Today's kids, raised on computer-generated graphics, will probably sneer at it, but by 1957 standards THE LAND UNKNOWN was pretty hard to beat. Drawing inspiration from 1920s silent classic THE LOST WORLD and using film shot by Byrd during his polar expedition, THE LAND UNKNOWN presents the story of a helicopter forced down at a warm-water oasis in Antartica--where the crew discovers a prehistoric world where everything seems determined to gobble them up.

The special effects are a mixed bag, ranging from live-action shots of lizards-in-combat to Godzilla-style rubber suits to full size mechanics. While I wouldn't describe it as greatly sophisticated or even consistently executed, it is all a tremendous amount of fun. The script is more intelligent than you might expect--and the story takes an unexpected turn that tempers the action-heavy plot with a certain depth. The cast is no-name, but every one plays expertly, and THE LAND UNKNOWN moves at a cracking pace. This will never compete with the likes of Harryhausen's stop-motion classics, nor will it go down in the history of film as an equal to the truly great science-fiction and fantasy films of its day. But THE LAND UNKNOWN is a fun flick, and I recommend it to fans of 1950s creature features.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT Amazon Reviewer


I first remember seeing 'The Land Unknown' as a kid. It really left a big impression on me and I never forgot that movie. Since that time, I've seen it a few more times, most recently just the other day. Although the special effects, prehistoric dinosaurs and scenery are not up to today's standards, it is still an excellent movie. I believe this film is very under rated and 'The Land Unknown' should be considered as a classic lost land movie of the 50s. If you are a fan of horror/sci-fi movies of the 50s and early 60s, this is a must see movie. There are flaws in this movie but that's how it was back then. The movie has to be watched keeping in mind the context of the times it was shown. You will still find a very enjoyable, exciting, action, sci-fi movie. If you are caught up in the high tech, high budget movies of today, and looking for a flawless film, this might not be for you. This is a fine film, tucked away, waiting to take it's rightful place in the history of cinema. Watch it if you can. You'll be glad you did.


This is one of the thoroughly enjoyable monster movies that appeared amid all the camp and trash the genre churned out in the 1950s. While it is no masterpiece, there is nothing worthy of serious criticism. The movie is well-paced with plenty of action--the viewer is not required to wait 45 minutes before anything at all happens. It is very well filmed, in a widescreen format (the only way it should be seen). And the acting by an exceptionally attractive cast is above average for this kind of film.

As for the dinosaurs, they may not be up to the standards of "Jurassic Park" or "Walking With Dinosaurs", but, again, considering what the budget must have been, they are rather good (except for a slow-moving Tyrannosaurus).

What really makes this movie worthwhile is its atmosphere. It draws the viewer into the reasonably convincing world of a tropical jungle in the middle of a polar icecap.

A very likeable and exciting movie. See it in widescreen if you can.


I love this sort of movie, but in good conscience cannot give a it a score much higher than 3 because it really is a BAD movie. Enjoyable, yes...but also bad in many ways.

The film begins with a bazillion feet of often grainy stock footage of Antarctica--so much so that I swear that the movie would be 15 minutes shorter without it. A helicopter is dispatched from the military on some expedition. On the way, it develops engine trouble and is forced down--into a WARM region of Antarctica where dinosaurs rule!!! Yes, it's very like the stories by Jules Verne, "The Mysterious Island" or "Journey to the Center of the Earth". But set in the region surrounding the South Pole, this is definitely far-fetched. Believe it or not, the idea was inspired by a flight in 1947 by Admiral Byrd over the Antarctic in which a relatively warmer region (due, I supposed to geothermal activity) was discovered. The press reported (inaccurately) that Byrd had found an area with "land areas consisting of mountains, forests, green vegetation, lakes and rivers, and in the underbrush saw a strange animal resembling the mammoth"!

Given that it's the 1950s, what does a group of military men need in such a situation? Yep, you've guessed it--a hot babe who seems to have an amazing wardrobe. One minute, she's dressed for the Antarctic, the next she's wearing shorts and a skimpy blouse (where did she get these considering she was just along for a helicopter ride?!?!). She also, in true 1950s form, appeared to be narcoleptic, as she fainted on three occasions!! That's a lot even for a horror/sci-fi film! In this odd region, there are tyrannosaurs, pterodactyls and other primordial creatures--all bent on eating the four stranded travelers. Also, rather unexpectedly, they stumble upon another man here--a crazy Dr. Hunter who seems far less a man of science and more a really, really horny guy who is constantly trying to kidnap the lady.

With silly dinosaurs (sometimes consisting of a man in a rubber suit), monitor lizards and crazy sets, the whole thing is very silly but high on kitsch value. The cheesy dialog adds to the fun atmosphere of the film, but don't think that it's a good film. There are just too many silly clichés, costumes and a plot that makes you chuckle just thinking about it!


"Lost World" type plot of an expedition to a section of the Antarctic where there's a body of warm water. The team members run into inclement weather - not to mention a flying menace - that forces them to land. Where they land is a few thousand feet below sea level where time is stuck back in the Mesozoic era. Dinosaurs are a persistent problem, not to mention a severely traumatized survivor (Henry Brandon) of a previous expedition.

Laying aside a lack of originality, and a budget too low to allow for more convincing special effects, "The Land Unknown" is still fairly good entertainment. It's got a good look (and one very good looking female co-star in Shirley Patterson, who gets to dress somewhat skimpily for a fair portion of the running time); the sets are well done. It's made with some skill; director Virgil Vogel was also at the helm of other fantastical films from the era such as "The Mole People" and "Terror in the Midnight Sun". He delivers some enjoyable thrills and keeps things moving steadily along, bringing the film in at a tight 'n' trim running time of 79 minutes.

Future Tarzan performer Jock Mahoney adheres to the tradition of rugged and stoic heroes from other sci-fi films of the era, with able support from William Reynolds, Douglas Kennedy, and Phil Harvey. Brandon is a stand-out as the crazed Hunter who tries to run things his way but is still reachable and it's nice to see him regain some humanity by the conclusion of the film.

"The Land Unknown" stands out from other Universal 50's sci-fi efforts for being shot in CinemaScope. This allows for a feeling of grandeur even if it's essentially B level material. Vogel certainly knows how to fill the wider-than-usual picture.

It may not be destined to be one of the classics of the period, but it's still fun of its type.

7/10


I dreamed about being chased by dinosaurs every night for weeks! I was five years old at the time (1957) but, what higher praise can you give a movie in this genre? I haven't seen the movie in it's entirety since that memorable night so, my inner child gives it a ten. And high praise to the IMDB Power Search, without which I would not have rediscovered this childhood scarefest. I did not remember the title; my memory had fixed on "Hell's Chimney". Maybe that's a phrase from the movie.


Dinosaur adventure! (yes, another one).

While on an Arctic expedition, a group of scientists become lost in an ice-age environment which is tainted with the humidity of the Amazon. Jock Mahoney is the stalwart hero who divides his time between fighting off dinosaurs, a crazy jungle hermit, and the advances of pretty Shawn Smith. If Mahoney had any sense, he'd push the hermit off a cliff, let Shawn get her hooks into him, and have dinosaur filet mignon for dinner, but apparently, he's not that smart. Douglas Kennedy co-stars as the Navy captain who sends these dillweeds on the mission aboard a helicopter with a defective push-rod tube - why, you.... dirty....

OK sci-fi/horror time-killer from Universal-International.


A helicopter with three Navy officers, led by Jock Mahoney, and the requisite woman reporter aboard, Shawn Smith, gets caught in bad weather over Antarctica and must land through a heavy cloud layer to find they are at the bottom of a volcanic valley. But wait a minute. This is not just ANY hot, steamy tropical jungle in Antarctica. This one is really old, inhabited by plants beasts that disappeared millions of years ago. It is also inhabited by the sole survivor of an earlier expedition, Henry Brandon. The half loco Brandon has the part necessary to repair the Navy's damaged helo -- a "push-pull rod" -- but he's hoarding his equipment because he wants to trade what they want for what he wants, namely the shapely Shawn Smith. And who can blame him? I mean, ten years? (The fact that Henry Brandon is reputed to have been gay adds a shiver of irony to the plot.) Well, everyone is attacked at one time or another by prehistoric dinosaurs but they all

survive and escape, including Brandon who has come to his senses at the last moment and discovered his humanity.

Brandon isn't much of an actor. He's probably best known for his role as Scar in John Ford's "The Searchers." ("You speak good Comanche. Someone teach you?") But his modest talent doesn't make him conspicuous in the context of this film. The other performers are no better. The most interesting cast member is Jock (nee Jacques) Mahoney, a stunt man raised in Iowa, and one of the best in the business. Among other memorable acts caught on film, he did the spectacular leap down the staircase onto Robert Douglas's villain in Errol Flynn's "The Adventures of Don Juan." His name ranks up there with Canutt, Eason, Perry, and Dar Robinson. Not that Mahoney is muscle bound. You don't need to be a body builder to be a stunt man. You need to be lithe, professional, competitive, intelligent, and you to be completely lacking a sympathetic nervous system. The men and women who do stunts don't have to be good actors, as Mahoney proves here. They're a proud

group -- can I generalize like this? -- but not snooty. They don't feel they're humbling themselves if they hang around with the extras, as I know from experience. Mahoney was a parent to Sally Field.

I don't like going on like this about stunt people but there's so little to say about the movie. The monsters are gaggingly cheap. The first shot we get of them is two ordinary monitor lizards, blown up to dinosaur size by photographic legerdemain, and they're tearing each other to pieces, literally. These are big animals and here they are throwing themselves around and chewing on limbs and heads. We can see the ripped skin. Nobody can claim that no animals were harmed in making this movie. I found it a little disgusting.

The other minatory dinosaur is a T. rex -- and it's a hoot: a man dressed in a flabby plastic suit dragging a tail behind him. Another monster never lived -- a kind of gigantic pumpkin with tentacles. It eats a cute little mammal. I don't think it's a tarsier, though Mahoney the expert calls it such. Still, they got the time and the animal reference right. At least, I think the Eocene tarsoids lived about 60 million years ago.

