A soldier named Keng, meets a young man named Tong in Thailand, the two begin a friendship. Keng makes constant sexual and amorous advances on Tong, who laughs them off, or makes a game out of them. He is never exactly interested, but never fully rebuffs either. The two make trips back and forth from the Jungle where Tong lives and Keng is on patrol with his military unit, to the city. We see the lush silent landscapes and the bustling city life, from dance hall karaoke to the cinema to the solitude of a quiet lake. When Keng finally makes a move in such a way, as to be beyond any doubt of a desire for intimacy (he kisses Tong's hands), Tong responds in turn by doing the same, and then walks into the darkness of the forest. Before Keng, can come to understand, the film takes a drastic turn in tone, style, and mood.

We are told by an interjected 3d person narrator the story of a shaman who is a shape-shifter known to take different animal forms, who used to roam the forest playing tricks on people. One day a cunning hunter, did not fall into a trick and shot him, mid transformation from woman into tiger. The spirit of the shaman was then stuck as half tiger half man and eternally doomed to stalk the forest; tricking and devouring all in it's path.

Keng, is then on patrol in his section of the forest, exploring rumors from villagers, about some "thing" killing cattle and causing general havoc. Alone on patrol in the woods, he becomes plagued by strange sounds, a sense of dread, and images of a naked boy, a tiger, spectral animals, and a glowing phosphorescent tree (which looks as beautiful as those in Aranofsky's "The Fountain"...I have no idea how they got that effect, on their budget, but it's miraculous...).

This second half of the film, of course calls into question our understanding of Keng and Tong's prior relationship (if Tong ever existed at all.). While part one, is reminiscent of a modern quirky love story like "Chungking Express", the second half is like Terrance Mallick shooting a remake of "Predator". All sense of time and space, is swallowed by the jungle, and implicit politics of the first half are turned inside out in the second half; it is literally cat and mouse, with the possibility that the cat may want to be eaten by the mouse, or vice versa.

The second half is also marked by the inclusion of tribal art and cave paintings, depicting the story of the shaman and the soldier, with sub-titles accompanying them. To paraphrase a description by director Weerasethakul it's like "a silent film for the first people on earth". And together with the visual effects, confident cinematography, clever use of editing, music, and sound, and disarming performances, it becomes magical. "Tropical Malady" combines the most modern and ancient notions of fear and desire, and makes something "new" out of them.

This is Thailand's "Solaris", a story of the changing shapes and forms of want and need, of being deceived and allowing yourself to be deceived by them. It's slow pace, forces reflection on questions like what form or body comprises love, is it purely physical or something more, is it perhaps deception itself, a fools errand we invent to forget the savagery of the jungle around us, is it the need to devour or be devoured? There's a Scottish legend called Tam Lin (one of my favorites), long story short, a woman falls in love with a faerie, and discovers he used to be a man, but made a deal with the faeries to serve them if they spared his life, after an accident. Tam tells the women she can restore his humanity and claim him, if when the faeries pass on Halloween night, she will wrap her arms around him and not let go no matter what happens. She does this, and the faeries transform him into all manner of creature, some hot, some cold, some thorny, others slimy, some which bite and claw, etc, but she holds on throughout all his changes, til eventually she finds herself just cradling a man. And the faeries begrudgingly let her keep him, because she held on to what she loved, despite the way it changed with time.

The film opens with these lines, "All of us are by nature wild beasts, our duty as human beings is to become like trainers, who keep their animals in check. And even teach them to perform tasks alien to their bestiality"-Tom Nakajima "Tropical Malady", is a good deal more ambiguous, I suspect more predatory and reflective as well, than Tam Lin, and comes from the opposite side of the world, but like that story manages to peculiarly harmonize emotional sensitivity and mythic scope, into a coherent whole.

