Combat Shock (1986) was a low budget film about a battle scarred veteran who just cannot erase the memories of his horrific experinces in Viet-Nam. He's also having a hard time adjusting to civilian life. The economy is in the dumps and unemployment is at an all time high in his area. With a family to support and no hope, the surrounding environment and his family's fianancial problems begin to take a toll upon his sanity and well being.

Buddy Giovinazzo has created a grim and gritty look about life in the inner city and for those veterans who were one of the few to escape from the bloody jungles of Viet-Nam seemingly unscathed. But he has wounds that are not visible to the naked eye. Abandoned by society and the government that he served, he represents a lot of people who were ignored when they returned back to the "world".

I have to recommend this film for people who want to see a another side of life. One where people struggle to survive by preying on the weak. They can also bear witness to the life that surprisingly many Viet-Nam era veterans lived with when

their tour of duty and time with the military was completed. According to several interviews with the director, he has stated that he did a lot of research on the topic. A perfect companion piece to this film would be "Deadbeat by Dawn".

A


Most folks don't have things quite as bad as the anti-hero of this film. This guy is a Viet Nam vet, who exists with his wife and his mutated baby son in a dirty run-down apartment and can't get a job to save his soul. He wanders the streets endlessly looking for work or whatever, because thanks to being captured and tortured by the Viet Cong he's not doing too well with his mental health. There's no food at home and the baby cries all the time, and it's sort of a cross between a melted child's doll and the goat-baby thing from Eraserhead. We have plenty of drug dealers making a living though, and lots of desperate people out there wandering the streets through landscapes that are depressing and barren. Most notable is a junkie trying to get his fix with a coat hanger. This is by no means an uplifting film and yet it has a certain gritty nastiness about it that's compelling to watch, kind of like a car accident where you don't want to look but can't stop yourself from doing it anyway. Creepy and depressing, but still worth seeing if you can stomach it. 7 out of 10.


William Keane (Damian Lewis) is a man looking for the his missing daughter who he claims was abducted several months ago. In between searching for his missing daughter, Sophie, he befriends Lynn Bedik (Amy Ryan) and her daughter, Kira Bedik (Abigail Breslin). Keane becomes attached to Kira because his missing daughter, Sophie, would be the same age. Throughout the movie Keane struggles to keep his illness in check especially around little Kira. But he can only keep it up for so before it all comes out.

I've read several reviews from critics and as well as other moviegoers, both good and bad. I ended up watching the movie twice in one night. I was taken aback by the intimacy director, Lodge Kerrigan, had the camera constantly on William Keane (Damian Lewis). It felt like you were shadowing Keane's nearly every move from either over his shoulders or as you stood next to him.

Within the first 15 minutes you get the sense there's something wrong with Keane. He continues to go back to the Port Authority to hopefully find some clues as to the the whereabouts of his daughter. At some he talks to himself and convinces himself some random gentleman has something to do with his daughters abduction. He follows him and proceeds to knock him down and continues to throw punches at him while asking where his daughter is. As abruptly as he started his eventually pulled off the man and walks away talking to himself. It makes you wonder what's going to happen next? Things begin to change as he befriends Lynn and her daughter, Kira. At one point Keane is asked to take care of Kira. There were some great scenes where we get to see him as a normal guy helping Kira with her homework and eating McDonald's.

The scene I was really touched by was while Keane was telling Kira how to do better at Skeeball he began to feel what I call "his demons" begin to surface as he turns away from Kira. He begins shouting at no one in particular and at the same time he begins to struggle to keep them at bay. As Keane sits and deals with sadness Kira walks over and holds his hands in hers. I feel as if the roles of adult and child are switched as she is the one consoling him.

This movie is easier to watch than it is for me to describe. There are so many emotions and feelings that are given and taken from you. Damian Lewis (William Keane) did an exceptional job of not overplaying a man struggling with this mental illness. I also think little Abigail Beslin (Kira Bedik) did an excellent job as being able to play the scenes so convincingly, especially the Skeeball scene. Two thumbs up to director, Lodge Kerrigan and the actors involved.


I was very moved and impressed by Keane, it is the kind of movie that you just can't shake, it keeps coming back into your mind. Lodge Kerrigan has created a very special film and Damian Lewis is brilliant as the title character. He is on screen every minute of the film and we learn about the life of William Keane in a simple and realistic manner. You feel great empathy for this man as he struggles to find his lost child lost in the urban jungle and make sense out of his confusing and challenging world. The movie is heartbreaking and hopeful but yet unpretentious and simply told. I just read that the film will be released soon, if you get a chance - see this movie!


Excellent film that microscopically examines the despair and emotional journey of a father who searches endlessly for a kidnapped daughter and clearly suffers from other psychiatric illness. KEANE is fine example of film-making with a low budget that brings to life this side of society we pass every day, yet rarely interact with or want to acknowledge. Production values are consistent with the lean approach, but one can gain much from the depth and range in Damian Lewis's performance of a mentally fragile and out of control man who finds it almost impossible to move beyond his obsessive approach of finding his daughter. It is not until a series of encounters with a single mother and her daughter give him some sense that there can be sanity in his world. The suspense element is subtle but engaging. Serious audiences of independent film will find some production and script flow flaws, but overall, an excellent, compelling venture into a world most of society never experience. This film is heavy on story, yet is a positive for the film as it allows the audience to form its own opinion of Keane and his life. Has much critical acclaim from highly regarded reviewers such as Manohla Dargis of The New York Times, Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times, The Village Voice's Dennis Lim and Time Out's Anthony Kaufman.


I saw Clean Shaven about ten years ago and it has always stayed in my mind not least because it committed to celluloid one of the most toe-curling scenes I have ever witnessed but because it managed to portray a man who is mentally broken. It did this in a most effective way. So much so that I have always kept an eye out for anything by Lodge Kerrigan since. Ten years later with two more films(one destroyed) under his belt the director has put together what on the surface seems an almost paper thin storyline but is in fact an intense and gripping film about a man coping with the loss of his daughter. Throughout Kerrigan puts the camera in Damien Lewis's face which builds up a claustrophobic atmosphere that does not let up at any point. There are some intensely powerful moments and these are unbearably moving. Kerrigan allows us to think that possibly William Keane has imagined the daughter although my own opinion is that she is real. Damien Lewis goes to a place that must have been very uncomfortable for him and manages to give us a glimpse into the life of a very damaged and haunted man. Trapped by a moment in time Keane re-lives it over and over in a mindless cycle that makes no sense to anyone but him. For me the most moving scene was the scene at the ice rink. It makes me wonder how many people are really damaged by something and occasionally that psychosis flares up and takes over. I thought Keane was an exhaustingly powerful film with scenes that will stay with me for a long time. Above all else I shall remember the face of William Keane looking off camera just at the moment he thinks he glimpses something, perhaps a little girl, his little girl. Then nothing.


Director Kerrigan has clearly done his homework. It sure looks to me, a person who believes that the Dardenne Brothers (Luc and Jean-Pierre), the French speaking Belgian film makers, are the most interesting filmmakers in the world today, that Kerrigan thinks so, too. He has got down proper the semi-documentary technique that the Belgian Brothers perfected in "La Promesse," "Rosetta," "Le Fils," and "L'Enfant." The camera follows the main character solely. We see that person, usually in close-up. The camera will occasionally swing away to show that person's point-of-view or to show who he is talking to, but the camera is mostly on the character's face or looking over the shoulder at where he/she is going. There is no musical soundtrack (even in the opening titles and closing credits) but there is a carefully prepared mix of city sounds and background noises. Luckily, Kerrigan has not just aped a technique, but has also tapped into the same kind of sympathetic, humanistic observation of behavior and optimism about the human race that the Dardennes bring to their stories.

William Keane is a part-time street person who suffers from schizophrenia. He haunts Grand Central Station trying to get passers-by to look at a picture of a little girl in a newspaper clipping. "Have you seen this girl?" People hurry away. He washes up in rest rooms. He sometimes sleeps outdoors, not noticing the rain. He imagines that kidnap scenarios are going on in the station. He frantically mutters to himself about the growing danger around him. He attacks a bystander, throwing a couple of punches before walking quickly away. Sometimes he has quiet periods when he will use a disability check to buy himself some shelter in a seedy extended stay hotel.

Like a certain Academy award winning crowd pleaser from a few years ago, "Keane" tackles the question, "Can a schizophrenic eventually be able to discern his own visions from reality even if he stills sees the visions?" However, "Keane" is about real person, as brought to life by the fine (but largely unrecognized) British actor, Damian Lewis. Anyone who has daily experience with street people can see the truth of Lewis' performance. My Lovely Wife has worked as a nurse's aide in a psych ward of a big city hospital also confirms the truthfulness of Lewis' work. What a marvelous difference from Ron Howard's tear-jerking mush and Russell Crowe's hammy, over-the-top performance of twitches and jerks! "Keane" slowly develops a story out of this man's circumstances that brings him to one crucial moment of decision and a powerful resolution in the final second of the film. I absolutely loved "Keane" and highly recommend it.


Whether it be epic-scale cinema like Cry Freedom or a tourettes-sufferer in the Big Brother house, certain media events can create a huge shift in attitude. While, sadly, I doubt Keane will reach anywhere near the size audiences of the aforementioned, it did have a similar effect, making this viewer sit up and take notice of the very real issue of mental illness.

The film follows titular character, William Keane (Damian Lewis) around a cold, uncaring New York as he searches for his missing daughter. He says she was abducted but, with it clear from the outset that he is not of healthy mind, this is not clear. Shot hand-held in the gloomiest of locations, Lodge Kerrigan's unromantic portrait of New York is very real but, conversely, since the sequence of events occur through Keane's eyes, it's uncertain as to quite what is reality. The camera rarely strays from Damian Lewis. His performance drags you into his reality, and once you're there, he breaks your heart. The simple "day to day" is so difficult for him that life becomes increasingly painful and complex. This polarised look at one man makes me hungry for more cinema that eschews large casts instead to home in on a single person. While the film is built around Lewis, there is strong support from Amy Ryan and Abigail Breslin (a wonderful child actress who can be seen in Little Miss Sunshine).