I was certainly happy to see the five humans get out of there at the climax. It meant the end of the movie.


A Navy pilot (to fly the helicopter), a Commander (to star in the movie), and a Machinist Mate (to strand them good by busting a part with a hammer and running down the radio battery too soon) fly over Antarctic but get lost in a hole in the ground.

Typical of what you usually see in rubber-suit dinosaur movies: stiff, slow-moving, sluggish, unrealistic and hardly lifelike... and that's just Jock Mahoney's acting! (The T-Rex is slightly better.)

Janet Leigh lookalike Shirley Patterson (using an alias of Shawn Smith) goes along for the ride to provide 1950s-style eye candy, and scream and faint at inopportune times. To provide suspense, she mentions that just about the time their window of opportunity for being rescued will end, her clothes are going to wear out (although that would presumably open different windows of opportunity.)

Henry Brandon as the bat-crazy castaway Dr. Hunter comes the closest to being an interesting character, ranting about his months alone in the dark with the lizards, smashing dinosaur eggs with his Fred Flintstone club, and occasionally kidnapping Maggie ("I own everything in this valley... including YOU!") A little time alone with her seems to change his mind, though, and he risks his life to give her back to the Navy when it seems they might be trying to fly away without her. (The director apparently lost interest in Carter at the end, though; when the helo runs out of gas and crashes beside the ship, only very careful viewing lets you see him make it into the lifeboat, and he's not seen for the remainder of the movie.)

High points: --- [1] In a lesser movie, once Maggie finds her cute little furry doll-eyed pet "Shakepeare", not only would he appear in every remaining scene, he'd probably end up saving everyone; in this movie he's immediately eaten. --- [2] It was a nice touch to make the T-Rex's eyes blink (although that apparently left only about $10 for the rest of the costume.) --- [3] I bet the the monitor-lizard wrestling death-match really ticks off the PeTA types.

Low points: --- [1] The flaming Q-Tip in the mouth treatment for the Reptilicus clone in the lake is pretty badly done (Reptilicus gets tired of it the second time, too.) --- [2] They're rescued just one day before Maggie's clothes are scheduled to fall apart.


A brilliant and economically photographed character study. Other users have commented on plot, on this and that, whatever. Please note the gentle use of foreshadowing and diversion (or red herrings) throughout the film. I must see it again for this very reason. The obvious uses are the digitally filmed closeup shots in low-light of skin in Roman church art masterpieces leading up to the parallel shots of skin when the actors touch ... but note in particular the clenched hand on the sheet at the end of that scene, to be followed later by a montage of clenched hands on ancient statuary (interspersed with an angel) and the almost penultimate shot of a hand at the denouement .... Cinematic style, very specific choices of music, and such foreshadowing all enhance an intriguing character study of an individual descending into emotional turmoil with superbly subtle directorial style. The scene in the bar with the barmaid when Bruce explains love -- and the final scene alone are worth the price of admission for eloquently filmed and acted moments of understated emotion.


When Paris born and raised Bruce meets Rome born and raised Matteo, sparks fly but both are convinced that they are straight. Will they won't they?

Matteo seems to love flirting with those "Jared Leto" eyes and loves to fall asleep in Bruce's bed. But, is he flirting because he wants something to happen? Or is he just torturing Bruce? Enjoying twisting the knife as it were?

The film is emminantly watchable even if the attitudes seem a bit dated. It reminded me a lot of the scenes of unrequited longing in "The Fourth Man" but without the masterful use of suspense.


I wasn't too sure when I picked up this movie. The first few minutes were actually kinda nauseating the way the picture shot. But after used to it, I found it to be more real. The story doesn't flow like normal, rather it drips on you like leaking faucet. Telling you bits of the character as it goes. The acting of the main actor Rodolphe Marconi is very promising. His eyes tells a lot more than anything else. Somehow I keep comparing him to Jake Gylenhaal, maybe just the look. Overall great effort from an all rounder producer/actor/writer. I highly recommend this study of human's emotion. When feelings are too strong to be contained. Like the character said "have you ever been lost, and you are aware that you are lost, but you can not do anything about it?"


I was invited to a viewing of this film at a neighbor's house up the street. I thought it was a neighborhood get together, but it turned out to be a simultaneous nationwide viewing sponsored by moveon.org. So my guard was up as I was surrounded by a lot of Bush hating liberals, but the movie had just started as I arrived and I was quickly seated in the back. So I decided to stick it out and watch. I'm glad I did.

All along, I felt that the story we've been told about why we are in Iraq has changed over time. I remember that we were sure that there were weapons ready to be unleashed on us or given to Al-Queda terrorists who would smuggle them in to our country and cause more damage than the World Trade Center attack. Then it was not so much the weapons as the weapons programs. And there were those "mobile weapons labs". And then it was simply to liberate the Iraqi people. It's all jumbled in my mind and I can't remember exactly when and how the official reason change, I just know that it did somehow.

The best thing about this film is that it documents the subtle changes over time by showing our leaders speaking at various times before and after our invasion of Iraq. There is no "liberal bias" like you get from the news sometimes, it was simply factual presentation of what our leaders told us and when.

It also presents documentary evidence of things we were mislead about. The "yellow cake" in Niger, the "uranium enrichment tubes" that were actually not suitable for that purpose, the "mobile weapons labs", the satellite evidence and so on.

After seeing this movie, I am left with two possibilities. We were either lied to deliberately or our leaders were grossly negligent and incompetent. Whatever your political views, this movie should make you angry about how we have been mislead. It pulls together a lot of information that is jumbled in the public mind and makes it clear.

If you can stand hearing the views of the people that gravitate to this sort of thing, I encourage you to watch it at a local group presentation. Or buy a copy from the website and watch it with friends. It brings up a lot for discussion and thought.


Former CIA, Ambassadors, Senators, and other Washington DC insiders sum up what they know about the "Iraq war;" Iraq's supposed ties with 9-11 and Al-Qaeda, and the lies and mis-information the Bush administration has fed the public to justify this outrage known as "Operation Enduring Freedom."

This is a must-see.


Extremely well done...In the form that it was, after the event as it were...Quite startling.

Many names 'in the know', which added much credence.

I was particularly struck by David Kay's comments: Obviously a man of high principle-Presumably choosing David was one of White House's unexpected blunders...I cannot imagine Bush choosing a man of integrity by design! I sincerely hope David has not been singles out for his honesty.

I wholeheartedly recommend this documentary to those who wish to know the truth about this abhorrent war & the true reasons for it.


What members of the Bush administration said. Why it was all false.

Lots of words about weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons, grave threats, and Al-Qaeda. Nothing about concern or freedom for the Iraqi people, something that came stage center only after the other reasons for the war were exposed as bald-faced lies.

Oscars to Mr. Bush and Mr. Powell for superior acting (lying in a most convincing fashion) and to Mr. Rumsfeld for a chameleonic performance (changing as the story changed).

This is a film every American and Briton should watch.


Watching the talking heads in archival news clips from TV in this documentary one is just amazed at how obvious it is that the Bush administration lied about its reasons for invading Iraq. Of course we have the benefit of hindsight and know for a fact that the weapons of mass destruction were not there. But the really striking thing is that all these so-called leaders of our country--Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and yes, Colin Powell--KNEW they were lying.

As Al Franken so succinctly said, "It's one thing for a President to lie about his sex life. It's another to lie about why we are sending our young men and women into battle."

What this documentary does through interviews with leading experts in government, the military, and the intelligence communities, juxtaposed before, between and following the many dire pronouncements from the administration, is demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that what they said was propaganda, disinformation--the Big Lie--dished out to the Congress,the Press and the American people.

The real question is why? What were the real reasons for Bush's invasion of Iraq? Before I attempt to answer that question, two things, One, this documentary is utterly convincing in its indictment of the Bush administration and will be almost impossible to watch by those who supported the war and continue to support the war. The evidence for the massive mendacity is so vividly expressed by knowledgeable and experienced people within and without the government--people like former Ambassador Joe Wilson, former Director of the CIA Stansfield Turner, anti-terrorism expert Rand Beers, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Philip Coyle, retird Col Patrick Lang, and at least a dozen more--that only the most hardened neocons and faith-based True Believers could doubt the subterfuge. Incidentally, it was Wilson's wife, an undercover agent for the CIA, who was deliberately exposed by leaks from the Bush administration in order to punish Wilson for his expression of the truth about WMD.

Two, the real blame beyond the Bush administration lies with the Press and with the Congress. If medals were given for cowardice, members of the Press and the Congress would have chests ablaze with bronze, silver and gold. The Press simply abdicated its Fourth Estate responsibility through fear of reprisals from the Bush administration, while the Congress dared not go against the Bush propaganda machine for fear that it would be labeled anti-American. In fact their cowardly and irresponsible behavior was deeply anti-American while it was solidly pro-Bush. They both kept the American people in ignorance about the real reasons for the war.

Okay what were those reasons? Oil? Of course this was a factor. Notice that other horrendous dictators elsewhere in the world are not removed from power by an American invading force.

To right the wrong that the first president Bush did when he kept Saddam Hussein in power after the Gulf War? Yes, but here is the beginning of the stupidity. The senior Bush pulled up short of deposing Saddam Hussein because keeping him in power was considered in the best interests of the United States. We had good control over him and he served as buffer to Iranian theocratic ambitions.

To demonstrate to the world the awesome might of the US military (the "shock and awe" that had Rumsfeld practically drooling) and show our willingness to use force if necessary? Yes. This is probably the most important psychological and geopolitical reason for invading Iraq. That it was immoral and likely to further alienate our allies and turn the vast majority of Muslims throughout the world into enemies didn't seem to occur to Bush and the neocons. Notice that another effect has been to convince Iran that it needs to acquire nuclear weapons, since it is obvious that the Bush administration isn't about to invade a country that has them (e.g., North Korea, Pakistan).

To mollify the American people, so many of whom naturally felt a great need after 9/11 to see some kind of action taken, any action to Show Strength, like a bull whirling around, swinging its horns at anything near.

