An interesting British entry to say the least dating from those dim dark days when William Hartnell was still 'Billy' but at least got a credit unlike Bernard Miles. Emlyn Williams is top-billed and co-star Anna Konstam appeared in only a handful of films including Waterloo Road before falling off the radar for some 30 years but the film is unbalanced in the last third by a tour de force from Ernest Thesiger in what is clearly a prototype Waldo Lydecker - there is even a facial resemblance especially in the mouth between Thesiger and Clifton Webb; both are aesthetes and both killers. This unbalance extends to the sets for whereas the three cafes that figure in the action are all utility Thesiger's apartment is well-appointed in the extreme. It's a fairly decent example of the innocent man caught at the scene of a crime, going on the run and taking up with a girl. Worth a look.


Nice crime thriller that almost seems like a lost Hitchcock film. Moody lighting contributes to the noirish atmoshpere. Ernest Thesiger turns in one of his creepiest performances.


I know that cartoons aimed towards adults generally don't get the attention they deserve, because they get written off as childish or don't capture interests as quickly as attractive/famous real-life characters can. But PLEASE, give this show a chance! I promise that just one episode of this show will have you hooked. I haven't laughed out loud this much since arrested development (R.I.P.) and the humor is similarly fast paced and, at times, absurd. The show is a half hour long, divided into two 15 minute episodes, which makes the show very watchable even for people who don't think they can devote an entire 30 minutes to a cartoon.

Everything about this show is hilarious--the scenarios, the dry dialogue, the buildup to inevitable madness, and the horribly drawn but wonderfully fleshed-out characters. The show follows Tim, who is frequently caught in admittedly outlandish situations, although they always seem to spiral out of control so realistically. He and the supporting cast of characters all have their own stand out performances, including Debbie the friend/hooker and Amy the girlfriend, who is perpetually disappointed in her well-meaning but just plain awful boyfriend. So before you write it off simply because it's an adult cartoon, watch just ONE episode. Hell, even watch one half of an episode. That's 15 minutes of your time that will quickly lead to you watching every episode, I promise.


The Life and Times of Tim features just that; the day-to-day life of an ordinary 25 year old New Yorker, trying to talk his way out of horribly embarrassing situations. Tim really has the worst luck, and his dry, dead-pan excuses are the centre piece of this show.

I urge you to watch just one story (there are two per episode) as you'll be hooked. The writing is very good. It's a little surreal how things could go so badly but it lends to hilarious situations and dialogue.

Give it a chance, like Arrested Development, it won't be appreciated en masse during it's run.

With so many animations that are faltering in great humour (I rarely laugh out loud the Simpsons, Family Guy or American Dad any more - South Park still does the business from time to time) This show had me laughing really hard a few times per episode.

I've gotten everyone I've shown "Tim" to into the show, which is actually saying a lot. I really hope it gets a second season at least.

Enjoy watching!


This show is different, thats for sure. It lacks the slap stick humor your used to when watching a cartoon. And you have to actually watch the show to understand it. Typical cartoons jump from scene to scene without really relating to one another. Don't turn it on in the middle of the show and expect to enjoy it like you would a Family Guy because you will have no idea what Tim is talking about. Its on HBO and it is only 30 min long with two 15 min sketches, so it's easy to miss a lot. So do yourself a favor and watch it from the start.

Tim always seems to find himself in awkward scenarios. Usually because he puts his foot in his mouth. He has good intentions and is a smart guy but is always surrounded by stupid people who misinterpret him.

Don't expect too much from this show visually. The art looks like it came straight out of a comic strip. I won't say this show is for smart people, but it definitely calls for a different type of sense of humor. It's no Simpsons, but it's not trying to be.


I love shows with simple concepts. The show is carried by Tim, an ordinary 25 year old New Yorker who works in an office. He has the worst luck. Tim is always getting caught in horribly embarrassing and incriminating situations, that are the centre of the show. I would compare it to Curb Your Enthusiasm in the way that it brilliantly sets up it's scenarios, the build-up and the over-the-top conclusions.

This show is animated and usually people wouldn't be interested in watching new ones, fearful that it's another Seth MacFarlane show or a show that's trying to mimic the style of a MacFarlane show. The Life and Times of Tim is an adult cartoon that Seth MacFarlane has no involvement in. If Family Guy pushes the envelope, Tim goes even further. This is HBO we're talking about here, they have nothing but quality, uncensored programing. This is no exception. It also happens to be HBO's first animated series since Spawn. This is the best animated series in the last 5 years.

The animation isn't amazing. In fact, it's pretty awful looking, but that works in it's favor. It's not a very fast paced show, some people may even find it boring. They could show you the most boring office cubicle on Television because of the drawing style.

Like I said the show certainly won't be for everyone. If you need to be constantly entertained with non-stop action in your cartoons, than this won't be for you. If you are patient, like you have to be to watch shows like Curb Your Enthusiasm, you should give this a chance. The second season just started and you can be able to jump in without having any knowledge about the characters. It's a huge strength for a show to be able to watch the segments in a random order. It's only a half-hour show and each story is 15 minutes, so it's not a huge commitment.


I like the show.

It's humor is dry but that kind of humor matches my own.

It took a couple of episodes for me to get warmed up to it, but after that I really like it. I think it is my new favorite show.

The problem is, nobody that I know of has heard of the show. So, HBO needs to find someway to get the word out.

I am surprised that there is not more action on IMDb about the show. That goes back to the problem of letting people know that it exists. I think I am going to have to find out what the ratings are on the show. It would be interesting to find out.


this show is terrible. its not funny at all, its too much boring talk. if there's going to be a show with nothing but talking in it they have to make the conversations interesting, this isn't. it bored me to tears.

iv only watched a few episodes and i'll promise you that will be the only episodes i'll ever watch of this dud animation. if u want a good animation programme your best to stick to south park, simpsons, futurama or even family guy. i hope this show gets cancelled quick. i think the most annoying thing about this is the animation, it looks so rubbish and cheap. i don't know if this is the way the creators wanted it but it didn't grab me. avoid it......... 1/10........j.d seaton


This is the first video game I've ever rated or commented on, but this game was so cool I had to put in my two cents. I don't play video games much at all, but every two years or so I will get the jones to play a game. I'd say the past ten years or so it has been discouraging because these video games are so difficult to learn and play. I grew up on Atari and Nintendo when you had just a couple of buttons and very simple tasks. Once Super Nintendo came on the scene my video game days were almost over.

Even still, I decided to give Prince of Persia a shot. Bear in mind, I chose this video game solely based upon a t.v. commercial. I'm not in tuned with video games and the latest and hottest, I just pick up what I see advertised. I knew that I was going to have trouble, but I stuck in there and eventually I got the hang of it.... Scratch that... eventually I GOT ADDICTED. I took the game to work, I played endlessly trying to beat that game. I couldn't put it down it was so captivating. The graphics were awesome, the movements were smooth and cool, and the fact that his fighting was hand to hand combat instead of shooting just made it that much better. He had kill moves that could be done with button combos which reminded me of my Street Fighter 2 days, and that speed kill feature is off da hook, crazy nice. There was a good story that went along with the game. The different obstacles and moves were just difficult enough to where I couldn't overcome them the first time around, but they weren't so difficult that I had to give up. Fighting the opponents was the same, and when the prince turned into the Dark Prince the fun was just beginning.

Like I said, I have very little reference for a good game versus a bad one, but this game was lovely. I eventually beat it in what was a short time for me (it had to have been weeks). The ending was even amazing, and I didn't know that games had credits longer than most movies.


Yes, this game is the final installment for this particular prince of Persia, a new one is waiting in the wings. However, as far as this prince is concerned this is the best game he is in. The reason, it does the best job incorporating the fighting and the acrobatics the best of the three. Basically, the fighting is fun and you have plenty of the wall running to really keep you entertained. Throw into that more boss fights than the previous two installments could muster and a nice little change in the prince as he becomes a dark self. It even has the addition of stealth kills that are easy to do and look very cool. The game is a bit short though, and the way it picked up with the sorceress of time alive as she died on the only play through I did in Warrior Within. Which means you should not make your game multiple ending and pick up only one of the possible endings in the next installment. So here we have an old villain emerge, an old ally emerge and a very dark side of the prince emerge. The dark prince side is rather cool and can slice and dice opponents very effectively. His main drawback is that water is a weakness of his and he slowly but surely runs out of health. Still he can replenish it by killing enemies and he does that quite well. The regular prince is still effective to at what he does and fighting and stealth kills are his thing too. You do not go over the same territory in this one like in Within so the game remains fresh. There is a chariot race like scene in this one, but not that great. It is okay, but it does not really add anything. So for my money all in all this is the best of the three prince of Persia games.


its a wonderful continuation of the pop series and presents a befitting end to the series.The prince looks great as ever and the various new features which are present in this game add an extra spice to it.The speed kill system is wonderful and makes the job quite easy for the prince,also in this game i cant recall a single instant where the game presented bad camera angles as are present in the previous two games.The game play is although pretty much similar to the previous two games but the platforming in this one is really great.There is one more added attraction in this game that is chariot racing which is quite nail biting stuff.Also in this game there aren't any monotonous boss fights as were in the pop warrior within.All in all a wonderful gaming experience,a must play for everyone and i give it a well deserved 9.5/10.


