The Pursuit of Happiness reviewed by Sam Osborn

For a feel-good movie, The Pursuit of Happiness sure does want its audience to feel crappy. I don't mean this as a criticism. Rather, I think it's a show of intense bravery for a film stuck in a genre already soaked in sappiness. But it's a long, downhill journey for most of the film's duration, watching as Mr. Chris Gardner (Will Smith) is repeatedly pummeled under the American economic system. I suppose it follows Nietzsche's oft-repeated quote "what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger." And so, to ravage the saying entirely, if the lows of The Pursuit of Happiness doesn't kill the picture, they make its endingyou know, the feel-good part of the recipejust that much sweeter.

The grand scheme was to tell the story of the American dream from a new perspective. Such was the motivation in bringing European director Gabriele Muccino onto the project. Feeling that Americans have drawn too close to the concept to pull any focus on it, Muccino takes a step back and looks at our American dream from a fresh perspective. The result is indeed refreshing. The movie comes without any fat around its curves. It's a slim, distilled version of the American dream, where a mana smart, good man in whom most Americans probably see themselvestries to better his living conditions using the American system of capitalism promised in the Constitution. It doesn't come with a side dish of romance or tragic hors d'oeuvre; just a man trying to do right by his family.

But Chris Gardner's family is quickly dispersing. Linda (Thandie Newton), his wife, leaves him early on, choosing to fend for herself rather than go down with Chris' sinking ship. She leaves him with their son Christopher (Jaden Smith), whose daycare costs $150 per month. Chris would have to sell two bone density scanners each month to pay rent, daycare and groceries. But he hasn't sold one of the wretched devices in a while and the overdue bills are piling up. Chris is good at numbers though, and can solve a Rubik Cube with astounding ease; so he applies for an internship at Dean Witter. The gig's an unpaid one, but if he gets the job at the end of the course, he's set for life. Problem is, only one in twenty interns is hired; and if you aren't hired, you can't apply for a job at any other stock brokerage firm for six months.

The script is a product of Steven Conrad, the same writer who penned last year's The Weather Man. The films are deceivingly similar, each chronicling a series of unfortunate occurrences that slowly slice at the legs of an American man. In both films, Conrad manages to find a sweet and hilarious humanity in bad days, or bad weeks, or bad years. His heroes are good men and American men, who struggle to find themselves something worth having in our system.

Much huzzah has been made over the familial pairing of Will Smith and his son in parallel father-son roles. The decision was a smart one, as their performances are as sincere as ever. Jaden may not have many lines, but it's not hard to see that he loves and believes in his father, whether he's playing Will Smith or Chris Gardner. And Mr. Smiththe older one, that ishasn't been lying in his much-publicized interviews that this film is a turning point in his acting career. His Muhammad Ali was a force, but the role of Chris Gardner was built for him.

Make no mistake though; for the feel-good genre, The Pursuit of Happiness is a brutal, sometimes cruel entry. But I suppose that's the point, and Chris says it somewhere in the first act: that when the founders of the Constitution wrote "the pursuit of happiness" into the text, they only promised the pursuit. The chase is a long, mean one; but when the end is found, it flings us higher than any feel-good film in a while.

Samuel Osborn


Having seen I Am Legend, I've become an instant Will Smith fan, and ran out to rent his older works.

Though Will does a commendable, classy acting job in the role, the film itself just did not work. On the most basic level, the pacing was off...halfway through the film it just started to drag (you begin to wish they'd just get on with it...we know he's going to get the job, let's at least see him at Dean Witter a little more, watch him go through the training and the frustrations there as well.) And as for the problems Will's character faces along the way: 1) They started to get a little ridiculous after awhile. The scanners are stolen twice, he gets hit by a car (and no, these particular crisis didn't happen in the real life story, from what I understand. So it's just Hollywood embellishment.) 2) I couldn't help thinking - along with some other readers - that some of the problems were his own fault. He *should* have given his son to his wife...a man with no income should *not* be trying to raise a son. And--as pointed out in another post--he had known for some time that the scanner business wasn't panning out...yet he persists, forcing his wife to work double shifts, letting both rent and taxes fall dangerously behind. Dude, that's when you get ANY job that pays the bills and put the sales work aside. It never should have gotten to that point at all.

That's my five cents. Loved Will Smith, thought the movie just didn't work. Thank God there's I Am Legend...


This movie makes you laugh when Chris (Will Smith) is having one of his worse days ever, chasing a gypsy in the middle of the road, getting hit by a car, running after a crazy guy, running from a cabbie without paying him and finally, finally when he has the greatest day of his life it makes you cry.

If you, ever in your life have struggled and against many odds and discouragements achieved something, then you will know what the underlying beauty of the movie is.

Will Smith is brilliant. He might not get an Oscar because of Idi Amin (Whitaker in LKFS should get it) but he is at his best. You will feel for him every minute, you will feel his pain and yeah you will enjoy his happiness. His son was good too. But its Will Smith all the way.

A very nice movie


And, as such, it follows the basic guidelines of the arduous journey from misery to happiness. This type of formula is typically very thankful to translate to film, easy to make and ready to be milked for sentimentality for all its worth', which director Gabriele Muccino dutifully does. That is not to say 'The Pursuit of Happiness' does not deliver what it set out to do, for it wholeheartedly does and then some.

Based on a true story, the pursuit of one man to reach the American Dream in San Francisco in 1981 tells the cloying story of Chris Gardner (Will Smith) and his son (Jaden Smith) living in shelters, spending nights on paper towels in run-down, seedy public bathrooms and generally suffering daily hardships by the bucketload. Chris is a good man, but his wife (Thandie Newton) cannot cope with his empty promises and economic struggles, so she splits and takes off to New York City. Now Chris is left with their five-year-old son and an unpaid internship at a prestigious stockbroker's firm. You will be pressed to find a more likable character in film this year, and Will Smith plays him until your heart really breaks for him.

But in my opinion, this is no breakout "epiphany" role for Will Smith. The truth is that he has always been a strongly capable actor, although it is of course usually within the comedy field. In the comic moments of the film (and there are definitely quite a few), his funny bone translates excellently. In the drama side of the tapestry, he performs well enough  but it is a thankful, rewarding character to portray, much like 'The Pursuit' is a thankful, rewarding film to make owing to its underdog formula. It is, in this way, the type of film that safely elicits a few tears, chuckles and smiles but ultimately offers no revolutionary insight or social commentary in the way that The Great Gatsby aptly addressed the fickleness and simultaneous necessity of the American Dream.

The real treat is possibly Jaden Smith as little Christopher, and it becomes apparent that either the Smiths have groomed this kid for low-key, understated acting from a young age or that he is a true natural talent  or both. Perhaps his performance is nothing mind-blowing, but it is so rare for child actors to perform this subtly. Usually they fall prey to desperately cutesy or annoying antics, but Jaden Smith does not. "Simpsons" staple Dan Castellaneta also chips in aptly as a mentor at work of sorts.

If I have been too unclear or critical so far, let me say that I enjoyed this film immensely as a diversion. This does not change the fact that it is trafficking too heavily in stereotypes and Hallmark staples such as "Don't ever let anybody tell you that you can't do something" (yes, Will Smith actually says this at one point) or that it rigorously rubs Chris' misery in our faces in every step of the way, even though we clearly got the gist of his miserable conditions early on in the film. It's almost shamelessly cuing viewers in to feel by unpaid parking tickets, taxes, homelessness and a leaving wife to top it off. The fact is that the film expertly camouflages most of its shortcomings and the end result is even, solid and compelling.

'The Pursuit of Happiness' emerges as a safe but inspirational tale that is undeniably readily-molded for both public praise and Oscar buzz. It is difficult NOT to like a film like this, and the pursuit is no exception at all.

7 out of 10


Will Smith is at his best. He never played a role like this one before, and he certainly does it very well, in my opinion it would be worth his first Oscar this year.

It is a motion picture that makes you cry, laugh and admire this little guy who is just struggling ten times more than the others and still trying to handle everything...the story is full of feeling, and the father-son combo Smith is just as genuine as they could be.

The only weak point in my view (maybe as an European): while the story is very nice, it seems a bit too optimistic and focused on the typical American dream scheme: just believe in yourself and you'll be rewarded.

But in the end, a very nice movie you'll have to see!


The reason this film is so good is because it is a simple film with a simple message: (For most people) Life isn't easy...things don't just land in your lap. You have to work damn hard and if you are lucky you will be successful. And if you are successful, you might even be happy. Which is wonderful! Not to say people don't find happiness without success and money.... but by god it helps! :) Will Smith is fantastic. I've always been a fan but never really considered him to be a great actor, more a great entertainer. I always thought that he was on screen how he is in real life and never really had to try too hard at acting. This film proved me wrong. He is a brilliant actor in a brilliant role with a brilliant son who is also.. brilliant! This film isn't something that will change your life or be considered amongst the great films but if you want to watch a great story acted well then this is the film for you.

It is not as sad as everyone makes out. Yes I bawled my eyes out whilst watching it but it's not the saddest story ever: there are worse things happening in the world than people who can't afford their rent. But let's not get political.

Cracking film. Go and see it. My guess is that Will Smith will be pipped at the Oscar post by Peter O'Toole (if they are both nominated) but he won't care.


With any luck, this movie will sadden you, depress you, anger you, make you laugh, and make you ecstatic. This is a great choice for pretty much anyone to watch.

Will Smith plays a man whose life never seems that it can get any worse, until it does. Repeatedly. All that apparently separates him from a beggar on the street, is his unquestionable self-belief, a black suit & tie, and his obvious complete and utter devotion to his son. The movie never really stops to blame anyone, or anything, for this man's misfortune... no matter how frustrating it is. 'Que sera sera', and life carries on. This requires a lot of self-restraint, both on the part of Chris Gardner, and on the part of the viewer. :-)

Realistic? Who knows. It seems to have been based on a true story. This life isn't what most people go through, which is why it is so amazing to watch. This movie will suck you in, and call upon you to feel what Chris Gardner and his son are going through at every moment. Hopefully, you'll be greatly rewarded. I would recommend for anyone to go and see it!