I wished I would have paid more attention to Weerasethakul "Mysterious Object At Noon" the first time I had the chance, he has a talent for experimenting with narrative and style that is missing in many films endlessly praised these days. The phrase I kept hearing from other reviews or the one I liked the best was "If Brokeback Mountain, was a mountain on the island from "Lost"...it's callous, with a smidgen of truth, but this is a much better movie than that. It is very slow moving though, the first hour will give you no hint of the second half (other than a few visual ones, look at the various statues in the backgrounds, etc), but for the bold and the patient, there is lush hypnotic reward to be had.


"Tropical Malady" is a lush, beautifully directed love story from Thailand that uses magic realism to spin a tale derived from Eastern folk wisdom. The first half of the film is relatively straightforward and rooted in reality, as a soldier stationed in the jungle goes on leave to a bustling city and falls in love with a young man who lives and works there. The growing attachment between the two men is chronicled with so much subtlety that it takes us quite awhile to realize that there is anything of that nature between them. Then suddenly one night, after a particularly tender moment between the two lovers, Tong walks away into the darkness of an open road, while Keng returns to his post in the jungle. When news begins to spread in the nearby village that livestock have been found dead and some humans have also gone missing, Keng heads out into the forest alone to investigate the claims. And this is where the film REALLY turns strange, for Keng soon discovers that some sort of beast may be hiding out there, devouring both animals and people, and that - get this - that beast may actually be Tong, the love of his life. This second - and, for me, slightly less interesting - half of the film is a largely wordless journey into the filmmakers' own heart of darkness.

I won't try and pretend to grasp all the mystical concepts writer/director Apichatpong Weerasethakul is batting around in this film. The quotes he provides for us, drawn from famous Thai folk tales, are of some help, but much of the theme of the film remains obscure and murky for Western minds not accustomed to thinking in such pantheistic terms of the world around us. Nevertheless, the film still connects with us Occidental types, possibly because it explores that universal belief all humans seem to share - undoubtedly implanted onto our DNA way back in our primeval days - of a so-called enchanted forest, a place where evil in a monstrous form may be lurking beneath the dark underbrush ready to jump out and devour us at any unguarded moment. It shows up in many of our fairy tales, of course, and, most recently, in films such as "The Blair Witch Project," "The Village," "The Two Towers" and "The Brothers Grimm" to name a few. Yet, "Tropical Malady" also brings a romantic tenor to the subject as it implies that the love between the two men has somehow moved into a more meaningful and primal stage, one bereft of the constricting and deadening rituals placed upon it by a civilized world (my suspicion is that is why the filmmakers chose to make this a love story between two men rather than one between a man and a woman, though, frankly, the Thai society we see doesn't seem to be particularly condemning or homophobic in its response to the lads).

Even if every single moment is not comprehensible to us, this is still a wonderful film to watch, primarily because Weerasethakul brings such a lyrical, impressionistic style to his direction. He fills literally every frame with fascinating details of the setting and landscape - be it the lush vegetation of an overgrown steamy rainforest or the neon-lit vibrancy of a crowded urban shopping mall. His soundtrack is also a major player in the film, particularly in the jungle scenes where the natural - and not so natural - sounds become an intricate part of the mood and drama.

And "mood" is definitely the operative word here, for "Tropical Malady" is far more a film of feelings and sensations than of conventional narrative. The lovely performances by Banlop Lomnoi and Sakda Kaewbaudee, as the two men drawn into this surrealistic drama, help to ground the film enough in reality so that we go along with it even when we don't always understand it. A feast for the eyes and ears, "Tropical Malady" is a hypnotic, spellbinding film that washes over you and carries you to a world singularly its own. Take the journey.


When a young Thai soldier falls in love with a country boy, the lad disappears. But because of the intensity of his love, when the lad vanishes, the soldier must hunt in the Thai jungle for him. Although the love is "gay," it is not so much in the sexual meaning of that word as it is joyous. There is no nudity, and hardly any touching or kissing. This is an unusual film, as the first part is treated naturally, the second, with its own credits, is a haunting fantasy. The photography in daylight is banal and cluttered, with an excellent feel for Thailand's countryside, but the night scenes are glowing. The work of several photographers were involved to create the difference. An extremely moving, honest, well-crafted film, with an interesting filmed commentary by the director and the actors.