This completes the new series, and takes the consequence of the ones before it, similar to how Warrior Within(the saving method of which this retains) built on the first. It has elements of both of them, and adds quite a lot(and far more than aforementioned earlier sequel). You may still wield two weapons, but now the choice of the other one... sword, mace, dagger or axe... affects the way you do so, in the range, force, etc. of the blows. There are still many different ones within those four kinds. The Free Form Fighting System is also still in use, so spamming powerful attacks is still possible, however, this comes closer to The Sands of Time in the combat, with more strategy and tactics necessary, among other things because of those archers... arrows in general are present in this, and they are very welcome. The battles are longer and tougher, and do not get tedious like they did in the one immediately preceding this. Making things interesting is also the fact that you no longer use a lengthy blade as usual... and I will leave it at that, lest I spoil something. One can also tell that the good people at Ubisoft had Splinter Cell on their mind... a couple of the new moves are right out of those, and stealth is a genuine option at several places. They make it work, and it doesn't stand out as (much as) one might think. Speed Kills are part of this... and no, that's not a campaign telling us to slow down on the freeway, nor one against that particular drug. It's a way to take out opponents, typically when they aren't yet aware of your proximity, and all you truly need is to get the timing right, albeit the first time you try the specific ones, before you know what's coming, you will have to react split-second, as well as not get trigger-happy. It works impeccably well, and really adds to this. The Bosses vary, but at their best, they're incredible. The plot is great, picking up where the last one left off, confirming which of the endings they used, and taking you through one place that had yet to be visited in these three... The Prince's home, Babylon. Only it's not how he remembers it, and you'll soon find out why. The idea is magnificent, and making your way through the city is entertaining. As a character, he grows and develops a lot in this, and this really does close this version, these post-2000 entries, well. The voice acting is all satisfactory. Yuri is back, and thankfully, he left the vast majority of the emo back in the first one, but he did bring the humor with him, as well as what comes of his inner talks with his... other half(who's got a nasty case of cynicism). Yes. In this, you also get to control the Dark side of the leading man sometimes, who's stronger, but whose life gradually drains, one of the aspects of this making for serious tension. Does the word Daggertail mean anything to you? Once you've gotten to use it in this, it definitely will. It is a lot of fun, downright addictive, and a marvelous spice for the squaring off against enemies(and it can be used at points for maneuvering, marvelous). You once again get to use the special abilities. The chariot racing is pure awesomeness captured perfectly. The foes are relatively diverse, and less annoying than those of WW. The camera is a little limited, compared to the ones before this, and the panoramic view is less available, and once or twice, even kinda phoned in. The story-telling is similar to SoT. This gets you into it the fastest, and is also the shortest of them. There are graphic glitches and even bugs beyond the others, and it is sadly not as stable, either. This can be disturbing, though it is not as bleak as the second one. There are grotesque creatures herein. The tone is a mix of the others. The style is achieved well, and this uses slow-motion rather well. This also requires patience, reflexes, fingers adept at VG's, and time. The AI is nice, in that they all respond and act the way you'd expect them to. The re-playability is reasonable, you earn Sand Credits as you go, and if you get them all, you will unlock everything, in all of the artwork galleries. And you may just gain something else, as well. The videos(sadly, sans subtitles, although mostly, you can tell what's said) become available upon completion, all but one are the ones you watched along the way in this, and that one is an absolutely hilarious, if criminally brief, gag reel. The cut-scenes are well-done, and can be fairly effective. The CGI is utterly stunning. The animation and look of everything is fantastic. The level design is perhaps the tiniest step down from earlier in these, here and there, but overall it remains at the high quality of them. They utilize the new moves and acrobatics unbelievably well. The puzzles are still well-done, and this can be challenging, and should satisfy a decent range of people, with three difficulty settings. Do you like those ledges that fall off after you step on them? Well, they've made a triumphant return. The audio is well-done, everything sounds the way it should, and the music is nice. The heavy metal of the middle chapter is gone. The attitude towards nudity in this is the same as the earlier two, but it does somehow seem less provocative. The violence is debatable, but there is some blood. There is next to no gore. Language is nonexistent. I recommend this, and the entire franchise up to this point(the pre-beginning of new millennium-ones are immensely well-done, as well, they just happen to be old, and you can tell), to any fan of action-adventure titles, anyone who enjoys the culture, and all who appreciate swordsmanship in games. 8/10


The Two Thrones is the third and last installment in the Prince of Persia trilogy that started three years ago with the astonishing Sands of Time, a game that turned the popular 2D platform series into a complete and spectacular 3D adventure. Jumping, swinging, grasping, hanging off ledges, solving puzzles and graceful combat made up for one of the best games I ever played. Now I know that many people weren't too happy with the dark and grim atmosphere in Warrior Within, but I was actually quite satisfied with this new style. The extremely spectacular free-fight system that came with it, allowing the player to battle up to 6 enemies at the same time, was especially noteworthy, as well as the great storyline that kept twisting and turning in unexpected ways.

The Two Thrones returns to the sunny style of SoT, with minimal bloodshed and less body parts flying around. The Prince has defied death on the Island of Time, and is returning to his hometown of Babylon, only to find a fierce army murdering and looting its way through the city. It doesn't take long for the Prince to once again go on a quest to destroy evil and restore peace. The Sands of Time, however, have altered him slightly, causing him to change into a dark alter ego, the Dark Prince, from time to time. This is a nice way of bringing some innovation to the game play, as the Dark Prince makes use of a particularly vicious razor-chain, that allows him to make long jumps and dispose of his enemies much more efficiently. Yet, it does not revolutionize the game play as much as I hoped for. Changing into the Dark Prince happens when the story calls for it, not when the player wants it. Life energy slowly diminishes when playing the Dark Prince, which gives a certain amount of pressure to move and waste enemies fast in order to replenish energy quickly, but we already saw something like this in WW, when playing as the Sand Wraith. Other innovations include the speed kills, which enables the player to kill an enemy with a few strokes, and adds a little stealth to the existing game play. It is nice that you can use this techniques to quickly get rid of a few enemies when you are faced with many, but there isn't much variation in speed kill moves, and it takes away a lot of opportunity to go into an adrenalin-pumping free-fight frenzy. Speed kills become much more varied and useful when fighting the mini-bosses, and the resulting battles are quite spectacular to see.

The same can be said from the chariot races that you can do once every while. But just like the Dark Prince appearances, they come only incidentally and they're over just when they become fun. Most of these innovations feel like nice extras instead of fully integrated new parts of the game play, like the 3D platform action and free-fight system.

There are more aspects of the game that give the impression that development of TT was slightly rushed. The story is very straightforward this time, and lacks most of the exiting twists that were so prominent in SoT and WW. As a result, the game is only half as long as Warrior and can be finished in mere days instead of weeks. The graphics and FMVs are okay most of the time, but the in-game cut-scenes look at best five year old. Did production run out of polygons? When not playing as the Dark Prince or riding a chariot, I found that jumping and running along walls was getting a bit monotonous after the two previous games; difficult puzzles are scarce, and finding solutions to situations becomes increasingly simple, with only speed kills offering some variance most of the time. The influence of Jordan Mechner, who wrote history with the original PoP and rewrote it with SoT, is dearly missed at some times.

But as harsh as this all may sound, by no means does this make TT a bad game; it merely prevents this game from becoming a masterpiece like SoT and (to a lesser degree) WW. Although the thrills I got from playing its predecessors were a bit absent, I still got a good time playing TT. Even though not masterly, it is at the very least competently made.


okay first of all what happened to the bad ass Kalina she is now an old whore who is aways calm but in the second game she was evil twist did whatever the *bleep* she wanted she didn't care who she hurt or how it was done she would do anything to save herself. next is the prince himself he was sissified since the second game now he is stupid and who ever voices him should burn inf *bleeping* hell! the awesome sound track from the second is replaced with the worst band in history maybe i did make the mistake of playing the second game first but it did rule. i really tried to like this game but i just couldn't. but there is no fun in this game this game is garbage and the controls suck and the camera is bad when you try to move it up or down and the story is the worst of the seris.


Prince of Persia - The Two Thrones was one of the most anticipated games of 2005, and one of the most disappointing for me. A good overall game that brings very little freshness to the scene.

UbiSoft should definitely be praised for the upgrades this game has brought compared to the previous titles. Graphically, the game looks and plays much smoother, but there are no real new technical enhancements to speak of.

The music also returns to a much more Persian feel, compared to Warrior Within. A feature that 99% of the fans might consider an improvement... but I'm part of the 1%. As an overall aesthetic choice, it does bring more immersiveness to the environment, but since 50% of the action takes place while you chop off the heads off random creatures, the metal beat of WW just felt more adequate (imo).

The Dark Prince also brings about a new dynamic to the world, as the often humorous verbal encounters between the Prince and his corrupted self caused me to stop playing for a minute or two, just to better enjoy their bickering. Rick Miller is to be commended for brining the Prince's dark persona to life.

What I didn't really enjoy about the game on the other hand... would be a bit more controversial. Yuri Lowenthal for example. Don't get me wrong, his voice acting is top-notch, what really disappointed me is that I was expecting to see a much more mature Prince in this third and final installment. Instead, I was treated with a 'younger' Prince of both voice and behavior. I understand how he went through a rough time in Warrior Within, and after his victory over death he felt free once again... but it just felt like he went from 18 (Sands of Time) to 24 (Warrior Within) back to 18 in Two Thrones. It didn't feel right.

One other criticism I have is the speed kill system. Although an interesting concept, it was rather poorly executed, from several standpoints. Firstly, it is painfully repetitive. Fight 5-10 creatures, and you already got enough of it. Not to mention that it's incredibly frustrating to screw up a speed kill, and then be forced to fight your target with the incredibly ineffective dagger, from which the targets take no damage. Bosses liven things up a bit, since most of them are a bit more dynamic, but the bosses are so few and far between it didn't really feel like the trade-off of 5 hours of repetitive gameplay to get me to one dynamic part was worth it. A system where I could be able to build my own combos would of been orgasmic, but I guess that's just too much wishful thinking.

My last criticism would be pointed at the game's linearity. Throughout development, we were promised free-roaming through the streets of Babylon. What we were served was one of the most linear experiences in the past 2-3 years in video games. Oh, and the game itself is so criminally short it can be finished in 5 hours, whereas Warrior Within or Sands of Time take a solid 10+ hours.

Overall it was as good a game as the other Prince of Persia titles, one of the best of 2005 as well, but it was much less than we were promised, and WAY LESS than I had anticipated. For all the praise it got, it makes me wonder about the gaming community.