This movie was a really good movie. It really opens up your view of the world, and how sometimes things aren't really as easy as they look. It follows the life of Mr. Gardener and shows the hardships he has to overcome in able to make a better life for him and his child. It is really emotional and great to watch. Your attention will be captured the whole time. If you think that earning money, and buying the right things, or saving so that you CAN buy the right things is something that people do without any troubles, then you have to watch this movie. There are many examples of how poor people were treated differently then the more wealthy people. That shows a message to everyone about how we can be kinder, and try to understand a little bit more.


What can I say?!?!?! A great, amazing film! One of the films you must see, before you die! A touching story of a parent, left all alone, who struggles to find his place in this world and most important to stay alive. Will Smith deserves an Oscar for this role. Amazing movie! I red about the goofs, but I ignored them. I think that the whole picture is more important than some little mistakes made during the making of the picture. I'm surprised really, because in the past two years I haven't seen a movie that touched me so deep inside. After watching the film a feeling came to me. The feeling that I can do everything. The feeling that the happiness is not so far away. Outstanding movie!


Well, it's been a long time since I've seen a movie as boring as this one. It's a thriller but there are no thrills. There's no pace either, the film moves as slowly as a snail, and it is more a drama about a newspaper than a thriller about a murderer. I've read Liza Marklund's novel, upon which this movie is based, and I quite liked it, but it is obvious that it doesn't work as a movie. At least not when Colin Nutley's at the helm. I've never wanted to sleep at the cinema before, but this time I actually longed to close my eyes and take a nap (I didn't, though). I recommend this film if you're an insomniac in need of a cure... I mean, it's not even bad enough to be funny. (3/10)


The journalist who is the main character is an excellent portrayal of a brilliant, ambitious, thick-skinned yuppie. It is also a fascinating insight into the "press industry" itself.

Note that to me anyway this movie is not about the drama or the so-called "terrorism" so if it wasn't dramatic or twisty enough I forgive it. It is about relationships between people, ambition and being reminded of what's truly important in life.

The ending isn't sensational but nicely understated. It made me crack a wry smile. Frankly I really liked it -- something very 'this-is-what-happens-in-real-life' about it.

On the downside, the answer to the mystery behind the bombings was I guess somewhat predictable, but again, I say suspense and thrill is not what this movie is about... (Although it was certainly fast-paced enough to keep me tense waiting for what would pan out).

I don't know if this movie improves for those who can understand Swedish - probably does - but regardless I was impressed even having to read subtitles. I read all the IMDb comments before actually watching this movie and thought I'd be disappointed, but having watched it I can't help but give this a 10/10!


Well, what can I say. This movie is a slow, typical swedish crime story on the silver screen. As such, it's nothing spectacular. But since I'm a journalist, I can appreciate the many scenes taking place at the newspaper. They are good, if only a little too tame. If people only knew how cynical journalists really are, they'd be chocked. Sometimes reality's more extreme than fiction...


This movie got it all... as long as you understand swedish! Translations might be good but you always loose the words that is unspoken. The Movie got a mainpart which is the crime scene, a sub-part that is the competition at work (who should have the power...), and a sub-part wich contains the daily problems in the family of the main caracter.

As a crime movie it has a great story wich really shows how the work of the police and the newspapers really are run! No stupid fictionary roles...


Can a movie be so awful it's actually physically harmful to watch? "Sprängaren" comes close. I had never watched any of Colin Nutley's pictures before this one, and I can safely say that I will never deliberately watch another one. This is so bad it should be used as a user manual for how not to make a movie. I honestly can't think of a single thing in this tedious waste of film that doesn't suck to high heavens. The story, which isn't that interesting in the first place, unravels at the pace of a dead man running a marathon. The direction is standard fresh-out-of-film-school, "hey-look-I-just-found-a-camera-in-the-garbage-can" stuff, stunning in its ineptitude and seemingly aggressive refusal to be interesting. The acting is so good it almost rivals the works of Ben Affleck in terms of charisma and enthusiasm. To be honest, for the first half hour I could've sworn I was watching a satirical comedy about zombie journalists. As for Helena Bergström, she deserves a special mention because it really boggles my mind how she EVER became as famous (even by Swedish standards) as she is now. She has no acting talent whatsoever and she has a face like the rear end of an infected hamster. Sorry Helena, but it's true and you know it, no matter what your husband says.

Moving on to smaller, yet crucial aspects of the film, the sound, musical score, and lightning is so sickeningly off in almost every single scene that it hurts to watch. The music, for the most part, has nothing to do with what's going on on-screen, the dialogue is muffled and there is a very lazy (and ineffective) use of natural lightning throughout. To be honest, only one scene didn't make me want to gouge my eyes out with a rusty spoon, and it was a five-second shot of some trees. I guess this is a major achievement for someone like Nutley.

The stunning amount of reviewers here who gave the film more than 3/10 makes me want to commit acts of terrorism myself. How can you find anything about this movie good??

Send this film to Guantanamo where it belongs... as a torture device.


It sucks! Not the film, that's quite good. What sucks is that there hardly exist a single Norwegian who dares to make good films - like the Swedes do. WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO LEARN???! When?` Sprängaren is a good movie, well worth an eight, but it could have been a little more fast-paced, like to book, and then it would have deserved maybe even a niner...


This film is cute and watchable even today--and that's something you CAN'T say about many of the very early movies--particularly those of George Albert Smith. Most films of the day are of pretty mundane topics or are only about one or two minutes long. This film, in contrast, is longer and actually tries to have Mary Jane try to be a slapstick comedienne. She is a cook and doesn't seem to do anything right. While not great or amazing like the contemporary films of Georges Méliès, this is still pretty good and watchable--particularly the slapstick ending! Plus, films like this eventually led to films like those of the later and much more famous slapstick comedians, so historically it's pretty important.


This famous black comedy was, sadly, the last film by early cinema pioneer, G.A. Smith. Like Dreyer, Bergman and Lang after him, he takes essentially theatrical material to create pure cinema. The setting seems stock Victoriana, as an inept scullery maid blows herself to smithereens (no pun intended!) with paraffin oil - the forbiddingly bare kitchen; the wink-to-the-audience broadness of the acting, from Smith's wife, star of so many of his films.

But it does what theatre could never hope to do- it shatters the restricted theatrical space as Mary Jane flies through the chimney; and it brings the dead back to life, just as cinema preserves and makes immemorial the transient. The film is also considered important as one of the first to use a vertical wipe, in this case creating a cartoon-like effect, as Mary Jane nudges the audience as she holds a can with 'PARAFFIN' written in huge letters (a joke borrowed by Beckett over fifty years later in his 'Act Without Words').

Perhaps even more intriguing than the film's formal originality is the ambiguity of the content. It seems to be a demonisation of women, of the new Woman or Suffragette, who was demanding the vote at this time in Britain, and victim of all kinds of establishment hatred and ridicule. This film seems to conflate two very real fears of the establishment - women and the working class - who, enfranchised, could have caused great damage to the status quo.

Before her accident, Mary Jane is messing around the kitchen, and gets some soot above her lip, creating a moustache, to her delight, as she looks in a very Lacanian mirror. The message is clear - women just want to be men, and steal their power: the result is the destruction of the home, either deliberately or through non-masculine incompetence. Against a gorgeous, 'Caligari'-bleached backdrop, Mary Jane is buried, 'rest in pieces', her class and gender roles shattered, as conservatives wag their fingers at her grave, warning of the dangers of giving women any kind of responsibility.

But Mary Jane has the last laugh, and rises from the dead to cause further havoc - Smith taking Freud's ideas about repression and applying them to the social context - the more you try to keep people down, the more they'll come back at you. The fact that the 'patriarchal' figure of the director uses his wife to tell this story is all the more remarkable.


In many ways, this is a plot less, jumble of the movie, but at the same time there is something really fantastic about it, and some movies are better off jumbled up cause its fitting, never more so than in the case of "Petulia." George C. Scott plays a recently divorced man who willingly begins a semi-affair with Petulia, who is married to an abusive man. She is a 'kook', to use a 1960s term, but not in the Goldie Hawn silly mold.

Scott's character takes life as it comes. He's very easy going, and its nice to see him in a role in which he rarely raises his voice or gets manic or seems to care what happens one way or the other. He loves Petulia but does not take her very seriously, until she is badly beaten up by her husband.

The editing can be studied by film students. Its a main part of the story as its told primarily through flashbacks. The beautiful city of San Francisco is used to full advantage.

Christie has rarely been more beautiful. Richard Chamberlain has his best movie role. Shirley Knight, Arthur Hill and Joseph Cotten round out the memorable cast.

I urge all serious moviegoers to get a glance at this one. 9/10.


I saw this film when it opened and recently bought the video and watched it again.

I remembered being very moved by the characters and the pairing of Julie Christie and George C Scott. Christie was so young and Scott was also still quite young as well. They had great chemistry. I didn't know that Shirley Knight was nominated for an award for her role. She's very good. Her scene with Scott where she's trying to appease him and he loses his temper is electric. She says more in her look, using her eyes to convey her hurt and confusion, than most actors say in too many words.

Julie Christie has always had a way of getting under your skin. She is able to make you care for her (a lot like she did in "Darling") despite the fact that her character initially comes off as flaky or "kooky." It starts out light and amusing then turns dark and insightful. I remembered this movie for years until I was able to buy the video. It is very 60's in sensibility. So, if you weren't around during that period, see this movie. It captures the sixties in way few films have done as well.

San Francisco looks beautiful in 1967.


Certainly one of the top films of the '60s, this film was overlooked (misunderstood?) at its release and has yet to be "rediscovered." Lester's use of flashbacks and forewards is a little confusing at first, but it's also a vital element in what makes this film so worthwhile. The performances are first-rate all the way, including Richard Chamberlin, who has never been this good before or since, and Joseph Cotton, who speaks volumes in his brief scenes. Challenging and disturbing, definitely a film that deserves (and requires) a second look. Maybe someone will do a Lester retrospective (he also did the Beatles' first films)so that this masterpiece can finally find the audience it deserves.


Lester's "serious" film is a stylistic and cinematic masterpiece that -like much of Lester's work- has been underrated for decades. "Petulia" features the performance of a lifetime for Julie Christie and stunning work by George C. Scott and Richard Chamberlain.

