This is a movie I will never want to see again, but am extremely fortunate and better for having seen. Despite its exquisite illustration of the gloom, depravity, barbarity, and hatefulness harbored by the Taliban regime, possibly the most fundamentally misogynistic political government to have ever existed, I am unable to look away from how beautiful and talented the lead actress Marina Golbahari is, and how she exquisitely and tragically portrays her character, and how heartbreakingly beautiful it would be if, unlike last year with Keisha Castle-Hughes incredible oscar-nominated but not oscar-winning performance, Marina was nominated and actually won. Because folks, if you watch this movie, she deserves it. From a beggar girl on the streets of Afghanistan to portraying the horror of her country's regime to winning America's most prestigious acting award- wouldn't that be an amazing story we could help create?


A simple and sad story told in a beautiful picture, but what makes the film really interesting is the context of it, the dramatic reality of a reli-fascistic society in which women mean nothing that is outlined to us. A reality that fortunately doesn't exist anymore in the same way in Afghanistan, but in various forms is still practiced in a number of countries. The actors are all non-profi's and they play wonderful. The only optimistic thing you can say about the film is that the girl playing the leading part (who was a beggar) could buy a simple house for her and her family after having played in the film.


'Osama' is not this 'cute little foreign film'.

It is, in the lack of better expression, an uproar. A cry for recognition of Asia's Poland, a country everybody has stomped on. A film that clearly shows that unjust people all to easy is allowed free play in too many places in the world. The only hope in this awful and tragic story is that it is actually told, that it's being told by the Afghans themselves, and that it's being promoted in the so influential West (only justice!). Leading actress 12-year old Marina Golbahari is the find of the year, director Siddiq Barmark is a genius. He presents this tale straightforwardly without falling into some sentimental pitfall, and for that he must be praised, 'cause it makes the story hit so much harder.

Generally, Westerners don't see too many 'foreign' films. And that is a pitiful shame. There are not enough letters in the word 'masterpiece' to fully disclose the 'masterpieceness' of 'Osama' (which has no actual connection to the Arab maniac). It is one of the few films that will actually make a difference if this world is to become a better place at all.

Recommends it strongly, but please, don't bring your sweetheart (either gender). Be prepared to be strong, for the end of this film hurts intensely deep into your heart if you have even the slightest sense of justice and compassion for your fellow human beings.

An absolute must-see if one is at all fond of films. Or fond of other people, for that matter.


[WARNING-REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS]

Long before their downfall, the Taliban had virtually no friends outside their fundamentalist, Islamic circle. Certainly they had no international support. Unfortunately, not until they succored Al-Quada leading to the American intervention and continuing occupation were these terrorizing fanatics deposed.

Director Siddiq Barmak's short feature-length film, "Osama," won a Golden Globe for Best Foreign Film. Were an Oscar category for Most Harrowing Movie to exist, "Osama" would face no competition.

Set in Afghanistan, this is the story of a mother and twelve-year old daughter who become unemployed, and threatened with actual starvation, when their hospital jobs end with the tottering and inadequate institution's financial collapse. The mother comes up with the idea of cutting her daughter's hair and sending her out as a boy to earn subsistence money for the two of them and the aged grandmother. A sympathetic man who fought against the Russians with the girl's deceased father gives her employment but a Taliban impresses the disguised girl for a para-military training camp that by comparison makes the Hitler Youth movement look borderline rational.

Marina Golbahari is the young girl and she acts the part of a boy with scarcely concealed terror, especially when she is put into the Taliban training camp where, among other things, she must learn Islamic ablutions involving genitals in a room full of boys. There is not a second of humor in her experiences.

She's eventually detected and she goes on "trial" before a "judge" who, before dealing with her case, sends a foreign journalist to be shot and a European female doctor to be stoned to death. For the girl he pronounces forgiveness at the same moment marrying her to a pederast, a wife-acquiring mullah whose understated depravity leaves a stench in every viewer's nostrils.

This isn't an easy film to watch. It begins with a peaceful demonstration by women demanding work and disclaiming any political motivation. They are violently dispersed by not very many armed Taliban using high pressure hoses and brute force. I had a sense that the many female extras were not so much acting as recreating a reign of terror and a time of privation. The riot scenes are harrowing, the cinematographer focusing closely on frightened and beaten women.

Given Al-Quada's support by the Taliban there exist neither legal nor moral objections to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and our continuing efforts to extirpate any remaining terrorist and Taliban remnants. The more troubling issue, forcefully raised by "Osama," is how a civilized world can tolerate the known misogynistic degradation of women, and many other abuses of basic human rights, without intervening. Can respect for a nation's autonomy or its fundamentalist religion override the duty to alleviate conditions anathema to contemporary conceptions of human rights? We tried German judges for enforcing the notorious Nuremberg Laws that stripped civil rights from Jews and prepared the way for concentration camps and genocide. Should the world now tolerate regimes that in the name of religion kill and torture while subverting the most basic individual rights? "Osama" is a good cinematic brief for a resounding "NO."

The cinematography is sparse and effective-the bleached colors of a ruined town reflecting the hopelessness of its inhabitants.

I expect we will be seeing more from Barmak-I certainly hope so.

9/10.


The winner of Best Foreign Language Film at the Golden Globes last night is the first feature-length film from Afghanistan. Shot by fledgling writer/editor/director, Siddiq Barmak, "Osama," the film exposes the desperation and terror of a beautiful twelve-year-old girl (Marina Golbahari) during the Taliban era in Afghanistan. She becomes her widowed mother (Zubaida Sahar) and grandmother's only hope for survival since the Taliban rule decreed that her female family and thousands of others like them cannot appear in public without a male relative as escort. The Taliban has also decreed that women would not be permitted to work.

The girl, her mother, and a young street urchin, Spandi, (Arif Herati) survive a violently suppressed demonstration launched by Afghan women. The girl and her mother had secretly worked in a hospital until the Taliban dismissed all the staff and closed its doors. Faced with imminent starvation, the girl's mother decides to disguise her daughter as a boy, so that she will have an opportunity to work. They decide upon the name Osama as the disguised young male. The film reaches critical mass when Osama, as a boy, along with Spandi, are taken to a Taliban training camp where it becomes increasingly difficult to keep her sex a secret. Marina Golbahari's innocent beauty and ability to express a wide range of emotions is sure to flower into the making of a talented and beautiful actress.

The film is the epitome of everything negative surrounding the Muslim world's treatment of women. You cannot help but to despise the Taliban's inhuman treatment of women and the palpable fear that even the men experience in a land run by religious and hypocritical zealots. You could consider the film a downer, however, it plays like a thriller, with tensions kept high by focusing intently on the girl. It presents a believable and disturbing window into the soul of a society devastated by repression and war.

Director Barmak shot this film on a shoestring budget with inexperienced actors, and created a cinematic masterpiece. He incredibly elicits professional performances from amateurs, building tension and intensity from the first opening scenes of the Taliban spraying crowds of women clad in shapeless blue Burkas. Since Barmak received much of his training in Iran, the film is typical of the Iranian style of filmmaking by ending abruptly with no resolution of the conflict. It is a film worthy of high praise; however, be prepared for experiencing a great deal of anger and anguish by witnessing the subjugation of Muslim women and children without much resolution or hope.

Opens in the Bay Area on February 27, 2004 and on Feb. 6th in Los Angeles and New York


For a first film, this shows a great deal of visual confidence. The subject matter, about the treatment of women in Taliban-era Afghanistan is, of necessity, depressing. This is a bleak, despairing film about unrelenting oppression, told with a chilling beauty, and blessed with an even, steady gaze at one of the most brutal regimes of recent times.


I read somewhere that Marina Golbahari used the money she made from this film to buy her parents a house in a poor part of Afghanistan. For me this seemed to fit in with the inequality of life that was depicted in this movie. I couldn't help but think that the star of one of the best movies I have seen in years could only manage a cheap house with her earnings while lesser actors in much lesser films earn millions. This movie for me was a real eye opener, not only in regards to the treatment of people under the rule of a military regime, but life in general in Afghanistan. The main point that I got from this movie is that not everyone who lives under a particular government supports or agrees with what they are told to do or with what is happening in their country. Most people just want to raise their children, have food to eat, and to get on with their lives.


hi,

This was my first experience of an Afghani Film, and even though my family is not too keen about the movies i watch, they all gathered and watched this, at various points expressing shock and emotion at what they saw.

The narrative of the film seems hesitant, delicate, unsure in its motion, but yet it has a very natural appeal and is definitely rich in meaning, and beautifully layered.

The DVD i saw also had a featurette with an interview with Siddiq Barmak, the director, editor and writer for the film. His gentle and sincere stories about the movie give a deep insight into what the condition of people in that country is.

I hate watching news, and these days no amount of disasters, riots or war stories affect me, because I simple don't feel like watching them anymore. Films like Osama, tell you true stories and that to me is the magic of the incredible medium called CINEMA.

Siddiq Barmak mentions, in the intervew, Afghani people love to dance, sing and have a great attraction to watch movies... and of course, for a very long time, the had no access to cinema, sometimes a glimpse of some Russian movies maybe. He said the second day after the fall of the Taliban, they reopened a theater... and the people saw a Hindi movie, with dance and singing... and everyone in the theater danced and sang for the pleasure of it. I guess that moment is what cinema stands for.

I hope to see a lot more from this now young nation of potential film makers... the actors in Osama are all off the streets. And the main character, Marina, well, she'd never even seen a television ever before.

A peephole, in the least, OSAMA is a refreshing and touching film to watch... colourful, well framed and brutally honest.


For anyone with even a fleeting interest in human rights, this is a difficult movie to watch. This is the story of an Afghan mother who lost her husband in the war and has no brothers or sons. Women are not allowed to have an autonomous life without some male. With no means of support, she dresses her daughter as a boy, so her daughter can get a job.

The direction and cinematography create an intimacy with this (I would guess) 11-year-old child, as we experience her very real fears. Since the gender roles are so disparate, she struggles trying to present herself as a male.