To smoke-screen our failure to get Osama bin Laden and the general failure in Afghanistan? Absolutely. Blowing up great mounds of dirt in Afghanistan was NOT satisfactory, and going into nuked-up Pakistan to get bin Laden was not palatable.

To provide business for Halliburton and other corporations close to Bush and members of his administration? Well, that was one of the effects of the war.

To subconsciously get into the minds of soccer moms and make them feel safer by making US soldiers (who get paid for this sort of thing) the target for terrorists in Iraq instead of civilians at home? Possibly. Again, that was part of the effect of the war.

To help Bush win in 2004? Without doubt. Being a "war time" president would give Bush a big advantage over any Democrat. A quick "victory" over Iraq (celebrated aboard an aircraft carrier with Bush in pilot's gear strutting around with a helmet tucked under his arm shaking hands) would allow him to go one up on his father who foolishly abdicated such a possible advantage and lost the next election. BTW, film of the Bush strut is shown in the documentary more fully and more embarrassingly than the nightly news dared show it at the time. You have to see it to believe it.

I think this last reason is the most compelling reason that Bush went to war, whether he realizes it or not: he wanted to win, not so much the war on terror, but the next election.


This is an extremely well done film using combinations of clips of statements made by Bush, Cheney, Powell, et.al justifying the invasion of Iraq, along with commentary by many highly reputable CIA analysts, ambassadors, and other government officials explaining the false basis of these justifications. The film demonstrates what many people have known intuitively--that the invasion was totally unjustified. The film is made with precision and integrity.


This show was absolutely addictive, the storyline was perfect, the acting was perfect and the characters were so unbelievably unrealistic I thought I was watching a recording of real life. It was perfectly cast and set in the right setting (1980's). It would've most definitely been a dominate television show if not been canceled, but the only bad part would be that long depressing state between seasons when all i can think about is more Freaks & Geeks. My older brother said that i watch stupid shows and i had him watch Freaks & Geeks and couldn't get him to stop watching them. For everyone who ever lived, this is, to put it simply, the best.


I was born in '87 so I never got to experience the 70's unfortunately, but my parents never grew up since the 70's. So with them I was able to understand this show and absolutely loved it.

Freaks and Geeks is a story with really two main characters, Lindsay and Sam, who are brother and sister. Sam is a "geek" with his two friends Neil and Bill, who are absolutely hilarious and trust me you won't stop laughing. Then there is Lindsay, who seems lost being in high school, and starts to hang out with the "freaks" who do drugs, drink, listen to rock, and go against pretty much everything her family believes.

The acting is incredible and so believable. The music is the best part of the whole show. Styx, Zep, Rush, Van Halen, The Grateful Dead, and a lot more. I own to Season 1 box set and I make my friends watch it and now they realize how great of a show it is, but it sucks it's canceled. Even though it is canceled I will never stop watching my Season 1 of Freaks and Geeks and everyone should watch this show!!


A precocious little moppet mistakes a misanthropic tycoon for Uncle Sam. She believes that by helping the old fellow, Depression woes will cease for her father and the country JUST AROUND THE CORNER.

This friendly, fanciful film was exactly what the nation needed to help it forget economic hard times. Shirley Temple is bright & cheerful, as always, and never fails to amuse. The talents which made her Hollywood's top box office draw for years are abundantly on display. Legendary Bill `Bojangles' Robinson is on hand with 3 of his celebrated dance routines. Watch, when he dances with Shirley, how she matches him step for step - a marvelous terpsichorean treat.

Comedy is handled by Bert Lahr, Joan Davis (why aren't they included in the climactic Benefit show?) & especially Franklin Pangborn, in his glory as the quintessential harried apartment manager. Charles Farrell, a big star himself a few years previous, does a fine job as Shirley's dad, while Claude Gillingwater once again has fun with the part of a crotchety, rich old man. Cora Witherspoon scores as a society snob.

Movie mavens will recognize Charles Williams as a persistent photographer & Leonard Kibrick as Shirley's tough kid friend.

Shirley, with help from Miss Davis, Lahr & Bojangles, sings & dances her way through `This Is A Happy Little Ditty' & `Just Around The Corner'.


"Just Around the Corner" is strictly Shirley Temple 101. Paul Girard Smith's short story "Lucky Penny" (a much better title!) becomes an unlucky vehicle for the pint-sized star, here portraying the daughter of a financially-strapped architect during the Depression. Through some comically-contrived misunderstandings, Shirl comes to believe her father's boss is actually Uncle Sam--and sets out to solve not only her papa's problems, but the nation's as well! Forgettable bubblegum nonsense, though one with an elaborate production and some energy from supporting players Bert Lahr, Joan Davis, and Bill Robinson. ** from ****


Barda is the next attempt of director Serdar Akar. He has made some remarkable films like "Gemide" and "Dar Alanda Kisa Paslasmalar". With his new step, he tries to bring forth the violence in the Turkish society.

A group of young and gonna-be part of high society friends, gather at a bar they frequently visit. One night, some guys looking awfully scary and dangerous enters and these two classes known to live together on the streets are left to fight trapped in a bar...

Well, to be honest, this is not the best picture from director Akar. Especially the characters of the youngsters are not accordingly established. The court scenes are far from being realistic. Especially the young actors does not seem to be ready for their parts. But the main issue here is that Turkish cinema and Turkish directors do not generally operate as artists who carries on their duty as an observer of the society. This film drives straight into that misty field...

The violence is everywhere in Turkey as well as the world, in the streets, in the metro, at the schools etc. but this somehow seems to be unseen by the Turkish cinema. Because, people would love to sleep and think that everything's going fine as long as the tragedy doesn't touch them. But that's not true at all. The truth is out there, in this film. Although it has some major negative sides, it's a brave step trying to show the reality...

Based upon a true story, what's happening is horrible, unbelievable and unacceptable. But you gotta see it to get to do something about it...

****** spoiler *********

By the way, at the ending of the film, the guys in the jail attacking the others are Zeki Demirkubuz, Cagan Irmak and Serdar Akar himself (the other two being some important Turkish directors). Seems like, the artists are trying to attack the mentality behind these horrible acts. Bad dream, nice try...


This movie depicts human relations.It shows the inevitable gaps between people and like the movie "Babel" it also shows how important communication is; because most of the things throughout the movie happen because of lack of communication. It also questions the judicial system in Turkey. People don't understand each other and in fact sometimes they don't want to. Most of the people evaluate others with the things they own, they wear or with their occupations. As if the Social status of a person has become the criterion of being a human. I mean if your social status is low, you are not respected, you are accepted as a "non-human" You see what one can do when he has nothing to lose. "It's only after you lose everything that you are free to do anything" (quote from fight club) Selim and his gang have nothing to lose, so they are free -actually they think they are free to do anything; because what else they can lose? People's non-existing respect? Money? What? The answer is nothing. You can't lose what you don't have. Torturing is their self-masturbation, destruction is their revenge. Yet this is questionable: "Do we have the right to take justice into our hands." Nothing is unreal in the movie. Loved it


A superficial description of the movie would be something like this: A group of very close friends, profiled as of middle-class many of whom are university students, go to a bar and get wound up being tortured in many ways by some psychopathic lowbrow blue collar backstreet mob-so how dangerous it is to spend the night outside, or what has become of Istanbul or the world, the world's gone crazy and watch your backs,and so on and so forth...

But getting tangled up in the simple and psychologically very effective narration of the movie and downplaying what it has to say would be not reading between the lines.

This movie is a very realistic expression of the outcomes of social stratification, poverty, and inequality on different parts of the society. In this movie, you are let into the minds of whom many like to refer to as psychopaths and see the world from their eyes. You understand their reasoning, loss of aim and the slow transformation from troubled people to those -after having been made to accept being outsiders- who have lost everything they have and thereof can do anything, regardless of any value and concept associated with humanity such as love, affection, empathy,honor,self-respect. The psychos in the movie hadn't committed any crime till the story, none was recorded a least. And the crime committed the night of the story was not planned. This alone explains the threshold concept.

You see that they do not come out of the blue, instead they are created by the system and after having been victimized to the point of losing their humanity , they turn up in the scene to respond to all this, and their response does not have a particular aim, it is nothing but the fight for existence, the timing of the response completely depends on the threshold of the ability to stand more of it/or not. When this threshold limit is exceeded, they respond to whomever they find available. The response has a particular purpose, the declaration of existence of the self, but it does not aim at a particular person. That is why these guys, in the film, choose a group of very innocent young persons as the object of their violence.At that point, it is a matter of life or death, anyway. So they don't care who they victimize, nor where they will wind up in the end.

The film is very successful at displaying the contradiction between the judgment of what these psychos do and how they should be regarded within the society and what that observation tells us about them.

It is also damn good at explaining the influence of this system on different parts of the society. Without getting didactic, it just tells a non-fiction story that takes place within a relatively short time. And the lines of each character is so realistic and to-the-point that you really get sorry.

You get the wider perspective, the individual perspective and see how they interact.This is what makes the movie exceptional. You see both sides of the story and then the whole story. And even if you knew it all from the beginning, you feel like you were reminded of something long forgotten.

I got very sorry but I can say that this movie was one of the best I have seen in the world. there aren't any pleasant scenes, there are no adventurous elements, no effects other than blood and gore. but in terms of story and its artful cinematic adaptation, the movie is one of the richest in terms of characters, points of view, narration, expression, and most of all, meaning.


Turkish cinema is constantly maturing. This is one of the best explorations of the social divide and culture of envy present in modern Turkey. Inevitable comparisons are made to works of Haneke, particularly to Funny Games. The film does not have the virtuosity of Haneke, but it also does not have Haneke's patronising, barely disguised sermons against bourgeoisie. The middle class young people are not hedonistic, divorced from reality buffheads. They exist within a different reality from the nether class hoons that invade their world. Some left-leaning Turkish viewers that would like to see any city-dwelling Turk from a non-working class background as vermin will not be pleased. However, social strata in Turkey is not black and white anymore - if it ever were...