This film is amazingly shot by Nicholas Roeg (!) and is a riveting piece of timeless cinema. A must-see.


I adore this film and I'm so surprised that it doesn't have a higher score for user votes. I stumbled on this film on cable and was mesmerized. It's truly is fabulous - if it sounds like I'm gushing over it, it's because that's precisely what I'm doing. Julie Christie is just awesome in this film. She so kinetic, and of course, beautiful. The biggest surprise for me was watching Richard Chamberlain. I always thought of him as just the King of Television Mini-Series, and he was so utterly different in this than what I grew up thinking him to be. The film is so stylistic - wonderful the way it plays with time and images. Petulia is the best hidden surprise that I've stumbled on in the last 5 years. Now if someone would only release it on DVD - PLEASE!


Tonight was my first ever viewing of this film by Richard Lester. As the movie began, I was somewhat thrown off, as the editing is somewhat "jumpy" and the story is presented out of sequence, so it's rather like pieces of a puzzle coming together.

The film is both set and shot in 1967 San Francisco and does a beautiful job presenting what it was like there at that time (or, at least how I imagined things were, as I wasn't around at that time.) The first scene is just flat out bizarre: A dance for car accident victims being held in the lobby of a posh-looking San Francisco hotel. The guests all looking very mod yet rich and "establishment," many of them over 50. And the live band providing the entertainment is none other than San Francisco's own Big Brother and the Holding Company with Janis Joplin on lead vocals. There's a shot of an elderly woman in a wheelchair, dressed and coiffed beautifully, with her neck in a tortuous looking brace being pushed quietly through a service area on her way to the festivities and then a quick, jarring cut to James Gurley, one of Big Brother's guitarists, playing a psychedelic riff, then a quick cut back to the woman in the wheelchair, then back to the lobby floor festivities where Joplin is singing at the top of her lungs next to Sam Andrews playing guitar whilst well-dressed party goers (looking very decidedly unlike a typical Big Brother crowd,) boogie all around them.

What a way to start a film!

I was initially distracted, but soon enough the characters began to emerge and the story unfolded. The main characters include George C. Scott as a newly divorced 40ish doctor and the incredibly beautiful Julie Christie as a newly married 20ish "kooky" character who decides somewhere between Big Brother's "Road Block" and "Down On Me" that she's going to have an affair with the good doctor.

Despite the rather raucous and disjointed beginning, this film does have an interesting plot, as it turns out; one just has to be patient as it slowly and tantalizingly begins to unfold. Nothing is as it seems at first, and there are plenty of surprises in store.

Also featured in the cast are the wonderful Shirley Knight, who gives a powerhouse performance, and Richard Chamberlain in a very off-beat role for him.

I didn't know where the film was going for awhile. But I think that is one of its many charms: It's unpredictability. I would highly recommend this to anyone who appreciates something different and thought-provoking. 9/10


I was reviewing Julie Christie's career on the net, and, of course, came across one of my favorite's. As expected, the leads are the best...over time and effort. I saw it the year it was released. It still stays with me...clearly and distinctly. From Chamberlain to Knight and Joseph Cotton, everybody stands out. The director uses the Bay area quite nicely as the backdrop. If it was on tonight, on the cable, I would be sure to watch it. I viewed the movie through the eyes of Scott's character. He is in the middle of the late 60's and lost and his wife, Shirley Knight, just doesn't get it. What is the fuss. Kooky or straight, average wage earner or wealthy, they all are portrayed well... as their lives intersect. Yes it is a slice of life, in the vein of the theatre of the absurd...yet it made so much sense as I was watching it. Later Scott played a head surgeon in a New York hospital opposite Diana Rugg. It was as though the character in Petulia got transferred to New York, still lost but still the good doctor. Julie Christie continues to work when she wants to and picks her projects well. Unlike one of the reviewers on this site, Christie did significant work in Afterglow with Nick Nolte in the mid 90's. How could he drop that from his memory bank. Petulia is well worth the concentrated effort it takes to watch.


Julie Christie is unforgettable as the lost and abused wife of an insane husband chillingly played by Richard Chamberlain. Looking for love she throws herself at the equally lost George C. Scott. John Barry's subtle score adds a gentle, poignant edge to the package.


I could not give a wide range recommendation for this film. If you don't like abrupt flashback edits and a story that unfolds slowly, then this is not for you. However, if you can hang with the film you will be rewarded for your effort with some truly bizarre moments. There are images from the film that really stuck with me. The absurdity of situations seemed to come back to me days after having watched it. I remembered the gift of the Tuba, the hospital staff trying to explain the 'dummy teevee' procurement procedure, and of course, George C. Scott making his way into not only a 'Big Brother and the Holding Company' concert, but also a 'Grateful Dead' show. Huh?

Added to that you have Richard Chamberlain in all his dandy elfin fabulousness, Joeseph Cotten collecting a paycheck and a very young Howard Hesseman(Dr. Johnny Fever) in a cameo that really served no purpose that I could fathom.

A lot of cat and mouse love affair nonsense between the beautiful Julie Christie and the 'throat lozenged' George C. Scott....what?......it could happen. A lot of obsession and a bit of denial make up the bulk of the movie.

It is interesting to see Scotts' character change throughout the film.

Richard Lester has made many, many great films. And although this film doesn't carry the Richard Lester stamp, it is still one of his best films. I loved it. 9/10.

But really, George C. Scott at a 'Dead' show? Trouble ahead, trouble behind indeed.

Clark Richards


Despite the sweet title and the presence of Julie Christie, or perhaps, because of, this is not the pleasant movie one might, or might not have expected. Certainly when I first saw this upon release, having seen Lester's early b/w films, I was expecting another slightly arty avant-garde outing. But no, indeed this seems to have more than a touch of cinematographer, Nick Roeg. Think, 'Performance' with its darkness and 'Don't Look Now', with its edginess, heart stopping editing and Julie Christie and this film begins to find itself within a different context. Magnificently and correctly, of its time, this time capsule of a movie, captures exceedingly well that perturbing flip from 'swinging sixties' to murder and mayhem, and how true the moment when the 'in love' George C Scott skips across a room while the TV plays back images from the ongoing war in Vietnam. Scott is perhaps a little hard to believe as the casual lover (with good reason by all accounts!), Chamberlain, disturbingly believable and Christie, herself flipping from hip and happy to neurotic and self destructive. Very fine move, just not a very happy ride.


What, exactly, makes Petulia such a great movie?

Is it the ravishing Julie Christie, who never seemed more appropriately out-of-place? The kismet-touched production, which was somehow at Haight-Ashbury at the right time? Maybe it's the editing, the fractured juxtaposition of images that both disorients and clarifies, making it more than the sum of its parts? The images by Nicholas Roeg, the fluent guidance of Richard Lester?

What about the pitch-perfect supporting cast Shirley Knight, Joseph Cotten, Richard Chamberlain (!), even Austin Pendleton, Howard Hesseman, and Rene Aberjonois (the last two mysteriously uncredited on the IMDb)? Certainly, the haunting John Barry theme doesn't hurt. And the great George C. Scott, so far removed from the pyrotechnics of a General Turgidson or Patton, anchors it all with the kind of unshowy performance that most so-called great actors never get around to giving.

It's all these, and more. Most of all, for me it's the profound and true sadness it evokes, its humor which does anything but lighten or elevate the spiritual emptiness to which Petulia testifies. 40 years later, few movies have captured the spirit of contemporary life so well. It's terribly pertinent. And yet, Petulia is (like the character herself!) a paradox so very much of its time, as well, that it seems caught between two worlds. Time is rarely this kind to a movie, but this one is anything but a relic, much less an exercise in nostalgia.

Life is full of regret, both for things we've done, and things we've not done. The older I get, the more I love Petulia.


1968 was a remarkable year in the history of cinema. Films as Pasolini's "Teorema", Anderson's "if...." and Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey", among others, reflected the times of sudden and often violent changes people were experiencing all over the world. "Petulia" is among those motion pictures, but it is obvious Warner Brothers executives did not realize what had director Richard Lester delivered, and handled the product badly, as the original trailer eloquently shows. I finally had the opportunity to see it after many years, since I saw it included in a list of best films, in James Monaco's book "American Film Now". "Petulia" (based on the novel by John Haase, "Me and the Arch Kook Petulia") touches neuralgic issues of difficult times in the United States in an oblique manner, not to avoid them, but because its center is the title character played by Julie Christie (excellent as usual): hippie culture, racial conflicts, Vietnam, drugs, illegal immigration, the intrusion of technology in the bedroom, and middle-class betrayal before the reign of so-called "savage capitalism", all appear as variables in the drama of a young woman abused by her husband. The script of "Petulia" is a guide to moderation and restraint: the film does not emphasize nor is it redundant, but paints all those aspects as integral parts of the portrait of a British woman trapped in (and adapted to) the life of her rich and influential in-laws, and whose intent of rupture is as fragile, fragmented and banal as her personal structure. This is told in a most innovative way for its time, which makes it more regrettable that the film was handled as a pop extravaganza, when it was an innovative and puzzling product with a structure that demanded a more intellectual participation from the audience; and with an organic use of the flash-forward technique (proposed by its editor, Antony Gibbs), an anticipation device that would become common practice in later years (it is interesting to note that five years later the cinematographer of "Petulia", Nicolas Roeg, would direct Julie Christie in the horror drama "Don't Look Now", which contains a scene film editors often mention as an outstanding example of the flash-forward technique, a sex scene inter-cut with takes of the following scene, edited by Graeme Clifford). For many who only think of Richard Lester as the maker of The Beatles movie, "Petulia" is one of several titles of his making that ask for a reconsideration of his work, which also includes very enjoyable period comedies as "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum", "Robin and Marian", "The Three Musketeers" and "The Four Musketeers".