This is a very sad movie to watch. We feel the pain of these characters without seeing any graphic abuse. It is the daily abuse encountered by all, especially the women, that make this such a compelling movie.

While the central characters drive the movie, the other technical aspects of the movie are extremely well done. The direction is very good. Some of the shots are done with a beauty and grace that is in such sharp contrast with the lives of the Afghan people. The movie opens with a documentary-like feel with the point-of-view of a camera man interacting with a boy begging for money. We get closure on that scene later in the movie. Very good story telling.


Brilliant, fascinating documentary following the lives of a "typical American family" in Santa Barbara, CA, during the early 1970's. The 12 part series was commissioned for PBS, running every Thursday night from January 11, 1973, through March 29, 1973. At the time, I was 8 years old, and I recall much of the controversy surrounding the program, as well as my own family's reaction to it.

Unfortunately, the Loud family purportedly received tremendous public criticism as being cold, materialistic, unsympathetic figures. Having recently viewed the series in its entirety, I find these accusations completely unwarranted. I came of age in the same era; I can say quite honestly that the Louds weren't much different from my own family or any others in our neighborhood for that matter. Admittedly, they were a bit more affluent than "average Americans", but the family dynamics were just the same. They had the same fears, the same desires, the same inability to communicate their feelings that every other American family of the 1970's had.

The series was certainly groundbreaking. Remember, this preceded The Real World by 20 years. The idea of following real people 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to present the whole life experience had never been done before. Make no mistake, though, this is NOT the reality TV foisted on the public today. There's little cursing, no hair-pulling, no fistfights, and none of the trailer-park exploitation fed to Nielsen families in the new millennium. Those who enjoy the obscenity of a Jerry Springer episode definitely should avoid this series.

Although the filmmakers have also been criticized for using their camera to manipulate emotions, the series does appear to be a genuine attempt to simply chronicle the lives of ordinary people. Only once does an obvious manipulation occur, a dramatic cliffhanger at the end of the 8th episode when Pat Loud has decided to divorce her husband, and son Grant is forced to pick his dad up at the airport, knowing exactly what will transpire when they get home.

Additionally, far too much has been written about flamboyant son Lance and the infamous episode in which he "comes out" to mother Pat. Although Lance is a wonderfully outrageous presence and enlivens the scenes in which he appears, he really doesn't dominate the series to the extent one would think. I actually identified more with youngest brother Grant, who at 17, just wanted to strum his guitar and enjoy his last summer before adulthood, while dad Bill preferred his son work. With five children, there are many different archetypes to be found here. I find it difficult to believe that someone couldn't identify with at least one.

An American Family is best viewed from a cultural and sociological context. Indeed, anyone interested in the era should seek out this program. Even when the situations and dialog fail to engage (there are plenty of low-key moments amidst the angst), it's fun to watch a filmed time capsule of 1971 where you can see dial telephones, pop-top beer cans, smoking in retail shops, and defunct airlines like Pan Am. Of course, this is essentially a real-life soap opera, so many poignant moments occur. The scenes where Pat and Bill attend a Santa Barbara fiesta are almost painful to watch, not because of what is said, but because of what isn't. The look on Pat's face as she carefully watches Bill talk animatedly with another woman speaks volumes about the state of their fragile marriage. Another sad moment comes in the now infamous footage of Lance riding his bike through the hills of Santa Barbara, while in voice-over, Bill reads a letter to his son explaining the destruction of the marriage and how he hopes one day he and his son can be friends. Despite the occasionally banal dialog and petty squabbles, this is obviously a family with whom love is deep yet unspoken, and emotions that are universal.

Some have deemed An American Family tragic. I don't think it is tragic from the standpoint that one son was gay or that the parents' marriage dissolved. I don't even think it's tragic because the filming of their lives perhaps accelerated certain unpleasant events, leaving Lance to decry later, "Television ate my family." No, the real tragedy here is that the Louds were really no different from your own friends and family and neighbors, and they still aren't. 35 years later, Americans are no better at communication and solving problems. As a society, we apparently haven't learned any lessons from history either. It's easy to look at another family and pass judgment, especially when the unhappiness you see is secretly a reflection of your own unsatisfied life. Truthfully, the American family is even more broken now than ever before, which ironically, gives this series more relevance today than it had 35 years ago.

**** out of 4 stars


I videotaped most of the series when it reran on WNET some 20 years ago, and I keep trying to like it. But even to this avid TV viewer who lived through that era and is fascinated by cultural anthropology, the show is largely unwatchable.

The problem is that except for a couple of episodes (episode 2 and maybe the one with Lance in Paris), it's dull and slow. What made it shocking in 1973 -- the strangeness of being able to peek into someone else's day-to-day life -- has now been eclipsed by a torrent of tell-all talk shows and contrived "reality shows." Without the show's original voyeuristic shock value, ten of the twelve hours are unadulterated tedium (though I imagine a nifty 100-minute documentary could be culled from the footage).


I remember this show from when I was a college student. I even had a moronic professor who assigned us episodes to watch. It always rubbed me the wrong way, and I had to endure lynch mob-like opprobrium from my contemporaries when I tried to explain why. Especially when I said that I hoped Lance would just get it over with and commit suicide already rather than torturing his family (who loved him and accepted his homosexuality) with his constant false alarms and solipsistic behavior.

The show reminded me of the sort of TV programs shown in the futuristic society depicted in 1966's "Fahrenheit 451". A time and place where books and independent thought were banned. That film (based on an earlier book by Ray Bradbury) seemed dated, even by the 70s, but is more topical than ever now. And it reminded me of this series, where the lives of insufferably self centered people supplant any and all larger concerns, including abstract and critical thought itself. The fact that this travesty ran on a publicly funded station makes it a milestone in the dumbing down of our society.

Group narcissism at it's most nauseating!


I saw `Mile Zero' twice and it moved me to tears both times. Near the beginning of the film, the main character and his wife get divorced and the wife moves on and the husband gets stuck in the past. His incredible love for his son and his complete devastation over the loss of their family unit drives him to whisk his son away to the desolate but beautiful rocky mountains. The journey that ensues is subtle, stunning, moving and well-crafted. I highly recommend this film!


Heartfelt drama about a man coping with being shut out by his wife, and by extension his son. Very gritty, very real. Well acted by all, well executed by Andrew Currie, but like "Born on the 4th of July", not terribly uplifting.


This was an incredible film, that stands alone as being one of the most honest films I have ever seen. It's powerful and brave performances made this film the gripping, sensitive and dark masterpiece that it is. Beautifully shot in BC, the cinematography was as compelling as the story. Mike Riley's portrayal of Derek, the father whose love has no boundaries, is riveting and profound and uncanny in it's honesty. Andrew Currie has created a personal, magnificant film that is all that and a bag of potato chips.


Fine courtroom drama which appears to be about a small change murder involving a pair of street people. But is it? An attorney takes on the case and begins digging deep into the case when evidence turns up that suggests the culprit may have connections other than with simple street bums. Interesting and exciting, though improbable.


Before watching this movie I had some serious doubts about it. Not only is this a courtroom drama (and as you know the streets of Hollywood seem to be paved with this kind of scripts), it also featured Cher as one of the main actresses. I'm not really a fan of her as a singer, but seeing her as a good actress is even a lot harder. As you know, almost all pop diva's, young or old, seem to have that urge to appear in one or two movies and that almost always results in complete disasters. So why would Cher be any different...?

When a judge commits suicide and his secretary is found murdered in a river, a homeless and deaf-mute man, named Carl Anderson, is arrested for her murder, because all indirect evidence points to him. Because he can't afford a lawyer, public defender Kathleen Riley is assigned by the court as his lawyer. Even though she doesn't always believes in his innocence, she still goes after the real killer. She gets help from the congressional adviser Eddie Sanger, who is called to be on the jury panel and together they find some important evidence that the murder has something to do with corruption in some high ranks...

I must admit that Cher has done a better job than I ever expected from her. She actually was very convincing and interesting to watch as the public defender. Together with Liam Neeson she makes this movie work. Their nice performances and their difficult professional relationship in this movie are actually the best thing this movie has to offer. The story on itself certainly isn't that bad, but the plot is a bit far-fetched and gives this movie an ending that is a bit too abrupt.

In the end this is a reasonably well-done courtroom drama / thriller that lacks the required tension to be fully satisfying, but which offers some nice acting and some good direction. It's not the best movie in the genre, but it is enjoyable enough to be worth a watch. I give it a 6.5/10.


Exciting, suspenseful and tightly woven suspense drama.

Cher proves she can ACT.

You probably will not immediately recognize Liam Neeson in the role of the deaf, mute, shell-shocked Carl Wayne Anderson.

For someone that does not speak for the entire film he turns in a stellar performance.

Dennis Quaid is very good as the juror that steps outside his assigned duties as a juror and becomes a detective.

Also John Mahoney is almost unrecognizable as Judge Matthew Helms -- a polar opposite from his "Frasier" character.

When I spoke to Tom Barbour (Justice Lowell in this film, stage actor and the father of Dudley Moore in the "Arthur" movies) he said when he got the script he was thrilled -- the film opens with him, it took place in his office, he had every other line, and then on page three -- well I guess you will just have to see it.

Surprise ending goes right up to the last couple of minutes -- prepare to be shocked.


This movie version of "Suspect" finds Cher portraying a public defender that has been given a murder case in which her client, played by Liam Neeson, is deaf, dumb, and homeless. Unable to verbally communicate in his defense, Neeson has to rely on Cher's ability to search through the evidence to prove his innocence.

Caught up in this courtroom scene is Dennis Quaid, portraying a member of the jury that is unable to keep himself from being drawn to Cher. The judge in the trial also appears to have an overly sense of apprehension in the trial, and seems bent on preventing justice from being served properly. This movie does launch the viewer from one tense situation to another, and the climatic chase scene in the darkened courthouse does keep you guessing.