It won't be a spoiler to state that the violent scenes are difficult to watch and some might find those out of place in a film that is decidedly anti-violence. To me, the uber-realism of those scenes carried the subtext of the film: Do not kid yourself. Violence is ugly, brutal and it never leads to anything positive. There is no justification for it.

Thanks to the viewer that had recognized the directors at the end of the film. I would have missed that message if it weren't for him/her. Not that it would have made any difference to my assessment.


Hard to abide the realism of this striking movie...

Not the blood and the excess violence but the pure reality of - how anybody do something like that to other- caused some of the audience leave the movie in the first half.

We have seen these kinds of headlines everyday in the third pages of newspapers (maybe not as barbaric as this) and get used to these kinds of savagery news. But to see this realism in a well-played and directed movie shocked the most movie goers.

These kinds of things is happening all around the world and makes the victims' whole life non-tolerable.

Thanks to Serdar Akar for his plain directing and also would like congratulate Serdar Orcin for his great play as a psychopath. One of my best in Turkish movies.


A good example for convincing that Turkish filmmakers CAN do good movies too.

The story been told is presented in a sharp way and not interfered to prove any moral ideas (except for the end of the movie).Because the story itself has a lot to say and makes it easier for the director to show the causes of events. But it seems that director couldn't stand keeping the story this way until the end. It's not a surprise that such events in the movie inspire a mixture of intense feelings such as desperation and vengeance. Well that's where the director fell into the trap. If the movie did not end the way it did and the audience left the movie with the realistic consequences of a brutal event's after(not left with the relief that the bad got what they deserved), it could be much affective to establish the sense that the director passionately believed. It seems that director kept his words for the end. The world is changing and now we do can make differences and are not that desperate. That's why the ending is unnecessarily long. To listen to the director!

Rest of the movie is a way different story. The characters really remind you easily like "oh man, this is gonna be bad!" just by their existence. The struggle between two different way of understanding life is just simply screened. The clues for causes behind the physical violence are "injected" slowly, consciously and agreeably. The places and characters are familiar with the usual life we have.

I don't agree with the idea that the violence shown is unnecessarily much. On the contrary, you just happen to understand that a very brutal action carries on while you don't actually see it. It just gives you the clue of the action but not unnecessarily giving. This is not a "Hostel" type movie. I also found it absurd to define a true story been filmed as a teenagers daydreams. It seems that the main point here is missing. Yes, the jail scenes are not that convincing. And yes, the director became a little emotional. But that shows you even the filmmaker could not resist responding to the manner in the way we "common people" respond. And it proves that the actual problems of our society is reminded. (Maybe not that deliberately but that's the result.)


Basically this movie tells us the most horrifying thing that can happen to you in a bar with your friends. The teens in the movie are quite innocent, and absolutely do not guess that; people can be that much barbarian and heartless. A small excuse can start this brutality and exactly happens like this in the movie.

You have to be stabilized and strong when you are watching this movie because it contains rapes,cutoffs,beating apparently. And the acting is very realistic which can disturb you, maybe can turn you as nightmares.

They shot the film in a bar at Taksim, when I pass from there I feel horrified.

However at the end, you calmed down a little bit, at least you see 'crime does not pay'


when i saw it in a dark saloon. I was really scared.. Nice young actors and 5 great bad guys. They are all perfectly described.. Especially Nejat Isler.. He is really strong in this movie. The violence is used very good in the film. Based on a true story is the scariest part of the film. When you watch it you keep on thinking "Dude.. These are all real...Some people have really been beaten like this and some girls were raped in front of their boyfriends.." So if you are ready to see some real violence..I mean Real! ( because these kinds of things happen in world ) Watch "Barda"..Also if you like it you can watch " Gemide " and "Lalelide Bir Azize" too..


I wish I haven't watched even one part of this movie. There is nothing special but violence, rape and great amount of blood. It was incredibly disgusting. I do think that the movie also had the worst reputation ever by the viewers. As far as I remember, it was on theaters only for two weeks. What an unfeasible investment!!! I've seen it on TV, I do tried to be patient during the movie just to be able to criticize in the end. Wathcing the whole movie may be the best way to torture yourself :) I remember the movie Clockwork Orange , and the leading actor who was sentenced to watch such war violence scenes for hours without being capable of closing his eyes.Turkish directors have presented a number of good films which deserve appreciation. Try any of them but "Barda"...


I saw this movie in Balçova, Izmir in a theater with a very bad sound and screen quality! So, i highly recommend you to watch this movie in a better theater! While watching the movie, i realized that 7 or 8 couples left the cinema because of its irritating violent scenes which reminded me Haneke's "Funny Games" but Barda is really bloody and realistic. As far as i know, this is one of the most hardest Turkish film with its hardcore torture scenes and vulgar, parental advisory language . So, that's the first reason for you to watch this movie. But, what disappoints me is its very poor final. Because it was completely unnecessary to give people "moral lessons or any misleading thoughts" by making the tortures killed in jail. If the director would have finalized the film without showing us the revenge, this could have been one of the "cult" movie ever made!!! When the torturers were killed in the jail (by zeki demirkubuz..etc), some people in the theater applauded as a reaction of convenience. That was because of moral catharsis that the director made his fatal error by finalizing the film like this. But it is still very promising and unforgettable movie that should be really seen by any cinema lovers! But, don't go with your sweetheart!!!!!


when i've watched "Barda" i was expecting' a quality tension movie but i was disappointed when i saw it.instead of tension i just felt boredom.the story of the movie goes like this

a group of armed bank robbers entered to a bar after the robbery.few minutes later they took few customers in the bar as hostages and after that they begun torturing them until the night's over and cops bust in and arrest all of them

That wasn't the film which makers promised in it's trailers.Film completely filled with torture,beating,rape and murder.i still wonder how could they charge people to see a humans in the movie getting tortured,humiliated and so on.

it's a waste of time if you have passion for snuff films you just can get thousands of small videos in the net and i wager they're more high quality than this low budget crap


non-creative way of telling the story of violence of suburban youth in Turkey. No character is alive. They acts as in theater. There is endless violence without a cause or reason. Its main idea is that: "the judgment system is not enough for satisfying victims. Therefore they should use same violence to create justice" There should be revenge. And in this point, the victims become killers. Time mixing, giving role to famous directors (Zeki Demirkubuz, Cagan Irmak, and the director itself) can not keep away the film from being boring. It is excitement without excitement. The only creative idea is that while someone drinking tea or yogurt don't ask what time is it.


they think that if we show the violence in a different way we will be more creative ...but they do not respect to mother identity..and they don't want us to watch all the film because we couldn't stand it only one hour.... everyone left the place... No human being can afford to stay meanwhile those guys are having fun with the girls that will make you think if they were your girlfriends or anyone you know.We should not make producers think they are on the way to win with this film.We must think clearly that anywhere anything may happen to anyone but the way to be more conscious is not the way on this movie to watch.People that will be conscious by the help of the film are not much more than ones that will probably make those behaviours unconsciously or consciously on another people so this way is wrong to be object lesson


I'll make this simple for you with short attention spans: Al Pacino's best performance of the 90s. Russell Crowe's best work on par with LA Confidential (if not better) and a gripping shot by Christopher Plummer as 60 Minutes anchor Mike Wallace.

For those who can handle it, read on:

Jeffrey Wigand (Russell Crowe) has been fired from his job. He has to break the news to his wife (Diane Venora, who I believe should go on to be one of the best actresses of all time) that their beautiful home, swank cars and health care plan (their oldest daughter is athsmatic) are about to go down the tubes. He's been given a severance package but that's about to fall apart as well.

Enter Lowell Bergman (Pacino), producer for CBS Television News' bastion of journalistic integrity, 60 Minutes. Bergman's doing a report on fires that were started by careless smokers and has been given a report so huge and full of technical jargon he can't make heads or tales of it. Through a friend he is put in touch with Wigand in the hopes of finding a translator. Wigand thinks Lowell is coming after him because of what he knows about his former employers, a major tobacco company.

It is at this moment that director Michael Mann institutes a trick, the likes of which hasn't been seen since All The President's Men. The two exchange a cat-and-mouse conversation via fax. Bergman finally calls Wigand's bluff by daring him to meet him the next day. He does.

What does Wigand know? Well, its all over the papers these days about how the tobacco industry lied about manipulating the leaves to make them more habit forming. We have Wigand to thank for that. But that isn't where the story ends. This is a two-fold tale; on one hand you have the self-destruction of a man who put everything on the line just so he could do the right thing. On the other, you have a television producer who so believes in the integrity of himself, the network, and his show that he is willing to risk everything he has to fight for the protection of his source. I haven't seen this much commitment outside of Woodward and Berstein's staunch protection of "Deep Throat."

The trump card of this film though comes in the form of Christopher Plummer playing one of the most visible news figures of the past 25 years, Mike Wallace. Wallace teeters on the edge of looking like a foul-mouthed, celebrity hungry, media hound who's only thought is about ratings. However, before its over, he evokes the "integrity of Edward R. Murrow," a line that gave me chills and made me pray for an Oscar Nomination.

Director Michael Mann is known chiefly for his Action/Thrillers. This 155 minute film is slow paced but gripping for ever second it is on the screen. A lot of people have complained over the past 7-8 years about Pacino's "staccato" performances, suddenly shouting at the slightest provocation. This film returns him to his prime form, a style he hasn't walked in since Dog Day Afternoon, ...And Justice For All and Serpico.

Anybody got a light?


The Insider is the only film I remember having seen where I walked out of the theatre with a headache because of the intensity of the story. Michael Mann is one of few directors who has such an in-depth understanding of both the subject of his film and the nature of that subject, that he is able to portray a realism that is nearly impossible to match.

There is real skill displayed in the way in which the Insider weaves through the aspects of both Bergmann and Wigand's lives. Whereas a lesser director would have thrown the characters at each other in an artificial collision, Mann introduces each character as being average professionals each living in their own respective stable lives. It is only when their chance encounter creates a subtext that could consume them both does the real chemical reaction in the story take place.