I may be about to annoy a lot of very nice and very clever people who have taken the time to comment on "Petulia" eruditely and sincerely. I have read them all and even the ones I disagree strongly with are well - argued and,in the spirit of fairness have marked them up positively for their style if not their content. Having said all that I feel I must record that I found it to be pretentious, derivative and self - indulgent......a typical Richard Lester film in fact. Stealing other film -makers' tricks and jumbling them together doesn't make him an "auteur" any more than a musician who steals other players' licks and jumbles them up becomes an innovator. By the time he did "The running,jumping and Standing Still" movie in 1960 just about the only person in the UK still doing "The Goons" was Prince Charles."It's Trad Dad" was straightforward exploitation,"The mouse on the moon" a tired follow - up to the vastly superior "The mouse that roared". Then we come to his two movies with the Beatles - and here I am well aware I am treading on sacred ground for millions of admirers of the lovable mop - tops,but basically they were a rag - bag of gimmicks based around pointing his camera at the boys while they did their schtick.He got lucky and rode on their coat tails ,as did many another lesser - talent. With "Petulia" his dependence upon the work of superior Contitnental European directors was nearly total.His work wasn't mere "Hommage",it was multi - sourced plagiarism (there's no such thing in Art of course, it's merely "In the school of"...). It is beautifully photographed by Nicholas Roeg,a man who,in turn, would pay "Hommage" to Mr Lester.And so it goes. If you think "Blow - Up" is Antonioni's great statement on the 1960s in so -called "Swinging London" and Mr Lester's "The Knack" a film that shaped a generation then I suspect "Petulia" will be fine for you. If,on the other hand you think Antonioni's movie was an overblown con trick and "The Knack" too clever by half,then you may prefer to watch the very beautiful Miss Christie and the admirable Mr Scott in some other movie.Perhaps one where the director isn't always shouting "watch me - I'm going to amaze you".


Archie Bollen(George C Scott, very good)is a square peg in a very circular world. He seems to be a Waldo amongst flower children. There's a scene I find humorous(..while others might find strange and/or pathetic)that shows Archie in the middle of a crowd of hipsters dancing in a psychedelic hall as some band was playing with weird-colored strobe lights flashing throughout. What makes this film so great is that he has no business having any connection whatsoever with "young-married" Petulia(Julie Christie). She has this feeling for him that spurns from an operation she watched him perform on a young Latino child named Oliver. Oliver, as the film would confirm later, is caught under a speeding car and it has everything to do with Petulia and her volatile, unpredictable, "quick-to-rush-into anger" husband David(Richard Chamberlain;he's unfortunately the unsung actor here because all the roles are so great that Chamberlain can be forgotten until his character changes Petulia's life through a horrible beating).

Archie's previous married life to "Polo"(Shirley Knight who is outstanding as the conflicted wife;clearly, her work on here outshines everyone..even Christie in my opinion)wasn't a bad one, but something was missing. He felt suffocated, not to mention, there was no joy. When he can not get rid of Petulia, he succumbs to her charms and beauty. This film shows their unusual relationship, specifically how their differences bring them peculiarly closer because of this transfixing, overwhelming attraction that morphs into love.

I have to say that Richard lester's direction just floored me. The way he edits the lifestyle of that period in San Francisco life and how he captures the people in that era..it's just Wow. I wish films like this were made today. It just vibrated off-screen to me and I was completely hooked to it's charms and visual fervor. The performances are already superb to begin with, but how Lester brings the past within the frame-work of the present..it's so fresh and innovative. This movie just wreaks of craftsmanship. A masterpiece.


Rated M for Violence,Language and Sexual Content.

I recently got a PS2 which came with a controller,memory card,3 PS2 games and 1 PS1 game for a good price.I didn't play the GTA series when it first came out starting with GTA3 in 2001.I started loving the series in 2005 when I got GTA Vice City for Christmas.I loved it.I then got San Andreas and thought it was the greatest video game of all time.I had GTA2 as well.Now with my new PS2 I play Liberty City Stories which was originally out for PSP.This game costs $30.00 and it is definitely worth it.Remember this is a PSP port and PSP is not as good as PS2 so the game is definitely not as good as GTA San Andreas or even Vice City actually but it is still a good addition in the series.Liberty City Stories takes us back to Liberty City(where GTA3 took place).The year is 1998 and you play as Toni Cipriani.During the game you do various missions for different people just like in the other GTA games.When you are not playing missions you can steal cars,kill people and just plain be a cold-hearted criminal.The storyline in all the GTA games are good with Vice City having the best one.The storyline in this game is pretty good as well.There are some parts of the game that are not too good.First of all the soundtrack.Just like in Grand Theft Auto 3, aside from the classical music station and the 1980's station the other music is re-created.Not real music.It is re-created well but we want music that was popular for the time.Actually out of the whole series, this game has the worst soundtrack.Flashback FM is the best radio station in my opinion but there aren't that many good songs there either.Even in GTA3 the only good station was Flashback.It had some good songs from the Scarface soundtrack but there were so little songs.I like 80's music and GTA Vice City provided the best radio station with actual songs from the 1980's.San Andreas had classic rock from the 70's and great rap and rock songs from the early 90's.If the soundtrack was better the game would be on-par with GTA Vice City.Anyway Liberty City Stories is a good addition in the GTA series but don't expect that much since its a port from PSP.

10/10


After the launch of the PSP, this GTA game marks the first hand-held game of the series and was one of the perfect buy for Christmas 2005. Rather than going forward, this GTA game is a rather stripped down version and uses the same AI and engine from GTA3 and is re done in an San Andreas style. The story uses old side character Toni Cipriani in a leading role where you take control of the city (but not to great depth) and complete missions, side jobs and other tasks available. There are three islands to wonder with new safehouses and vehicles to cruise. Radio stations are very good and I do enjoy great music from MSX 98, The Liberty Jam and Rise FM for all the wicked East Coast hip hop, House/Trance and Drum N Bass music.

There's a new multiplayer option which is more expanded than the previous one that was introduced in San Andreas which gets it bigger marks in the PSP version of the series. There are some really good things about this game, the graphics are incredible for the small detail of the PSP, the sound is mint and you can listen to the effects and music from the city. Main disadvantage is there are somethings you'd feel they should have put in like swimming and air vehicles. That aside it's a great game and because of the 24/7 appeal of hand-held gaming it's what gives GTA LCS it's addictive and fun level. Inside the game itself feels big in a small world and doesn't lose any of the atmospheric appeal that you see in the previous GTA games. Incredible how its all fitted in a UMD. Aside from some flaws, there's no denying GTA: Liberty City Stories is a superb game and may well be the PSP's killer game.


While this game isn't on the grand scale of GTA: San Andreas, it still holds true to the normal GTA style. Its missing the "RPG" aspects of GTA:SA, like improving skills and eating to stay healthy, but its a nice throw-back to the good ol' days of GTA: just shoot, steal, and stay alive. But it was originally a PSP game, and I don't have a PSP, so I'll just be grateful they ported it. I also hope they port Vice City Stories to PS2 at some point, even if its not for a year like with LCS.

One thing that's nice is that the game is set in the same old Liberty City as GTA III, but with the graphics quality of San Andreas. There's a cleaner, enhanced look to the buildings, vehicles and characters. Its nice to see a new face on an old city.

The only thing that bugs me is the lack of a good radio station. This game is supposed to be set in 1998, and I remember a lot of good music from those days, which is absent from the game. I just turn the radio off every time I enter a vehicle.

I give it an 9/10. Its not San Andreas and I'm not expecting it to be. I think its an excellent game in its own right, and the only thing better would be decent radio stations.


I have just completed this game for the second time. For those who haven't bought it and are doubting buying it i will say, don't think this will be like GTA3. Its not.

The city is the same layout but bits are different. I wont spoil it as its worth two days constant playing it.

The only real problem i had was trying to put it into a time line with the others. GTA, GTA London and GTA 2 aren't part of this saga. GTA3 GTA VC GTA SA and Liberty City stories form a saga but there's no logical pattern into which order that go. So far I've decided its GTA SA, GTA VC, LCS and then GTA 3 last.

Anyway, my logic aside, if you love the first GTA's you'll love this. Just remember, its 18 so not for kids.


I was hoping for a nice, solid portable Grand Theft Auto ever since I first played Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas a while back. Well, God must've known this and have been against me, because this is the terrible portable Grand Theft Auto I get. It is not at all fun to me, and is only worth buying if you really want a portable Grand Theft Auto, but in that case, you should buy Vice City Stories, and not this crummy game. It's more dull and boring than anything, and makes the Grand Theft Auto franchise look stupid. It is a terrible game that even the most die-hard fan of Grand Theft Auto will despise.

1/10


Belmondo is one of the greatest movie-actors all time. He is very good in drama, in action, and also in comedy. His character is always exciting and his charm climb down from the screen. I think, every man want to be a little bit Belmondo, and every women want to own a little bit Belmondo. Now, in this role, he is Stephan, the man, how loves woman. Loves his woman, his wife, but loves every beautiful girl all over the world. More girls, than day. But there is one rule: don't take home the chick.

Once, when his wife fly away, he violate the rule. Met Sophie Marceau, and take the beautiful young girl home. But before the action comes funny noise from the elevator. Belmondo: this is my wife, this is my wife, the elevator has a specific noise, when came my wife. And what can a man do, when there is a young girl in home, and the wife comes home. Belmondo: this is. this is. this is my. daughter. And here begin one of the funniest, greatest french comedy all time, with memorable moments. I offer this movie everyone, who want to laugh a lot. Great points, great Belmondo, sexy Marceau, sexy wife. Have fun!


Perfect! Are there only two fans of this movie? Unbelievable! I think, this is one of Belmondo's greatest act. We can see, that he played in several plays. IN THEATRE!!! The story is usual but it's not a problem! Maybe the 5.4 is for the theatrical scenes. I enjoyed each word of the film. This movie is a glorious victory of the European film. Williams is good. Carrey is great. But drama was born in Europe.( Actually, only a European actor can play this role.) Belmondo is perfect, Laforet is perfect, Marceau is not so perfect but we love her since La Boom. An easy entertainment, you must watch it! And then you'll know it's script by heart. PS: sorry for my "Hungarian English"


What a great performance! I wonder why some people don't like this movie. OK, it's rather silly and unreal(?), but there are several silly movies all around the world especially in the USA. This was made in Europe. It's not an awful German film that was made for awful German teens...It's a French COMEDY(!!!!!) was made for healthy European human beings! (My grandparents were Germans, and I'm Hungarian, so I have opinion about French:-))), so this is NOT a political sentence!) So, don't miss this movie if you'd like to see a really enjoyable comedy. I think, the European style in comedy with Belmondo's acting never dies! It's entertaining and unforgettable. For everybody. Only a few actors can play this role so perfectly like Belmondo does. Don't miss it!