Anyone who thinks that the United States legal justice system is fair and balanced has been watching too many movies. The poor and the marginalized get convicted and the rich and elite drive away from the courthouse. It's largely a matter of the size of the pocketbook. And it's still amazing how many innocent people are locked away with almost no hope of getting out. "Suspect" is how about a how a homeless man (Liam Neesom) and his public defender (Cher) find themselves in a case that has much larger ramifications than a simple matter of did a homeless person murder the victim for $9.

The aspect that makes this movie a gem is the fine acting: Cher as the overworked and underpaid public defender, Liam Neeson as the deaf/mute defendant in one of his first major roles, Dennis Quaid as a sexy lobbyist (often messing around with congresswomen to get votes for his industry) turned juror turned amateur sleuth, and John Mahoney as the stoic judge at the trial. A lot of it is pure fantasy but the moments in the courtroom are actually very much like a real courtroom in its obsessiveness with procedure and protocol.

The story begins with the suicide of a prominent Supreme Court Justice and the subsequent murder of his assistant who has been slashed to death. When police investigate the surrounding area, they find a homeless man sporting a knife and in possession of the victim's wallet which contained a king's ransom: $9. Cher is appointed to take the case, and Quaid ends up becoming one of the jurors. Because of the suicide at the beginning of the film, Judge Helms (Mahoney) becomes one of the people on the US President's short list to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. Helms requests to preside over the murder case to free up his later schedule in order that he be considered for the vacancy.

Several scenes take us into the bowels of the homeless of Washington DC. We see a lot of lawyers, a lot of law libraries and a lot of knives. Every homeless person appears to wield a knife. Cher with the unlawful help of Quaid (lawyers and jurors in the same trial are not supposed to commiserate, let alone team up) stumbles upon some evidence that makes the case much more complex. A thoroughly enjoyable courtroom drama with enough action to keep you on the edge of your seat, and an interesting commentary on the justice system and how it handles the poor and the homeless. Unfortunately, public defenders are probably not as successful as Cher appears to be.


Cher plays the role of a dedicated public defender who is given a case just as she is about to collapse from overwork. The poor guy has been living on the street for years and is accused of killing a young woman for a lousy $9. He won't talk to police and Cher has to draw him out before she can even begin to find some way to defend him. There are several well planned surprises and I never had the feeling any of the cast were "acting". This is one movie that had me fooled as to who the real culprit was right to the end. I like that! If I can guess the outcome halfway through the movie it is a turn off and total disappointment to me. Seven stars is high for me. It takes a "Lawrence of Arabia" or "Gone with the Wind" to get 10 stars from me.


A no-frills role for Cher playing an over-worked Public Defender whose latest client (forced upon her by the court) is a homeless, deaf-mute male accused of murder. Still, this is a terrific Cher performance: focused, unselfish on the screen, and quite natural; she's charming without effort. Dennis Quaid is a decent match for her as a Capitol Hill lobbyist and juror who wants to help piece together the murder-mystery surrounding a female clerical assistant who had information regarding dirty doings in Washington, D.C. A fairly sophisticated yarn, though one cut straight from a formula. Director Peter Yates does well at keeping the pace lively, though some of the early moments with Quaid are confusing and the script is weighty with contrivances and red herrings. Builds to a strong climax and all the supporting performances are solid. *** from ****


When a deaf-mute homeless man is accused of murdering a federal worker in Washington DC, the public defender assigned to the case assumes he is guilty--until she begins to receive tips about the case from the most unlikely of sources: a member of the jury seated for the trial.

Any one even remotely conversant with the law will find the story so full of loopholes that it is more than a little ridiculous, but it scarcely matters: the cast carries it off in fine style, playing the script with exceptional precision and poise and generating plenty of suspense along the way. Cher is particularly noteworthy as the public defender assigned to the case.

Cher? Playing a Washington D.C. attorney? It's hardly typecasting, but once more Cher demonstrates the depth of her talent: not only is she extremely effective, she is completely believable. The same might be said for both Liam Neeson, who plays the deaf-mute on trial, and Dennis Quaid, who plays the smarmy juror who begins to put two and two together; SUSPECT is clearly Cher's picture, but her co-stars are every bit as good as she.

Although it has its share of courtroom pyrotechnics and suspenseful moments, SUSPECT is a surprisingly low-key and all the more successful for it. When all is said and done we like the characters as people, believe in them, and are glad we met them. While it will never compete with the likes of Hitchcock, SUSPECT is a good, solid, and very unpretentious courtroom thriller executed with a great deal of style. Those whose tastes run in that direction will be very pleased indeed. Recommended.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer


i have just re-watched this film, maybe the 5th time since its release. What a treat!Smart, sexy,dynamic and compelling, socially relevant, with a good moral backbone.All the actors are spot-on. Cher easily convinces us of her serious attorney's commitment to helping society's outcasts;Liam Neeson in his first film role as the silent hulking Viet-vet street person accused of murder; Dennis Quaid at his cocky best as a razor-sharp lobbyist/juror, and John Mahoney and Philip Bosco. The screenplay ,directing and editing are all first rate.And if you pay attention, you can learn a lot about the inner workings of our government's congressional/lobbyist bedfellows and the scary fallibility of our justice system and its judges and lawyers. Some may think this is a piece of romance disguised as a get-into-your subconscious morality play, but i think it's just the opposite. How many films have you seen that convincingly made you put yourself into a street person's shoes and think about your attitudes towards them? I usually am close to agreeing with the IMDb average vote on a film, but not this time. For me, this is a real 10.


I had missed this film during the many years since it was made, and caught it by chance on a Friday afternoon, after a particularly long and hectic week.

I thought I might nod off, but instead I found myself engrossed in it very soon. It has some far-fetched aspects, and as the "goofs" section in this site points out, it wouldn't have been tried in a federal court, but in the local D.C. courts. However, given the rather surprise ending, this would be a necessary variation, given its circumstances.

Cher is not a person whom you reference when thinking of leading, versatile actresses -- but this isn't so. This serious role, as well as a different type in the excellent "Moonstruck," display both her competence and versatility. Dennis Quaid is always excellent, and a favorite of mine, and the remaining cast were as well. John Mahoney's performance is well-delivered, and an interesting performance, in contrast with his more pleasant persona in "Moonstruck," also -- and particularly juxtaposed with his likable presence in the long-running "Frasier" series.

As another pointed-out, there is a surprise ending, if somewhat more abrupt than seems necessary.

But overall, an interesting, entertaining film.


...and being an icon of outrageously glittering entertainment, people resent their idea of a scatterbrain can actually being able to act and speak like normal people. If you stop to think seriously about it, you'll have to admit she's convinced us she's having a wonderful time in her costumes-that-weigh-a-ton numbers, or maybe 2 ounces.....not for a couple of years, but for decades. THAT'S ACTING ! Most pop-artists don't last more than a couple of years. Madonna is successful because she "re-invents" herself, we tell ourselves, but is a DREADFUL actress......well, maybe "Evita". Cher makes no pretense: "this is it, folks." This movie is a good example of just getting lost in one without having to be overly intellectual. The twists in the plot are not earth-moving, but keeps me interested all through it. I, too, wondered why "Michael" was even in the plot, except to make for some scary scenes - worked for me. Also doubted the victim's auto would be left in the parking-lot, intact, for so long.....but, I got over that without having a coronary.

The first scene with The Justice giving a "clerk-typist" an envelope with "hope it's sufficient - use it well" should tell you right now there's some hanky-panky going-on. Perhaps we tend to believe that justices in The Supreme Court are angels, and have no human frailties? Hey - they're APPOINTED by presidents, not elected. You think president's don't have agendas ? Wow! how naive you are ! Because the locale is D C, the incentive for ambition should always be suspect - politicians don't REALLY get there by kissing babies.

Since "Suspect" has been released, we've had several good movies that depict just how our justice-system often works. With professional "juror-pickers" knowing every time you break wind, it's a toss-up whether the jury-system or a panel of judges should try EVERY case - BUT, both groups are homo-sapiens....lots of room for vulnerability and plain-ole stupidness and discrimination in there. The best way to remain "unjudged" is to be good and not get caught in situations you have to be......

Dennis Quaid was great - I'm not familiar with Paul Mahoney, but his role was well-played. Also didn't know who Liam Neeson was at that time, but sure thought he did his role VERY well. The ending scene was surprising to me, because I suspected that OTHER justice-dept guy......

I get my VHSs and DVDs from eBay - why pay $10.00 for a one-time shot in the theater, when the same amount lets you watch whenever you want - even if it isn't so often, and only for a change of pace? I'm one of those guys who can enjoy a movie if you give me a running description of the movie while watching it - but, I also like watching alone at home.....the restroom is a LOT closer !!! Lighten-up, Guys - this is a movie to be enjoyed without having to wrack your brains to figure-out. Gets a 9 from me -


I wasn't sure if the character Carl Wayne Anderson was supposed to be deaf. I thought he was only mute because of the traumas he had experienced. There were also a lot of other actors in the film who were outstanding, including Cher who was very believable.

Anyway, Liam Neeson is a great actor and is very definitely under-rated. He's also extremely appealing to a lot of women, me included. I recommend "Rob Roy" (another movie no one seems to have seen, with Tim Roth as one of the best villains in any movie, ever) and of course "Michael Collins". Not to mention "Schindler's List". It's very strange that Liam Neeson hasn't yet won an Oscar. I haven't seen Kinsey yet.


Can we say go Cher? In this low budget film Cher plays an overworked public defender that is given a high work load instead of her year vacation. In the impossible case ahead of her, she is defending a homeless mute convicted of murder. Dennis Quaid is a Lobbist that has his own problems, but is called to jury duty. In the first scenes of this movie you can tell that Cher needs more than a day off, she needs a man. This impossible case seems to get worse as witnesses seem to murdered, and juror Dennis Quaid illegally helps Cher with her case. This is a wonderful edge of your seat movie with a certin twist that will totally make you want more!


Starring Cher and Dennis Quaid, Suspect is probably one of my most watched movies. It portrays to the viewer the state of the justice system and the criminal justice administration system. It shows that there a people that when overworked, still care about their jobs and the people they deal with on a day to day basis. This is all set alongside a murder in which a homeless man is being accused of. In going after the truth it can only lead to one thing... I reccomend that you consider renting or buying this movie. It is a great one for the family to watch!