(Edited on 2nd December 2008, original on Febuary 2006)


I know that many people consider this movie 'Politically incorrect'. Probably it is in some way. I'm not from the Balkans, but I live very near and I remember very well that war in front of my door and I was against the Serbs. This movie was made by a Serb director and show his point of view. Anyway I think that in this movie you can see what was that war for civilian people, any side they were. I found it a true document about the war, and, in the end, I was not disturbed by the fact that it was a movie from a Serb director. I think that this demonstrates that it's a good movie. After watching this movie, you don't hate the Serbs, the Croatians or the Bosnians, you hate the war for the consequences on civilian people.


Great movie and easily Dennis Quaid's best work. Very tough to watch at times but in the end extremely rewarding and cathartic.

Its so appreciated that some artists in the world have something to say and do a timely, thoughtful movie to tell the world what they are missing or ignoring. You can either see what they have to say, or see the next assembly line CGI garbage. I suggest that any mature moviegoer give this a look.

There is some unexpected humor, a lot of horror and carnage and heartache, and I do suggest you keep the tissues close by for a some incredibly emotional scenes.

There is not a whole lot of dialogue which is also much appreciated. Most of the time actors are better when they have nothing to say but alot to express. The actors in this movie are all very natural and real. Not the least of which was the baby! One of the best performances by a new born I've ever seen..this child is beautiful.

Thanks to Dennis Quaid who probably made the equivalent of cab fare for this one..you did a great job in an invaluable movie.


I noticed this had been produced by Oliver Stone when I saw it for sale, thus my reasoning for snapping it up. Usually what Stone touches turns to gold and this is no exception

This film will move you to tears; mark my words. I wasn't ready for it, or at least wasn't expecting it. Realism is the key to its power.

While some viewers may focus on which ethnic groups are committing what crimes, for the wider audience I think it has a commentary on the human race in general and what it is capable of.

Quaid performs his part from top to bottom, which drains the viewer of emotion, making one actually process information that has previously just been news broadcast.

A good mix of local and international filmaking skills also present what I would consider an accurate picture of the racial and religious groups depicted in the movie. I'm sure insiders will disagree, but from my time spent in the region, there was not a scene or individual character where I was skeptical of objectivity - from the bus driver to father.

There is so much to be said about Savior, and it is a must see for any international audience. It may unearth a conflict of opinions among serbs, croats and bosnians, but perhaps they would be reading too much into it...


"Savior" came to me as a movie half-seen on HBO. What I saw was enough to intrigue me to search for the DVD. The DVD is currently out-of-print. Luckily I was able to find one on an online auction site and I am pleased to say that I am quite happy with my purchase. This movie takes a serious look at war and it's effects on a soldier who has joined the foreign legion, a woman he meets, and an infant who enters their life. The setting is Bosnia and war is brutal. The hero finds himself surrounded by death and destruction. He chose his life as a soldier in the Foreign legion as an act of revenge to purge his anger from losing his family. Soon, war and anger overcomes and all that is left is the "Savior". Who is the savior? I'll leave that up to you the viewer to discover for yourself. Excellent film overall. This is my favorite performance by Dennis Quaid.


I watched this movie with skepticism but I have to admit I was wrong. This is a powerful movie and it left me drained out by the time it got over. The last 15 to 20 minutes are sure to move even the cold hearted so,I am surprised and saddened that there are still some folks here at the forum fighting over its anti/pro Muslim/Serbian credentials.

There is no winner in any war - only despair & death and at times, a faint glimmer of hope. Saviour depicts this with astonishing realism and at times,is difficult to watch but I guess that what war is all about. Dennis Quaid gives an Oscar winning performance and considering, the fact that Oliver Stone produced this, it has a antiwar platoonesque feel to it.


!!!! SPOILERS !!!!

First things first , I doubt very much there`s any truth in this " True story " Producer of SAVIOR Oliver Stone also wrote the screenplay of MIDNIGHT EXPRESS and unlike the account of Billy Hayes book the film version is a work of complete fiction . Let`s see Joshua Rose wife and child are murdered by Islamic terrorists so he shoots up a mosque . Can any tell me when this incident happened ? because I don`t recall any news reports about it . And why did Peter join the legion ? Surely he acted in self defence ? It also seems strange that the Croat defence council ( HVO ) decided to drive their Serb and Muslim victims right beside Joshua`s hiding place to be massacared .<br /><br />Despite this criticism SAVIOR is a good film . I remember disliking it first time I saw it because I`d written an unproduced screenplay set during the Balkans conflict called SOLITUDE which plays out totally different from SAVIOR even though my screenplay also involves western mercs and also having a subtext that there`s no good guys in the Bosnian conflict . Jealousy aside ( I had my heart on SOLITUDE winning the best original screenplay Oscar ) I do admire SAVIOR for being an intelligent , sad and haunting film . Despite having Oliver Stone as producer and an American star this is a totally European film in both feel and execution " I had a son . He`s dead . He had a son . He`s dead too . Both died fighting - For what ? " a Croat tells Joshua . What indeed

I wouldn`t say this is the best Bosnian conflict movie ( That accolade goes to PRETTY VILLAGE PRETTY FLAME ) but it`s probably the most accesible to a western audience . War is obscene and when you compare this movie to BEHIND ENEMY LINES you can`t help thinking that Hollywood is even more of an obscenity the way it portrays the Balkans conflict

Peace out


I think I have pretty much seen all of the movies associated with the civil war in Yugoslavia. Unlike many that take sides and immediately turn off one segment of the viewers this is one I could recommend to my friends who no nothing about the war. No one here is a good guy, in fact everyone is bad to a degree, especially when you understand who everyone is (a fact not readily understandable to the casual viewer).

Like most films that deal with real human tragedy, it is hard to watch at times. But in the end it is worth it. I'm glad nothing good comes out of this film because nothing good came out of a war that destroyed a beautiful nation and turned brother against brother all in the name of fighting an ethnic war left over from ancient history. Think about it. The Turkish, the Byzantine and the Hapsbugh empires have all disappeared into the sands of time and these poor fools were convinced that this was still a war worth fighting? How ridiculous.


I was stumped at the video store - had basically narrowed the DVD search down to 2 - Sphere (yeah, I know..) and Savior, this interesting looking title on the bottom shelf.

Thank goodness I chose this one.

What a brilliant, gut-wrenching, agonising movie...

Other comments have said it was a low budget job, but the DVD version I just saw didn't even make you think about the mechanics of the movie - just the characters and events that this film portrayed.

The cinematics - beautiful scenery etc (to show that man really has no sense at all - he can be surrounded by some of the most amazingly beautiful surroundings and still turn the place to hell) and sound (the gunshots / ambient stuff etc were very well done) were all spot on..

For the actual plot, the other comments posted are a lot more lucid than mine, so I won't bother trying to explain the premise of this flick.

I really don't know what else to say - some of the scenes containing brutality were brilliant (in a really horrible way) - none of the usual hollywood (tm) bad guy finally gets it in the end type stuff - cliche - it really just showed how pointless these kinds of conflicts are. cliche

Oh man - this film is going to stick with me for quite some time. And I kind of wish it didn't. I was after a throw away movie (should have rented sphere) and instead got this thing that I just cannot stop thinking about.

Dennis Quaid was amazing in it, and the rest of the cast were excellent, too.

And yes, I cryed like baby Vera..

PS: I actually registered just so I could vote & comment on this movie..


One of the most painful depictions of war I've ever seen, this shows the effect of a civil war on ordinary people in a very powerful way. Stony-faced Dennis Quaid is excellent as ever as the emotionally-shut-off mercenary tiring of the pointless and unresolvable fighting in Bosnia, slowly allowing himself to feel again some years after the horrific death of his family when a woman and child inveigle themselves into his life. Some of the scenes in here are beyond horrific, particularly near the end where a massacre of civilians is made to seem quite dull and everyday to the killers. The pointlessness of such tribal warfare is emphasised by the shadowy depiction of the combatants, the almost total absence of 'good guys' and 'baddies' - I for one could rarely tell which side the soldiers on screen were supposed to represent. Certainly not for the fainthearted, this is war in all its foulness and degredation, fully exposing the evil mankind can inflict on itself. Not pleasant viewing, but a moving, powerful experience.


Considering that my country is a neighbor of the former Yugoslavian Federation, I guess I know a lot more about that conflict than the other western-world viewers... When I saw it, I simply could not take sides... was it the muslims or the serbs to blame? I guess neither... Yugoslavia was of no use anymore... communism was down in Eastern Europe, there was no need for an western-oriented outpost behind the Iron Curtain... so NATO decided it must be somewhat erased, diminished... I am ashamed to admit that at a certain point during this war, the leaders of my country sold out to NATO like prostitutes and allowed Alliance planes to cross Romanian territory en-route to the conflict zone... OUR NEIGHBOURS.

So, the main character should be viewed as a basic person who lost his family and is loosing more and more of his soul as time goes by and he pursues his vengeance... as soon as you attach a Citizenship (American) and a Name (Guy) to his personna he becomes the representative of a nation that has been policing the World for its own dirty purposes for the better part of the 20th century... and then it becomes much harder to root for him... too bad ... Why is it that in every movie, the main characters have to be Americans?

There are some moments during this movie that made my heart stop, like the massacre near the bus... such pain, such rage, such unrelenting hatred against the humanity itself...

Either way, the film is very powerful and it depicts only a small amount of the atrocities that took place during that war... We should have learned a lesson back there... but we are at it again... I guess this is the tagline of the movie: War is bad... war is in our nature... WE ARE BAD!


A good war movie should ultimately project an anti-war message. No movie in a long time has projected such a strong sense of this as SAVIOR. It will be a long time before I am able to forget the nightmarish imagery featured in this film. It shows the ugly war in Bosnia and the insanity at work there. Some people have claimed this is a racist film. I do not see it that way. This film shows everyone in a bad light. There are no heroes here. It shows how hate and prejudice can pose as patriotism.This is one of Dennis Quaid's best performances. His face is remarkably powerful in depicting repressed and escalating anger; he does it very well; it's almost the dark opposite of his famous easy grin. This film is disturbing but, ultimately, it contains a message of hope. In that sense it makes good companion piece to WELCOME TO SARAJEVO.