What makes this such an important film is that there's no glossing-over of Keane's flaws. One still can't help but empathise with him thanks to a bravura performance from Lewis that doesn't descend into thespy showboating. Rain Man this ain't.


Damian Lewis treats us to a very believable character suffering from schizophrenia, completely obsessed over trying to locate and possibly "reverse" the abduction of his daughter - an event that we are not so sure ever really occurred. Shedding itself of any accompanying score or conventional direction, Keane tightly and uncomfortably focuses on the title character's obsession for the first and last sections of the film. We are convinced he's never incredibly dangerous (save for one or two moments), and watching him fall into a surrogate father role with Kira offers a period where he seems to take on an appearance of a responsible father, as if he were "remembering" what it was like prior to his daughter's alleged abduction.

Amy Ryan's willingness to let Keane spend time alone with Kira was a little contrived and not too believable, but necessary within the time frame of the film. The moments where he cared for Kira as his own daughter seem to momentarily suppress our perspective of his condition, but when he starts to put her in situations that suggest a setup for someone to potentially abduct her, we know he is still unstable and it keeps us guessing as to just what he is planning since he's spent a good deal of time reviewing his daughter's kidnapping over and over again, attempting to orchestrate what could have gone differently.

An offbeat flick that showcases Lewis' remarkable talent; watch with the expectation of absorbing a character study - not sheer entertainment.


After the end of the film my first thought was "What's the point?". And although the film kinda ends abruptly, I knew it was ending the moment Breslin says "I love you". To be honest, this film made me feel very uncomfortable, luckily I watched it alone, and i FFWD through the beginning a lot, since it is embarrassing to watch and every second you expect this guy to make even more of a fool of himself than he is doing. Of course, that fact alone gives away that the acting is great, and it really is. Of course Breslin is her usual greatness, but here Lewis definitely takes the cake. He is superb!

This film looks low budget, but I was wondering all through the movie how much extras were used, and they were all extras, since none of them looked into the camera. I'd really hate that.

The beginning is really hard to watch, even though I like indie movies, with a lack of background music, but it is just that the character Keane is extremely unappealing in his madness, or supposed madness. It is a good thing that the film doesn't provide a prêt-à-porter answer to it's major questions, like : Is he really crazy, is it a dream, is the Kira the girl he really lost instead of Sophie? Because, at one time, I had the feeling that there was a flashback structure, that the beginning was really the end of the story and that Kira was the girl he lost, upon which he lost his mind and mistook her for Sophie, his real daughter who is apparently unavailable to him because of a divorce. In that sense I was a little surprised, which was nice.

All in all, a quality film which is not easy on the eyes, except with the non-nude sex scene. That scene throws you off, cause it indicates that he's not quite the deplorable character he seems to be in the beginning. In that sense, it is debatable whether Lewis is a miscast since he has this typical middle-class suburban image, and not an outsider/fringe/loner. That is puzzling.


"Keane" is a low budget, independent film that provides a cinematic tour de force for both actor Damien Lewis and writer/director Lodge H. Kerrigan.

William Keane is a man who experiences every parent's worst nightmare when he loses his young daughter in a New York City bus terminal. Wracked with guilt and overwhelmed by grief, Keane devotes his every waking moment to combing the area where she was last seen, accosting total strangers with desperate pleas to help him locate the missing girl.

"Keane" is a highly unusual film in that, for the first half of its running time, its focus is entirely on this one character as he roams aimlessly around the city, muttering to himself in barely comprehensible fashion. At this point, there are no other characters to speak of, just random passersby whose paths cross with Keane's for brief, unsettling moments. Virtually bereft of dialogue, the screenplay, in the film's early stages at least, is almost entirely a stream-of-consciousness monologue of disconnected and disjointed comments, vividly reflecting the chaos of Keane's deeply disturbed mind.

About halfway through the movie, however, we are introduced to Lynn Bedik (beautifully portrayed by Amy Ryan), a down-on-her-luck mother, whose young daughter, Kira (the astonishing Abigail Breslin), may hold the key to either Keane's redemption or damnation depending on the decisions he makes. For, when all is said and done, the film is really a study of a man's ever-spiraling descent into paranoia and madness - with barely a glimmer of hope that he might possibly be saved in the end.

Lewis delivers an award-worthy performance as Keane, managing to create a compelling character out of a man who remains an inscrutable and often very creepy enigma throughout virtually the entire film. Indeed, at times we begin to doubt if his daughter ever even existed in the first place, which only increases our curiosity and apprehension regarding who Keane really is, what his real problem might be, and just how much of a threat he poses to himself and those around him. Intensifying the challenge for the actor, Kerrigan forces Lewis to endure a mercilessly intrusive hand-held camera which follows him around relentlessly and rarely pulls back more than a few inches from the actor's face. In a perfect blending of form and content, the movie plunges us into the chaotic world of Keane's troubled psyche, making us both a voyeur of and a participant in the nightmare he is going through.

"Keane" is a success on many levels, but the film is Lewis' all the way.


Kerrigan has proved his genius with "Clean, Shaven" - but this film even beats that one. Intense, human, unforgettable. I have never seen a director get at what Lodge Kerrigan does. He is an uncompromising artist and, in my opinion, America should be honored to have him. The best art is the most difficult, and for some this film may be quite difficult. There is a lot of space for interpretation. If you aren't the type of person who can handle truth over Hollywood-style entertainment, I would suggest avoiding this film. If you appreciate art, please see it immediately. I doubt that you'll be disappointed. I've already seen it 4 times and I can't wait to see it again. Thanks. Oh, and P.S. Skip the Soderbergh version. Kerrigan's blows it away.


Tough stuff, but good stuff; my friend who insisted I watch this was right to champion it. And it had more warmth in it than the movie I imagined after reading two or three reviews in New York papers when it was showing there at the IFC in autumn, 2005. I'm sorry the descriptions put me off seeing 'Keane' back then, because its painful nature made it hard to concentrate on it in my house.

However there is a significant plus in home viewing due to a major extra on the DVD version of 'Keane': the alternate shorter edit made up by Steven Soderbergh. Though I didn't have the patience to review both versions in toto I'd say Soderbergh made a snappier version, and I can see why he would have done that because the original version's first 30 minutes seem interminable, I thought I'd watched an hour and it was half that. Soderbergh is wise to put the looking-for-work moment very early rather than after 38 minutes, because it is better to start out with that. Soderbergh also held back a lot of the talking-to-himself passages and the hunting-for-the-daughter bus station sequence -- which are so grueling and disturbing -- until later, so we aren't too heavily hit too soon with Keane's severe mental problems. This is important because Keane does want to appear normal and is capable of doing so -- otherwise the whole relationship with the mother of the little girl would not have developed.

A fine performance by the actor who plays Keane, Damian Lewis.

In fact a lot of the reviews were very favorable, if not ecstatic. And this is how it has to be: this movie is good, but it's not for everyone. In grim realism 'Keane' is comparable to Debra Granik's melancholy but convincing 'Down to the Bone' (also shown in NYC in late 2005). 'Keane'is different from the latter in containing elements of mystery and being at times almost unbearably suspenseful. And Kerrigan gets us so close to his troubled character that we're taken to a hard place.

Because of Kerrigan's sympathy and actor Damian Lewis's restraint I found myself more than once indulging in the unnerving thought that in similar circumstances I might not behave a lot more sanely than this myself. Or maybe I'm not any more sane. This film as some have noted is not only a very specific account of a possibly schizophrenic man, but also a study of urban angst, a depiction of how crazy-making urban spaces can become for every person who approaches them without armor.Michael Atkinson's statement about this is perhaps a bit too sweeping - "Keane" (he says) "is a painfully specific figure but at the same time a totem, lean and frightening, for a morass of modern anxieties" - but the borderline between Keane and us does indeed at times become hauntingly blurred.

Certainly students of film editing will gain something from comparing the two versions by Kerrigan and Soderbergh. The finale is devastating. And the same in both versions. I have not seen Kerrigan's other movies but he obviously has carved out a niche for himself in which he operates with some distinction.


I never thought while watching this film, and the alternate version by Soderbergh, that the daughter never existed. Keane shows enough humanity and normality from time to time to make me think he doesn't have schizophrenia and has just been temporarily unhinged by the loss of his little girl, which, considering his own responsibility, would drive many off the edge.

It seems to me that by re-enacting the tragedy, with the neighbor's little girl and at the scene, Keane makes the first step toward recovery. Seeing that Kira is okay will replace the image in Keane's mind, or at least partially replace the image, of his own daughter disappearing, and allow the healing process to begin. What happens next is another matter, and I don't want to get too rosy about it. Perhaps Keane doesn't have the necessary strength of character, which may be what got him in trouble in the first place. But this is what turns this film into literature, that the protagonist undergoes a great change during a crucible experience. He's not quite the same guy at the end that he was at the beginning.

This is a wonderful movie, crafted carefully enough to maintain interest and suspense even without heavy action and violence, and absolutely filled with humanity.

Incidentally, I thought the submitted version was better than Soderbergh's variation, and I hope readers of these comments will forgive me for this heresy.


"Le Porno Killers" has definitely an awesome title,but fails to deliver both violence and an abundance of sleaze.This tedious bore features two female agents(one of them is Carmen Russo of "Patrick Still Lives" fame)who go after Vassilli Karis.First of all the title is completely misleading,because there are no porno scenes and no killers in this flick.At least beautiful Carmen Russo provides some full-frontal nudity.First we see her sunbathing nude then she gets up to walk across the yard buck-naked.Then she takes a shower with her female co-star and they engage in a truly fantastic lesbian scene.Finally we see her in a menage-a-trois totally nude on the bed then briefly getting up.Still the film is pretty light on sleaze and the action is deadly dull.Only for tolerant fans of Italian smut.4 out of 10.