This production was a well-done piece of work. Solid performances by all the cast, especially Cher and Quaid, flow throughout the film. There was sufficient suspense and mystery to keep my attention, and the attraction between Cher's and Quaid's characters adds another dimension to this quality movie. I was especially impressed by Cher's abilities and attractiveness in this suspense yarn; I should view more of her works. This film was entertaining and thoughtful, with a cohesive plot and very believable characters, set in the reality of the nation's Capitol. An 8 out of 10.


Suspect is a tremendously portrayed film chock full of suspense, thrills, and a tad of dry humor. Liam Neeson does an excellent job of playing a mute/deaf person, and is extremely believable. This movie is a thrill-ride and a splendid movie to watch when you feel like hunkering down on the couch with a bowl of popcorn and an icy cold coke and just relaxing. I give this movie 5 stars!


This story had so many holes in it you could drive an oil tanker through each of them.

Cher wore black leather in court as a defense attorney? The suspect is deaf and dumb, but Cher talks to him constantly? The suspect overpowers several policeman before he is subdued. But then Cher goes into his cell alone to talk to him? The suspect hits her, but then she continues being around him? What a wreck of a movie.

At various points the dialogue was so bad it must have been written by a graduate of a junior high school creative writing class.

In the middle of jury selection Cher has a lengthy tete a tete with prospective juror Quaid?

In cross examinations the lawyers don't ask questions but speak in declarative sentences constantly?

How can you take a movie seriously with so many preposterous moments in it?


This movie was soooo bad I erased the tape before I finished recording it. Here is why: 1. Jurors cannot contact an attorney during a trial, if they do... mistrial, and if the attorney gets caught it is an ethical violation that would effect their license. 2. No police dept would leave the decedents car in the parking lot, without collecting personal effects of the victim no less. 3. No parking lot would keep a dead persons car parked in their lot for as long as it takes a murder trial to be tried. 4. No female attorney for either side would wear a short, tight, leather skirt during a trial.

For these glaring and about 10 others, this is the worst movie depicting a criminal trial EVER!!!


This is a preposterous film, everything about it is forced and unbelievable. It is occasionally very funny but it's not supposed to be. From the gradual removal of Neeson's facial hair to the music score which sounds like it belongs to a completely different film to the ridiculous attempt at love story plotline to the laughably bad ending. The acting is of soap-opera standards and the plot development is not much better. Perhaps it's really a spoof in which case it's a classic! (3/10)

A V O I D


Honestly now...I read the comments before i watched this feature film, and I must say that I am glad I paid little to no interest in some of the posts i saw prior to my actual viewing. One must wonder what some of the so called "critics" use as the fundamentals for judging when they view different genres of movies.I mean come on now...it's a MARTIAL ARTS MOVIE...what we want to see is martial arts action...if you want a great plot then go and watch a psychological thriller or a drama. However, this is not to say that the plot of the feature film was at all empty, as I would say that the plot was far more fulfilling that our glamorized "Onk Bak". The action in this feature was definitely entertaining, and the special power aspect gave rising to that of "Kung fu Hustle" while still retaining a realistic point of view.

To summarize it all I would say that any martial arts fan or action lover will definitely agree that "Dynamite Warrior" surpasses the expectations beyond that of satisfactory. I rate it a solid 7/10 after all was considered, as it managed to give me a feeling of euphoria after my viewing....something which rarely happens. Do enjoy.


This is one weird movie. I guess the best way to describe this would be sort of a Thai version of Robin Hood in which the hero (Dan Chupong) uses rockets instead of arrows. And boy does this guy have some rockets! He has a ton of little rockets that he shoots at the bad guys and then there's the bad boy that he can ride like a surfboard! I'm definitely going to Thailand for my fireworks this year. And apparently he has flint in his fingertips to light these rockets. That's probably good because you really don't want to be wasting time fumbling around with matches when you are single handedly taking out a large group of cattle rustlers. This is one really weird movie that also features a man who can change from a goofy guy with hair that resembles a tidal wave to an older warrior guy who can fight with the best of them. There is also a wizard, at least I think that's what he was supposed to be, a tractor, talk of menstrual blood, and guys who seem to be possessed by spirits of animals that run like monkeys and can jump about fifty feet. Did I mention the hero rides a rocket? As for the fight scenes, since this is really what it's all about, they are mostly average. Dan Chupong is good, check out the much better "Born To Fight", but he doesn't have very many moves. He can do some Tony Jaa-like kicks and flying knees but they don't have quite the same ring to them as Jaa's. And the director of this movie really loves to show guys getting hit and then spinning in the air about ten times before hitting the ground. That's all good once in awhile but it gets old after about the fifth time. There is a couple of good stunts in the movie as well but unlike Ong Bak, this movie uses CGI and wirework for a lot of stunts. If you think a guy riding a big rocket would look ridiculous, you are absolutely right. And judging by some of the extras I watched, this was apparently supposed to be a comedy as well as an action movie. You will definitely laugh but not at the intended humor which doesn't translate well to the American audience. So in conclusion, the fight scenes were nothing special and this was a very weird movie.


The movie is great if you love rotten teeth.

I love martial arts movies but this thing is a piece o crap. However, if you are plain and simple minded then you should love this movie. Or if you love rotten teeth this is the movie for you.

Terrible movie, worse action and acting.

Waste of time, do not bother with this garbage you will regret it.

The movie is great if you love rotten teeth.

I love martial arts movies but this thing is a piece o crap. However, if you are plain and simple minded then you should love this movie. Or if you love rotten teeth this is the movie for you.

Terrible movie, worse action and acting.

Waste of time, do not bother with this garbage you will regret it.


Dan Chupong, the star of DYNAMITE WARRIOR, would give even Tony Jaa a run for his money (and a film featuring the two of them together would no doubt rival Bruce Lee's showdown with Chuck Norris in WAY OF THE DRAGON for one-on-one action). Chupong, as the rocket-riding hero, has outstanding direction by Chalerm Wongpim to thank for making him look so good. Leo Putt as Lord Wang brings some much-appreciated comic relief to what in lesser hands could've been an overly-grim slug fest of the "mechanical martial arts" variety (wherein the standard katas are performed by actors whose expressions never change). DYNAMITE WARRIOR is a superlative blend of super-heroic feats, Thai martial arts techniques, and magic. There's a schizo sorcerer, a monstrous, man-eating henchman, jumping monkey and leaping tiger underlings, spectacular stunts that need to be seen to be believed (Jackie Chan would be impressed) and rocket-riding. This one more than lives up to the promise of the trailer. A ten-plus. We may very well be seeing a new Golden Age of Action Films.


Tony Jaa- love this guy- he has done for Muay Thai what Bruce lee did for kung fu and he's an awesome martial arts talent. For that reason alone you should see this movie- just be prepared for a LOT of SILLINESS with bottle rockets the size of courier tubes and complete ignorance of gravity and physics and editing in some of the stunts.

This is a great movie for teens into martial arts movies since it has a light handling of adult situations that if I were directing, would probably result in this movie being banned in 18 countries. :-)

I think the roughest scene is when one guy takes a bite out of another guy and even that is handled pretty lightly.

All that cartoonish mockery of a real film experience aside- this a fun little movie about a dude that has stupid bottle rockets and killer Muay Thai skill and a score to settle with a Cattle thief in pre industrial revulsion (some call it revolution) Thailand.

He pairs up with some unlikely allies that started off as dire enemies to fight the ghost of a wizard who is a ghost from his past- using magical amulets to trap demons etc...

I gave this movie an extra two points for being one of the only movies I know of to depict the Thai tradition of "finding your animal spirit" which is a ritual celebrated at Wai Kru festival where tattoos are made of a psychedelic ink that then creates a trance where the recipients "become" the animal the tattoo depicts - this is covered with two characters having tiger and monkey spirits respectively and a wizard activating their tattoos. Of course this is a Hollywood 7 second treatment of an all day ritual but it was still a fun nod to Thai history.

Thai are a very proud people and this shows in their film making- they make a few nods to American movie making but the script continually resounds with a centrism on the Thai, probably because the story is in Thailand :-). This is directed by one of the camera men for Tom yum goong.

The movie also mocks kung fu at the end which is a long held tradition apparently- to make fun of the weaker kung fu compared to the monstrous brutality of Muay Thai and Krabi Krabong.


I've seen hundreds, possibly thousands of movies. I sat through the abomination that was Tomb Raider 2. I watched the blindness producing Torque all the way through. But this.....this was just unwatchable.

I love action/martial arts movies...who doesn't? But this is just awful. First it starts off with some exciting action, then degrades into a truly spectacular piece of crap, with a giant, a wizard, and a monkey man.

Yes, I'm being serious.

Once we met the wizard, I turned it off. No action in the world was good enough to make me keep watching.

This movie had some truly awful acting, even for Thai movies this was bad. The action? boring, with one or 2 memorable scenes which I already saw on the trailer. The hero? only uses his knees. watching him kick the crap out of people the same exact way for 20 minutes gets boring...fast.

Special effects? My god, they were bad...i mean we had the hero riding a rocket like a surfboard....Christ almighty can you believe that crap?! I feel stupider just having watched this movie, I urge you to save some brain cells and skip it. Watch Ong Bak, watch Tom Yum Goong, heck watch em twice, just don't watch this movie.

-Inferno


Talented stuntman/fighter Dan Chupong (Born To Fight) is given little to work with in this repetitive, overlong mess from Thailand. Clearly hoping to bask in the financial glory of Ong Bak and The Protector (aka Tom Yum Goong), this film seems rushed and it shows. The plot is terrible and the acting is substandard (even for a Thai film). The action scenes are poorly conceived and filmed. Slow motion is used for shots that don't deserve it and money shots almost always feature a cutaway revealing the choreographer's complete inability to make the action scenes work. If they get any credit, it's that they don't stoop even lower and use the horrible "shaky, camera on a string" crap to further cover the shortcomings! The character's are cardboard and the set's look like, well, sets! The special effects are cheap (as in most modern Thai films).