Bringing life to these fantastically written characters are two of the most talented 'big-name' character actors of our time, Al Pacino and Russell Crowe. Surprisingly, it is Crowe that drives this film forward, and his portrayal of Wigand is spot-on perfect. His is an honest humanity, both a loving father and a flawed husband who never fully balances his life under the pressure of circumstance. Crowe nails the performance by not hamming-up the character, but rather by understating his personality. This works in that it is the character that is elevated while the actor disappears.

That is not to ignore the excellent work by the remainder of the cast. Pacino's performance is accented and accentuated beautifully by Christopher Plummer's portrayal of Mike Wallace. Most notably are several standout scenes mixing Pacino, Plummer, Philip Baker Hall and Stephen Tobolowsky that ground the underlying tensions of the film fantastically. And the juxtaposition between the cold, hard New York settings and the organic nature of Mississippi further press this film beyond standard non-fiction works.

Easily one of the best dramas of 1999, the Insider is a standout member of that elite club of great historical dramas such as All the President's Men that are few and far between. It is for that audience that appreciates skilled performances meeting skilled direction and restrained, mature writing.


THE INSIDER / (1999) **** (out of

"The Insider" prospers in almost every way, shape, and form possible. The production is a masterpiece of visual style, moving performances, and penetrating dialogue. The story is captivating, even at 157 minutes. There is more than enough unexpected plot twists to keep our attention throughout-and at a consistent pace. Many movies will have moments of inspiration and intrigue, but not "The Insider." This movie is one long intriguing moment, a moment that is never boring or lacking. It is also believable and entirely convincing. There is a realistic look into the behavior of journalists and their desire for information. It is so intelligent about revealing the most important information little at a time, always at the perfect second.

Russell Crowe's character is the heart of the film, one of the most active protagonists seen in a movie all year. He plays Jeffrey Wigand, an ex-employee at Brown & Williamson, one of the nations largest cigarette manufacturers. Its chairman (Michael Gambon) has fired Wigand for questioning some of their potentially harmful research tactics and business routines-but not before blackmailing him into signing a strict confidentiality agreement that threatens his much needed severance package currently providing for his wife and their two young girls. When the company even further jeopardizes his existence, he blows his fuse and prepares to release information on the indecisive industry of B&W.

He gets his opportunity when Lowell Bergman (Al Pacino), an ambitious and experienced reporter from the CBS news program "60 Minutes," receives a package regarding product safety studies at another tobacco company. Bergman contacts Wigand, aspiring towards hiring him as a transitory consultant for a potential "60 Minutes" show. Bergman senses some vital information withheld in the knowledge of Wigand, therefore further investigates what he is making the executives at B&W so concerned.

The film makes many unexpected turns; in the second half, it smartly switches focus from Wigand to Bergman. After losing his privacy, secrets, reputation, and family, Wigand revealing startling facts and starts a new career teaching chemistry. But Bergman faces further complications. His TV Network refuses to air the segment because they could be sued big time for helping break Wigand's confidentiality agreement.

"You pay me to go get guys like Wigand, to draw him out. To get him to trust us, to get him to go on television. I do. I deliver him. He sits. He talks. He violates his own f*****g confidentiality agreement. And he's only the key witness in the biggest public health reform issue, maybe the biggest, most-expensive corporate-malfeasance case in U.S. history. And Jeffrey Wigand, who's out on a limb, does he go on television and tell the truth? Yes. Is it newsworthy? Yes. Are we gonna air it? Of course not. Why? Because he's not telling the truth? No. Because he is telling the truth. That's why we're not going to air it. And the more truth he tells, the worse it gets," explains Bergman.

The dialogue is one of the brightest, most thought-provoking material in the film. All of the little quirks in typical conversation are captured, the stuttering, the spontaneous explicit declaratives, and the sharp remarks that add a scathing zest to the character's personalities (Agent: Do you have a history of emotional problems, Mr. Wigand? Wigand: Yes. Yes, I do. I get extremely emotional when *******s put bullets in my mailbox!).

The movie's dramatic premise is so clear, so precise, so uncommonly absorbing. It expresses the true stress and nature of the traumatic emotions of the characters. There is also an excellent introduction of both Wigand and Bergman, giving them depth and human dimension. Despite a few members of my cinema discussion group disagree, I extensively enjoyed the piercing middle-eastern soundtrack consisting of awkward beats and fitting tones.

Al Pacino is cautious not to steal scenes from co-star Russell Crowe, but when his time comes he lets out a stark and involving performance. Crowe is worthy of his Oscar nomination for best actor; he delivers a performance of great subbtlness, but with an intense underlying tone of innovative depth and power. He captures all of the little tensions and stresses of his character, making his scenes involving, subversive, and taut.

Michael Mann is the film's director, who also directed the 1995 thriller "Heat" starring Val Kilmer, Robert De Niro, and Al Pacino. Here, he pays close attention to details; when a character pushes numbers on a pay phone, the camera captures the feeling-also hitting golf ball against a backdrop, dropping glasses on a table, and notably in an intense scene where two people fax each other important statements and questions. Mann also injects effective camera angles complete with slow motion photography, taking the view of the character, and close up shots.

"The Insider" inhabits a strong social message dealing with the influence of television, reputation, honesty, and so forth. The biggest ethic I think Mann is trying to get across is of modern morality: always do the right thing, follow you conscience, no matter what the cost. Then there's the film's most provoking issue: "Fame has a fifteen-minute half-life. Infamy lasts a little longer."


Not always, but usually a Michael Mann-directed film means good things for movie buffs, and this is no exception.

Tremendous acting highlights this movie about a behind-the-scenes look at a "60 Minutes" story of a man who blows the whistle on a tobacco company. Al Pacino, as the TV show producer "Lowell Bergman," Russell Crowe as the whistle-blower and tobacco scientist "Dr. Jeffrey Wiegand," and Christopher Plummer as "Mike Wallace" all are riveting in their performances. They are intense characters, as are many of the supporting characters in this involving film.

There is little action in here but a ton of tension in the first hour of this long (158 min.) film. The story held my interest even when the tension left, thanks to the acting, the great cinematography, involving music score....well, just about everything. It's simply a well-done movie, similar to Mann's "Heat," except without the violence.

The only negative was the obvious Liberal bias, but that's not surprising being it's about "60 Minutes." I wasn't surprised when Ken Starr got a cheap shot, for example. This film bias could have been a lot more blatant so I'm not complaining. Obviously, they went a overboard in their stand against the tobacco industry, repeating the same damaging scenes over and over. However, I appreciated they didn't shrink from pointing out how the network was covering its own behind even though it was hurting its most successful program.

Photographer Dante Spinelli did an incredible job making this look fantastic despite the fact that there was no great scenery or exotic sets. As mentioned, this is just great film-making. What else can you say?


"The Insider" in many ways reflects the golden days of American cinematography, where every scene serves a purpose, dialogue is sharp and poignant, and characters and events remain true to their emotions and nature.

The film presents certain questions throughout its duration that are intended to invoke thought in the viewer, and at the same time explores them to unprecedented depths which are by no means native to the film industry. The story is of a quick-paced nature, and demands that the viewer pay the utmost attention to every single line and image presented; it flabbergasts in its unparallelled structure of continuity and coherence to those sentient enough.

After watching this film, it became apparent why Crowe was so reluctant to play the role of Maximus in "Gladiator" after acting the part of Jeffrey Wigand. It appears more or less as if Crowe had been this character in reality, and it really inspires to see that such a talented actor is finally beginning to enjoy the prominence that he deserves.

In the past decades, there has been a progressive decline in the number of intelligent films making it onto the market, but the success of "The Insider" will hopefully serve as a shout-out to all the film companies and directors reluctant to tread on such sensitive ground. This movie could not receive a higher recommendation!


From scene one, this film delivers a long slow burn as the tale of power and corruption unfolds. There is little action, but the film is steeped in an atmosphere of tension and high drama. The direction by Michael Mann is masterful, an object lesson in how to frame shots and let silence, as well as words - and music - work for the story. Al Pacino is once more the great actor of early films such as 'Scarecrow', instead of the theatrical performer of recent films. Russell Crowe shows his solid 'ordinary guy'character as more tortured through losing his family than any of the macho scenes he portrayed in 'Gladiator.' A superb film.


Russell Crowe at his best as a Kentucky tobacco executive in Eric Roth and Michael Mann's masterpiece, "The Insider," is one of the most underrated American films ever. Not only is it important historically for its political implications - not about tobacco, but about conflicts of commercial interest that control freedom of speech along the airwaves in the U.S.- it is a great story and it is true. Disney had no idea how to market "The Insider" and essentially sold it as tobacco movie and it is so much more. Pacino gives a grand A plus performance as a Long Island Jewish producer and halfway through the movie I forgot he was Al Pacino. Even better Christopher Plummer masterfully captures the full essence of Mike Wallace. Gina Gershon could turn lust from a stone as always. Michael Mann seems to always pull strong performances from his actors, and Eric Roth who brilliantly adapted "Forrest Gump" did the same here with Mann. Though long, "The Insider" is never boring and a movie all Americans should see twice to make sure they fully comprehend regardless of how you feel about the tobacco debate.


SPOILERS THROUGH:

There is very little that I can add to many of the glowing reviews. I thought The Insider was incredible. Flawless from beginning to end. It's in the IMDb top 250 and small wonder. It was a superb movie.

There are so many elements in this movie that are fascinating. The journalistic issues. The issues of whistle blowing and doing the right thing. In my view both the main characters are heroes. The fact that this is based on a true story makes it that much more fascinating.

Pacino and Crowe both, in my opinion, gave flawless performances and both were excellent at drawing the viewer in(let me change that) SWEEPING the viewer in to their lives and the things they were fighting for. There are many movies that take on important issues but lack the ability to keep the movie interesting. That's not the case here as the movie literally simmers from start to finish and through the last hour or so, I don't think I moved. That's the type of film this is and it is absolutely outstanding.