Supertrashy giallo with a porno twist? Nope, that makes it sound far too good - it's in no way a giallo, try super-bad and boring action/thriller with sad hardcore scenes and ugly performers... Kind of reminded me of some of Franco's worst 1980s films, but at least they have some kind of spirit and experimentation over them, this is just dull in every way. I can't imagine anyone getting a kick out of this piece of crap, even those who usually likes to explore the lower slums of Cinecitta. Couldn't even sit through the whole thing - avoid by all cost, unless you're a really anal completist who wants to check it off your list. What a sad way for Roberto Mauri to end his career - his not a well known Italian director but I like the other films i've seen from him, a Kommisar X, the trashy fun King of Kong Island, some westerns and adventure films.


Having hoped this would of turned out to be a low grade trash gem along the lines of Giallo a Venezia.I was sadly let down as its barely even a thriller,its purely a shot on the road location skin flick with a few crimes thrown in our pair come across on their travels like a knife wielding guy.The plot as it is,vaguely resembles a cross between Mario Bava's Rabid Dogs and Thelma and Louise with a very slight Russ Meyer feel of lets just get naked because we've got a few ample sized lead actresses.

Its gotta be noted that this was directed by Roberto Mauri who made Le Notti della violenza/Night of Violence one of the very 1st Italian giallo films.Which makes it even more sad that he ended up making crude junk like this.That said there's lots of sex to keep exploitation fans happy just hope they wasn't expecting anything from the plot,A tiring travelogue of sex and crime,something that shouldn't be this boring but it is.I gave this a below average [3 out of 10]


By the title-I was hoping for a sex-and-violence extravaganza. Needless to say, I was sorely mistaken. My copy of LE PORNO KILLERS has no subs/dubs-so I have no idea about most of the finer-points of the film.

From what I could gather-two female hit-women are sent from NY to I guess Italy to kill somebody. As the story plays out, the girls get nekkid and have a fair amount of (un- graphic) sex with some men and each other...

The two female leads are hot and do show a good bit of skin-which is the only saving- grace at all in this one. Maybe if I'd have been able to follow the storyline I would have enjoyed it more-but I doubt it. And unfortunately-some decent nudity wasn't enough to save this one for me. Worth a look to rare sexploit completists-otherwise not worth the effort in my book. 4/10


Eddie Macon (John Schneider, in his first film starring role since coming to prominence on 'The Dukes of Hazzard') is an honest-to-God good man who ends up in jail after losing his cool with his sleazy employer. Before the film starts, he's already escaped once, and as the film opens, he escapes again (you'd think they would have been watching him more closely). Knowing full well that he'll be sent back to prison for life if he is caught, he embarks on a desperate race for Mexico and freedom, to be reunited with his beloved wife and child. He is pursued the whole time by a relentless cop, Carl Marzack (Kirk Douglas) who stops at nothing to catch him.

I was expecting a little more action myself. This prison escape film plays more like a straight drama, with a rather perfunctory car chase saved for the last dozen minutes. It gets pretty sentimental, a little too sentimental, as the soundtrack songs (sung by Schneider) will attest. Schneider is sincere and believable, and the supporting cast is full of an incredible lineup of familiar faces, including Tom Noonan, Jay O. Sanders, J.C. Quinn, Dann Florek, J.T. Walsh, John Goodman (Walsh and Goodman make their film debuts), Mark Margolis, and others. However, the standouts are undeniably Douglas, who is animated and energetic and engaging in a multi-dimensional role, and Lee Purcell, very sexy and appealing as a high society type who comes to Eddies' aid mainly because she wants a little excitement in her life.

Some decent sequences - a showdown with a snake, the confrontations with the Potts brothers - help to make it enjoyable. You might not remember it afterward, but you might very well have a smile on your face while watching it. It's decent entertainment of its kind.

7/10


A very good movie! First, the plot listed is incorrect. He does not escape from a prison in Alabama, but rather the state prison in Huntsville, Texas, (the author apparently got their "Huntsvilles" mixed up and assumed it was Alabama.) There is, in fact, a prison in Huntsville, TX, and the entire movie takes place in Texas & Mexico. A lot of action, albeit, the plot's outcome is apparent throughout. Still, this movie has an outstanding cast for a low-budget film and the original music by John Schneider is excellent. I would definitely recommend this to any fan of Kirk Douglas, John Schneider, or just your average action-movie-without-all-the-big-time-Hollywood-promotion stuff. I would say it is along the lines of movies such as "Lone Wolf McQuade", "Hunter's Blood", or "Avenging Force", all great movies without a lot of hype!


I saw this movie when it was released. Its a very good movie (I thought) and, the acting was better then your avg. "B" type Movies.

Kurt Douglass while showing his years here, plays the street wise detective hot on the trail and his acting is still top notch.

I found the story line original and creative which added to the suspense. I gave it high marks because the events in which Eddie finds himself in trouble could happen to any of us.

When Eddie discovers that his job is taking a 25% cut for letting him work there he leaves in a huff. Mad, he drives off at a high rate of speed only to be pulled over by the small town cops that seem to enjoy busting Eddies chops. Already upset, Eddie finds himself in a scrap with the cops who bring him in. Now facing the local town judge, he's given a ridiculous jail term for his infraction. Eddie decides he's got to figure a way out of jail. He comes up with a clever way of not only pulling it off but, he's planned out details of his escape route as well


I have been a movie freak since my birth. You cannot help but feel the heavy emotion from this movie. Who cares about film quality, chase scenes, blah blah blah. Nitpick nitpick nitpick.

This story is meant to portray a happy married couple struggling to get through life with a son who has a blood disease(although the movie does not focus on the boy). It's about real-life circumstances. Trying to find work to make ends meet and maybe create alittle extra to feel rewarded(buying a boat). Getting caught up into trouble and paying hard for it, just to get all the things you love taken away from you. The question you've gotta ask yourself is: What would you do in a situation like that? Would you do anything to get back to your wife and kid?

I would.


My friend and I saw Eddie Macon's Run at the theater when it was first released. I remember really liking it back then and I bought the video tape of it a year or so ago. I enjoyed it as much as I did when I was in my late teens. It contained action that had me on the edge of my seat with the good cop chasing the bad guy scenes, with a twist. It had some flirtatiousness, and was also a love story. There were parts where it kept you wondering what would happen next. It gave me so many different feelings throughout the movie; anywhere from being scared, sad, and angered to happy and relieved, etc. You can never go wrong with Kirk Douglas and John Schneider in the key roles.


I admit I am biased- I have always loved Ms. Adams since "The Dead Zone"...Stephen King at his earliest, and best.

This film is quirky and interesting. It is one of the few actually worth buying on DVD. Not just for the performances, which are excellent, by the way.

The visuals are noteworthy. New Mexico, the Southwest; a visual palette reminiscent of the artist Georgia O'Keefe. Beautiful photography, and a dysfunctional family trying to survive- two young girls living with their disillusioned mother.

This film addresses a niche which is not mainstream, but real...disappointed Americans living and working , trying their best, yet opposed by the realities. This film deserves 10/10- a must see.


Allison Anders motivation in making this film may be obscure, but I'm glad she made it. This, her debut feature, runs like a meandering stream through rivulets of teenage angst and single-mother frustration in small town New Mexico. Maybe its' the Mexico bit that made this movie seem more foreign than traditional action-based, marketing-oriented, formulaic American movies.

I'd heard the term "trailer trash" via Jerry Springer and guests, but this female family of free (alright, forget the alliteration - three) are far from "trash", just down on their luck. The mother, Brooke Adams is a waitress on a low income trying to bring up her girls; the older one, Ione Skye, discovers through a fraternisation with a gallant, geologically quizzical Englishman (for once, not Hugh Grant), that relationships beat one night stands.

Ione's brother, Donovan Leitch, also appears in this film, but it is Fairuza Balk as the younger teenager, who is outstanding. She wants the best for her mother, which she has difficulty in securing, but her film-buff instincts and a predilection for Spanish movies, enable her to find fulfilment for herself.

The movie concludes in a somewhat enigmatic manner without all loose endings tied up. But hey, when in life are any loose endings tied up? Our end, like this film's, leave us wanting more.


This film was the reason I became a film maker. Period. It is very inspiring to watch, with superb acting, quiet character building and developing. The film grabs you and pulls you into a small New Mexico town setting. You become completely engrossed with the story and the characters. It takes time to develop personalities within the female leads and the viewer becomes quite vested in their futures. I found Fairuza Balk's acting performance particularly compelling. One of my favorite acted roles in cinema (quality wise). This film is in my top ten favorites of all time, and also my twin has similar affinity for this superb film. Kudos to a film outside of the ordinary with a true independent vision.


I have seen this movie countless times. Such a great, well-written story brilliantly executed by Anders. She has such a great artistic vision when it comes to camera angles, lighting, cinematography, and music. Great acting too all around! This is one of the few films I would give a 10/10!


From Richard Peck's novel "Don't Look and It Won't Hurt", starring Brooke Adams in a terrific performance as a single mother of two headstrong young daughters, hoping for a better existence outside of their lives in a backwater town in New Mexico, but not knowing how to go about finding it. Arty, intriguing showcase for some very fine actresses (Adams, Ione Skye and the inscrutable Fairuza Balk), as well as James Brolin in a small but telling role as the girls' dreamy-quiet, estranged father. Director Allison Anders, who also adapted the screenplay, does hit an awkward snag or two in exploring these characters' emotions, but her feel for Nowhere U.S.A. is rich with complexity. Moody and unusual, it's a film worth seeing. *** from ****


I read about this movie in a magazine in my country, Argentina. The critics had voted "Gas, food, lodging" as the best movie in 1992 or 1993, I can't remember. As I haven't seen it at the theaters, I had to wait a few years till was shown in cable TV, quite late I must say. I usually agree with the critics that voted it, but I was really skeptic as was not a hit at all... but they were right again. Wonderful movie, a touching Fairuza Balk that appeared to be a future star and ended making small parts or characters too much below her. I became quite a fan of this film, and as I have just registered here I decided not only to vote but to write a few lines about it. Please don't miss it. It is not only another indie film but a great movie.