Just a reminder to those Thai filmmakers who wish to emulate Ong Bak-

1. Get talented martial artists & stuntmen

2. Concentrate on the quality of the fight scenes and don't give in to CGI and cutaways.

3. Keep the plot simple (the best martial arts films usually have minimal plot)

If you are going to ask those talented stuntmen to risk injury or death, at least try to make a film worth them getting injured for!


I actually own a mix of over 40 old and new martial arts movies. I have also seen recent productions like City of Violence(Korea)and Kill Zone(china)and despite my great exposure to the genre this movie's boldness in comedy, creative and action makes it stand out as the most fully entertaining action movie in a few years. I have seen ong bak, the protector, and born to fight all form the same director and enjoyed all three very much. This movie fits right in; yet still stands out because of the originality, at least in the west, of its story. The main actor was very good and convincing in his fighting. I think the director is the among the best fight action choreographers and photographers in the movie industry second only to matrix legend yuen woo ping and tied with Corey Yuen.


For the Supernatural regulars out there, we know how marvelous this show can be. This episode goes ABOVE AND BEYOND any of the great shows we've seen so far!! Far from the comedic atmosphere of Tall Tales and Hollywood Babylon, this episode is much more somber.

Jared and Jensen are both brilliant actors, and, especially in Jensen's case, this episode shows just how talented they are. I taped this episode and have watched it four times in the past three days. The insight into the mind and soul of Dean Winchester makes this episode a must-see. It is touching, tragic, inspiring, and simply wonderful. This episode has just become my favorite Supernatural to date. I HIGHLY recommend that long-time fans and newcomers alike see it is at all possible!!!!


At first glance, this episode is wonderful. Funny, achingly sad, and adorable all at once. But look a little deeper and you'll find that What Is and What Should Never Be shows a level of sophistication, acting, series and character continuity, and polish, that will blow you away.

Jensen Ackles knocked this one out of the park. Though he always does an exceptional job, he really took it up a notch this time. Never an off moment in the whole show. I have heard him referred to as a subtle actor before, and I think that comes through in this episode. The facial expressions, the gestures and movements are all spot on. You don't have to wonder how his character is feeling; it's written right there on his face, and in his eyes, for all to see. He's heartbreakingly sincere. Spectacular. Jared Padalecki also did an excellent job in this one.

A definite must see for newcomers and regulars alike.


In Illinois, while chasing a Djinn in an old building, Dean is attacked by the creature and faints. When he wakes-up, he is in Kansas, living with the sexy Carmen; his mother Mary is alive; Sam is graduated in Law School and engaged with Jessica, but they do not have a good relationship. Dean wonders whether his innermost wishes have been granted by the Djinn, but he is haunted by visions of a weird young woman.

"What Is and What Should Never Be" is another great episode of the Second Season, actually one of the best of this series. The acting is top-notch and the dramatic story with another reality is excellent. One of the funniest moments is when Dean questions whether the Dijnn gave a "supernatural acid" to him. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Apenas um Sonho" ("Just a Dream")


This episode has to be one of my most favourite, FAVOURITE eps of all time. It was heart wrenchingly beautiful, enormously sad, and absolutely charming. I had heard a lot about this episode before i actually got to watch it, but it lived up to, and blasted past, all my expectations. Dean gets to see how life could have turned out had hunting never been apart of his and Sam's lives. The acting surpassed anything i could and would have expected from Jensen and Jared, Jensen especially. His reaction upon seeing his mother for the first time, was so heart wrenching. He played the confusion factor brilliantly, the guys face is like a book, you can read everything Dean is feeling throughout the whole ep. There is an absolutely adorkable moment with a lawn moment, I just wanted to hug Dean and squeeze his cheek lol. Jareds acting as the wussy brother was brilliant. Sam would have been a complete soft touch if the deamon hadn't shown up when he was a baby put it that way lol. The addition of pictures of Jared and Jensen when they were younger, as a younger Sam and dean were such a brilliant touch lol, loved it. The attention to detail on this programme is phenomenal. Especially things like drawing your attention to the fact that Dean didn't have his usual amulet necklace, by using an uber shiny one which makes you go 'hey wheres dean necklace?' Anyway, the ending is brilliance on screen, the choice between everything you'v ever wanted, or the lives of everyone you have ever saved i bow down to the brilliance of kripke and the acting abilities of our guys *bows* definitely one to be watched over and over...and over ...and one more time :D XsarahX


What is and never should be is great insight into the character development of the two main protagonists. I love how the show talks about Dean's need for family stability; Sam and Dean's relationship is glued by their work; They are so different they complement each other. Dean's over confidence cause the show trouble, and his duty and honor is his salvation. Dean's life would be one of trouble if he never had the outlet of hunting. The monster is well done. The ending gives the reason for the mission, and create round characters out of Sam and Dean. 10 out of 10. Watch the summer rerun. What is and never should be is a fresh and different episode which build depth for the series.


Boy meets girl. There are a mountain of movies that attempt to tell a love story and disappoint and fall flat. JASON'S LYRIC is... unforgettable -- a love movie to enjoy many times.

The greatest strength to this love story is the same as the key strength in the world-wide hit LONG VACATION tv series exported from Japan: as the story unfolds the viewer deeply and personally cares about the boy and the girl. The characters become real and we feel as they feel. Intense. Unforgettable.

Highly recommended, but keep in mind that there is grit, drugs and depictions of violence in this movie.


One endeavor in filmmaking that quite frequently doesn't turn out well is mixing genres. "Jason's Lyric" combines crime drama, love story, and ghetto film-and does it surprisingly beautifully. The acting is remarkable, the script is remarkable, and the emotion is remarkable. This movie could have turned out very pretentious and very cheesy. Apparently, the directors, writers, and producers completely acknowledged this, and refused to let that happen. The characters are very well developed and, while the movie doesn't justify Josh's actions, it does convey compassion for him. It also provides new insight on what it's really like to live in a ghetto. If you can find this movie (after all, I saw it on Showtime and haven't the video in any stores) totally see it!!!!


It isn't often that you get to see a compelling film that deals with human sacrifices, love and the courage to find a true identity to lead a good moral life. . .

Jason's Lyric was one film that became that testament of many issues combined. For me it's not just a film but more in terms of reaching out to those unfortunate souls living a somber life and helping to reflect on those wishing to make a change for the best.

Allan Payne, Jada Pinkett and Bokeem Woodbine all give electrifying performances. One of the strongest issues the film dealt with was Payne's relationship as a brother to troubled Woodbine. The disturbing part for me though was Forest Whittaker's performance as the father who go's berserk after the Vietnam War, losing all sense of morality for himself and his family.

A brilliant film, I can't recommend this film enough.

8/10


All of the characters had a back history. I could see the cause and effect (why the characters were the way they were) in the film. The actors were believable. Each time I watch it (at least twice a week), I see something new. "Jason's Lyric" has inspired me to get on the bus and stop watching it go past. The symbolism in the movie was refreshing. The cinematography was excellent as well, every part of the film enhanced the whole. "Jason" gave me hope that a man can commit in a relationship; he just has to want to do it. He made me dream again of lovely words and warm embraces. "Lyric" assured me that closing up was not the answer but trying to love again is the way to get the magic back....


If Hollywood was more equitable in its hiring practices, Jada Pinkett would be in the league with Halle Berry, Sandra Bullock, and others of her generation. Pinkett, who gave a bravura performance (along with Queen Latifah) in the earlier "Set It Off," is no less than brilliant as "Lyric," sought after by the hard-working "Jason," played by another neglected thespian, Alan Payne.

Both Pinkett and Payne deliver as the lovers torn between the attraction to each other and the responsibilities of family and work that interferes with their relationship.

Forest Whitaker is marvelous as Payne's father, a man that must deal with his own personal demons, along with an estranged relationship with his wife, wondrously played by Suzanne Douglas. The rest of the cast (Bokeem Woodbine, Lisa Nicole Carson, Eddie Griffin, among others) are exceptional in a story that is both tragic and uplifting.

And the "love scene" between "Jason" and "Lyric" is enough to make the most open-minded of viewers blush.


Jason's Lyric is a truly great love story with a superb cast. The performances by Bokeem Woodbine as Josh, and Forest Whitaker as MadDog are strong and convincing. Complemented by a superb soundtrack, this movie should not be missed. Jason's Lyric should have received more theatrical exposure letting the main actors and supporting cast shine.


I was very surprised at how good this movie was. My rottweiler, Lyric, who is now 13 years old was in this movie when she was 7 weeks old. I named her Lyric after the role of Jada Pinkett. Lyric went on to be an American/Canadian Champion. Her show name is Am/Ca CH. Von Traeger's Lyric. The movie took place in the 3rd Ward in Houston, Texas. It was awesome being on the set during the filming of this movie. I am looking at showing Lyric at the "Reliant Center World Dog Show" in Houston this next Month. She will be shown in Veterens Class 12 years and older. This is a rottweiler specialty show. Thank you for letting me share. Kerri


Jason's Lyric wasn't a great film theatrically, as it had small promotions. Judging by the title and cast, i didn't expect a good film. It was actually a great film with powerful performances. It tells the story of Two brothers (One good and One Bad) living with their mother in a rough area. Jason played by Allen Payne is sensible and taking care of his younger brother Joshu. Joshua played by Bokeem Woodbine is a little crazy and has a violent side to his personality. Its a half love story and half action movie thats worth the watch. Allen Payne delivers a good performance. Bokeem Woodbine is terrific, see him in Dead Presidents also. Jada Pinkett looks ultra sexy and plays the love life of Jason. There are some fabulous Sex scenes, Jada looks fantastic. Overall, Good realistic storyline and deserves a chance.


I had my qualms about seeing this, but finally took it out. The acting and direction are super. The story surprised me, and I really felt for these characters. Forest Whitaker is another one of our great underrated actors. I give this a 10, and I rarely do that with films I review.