This was one of the best roles I've seen Al Pacino in and though I have not seen a lot of Crowe's work, he is wonderful here and well cast.The supporting cast was wonderful too. There have been so many movies made about deception and dishonesty, it's nice to see a movie where the main characters are courageous and heroic. The Insider is all at once absorbing, disturbing, thought provoking and triumphant. In other words, it's everything a good movie should be.

This is a long movie but the time goes very quickly and it's not the type of movie that could have been any shorter. (It actually could have been even longer.) Everything from the acting to the camera work(some of it quite unusual) to the story itself is top notch and this is an example of a great film and that rare movie that myself and my film going friends can actually agree on. My vote is 10 of 10.


==This review contains what people might call spoilers=> I heard 'the Insider' was an 160 minute nail-biter of a true story that feels like half the time. What I saw was an interesting, slow moving character study that felt like twice the time.

The Insider is a film about that little incident where the tobacco industry had to pay like 250 billion to the people that it had caused damage to.

There is this critical interview in which an expert (Russell Crowe), formerly employed at a tobacco company, declares the executives of that company intentionally added some kind of substance to the cigarettes in order to have, and keep people addicted to the tobacco.

We all know the outcome of the story and still the director points the story in the direction where the interview will not be broadcast, which means the tobacco industry will get away with it. How can there be tension when the director tries to make you believe something which simply is not true? And after two and a half hours of manipulating the interview finally IS broadcast. Well what a surprise.

The package of 'the Insider' said -thriller-. It didn't work for me that way. What I saw was a slow, 160 minute, sometimes interesting, sometimes plain boring character study with (and this has to be said) some fabulous acting by Crowe and Pacino.

Do you want to see this? -rent 'the Insider'. You want excitement -stay away. ***1/2(out of five)


This is a movie that I was on the fence about seeing, simply because it seemed like just another movie about a whistle blower. It is so much more than that, and it is a movie worth watching time and again because of its complexity. It is about journalistic integrity, corporate greed, good vs. evil, and standing up for what you believe in, no matter what the cost. It pulls no punches about how far the tobacco industry would go to hide the truth from the American public about cigarettes, but it never seems propagandized.

Russell Crowe gives a top-notch performance of Everyman scientist Jeffrey Wigand that meets Al Pacino and Christopher Plummer's portrayals of 60 Minutes Hotshots Lowell Bergman and Mike Wallace frame by frame. These three actors have the perfect blend of chemistry and timing, and fit their characters like a glove. They completely inhabit their roles and at times it seems more like a documentary than a fictional story.

From beginning to end, it has the kind of edge of your seat tension that keeps one glued to the screen. Despite being a fairly lengthy film, it moves at a quick pace, and is absolutely riveting. The direction is superb, the camera angles are fast and furious, and it is a delight to watch.


Finally, now here is a movie where everybody seems to agree on the same verdict. It is a very rare occasion that most of the major critics, the Academy and myself all agree on the judgment of the quality of a motion picture. This only goes to say that this film really has to be good. It also goes to show that the best movies are almost always based on true stories. Truth always trumps fiction.

This movie was very well directed and well filmed, but above all it was well acted. Both Crowe and Pacino deliver memorable, believable performances, creating characters for which we can feel for, with whom we can identify. I agree on most of the Oscar Nominations, but I also feel that maybe an Oscar was warranted for best screenplay which is probably the best part of this motion picture.

Thumbs up!


The Insider (1999)

Wow, this is a searing, amazing tour-de-force. It comes across as fearless, and you wonder just how it got the okay to tell as much truth as it does. It slams the tobacco industry and CBS Corporation equally (though CBS News, as such, rises above). It creates a fluid, fast, intelligible, and moving story involving several key players. And it avoids sentiment, cliché, and shock, which is sort of amazing for a Hollywood film right there.

Add three amazing, central performances by men who take on their roles as if they needed to for their lives. First is Al Pacino, who often plays the righteous and indignant voice of justice, and he plays it with more justice here than ever. Then there is Russell Crowe, playing the "insider" himself, a tobacco industry chemist who spills the beans about the lies in the industry, and with real psychological subtlety. And then, in more of a surprise, Christopher Plummer plays one of Pacino's counterparts with perfect pitch.

Anthony Mann deserves a huge hand for his role pulling this together. He has a deft touch. He handles big material (spectacular stuff, really) with a steady beat of conviction, as if the point is not drama, but resolution. The music is superb, making clear that this is of course still a drama, and the editing, easily overlooked, creates a relentless but not distracting pace, leaving little things hanging just enough to keep us in suspense without obscuring the narrative.

I sound breathless in praise, and I suppose my one reservation is that the movie, since it is based on known facts (and uses real names throughout), lacks imagination. That's a bizarre comment, and not a complaint, exactly, but there is a sense when all is done that it was already known from the start. Getting there was amazing, but the result is a heightened version of what we know and see all the time in the news and in the corporate worlds. And sometimes elements are repeated too often (the video tape), so you can see a trimmed down version having even more impact.

But let me go back to being breathless. This is an overlooked, wonderful movie. That it holds interest so well after a decade is only proof that it might continue to work as a movie, as a drama, long after the events are in textbooks, and CBS is bought up by someone else. And so the world turns. Check this out. You won't be disappointed.


The movie is loosely based on a true event covered by Frontline about a tobacco scientist titled " The Man who knew too much". The trauma that a man undergoes to reveal a truth which he was bound to keep through a confidentiality agreement is the central plot. In his quest to reveal to the world about the tricks the tobacco giants are employing to increase the sales of cigarettes , he is haunted and tormented to the extent of even losing his family for a just cause he believed in . It shows how big and powerful corporates work hard to keep things a secret.It's a movie on the triumph of the human spirit, and it's upon us to keep our human values and human spirits high. Stellar performances by Al Pacino and Russell Crowe makes you forget you are watching a movie. Great stuff from a gutsy director. Micheal Mann, you did it again.


I started watching this at midnight, not knowing it was nearly 3 hours long, and did not feel urged to divide it into an additional viewing.

Everything you have heard about this movie is probably true.

Mann crafts a wrenching tale of two men's plight to adhere to their personal ethics. One a Newsman, Pachino. The other a scientist, Crowe.

If the satirical lunacy of "Thank You For Smoking" could be akin to the easy goings of Gerber Baby sauce, then this indigestion in the form of a laxative.

Mann's uncanny and infamous eye for precision and uncompromising realism is a marvel of stylish substance in itself. Almost like it's own thematic element regardless of what it's attempting to illustrate or accompany as a motif.

Unfortunately, I had been preprogrammed by his former films; "Heat,"0 "Collateral" and the often overlooked, "Miami Vice," to expect some sort of climactic hell-storm of machine gunfire. At first, I was actually--prematurely, at that--deeming this destined to be a stop-gap film in Mann's career. By mid-way, the sentiment of how wrong I had been was becoming more than embarrassingly palpable with each furthered development in the plot.

The film could have ended several times. It could have inferred several completely differing resolutions. It proceeds despite itself to formulate it's plot out of significant character's arcs and roles, rather than playing to simply Crowe's predicament. Mann's narrative and subject matter is so layered and sparse with an unrecognizable plot at first glance, it could have properly faired well as a mini-series, similar to that of "State of Play."


Although the movie's subject was the corruption of a cigarette-manufactory and the way a honest man and a journalist work together to bring it out, the mainstream was the courage of a man nearly paralyzed by fear yet determined to do what has to be done. Never before I saw an actor "breathing" fear and determination so intensely during the whole length of a movie as Crowe did here. He should have won his OSCAR-nomination that year.


This movie is fantastic. When I saw this movie, I figured it was just going to be a boring and long movie. I couldn't have been more wrong. Sure it was long, but The Insider kept your attention for every second of the film. Russell Crowe, once again, is magnificent. I just can't get over what a great actor he is. Every character Russell plays he makes seem so real and I couldn't help to think that Russell was robbed out of the award for Best Actor at the Academy Awards. His Oscar win for the role of Maximus in Gladiator (for which he deserved all the way) makes up for it though. He absolutely amazes me. Not only is he SO CUTE (well, not in The Insider because he played a 53-year-old, but he looks cute in most of his other performances) but he is also an amazing actor. Al Pacino also gave an excellent performance. He too makes his characters seem real in every movie he is in. The cast for this movie was phenomenal. This movie kept you on the edge of your seat. I absolutely loved this movie. It's definitely one of the best movies I have ever seen. For anyone who hasn't seen this movie, you have to go see it and I guarantee that you will thoroughly enjoy it. I give it a 10 out of 10.


When you put two people like Al Pacino and Russell Crowe, you know you have a good thing.

This movie, although a bit on the lengthy side at 2 and a half hours, keeps you pretty much involved the entire way. Al Pacino plays great journalist looking for the big story, but gets personal when Russell Crowe loses his job as a researcher for a big tobacco firm, and starts to come loose at the edges because of some damaging information he is aware of.

The movie provides some very original plot twists, and kept it surprisingly real. They probably could have cut about 30 mins of footage, but after seeing Mike Wallace freak out...I can understand the length. I definately recommend, but get comfy.


There's hardly a flaw in this true account of the 60 Minutes expose of a tobacco industry cover-up.

Al Pacino is brilliant as Lowell Bergman, the 60 Minutes producer who struggles to convince former tobacco executive Jeffrey Wigand (equally brilliantly played by Russell Crowe) to grant an interview in the face of the industry's attempts to silence him, and then has to fight CBS management to put the interview on the air. This is just a marvelous film.

From the beginning scenes of the setting up of an interview between Mike Wallace (played by Christopher Plummer, who does a valiant job in a difficult role, playing someone as well known as Wallace) and an Arab sheik involved with the Hezbollah movement we get a sense of the point to come: that dealing with Middle East terrorists is a lot safer than taking on the tobacco industry! We're also hit right off the top by the irony underlying everything. Wigand, who worked as a senior executive for a tobacco company, is a health care specialist with a seriously asthmatic daughter.