I found it very interesting that almost only Hungarian people wrote reviews on this film.

About the film: IMO this is a typical French comedy, with lots of embarrassing and silly but funny situations and decent acting. Belmondo is in top form, the ladies are OK. If you like French comedies this is right up your street.

What makes this movie unforgettable for many of my fellow citizens is the extremely high quality of the Hungarian dubbing. I mean, I watched this film with the original sound and i have to tell you I didn't get half of the pleasure than watching it with the Hungarian voices.( In Hungary films on TV are usually dubbed and the standard of voice acting in the country was top notch for years. It's slowly declining nowadays, though, I'm afraid.)Many Hungarians know the entire script by heart and it's always a good party thing if you quote a line from this film. To us it's just fun.

Like I said earlier this might not be your cup of tea. However, just for the laughs you can watch it on a day when there's not much to do(I wish I had more of them). It's impossible not to -at least- smiley on the lovely character played by Belmondo.


Similarly to my fellow citizen, I also find it rather peculiar, that out of six comments on this film, four (and from now on five) have been written by Hungarians. It is also strange to see, that the other two reviewers (from Germany) claim that this movie is rubbish. It would be really fascinating to read a french viewer's opinion, since that is the original language of "Joyeuses Paques". So should someone from France, who also has seen the film read these lines, please impart your impressions. The fact that there is such a gap between the German and Hungarian opinions, gives rise to much controversy. Is this a good film or a bad one? Is this really one of the funniest roles of Belmondo (according to the Hungarian view), or is his acting merely barnstorming (according to the German view)? First and foremost I have to admit that I, as a Hungarian utterly enjoy the movie every time I see it. I have to watch it every Easter time, and as it was mentioned by others people really know some lines by heart from this film. My family is rolling with laughter whenever this piece of art is on TV. I bought it on DVD this spring, and we've seen it about five times since then. Belmondo is brilliant. When I first read the German reviews, I thought they were writing about another movie. Although I have to agree, that the scene with the boat in the beginning is ridiculous, the dialogues compensate for mistakes like that. Every sentence is a comedy treasure in this film. I started to think when I realized the huge chasm between the two nations' opinions. Is it possible that in Hungary we generally have such a "jerkish" :-) sense of humor that we laugh at things which normal people find pitiful and ridiculous? Or is it the Germans who don't have a sense of humor at all? None of these statements can be true, and I also find it impossible that there could be such a large cultural difference between the two nations. Having considered most aspects of this "mystery", I have to agree that the key must be the Hungarian dubbing. The Hungarian script is extremely witty (translated by Pataricza Eszter who is one of our best movie translators). Sztankay István (who was dubbing Bébel in this film) is by far the best Hungarian voice for Belmondo (apart from Garas Dezső, who was his voice in Le Professionnel). Sztankay in the Hungarian version is over-the-top, killer-diller, über-funny. The seductive sexy tone of Almási Éva accompanying the acting of Marie Laforět is beyond comprehension, and the young Götz Anna is also charming as the young Sophie Marceau. So if you don't like this film, just watch it in Hungarian... :-D

P.S.: I am really looking forward to reading some french comments on this movie, so come on French, hurry up and write a few lines.


First, I have to say that I am a big fan of Jean-Paul Belmondo, ever since I saw him in the french original "A Bout De Suffle" of the later remake "Breathless" (with Richard Gere). But this film is a total mistake. He might have regretted it a few times to have appeared in it, but I guess the salary wasn't too bad. And well, there's Sophie Marceau, a very nice-looking woman and talented actress, who might just as well have been lured into this movie by plain money. I cannot say that I've seen a lot of movies in my life that are really worse than this but it doesn't do the great Bébel justice. In my opinion it makes no sense to waste one's time watching this picture, since it is completely idiotic with a lot of bad dialogs and other mistakes. I first saw this movie when I was about eleven years old. I remember it was a hot summer and I went to the cinema for no specific reason other than to kill some time. I didn't know what I was in for but the movie was so bad I can still remember how bad it was. Yesterday I had the opportunity to watch it again, this time on TV. I must say, now at an age well thrice as old as the first time, I could take a second look and found it was really as bad as I remembered it. Belmondo is a great actor but he made some really silly movies, maybe just for the money. Who knows. At least, I know this is one of the silly ones he made, definitely.


Ah yes, the famous French sense of humour. It's starts with a speed boat going through a shed for no apparent reason at all and then double takes of that. Bebel acts like he is stepping in for the late Louis de Funes- hyperactive, nervous, over the top. The plot reads quite amusing- it's not. Again the whole film degenerates into a farce that has no plot whatsoever and whenever Lautner, normally a competent director, loses the plot completely he adds a car chase which does not make any sense whatsoever. A couple of jibes at Mitterand's government then even try to turn this turkey into a political satire. How funny- the socialist wears a red tie and talks like Lenin on acid. The only good thing about this film is the nubile Sophie Marceau who is frequently fairly naked.


I don't know where the uppity reviewers come from but this show had some of the best comedy sketches ever. My personal favorite is the other Sesame Street characters trying to get Bert a date and introducing him to Oscarina at the bar. If someone pays attention to any comedy show, they will find more than half of the sketches are not funny, even the great Monty Python. The NEWZ was at least that funny and almost that irreverent. It was a pleasure to see Brad Sherwood again on TV. It reminder me of how much I liked the NEWZ. Like all the videos on the web about the show. Wish the Sesame Street parodies were on line. Agree that it would be nice to buy a best of DVD. Or even a set.


I've seen the other shows like this, SNL, MadTV, etc, but this was the best while it lasted. I check YouTube weekly to see if anyone has upload an new clips from it. My favorite feature was Tommy Blaze doing the news, and my favorite skit was the Sesame Street muppet political skit. I think Bert had received the nomination and Ernie was begging him for a job in his administration, but Bert had since distanced himself from the cookie and milk addict and was trying to brush him off. It was truly hilarious.

I don't know why the producers don't put the shows on a DVD. I'd pay 20 bucks for it, and I'm cheap.


Nearing 15 years later and I CAN remember many of the skits and shorts. The movie shorts by Shawn Alex Thompson were brilliant, My Beautiful Cigarette(might be My Lovely Cigarette) and Patterns were my favorites! Sketches like the Sesame Street parodies, Oopsy Digit, The Association for Apathy, Hooked on Phonics, not to mention Tommy Blaze's rants, were sooo good. Wish I could find the complete series to purchase!! It was on at one o'clock in the morning on what was then The WB-channel 11. I didn't and don't understand why that time slot. I think that is why this show didn't make it, because The Newz was as good as Kids in the Hall and much better than Saturday Night Live.


A group of American students travel to a remote part of Serbia to witness an ancient pre-Christian ritual. However, on their arrival, they discover that they have actually been lured into a trap: the freaky locals intend to offer virginal loner Beverly Putnic (Mary Kohnert) to the Devil as a bride; the rest of the students are expendable.

Fleeing the village, the group board a passing steam train, but soon learn that the locomotive is being controlled by gypsy black magic, and that their next stop will be an unscheduled rendezvous with the Satanic Serbians, who are keen to get their wedding ceremony under way.

With its ridiculous plot, a fair amount of cheesy gore, and loads of really shonky model effects, Amok Train (AKA Beyond the Door III) sounds like a bad-movie fan's idea of heaven; the first few scenes certainly had my hopes fairly high, for they feature a completely gratuitous shower scene and a dwarftwo of my 'essential ingredients' for a fun, trashy movie. Alas, despite plenty of daft moments, the film still proves to be extremely tedious, thanks to a script that, like the movie's train, goes nowhere fast.

Once the main characters have boarded the Eastern European express, the film comprises of an endless array of badly directed and monotonous action set-pieces (in which an unconvincing Hornby model frequently leaves its tracks to plough through fake plastic trees), dull scenes in which the authorities attempt to devise a plan for stopping the train (eventually coming up with the great idea of trying to derail it!!), and boring-as-hell conversation between the students, a conductor, and a spunky female thief, who makes her living stealing from the passengers.

The monotony is occasionally punctuated by some welcome scenes of outrageous gore (including a splattery 'face-peel', a body messily torn in half by a chain, an impressive impalement, and a totally crazy-bonkers-insane decapitation by the train as it thunders through a swamp!!!), but no amount of blood-letting could make up for the film's complete lack of atmosphere, awful acting, and nonsensical narrative.

The film finishes with a 'surprise' ending, in which Beverly defeats the Devil and his coven mid-ceremony by revealing that she is no longer a virgin, having been deflowered on the train by the ghost of a 16th century mute flute-playing monk (that old chestnut!).


The rating may be off a little bit..due to my love of this cheezy horror movie! I saw this movie when I was little,my mom didn't approve of an 8 year old watching R-rated movies, but my father didn't care ha-HA! (the mom was working midnights then). Realizing later (years later, more like 14 years later)that this movie has Absolutely NOTHING to do with the first Beyond the Door movie. The plot of the movie is based around a girl named Beverly, who has caught the eye of the Prince Darkness. She has the mark of the devil on her stomach, that the audience can clearly see the mark as the head of Satan, but Beverly just thinks it's a birth mark. She is apart of this European culture class at her school, and her professor is taking the class to some Slavic-type foreign country. The peasants of this county are ridiculously portrayed: poor,pale, invalids that just shuffle around, stare and clap bricks together (the clapping of bricks is towards the end of the movie as the train is finally derailed and they are coming to get Beverly to prepare her for "her wedding"). The rest of the movie consists of crazy train rides, multiple derailments - with "superior special effects" by that I mean all the derailing shots consist of a model train running on a country-side model surface; several decapitations - all of which are poorly made dummy heads. Eventually after all her classmates are dead, she is left in the train with the mysterious flute playing monk (which he cannot play - his finger and breathing rhythms don't match up with the flute music), whom "helps her lose her virginity" in order to escape the Prince of Darkness' want of her - the girl has to be a virgin in order for her to be 'his'. The country peasants come and get her and is placed on the alter for the "virgin test" from a blind, grossly looking old woman that puts her hand between Beverly's legs to check her purity. Finding out that she is impure, all the peasants and Satan (whom was rising from the earth at that time) are burned and explode. Beverly is the only left alive to return home. I have been looking for years for this movie, when I did find it, I almost peed my pants (I didn't though, just using as a reference for my extreme excitement). To me, this is one of the greatest cheezy horror movies of my childhood. You obviously don't have to take my word for, you may agree or totally disagree with me. All in all, I am SOOO GLAD that I found this movie, and I will always love it. Just give it a try and see what you think.