I wish there were more films like this. Anders, the director, is a very wise person, especially in how she sees human relationships and treats them in this film. People call this an intelligent film and I'm not saying it's not, but that comment says a bundle about a lot of the other films that have been out there lately, where characters just don't seem human and act more like plot robots, void of any recognizable human feelings or dimensions. Evil and good in absolute black and white strokes. No, most people are more complex than that, even if mass media doesn't seem to want to poke much beyond the surface that they present to us. This movie is intelligent because it's very intuitive in its understanding of how most real people relate to one another. There are two particular scenes that I especially love. One is with the younger daughter bringing home purely by coincidence the ex-lover of her mom for a supposedly blind first date with the mom. She and the ex play it cool and ironically pretend they don't know each other and by the end of it, the lover comes to understand the mom's maternal love for her daughter and why she can't continue with him as her lover, which is all spelled out without anyone saying anything directly. The second scene is slightly less poignant, but also shows the unspoken understanding between good people. It involves the satellite cable installer and the mom and how they communicate indirectly and in a silly smart way the nature of their newfound relationship with one another and what they want from it. Their conversation in bed after the first time doing "it" was a gem. Very strong recommendation!


This is one of those movies that is often passed over by people who would love it if they watched it. Why? The cover art and tag line make this movie appear to be a low budget skin flick - which it is not. This film is touching and beautiful and quirky. The acting by Balk is spot on and her character is very well developed. But what really makes this movie so wonderful is the story line. In the summary of this movie you will hear something like.....Truckstop waitress struggles to raise her two daughters...while this is true, the story is so much more than that. I suggest anyone who loves quirky movies (like Lawndogs or Box Full of Moonlight) watch this one - just ignore the cover art and rent it already!


Guys and gals alike will like this one, just be patient. There is a real story here, clearly understandable and enjoyable by everyone, just give it a chance.

Anyone who as a teen has wrestled with grown-up problems can understand clearly what is being told by this movie.

Guys, shouldn't be too quick to dismiss this as "a chick flick" because you will be missing an inside to women that can be very informative.

And the acting is well done, too. Kudos even to stiff-board Brolin for adding believability to his dumb runaway father character. Brooke Adams is believable as the low income mom trying to cope with her daughters' problems. Ione Skye puts a whole different view on the "easy girl" we remember for high school. And Fairuza Bulk puts a nice believable twist on her role as narrator learning about real love.


This movie is a must see for any teenage girl. It has more heart and soul then a lot of movies that I have seen in a long time. Trudi is a bad girl but when it comes down to it, she will do what is right for her. Shade is one who you can't understand at first but once you get to know her you can relate. This movie is worth a 10 because it can show that sometimes no matter what you have to do what is right for you and not the rest of the world.It also shows that if you get caught crying sometimes that it is not always a sign of weakness, sometimes it is a sign that you have just had enough! Any girl from the age of 13+ should get their best friends and mothers for a girls movie. It just might make all of the fighting stop!Even if only for a moment!


Will three feisty women, a single mother and her two daughters, find love and fulfillment in small-town Laramie? Allison Anders' debut film 'Gas, Food, Lodging' aims at a low-key, indie feel but the characters struggle to acquire more than a single dimension: Brooke Shields makes a reasonable stab at Mum, but the teenage characters are little more than outlines. The result is a film that is no better than it ought to be, never going anywhere unexpected. The soundtrack has a nice feel but is used to unsubtle effect; the film touches on America's racial divide, but quite shallowly; the teenage fashion on display has period interest for those who remember it at first hand. Otherwise, it's all a bit dull and obvious.


I can't believe people are calling this the "best SF movie of the year", unless there aren't any other SF movies this year. Ebert obviously needs to adjust his meds if he gave this four stars.

Plot holes? Plot holes? The rocks... do they mean *anything*? How come the aliens can't find *some* way to communicate with people? How do they expect to leave their numeric clue hidden for 50 years and have just the right person run across them? Why does the son get all bent about being treated as a child... for 30 seconds? My God -- it's full of holes! This abomination makes Swiss cheese look like battleship armor.

"Thought-provoking" only in the sense that if you start thinking about it, you'll be astounded at how little sense in makes, and how much thinking you have to do to force any of it to work.

I've been reading science fiction for 30 years. I know SF. SF is a friend of mine. And if this is the best SF movie of the year, I'm a monkey's uncle. And aunt. And male offspring. And second cousin once removed.


It may seem improbable, but Knowing actually adds something fresh and inspiring to the disaster genre.

Certainly the action scenes are well staged  they are as grand and tense as the previews would have you expect. But Knowing really stands out from the likes of Next and various Roland Emmerich movies because of its heart (there is a profoundly human element amongst the chaos and destruction), and because of the surprising, riveting turns the story takes. In no way was it a generic "save the world" flick, like I feared going in. It is an original with a memorable ending that should not be spoiled, but it will almost definitely have people talking.

In my mind, director Alex Proyas deserves a lot of the credit for the fact that the film is brave, and does not try to replicate a typical Hollywood blueprint. In fact, he even has Nic Cage back on solid footing, an actor I used to love but have been quite weary of lately. But I think Proyas deserves the main kudos for turning this into something creative and special, and I'd go as far as to say this it is his best movie since Dark City.

There really isn't much to complain about regarding the film, but the one exception might be the middle, where the action sags a bit. Still, I think the captivating final third more than makes up for it.

I definitely recommend the film - you will be pleasantly surprised!


This movie is bad propaganda for Scientology. This is already obvious after five minutes watching. First, evolution is called "Theory of Randomness" and described as something sad by Nicolas Cage. Of course, there's no mention at all of all the proofs of evolution, even when Cage is supposed to be this serious MIT teacher. The little girl Lucinda is born in 1952, year of Scientology creation. The time capsule is sealed under a seven branch star, the symbol of Scientology. Then, the story is very closed of the one in the book "Scientology, A History of Man" written by L.Ron Hubbard, Scientology founder. The movie described a numerological prophecy of apocalypse, something frequent in Scientology's mythology. The more ridiculous is the final image of the Eden Garden with Adam and Eve running to the knowledge tree! When you're watching such a movie, remember that Quentin Hubbard, the son of Scientology founder, was probably murdered for having told the world that his father is a liar and and criminal. And - mainly - remember Darwin...


From the trailers of Knowing you'd be convinced that you're going to watch a cheesy, try to save the world picture with a wound tight Nicolas Cage at the center gritting his teeth and ducking his way to the perfect ending. Well, you'd be partially correct. Cage is definitely giving his wound tight hero routine that he's worked so hard to develop over the last half dozen films. As for the cheese factor, that's where you'll be surprised. Director Alex Proyas manages to deliver a rather decent sci-fi flick that has plenty of suspense and intelligence.

The plot turns around John Koestler (Nicolas Cage), an MIT astrophysics nerd turned Indiana Jones when a time capsule is discovered at his young son Caleb's (Chandler Canterbury) school. Inside are drawings from students in 1959 predicting what things would be like in 2009 some 50 years later. The drawing that Caleb comes home with isn't a drawing at all but a series of seemingly random numbers. Koestler becomes obsessed with the numbers and their meaning or what they seem to mean. The whole thing shakes him to his scientific core and a quest has begun.

The film is very lucky to have director Alex Proyas from films such as Dark City which is his true geek film and critical acclaim as well as I, Robot and Garage Days. The visual and special effects are outstanding. It was surprising how much suspense was in the script (Ryan Douglas Pearson and Juliet Snowden) which gave the film a real thriller atmosphere which continues to build in tone as the mystery is unraveled.

I admit I went into this film expecting a rehash of National Treasure on a more global scale. The sci-fi aspect of the premise is very well thought out and told. The acting by co-stars (Chandler Canterbury, Rose Byrne and Lara Robinson) are solid performances and stand in complementary contrast to that of the tightly wound Nicolas Cage. The geek factor of Knowing is rather high with lots of number configurations and what-if scenarios which is great for the sci-fi fans. At times your brain may have to turn on in order to follow the film, but that is what made Knowing such a pleasant surprise to me.*


First of all, yes I did see this movie, and no I'm not much of a talker when it comes to discussing and reviewing movies. Therefore, I will keep it short and simple.

Nicholas Cage's movies have lately been a lot of action flicks that may or may not seem like movies we've all seen before. This one, however, brings a new fresh feeling to this genre.

I think we've all seen the whole "I see it coming" type of movie where the main character has to prevent something from happening. This is one of those, and yet it isn't. It doesn't bore you, it doesn't make you feel like you've seen it before, and yet you have a comfortability with it that intrigues you throughout.

I found myself quite entertained and the movie didn't lose my attention or have me checking my watch. Good direction and acting. Nicholas Cage does a good job.

I believe anyone who sees this movie will enjoy it for what it is. Go see it, it's a fun flick!


'Knowing' can be summed up in four short words. Great film - rubbish ending.

SPOILER!! SPOILER!! SPOILER!! SPOILER!! READ FROM HERE AT YOUR OWN RISK!!

----------------------------------------------------

The ending lets the whole movie down - yeah it's not the happy 'save the world' ending we were (in a way) dreading. But that just certain kids were the only ones being saved and no adults at all was just ridiculous.

Have the producers, etc never read 'The Lord of the Flies'? Kids do not do well on their own. They also do not just happily accept being taken by aliens to a strange new world; they do not happily accept not only the deaths of their families and friends (assuming friends are not of the 'chosen') but also the death - apparently - of even their planet.