The first part of the movie plays like a spy thriller, as it focuses on the threats made against Wigand and family to silence him, and the pressure this puts on his family life as we literally see the man begin to crumble under the pressure. The focus of the second half shifts to Bergman's desperate attempts to get Wigand's interview broadcast after everything he has risked to blow the whistle. The battle between Bergman and CBS, also under pressure from the industry not to air the story, and vulnerable due to the network's impending sale, is well portrayed.

This movie is absolutely worth the watching. It is vaguely ominous as we're confronted by the power not just of the tobacco industry, but of big business in general. Definitely a 9 out of 10.


There is just no way that a movie about '60 minutes' should be 3 hours long, yet Michael Mann finds a way to drag this out, much like he did in Heat. Yet despite the fact that the movie moves with the speed of a three-toed sloth on a NyQuil bender, the performances are absolutely hypnotic. Pacino, who is usually either great or cartoonish, delivers an adequate performance, but an unrecognizeable Russell Crowe is simply phenomenal. But the most spellbinding character belongs to Christopher Plummer, who steals every scene he's in with an astounding take on Mike Wallace. This isn't a bad movie by any means, but it's an actors movie; the performances really redeem what is otherwise an overlong exercise in directorial self-indulgence.


Russell Crowe shows what great acting is, in his emotional and dynamic portrayal of the corporate tobacco executive cut loose for knowing too much and having a conscience.

Only one flaw appeared in this movie, the casting of the excellent actor Michael Gambon as the villainous tobacco company chairman. He wasn't quite convincing about having a southern accent, a glitch that was slightly distracting to the otherwise intense scenes he appeared in.

Otherwise every part in this movie was played to perfection, especially by Crowe and Pacino. A very believable effort by Christopher Plummer as the venerable Mike Wallace, and all the other supporting roles tell a story of truth, morality, and justice in a way that surpasses the run-of-the-mill Hollywood flick.

A great movie, one of the best, that would be great even if there were no truth to it.


The Insider is the story of Jeffery Wigand (again Oscar-worthy Russell Crowe), a former tobacco company scientist that begins to rebel against his former employer. With the help of 60 Minutes producer played by Al Pacino. Wigand tells the story of what the tobacco companies do not want you to know. He then realizes that maybe everything he is doing isn't worth all he has lost, (i.e. his family, his safety, his job). This film was a real controversial masterpiece of modern times. It was nominated for 7 Academy Awards, and though I agree with giving Best Picture, Actor, and Director to American Beauty, this film should have won something, possably Best Screenplay.


Not that it's any big surprise that corporate interests supercede reporting/news on the boob tube, The Insider still chillingly portrays the plight of Jeffrey Wigand, ex tobacco company scientist, on his whistleblowers journey with the 60 Minutes TV Newsmagazine. This movie had me on edge the whole way. Outstanding performances, especially from Christopher Plummer. His turn on Mike Wallace is unforgettable. This Actor is IN THE ZONE! Al Pacino makes it look eeeeaaasy, and Russell Crowe transcends his dialect struggles (he goes with a mishmash of "American" dialect, and at times I found it a little distracting), but he scores with his understated Pressure Cooker character development. The screenplay and writing is wonderful, as are many supporting roles. If you haven't seen this one, you owe it to yourself to check it out.


What is essentialy a very simple story is made into a compelling masterpiece by Russel Crowe and Al Pacinos performance's.

Michael Mann certainly is the mann as even with the great acting the film would have been very dull with out the direction of Mann. His ability to keep the atmosphere of the film going through image and music is second to none. Suspence is held throughout with a kind of feer to the characters.

We have to wait till the end for his trademark slow motion frame, but it well worth it.

Excellent Film.


This easily one of the top 3 movies I've ever seen. GREAT acting from top to bottom, a great story line, editing, directing, everything. Russell Crowe deserves all the success he gets after this film - he was BRILLIANT. I saw it toward the end of its run, and boy am I glad I caught it while it was still in theaters.

Also the movie poster is really cool, I'd highly recommend checking ebay or online stores if you're into that sort of thing.

Off to see Traffic...


Eric Roth (The Horse Whisperer, Suspect) has written great scripts. The Insider kept me watching, and grabbed my attention. Very well written and with a great cast "Lowell Bergman" Al Pacino (The Godfather, Looking for Richard) is a great character. I remember something about the incident. Russell Crowe (Gladiator, Proof of Life) is a very good actor. The man he plays "Jeffrey Wigand " is very smart, has a lot of knowledge about the cigarette industry, and who was willing to come forward to tell that the cigarette industry was in privy that cigarettes are addicting. Well, not to put the character down, but I believe that everybody knows that. The entire world knows that... Why don't they do something about it, you've guessed it money! Why they decide to destroy the life of Wigand is beyond me because the whole world knows to be true what he was going to say anyway. But they destroyed him, and the movie is about how he was followed, stalked, terrorized. and so on. When I was young I also believed in changing the status quo, but after having gone through severe trials because I am outspoken I have learned to keep my mouth shut. Is it good, that I have learned that? Not sure! But for some reason sometimes even describing the obvious in the world is an impossible thing to do. Why? I don't know. This is an excellent movie which I recommend. My favorite scene: Is a conversation where Lowell Bergman states: "You'd better look into it, because I'm getting two things: pissed off and curious." Favorite Quotes: Jeffrey Wigand: "I'm just a commodity to you, aren't I? I could be anything. Right? Anything worth putting on between commercials." Lowell Bergman: "To a network, probably, we're all commodities. To me? You are not a commodity. What you are is important." I recommend this movie. It is excellent.


This movie is very, very good. When I read that it was 2 1/2 hrs, I thought, "Oh, no, boooring." But first off, this movie is so interesting that it didn't seem much longer than the typical 90 minute flick. And as many dramas are, this film may be a little slow in some parts, but I never lost interest, not once. Crowe was great, and I was impressed by Pacino's performance, who I've admittedly lost confidence in over the last decade or so. Probably his best in many years. Granted, most "based on a true story" films fictionalize 90% of the film (i.e. Titanic, Perfect Storm), but this movie was still loyal to the basic truths. Very compelling, go rent this one soon.


In writing this review, I'm tempted to address it to Don Hewitt and Mike Wallace. The Insider is a devastating film, but I think they are mistaken, if they see it as a blanket indictment of 60 Minutes. It's a blanket indictment of the tobacco industry. I don't think we will ever get to the bottom of what went on at 60 Minutes, with respect to the treatment of the Jeffrey Wigand interview. This movie is a dramatic piece that takes a stab at it, and I think that heaping criticism on Director/Writer Michael Mann is a huge mistake. This film shouldn't be picked at, it should be applauded. The spirit of this film is exactly the same as that of 60 Minutes. I doubt that most people watch 60 Minutes with a notepad in their hands. I think 60 Minutes gets people to think, and hopefully look into issues that are important. I believe that was Michael Mann's goal.

The first issue to tackle is the presentation of Lowell Bergman, former producer at 60 Minutes, as the white knight of the story. There were complaints that Bergman got credit for things he didn't do, and that he didn't quit when they said he did, etc. I'm reminded of the avalanche of criticism that Oliver Stone received when he chose Jim Garrison as his vehicle to probe the JFK assassination. As Michael Kinsley noted at the time, critics assailed Stone for making a hero of Garrison, whom many considered a shameless self-promoter and a man of shaky morals, at best. While this attack was taking place, across the multiplex you could go see Warren Beatty and Writer James Toback's near deification of Benjamin Siegel in Bugsy. I'm tempted to say that it's Michael Mann's dime, so he can pick whatever hero he likes. However, I think the truth is that there was a wealth of information he needed to convey, and selecting Bergman as his vehicle was the best way to go.

The second issue which had supposedly "independent" viewers up in arms was the aura of suspicion, manufactured or otherwise, that surrounded Jeffrey Wigand. This man will probably remain an eternal enigma. Was he exaggerating his claim of being harassed for some hidden agenda? Did he lie about finding a bullet in his mailbox? Did he try to cover up that he stole an electric can-opener?

This second issue is at the core of my argument in defense of this film. Question: Isn't it more important that Wigand, a scientist who worked for Brown & Williamson, provided undisputed testimony that nicotine was being manipulated to bolster it's addictive qualities, than whether or not he stole an appliance at Walmart? Shouldn't people be more disgusted by the laughable testimony to congress by the seven heads of big tobacco (The Seven Dwarves, as he refers to them)?

This movie became itself. It's a story of how many forces there are out in the world that seek to silence agitators. The simple truth is that Wigand, Wallace and Bergman had a story to tell and were crushed by some of these forces. Mann and Co-Writer Eric Roth wanted to tell this story on as big a screen as possible, and they got crushed, too. I'm surprised we didn't hear about how Michael Mann stole some lawn darts when he was in high school, or that Roth missed a Alfa-Romeo payment when he was in college. I hope this irony is not lost on Mike Wallace and Don Hewitt.

It's no surprise that this film (vastly superior to the diverting, but hardly earthshaking American Beauty) was shut out at the Oscars. Kevin Spacey is one of our finest actors, but his character is not in the league of Russell Crowe's work here. Crowe's Wigand, with his birdlike and occasionally irritating behavior, with his egotism, with his intelligence, whoa! This is a performance. Reporters once again had a little fun when it was reported that Crowe didn't invite the real Wigand to the premiere. I guess this Crowe guy must be a schnook. Don't give him the Oscar.

Truth be told, acting kudos go to all involved. Pacino, as Bergman, creates a stubborn character, who's not ashamed of his liberal nature, even when he's in a sea of conservatives. Christopher Plummer's controversial characterization is a delight as well. He gets Wallace's legendary tempestuousness, his egotism and his smarts down to perfection. The small characters are drawn with a sharp eye, as well. Alert to reporters: Mann's wife Diane Venora plays Wigand's wife. Bad news, though, she's a wonderful actress, and she's great here. Sorry.

As the settlements from big tobacco come down, Mann's working on a film about about Ali, Bergman's back working in Berkeley where he belongs, Wigand is up to God knows what, and 60 Minutes chugs on, popular as ever. Memo to Mike Wallace and Don Hewitt: This was an excellent film. Admit it!!