Set in Eastern Europe, this movie about a group of young people trapped in a demonic, bloodthirsty train is an utter disappointment. The effects are very bad, even though there is some gore, and the story is stupid. The train runs amok and relentlessly takes on any obstacles there are - it runs on and off the tracks, plows through fields and woods (without derailing!), runs through lakes and swamps (without sinking!!) and crashes through trucks parked across the tracks (without exploding !!!). One by one the innocent youngsters aboard the train die a horrible death, from being decapitated, speared by splintered signal poles, or torn in halves by iron chains connecting the railway cars. At the end the seemingly unstoppable train is being stopped by a bomb made of black powder from two dozen shotgun shells! I mean...come on, folks! How stupid can a horror movie get? Well, if you want to find out, watch this one. Or I'd rather you don't. Cause it's not worth your while. It's a waste of time. There are better things to do with your time - and if you must, then watch any other Horror movie but this one... Jasper P. Morgan


"Beyond the Door 3" is a pathetic trash.The acting is horrendous,the script is putrid and the music is awful.Absolutely no suspense,no atmosphere,just boring,meaningless c*** OK,there are some good gore bits for example one guy is cut in half by a chain,but the film isn't very bloody,so gore-hounds will be disappointed.The ending is one of the worst ever.The special effects rank from acceptable to totally fake.I'm a big horror fan and I really couldn't appreciate this one.To sum up,"Beyond the Door 3" is okay to laugh at with friends,but good luck sitting through this twice.Don't waste your precious time unless you like really bad horror movies.Not recommended.


" Cafe Americain" is definitely one of the best sitcoms I have ever watched. Hilarious and witty ; sometimes using culture difference as "spice". Too bad it only lasted one season ; I can't understand why while other sitcoms which were in lesser caliber can survive longer. Probably it turned out that this type of comedy was not for everybody's liking (and it affected its rating)?

Anyhows, Fabiana and his boyfriend scenes are so memorable for me. It never failed to amuse me watching his over-jealous boyfriend screaming "I"ll kill you, I'll kill you two times!" Valerie Bertinelli was awesome. This serial is really fun to watch. It is indeed an underrated comedy show, IMHO. For those who haven't watched ; this sitcom is highly recommended.


A man called sarge is one of those movies that isn't for everyone, but those of us that don't hate it, love it. It is full of stupid jokes, as noted before in the vein of the naked gun and Airplane. Being set in WW2, it completely lacks any PCisms at all. Germans are "Huns" (or "krauts", Americans are "Yanks", English are "Limeys", french are "Frogs"... you get the picture.

Most of the jokes are crude and cruel, and that is why many of us love it so much. It had some very South-park like jokes years before there was a south park. And it has a great sense of self-awareness that is funny only if it is done correctly, which it is.

In the movie, Sarge and his platoon are supposed to blow up the fuel dump at Tobruk, in Norther Africa. i was surprised to learn that there WAS a fuel dump at Tobruk, and it's destruction had a huge impact on the tank war in norther Africa.

However, in the movie, sarge and his men are supposed to blow it up. They then find out (after the fact) that they Aren't supposed to blow it up. make sense? not really, but with parts like the one where Sarge calls the attention of an entire German regiment to point at one of his men and say "Hey Fellas, i got a Jew up here!!", it's pretty easy to forget the "plot" and just laugh at the NPC jokes.

Recommended for those with thicks skins, who love stupid humor. Helps if you have seen Patton and like old WW2 movies.


Good film comedy is having just enough of a plot to hang some jokes on. In that respect `A Man Called Sarge' definitely qualifies as a good comedy. However it also qualifies as a good comedy for another reason: it's genuinely funny. It's not clever funny, or deeply thought provoking funny, it's good old fashioned throw a bunch of jokes against the wall and see what sticks funny where you can see that the cast was having a good time making the film and as a result the audience has a good time watching it.

Will it ever be considered amongst the all-time great comedies? No it won't, but it's definitely a good way to kill an hour and a ½.


i do not understand why this movie is so often overlooked. it may not be a classic, but it has it's moments. true, sometimes the humor can be sophomoric, even down right childish at times, but there are the occasional jokes that an adult would to think about to understand. it has a goofy plot, but is surprisingly well acted. it will not change your life in any way, but it is pointless entertainment and (for the most part) non-thought provoking fun.


This movie is absolutely stupid and wonderful at the same time. It's an Airplane-type movie. It does all the silly jokes, visual and verbal.

The star, Gary Kroeger, slips into a fair John Wayne impersonation throughout the movie. Marc Singer as the German Von Kraut, is fantastic, and does a terrific accent.

If you enjoy this type of movie, find it, watch it, and enjoy. It's great.


A Man Called Sarge may be the worst film ever made. It's playing on the local Fox affiliate's "Sunday Afternoon At The Movies" type- thing. I cannot make myself keep watching it. It stars Gary Kroeger and Marc Singer, and is ostensibly a Mel Brooks-esque/Zucker- Abrams-esque romp through WWII North Africa movies (e.g. The Desert Fox or The Desert Rats). The problem being that the formula was already a bit calcified by the time Airplane was made in 1980, and this steaming heap was sh...uh, made, in 1990, featuring a never-went-anywhere Saturday Night Live alum named Gary Kroeger from the brutally bad seasons 8-10. And Gary Singer is the Nazi nemesis? This movie makes Top Secret look like Young Frankenstein. The basic difficulty is this: Clichés are not in and of themselves funny. I suppose if you're drunk or stoned this might not be true, but in the cold light of a sober Sunday afternoon this truism applies, and how. Add to that the lack of Gene Wilder, Peter Boyle, Madeline Kahn, Marty Feldman or even Leslie Nielsen and you get this punishing feature. This is not a "hey, this is so bad it's good" movie. This is just horrible, like a hundred paper-cuts or being surprised by bad milk.


This show goes by like a gust of cool wind. It feels good, but before you know it, it's gone! I wonder what G. T. was thinking when he made this series so short? Each episode only 5 minutes long! You want more, a lot more. Besides the length, the style of the series is very lush, artistic animation. It has the epic feel of the movies, along with the humor that G. T. used in Samurai Jack. He uses almost cinematic shots with epic scores. The characters are interpreted nicely, with the essence of them intact.


I consider my-self lucky enough to stumble upon a copy of Star Wars:Clone Wars . This mini series really bridges the gap nicely as episode 2 ended whilst the clone wars really got under way , so this done a really good show of showing what the wars were like . There is more action crammed into this one DVD than the first two prequel movies , nearly all the characters are used to their full potential and you really want to be a jedi as you you see them unleash their awesome power whether it be Yoda , kit , or Mace they all impress . No stupid or silly people in here like Jar-Jar Binks or wooden acting from Anakin . Darth Sidous actually seems a lot more frightening in here than in the movies . I could say more but I really feel that I should leave at that because I don't want to ruin the ride . A must for all Star Wars fans .

STAR WARS : CLONE WARS 8 OUT 10 FOR NOW THIS IS THE SHADOWMAN WISHING YOU GOOD LUCK AND GOOD NIGHT .


And if you think the way I'm thinking right now, you should be! Star Wars: Clone Wars is one of the most captivating cartoon shows I've seen in recent years, hence gracing the name that George Lucas has conceived almost three decades ago. In fact, I am not really a big fan of SW's Expanded Universe since its purpose is to explore the possibilities beyond the movies (which in turn ruins the rhythm of the saga's overall presentation). Clone Wars, also labeled as an Expanded Universe, otherwise proves the other way round. Due to the fact that this so-called Microseries sticks closer to the next two movies (Episodes II and III) than anything else, fans of the movies will be delighted to know that it remains true to the spirit of the Star Wars mythology despite additional sub-plots and newer characters.

Star Wars: Clone Wars chronicles the adventures of Anakin Skywalker, his mentor Obi-Wan Kenobi, the beloved droids Threepio and Artoo and the rest of the characters from the first two films (fortunately for Jar Jar Binks-haters, he is nowhere to be seen) during the events of the Clone Wars: full-scale battles between the mechanical Separatist and the Army of the Republic (clone troopers). In addition to its role as a bridge between Episodes II and III, the Microseries also visually succeeds in enlarging the scope of this universal war only mentioned briefly in Episode IV: A New Hope. Speaking of structure, Clone Wars is divided into two parts: Volume I (takes place some time after the Battle of Geonosis) and Volume II (Chapter 21 ultimately concludes the story arc of Attack of the Clones, the rest takes place some time before the events of Revenge of the Sith). If you (especially newcomers) are completely confused with the chronological storyline, it's best that you watch everything from the original trilogy and the first two episodes of the prequel trilogy before tackling with both the Microseries and the upcoming movie.

Anyway, back to the review.

For Vol. I, the animation is almost flawless. Most of the characters and background settings are painstakingly caricatured/reproduced from the first two movies despite their radical looks (which in fact giving a comic book feeling to the series, thanks to the truly talented Paul Rudish of Dial M For Monkey fame, the short-lived segment of Dex's Lab that heavily inspires Clone Wars). Perhaps one of Clone Wars' major highlights is the lightsaber duels: they are all beautifully recreated from the movies while being spiced up with the 'Samurai Jack' trademarks that make the original a hit amongst viewers. Also, many fans will take a first glimpse on one of the most dangerous villains in the Star Wars universe: General Grievous. The only drawback of Vol. I is its length; each chapter only runs for 3 minutes, shorter than the usual running time for most conventional cartoon shows. The only way to satisfy your appetite is to watch the one-hour version, which crams 20 chapters altogether (although some may expect that the whole story feels too disjointed).

