it", as we say over here, however when Ella sticks it to Cassie we find ourselves really applauding a situation for the very first time in this show - SEVEN EPISODES IN! And I don't understand the casting of Michael Fassbender? Is he supposed to be "sexy"? Where I come from he would be the last guy picked for sports! The term "pencil-neck geek" comes immediately to mind.

This show left me bored and unimpressed, Thank God it only took two episodes of x-file reruns to make me forget most of this. It is offensive to us that this show would liken itself to Buffy or any of our paranormal/SciFi shows. When it comes to murder mysteries no one can hold a candle to the Brits. However the paranormal/SciFi genre is better left to the Yanks.