Excellent movie, very well acted, conceived, photographed. No cheap sentimentality here. It grabs you and hits you hard, leaves you serious and depressed. No sides taken really-all the deeds and people it shows are murderers and victims. This is a movie for thought, not entertainment! Even though it's impossible for a movie to come close to the real horrors that took place in that land, as in so many other lands, it makes one think about the enormous scale of man's inhumanity to man throughout history. If I ever had any doubts that the world is ruled by Evil, thinking about the wars, blood, lives, lies, and horror going on for centuries reminds me that it is so.


Savior is one of the most intriguing movies that I have ever seen.The story deals with a man's journey in a foreign land where he meets a woman and plays a bigger role in her life than he'd expected. He joins the foreign legion to overcome the grief caused by the loss of his family.Under special circumstances he meets Vera, a victim of the war who is pregnant at the time.He saves her and her baby from the hands of a cruel mercenary.The main character is surrounded by death and the atrocities of the war. He seeks hope in the eyes of Vera's child.The seemingly hard-hearted guy shares a unique bond with the child.

It is one movie that you should not miss. The horrible face of war is vividly displayed. This movie will leave you thinking about the lives of those living in the war-torn areas.


I hated this movie so much it is impossible to explain it in words. This is the most ridiculous plot I have ever seen. There is not one likable character except for the pregnant woman/mother. **possible spoilers** Dennis Quaid plays an unbelievable protagonist who goes to a mosque and shoots a bunch of people who are praying to God because he lost his family?!! Being furious and being crazed is understandable but they depict everyone who is Muslim as evil which is pretty ridiculous. Why would they have any weapons in a mosque? Moreover, it does not make any sense to see a five year old kid throw a grenade at the soldiers with a pretty smile on his face. The whole movie shows this monster of a guy(Dennis Quaid) who faces all these people who are only as evil as him and that transforms him into a better man? I did not buy it at all. Collateral Damage is a much better movie dealing with a similar subject. Although it is an action movie and there are a lot of explosions and less psychological drama it depicts a much more realistic conflict between terrorists and the protagonist. 2 out of 10


This has to be one of the worst movies I've seen lately. The main character is so stereotypic and I have no idea what the moviemakers want us to think about him. First he goes on a shooting rampage on a muslim mosque, then he kills innocent people in Kosovo.

Then when the child comes into the picture he suddenly softens up and everything is ok.

It would have been nice with a better plot and storyline for sure. And calling this a Drama film is beyond my understanding. The cruel scenes may be moving, but it doesn't help in the long run.

If you can avoid seeing this picture, do so. You get a better picture of the Kosovo war on old newsclips.


How strange that this Pro-Serb melodrama and the over the top Saving Private Ryan, are held up as the two great 1990's films about war. Where was everyone when Welcome To Sarajevo and The Thin Red Line were on?

The basic theme of this film seems to be that both sides in a war do evil things. I'm sure that's true, but don't make me sit through a film about 'evil Jews' during WW2. I ain't buying it. Why didn't this film give us a glimpse of a Serb run death camp, where thousands of Bosnian civilians were tortured and killed? We saw it on the TV news. Are we now asked to ignore it because Serb civilians have also suffered?

As a flip-side to this rubbish, check out Michael Winterbottom's brilliant film 'Welcome To Sarajevo.'


Once in a while one is just moved. Moved into the picture, as though right alongside the characters, the action, the sound and the fury (of the war in Bosnia.) The dark odyssey of the soldier (Dennis Quaid) begins in tragedy--the death of his wife and son, whom he has been neglecting because of his military duties) in an alleged Muslim extremist cafe bombing--and leads him on a rocky, suspenseful chase to redemption. On the way he works as an assassin/sniper for the Foreign Legion, and as a mercenary-sniper for the Serbs. He commits cold blooded murder regularly, hard-heartedly, until he shoots a peasant teenage boy. This is his turning point. His conscience seems to reinvent itself. He intervenes in the savage beating of a pregnant woman, delivers her child, and thus begins the redelivery of himself into renewed morality and humanity. An important part of the journey of the baby girl, the mother, and the wounded "savior" is the effective and affecting portrayals of these characters by Quaid and the (I think Serbian actress) young woman. She has been cast out by her family and is very reluctant to accept the child or Quaid. The story moves along a perilous road with many painfully tense--and unpredictable event (not a cliche in the picture, unless one thinks beautiful babies and weeping rescuers is maudlin--moments and tragic scenes. I don't think this film is well know in the states; what a pity. I don't think Quaid (and many fine European actors) garned awards and recognition for this film, I do think Mr. Quaid created one of the finest characters/performances I have seen in the movies. Of course it also turns out that this picture has revived (and unfortunate) significance today--since 9/11. Recommended at an 8 level from. . . jaime


I can't add a lot to the other reviews, but I too thought it was an excellent movie. I missed the beginning (on a television movie channel), so I had no idea who was murdering who, except that the atrocities were happening in the former Yugoslavia. But that actually strengthened the message, that the primary victims of the war were civilians, not the armed combatants, who were often much more murderers of civilians than soldiers. I also didn't know the reason for Dennis Quaid's alienation, just that he was angry and miserable. My initial impression was that he was the baby's savior (and had tried to be Natasa Ninkovic's savior also). But other comments here point out that the baby was his savior as well -- from his own misery and alienation. He and the baby saved each other

The acting and directing were first-rate. The scenic photography was excellent too, but sometimes the tight budget showed, particularly in the sound quality. Still, the technical quality was generally quite good. The mix of English, subtitled local languages, and untranslated local languages was quite effective -- subtitles were used where they helped tell the story, but left out where the American's non-comprehension was the main point.

In spite of the mildly optimistic ending (which I found appropriate), it was a very gloomy movie. But it's such a good movie that you should see it, when you're in the mood for a very sad story.


"Savior" is one of the finest movies made anywhere on the planet in the past decade, and it should be required viewing by anyone interested in the Balkan crisis. Some parts will make you shudder in horror, and others will bring you to tears. This tale of the Bosnian civil war brings the whole, strange (for Americans), savage and sordid truths about "ethnic cleansing" straight into your living room via the VCR.

Dennis Quaid delivers the role of a lifetime as a former U.S. government agent driven mad by grief to attack innocent Muslim worshippers at a mosque, which leads to a 6-year stint in the French Foreign Legion. Once free of his commitment to the Legion, he becomes a mercenary in Bosnia, where he continues his vengeance campaign against Muslims.

But as Quaid finds out, his allies can be scummier than his foes; this is the setup of "Savior," wherein Quaid redeems his humanity to save a helpless baby, yet another victim of the nameless war.

One thing that Roger Ebert doesn't mention: The guys with the hammers are Croats, not Serbs or Bosniaks (Muslims). You will understand this reference once you see the film -- and you should. It is a brutal scene; I have experienced nothing like it in the cinematic vein since "Sophie's Choice."


Haunting, powerful, extremely well directed and acted, a real sleeper that should have been nominated for awards seeing the crap that mostly is nominated now days. Forget Kinski; she's a throwaway part and is the only jarring note to this movie; crass commercialism where they fool you by paying some well-known name-brand has been to pop up and do basically a "cameo". The music is perfect, and haunting, the location sets perfect, the subject, the Bosnia-Herzogovina-Serbia war fascinating and the effort by the director not to take too obvious a side makes the film perfect. Grown men will cry, women will weep copiously and little children have nightmares for life.


I've watched this film several times, the first time being in the late 90's, and then again just recently. It's truly an outstanding film that depicts the horrors faced by civilians in all wars, and how conflict and human suffering brings out both the best and worst in us.

My wife is a Croatian citizen, and her family fled the country in the early 90's when the region first began to break apart, just hours away from being swept up into the war themselves. She was a teenager at the time, and she once told me that no one believed that the war would actually escalate so far, until before they realized it, a battle was being fought in the neighboring town a few miles away. Her parents made a wise decision to drop everything, grab the kids, and head for the border... Someone told them that just hours after they left, the roads out were blocked, and men were being conscripted into the army to fight. Fight for what? Her mother is a catholic Croatian and her father is an orthodox Serbian. Now all of a sudden, they are supposed to be enemies? A tale played out over and over in human history, yet we still have not learned our lesson.

I also had the chance to visit the region, specifically Croatia, in 1999. Most of the parts that I visited were still in shambles, with almost every structure in ruins. Go outside and take a good look at the neighborhood that you live in. Now imagine 99% of the homes either completely leveled, or so damaged that they are uninhabitable. Anyone who thinks that war is glamorous, like Hollywood almost always portrays it, should visit a war torn country sometime. WHAT A WASTE!!! That's the Croatia that I saw in the 90's.

Last month, I went back for my second visit, 7 years later. Wow, what a difference. The people of Croatia, along with the United Nations, have been busy rebuilding. Croatia is truly a beautiful country. The coast is extremely beautiful, and the National parks Plitvitce and Krka are beyond words. I see hope returning to the area....


I am astounded by those who see this mainly as some sort of pro or con statement on the Balkan wars. It seems clearly about loss of a man's soul to sorrow and his road back to redemption. The violence, although frighteningly real, exists in the film as both the problem and solution for the main character. Indiscriminate hatred and violent atrocities against all humanity provide the locomotion, propelling this gripping drama to a bitter-sweet ending. There is alway a bias from those who have actually lived the history of these times and they feel it is incumbent on them to point out the factual errors--and perhaps they should. I know a few people from New Orleans who hated the exaggerations and misinformation in the movie "The Big Easy". I am not from New Orleans and enjoyed the film. Movies are not documentaries unless they state they are documentaries--and even then you can never be sure of unbiased facts (Michael Moore). "Savior" may have used the Balkan violence as an environment to place his story about "Guy". It could have been Korea, Germany, Iraq and been just as effective. The big picture was certainly not about Croasian or Serbian morality. It was about one very troubled man's trek to find peace within himself.