This film certainly has a few things to offer. Beautiful images, a sense of 'darkness' and mystery, and the folk myth about a Shaman that the story apparently evolves around. However, in the end I thought this movie was pretty long-winding and far from an easy piece of visual entertainment.

The film basically consists of two distinguishable parts which both last about an hour. The first half takes place mainly in the city and the second half is mainly jungle. Now this may be a problem on my behalf, but I'm not really sure I completely understood the link between first half and the second half of the film. I see the metaphor of the traditional versus the original, and I quite like the idea, but filmwise the link betwoon both parts was messy and unclear, if there was a link at all.

The way I see it, the lack of much dialogue or other information to clear things up, and the presence of a lot of scenes of which I didn't really understand the relevance, didn't really help. Don't get me wrong, I kinda liked the slow pace of the story with some silent moments built in, and of course the beautiful imagery of the jungle. But I really think it was a little overdone here. There was a lot of dead wood on this tree, so to speak. By dead wood I mean the several scenes where things happen of which it was quite hard to understand the relevance to the central story line, and of course the several pretty long periods in the film where nothing really happens at all. Instead, some more 'structure' and some more elements to give the viewer a little more grip on the film in order to understand what the writer meant would have been more than welcome.


At the beginning of the film there's a phrase written in Thai without translation, it reads something like, "This film is seen by the eye, but it has to be seen by the heart". So this is the trick to the film; if one doesn't know how to see with the heart, or if the film doesn't touch one's heart creating an explosion that obliges the heart to start "seeing" independently of whether we want to or not, then the film will appear as a mediocre whatever thing. If otherwise, one can have an insight into human nature. Especially to that beast within us, called desire or craving.

I have to confess that parts of it remain unclear. But that doesn't create any conflict whatsoever. On the contrary, it's precisely what adds passion to it. Existence is a mystery, or isn't it? On the other hand, the author delights in showing us with startling clarity those "insignificant" daily emotions that we are all familiar with, but that we might not actually understand.


This was my 6th Thai film - and I'm sorry to say I've seen 5 better ones! The only thing "intriguing" about the film is WHY it won a Jury Prize at the Cannes Film Festival. Since the French think that Jerry Lewis is a comic genius, I've long since given up trying to understand THEIR aesthetic. I'll relate the film to mine: While it's true that Southeast Asian film is just now dealing with the issue of homosexuality; and while it's true that Thai cinema is just emerging and probably needs encouragement - this film is a discombobulated mess.

The underlying psycho-political message is more than a little disturbing, too. To the extent that the Tiger stands for Desire - the message is either kill the Desire or the Desire will consume/kill you.

And thus the portrayal of the soldier's desire is conflicting. While in the first half of the film he seems to know exactly who/what he wants - in the second half of the film he is lost & confused, frightened by his Desire.

And there were simply too many "throw away" scenes - such as going into the cave with the weird Sister - and going to the Mall with the weird Sisters - and "meaningful glances" exchanged by both the solider and the boy and young women along the way - all of which give you a taste of urban Thailand - but towards what end? And the interplay of countryside ("traditional") versus urban ("modern") Thailand is messy, too.

If traditional values teach that such Desire is a bestial trap - it's pretty hard to see the urban "jungle" as offering any particular alternative "escape" in this film.


I actually feel bad that I did not connect with this film. For all its perceived depth noted in other comments here (and in the pages of Film Comment magazine), this experimental Thai film left me unmoved and even a bit irritated. Perhaps I was not "viewing with my heart," as another commenter suggested was necessary.

The one redeeming factor for me was the opportunity for a realistic glimpse of rural Thailand, and some scenes were indeed beautifully photographed.

I am no stranger to experimental and non-narrative structures in film, but found myself fast-forwarding through much of this piece, especially the latter "folkloric" half.