The Movie Is Good and Worth The Money To Rent.

The N.C-17 Version Has The T.V. Shop Sex Scene Where Allen Payne and Lyric Are Bumping Against And On The Counter. The Movie Express Good Moraling And A Little Suspense Of Who Shot The Step-Dad On The Abuse Scene.... Advise This To Teens And Early Aged Adults... *Spoiler: The Forest Sex Scene Show's More Than You Need To See Such As: Lyric Breasts and Ass and Allen Payne Butt, Which I Really Didn't Dig. Go Rent It Today..


There must be 10+ setups for each scene, where the lighting is perfect, as if it was a student filmmaker's first 35mm film. There's absolutely no style, and no thought of how the film would work as a whole. Most of the pickups are wasted coverage. There's hardly any genuine suspense, and the ending feels totally forced, as does the last tacked-on song.

Why is it that most new filmmakers are too busy trying to prove they can run a film production, run a show just like the pros? Why can't they focus on the end point - how the film will affect those who witness it? This filmmaker makes absolutely no point in what he does, except to show how unskilled he is as a storyteller.

Not to compare the two, since they are completely different types of films, but if you want to see real amazing direction, in which the story unfolds with tremendous, unsuspecting power, see THE PIANO. Jane Campion's direction could teach many that it's not the coverage, and multiple set-ups, but the performances, pacing and story that goes first.


A great and wise director (whom shall remain nameless) once remarked A movie is dangerous if only for the mood it may evoke, and the choice of when to see a movie is just as important as the movie you choose to see. IF YOU WERE YOUNG, is the kind of movie that will definitely change your mood, no matter the mood you were in prior to viewing it. Fukusaku Kinji, the director of this wonderful lesson, has remarked that during the time of this film the Japanese Social System was concerned with encouraging the youth of the country to try and find a way for themselves, to NOT be so easily discouraged by failure and that failure in reality is a path to starting again. Fukusaku not only explores the potential possessed by youth but he also wades through the delicate subject of the criminal nature that exists in us all.

What starts out as a GROUP of friends eventually BOILS (literally) down to ONE. Only one friend remains standing at the end of this film and his remark to himself is that HE TOO WILL START OVER because after all there is always hope. Perhaps in a cheeky kind of way Mr. Fukusaku was being cynical in his portrayal of youth in this film.

For example: after spending a night in Jail the young men of youth are released, bounding with energy and full of Hope deciding to pool their monies to buy a truck. HERE Fukusaku shows us that JAIL for wayward youth can be a wonderful opportunity for self discovery. I doubt many youth would find that to be the case, Nevertheless this is where the story begins...EVENTUALLY each youth is lost---victims of crime, circumstance or missed opportunity after each of which Mr. Fukusaku would have us believe that underneath disappointment lies opportunity. Cynical? Perhaps. YET Fukusaku also shows us that YOUTH by it's very nature is NOT a time to RAGE (most likely because of how simple it is for disaster to strike) BUT a time for introspection, a time to TRY and challenge oneself--- to be something one may not believe one can be. Quite simply... there is always hope.

RAGE is a subtle bittersweet film. To be watched on an early rainy afternoon with the lights out and the curtains open. A film that is both cynical and optimistic. Perhaps in his end, Fukusaku Kinji realized, like that great director who lectured on whispers in film language, that films in themselves ARE moods, slaves to the Genre they must obey. Sure there may be many who will never consider RAGE to be one of the great directors best but in my humble opinion it is easily the most enlightening picture in his masterful oeuvre.


While not denying the criticisms leveled by other reviewers, I found a resonance in this movie that transcends the narrow framework on which it is set, the economic challenges of Japan in the 1960's.

The situation has been fairly well laid out--five friends, drawn together in a dream of hope for the future in a heartless city, the weak are weeded out, the two who succeed find no happiness.

But the film is not about the story of a dream deferred, it is the story of the individuals. Each of these characters is defined not by what they are striving for together, although that is the one thing they share in common, but by the weaknesses in their characters, the baggage they have brought with them from childhood, that have made them who they are and conspire to defeat their goals. One was traumatized by his mother's promiscuity, which creates an insurmountable barrier in forming intimate relationships; one was twisted by his insecurities into becoming a chronic liar and vicious coward. These characters rage more against their personal demons that betray them at every turn more than they are fighting against society.

They want to fit in, to form loving families, to trust and sustain their friends, but they end up betraying one another. It would be accidental if it weren't consciously decided upon, and even they are unable to articulate why they must behave as they do. Their own confusion is translated to the audience, and the cinematography contributes to this.

There is a bleakness to the film despite the vivid colors, but at the same time there is a sense that the surviving characters have not given up hope for the future, and the final message in this film is the same as in "Battle Royale"--Run for all you're worth. Run!


This film is a gritty; low budget title portraying the lives; profits and perils of 5 young youths searching for their way of life. The film follows five outcasts whom have little education (middle school at best) and a tough upbringing. Plot so frequent with Fukasaku's Yakuza films of the 70's and a definite signature blue print for his other films.

The film is also a great perspective of hard tough life of working class young men in Japan. They end up in jail early on and decide to form an alliance to acquire a truck. They will use the truck and their skills at building sites for manual labour gain and profit. They have an aid at the site who acts like a semi business man semi control freak hence workers' union coming into play later in the film in vengeance of their workers' rights.

The film is a great example of the techniques Fukasaku is a master at. Lots of close up camera angles; excellent drawbacks-pausing and movements mimicking the object-person in question. For instance the last scenes is of one of the young men running on the beach. Fukasaku employs a shaky control of the camera on the man running. Far more realistic impression as someone following from close by instead of the smooth track usage which gets boring in my opinion.

For those of you into Yakuza films yet wonder what many mobsters may face from early in life this film is an ideal acquisition to discover a master in his pre film rich era of the 70's. The film is also an early form of Takashi Miike's Young Thugs double bill which is ever so interesting. I can see why Miike got the concept form.

The film is a great show of young men coming from the bottom trying in vain with extremes to make a better life. It is an interesting critical analysis of the economic structure of Japan and a thoroughly engaging and entertaining piece at that. The casting is good and the violence is as ever extremely authentic.

I recommend this film as a must for anyone eager to see a signature yakuza Fukasaku film or just a great straight up youth gangsta-tough guy life-style document of an unhealthy aspect of Japan's social past. Great watch.


another fukasaku film that sorta reminded me of Suzuki's style. like "blackmail is my life," this film focuses on the younger generation. it tells the story of four young men who can't quite stay out of trouble. eventually the get the idea of putting together some money in order to buy a dump truck and work for themselves. the story is told in a jumbled time structure - retelling the story of how they came to buy the truck and how two of them ended up dropping out of their business venture. really it's the story of japan and the potential the country had in the years following the American occupation. as Kurosawa's High And Low showed the best and worst of Japanese society in the early 60s, this film shows the potential of a country that was newly industrialized, but still coping with the changes of capitalism and being humiliated by world war II. fukasaku successfully shows hope and fatalism, optimism and pessimism, the power of the group and the importance of finding one's own path. the ending reaffirms these themes and adds a poignancy and power that the rest of the film only skirts. B.


Group of guys grow up together, go different ways...couple go bad, couple buy a truck. Act like it's the greatest thing in the world until the end when one decides he needs a new start. The big conflict was when they scratched the truck...I just didn't get it. Other than the fact that the director went on to do Battle Royale I can't think of any reason to see this. Ending made no sense to me at all.


this movie isn't my cup of tea.i couldn't watch it all,since i lost interest,but form what i saw,it just wasn't good.i just found it boring,with pretty bad acting,and a plot that is all over the place.it's a Russian made movie,the second i have seen now.the first one being Nightwatch.i didn't like that movie either.it also has a plot that doesn't make a lot of sense,at least in my opinion.anyway,Mirror Wars starts off promising enough,with some scenes of jet fighters doing maneuvers,which look pretty impressive.after that though,it's not so good.i wouldn't recommend it myself,but if you liked Nghtwatch,you might like this movie.for me,Mirror Wars is a 3/10


A disgrace trying to be a mirror of the L.A.P.D. A few aging stars coasting through a terrible script. Dirty cops wanting to turn against other dirty cops. Cops that don't want to be cops. Unrealistic, over-kill on the gun fire. Front line cast is made up of: Dennis Hopper, Michael Madsen, Marc Singer and Charles Durning. A glimmer of promise from Kiara Hunter, Carolyn Dunn and Brenda Campbell. This movie can serve as background noise while passing around the party dip and refilling the cold refreshments. I guess there is no law for bad acting. Even the simulated sex is terrible.


I couldn't believe that I was seeing Charles Durning, Marc Singer, Dennis Hopper and Mike Madsen in such an incredibly asinine movie. The only reason I watched it to the end was that I might see at least one or two good scenes that might redeem it. This didn't happen.

As a former Law Enforcement Officer, I was appalled to see the Los Angeles Police Department portrayed as a group of bumbling buffoons and gangsters. Equally bumbling was the direction of this movie. Example: Minor cast members awkwardly gawking about sets, obviously lacking experience as to how to fit in with a scene. Don't waste your time with this one. It isn't even fit for falling asleep on.


This has got to be the worst film I have ever seen. I would have thought with the likes of Dennis Hopper, Michael Madsen and Charles Derning that it would have had some hope. Nope, not here. This movie is so bad I don't know where to start. Six people in a closet shooting at each other and no one gets hit. Not even a hint at police procedures. Moronic writing at it's best. I don't think any of the police cars even had matching light bars. Using lights and sirens on a code 2 call. I am going to have to look to see who was technical adviser, as who ever it was they know nothing about the LAPD, or even Mayberry PD much less Barney. Just a complete waste of 98 minutes of my life I will never get back.