Vol. II, like the first one, is no different, except for its extended running time and some minor changes (Anakin's hair is now longer and he wears an outfit similar to Darth Vader's, the first appearances of Grievous' bodyguards, clone troopers now bear their resemblance to stormtroopers, etc.). While it maintains the quality of the previous 20 chapters, Vol. II feels slightly shorter in terms of its overall length and atmosphere due to the fact that most of the situations only take place in two worlds (one of them serves as a prologue to Revenge of the Sith as Supreme Chancellor Palpatine is kidnapped by Grievous). However, Vol. II succeeds in adding depth to the tragic character Anakin whose path to the Dark Side is almost inevitable. Personally, I really like the 'Ghost Hand' concept, in which Anakin's mechanical right hand can be related to the myth of a mysterious tribe, hence giving much legendary status to the Skywalker legacy.

Aside from its authentic license, Clone Wars is accompanied by the classic John William score as well as other additional score that is reminiscent to other cartoon shows you can think of. Perhaps the only thing that bugs me is its artificial synthesized music on certain parts of its entire run. It would have been a much greater experience if the whole score were fully orchestrated instead. The voice acting, while mostly provided by actors from the Star Wars video games (except for Anthony Daniels who reprises his role as Threepio), is pretty well done by any standards.

As a true Star Wars fan, I wish to thank the director of this amazingly revolutionary Microseries, Genndy Tartakovsky for proving once again that 2D animation can actually make a huge difference if we are willing to look at one thing in a completely different perspective. Kudos to George Lucas and the entire crews of Clone Wars as well!


Star Wars Episode 1 and 2 are quite controversial films that true Star Wars fans think stink like garbage, but Star Wars: Clone Wars doesn't let down. It's got great action, great stories, and expands the Star Wars saga further. And it's a darn cartoon! Can you believe that a great action show is a 2-D cartoon? All our favorites from the prequels are in this show. Anakin, Obi-Wan, Yoda, Mace Windu and many more. What makes this show so remarkable is the way the series leads up to Revenge of the Sith, as a matter of fact, the very last scene is a shot of the Battle of Coruscant. I also enjoyed the lightsaber duels in this series, particularly the one between Anakin and Asajj Ventress.

In the end, this is an incredible mini-series, and fills in the gap between Episode 2 and 3. It's too bad every episode was too god darn short!


it seems incredible how this show took all the elements of the prequel trilogy and somehow made them.. good. this show is proof that the prequels didn't have to be the mess they were. it captures the humor, awe-inspiring action and pure awesomeness of the original trilogy and puts it in prequel context. finally the complexity of the relationship between anakin and obi wan can be appreciated. anakin is no longer simply an impatient, silly person. grevious is actually threatening. the battle droids are actually funny! 3PO is... not as annoying! at least he's not worried about coming up with puns in the midst of deadly situations this time around. tyrannous and sidious can be seen as truly intelligent and malicious conspirators. the wookie planet isn't gimmicky. the battle sequences are brilliantly massive and surprising. the jedi tactics are staggering. i could adjectivize this thing all day. bottom line: forget the prequels ands remember this as the true old days of star wars. if only.


So I watched these shorts while on my friend's couch in Seattle. This micro-series documents the events that occur between the film Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones and Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Originally, these segments were shown between other shows on the Cartoon Network in short clips, so they weren't originally meant to be seen all at once. They appear to have been put together using the "Star Wars wipe".

The shorts are directed by Genndy Tartakovsky, the Russian animator that's responsible for the look and direction of cartoons such as Samurai Jack, Powerpuff Girls and Dexter's Laboratory. They definitely hold true to the angular dark-line look of his previous works, as well as the stutter-start animation style that's prevalent in his films. Ultimately, these shorts have the Tartakovsky stamp placed on them and as I was watching, I almost instantly noticed his trademark style. This style is always threatening to overwhelm the Star Wars universe that it's presenting but Tartakovsky does a good job restraining himself enough to make Star Wars more the feature, albeit, all bent into his light.

Each short is extremely action packed, which makes watching each micro-episode one after another a little exhausting, since you rarely even get a chance to catch your breath before the next section of action begins. Nevertheless, the storyline rings true to the Star Wars mythos, even if the look makes me think that Anakin Skywalker and Samurai Jack are one and the same. The humor present in the shorts is curious and deadpan, much unlike the mugging presence of Jar Jar Binks in the first film.

And so you have a nice series of shorts that bridge between two of Lucas' lesser works. In fact, in some sense, the Tartakovsky shorts outshine Lucas in that they are more capable of telling a story directly without the stiff acting and direction present in the prequels. The dialogue in the shorts takes its cues from Star Wars mythos ("I got a bad feeling about this...", etc.), but is generally, short and to the point and not full of abysmal attempts at expression (no comparisons of skin and sand here).

So, it's a little jarring because of the heavy style of Tartakovsky, but generally well put together for the medium. Enjoyable--just don't try to watch it all at once like me. 7/10.


Gene Tartakovsky's style with drawing characters had me a little apprehensive from the outset to watch the series he had directed; the characters on the surface have the immediate appearance of not looking very rough-edged and more appropriate for a kids show. Upon finally giving in and watching the series, it becomes all the more apparent that this an assumption that's not totally true. The style actually has a little more than a bit to owe as part of a tradition in the small but captivating realm of Star Wars animation (most specifically from the Boba Fett segment from the much maligned Star Wars Holiday Special), and so Clone Wars can be seen as a kind of logical continuation of back-story getting a good hit of invention and visual surprise. Here we're submerged into the details of the clone wars, that time alluded to in the original trilogy and basically is the filler between episode 2 and 3. Characteristics remains pretty similar (Anakin's arrogance, Obi-Wan's total control and lack of ego, Count Dookoo's duplicitous nature, Yoda's total wisdom, and, elaborated on, Mace Windu's total 'bad-ass' appeal), but what's changed slightly is that the use of animation- which is already bountiful in the prequels as most of what's usually around the actors to one degree or another- is put to a potential that makes things move even faster, allowing for more imagination to flourish.

One can't help but start laughing at times with how it's almost too hyperactive, like a big battle scene where Mace Windu faces off against an entire army of destroyers. There is a feeling that things are all too closely aligned with Cartoon Network animation, which isn't a detraction per-say as much as it is something that has to be taken with a grain of salt. This isn't Heavy Metal we're dealing with here. At the same time, the battles, in space with the many, many, many ships, and the awesomely dynamic light-saber duels, get an extra boost from their being no limits to what can be done with the characters, masters of the light and dark sides of the force, facing off in the height of Jedi folklore (we even see what happens during a battle in rain). There's even a creative tinge of anime- maybe more than a tinge sometimes depending on the movement of a sequence- in the proceedings. History and lineage, albeit par for the course in pleasing the "geeks" with Star Wars, is also paid good attention to, creating some cool new characters (a dastard apprentice of the Sith as one of Anakin's fiercest foes also makes a mark of character development), and some recognizable ones (General Grievous's story is a little amusing and also even more dangerous than seen in the third film).

So, how does it play out? It may depend on what the attitude is towards the animation, but if one gets into it long enough, its brief appeal as a short-lived series can be appreciated even by casual fans of the franchise. It's fun and sometimes thrilling, and the work that's done calls for better things to come in the animated SW world.


People will hate me for this, but this was better than any of the seven movies. Unlike the crappy, crappy movie which shares its name with this brilliant piece by Genndy Tartakovsky. The animation was amazing, the storyline brilliant and the action is well distributed. By that I mean we get to see everyone fight, new and old Jedi and even stormtroopers.

The story starts a little after where 'Attack of the Clones' left and finishes right after Anakin Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi are given orders to retrieve Palpatine from Grievous. That is where 'Revenge of the Sith' picks up. Also this is where Anakin's fall to the dark side truly begins.

This is definitely more than worth a watch.


SPOILERS

Yeah, this is definitely not as good as the good movies of Star Wars. Yeah, it is better than Attack of the Clones or Phantom Menace, but not as good as Revenge of the Sith, a New Hope, the Empire Strikes Back, or the Return of the Jedi. Still, this was a very good cartoon with some action here and there. Trust me, though, you can not sit through every episode. Some episodes are so amazingly boring.

Here is the basis of this television show. This takes place right after Star Wars Episode Two: Attack of the Clones and right before Star Wars Episode Three: Revenge of the Sith. There are two different series. This tells about some of the Star Wars's people's amazing stories during the Clone Wars. For example, Obi-Wan Kenobi becomes a general and fights a Bounty Hunter named Durge, Anakin fights a Dark Jedi named Asajii Ventress that was trained by Count Dooku to use the powers of the Sith, Kit Fisto's battle underwater, the rise of General Grevious, the real reason General Grevious coughs all the time, and more.

Overall, this is always a fun cartoon to watch. I only have three major complaints. My first complaint is, of course, there is not not a lot of action in this compared to the Star Wars movies. My second complaint is the fact that some of the voices do not sound like the actors at all. My third complaint is the fact that this is a bit like an anime cartoon. I loathe anime. Still, this, overall, is about two percent anime, which is not a lot, but still. I also thought that the battle between Anakin and Ventress was amazing and really exciting to watch. Anyway, this is a fun Star Wars show to watch.

8/10

Recommended Films: Star Wars.


This series takes place between episodes II and III and depict the Clone Wars, where the Glaxay becomes a war zone and Jedi Anakin Skywalker rises to knighthood and discovers more of his inner darkness. Darth Sidious continues to rise and the stage is set for the final tragic events of Revenge of the Sith.

The prequels were a dark time for most fans up to this point. Episode I felt like an overblown prologue. Episode II infuriated them by depicting the Galaxy's most legendary villain as an infatuated youth. Enter Gennedy Tartakovsky. Lucas commissioned a series of animated shorts to depict the contents of the clone wars and explore many secondary characters, since he had run into a wall by only starting the war at the end of Episode II.