Inscrutable and languidly paced do not always equal a soulful, moving film experience, and I can't help but wonder if some of the praise for this one comes from those willing to be blown away by anything impenetrably arty.

There really is not a lot to this film, not much happens per se, and it is left to the viewer to project one's own sensory or emotional illuminations onto the structure, what little there is. I was unable to make this leap, cold-hearted bastard that I am.


Please do not make the same mistake as I did when I believed the positive critics this film received. Unfortunately the film is really bad and extremely boring, even though the two main characters seem to be quite good actors (but due to the "script" they are not allowed to show their talents). To those people who try to make it to some kind of supernatural experience which combines nature, soul, mystery etc. I can only say: Stop the esoteric bullshit. If you like nature it is far more preferable to go out of your house and enjoy it than to watch this extremely boring film where nothing is really happening and the second part is just pathetically dragging on and on. Just believe me, I am quite a moviegoer and like off mainstream films a lot. But this one is just an insult to your patience.


I came out feeling that I had viewed rubbish... don't bother with it. I had read reviews, love Thailand - even to the extent of learning Thai - and was thus very very disappointed. The film is self indulgent, appeared to have no script worth the word, a juvenile editing approach which included texts and lengthy black screens and jumbled sequences. There were leaps from day to night, and non sequitur to non sequitur, from situation to situation. The dog lies on the road. The dog is happy in the lap. The dog is at the vet and dying of cancer. What had that got to do with ANYTHING? The only justification was to show that the village boy was illiterate and unable to fill in the vet's form. So what? This was a love affair, did it matter that the boy could or could not read? Later on he takes pen to paper so maybe he can write but not read. The written dialogue translated from the Thai and thus quirky had some effect... the tiger would eat the man's flesh and blood and 'memories'... nice notion. But even the quality of the goodish scenes left much to be desired. Good acting from the two leads and two lovely moments: the soldier asking permission to lay his head on the country boy's lap, and a show of affection with a long sniff kiss to the hand of the boy, followed by the boy lick kissing the hand of the soldier, followed by an incongruous moment with the boy going off into darkness and the solder riding a moped along a street with a smile on his face. Effectively there are two entirely different films present.If only they had reversed these two completely different films and paid attention to linking and a firm story line there might have been something which was less painful to sit through. I am astonished at the writers who have gone over the top with this film. I am merely confident that anyone who sees the film with anything like commonsense objectivity will agree with me. It is not smart to see inferior material as clever art. The scenes in the forest were an opportunity for some serious scary moments, but it failed. Nothing happened, there was no sense to it all. Perhaps the editor is the person to blame for there probably was not a writer or a director on the evidence placed on the silver screen by this work. I cannot recommend people see it except perhaps to challenge my views. Sorry, but very much a miss.


4/10 (it at least had good cinematography) or How to Win an artsy film prize: Make a film that's suffocatingly deep, allegedly meaningful, partially immersed in quasi-mysticism then throw in some contemporarily realistic elements in an exotic setting but do make sure the leading characters are offbeat in some way (in this instance gay & Thai.). Forget about any ideas of an engaging storyline, as that will be inconsequential in the face of the momentous acting. Then pray that Tarantino + the other judges had a very pleasurable time as regards their leisure pursuits just before & just after the movie's screening. Oh, and before I sign off... psssst.... what a protracted & most nonsensical bore this film was! IMO, the best Thai film is undoubtedly either 'Nang Nak' or 'Ai Fak' (And btw, just why hasn't the DVD been released with Eng subs for the latter??? Grrrr)


Sorry, I don't see how the first half and second halves of this film tied together. OK, there were soldiers in both. As two separate films it has hope.

The pace in the two halves (films?) was entirely different. As were the people. Everyone was a "slacker" at the start and the solders were driven in the second.

However, I liked the two sisters who befriended the two young men, gave them soda and offered pot. I'd like a movie about them! Didn't see them at the mall.