I should have seen it at least 3 times on my cable. Something attracted me that kept glued to the film till the end. The human value with its high and low at the war time is well depicted. The performance by the cast is excellent. u will find yourself involved into the story much as the story goes ahead. The baby is so cute, and they have made it to act so nicely. Not a fun time film. but a film to be spend when u feel like watching a good one. A film sure to be not missed out. u will like it for sure. special mention the actor deserves. u could find his eyes speak the most. the fear for the child's life, and the last scenes were really shot nicely. the song the mother sings towards the end of the film when the terrorists keep killing the travelers does not only make the child to put into sleep, but am sure your viewers throats would have become harder.

~mothish babu~


I first saw this film when it was screened on the small screen by the BBC here in the UK a couple of years ago.

When I saw it in the company of my then girlfriend, I wasn't aware of Oliver Stone's involvement and, frankly, I think that's for the good as I could quite easily have flipped channels having pre-judged it as YAHWF ("Yet Another Hollywood War Film").

Fortunately, I stuck with it and it opened my eyes to a war that was, by and large, merely seen as an inconvenience to many would-be holidaymakers here in Britain.

Whilst reported ad-infinitum by the mass media here, making the phrase "ethnic-cleansing" into an everyday term, it wasn't until I saw this film that I fully appreciated what this meant.

It's a hard film that brought me a sense of remoteness, helplessness, futility and anger.

There have been few other films I've seen that made caused me to weep (big, macho guy that I am ;-)), particularly those that are often mis-labelled as "war movies" -- "The Killing Fields" being another of this ilk -- when, in fact, they're really (if we're labelling things) human interest films that come about because of a war or conflict.

Dennis Quaid is, to me, one of those actors who isn't hugely prolific in the projects he gets involved in and I actually found it difficult to think of other titles of his that I'd seen. A quick skim through IMDb and a couple of them stand out for me, films I've thoroughly enjoyed and would happily see again; "The Right Stuff" and "Enemy Mine". This is, without doubt, the best I've seen him in.


The great Oliver Stone has done it again! Savior is one of the most horrifying, yet wonderfully made movie I have ever seen! With it's realism it captures you in a world of war with a feeling that you are really standing right in the middle of it. In my opinion this movies is a "must see", but it is not a movie for a date, a romantic moment or the family get-together. It is a movie that will bring you moments of extreme horror, sadness and tears with a realism that is rarely seen in movies today, and it is a movie that will leave you with open eyes and your head spinning.


Savior is the first western film of its kind. The movie shows that war in the former Yugoslavia was not black and white, i.e., the conflict was not one of good versus evil but rather that all sides - including Croats and Muslims - shared in the atrocities committed.

The film lacks in fully understanding the ethnic peoples of the region, however it still is groundbreaking in its non-simplistic 'gray' portrayal of the war rather than other films that depict the combatants as 'good' or 'evil.'

It is unfortunate that Savior was not made before 1995, while the Bosnian War was still being fought, it would have definitely helped to open viewers' eyes to the reality of the war.


This is a movie which manages to portray the consequences of modern day war on people's lives with a degree of realism that I have yet to see in most other films of the genre - one possible exception being Kubrick's Apocalypse Now.

The most tangible aspect of this realism is found in the fact that no character in the movie can claim to be a 'hero'. The concept of a 'war hero' I consider to be a dangerous pitfall, which many movies of the genre are only too happy to fall into. Probably because it makes the horrors of war slightly more meaningful - and thus bearable - if they are construed as 'obstacles', which the 'hero' must overcome in order to achieve his ultimate aim.

In 'Savior', there are only victims.

The movie explains this by describing war as a state of society where the ones most likely to survive are those who have let go of all values. Notice how neither Guy nor Vera - the main characters - ever fully manage to reach this state of total cynicism even though they both try. This is why a quest to regain their humanity is sure to end up victimising both of them.

In summary, the main achievement of 'Savior' is in making tangible the viewpoint of Thomas Hobbes, who said that war must generally be avoided, because in war, human life is 'brutish, nasty and short'.

Natasa Ninkovic deserves praise for her frighteningly believable performance as Vera.


This is a film everybody should see. It is a truly mind opener for anybody who does not know what ethnic conflicts and war does with peoples minds. I did not think that this film would be that good when I rented it, but this is a film that stays in your mind forever and makes you think in a different way for the rest of your life. A must see masterpiece for short.


This is a film with a strong and universal message. You learn that the state will change if the trait is there, no matter how hard one is affected. Kudos for Oliver Stone and non-Yugoslav (Serbian?) cast who were brave enough to participate in this pre - 9/11 project (things seem to change diametrically after this date), and performed masterfully at that. One could argue that there is some artificial even-handiness in this film, but without this, the film could have been labelled as 'propaganda'. Now, this is a well-balanced story that takes you for an emotional roller-coaster ride and leaves you shaken at the end.


This is so far the third movie based from the Bosnian/Serb war, that I've seen. It is so far also the best. Dennis Quaid did so well a job, I'd almost think this is the best movie of his career. It does seem a little confusing though towards the end, but overall I give it sadly a 10 out of 10. Saying sadly cause I wish it never happened at all. The way the serb/albanian war is going on as well. This movie gives a whole new perspective on the war.


Everyone loves that furry, lovable red monster, Elmo. Ever since "Follow That Bird", "Elmo in Grouchland" is a way more colorful version for kids, and there's more fun to it. Elmo has this blanket that he loves very much, and after a tug-of-war with Zoe, Oscar the Grouch tosses the blanket after he blows his nose with it. Where does it goes, in Grouchland. On Sesame Street, there was a place called GrouchyTown. In this movie, Grouchland is being run by a really rude man named Huxley(Mandy Patankin). He the worst person to be around. When Elmo goes to Grouchland to retrieve his blanket, he meets some unusual characters there. He meets a girl grouch who his nothing like the others. Very kind, very neat, and very cooperative. Mostly grouches hate cooperation, even Oscar can bend the rules of his kind. When he was a resident there, he knew what it's like. So he got the grouches there to change their attitude's, and their ways a bit. Anthor character in the movie is the Queen of Trash(Vanessa L. Williams). I liked the part where Elmo had to do 100 Raspberries. She was also a friendly person there. This movie deals with sharing, while "Follow that Bird" deals with diversity. This movie is very good for kids, as well, and other generations to come. Rating 3 out of 5 stars!


This gets a pretty good rating from me...I bought this movie thinking we'd see it once and it would get stored in our videos forever. But we watch it constantly. Even if my son watches it back to back, he's still captivated by it. It's a good movie...not bad for Sesame Street. The songs are good, except the one by Vanessa Williams - it's a bit bland, but of course, it would get stuck in our heads all day long. Mandy Patinkin is GREAT in this movie, just awesome. Perfect guy for the part. Good singing voice too.

It's a cute movie. It does have lots of funny parts that only a kid will find funny and a parent will roll their eyes when the kid is not looking, but on the whole, it's amusing. The interruptions from Ernie and Bert are actually kind of cute, but any more of them would have been annoying.

We like it. Good, clean, wholesome entertainment.


If you have an Elmo fan in your house, and was disappointed to only see him one scene (not speaking) role in 1985's movie Sesame Street Presents: Follow That Bird, well your little one will not be disappointed. The first movie with the Sesame Street friends for the first time in 14 years. Long time isn't it. As the movie opens, Elmo (Kevin Clash) and his freind Zoe (Fran Brill) has a tug of war on Elmo's blanket ripping, Elmo gets mad at Zoe, and then it winds up in Oscar's (Caroll Spinney) trash can, Elmo jumps into the trash can, and he and his blanked wind up in Grouchland. (Spoiler Warning) And the movie's villian (Mandy Patinkin) steals Elmo's blanket. (Spoiler Warning #2) Every so often, Bert (Frank Oz) yells "Stop the Film". (Spoiler Warning #3) When Elmo's Sesame Street pals learn that Elmo has jumped into Oscar's trash can, some of them, Big Bird, etc jumped in after him. (Spoiler Warning #4) While Elmo makes his way up a mountain to the villian's house. If you ever wondered what does goes on inside Oscar's can, this the movie for you to see. Vanessa L. Williams appears as the Queen of Trash. Note like the earlier Sesame Street movie this is a rare live movie to get a G rating from the MPAA. And if parents don't want thier kids to hear bad language, this is a must watch along with the first movie. So what are you waiting for, rent or buy this movie today, you will be glad you did. Parents will be happy not have to view a movie with kids, but may want to. What would have made this even better if Bert didn't yell "Stop the Film". 10/10


This seems to be the Sesame Street adoption of "Labyrinth" (1986, Jim Henson). Yet, I love Labyrinth. TAOEIG is less dark than the original, and generally more funny. Perfect family entertainment (not only for the children) with lots of nice music, jokes and warmth. 10 out of 10.


I really dreaded this when it came to my daughter via my mother, but it is well done, turns out, and quite amusing in that something-for-everyone Sesame Street way. There are all the usual messages here - sharing, sticking up for yourself/fighting for a cause, being a friend, etc. And if you like Oscar, you will undoubtedly love Grouchland - Oscar seems conservatively grouchy and gritty in comparison with these citizens (perhaps this is why Oscar has chosen to be a Grouchland ex-pat and live on Sesame Street). The songs are quite good - I especially like the song the plant sings to Elmo. I have probably seen it with my daughter at least 6 times, but I still laugh at sight gags and funny lines and continue to find it hilariously funny how sexy Vanessa Williams' character is especially for a pre-school kid's movie! Even if you are not particularly impressed with Vanessa Williams in general, brace yourself!


my baby loves it. i am in grad school and i needed something to catch her attention while i work on papers and projects....i am almost finished and then it will go back in the movie pile so i can play more and read to her...but she just LOVES that little red guy. AND HUXLEY -- Mr Dangerous Minds (on CBS), who would have guessed he had so much talent! awesome....i love the musical numbers. i love the puppets. and its nice to see the old sesame street gang again. it is also nice to see the friendships and trusts. i like the interactive component as well. my baby makes the raspberry spitting sounds. it is soooo cute. Vanessa Williams cameo is nice too. queen of junk....very cute...i love the trip to grouchland -- very 70s retro.