To Protect and Serve: Protect us the viewer and serve the acting to the dogs. Why oh Why did I rent this? Because of Dennis Hopper. After all, he has made some good films, even very good ones. I saw him on the cover, and instead of checking IMDB first, I took a chance. This trash is the Plan Nine from Outer Space version of modern law enforcement. If I were a LAPD employee, a LA criminal, a citizen of LA, even an alien from Mars, I would demand that all money used in this production be used to burn all copies of this wherever they may be. Considering the absolute total ineptness of the acting, directing, and writing efforts here, there may be only enough loose coin to burn just one copy. Dennis Hopper was in this for 3 maybe 4 minutes. And you could plainly see he was over acting. Dennis, do not add this to your filmography. This is a very, very bad film.


I saw this DVD on a clearance rack for $5, and having never heard of it prior to that moment, decided to pick it up seeing as it had Dennis Hopper. Sadly, the movie barely even has Dennis Hopper in it, and the scenes he is present for showcase some of his worst acting to date.

I am truly amazed that the two main characters can even consider themselves actors due to their complete incompetence at acting in general. The plot is absolutely ridiculous and to make matters worse, the scenes involving the police officers and vehicles were not even slightly accurate to what would happen in a real situation similar to that.

Perhaps my favorite part of the movie was the sex scene, which had to be one of the most pathetic scenes ever put to film. The man's facial expression suggested that his toenails were being ripped off and was one of the few times that a scene in a film has brought me to tears from laughter. The gunfights are just as "mind-blowingly" bad. The film starts off with two men with machine guns surrounded by around ten police officers all within around 30 feet ducking behind police cars for cover. And amazingly, the police go through countless rounds without a hit on either man for a few minutes. Add in how the men who play the criminals aren't even trying due to their lack of acting skills whatsoever, and you have an awful beginning to an equally awful film.

Truly terrible movies only pop up once in a blue moon, but L.A.P.D.: To Protect and Serve sets the bar for bad. Not only is it an extremely non- entertaining piece of garbage, but it rivals Manos: Hands of Fate on my list for the worst movie I have ever seen. Dennis Hopper, who had brilliant performances in films such as Speed, should feel ashamed to even make a brief cameo in this sorry excuse for a film. Sadly, IMDb does not allow me to rate it lower than a 1/10, because LAPD does not deserve even a tenth of that point.


Please tell me what happened to the great actors Dennis Hopper and Michael Madsen? Were they short of money or what? What possessed them to be in such a crap movie? I have always been a fan of these actors, but they lowered their standards to "Z" grade acting in this piece of rubbish movie. The scenes were corny and had the hallmarks of a cheap porn movie, without the actual porn! The acting was woody and not convincing at all. They should not have associated themselves with the Los Angeles Police Department, as the movie is an insult to any law enforcement agency.It took me ages to appreciate these actors after that. Michael Madsen did a good job in Kill Bill 1 & 2, so thankfully he redeemed himself.


The worst movie ever,Even Howard the Duck was a masterpiece compared to this tax shelter. Ed Anders and anyone associated with this piece,should goto every video store and buy all the copies so there is no trace they worked on it. Ed,you should of put the director as Alan Smitty.You must be ashamed,i am for you,and we have never met. This has the production value of a well budgeted porno,and acting to match. I want my life back!!!


I found this DVD at Big Lots for $2. With badly photoshopped images of Dennis Hopper and Michael Madsen (obviously from a Reservoir Dogs promo) on the cover, I had very low expectations. But I'll give this movie credit. At least the director has some idea of what he was doing. Unlike other crap films like "Cheerleader Ninjas" and "Tha Sistahood", this one could actually direct the camera in a way that didn't make you want to blow your brains out. But when saying the director wasn't doing hits off of a crack pipe while working is the best compliment to give a movie, that's still pretty bad.

The story is basically about how corrupt the LAPD is. This corruption is basically revolving around a half dozen or so cops. That's pretty well contained, I must say. There's also a subplot of guys robbing convenience stores that goes nowhere. And another subplot of the main guy's love affair with a cop groupie. That one may be uninspired, but the sex scene is probably the funniest I've ever seen in my life. The two roll around naked under covers in the most awkward positions possible while the guy grinds his loins and gives the most painful grimaces is the history of man. Honestly, it just has to be seen to believed.

Casting sucks. Dennis Hopper is in the movie for a total of about 10 minutes, and looks like he's in physical pain having to deliver the insultingly bad script. Madsen is in there for more and seems less affected, but he's no stranger to a bad script. I've sat through films with him that were much worse, so this is nothing new to him. The hot young cop who owns the nickname Cowboy (because, you know, they want to be original) looks about 40. One fatboy cop, who looks mid-thirties, has a non-touching scene with his "mother" of 45. The constant unexplained parties at fatboy's "mansion" have the same people who seem not to change their clothes for weeks on end.

But the worst part of this film is the logic. Cops w/ bullet proof vests take shots like Superman without barely a flinch. Whenever there's a shootout within 20 square feet, nobody considers taking cover from the bullets. And why should they? Trained LAPD officers are known for being terrible shots anyway, right? There's also no sense in ballistics when detectives come around.

Bottom line, this film may suck noodles but I've seen Madsen in worse (Against All Hope, Executive Target, My Boss's Daughter, etc). Unless you're a big fan of his, as I am, stay away from this film.


A lot of my friends worked on this movie. They said there were tons of cop-movie in-jokes here and everybody would crack up between takes, with cast and crew having a good time during all those party scenes. They said Marc Singer (remember Beastmaster ?) was a really cool guy, Madsen laid back and Hopper (gettin' kinda' creaky in his way) but still stretching his chops. Its just a low-budget flick fer' gosh-sakes. Sincere in its ponderous way and way better than any million-dollar stinking Seagal or Stallone crap-shoot. Course you can bet your ass nobody was getting $20 million to star in this. Like, you all were expecting maybe "Miami Vice" ? Morally, I figure this flick is a hell of a lot better than some reprehensible 'fun' slasher-crap flicks that fanboys seem to eat up like so many catsup-dripping hotdogs. Hell, I bought this movie in a discount bin at Blockbuster, expecting the worst and surprised to get more than my money's worth. Charles Durning was pretty solid in this and the twist at the end was totally unexpected. And without a doubt, I agree with some of the other comments that the gals were definitely HOT ! This is just a freakin' low-budget movie with all the exploitation elements intact, and every dollar up on the screen. Controversial ? Not really. Amusing ? Yes. A good movie ? Well, better than a lot of the big-budget studio crap that's out there...


I Absolutely loved! This movie it was excellent,Michael Madsen was great the story was great,The sex was superb seeing her wonderful tits, If you see this movie anywhere you must buy it! Without a doubt the action is the best, The shootouts. Despite all the bad reviews this is the third best movie I have ever seen! If you love Michael Madsen watch this NOW! It should be at number 3 on the best movies ever made list! COME ON! how couldn't you love it Michael Madsen HUGE fan! The story is the best. Great sex,Great shootouts, Ed Anders directing is the best! Anyone who disagrees is Mentally insane! I payed $14.95 for it it's worth every penny.This movie is pure exellence and all my friends agree with me. I give it 10/10 the BEST!


This movie was Fantastic with Michael Madsen and Dennis hopper. The story is great,Excellent Action,Great Sex, I without a Doubt Loved this movie Because I love Michael Madsen He is the greatest Actor Ever! Especially In Reservoir Dogs Which I loved! It was Sad to see his character Die. Ed Anders Directing is Superb with Michael Roberts and Charles Durning. I loved the sex scene seeing her wonderful tits and ass. The shootouts were Fantastic with blood and Gore I love violence more than anything If you see this one buy it immediately Whatever the price mine cost $14.95 trust me its worth every penny of your money if you loved this one then you will love Jason goes to Hell which I loved it was fantastic


If you forget about "authenticity" and whether or not the bullet left the body at the right angle or that no-one can shoot straight because they've forgotten their training and just panicked and started shooting wildly or that someone needed longer arms than are humanly possible or whatever and just had a look at the story, you'll find a good movie.

You see how easily and innocently unsuspecting straight cop gets pulled into web of bad cops and how well it sticks. You see futility and desperation as he tries to escape and his final resolve. You also see some pretty bizarre acting by D. Hopper as he seems to be playing it for a black comedy.

As far as movies go this does rate higher than a home-made video but not much farther along the path to Hollywood BlockBuster than say a very amateurish B grade show. Because this was based on actual events the story is the movie and it's interesting to see how it all took place or at least how easy it is for this corruption to be going on.

My rating 7/10 (Distinctive)


I read a lot of positive press about this Canadian-shot film, first when it was being made (in Vancouver) and soon after its release. Apparently the movie has been sold to every country in the world. Not bad for a modest little cop movie, featuring dependable names like Marc Singer (an 'iconic' actor as the earth-hero in the 1980's alien TV-series "V"), twitchy Michael Madsen (no doubt nabbing his spot in the new Bond film, due to all the hype surrounding his appearance here), good ol' Charles Durning, and venerable Dennis Hopper.

Hopper weaves in and out throughout "LAPD" as an LAPD Division commanding officer. Singer is your basic good cop and Durning plays his Dad. Madsen plays a dirty cop (naturally).

I give kudos to Marc Singer for delivering a modest, yet impressive performance.

The movie is based on real life events, and there is more than enough blood 'n guts gun-play action here, coupled to numerous gorgeous (and gorgeously nude) women, to provide many entertaining diversions.

I always get a kick out of the films produced by 'Maurice Smith Productions' and this show is no exception. Whether its 1969's "Cycle Savages" (with Bruce Dern), or Smith's 1980's (Roger Corman co-produced) teen comedies like "Screwballs" or "Recruits" (a hell of a lot funnier than any of the "Police Academys"), his films have always had a unique stamp of 'eccentricity' to them, usually to compensate for the budgetary constraints that most independent films (ie. non-studio films) have to deal with.

If Smith can make a movie (that really DOES look like a movie) with the small budgets that he usually has to work with, then I am looking forward to see what he can do with some reel money. I hear he has a western, a sci-fi action piece and a supernatural mystery already lined up.

The best is yet to come, I'm sure ...


I finally got to see this movie, and pretty glad I did. I know Lepage a bit because of works he did in theater (and the fact that he usually does plays is pretty obvious in the way the film is made, if you pay attention, specially the way he uses the background in many scenes).