Why couldn't they have had the aliens stay with them as the 'adult' influence at the very least? Why were only certain children rescued, why no adults? Why were the children behaving like mini 'stepford wives' at the end, in spite of the trauma they had gone through? The film is fantastic up to the last fifteen minutes and then it all goes to hell in a handcart.

It was like the writer, and later the director, thought this was a good way to just end it as they were bored. Come up with some ridiculous reason to end the world - have the men in black (yes we all got that little 'wheeze') actually be the aliens, save the kiddies (punters like to see 'little timmy' survive) and there you have it; the perfect ending if you've got bored with your project.

Well, I can vouch for the fact it's NOT. Next time, if you're going to make a movie this good - make the ENDING as good too, or else we (the viewers) just feel cheated. If you get bored - walk away and let someone else finish it.

Out of 10 - I give it 4; and that's just because of the rubbish ending.


Okay, this is a movie that I would classify as "I lost two hours of my life for this?" It was almost as if one person wrote the beginning, one person wrote the middle, and one person wrote the ending, and none of it meshes together at all. This movie has horror, religious, and sci-fi aspects that are all over the place. The first thirty minutes are okay, but it just plummets from there. There was not really any back story and it was kind of all over the place. The best part was when the lead female role was killed. Her whiny butt was getting on my nerves. The whole aliens are angels things was not put together very well at all, and the special effects were not that great. This would have been so much better if they had just concentrated on the story line and not have made it so goofy.


If, like me, you expect films to have a cohesive plot, intelligent writing and an imaginative ending then this is NOT the film for you. What is the point of giving an astrophysicist a list of predictions and telling him when the world is going to end if there's nothing he can do about it? For the first two thirds of the film I was waiting for some clever twist or original storyline that would bring together all the disjointed pieces of the film but instead it ended in the most anti-climactic and least original way - aliens! The second worst cop out in history - the first being 'he woke up and it was all a dream'. It's not even poignant enough to be thought provoking or depressing; it's simply utterly pointless!


I don't expect a film about the apocalypse or premonitions to be the smartest movie ever ... hell, those 'disaster' movies where the hero charges around saving people are pretty much standard Hollywood fluff, and aren't too intelligent - but they are rarely this stupid. Its like they took all the annoying elements out of these movies and put them all in one (think Independence Day but without the bad jokes to forgive it for the stupidity) In parts I felt like I was watching a kids flick with gory disasters and spooky pedophile stalkers added in for effect. The kids were (as is often the case in these type of movies) annoying. But this time around the adults were so much worse. And the acting was just plain awful all round.

The most annoying thing though was the plot - it didn't make any sense. These advanced aliens can predict the future and feel the need to impart this to some kids to write it all down as a set of numbers in the hope some college professor figures out what they mean. But in the end, it doesn't matter what they mean, they're all going to die anyway. Lucky the aliens feel like saving the kiddies. Now I get the whole religion-aliens/angels take on the movie, but it doesn't feel any less dumb.

To sum it all up: Nicholas Cage's acting was awful, his 'son' was annoying, Rose Byrne's character was plain stupid, Cage's character was a total idiot, the aliens ending was ridiculous, and really, the only good thing was that they got what they deserved - toasted to death in a fiery inferno (too bad they kids escaped with their bloody rabbits).


SLIGHT SPOILERS NOTHING MAJOR I just saw Knowing and it was one of the worst movies i'd seen in a while. It started strong with a flashback to the page of numbers being made , then it went to Cage as a MIT professor and his son gets a mysterious page of numbers. He goes around trying to stop disasters, and never does anything. Then his kid is stalked by pale people that seem straight out of the Davinci code. They realize an impending doom.

It is incredibly violent at parts, but most of it is boring. He spends most of the movie looking at a sheet of paper and driving around looking worried. Some people say the ending is 'thought provoking', but i found it ridiculous. I would skip this one.


For the life of me, I can't figure out what everyone is on about with this movie. "Knowing" is completely unoriginal, horribly predictable, and poorly acted.

For starters, is it just me, or is this movie an awful lot like "Signs"? I couldn't stop thinking about "Signs" the whole time I was watching this stinker. I found myself wishing that I was watching "Signs" instead.

******SPOILERS*****

For example: Nick Cage's character is a widower who has lost his faith in life. He believes there is no "grand design" behind things that happen.  "Signs". He has a sister that, much like Joaquin Phoenix in "Signs", hangs around and tries to help out. Cage's wife was killed in a terrible accident  "Signs". Guess what, by the end of the movie Nick Cage has found his faith again. Just in time for the credits. Can you say "Signs"

******END SPOILERS*****

I could go on, but I don't want to spoil the movie too much. "Knowing" does a good enough job of spoiling itself. If you pay semi-close attention if you are awake  if you are even in that "not quite awake, not quite asleep state", but your eyes are mostly open you should have this movie figured out fairly quickly. If you are one of these people whose "jaw hit the floor" turn your cell phone off next time. Not only does it distract you, but it is annoying to others as well. To say this movie is clichéd, would be clichéd, but honestly, I had this one figured out within 20 minutes.

Lasty, Nick Cage... Whenever I go to a movie that is starring Nick Cage, I try to temper my expectations. Since I see him as probably the most overrated actor of our time, it helps me to not be too disappointed. Cage really out did himself this time, however. Despite the fact that there is not ONE memorable moment delivered by anyone in this entire movie, Cage still manages to be out shone by everyone. In fact, in scenes were he is alone the props seem to have more life.

The one good thing about this movie is the title. It is very appropriate. "Knowing" means knowing exactly what is going to happen at any given time in the movie. It also means knowing that Nick Cage is going to lay an egg and paying nine bucks to watch it happen anyway. And of course it means knowing that you aren't going to get your money back even before you ask.

Save your money, this is one to miss in the theater. Some day when you are in the mood for a really wooden, lifeless, and uninspired performance, the kind only Cage can deliver, watch it on Netflix.

*******OKAY TWO MORE SPOILERS ******

How is it that TWO MIT professors couldn't figure out that the numbers in between the other numbers were locations? Seriously, MIT? I thought those guys were smart?

And for all those posting that this movie was religious/Christian propaganda. You are half right. It is certainly religious propaganda, but the religion in question in my opinion is Scientology. Christians don't believe that aliens will show up just before the end of the world to take some precious few to "start over". That's Scientology. There are a few references to Christianity, sure. However it appears to me that they were thrown in to lend credulity to the otherwise ridiculous plot. After all, it wouldn't do for there to be a L. Ron Hubbard paperback lying on the nightstand during the "climactic" mobile home scene. So throw the Holy Bible down there instead. Please don't blame the Christians for this bomb. We are talking about Hollywood after all, not the Vatican.


My goodness, where to begin. Lets just begin at the beginning. There are going to be some spoilers in this one as it is necessary to make a point.

A friend of mine told me this was one of the most mind-blowing movies he had ever seen. He was correct. That someone freed $50,000,000 of cold hard cash to make this cut and paste drivel definitely blew my friggin' mind.

I didn't have high expectations for this movie, hadn't even planned on seeing it, but I held out a little hope because I loved Dark City so much. Those meager hopes were dashed against the rocks.

Lets start with the first contrivance of a distant introverted young girl, Lucinda, in 1959 who hears voices. Its her idea (we learn through awkward exposition, exposition that sadly never learns to walk) that her elementary school drop a time capsule into the ground to be excavated 50 years into the future. The children are assigned to draw what they think the future will look like, the art to be placed within the capsule. Lucinda furiously scribbles a series of numbers on her paper. It is put into the capsule.

Fast forward 50 years.

October 2009. Heat wave. Indian summer. Nicholas Cage is showing his son some cosmic formation in his telescope. Without warning his son admonishes him for never listening, forgetting school events, and generally being a neglectful father. While this is done through more awkward exposition, what is more maddening is that Cage spends the entire movie being an almost overbearingly doting father, rushing to events, forgoing outings with friends and potential blind dates that would replace is dead wife. One would think that perhaps he is turning over a new leaf after 5 minutes, but his best friend informs us this is not the case.

Cage is an MIT professor, though we never learn what type we can only assume astrophysics. We only see him teach one class. And what would a professor, inhabiting an acclaimed technical college, in a classroom surrounded by equations on a chalkboard, images of celestial bodies, and a model of the solar system assign for his students at the end of the class? Write a paper on determinism vs randomness. Does life have meaning. In a physics class.

Naturally, his son is singing at the event to open the time capsule. Naturally, he receives Lucinda's paper filled with indecipherable numbers. Naturally, he brings it home when he's not supposed to. Naturally, Cage sees it. He sends his son to bed and in a inexplicable drunken rage deciphers most of the numbers, starting with the first number, picked at random: 911012889. In two seconds he discovers that it means 9/11/01 and the number who perished. Baffled and enraged he spends all night finding the dates and casualties of major human tragedies and googling them for confirmation. We won't mention that casualty estimates often very by source and more so for natural disasters and large numbers. He verifies every major tragedy for 50 years on this paper, including the event where his wife died. Except there are 3 events that have yet to occur.

What does an astrophysicist do with this info? Takes it to his friend who predictable tells him in copy and pasted dialogue how crazy this all sounds and he's taking his wife's death too hard. And what do the rest of the numbers mean? After half a glass of whisky he found the first date from the first set of numbers he looked at, after a whole bottle and a sleepless night he found the rest, but it took his trucks GPS product placement ad to find out the rest of the numbers are latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates. Naturally, he is at the location of the next accident just as he discovers this, a hideous plane crash complete with passengers running around covered in jet fuel and fire. This is where the audience laughter begins. It never stopped.

The dialogue is maddeningly formulaic, awkward, and uninspired. The acting ranges from sub par to excruciating. The story is as predictable as Wednesday's meatloaf. When Cage's son, who can hear the voices, starts writing down more numbers, even after the final revelation, Cage dismisses it as his son's impetuousness. The whole event is a contrived plot device.