Red, furry and undeniably cute, who wouldn't love Elmo? A mean bushy browed villain by the name of Huxley and his bugsy sidekick that's who. Like many of the programs generated by the Sesame Workshop geared toward children, The adventures of Elmo in Grouchland is a wonderful story of sharing and cooperation. Children and grown ups alike are taught the joys of sharing and cooperation as they follow Elmo into Oscar's grouchy homeland Grouchland and he encounters many obstacles as he tries to retrieve his beloved blankie. We see many qualities children posses that we as adults lack at times, determination, love for our enemies and working for what we want.

I think Mandy Patinkin makes just the right kind of villain for a children's program, with just the right amount of meanness and humor to not make it too scary. Elmo is accompanied by a dynamic cast that rounds out the entire story. This is a wonderful story that should be enjoyed by parents and children together.


'The Adventures of Elmo in Grouchland' is an excellent movie. I purchase the DVD for my 16-month old son. Initially I was hesitant about the purchase because I wasn't sure if he would enjoy the movie, plus it was long considering he'd never watched anything that for that length of time. The first time I played the movie for him, he sat quietly and watched it in its entirety. To this day my son watches it over and over again. He truly loves the movie. He loves the music. As an adult, I enjoyed the movie as well. It's definitely entertaining from start to finish. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone. I have even purchased copies for other kids as gifts.


There's lots to love about this Sesame Treat of a family film. Little kids will love seeing their best buddy Elmo in this great big adventure. Parents will love the clever writing (some of which is just for them!) and the message of sharing and respecting other people's belongings. Everyone will love the catchy songs (I guarantee you'll go home singing the opening number) and the audience interaction, as all of your favorite characters directly address the audience and ask for their help. And be sure to listen to the "ad lib" filler dialog in the various scenes, there are a lot of funny jokes tucked in there in true Muppet fashion.

The dialog is clever, the laughs are in plenty and the fun doesn't stop. This is children's entertainment with a brain!


First off, i'm a parent. My daughter is 18months old and LOVES Elmo, her grandfather got this movie for her and she already knows how to play it on the DVD player(she pulls it out of the case, opens up the player and puts it in... sometimes upside down though ;) )and sits down with the remote. so she loves it. great she's not voting. I, on the other hand walk around all day after watching this singing the songs from it in my head... they are just so catchy. i never thought i would say this, but i'm starting to love family movies like this one. remember when voting for this, that it is meant for the under 5 crowd. not the 16-35yr old amateur film critics that think they know everything.


I know I am not the audience for this mess, but even my toddler was bored by it. The story takes so long being slow and simple, it literally bored me into a stupor. The songs are instantly forgettable, the TV cast looks ill at ease, and the whole thing is shot on a soundstage with a budget that might cover my lunch this afternoon. I give this a 3, and hope your child is not turned off from Elmo by this.


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Where, o where are the kids movies that don't have "evil villians"? How could Elmo, of all characters, be in a movie with such a nasty villian ..stealing his blanket away and making fun of him. I watch Elmo's World 5 days a week with my kids (4 and 2) and I must admit that I find the 15 minute episodes to be very well done. From Mr. Noodle to Dorothy the whole thing is all about "can-do" preschoolers.

So, why, in this TERRIBLE movie would they create this very unnatural dependency that Elmo has on his blanket? Elmo no longer is the encouraging fun loving muppet . .but he is a panicked, insecure, selfish muppet. The opening 5 minutes are joyless, despite all the Sesame Street favorites being put in every frame in each shot. The people are particularly bad. What would possess any of these talented educators to make such a movie? I could sense the "this is a bad idea but I have to honor my contract" in every single performance by the Sesame Street regulars.

My daughter was in absolute tears when the blanket got taken away . .and why not? The movie has just branded on to your brain that Elmo must NEVER be seperated from his blanket. So, why in the name of all things good and innocent, would the movies writers, directors, and producers IMMEDIATELY take away his blanket and thrust it into the hands of an evil person who towers over the muppets? This is sadistic film making at its worst . ..ELMO IS FOR PRE-SCHOOLERS!

Huxley, the greedy villian (who is tagged on the packagin with the innocent sounding "doesn't like to share") is very ominous, and taunts Elmo with the blanket and makes fun of his tears. Unbelievable.

I didn't get past this part as my daughter was in sobs at this point . .and despite my fast forwarding to the end to show her that Elmo gets his Blanket back . . I could do little to save the evening.

While I fast forwarded I could see that the rest of the movie was filled with threats, intimidation, and flat out picking on little defenseless kids. Muppets in cages!!!??? OUTRAGEOUS!!!

The makers of this movie should be ashamed of themselves for violating the spirit of Elmo and Sesame Street for creating a movie that will certainly scare little ones and make them cry.

This is a poorly written, ill-concieved bit of film making. "Grouchland" is indeed smelly and trashy . . .and so is this movie.


Adventures of Elmo in Grouchland is disappointing. In trying to differentiate the movie from a typical Sesame Street episode, the creators produced a dull generic children's movie that lacks both the educational and entertainment qualities of the TV series. The movie also lacks any spontaneity and the genuine-feel often found with the small children on the television show.


What were they thinking? This movie is geared to the typical Seasame Street set of 2 to 8 year olds. Although the story line deals with lessons in sharing, we see Elmo lose his blanket to an evil fellow in Grouchland. If your kids have a favorite blanket this will hit too close to home. The producers added commentary by Bert and Ernie after the movie proved too frightening. The Bert and Ernie bits do lighten things up a bit but it is too scary. The movie has the usual great sets, puppets etc. but it is not for the 2 to 8 year old set. Go figure.


After teaming up in "Foul Play," Chevy Chase and Goldie Hawn reunite in this Neil Simon send-up of and tribute to those old-fashioned screwball comedies. It seems that Chevy was minding his own business, when he is kidnapped to rob a bank by two ex-cons, who make a habit of getting trusting faces to do their work for them. They go through with it, with Chevy staring right into the security camera. Being thrown from a moving car afterwards, a bruised Chevy makes his way to his ex-wife, Goldie, who, of course, is now married to the county d.a., played wonderfully by Charles Grodin.

At first, it reminded of me "The Talk of the Town," the one where Cary Grant is wanted by the law and Jean Arthur gives him shelter, unwillingly. Then, it felt like those Doris Day/Rock Hudson movies. Then, as it neared its wacky courtroom end, it felt like "What's Up, Doc?" which was a remake of "Bringing Up Baby." With me throwing all these names at you, do you feel like watching an old movie?

Well, this will do. The stars' chemistry and charm make for most of the appeal, and it is quite easy to take and pleasant with its presence of 80s stars George Grizzard, T.K. Carter, and Robert Guillaume (from "Soap" and "Benson.") Having said that, it's not as good as Simon's greatest films, like "The Odd Couple," "The Sunshine Boys," and others. (I keep thinking though that 7 is too low and 8 is just a little high. As it won't take a 7.5, I'll give an '8' to give it the benefit of the doubt.) But it is much better than "Foul Play," whose main asset besides Goldie was the very funny Dudley Moore.

The viewer may be left wondering about the ending, though. It makes me feel like Neil Simon didn't quite know how to end it, for it stops very abruptly. But, if you're in the mood for some madcap shenanigans and haven't ever seen this, you're in for a treat. "Seems Like Old Times" makes for a good time, courtesy of Neil Simon.


Amiable Neil Simon farce about good-hearted defense attorney Glenda Parks (Goldie Hawn), who's a sucker for hard luck cases and even incorrigible types. She's married to district attorney Ira Parks (Charles Grodin), who's about to campaign for attorney general. Into their lives comes her ex-husband Nick Gardenia (Chevy Chase), who just won't leave her alone. As the story begins, Nick is forced by two criminals to participate in a bank robbery and when they let him go (albeit while their vehicle is in motion), Nick figures Glenda - who he's never stopped loving - will be the only one willing to help him.

Hawn, Grodin, and Chase are all cast in parts perfect for each. (As a matter of fact, the entire film is cast well right down the line.) Chase gets to toss off his trademark wiseacre quips and even indulge in a little physical comedy. Hawn is just as sweet as could be and Grodin is in fine grumpy form. And they're supported well by the other actors, including Robert Guillaume as Grodins' colleague, George Grizzard as the governor, and Harold Gould as the judge who has to watch as his courtroom turns into a circus. Particularly fun are Yvonne Wilder as harried maid Aurora and T.K. Carter as kleptomaniac turned chauffeur Chester.

The film itself marks a capable theatrical debut for Jay Sandrich, a man who honed his craft working on many TV series over the years. At one point, Gould remarks during the climactic trial how he loves it when time flies by. Well, time flies by watching this film as well. It's quite entertaining with not one dull moment. Simons' script is quite funny and spirited, with a dinner party rating as a real comedic highlight. It's all good-natured fun from its beginning to its end.

Highly recommended to fans of the writer and the stars.

8/10


This movie was extremely funny! Chevy Chase is always hilarious at getting into bad situations, like being forced to rob a bank and becomes a fugitive. Chase stars as a writer named Nick Gardenia, who is the ex-husband of Hawn's character, Glenda Gardenia Parks who has re-married a District Attorney named Ira. Nick desperately needs Glenda's help to hide from the police. She reluctantly hides him at her house, and he is always so close to being caught by her new husband. I love when Glenda and Ira are trying to have dinner with the Governor, and Nick poses as a waiter. Will Nick be able to prove his innocence and still get his ex-wife to love him again? I highly recommend SEEMS LIKE OLD TIMES!!!


Goldie Hawn and Chevy Chase reunite for "Seems Like Old Times," a 1980 Neil Simon comedy that borrows heavily from the Cary Grant-Jean Arthur "Talk of the Town." Hawn is an attorney and ex-wife of Chase, and she's now married to DA Charles Grodin, who's about to be made Attorney General of the state. Chase is forced to take part in a robbery and is on the lam and shows up at her house and several inopportune moments - like when she's entertaining the governor. She feels compelled to help him, but there's nothing unusual there - she has stray dogs, cats, and paroled defendants overrunning her house.