Newhart was indeed a funny and brilliant show without being crude or vulgar. It was fun watching the late wonderful Mary Frann and the amazing genius of Bob Newhart as innkeepers in Vermont. Newhart had a wonderful supporting cast of interesting characters played by Tom Poston, Julia Duffy, and Peter Scolari, and more. It should have won Emmys rather than being nominated but it was a great cast and legacy to sitcom television. Too bad, they don't make them like they used to. Newhart is better known for his dry wit and humor. He is not a slapstick comedian at all. He knows how to tell a story and his facial expressions while similar always is worth watching. Mary Frann was a great actress who was taken from us too young. Julia Duffy and Peter Scolari were great together as a couple and their humor helped enhance this classic show. Tom Poston was always a joy to see and who could forget backwoods Larry and his brothers, Daryl and Darrell who never spoke.


Caught between the caustic humor of "Titus" and the bitter grumblings of "Becker," I wondered where TV comedy had gone. A chance scan of TNN's weekday programming brought forth a ray of light: Two episodes of "Newhart" from Monday through Friday! (Once again, that immortal greeting: "Hi, my name's Larry, and this is my brother Darryl, and my other brother Darryl.") The understated charm of Dick Loudon, as "Brains" of the Vermont former Youth Gang, the "Hooligals" getting ready to "West Side Story" with their rivals, the "Puffians. The "Gooney Walk" of George Utley, Joanna riding herd on Stephanie as both head into the kitchen to clean a mess of Perch. The "Little Stephanie" Super Material Girl nightmare of Michael Harris (and the Soup Kitchen non-materialist doppelganger.) I won't miss Summer reruns at all!


Who doesn't love Bob Newheart? I've been a religious follower of all of his television series since I was a young man. Bob is one of those people who's always welcome in our living rooms. I've never thought of him as an actor and that's simply because an actor would never have the skill to appear as natural as he does. Whenever I've watched any of the series he's starred in, I feel like I'm in the room listening to a conversation that's meant only for me and the other actors in the scene. He's so ordinary and likable that he's welcomed without hesitation into the fabric of the typical American family. Isn't it wonderful that this seemingly ordinary man has been able to entertain us for so many years without ever resorting to stories involving violence, murder, foul language and corruption. He's always provided us with entertainment that we can invite our parents or children, or even the parish priest, to watch. He's getting a little long in the tooth now, but I still chuckle whenever I see him on his occasional visits to one of the late night T.V. shows. He's a true entertainer and we're not likely see the likes of him again. He's one of those rare entertainers who has had only one wife, one family, and one philosophy of what represents quality entertainment. God Bless him.


Bob Newhart is probably one of the funniest comics in American history. He brought clean and wholesome entertainment to American television before the days of cable access. This show, his second TV series, is very enjoyable to watch and the characters are funny to the bone.

There are several episodes that make me laugh by just thinking about them. Examples being "The Great White Buck", "Pick on Dick", or the episode where Dick stays on the air to do a TV marathon in which Stephanie has to sing "Old Man River" to get him off the set. Not to count any of the Larry , Darrell, and Darrell or "Sweater Girl" episodes.

I can't wait for this classic sitcom to come to DVD. Newhart is a classic ! Bob Newhart is a great American !


This is a good series with strong points and weak points.

Dick and Joanna leave the hustle and bustle of the big city to operate an historic inn in rural Vermont so that he could write his how-to books in peace and quiet.

Except for their employee Leslie, the Loudens do not fit in with the eccentric villagers. Their other employee, George, has to translate some of the culture shock of life in Vermont to a clueless Dick Louden.

Character actors who comprise the townsfolk are very eccentric and nothing like real Vermonters. This is a weakness in the plot because it would be better suited for the shock of a civilized couple to relocate into a red-state.

Chester the Mayor and Jim his sidekick are some of the annoying semi-regulars, who contradict Dick's wisdom and insight. Kirk, the neighbor, who chases after Leslie, operates the Minute Man Cafe and doesn't know much about the restaurant business.