One wonders why he is estranged from his father, a pastor, and family. One wonders why he doesn't take his discovery to the other MIT scientists. One wonders why he feels the pressing need to run headlong towards the disasters he knows will happen, only to be saved by dumb luck. One wonders whether anyone involved in the making of this film has ever been to MIT for longer than the time it takes to create B roll or has ever stood on a New York City subway platform.

I won't even mention the sci-fi allusions to the Christian concept of rapture.

In the end this movie is a spectacular disappointment. It is a fun concept amateurishly executed on every conceivable level.


This was by far the worst movie I have ever seen. The disaster scenes were ridiculous - people on fire walking around after a plane crash? come on, that's just stupid. The direction was awful. I felt embarrassed for the actors the whole movie. And the end, stupid beyond words... only the kids that can hear the creepy whispering people can go off in the spaceship... no parents allowed... and the kids don't really mind that their parents are either dead or about to die, because they each get to have a white fluffy bunny to hold... most of the audience was laughing, and those that weren't sat there with their mouth hanging open. Save yourself Don't go It's 121 minutes you'll never get back


I wish I had a way to give this movie a rating that would show how awful I think this movie was. I ended up seeing it yesterday after a friend and I went to see "Taken" and it was sold out. I haven't gone to a theater to see a Nicolas Cage movie for a long time and now remember why. I truly detest his on-screen movie presence. The beginning of the movie, with the time-capsule premise, was intriguing--I've always liked the idea of time capsules and what gets found in them. This movie was a bad mix of awful acting, sloppy story-telling, mixed metaphors, really bad acting, pseudo-Christian propaganda, 2nd-rate CGI, and really awful acting--yes, I know I mentioned the acting several times but it was just that bad. Nicolas Cage gets increasingly difficult to watch the older he gets, using his stern face to express emotion and his "puppy dog" eyes to show his sadness. How an alcoholic atheist(cue the laughs) is converted to believing in something more than randomness and then willingly gives up his son just made me groan with disbelief. When I saw the house that this morose professor lived in, with it's peeling paint and wallpaper, I knew it was supposed to represent something but never did figure that part out. This is a bad mix of the "Left Behind" movies and every other bad science fiction movie in the last decade. Please, Nic, you've certainly made enough money in the last decade making bad movies...don't make any more.


...i was truly disgusted by this piece of blatant, fundamentalist Christian (so-called = since Christ never advocated this end- of- the- world- chosen- ones- get- to- be-saved -the -non-believers -good-or-not -get-to-burn -in- hell-on-Earth apocalyptic poppycock!) masquerading as a regular mystery/thriller. It should be at very least labeled Sci-Fi - that way, there'd at least be some effort to make an accurate representation to those of us who happen NOT to subscribe to fundamentalist doctrine which we can then choose to waste our money & time watching, or not.

The script was atrocious - full of loose ends & predictable dialog, the acting all culled from the wide-eyes + dropped jaw school of performing...the angels were weird & scary...the poor 'Cassandra' of this piece tormented & suffering for absolutely no discernibly useful reason (damn poor way to treat one of y'chosen Ones = drive them to a premature death by suicide b/c everyone believes you are mad...including you!)...heck the only cool things were the cute kids & the cool spaceships! That tree-of-life at the end just about sent me over the edge...

Repeat; should come with a warning 'Caution; watching this movie WILL expose you to extremist doctrine of a religious nature'. If i'd read that, i' have skipped it - as i'm sure millions of others would (and will, once word gets out).

One thing good about it is that it makes Travolta's revolting 'Battlestar Gallactica' look good!!! Hey, at least there i knew ahead of time it was Scientology doctrine = fair's fair!


Alex Proyas - a director who has always provided me with movies that were at least interesting. To me, anyway. He has also given me quite a few that I loved (Dark City and The Crow would be my top picks). So it was heartening to hear the praise that was heaped on Knowing when it was released, with some even going so far as to call it perhaps the greatest sci-fi movie ever made. But let's be clear just now and sweep away some of the hyperbole, it's not the greatest sci-fi movie ever made. It's not even the greatest movie of the last few years. What it IS is a great film that, as is all-too-rare nowadays, manages to mix visceral thrills and big bangs with intelligence and some moments of quality drama. It runs the gamut from mild chuckles to jump scares, from personal connections between characters to eye-searingly impressive disaster sequences. And it does it all quite brilliantly.

Things kick off with an intriguing prologue. An elementary school burying a time capsule that features drawings from all of the children in class and a page of numbers from young Lucinda, who came up with the idea in the first place. Moving forward fifty years, the capsule is opened and the children of today each get to see what their forerunners imagined the future to be. Young Caleb Koestler (a fine performance from Chandler Canterbury even if his name does sound like a quaint old world English town) receives the page of numbers and begins to hear whispering voices. He shows the numbers to his father, astrophysicist and widower John Koestler (played by Nicolas Cage), and it's here that things get interesting. After he stumbles upon that most memorable of dates when the twin towers were brought down he finds that beside that date is written the number of people who died. Some frantic googling soon shows up most of the other numbers as dates and bodycounts . . . . . although some have yet to happen, including something very, very big. It is up to the Cage, along with Rose Byrne (playing the "prophet's" daughter struggling to keep her own young daughter safe), to decipher the code and hopefully save lives. Meanwhile, the whispering grows more insistent but only to the children.

A cracking, and often thought-provoking, plot is moved forward by characters that you really care about. Of course, there are many people who dislike Cage's tics and twitches but he is both enjoyable and believable in the lead role. All of the child actors, rather surprisingly, do very well too and Rose Byrne proves to be a good partner for Cage, alternately hindering developments with a refusal to believe events and helping out with the odd comment/input that clarifies things further for Cage.

Despite all of the intelligence and ideas woven throughout this movie it IS an event film and, impressively, the film doesn't disappoint here either. The big scenes are BIG and they really pin you back in your seat with some top-quality FX work and design.

In fact, it's hard to find too many flaws in this film but I must say that I was wanting things to wrap up a little quicker in the final half hour, already sensing how things would pan out and feeling one step ahead of the protagonists. I was also left a little cold by the sci-fi trappings that were inserted near the very end of the movie, feeling almost disappointed and wishing there had been some other, equally mysterious and impressive, way to resolve things.

But that was me, to others it may be the one and only ending they were hoping for so don't be put off. Even if you don't like those last scenes, the 90 minutes running up to them are brilliantly entertaining.

See this if you like: The Medusa Touch, The Day After Tomorrow, Terminator 3 - Rise Of The Machines.


**WARNING - SPOILERS** Prof. John Koestler (Cage), gets his mitts on a piece of paper with a long sequence of numbers on it that  to cut a long story short - predicts the end of the world. As one probably would in these situations, Koestler sets out to try to prove this to anyone who will listen in a desperate attempt to save mankind. Meanwhile Koestler's son starts to see strange blond people skulking about in the woods around their house.

This movie had my eyes glued to the screen until the last 20 minutes or so. It was interesting, scary, disturbing and I couldn't wait to see what happened next. My movie snacks lay forgotten, the plot had me hooked. The plane crash sequence frightened the hell out of me and so did the story and Koestler started to uncover more of the mystery surrounding the final numbers. even the ridiculous blond people were eerie. Then the movie started to draw to a close and I opened a bag Maltesers to counter-balance my disappointment.

I found the sequences leading to the end predictable and ridiculous, and I think the scene with the children reaching their new home was out of place and unnecessary. I would have been happy just to leave that part to the imagination and watch earth's spectacular doom on its own. Their departure could have been concluded the same way without the scene. Their new home has an Eden-like vibe to it, complete with all-too-immaculate CGI scenery and a big shiny tree. It kinda reminded me of a shampoo commercial for some reason. I also thought that if the aliens/angels had taken that much trouble to make sure that the human race would continue elsewhere, they would not have just dumped these kids somewhere on their own and left them to their own devices, free to make all the same horrendous mistakes we humans seem to be all too proficient at. Maybe I am just skeptical, but I see a 'Lord of the Flies' type situation developing very quickly in this new place.

Despite this I was impressed with the subsequent ending scenes, set apart from many apocalyptic movies churned out by Hollywood. Aside from the few children and white rabbits the aliens/angels whisked away, no one and nothing is spared, and the desperation and despair of those who remain, along with the destruction of E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G is impressive. It makes a change from the typical ending where the resourceful and virtuous heroes crawl out from their clever hiding places to cry and clutch each other joyfully before skipping off to rebuild their shattered lives.

I give this movie 7 out of 10 - Silly and predictable towards the end ("please don't let it be aliens, please don't let it be aliens. . . awww, damn - it's aliens"), but also thought provoking and disturbing. Nicholas Cage is better than I have seen him in a while.


Regardless of what I though of the movie overall, nearly 24 hrs later and the movie is still with me. Overall, I thought the movie was well done. It managed to mix the thriller genre while successfully (to a greater or lesser degree) incorporating both the sci-fi and spiritual elements. Most of it worked. Most.

While trying not to give too much away, the plot can be summarized as the story of a widowed father that has resigned himself to the scientific as a result of her death. After a 50 year old time capsule is opened revealing a list of numbers, he begins to notice a patten defining every major catastrophe over the past 50 years. As he follows the pattern, trying to prevent the events to come, he begins to wonder what all of this has to do with him and his son. It is a good thriller and it kept me second guessing myself throughout.

I think the hardest part for me with this movie was the special effects. Now, whoever did the graphics certainly did a better job than I could ever do, but as this seemed like a big budget movie and as we've see many movies with similar visual sequences done so smoothly, I was very disappointed and I actually had to try to convince myself to ignore the music video par cgi so I could appreciate the movie. As an example, the fire at the plane scene was very flat and the subway lighting and textures were not believable. Even movies like what pixar has put out have been able to create realistic flowing so the long grass appearing so outdated, again, took away from the believability. Though I will definitely compliment whoever made the object that caused Cage's character to fall to his knees towards the end. THAT was impressive.