"Clone Wars" is THE reason to forgive any mishap in the prequel trilogy. It packs a rhythm, inventiveness and humour almost absent form the first two films of the prequel saga. Though it allows itself to explore darker elements in the story, it also has moments of inspired lunacy that will make the most reluctant adult viewer giddy and hysterical. The animation is smart and gives the whole thing the important feeling of not taking itself too seriously without being self-conscious. Finally, since great characters like Yoda, Grievous and Mace Windu have seldom been better used than by Tartakovsky, we should rejoice that his input in the Star Wars universe is destined to continue for a while.

If History loves Star Wars as much as I do, then Episode I will be forgotten forever, replaced by Episode II. The Clone Wars series will fill the void and we will then be left with the prequel trilogy we had all hoped for.


This energetic series of mini episodes is surprisingly faithful to the spirit and look of the live action prequels without deviating from the Cartoon Network's bouncy, anime-ish style. The character design, uncannily accurate voice work and fluid animation are all cracking, and it's fun to see the cartoon's events tie in to 'Episode III', while the majority of the action is spirited and inventive. Odd, then, that the series' major weakness is that there's too much going on, too much action and not enough quiet spots, which makes for a rather relentless and one-note viewing experience when it's not broken up into its original chapters. Still, it's an absorbing enough spin-off. No match for the real thing, though.


I don't know why this website always manages to post reviews by people who know not what they are talking about. I read a review posted prior to the one thats up there now and the same thing. Whats up with you people?! Star Wars Clone Wars is simply one of the best cartoon series there is! The amazing style used by Gendy Tartakovsky... (I hope thats spelled right... And the brilliant plot lines makes for one excellent adventure through time...oops wrong movie. Anyways if you're a fan of Star Wars or if you're a fan of Samurai Jack or even if you just love good old fashioned cartoons, do me a favor and go rent "Clone Wars" and to that idiot at Blockbuster its "Clone Wars" NOT "Attack of the Clones". For those of you who know entirely nothing about Clone Wars, basically it takes place immediately following the Attack of the Clones and leads into Revenge of the Sith. Remember in the original Star Wars when Ben is telling Luke that his father fought in the Clone Wars... well thats what this series is all about. The Battle between The Jedi and their Clone army VS the Seperatist lead by count Dooku and their Droid Army... I gotta Jet... Check Out Star Wars Clone Wars...available NOW to buy!!!


The Fans of "Star Wars - Clone Wars" may tar and feather me for my opinion, but after seeing this on TV a few months ago (aired directly after the original "Star Wars - Attack of the Clones"-Picture) i was extremely disappointed. As a "Star Wars"-Fan since 1977 i expected something, that surely will not par up to George Lucas original movies, but a least pay homage to the original movies, but after 15 Minutes i turned the TV off. The cheap animation (boldly called in another comment "state-of-the-art"...) was on the roughest level, The movings, explosions and laser-shots was always the same animation-cels reused and reused, the depicting of the actors in his animated forms was ridiculous, the dialogue was extremely stupid... i can't help, i simply did not like this film! It was an insult to George Lucas original movies for me! The next shock for me was to search here on the IMDb for it... Rating 8.1!! Come on: Ed Wood (in drunken condition) would it done better! Everyone has it's own opinion, but i did not like this film, and no power (even not "the force" :-) will force me to see the whole thing!


I hoped for nice Star Wars Cartoon with a nice story, good drawings and kool characters. But instead I got this...

I think everything about this movie was really bad. The whole style how it is painted.. it reminds me of some old Hanna Barberba Cartoons.

The story was like.. I can't even say what exactly has been the story just by watching this "cartoon". You have to watch at least Star Wars Episode 2 to understand a little whats going on.

The Action was about 95% of this whole cartoon. And this action was really annoying because it always happened the same thing. Bang bang here, bang bang here, if you would count the shots I think there will be about 2000 or more.

There was practically no dialogue.

I recommend to keep your fingers away from this B-Movie Action Cartoon drawn like a mix of Heavy Metal Fakk 1 and the Jetsons.


'Star Wars' Clone Wars is an animated film (or series) that takes place between 'Attack of the Clones' and 'Revenge of the Sith'. It takes a little while to get used to the style of animation of the series, and I am not sure that it really works; it looks like it was just cheap to make. For a science fiction film and the amount of interest that Star Wars has and the money that it makes, I would have expected a different style of animation. The sequences are okay with some decent battle scenes and new worlds. Overall, you can take it or leave it; you do not really need to see this in order to understand or get into 'Revenge of the Sith', but it probably would help understand some of the story line.


I was four years old in 1977 and I saw "Star Wars" in the theater. Let me be very clear: I'm a huge SW fan, but that doesn't mean that I see the prequel trilogy as a great experience in movie-making. I do, however, believe that "Clone Wars" is simply excellent. The animation style, the pacing, the story. It's all there.

My jaw dropped when Anakin and Ventress fought on Yavin IV for the very simple fact that they were fighting in a thunderstorm. No one has ever visualized the simplicity of a lightsaber battle where raindrops are hitting the blades and sizzling as soon as they make contact. That one idea shows to me that the animators are looking for something beyond the typical SW experience, and they found it.

Yes, you do have to get used to the visuals, as they do look like "Samurai Jack" (but, being a "Samurai Jack" fan, I think that's a good thing). And, if you watched them as they originally aired, you had to watch them in five minute increments for Volume One and 20 minute increments for Volume Two, which could throw you off in terms of the pacing (though, again, I thought they did it very, very well and that the way the chapters aired made perfect sense).

In the end, there is a 120+ minute SW movie (basically Episode II and 1/2) between the two volumes of the DVDs. It shows Anakin and Padme's romance in ways that Lucas couldn't get across, it allows us to see Anakin become a Jedi Knight, and it gives some great insight into not only the prequel trilogy but also the classic one.

If you even have the slightest interest in SW, these two DVDs are time and money well spent.


From the creator of "Dexter's Laboratory" (once my favorite kids' show) comes an unjustly praised exercise in beating up "Star Wars" for more lunch money. Genndy Tartakovsky's brilliantly surreal animation is here, but this is supposed to be (at least remotely) dramatic, so the style doesn't fit. In fact, the characters look like goofy sub-par video game renderings that make this feel like a clunky, fan-fodder horror from beyond.

The truth is, this is not just a miserable story, it's a miserable way to tell a miserable story, destroying all hope for half-decency. In context, nothing in this drivel can feel quite real. If you really want to see "Star Wars," you'd find more in the dreadfully stupid "Attack of the Clones" than this, which was little more than a piece of meat thrown to the ravening masses.

If you have millennia of patience and don't experience headaches induced by severe stupidity and banality, enjoy.


The story can be good but the animation is so bad that makes watch anything but this show. Every character it's very ugly, there no beauty in a single episode. I hope some day Lucas think to make a real animation show with an art good as the greatest scifi animations like Galaxy Rangers (this a real piece of art, no this "Ugly Wars").


A lovely movie. Forget comments about the (apparently) "overt" love/sex scenes. If this was a movie featuring straight/heterosexual love scenes, such comments would not be made.

An interesting symmetry with the original . . . Anne Heche appeared (as actress) in the third story of "If These Walls Could Talk", and here directs and writes the third story of "ITWCT 2".

Michelle Williams (so very different than in "Dawson's Creek"!), Chloe Sevigny (always excellent), Sharon Stone, Ellen Degeneres, and (most importantly) Vanessa Redgrave give excellent performances.

A lovely, lyrical examination of lesbian love - and indeed love and life in general - throughout three very different decades.

Highly recommended.

You'll laugh . . . you'll cry . . . you'll love this movie.


This new HBO movie far exceeded my expectations. In the first of the three mini-movies, Vanessa Redgrave gives a stirring performance as the survivor of a lesbian couple in 1961. The message of this first movie serves well to remind people of the tragedy that ensued when one's life long partner passed on previous to the 70's.

The second movie, set in 1972, depicts an accurate portrayal of what lesbians faced during the rise of the feminist movement where even sisters were divided over who should be allowed to participate and promote the feminist cause. Chloe Sevigny's portrayal of a "butch" lesbian, comfortable with herself is phenomenal. Ms. Sevigny should be nominated for an Emmy for her fantastic acting.

The third and final movie, features a current day lesbian couple who are trying to have a child. Billed as a romantic comedy, this episode has an underlying message amid the laughter and tears which is common to all couples regardless of gender. Ellen Degeneres and Sharon Stone are funny, yet convincing as a couple. Their chemistry radiates throughout and both women deserve accolades for their performances.

Finally, a comment must be made about the fact that Anne Heche made her HBO directing debut with the third episode. Having written the story as well, it is clear to this viewer that Anne Heche has a brilliant future not only as an actress but as a writer and director.

"If These Walls Could Talk 2" is a cinematic achievement and may very well be the first movie of the new Millennium which accurately shows where there is love and truth, gender is nothing but an afterthought.


I love the first segment of this movie. The first segment took place in 1960's. It described how 2 elderly women live and love each other for many years and suddenly, one of them dies of stroke, the other one is only being recognized as the best friend, not family member. Vanessa Redgrave was marvelous in this role. She could only moan for her lost partner in dark and hide all the sorrow to herself. The scene that she felt the need to separate her stuff apart from her partner's right before her partner's nephew arrival certainly reflects how lesbians are practically nonexistent at that time. It is so sad and upsetting that some distant relatives could just walk in there and take away everything (furnitures, bird collections with all sentimental meanings) she had shared with her partner for years. She eventually got kicked out of her own house by some distant relative of her partner's. This is how same sex couples were being treated. It is a very touching, tender segment. It will make you cry.

In the 2nd segment, although Chole Sevigny and Mitchell William were great, something is missing in the message they tried to convey. It doesn't go into much details on how 1970's perceive lesbians.

The 3rd segment is kind of funny. Ellen Degeneres and Sharon Stone were great. This segment is a big contrast to the very first one. In 2000, gay and lesbians are getting more recognitions and fighting for civil rights. Although there is still a lot of work to do, compared to 1960's, there has been a lot of improvements and more freedom.

Overall, it is a wonderful movie. Highly recommended.