The actors are excellent, as is the funny supporting cast, and there are some hilarious scenes as Chase hides out in a room above the garage and, while under the bed, his hand extending a little, Grodin stands on his finger as he argues with Hawn.

What bothers me about this comedy is that there aren't any around like this anymore. The "comedy" today aims at the lowest common denominator - Woody Allen uses the term "crass" to describe them - and for someone of my generation, what passes as comedy today just isn't funny. Today these situational comedies are written off for some reason in favor of stupidity. I don't get it. I lament the days of "Arthur," where you missed some of the jokes in the theater because the audience was laughing so hard, "Night Shift," and "Seems Like Old Times."


Aurora the housekeeper: Mrs. Parks the doggies ran away again. Glenda the lawyer: I'll just get six more tomorrow.

I first saw this movie in the early 80's and fell in love with it immediately. This is one of the funniest, most quotable movies of the decade and I think it came out around the time of the equally hysterical and quotable Airplane, also a favorite.

Goldie Hawn is at her best as a lawyer with a heart of gold, Charles Grodin is her husband Ira (Myron, Hyram). Chevy Chase plays a writer who is ambushed into robbing a bank in Carmel California and winds up back in his ex-wife's life, needing her help to clear his name.

As it has been said on IMDb, there are many wonderful quotes and the comedy is wound up and running like a second grade class full of Hershy Kisses. Yvonne Wilder is hysterical as the no nonsense housekeeper who has to get her feet scraped. Harold Gould and Robert Guilleume of Benson fame(forgive the spelling)have memorable cameos as well.

I just finished watching it again after many years and it is still as funny as it was all those years ago. Also, Godspell fans, keep an eye out for David Haskell as a police officer.

I highly recommend this movie. Laugh out loud funny from beginning to end.


"Seems Like Old Times" showcases Neil Simon doing what Neil Simon does best: creating harmless, solid little comedies that don't tax the intellect or give you much to remember, but which are pleasant enough while you're actually watching them.

This one re-teams Goldie Hawn and Chevy Chase two years after they had shown how much screen chemistry they had together in "Foul Play." Hawn is the wife of the L.A. district attorney (Charles Grodin), while Chase is the ex-husband who comes tumbling (literally) back into her life when he finds himself in a desperate situation. It all plays out like a screwball comedy or bedroom farce, and most of the jokes hit their mark. The three main stars are helped by a good supporting cast of mostly unknowns.

Grade: B+


I wouldn't say Neil Simon's comic wit is at full steam in this light-hearted comedy, but there are certainly a plethora of laughs to go around.

Chevy Chase's Nick Gardenia is offishly matter-of-fact funny as only he can be, a writer and journalist (have you noticed Simon's protagonists are nearly always writers?) of ill-repute who somehow once ended up in a Mexican jail for 2 years and is now on the path to recovery when a couple of bank robbers kidnap and use him for a heist. His mug is prominently featured in the robbery photos and then the fun ensues when he goes to his ex-wife's (Hawn's) house to engender her help after being let go by the robbers and being fully on the run from the law.

The movie is mostly fast-paced slapstick farce, a host of retreaded clichés (the dogs, for example), and quick jokes. Charles Grodin is actually quite funny and charming as her straight-arrow District Attorney (soon to be Attorney General) husband, Ira. Given "Midnight Run," I think Grodin should be considered a mint for American glib comedy a la Albert Brooks.

It's pointless to go much deeper into the story as the plot merely drives slapstick scenes one into the next. The story is essentially the sum of its parts.

Goldie Hawn is in full-tilt cutie mode (she really was a doll) but carries the movie very well as a hopeless do-gooder who wants to help everybody, including her ex-husband and every stray dog in 10 surrounding counties. Chevy Chase often gives the impression of making comedy look effortless (think Fletch), but he is REALLY giving into pratfalling a la his SNL days in this one. The supporting cast with Guillaume and others is excellent.

This is completely worth a watch if you catch it as in many ways this movie is superior to the Hawn and Chase hit "Foul Play."


This movie is absolutely hilarious! I first saw it a couple of years ago and had my belly aching from laughing by the time it was over. Yesterday it was shown again on TV and it had exactly the same effect on me throughout this second viewing. Playwright Neil Simon, who scripted this film had a real grasp on his prose all through the 70s and 80s, and this film is a delight for everyone familiar with his style of lining up one-liners in such a way that the viewer barely has time to breathe from laughter. All three leads are great. This is real evidence for all those who have doubts about Goldie Hawn's talents, since she is delightful from start to finish and once again proves that she was and still is one of the greatest comediennes Hollywood ever produced. A comedy classic of sorts.


Chevy Chase is just awesome, I can't say it enough. He is funny in every movie he's in. Charles Grodin is good in this one too. I love the way he moans and groans like a wuss. It's hilarious. This movie is just funny. Chevy leads the laughs, and the black butler Chester cracks me up. Watch it, it comes on an HBO every 2 hours it seems like .


Goldie Hawn and Chevy Chase have great chemistry. I can't decide which of their two films I like best. Foul Play had me rolling on the floor. Seems Like Old Times left me wanting more... It's a shame they only made two films together. Oh well, at least we have Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan.


This film is just fun to sit through. Goldie Hawn and Chevy Chase turn in a couple of great performances and Charles Grodin is very good as well. The screenplay by Neil Simon is very good, I also liked the score from Marvin Hamlisch. Fun film to watch.


I can't believe some posters are waxing nostalgic about this movie.

It stinks.

When Neil Simon is funny, he's pretty funny.

When he's off, it's excruciating to watch, and man is he off on this. I saw it when it first came out, and it seemed hopelessly dated then. I can only imagine what a relic it is now.

Yes, Chevy Chase and Goldie Hawn were good in FOUL PLAY, but that had a great script going for it. This absolutely, positively does not.

The jokes fall flat, the scenarios are strained beyond belief, and it just comes across as a bit of Hollywood hopelessly detached from reality.

In fact, it might just be worse than MODERN PROBLEMS or UNDER THE RAINBOW.

Watch this at your own peril, unless you want to see Exhibit #A in Chevy Chase's unprecedented run at picking awful scripts.


This is a tremendously moving documentary about suffering and sacrifices in the Soviet Union during the Stalin years. It includes little-seen film footage of the pre-World War II years, and striking images throughout. There are also interviews with survivors of the Gulags and World War II, and with some individuals who were directly acquainted with Stalin. The musical sound track nicely enhances the program, and I think that Nigel Hawthorne's dispassionate narration is very good--much more effective than a melodramatic reading would be. While the program is very educational, I also found it to be emotionally and intellectually gripping, and artfully done throughout.

Some of the marketing of "Russia's War" misleadingly suggests that it is entirely about the World War II years. While the program covers the war on the Russian Front in-depth, it also contains significant portions that describe the years before and after the war. This includes Stalin's consolidation of power, his attempts to establish a Communist industrial power, the purges and many other crimes committed by the Communist regime during his rule, and the end of Stalin. Sadly, many people outside of the former Warsaw Pact nations are much less acquainted with the atrocities of the Communists than with those which were committed by the Nazis. One of the reasons for this might be the relatively small amount of film footage of the Gulags and other Communist camps that has been shown in the West. "Russia's War" presents haunting images of persons being tried in Communist show trials, transported to labor camps, and working in slave labor projects (Anne Applebaum's book Gulag offers a useful history of the Gulag system, in case this documentary encourages you to read further). Also, watch for some film footage showing an assembly of Communists who are desperate to show their devotion to Stalin--it is a small yet clear example of the absurd level which Communist totalitarianism reached.

Much time is also spent on the World War II years, including the experiences of all levels of the military and civilians. Interviews are included with servicemen and women of various branches, resistance fighters, and several civilians. The major campaigns are covered, such as the opening of Barbarossa, the German drive towards Moscow, the Siege of Leningrad, the battles of Stalingrad and Kursk, and the Soviet advance towards Germany. Some lesser-known incidents are described also, such as the self-sacrifice of some very young Soviet soldiers in front of Moscow. Pictures of these soldiers are shown while Hawthorne describes their fate, briefly but very movingly.

A little-known element of the war which is explored is the relationship between civilians, Soviet partisans and other resistance groups. Some resistance groups fought both the Nazis and the Soviets, and many civilians were also caught in the middle. While the Soviet partisans accomplished much against the Germans, many of them were far from being the heroes which Soviet propaganda claimed.

Other aspects of how Soviet civilians survived and died in the countryside and the cities are investigated, including the massive suffering of Jews under both Hitler and Stalin.

The program does not include interviews with Germans who were involved in the war and occupation in Russia, although this is to be expected because of the focus of the documentary. "Russia's War" does include a wealth of film footage showing the German military in action, and scenes behind the German lines.

It also presents one of the most haunting images of misery that I have seen: the face of a Soviet soldier who is wearily eating while on the march, and who looks towards the camera. Sadly, this program presents many other images which are comparable. At the same time, along with all of the misery and oppression that is documented, there are stories included that are deeply inspiring.


Absolutely amazing and startling documentary about the most terrible tyrant of the 20th century. Compared to Stalin, Hitler comes out of this as a buffoon, and an incompetent one at that. Perhaps Stalin's greatest victory was to leave to posterity so few living enemies that even today he is the subject of worship by so many Russians. This one evil and profoundly ambiguous man was the greatest mass murdered in history -- and the appalling scope of his crimes is made shockingly clear by the well-balanced, delicate survivors' accounts in this long video set.


In my job as history teacher I have seen many documentaries dealing with world war 2 and prelude to it but this has to be one of the best. Showing clearly Stalins ruthlessness but also giving so much well deserved credit to the ordinary Soviet peoples struggles and efforts to survive both their own and a foreign dictator.It gives a much more balanced look on how the war was fought and can give much understanding also to the development of the cold war and also understanding on what can be seen as a Russian obsession with the war.After have studied this documentary and read books in the subject one have no doubt anymore that the war affected the Russian people hardest of all nations.A brilliant historical documentary at its best!