I think had it not had so many similarities to things such as Signs, or Armageddon, or Die Hard (high tension action), I think it would have gotten a better score.

But that said, I would still highly recommend this movie!


Knowing is a terrific film by the director of Dark City that combines bone-chilling horror with a great story and amazing visuals. There is a feeling of sheer dread throughout, especially if you know how it's going to end. I had to keep telling myself it was only a movie. The musical score is excellent and really accentuates the terror and emotional impact of the whole movie. Nicolas Cage pulls off one of his best performances in years, and even though a lot of what he does ends up being futile, I really felt for all the characters. It seems a lot of the problems people had with the movie had to do with the plot, and while it's not flawless it's still really well told. Alex Proyas is known for being a stylistic director, and for this reason you should probably watch this with a certain frame of mind. Try to feel your way through the movie instead of over-thinking every little detail. It's an emotional roller-coaster ride and one of the best movies of 2009 so far. On top of everything, the action scenes are awesome.

EDIT: Upon further review, my opinion has changed about this movie. I still think it's really well made, but I have to comment on the weird symbolisms and imagery used in the movie. For example, the rabbits may seem out of place until you realize that rabbits were sacred to the religion of Baal, a solar deity. This and other things in the film are related to kabbalism and occultism. If you believe in the Illuminati, you know that they control Hollywood and put their symbols in many films, for example the Nick Cage movies National Treasure 1 and 2. This movie may be part of a broader agenda by very sick and dangerous people. Their final goal is to sacrifice all of humanity to their solar deity who they still worship. You may not believe it but its symbolized everywhere. So enjoy the movie but understand what these things mean.


After seeing the previews for Knowing on television I was very eager for it to come to theaters, but the film most definitely did not live up to the high expectations it gives movie fans. I was very disappointed with the movie and left the theater thinking, "Seriously? Did they really just do that?"

The film starts off 50 years ago with an elementary school project where the students are asked to draw a picture to put in a time capsule that will be opened half a century later on the school's 50th anniversary. One student, Lucinda Embry fills both sides of her paper with a series of seemingly random numbers instead of a picture.

Jump ahead 50 years. John Koestler is a single father raising his son, Caleb, after his wife was killed in a tragic fire that claimed the lives of several dozen others. At the ceremony celebrating the school's 50th anniversary the time capsule is opened and Caleb unluckily is given an envelope that contains Lucinda's cryptic code instead of a picture like his fellow classmates. Later that evening something jumps out at John from the paper  a clump of numbers: 0911012996. It doesn't take long for him to figure out that these numbers really translate to 9/11/01 and 2996, the date and death toll of the September 11th terrorist attacks. John immediately jumps to work picking apart the numbers and finds that all huge disasters in the last 50 years have been accurately documented before they even occurred, but there are three upcoming catastrophe's the Lucinda's paper predicts. And sure enough, they happen when they say they are going to happen killing the number of people that Lucinda recorded.

John tries to seek out Lucinda to see if there is anything she can do to help, but discovers that she committed suicide a few years back and the only person he can reach is Lucinda's daughter Diana and Diana's daughter.

*SPOILERS AHEAD*

This is about the time where the plot line goes from interesting to flat out confusing. Many questions that would seem crucial to the plot are left unanswered, not to mention that the ending of the angels/aliens taking the "chosen" children away to "safety" (another planet that is meant to be a juxtaposition of the Garden of Eden) has a similar feeling to reading the last sentence of a book that says "And then I woke up and realized the whole thing was just a dream." I remember saying to my friends. "Aliens? Seriously, aliens?" The plot, while seemingly interesting, was poorly carried out and what was developed tapered away without being solved. Strong performances were given by Nicholas Cage, Rose Byrne,and the two child leads, Chandler Canterbury and Lara Robinson. Unfortunately, the poorly developed script cast a shadow over the performances. The movie is a real edge-of-your-seat attention holder until the last half hour of it.

I left the theater with a crowd that mumbled their disappointment in the film and complained of having wasted $8. Clearly "Knowing" did not live up to the high standards people held, and even those who had no expectations of the film were clearly disappointed. If you are really eager to see this movie I would recommend waiting until it comes out on DVD and then renting it. You'll have a greater peace of mind knowing that you wasted $2 to rent it than $8 for each person to see it theaters. And if you really are determined to see it on the big screen, leave 30 minutes early so that you won't be disappointed with the ending.


Let me start by saying that in sitting down to watch this movie I knew exactly what I was in for. A science fiction flick similar to "War of the Worlds" or "Armageddon" that would run for approximately 2hrs. Well I was right, but "Knowing" did have a few small surprises as well. Now if you asked me, I would probably say "Knowing" was more like "The Ring" crossed with "Armageddon" - with a bit of an "Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" twist thrown in for good measure.

"Knowing" isn't typical within the science-fiction/disaster genre because unlike every other film I've seen in recent years that has run with this formula it doesn't have any main characters that quite frankly you hope would die. That's not to say you'll miss any of those classic, "what are you thinking, idiot!" moments we're all so used to, because there are a few in here too, but unlike all those movies I just mentioned above; the focus doesn't seem to be on trying to make the characters as annoying as possible. You may want to argue that point but the next time I hear Dakota Fanning scream in Dolby Digital 5.1 I swear to god I will slit my wrists.

If I had to comment on anything it would be that the SFX/CGI scenes seem a little unpolished. In 2009 the standard is you can watch a movie with CGI visuals that look so realistic that sometimes you get the urge to just rewind and watch what just happened simply because you cant believe your own eyes. Unfortunately with "Knowing", a film that relies on CGI heavily, that's not the case. You can pin-point every CG scene throughout the movie and to a point it can draw you away from what's going on, on screen. But I wouldn't say it's anything major, just slightly disappointing.

Knowing is certainly a film I'd recommend to all science-fiction, disaster or post/pre-apocalyptic nuts (this last one would be me). I wouldn't go as far as to say that Knowing is going to be winning any awards any time soon, but the acting was solid (Nicolas Cage was as always fantastic to watch), the story was entertaining and the characters were likable. And that's all we can really ask for right? Check it out for yourself.


I am a great fan of Nicholas Cage's work but I must honestly say that this movie will remain a scar on his acting portfolio.

The film started off very suspenseful and mysterious. The idea was creepy, the evidence more so, the acting not too bad I guess (although it does deteriorate) and the story line was original and creative. However, as soon as the movie turned sci-fi I lost the plot... it should have remained a thriller or an action. I would have given it an 8 or so if the final disaster was a nuclear war, if Cage prevented a large terrorist attack or something along those lines. However, the introduction of 'aliens' and 'angels' completely ruined the entire movie.

Knowing was filled with pointless scenes, poor acting and unnecessary symbolism (seriously, wtf was with the stones. I know they are biblically relevant, but you can not expect the greater audience to understand this). I think the director was a bit confused whether he should make the movie a thriller/horror, action, drama or sci-fi; so he decided on all of the above!

The only thing that redeems it is the CGI and the few moments of great suspense early in the movie.


I watched the trailers for this film, as usual thinking that it'd summarised the film. Predictions, explosions, they find a way through it.

I was amazed to discover that the film is dark, it creates a foreboding atmosphere which it carries through the film well.

What was not presented via the trailer, or hinted at greatly throughout the start is that the film is science fiction and this is why I feel many people think that Knowing drops 'the ball' because it's not how they expect it to turn out.

Religious connotations, influences and science fiction brought together in a crescendo that works well and draws you in.

If you were told the details in the trailer; it would've been ruined for you. It makes a refreshing change.


I did not know what to expect with Knowing and avoided reading reviews etc so I went in with an open mind. It starts off well enough, the time capsule idea is well done and the revelation of the dates and times of disasters is great. The movie has quite intense moments, something I don't experience too often, and the three disaster scenes, the aircraft, the subway trains and the solar flair are brilliantly carried off. About half way through the time I was beginning to have doubts about what sort of movie this was. I was half thinking it was of the DaVinciCode genre but humanoid aliens acting in a sinister manner who later turn out to be child abductors to an alien planet - well really! I know you should not question too closely when it can spoil your enjoyment of the experience, but with Knowing the end was really too much of a let down. I enjoyed it all the same for the sheer unexpectedness of the plot, the reasonably good acting by Cage and the effects.


This is a good movie. Action packed with some amazing effects. The plane clash scene is fabulous in a macabre sort of way. The movie kept me entertained through the majority of the film until the final fifteen minutes. I was glad to see the end of the annoying daughter of the spooky kid who wrote the predictions 50 years earlier. The movie was going well for me until she flipped and drove off with the two kids. Then the aliens arrive to steal the car and kidnap the kids. Then Nic Cage tracks the the stolen car and find the kids and then let the aliens just take his son in their giant space ship ( Really ). After a 30 second of a sort of emotional goodbye. Nic Cage lets is son go while he and the rest of the world disintegrates. The effects are wow. The story is good apart from the aliens. Well worth a watch.


Review:

If I had to make a thematic comparison, I would say Andrew Proyas' 'Knowing' is the action film equivalent of '2001: A Space Odyssey' (1968). Though it is no masterpiece like '2001', 'Knowing' suggests the same thing '2001' did  that determinism and coincidence, intelligent design and natural selection - the great differing viewpoints on the nature of our existence - may not be at odds after all; they may be counterparts to a greater whole.

Nicholas Cage plays John Koestler, an MIT professor who has recently lost his wife. He lives in a beautiful but shabby home in Lexington, Massachusetts with his ten year old son Caleb (Chandler Canterbury). At Caleb's school there is a ceremony where a time capsule is opened. Fifty years earlier a classroom of students was asked to draw pictures of how they pictured the future and to place their pictures in this time capsule. Lucinda, (Lara Robinson), a seemingly disturbed child in the class does not draw the future. Instead she lists a seemingly chaotic sequence of numbers. Now, fifty years later, John Koestler gets a hold of this list through his son and begins to see an alarming pattern emerge from the numbers.