I first have to warn a few people who are thinking about seeing this movie. Although the magic of it, by the way Lepage plays with scenery, background and various imaginative, non-realistic shots, is pretty accessible to everyone (like say Big Fish is), some people might discard the plot as simplistic and unworthy. If it is hard to actually say the opposite, the point is that to make a plot that's original or particularly thrilling wasn't the goal. It's basically just the day to day life of a dreamer who isn't quite successful in any aspect of his life (would it be on a professional or social basis). But the movie wants to show that despite theses lacks, the main character (I forgot the name) is still an original person, with imagination et interesting thoughts. To make that point, I might take the various imaginary scenes where Lepage take us, or simply the video the guy shots fort the SETI program. You'll notice that most of the interesting commentary and clever interventions by the main character are made while shooting this movie, and that he is alone doing so. It just emphasis the fact that he's apparently quite boring, but actually an interesting person.

Another clever idea in the movie is that there actually isn't many differences between the shots taken during the children hood of the guy (in the 70's) and the on taken in 2000, while he's 40. Besides, many transitions take place from 2000 to the 70's or the other way around without any warning. This is to show that the character didn't really evolved much. He was a dreamer when younger, and unlike many he didn't change when he grew up.

About transitions, they all are very very smooth, and you end up at the end of the movie not so sure if it wasn't only one long shot. Any viewer able to appreciate a movie for anything else but it's plot should see this one. The soundtrack, mostly Beethoven songs, is also quite fit.


I would have liked to have given this film a 9.99, since there were two scenes which I felt were just a bit too long. Since it is closer to a perfect ten than a perfect 9, however, I had to give it a 10.

"Far Side of The Moon" is an absolute gem of a film. Robert Lepage is another one of those depressingly competent people who writes, directs and stars in his own films. It is so enchanting that its length (under an hour and three quarters) seems even shorter than it is.

"Far Side..." is chock full of the most carefully constructed sequences I have ever seen in the cinema. There is literally not one frame that has not been carefully nurtured and coaxed into place--like a piece of a brightly colored mosaic--to create what must be one of the most seamlessly engineered set of images in film history.

There are no "stock" shots in this film. Not one shot is ever simply thrown in to get on with the plot. Each scene segues beautifully into the next, each is composed with the utmost care. This is what film making should be.

While the movie relies servilely on (often complex)special effects for the realization of its vision, these techniques are not there just for the "wow" factor; rather they are all in the service of a unified directorial vision, full of resonant symbols and painterly motifs that seem always to reach toward each other as if in a dance.

You would think that this obsessive attention to setting and color and detail would make the movie stiff and formal. But it does not. First of all, Lepage (and his character Philippe) are full of such self-deprecating irony that there are almost as many laughs as there are sighs of wonder in the movie.

But moreover, the film is a supremely dramatic and melancholic tale, . Lepage has created in his character Philippe probably the greatest sad sack since Nabokov's Pnin. You can't help but feel for the poor helpless loser, tricked by his hyperactive and poetic imagination into a failed marriage, a failed university degree, and a failed relation with the only two family members he has.

Funny, tragic, witty, and visually splendid. Why don't more moves like this get made?

Numer of car chases: 0 Number of gun shots: 0 Number of psychopathic killers: 0 Number of action heroes: 0


I read nothing of this movie before going in and I'm glad I didn't. I think I would have been put off by any reviews.

This is a great story of human interaction and sibling connection while exploring the depths of the great space race and how it affected one boy's life. Beautifully filmed and containing some truly amazing dialogue, Lepage manages to create an insightful, sometimes funny story of one man's struggle with life.

Lepage is a great talent. He not only starred in but also wrote and directed this great little movie. I think many will miss this one which is really sad. Movies like this should really be part of everyone's regular viewing. We'd all be much more enlightened characters if that was the case.

8/10 Innovative, fun and entertaining.


I had heard of Robert Lepage's work and was not disappointed in the adaptation of his play. The basic premise of the work is the life of dreamy Andre, the elder of two brothers of a gorgeous mother. There is some intense symbolism at work here, the figure of the mother portrayed against the fascination of Andre for the moon itself. The brothers, identical in appearance, so different in personality both brilliantly played by Robert. One knows he is destined to be forever the dreamer, with some small triumphs ( a booking by a Russian for a lecture in Moscow, missed by Andre's absentmindedness, a winning of a video contest put on by SETI ). Meanwhile, Andre's real life is outlined in stunning detail, his deadend job in a call centre, his life surrounded by his dead mother's belongings, his ex-girlfriend, now living in a wealthy suburb. His interior life sustains him and the ending is uplifting and sad at the same time. 8 out of 10. Unusual and riveting.


Unlike the ancient notion that the moon is a mirror of the Earth's surface, modern space exploration and satellite imagery have revealed that the moon is a large cratered rock with the far side permanently turned away from the Earth. In Quebecois director Robert Lepage's film Far Side of the Moon, the moon's far side serves as a metaphor for the divide that separates two brothers, each with a different sexual orientation. Based on a one-man stage play by Mr. Lepage, it is both a history of man's exploration of the surface of the moon and the inner exploration of two individuals who are trying to put their life in order after the death of their mother (Anne-Marie Cadieux).

Shot in fifteen days in digital video using dissolves and CGI, the film creates a dazzling confluence of reality and fantasy that moves effortlessly between past and present utilizing delightful, surreal effects that form a bridge between the Earth and the cosmos. Philippe looks at the window of a washing machine and sees the vastness of space, a trip into the stomach of a pregnant mother turns a fetus into a tiny astronaut connected to his craft, the stacking of bottles in a restaurant becomes the launching of a space mission, and a man walking on snow becomes an explorer on the moon. The two brothers, Philippe and André, are performed in a dual role by the director. Philippe is an unhappy dreamer with no relationship and no profession.

He works as a telephone solicitor for the Montreal newspaper Le Soleil but is clearly distracted and makes personal calls to his ex-girlfriend (Céline Bonnier) and his brother that cause his employer consternation. His younger brother André, a gay man, is a weatherman for the local television station and maintains an ongoing relationship with Carl (Marco Poulin). More carefree than Philippe, he is preoccupied with disposing of his mother's possessions. Philippe is a perennial student who, at age forty, is still seeking approval for his Doctoral dissertation which argues that man's desire to explore space is built, not on discovering the mystery and wonder of the universe, but on his own narcissism - his act of self-projection.

When Philippe's thesis is again rejected by his Doctoral committee, however, he seeks other avenues for recognition but they lead only to humiliation. He is treated rudely by guards when he wants to give a copy of his paper to former Russian cosmonaut Alexi Leonov; is thrown out of a late night bar for being loud and drunk; has an embarrassing meeting with Carl at a sauna, and when he receives an invitation to present his paper at a symposium in Moscow, ridiculously forgets to adjust his watch to local time and faces an empty theater. Finally given a chance to showcase his creative talent when he is accepted as a participant in a SETI project to collect home videos to send into space, he limits his film to showing his apartment while rambling about his life and his video lacks poetry or self awareness.

As Philippe's life becomes increasingly dysfunctional, and his estrangement with André more pronounced, a suddenly discovered secret brings the two brothers together. Like the scarred far side of the moon, their lives have sustained repeated impacts which they have kept well hidden. Now that their scars are revealed, a huge burden has been lifted, and, with the aid of CGI, Philippe's weightless body can ascend into space. Far Side of the Moon is entertaining and highly imaginative and I would recommend it, yet there is little emotion in the film and, for all its transcendental motifs, I found it to be lacking a sense of the mystery and wonder of either outer or inner space.


I didn't know what to expect when I went to see this movie, as the reviews that I've read were mixed. Yet I was not disappointed as the movie dealt with the elements of life in general, from an intergalactic perspective.

The movie revolves around Philippe, who is single and delusional. He is fascinated by outer space and believes that space is really the final frontier for mankind. The death of his mother brought him in contact with his brother who seems to be more successful in his career and life.

Relationships with loved ones, dreams and hopes, failures and success and good music made this movie worth watching. It's about living and not giving up your dreams.


For people in the Theatre community, Lepage is a much heralded genius. But the nature of theatre is that you have to be in the right place at the right time to see his work. With this movie he has etched a beautiful masterpiece for world wide viewing (granted it gets a decent release). I'm not sure if it's just my enthusiasm from having seen the play but the story was just one that I felt I wanted to embrace again. The stage play was so cinematic that a movie seemed inevitable, and the transitions between scenes were even enhanced through the use of a camera rather than stage. This is really too biased to be a review, but if you haven't seen it, you really should.


La Face cachée de la lune is a brilliant Canadian film which has human being's fascination for moon as its backdrop.It is for this purpose that we are taken to 1950s when efforts were being made to send a man to moon.We witness how two major scientific powers America and Russia do all that they can in order to outdo each other.All this is done by them so that somebody is able to establish supremacy in all matters related to travel on moon."La face cachée de la lune" is a film for which Canadian auteur Robert Lepage has got complete command as he does more than one cinematographic function.This is also something of a very special film for Robert Lepage as he adapted his own play to create a film version.He has confessed on numerous occasions that this is a film which is very much close to his heart.Complexities of human relationships are also explored by Robert Lepage as his film revolves around two brothers who do not have much in common.Apart from this film's story and innovative plot,Robert Lepage's acting abilities are the best thing to watch in this film.They will really give a nice idea about this great artist's genius.


If you have never seen any of Lepage's work before, this is a good place to start. You will be entertained, educated and amazed by this movie that was created on a shoe-string budget. The movie is packed full of simple, but effective visuals that don't take over the movie, but seamlessly take you on a journey. I particularly liked the Green Screen effects, which (to the untrained eye) are seamless. The final scene in the airport with the large Aim Higher backdrop was the cream of the crop. I also thought that some of the transitions were simple, yet stunning. It is 'one of those films' you would normally find yourself watching on your own one afternoon. It's not for everyone, but if you are open minded, don't mind subtitles and want some light entertainment then this movie will not disappoint.