Russia's War: Blood Upon the Snow is one of the best documentaries I've ever seen (see also "Stalin: Man of Steel" DVD from the History Channel). It does a marvelous job explaining the prelude to the Nazi attack on the Soviet Union, especially the impact of the Stalinist purges in the late 1930s. The annihilation of the officer corps plus Stalin's disregard of warnings from the British and his own intelligence services (he had his own spies executed for warning of the pending Nazi attack)left Russia almost completely defenseless. Each episode begins with a brief introduction by Henry Kissinger, but the wonderful narration is by Nigel Hawthorne (Yes, Prime Minister). I check at least monthly to see if a DVD version has been released. So far, no luck.


This video is first class from first tape to last of the 5-volume set. The narration is thoughtful and thought-provoking and is enhanced by a tasteful, haunting music score. The title is as much a focus on the mind of Stalin as on the events of the war itself. Indeed, we are given some real insights into Stalin's actions that shock and surprise, and ultimately lead to the conclusion that in terms of cruelty and sheer madness, there is little to choose between Hitler or Stalin. A must to add to your collection of Russian history.


Amazing film! Although I have to disagree about the comment appeared here, mistakenly stated the wrong fact that the movie shows that Russia has been obsessed with war, as the great patriotic war was about people defending their home and families, unwillingly drawn into the battle of their lives by the fascists. the movie shows,above everything I think, the borders of human behavior under tremendous pressure, and the brilliancy of of some against the banality of others, often in higher positions, which caused many logically impossible situations, and made the turn of events amazingly chaotic. I enjoyed it very much, along with great editing and script, writing rare videos and excellent soundtrack are a beautiful bonus.


This is my new favorite eighties/nineties kickboxing movie. It's clearly a Corman knock-off of earlier brother avenges brother efforts, but it's head and shoulders above most of the crumby video fodder that was being fed to the hungry market at the time.

Jerry Trimble is good as the kickboxing hayseed who comes to LA to find his brother, but Marcus Aurelius steals the show as Pep, the Art of War spouting trainer who befriends Luke. Watching these two train, fight, and of course bond, was surprisingly effective, considering how badly written and acted most of these cheapy fight vehicles were at the time.

This flick is pure comic book fun as Luke and Pep fight their way up the ladder of villainous opponents to the championship-and the truth of Luke's brother's death. Beverly Grey (writer) and Rick Jacobson (director) set up each opponent, so each fight has special meaning. This movie really delivers on the awesome fights. It's non-stop, yet stylistic. Kudos to the editor (Lawrence Maddox) because this thing moves. Jacobson has real flair here, and the final fight, even if you saw it coming, is a blast.

If you know this genre, you'll recognize many of the much used locations from other Corman flicks. But somehow, they're grittier here. Probably made for WAY under a million, this is much better than any of the Don Wilson efforts made for more money. Show this to the kids at USC, because this film is a primer on how to get it done cheap. A gem.


Jerry Trimble stars as Luke Powers in this action movie (which is actually a remake of "Bloodfist"). He arrives in L.A., only to find that his brother, who used to take part in "back-alley" fights, has been murdered. In order to find the killer, he becomes a fighter himself. Marcus Aurelius stars as Pep, the man who trains Luke to fight. 1993's "Dragon Fire" (Starring Dominic Labanca, Dir: Rick Jacobson) also has the same story, but this movie is better. The fight scenes are good. I gave this 8/10.


This movie has an amateurish air to it, with more than its share of sloppy edits, plot dead-ends, and those little acting moments that take the viewer out of the story. The story and setting are so entertaining, however, that it manages to overcome its shortcomings and remain a memorable experience. The characters are realistic and fun, and the song choices are consistently good (especially "Turkey Lurkey Time" which is otherwise unavailable on film, far as I know). The original songs (from the people who brought you "Fame") are also good--occasionally terrific.

It's interesting to me that among a cast of newcomers and unknowns, the worst performances are from the adults--especially Don Dixon (Bert). The kids fare much better in general, and their musical performances are their real strengths (unsurprisingly). A surer hand on the direction and script could have tightened Camp up considerably, but even as messy as it is, it's still well worth seeing.


Does Stephen Trask (HEDWIG AND THE ANGRY INCH) ever write a note of bad music?

This is a wonderful movie. Admittedly, the pace is not perfection. But the music is great, the jokes are funny and most importantly it portrays a specific milieu. And movies that bring the audience into a milieu they might not know exists are almost always interesting. I've seen this movie once and I'll see it again.

Ignore the critics who want to tell you what the movie isn't and what it should be. They'll only keep you from enjoying a good movie. Todd Graff has something to say. This is his movie and it works. One magazine reviewer noted that the kids in this movie emerge as full-blown professionals. Well -- they are! Most of these kids have never done anything before. That's part of what is being said here. There's all this talent that no one has ever seen. There are kids who are this good. Todd Graff found them.


...although that may not be saying much, it truly loves these kids that it portrays and is clearly made for such kids. Other reviewers have faulted "Camp" for its shallow plot, the inconsistency of its characters, the stereotypes, and an overall amateurish quality. All I can say is "What'd you expect? It's a teen drama!" In fact, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have worked if the film tried to be more grown-up. To properly enjoy "Camp", adult viewers need to recall their world view during their teen years. Only then can they realize how much they would have wanted to see a movie like this when they were teens. Of course, if you were a quarterback or prom queen in high school, then perhaps you wouldn't be able to relate to this movie at all.


I throughly enjoyed the singing on this movie! Dee (Sasha Allen) did a fantastic job. She really put the SOUL into the lyrics of the songs. The lyrics were heart-felt and soulful on every level, especially the barnyard scene and the opening song to the movie. Every actor and actresses did an outstanding job portraying the mode for each song. I want to commend the directors and cast of this movie on a grand job. I also enjoyed seeing that all aspects of teenage life were portrayed in the film from homosexuality and love and hate relationships to betrayal and deceit. Brought a lot of my life back into play. I commend everyone on a super job. Could we possibly see a Part II to this movie??


Camp was definitely the movie of the year that I would go see again and again and buy the soundtrack the minute I saw it on the shelf. A delightful memoir and tribute to what it's like to be young and hopeful about a career in the arts.

This movie is beyond words when it comes to being a unique feel-good movie. At some points, however, I felt like the kids were almost unbelieveable as angsty teenagers. The plot seemed a little disjointed too; Vlad's character continually reveals more complexity and conflict up until the very end, and I felt like I was just getting to know him when the movie finishes. However, they pale in comparison to the excellent musical numbers and sheer emotion that reaches beyond the kids' ages.

Graff made a gem of a movie. For anyone who's into musical theatre, or was when they were younger, can relate to this movie. If you haven't, you see a pretty picture of a movie, with spectacular musical numbers ("Ladies who Lunch," "Turkey Lurkey Time," "Want of a Nail"). My only qualms with it are the gay stereotypes seemingly sticking here, and a couple other inconsistencies of character. But nothing much. See this film; it's a great release and will keep you inspired for a while.


"Camp" is a fun movie going experience. Combining elements of teenage summer camp coming of age stories, interwoven with musical theater performances, "Camp" doesn't cease to entertain. The cast of unknowns may not have the acting chops of more seasoned veterans, but their sheer musical talent compensates for this.


As an adult viewer, I had to think back and view the movie through the eyes of a teenager in order to appreciate it. And in doing so, I thoroughly enjoyed watching Camp. Some of the dialogue is awkward, and the story lines don't always wrap up quite neatly, or at least not ideally. But that's how life is, especially during the often awkward adolescent years, and the emotional realism is touching.

Though it loses momentum at times, the movie never loses my interest because of it's strong characters, great musical numbers, and its fanciful--though a bit unrealistic--depiction of this teen-drama-summer camp world that I barely knew existed. And it's a particular world that most people have never experienced, but anybody who's ever felt awkward as a teenager can relate to this movie. Though never an aspiring actor or singer, I certainly related, and I enjoyed every minute of it.

I'm not quite sure if Camp fits neatly into the musical genre, and I don't care. I do know that I couldn't even watch the first 10 minutes of the new Hairspray musical with John Travolta. It repulsed me. But I love Camp, (as I do Dancer in the Dark) which in my non-musical-expert opinion, has too much music-less dialogue, thankfully, to be considered a true musical. This favorable review of Camp is from someone who generally hates musicals.


SPOILERS EVERYWHERE!!! The most amazing thing about this film is that Steven Sondheim actually agreed to play himself in it. You'd think he had better taste.

Camp is really one of the most unprofessional films I have seen in a long time (except perhaps for the musicians).

First of all, the sets look like they were made on the lowest of budgets.

Second, it was totally clichéd and you could figure out where it was going looooong before it got there. There was almost nothing in it that was original...we have seen it all before and much better done.

Third... it is an insult to our intelligence. Three gay guys and a straight share the same bunkhouse and the straight doesn't feel even a little uncomfortable? At almost the end of the film the straight guy takes off his shirt and the gay guy gets all hot and bothered...ummmm...if they share the same bunkhouse, wouldn't he have already seen it weeks ago? The rich beautiful girl just drops her bags and the other girl picks them up and becomes her slave? Pul-leeze! Also, how does she end up getting a bunkhouse with a bed that looks like it should have been Mae West's? How come she isn't sharing a bunkhouse like all the other girls? The acting was pretty low par...I barely believed any of them except maybe the black kid who complained about playing white parts in the plays...But then again, I guess it is hard to make cardboard characters come to life, so I guess it isn't the kids' fault if the acting comes across as less than acceptable.

Need I go on? This whole thing comes across as a TV sitcom that would have been acceptable in the 1950's but would have been considered as not sophisticated enough for a ten year old by today's standards.

Oh, and, for a film that is supposed to be gay positive, how come the main character is the only straight boy in the entire movie? We see three girls and one gay boy all having crushes on Mr Hetero... but none of the gay boys gets a chance to have a boyfriend. Why not? It would have livened things up a bit to have at least an attempt at equality. Or aren't gay romances (that aren't doomed) acceptable for the straight market?