In some respects, 'Knowing' is similar to popular contemporary mysteries like, say, 'The Da Vinci Code.' The main course of the film follows Koestler as he scampers throughout the east coast trying to find clues to what's going on and reassuring himself that the list of numbers means what he thinks it means. Along the way Koestler encounters Diane Wayland (Rose Byrne), the daughter of the numbers-writer Lucinda, and Diane's daughter Abby (Lara Robinson again). They embark on a mission to find the missing clues for discovering the secret of the numbers. All the while they are being pursued by mysterious, pale men called 'the whisper people' by Caleb and Abby.

Like in Andrew Proyas' previous films 'Dark City' (1998) and "I, Robot" (2004) there is both visual and philosophical food for thought at work here. The central question of 'Knowing' is clearly stated at the beginning of the film by Cage's character when he asks his students in a lecture whether they think the universe is inherently deterministic or a series of random events. As we know, determinism suggests a higher intelligence controls existence while randomness implicates a meaningless sequence of accidents led to our existence.

I've always thought determinism excluding randomness and vice versa is a limited way to think about the nature of things. We have such a frustrating inclination to seek out mutually exclusive answers. For me, 'Knowing' suggests that the universe is in fact deterministic on a grand scale but that determinism is fueled by smaller, random occurrences, if that makes any sense. The end is already written but it is only reached through the decisions of individuals trying to avoid that very end.

Rating:

On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a "Big Fish" (2003).

Rationalization:

To express my honest opinion about this film, I'd say I thought the ideas it evokes are more intriguing than the film itself. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Most films do not attempt to evoke cosmic ideas at all. Most films only evoke the idea that love is good. 'Knowing' is a thought provoking film that banks on time honored sleuth plot devices. Some of the disaster sequences are exquisite though, especially the plane crash and the final disaster. I would even go so far as to say that the final ten minutes of the movie is what elevates 'Knowing' above most mystery-thrillers. The last ten minutes are visionary. They made me think back to "2001: A Space Odyssey." And yet, when I think about "2001: A Space Odyssey" I must admit that 'Knowing' pales in comparison.


Considering the average of the movie evaluation was 6.5/10 at IMDb when I had watched knowing, I was highly disappointed eventually. I cannot believe how Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times could give this movie an "A" and call it one of the best SF he has seen". However, according to him "The plot involves the most fundamental of all philosophical debates: Is the universe deterministic or random". I admit, this is interesting. However, did I get something wrong? This is just a very small part of the movie and in case it should be the main aspect,it has been handled very badly. Better listen to the 90% of critics who gave "knowing" a "C" or "D".

The main problem of the movie concerns the numerous holes in the plot!!! The longer I watched the movie, the more questions came to my mind. For example, the list of numbers show the worldwide disasters, but the next two big ones are only in New York?????? Why was Calen (Koestler's son) still writing "numbers" after the big crash was forecasted? And in the end, I was just loving. I am sorry, but the whole "alien warned you, but needs ages to contact you directly" part is ridiculous. All the hassle with the 50years old list, no better way of communication? Sorry, I no way I can buy this.


This movie made no sense. One of the major plot points was for the aliens to find children (in the present time) that could "hear" them and take them to another world before the cataclysmic end of our planet. So why did they need to appear 50 years ago and leave a cryptic message with dates of varying catastrophes? Just so Cage's character can figure it out and let his kid go? How about all the other ships with other kids? They get their own puzzles? How come the girl who was able to hear them 50 years ago was not part of the expeditionary force but instead was left to suffer for all her life? In other words, everything leading up to the end of the movie was not a necessary element for the ending. No logic here at all and a real downer of a movie. A couple of stars given for special effects (which for the most part had nothing to do with the premise of the movie). Shame, because I almost always like what Nicholas Cage does.


Spoiler Alert

I personally quite enjoyed the movie as it does change direction half way through the movie and keeps the audience guessing , whether this was intentional is open to debate. Certainly the reviewers here who believed they knew the ending after 10 mins, I think are conning themselves , they probably saw the trailer or heard it on the grapevine as clearly up to half way through the movie the audience is led to believe that Cage's character is clearly there to stop the disasters from happening or at least try to save some lives , the end of the world does not come into it at all.

The biggest problem that I had with the movie is that it simply leaves too many questions unanswered as to the point of various story lines within the movie and this is shown by the various different interpretations by other reviews.

I shall ignore the various "believability" of certain actions in the overall storyline as this is a sci fi movie so you will get loads of them e.g. cage just happens to spill his drink and highlight 9/11 but concentrate on the ones that need an explanation:- 1. What was'Lucinda role in this? Apart from the production of the numbers. She could hear the Angels so why was she not picked by the Angels to leave the planet? Why commit suicide, why did she live in the exact place the aliens were picking up the children, why did she never try to warn people of the disasters like Cage character did? 2. What was the role of the stones? They were clearly given to all the children that were to be rescued but what were there purpose? My guess is they were tracking devices , used by the aliens to track the children they wanted but we never find out or were they directional finders for the other children to know where to go? or where all the children kidnapped to get them to the correct location , if so what is the point of the numbers at all? 3. The numbers on the paper that Cage's character used to eventually work out where to go to save his son, was this their primary purpose or was it a fluke that he had the paper and his son just happened to be "chosen" at the same time.

4. When Rose died , Cage's character tried to explain to his son at the end that she had died , his son simply stated that she would be OK , how would she be OK , she was dead and why have the stone in her hand when she died , what was its significance?

Anyway any answers to these questions would be most welcome.


I suppose that any movie that deals ultimately with the end of the world has to be at times heavy. This one definitely qualifies on that count. It opens with a portrayal of children at a Massachussetts elementary school planting a time capsule in 1959 that was to be opened 50 years later. The children all draw pictures of what the future would be like, except for obviously troubled Lucinda, who scribbles out what seems to be a random set of numbers. Fast forward 50 years and the time capsule is opened. Young Caleb gets Lucinda's paper, and his father John - an MIT astrophysics professor who lectures his class about the competing theories of randomness vs. purpose - becomes fascinated with it and finally realizes that it's a list of dates when tragedies will happen, showing not only when they'll happen but where and how many will die.

From that point on there's a real creepiness to the movie as the next two of Lucinda's prophecies come true, and John finally realizes what the final one (which didn't identify a number of people killed, but simply recorded "EE") is. Through most of the movie there was a sort of quasi-religious, sort of new age/sort of Christian theme going on. There are a number of biblical references, and it turns out that John's father is a pastor, although John himself is filled with doubt, especially after the death of his wife before the movie started. The final prophecy (as it starts to unfold) creates suspense but also became a little bit silly, as the identities of the "whisperers" was revealed. Their identity wasn't really a surprise - there were perhaps 3 possibilities for who or what they were, and any of them could have worked as the basis for the movie. The closing scene returns to the quasi-religious theme as Caleb and Abby find themselves in a Garden of Eden type environment, heading toward a tree. Is the Genesis story now just going to begin again, with these two as Adam and Eve?

I liked Nicholas Cage as John. He did a good job with the part and this was clearly his movie. The feeling of silliness as the movie came to an end aside, this was a pretty suspenseful movie with a pretty good depiction of the apocalypse at the end. 8/10


I can't believe that there are people out there who don't like this movie!! I've got to say that this is one of my favorite horror movies. I loved it from the first time I saw it. There are pretty good scare scenes, and some gruesome gore. For example, when Tina is cut in half, when Jim gets it in the neck with the fan blade, the blood coming from the faucet...etc. One freaky part is how the clown turns into Tina after she is dead, and comes to Susan. I can assure you that that would scare the hell out of me!!

The ending was quite bizarre, and I wish they would have made a sequel, just so we'd know what happened with the doll and it's creepy nursery rhyme. I'm telling you, this movie gave me nightmares after watching it. That rhyme just sends chills up my spine.... This movie rocks.... definitely pick up a copy and watch it. How could anyone say it "shouldn't even be used as toilet paper"..... I guess they just don't appreciate a good cheezy 80's horror movie.


I expected this film to be nothing more than your very average 80s horror flick but it was much more.Admittedly the acting was well below par but the shocks certainly weren't.Any film encorporating clowns in my opinion can't help but be sinister there was no exception here the clown was terrificly scary,and the little girl dressed in white just added to it.The film also boasted some rather gruesome deaths especially the guillotine!This movie certainly surpassed its expectations.Deserves to be seen.


I will never understand how this film manages to be so cheesy yet so creepy at the same time, but Ghosthouse pulls it off with ease. Right from the start we get some nice gore scenes and that creepy carnival music. Then we get some terrible acting.

The house has a very ominous feel to it, no doubt this is more down to the creepy music used (some of it taken from Stagefright). The acting ranges from OK to completely inept - several of the characters are just unconvincing in everything they say. For example there's the girl who says "Look, it's that horrible man!" The bad acting however makes the film more entertaining to watch and gives you plenty of laughs. The little girl and her doll are also very creepy, but I think the main winner in this film is the weird carnival music that makes it stand out from all other films. I love the scene with the "grim reaper" in and his maggot infested skull.

If you love 80's horror flicks, you can't go wrong with Ghosthouse. It has that nasty Italian feel to it, but also plenty of cheesy fun.


The first time I saw this movie, it really creeped me out. The ghostly hymn that is heard whenever something bad is going to happen is creepy as well. However, this movie is in my opinion "Very Good". You should certainly see it, and rate it yourself. I like "vintage" movies, so I enjoyed this one. It is a must see for those who like a good horror movie. Sure, it's not everyone's idea of scary, but it has its share of spooky scenes.