After getting nominated for 7 Academy Awards, I was dying to see The Insider. Well, I must say, I was basically blown away by how much effort went into this film, and it is very recommendable.

Based on a magazine article, The Insider follows the true story of Jeffrey Wigand (Russell Crowe), head of a tobacco company's Research And Development department, who discovers that the fag companies have for years not only known that nicotine was addictive, but worse, they've been messing around with the formula to make it even more so. After being persuaded to give a TV interview by producer Lowell Bergman (Al Pacino Pacino), Wigand discovers that smoking is deeply bad for your health, even if you've never lit a gasper in your life. Harassment, death-threats, a possible prison sentence and a collapsed marriage are a few of the ordeals that Wigand is put through -all, it would appear, to no avail when squabbling at CBS' 60 Minutes news programme leads them to ditch the programme, much to Bergman's horror.

Some powerhouse performances here, Al Pacino is corker as Bergman, but New Zealander Russell Crowe pulls off the most impressive act in the film, therefore earning himself an Oscar nomination. Michael Mann, director of Heat, has assured direction here, he knows what he's doing, and he does it well, his script for The Insider is also well thought-out and amazingly clever. The only faults there may be here is the fact that The Insider could be a big bore for some audiences, but for me, it was an enthralling experience.

A well done film, definitely worth your time.

I rate The Insider 8 out of 10.


I watched The Insider last night on video for the second time. I have to say that it is one of the best movies I have ever seen, nearly flawless, with Mann's superb direction, frenetic camerawork, brilliant music score, and a phenomenal performance from Crowe as the whistleblower of a tobacco company, defining him as a promising future star. He is always convincing and a joy to watch. Al Pacino is in his typical fiery form as a 60 minutes producer, and it all combines to make this exceptional masterpiece, a great work of genius. 10/10.


"The Insider" is a masterpiece.I only saw it because Al Pacino was in it;the theme really wasn't very interesting for me(I though that was the usual "political-correct" film against tobacco),but then came the big (big!) surprise;I found myself seeing an incredible good film.It has wonderful performances by(of course)Al Pacino ,Russel Crow,Christopher Plummer and Diane Venora.It's one of that strange cases when the theme of the film isn't very interesting , but the film is so well made that you enjoy it like if it would have the most interesting theme possible.Michael Mann shows that is one of the best directors;making an absolutely absorbing film ,starting with a non much interesting theme ;it has nearly hypnotic moments (the most of them when Al Pacino and Russel Crow are having a phone conversation).It's so absorbing that the 2 hours and a half of it seems like lees than 1 hour.I can't say what's the best thing the film has,why?;because it's all;the performances, the dialogues,the locations (with incredible shadows and lights in everyone),the direction,etc.So, if you want to see one of the best films (if not the best )of 1999,see this masterpiece.


Kyle (Jim Verraros) understandably falls in love with nude model Troy (Marco Dapper). However Troy is ashamed of past gay experiences he had and wants to be str8. So Kyle pretends HE'S str8 and used to be gay to lure Troy into bed. Meanwhile Kyle's ex Marc (Brett Chukerman) finds this out and now HE wants to get Troy into bed...

OK--I HATED the original "Eating Out". It was boring, stupid, unfunny and kept teasing the audience that we were gonna see some hot man on man action--but we never did. The acting was dreadful too. As you can see the plot of this one is ridiculous too--but this movie is so entertaining who cares? It moves quickly (it's only 80 minutes), looks great and is much funnier than the original. Also we see plenty of hot guy on guy kissing, gay sex (not explicit) and frontal nudity on Dapper and Chukerman (both of who are very handsome with great bodies).

The acting is (for the most part) good. Verraros (the only holdover from the original) is a little bit TOO nerdy and needy--but he tones down his performance as the film progresses and actually is very affecting by the end. Dapper is unbelievably handsome with a great body and--surprisingly--is a very good actor. I was impressed with how talented he was--he perfectly shows his characters confusion. Chukerman is even better as Marc. A very easy-going, relaxed and believable performance. All the other actors are OK--the story basically centers on these three guys.

This is no great milestone in gay cinema but it was fun, breezy and entertaining. Also the casual frontal nudity and gay kissing just made it better. Worth catching--especially for a gay audience. An 8.


One of the other posters here refers to "harsh and unsubstantiated" reviews - how right you are. I'm not sure what people were expecting from a film called Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds, but I found the whole thing delightful from start to finish.

There is ample eye candy in the shape of Marco Dapper and Brett Chukerman. (Although Ryan Carnes is sorely missed. The boy is a subtle and sensitive actor trapped in the body of an Abercrombie & Fitch model.) Yes, there is a totally unbelievable plot, but this is a farce, after all. Rebekah Kochan seems to be channeling Jennifer Coolidge, and I mean that as a huge compliment, and kept me laughing all the way through the film's brisk and breezy ninety minutes.

Great fun.


This movie really pleasantly surprised me. I expected that its sole redeeming feature would be the eye candy, as was the case with the original. But it was well written, capably directed, and Verraros, Hand, and Kochan gave good, hysterically funny performances. I wouldn't have guessed the latter two had any talent based on Eating Out, but it seems that was all Q. Allan Brocka's doing rather than the fault of the actresses. Working with Bartell's words and direction they're a delight to watch. Brett Chuckerman isn't quite as charismatic as Ryan Carnes was in the same role, but he does a good job. And Marco Dapper... is very, very good looking. (Hey, just because it turned out to be a good movie doesn't mean they forgot the eye candy...)

I'd recommend it to anyone looking for a funny, sexy movie to spend some time with.


Truth be told, I wasn't keen on viewing Eating Out 2 when it played at the Portland Gay and Lesbian Film Festival, mostly because - not to put too fine a point on it - I absolutely abhorred the original and thought it was an coarse, overrated, and excruciatingly dull hunk of vitriolic idiocy. I enjoy sarcasm when it's the icing on the cake, or the dressing on the salad. Unfortunately, the original Eating Out was an assaultive, self-impressed cacophony of alarming pseudo-rape scenes, caustic one-liners, and hateful stereotypes. There was NO cake, NO salad; watching it was like trying to eat a bucket of Caesar dressing with a spoon. However, I had a free pass to see the sequel and my friends were going, so I caved in and brought a flask (just in case the going got rough). Unexpectedly, the going never got rough at all; it was refreshingly good-humored, charming, and well-written. Imagine my surprise.

Thankfully, the sequel eschews the off-putting, grand guinol theatrics of the original in favor of a warmer, funnier, more humane approach to comedy. Even characters I hated the first time around were more appealing in this one. And, thankfully, this was no sapfest - the "funnier, warmer, and more humane" parts were nicely complemented with snarkiness (COMPLIMENTED, not "drenched in"). I also found it surprisingly well-paced (due, I'm sure, to the new writer/director who apparently learned a thing or two about tempo and rhythm from years of working as an editor). All in all, a great movie - and certainly more enjoyable than Running with Scissors, an A-list, "classy" gay film which bored me to tears the same weekend.


I kinda liked the first movie, if only for its premise and craziness, but the first movie had too many awkward moments (especially the piano scene). I must say, Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds is a DELIGHTFUL movie, and it's a sequel, no less! I was sad to see the original Marc be played by someone new (and not as good looking), but after I found out the guy was in the short film "Crush", I definitely had a better impression of him (I loved that short film!). Troy was just... I'm speechless. =) Overall, the movie was much quicker, tighter, no serious awkward moments, still over the top as always, light hearted, and funny. There were so many funny sex scenes in this movie it's worth watching it a 2nd time! I'm definitely buying this movie soon!


'Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds' is a sequel that is not really a sequel - unless the common thread of social attitudes and gender dilemmas as an ongoing tale is the source. A low budget, well scripted, tightly directed (Phillip J. Bartell) little film about gay relationships, attraction blunders, and pretending to be something we aren't (mixed representations that Shakespeare used a lot!) result in a light and ultimately charming little movie.

Kyle (Jim Verraros) loves Marc (Brett Chukerman) but tires of Marc's obsession with one-night stands and the relationship is 'over'. Pining Kyle is supported by his two loony girl friends Tiffani (Rebekah Kochan) and Gwen (Emily Brooke Hands), each with gender attraction problems of her own. In an art class taught by flamboyant pseudo-straight Neil (Michael Serrato) the three meet the new nude model Troy (superstud Marco Dapper) and together they hatch a plan to repair Kyle's old damage: Troy for all his demeanor is a bisexual who wants to be straight.... maybe and supplies the key to a game of deceit. The manner in which Kyle fakes a relationship with Tiffani in order to convince Troy to join him in a 'change-over program' (read, get close to him...) leads to a series of hilarious 'go straight' classes and confrontation with parents who play both sides of the 'support our sons' game and leads to a perky ending that just happens to make some comments on perceptions of people, with reality winning.

The cast is young (with the exception of Mink Stole and Sarah Lilly, both of whom offer solid professional backgrounds to their roles) and attractive and seems to be having a great time pulling off this light farce. There is plenty of spectacular eye candy (Marco Dapper, Brett Chukerman, Nicholas James, Adrian Quinonez, James Michael Bobby, etc) and the women's roles are kept light and genuine. A great movie it is not, but a fun diversion it most assuredly is. Grady Harp


I had read two bad reviews prior to viewing, I was pleasantly surprised how much I enjoyed this movie. I think it easily matches up to the first Eating Out, though they are very different films. Each character held there own, though there are a few standouts, including the reprehensible luminary Mink Stole. Marco Dapper as Troy proved he is not just a pretty face. Was that his over-sized appendage in the modeling scene, seemed like some airbrushing? The trio: Jim Verraros (Kyle), Emily Brooke Hands (Gwen)Rebekah Kochan (Tiffani) stole the show with candid and off the hook deliveries. The notion that the characters in this film were traditionally rooted in stereotypes of the W.& G. variety is wrong. This film turns stereotypes on their heads.

Laughed really hard at this movie!

Take your friends!!