In season two, Leslie leaves town and invites her cousin Stephanie to take over the domestic responsibilities at Stratford Inn for the remainder. She is very much about herself and her unparalleled beauty, which works here to set the series in motion.

When preppy TV station producer Michael comes to town to convince Dick to star in a weekly "Vermont Today" series, he and Stephanie hit it off, and the series launches into full steam.

Marian and Arthur Vanderkellen, as the wealthy parents of Stephanie, make recurring appearances to pamper their daughter, without trying to understand this sort of village she has escaped into.

Uncouth backwoods brothers Larry, Darryl and Darryl expand their roles to become regulars, as another bright spot in the series, in addition to Joanna and George, who bring plenty of charm.

This then becomes a wonderful series, far above average, and worth the watch.


Bob Newhart followed his first series becoming an Inn Keeper in Vermont. The setting worked out perfect as more comedy came from this sitcom than many others. Verterans such as Tom Poston got a chance to shine. So did many newcomers.

Much like his previous series, Dick Louden (Newhart) always manages to make his ensemble into stars. This series had a lot more cast members than the previous one. It starts so slow with it's sleepy theme song & great country scenery that you could almost go to sleep. Mary Frann (Dick's wife) & others would then wake you up.

Instead, many woke up to more genius. Larry, Daryl & Daryl even got jobs doing commercials after this show went off, they became so famous. It is amazing between this & his previous series how much Bob Newhart became a part of everyones TV viewing lives.

This series ended on a high when (spoiler) in the last episode they tied it back directly to The Bob Newhart Show. Between the downtown setting of the first show & the country setting of this show, Bob Newhart never missed a beat.


I notice that this series & some others that are linked to it -- Bosom Buddies (Peter Scolari) Mary Frann, describe the series has having 3 or 4 episodes, when we know that the show ran 8 seasons. It is hard to figure out who Bob's wife was in the later show ("Newhart") because of this. Mary Frann was in a wide variety of shows, and her entries all seem screwed up -- the same with Peter Scolari, credited with three episodes in "Newhart." William Sanderson -- "Larry" -- a regular (and famous) member of the case -- three episodes??

Are you letting a computer do some of the editing?

Enquiring minds want to know,

Rick Z.


I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a bold statement. Without "Newhart," "Seinfeld" doesn't happen. Now, I'm not saying the shows were identical by any means, but they share a lot more than you would think at first glance.

Certainly "Seinfeld" had the urban setting of New York City, but if you can imagine it happening at a Vermont Bed & Breakfast, with a slightly older fellow in the title role, you can see how the parallels do exist: A world-weary, humorous guy at the center of a bunch of wacky characters that entangle themselves in his life. Which show am I talking about? Exactly.

Now, "Newhart" had a lot more going for it than "Seinfeld" did when they started. Audiences knew Bob from his Grammy winning comedy album, guest appearances on every variety show of the day and his two sitcoms: the first being a standard gentle comedy from the early sixties and the more famous and beloved one from the 1970s filled with winking innuendo, and was pretty racy by television standards, even though Dr. Robert Hartley and his beautiful wife Emily were married. It seemed like a look into a "real" relationship, with the ups the downs and the charm, and it was genuinely laughable and lovable.

"Newhart" was different, and it was supposed to be. Even so, many unfairly compared the actresses who played Mr. Newhart's wives on these two programs: Mary Frann's Joanna to Suzanne Pleshette's Emily, throughout the run. Really, the characters were never meant to be compared in that way. It was a different era, for television, for the nation, and even for the star. On "Newhart," Joanna's role was as a pillar of strength for Innkeeper Dick to hang onto when everything was going crazy, while Emily and Dr. Bob took turns skewering each other and their friends and situations with devilish 70s glee.

When "Newhart" began, it was shot on videotape and had more of a "soap opera lighting" look to it. The visuals are odd in relation to the rest of the series. Also, the characters that first season were more pedestrian and the alternating heartwarming/difficult story lines flip-flopped between borderline 1950s trite or 1980s mean! But when they switched to film and they added the talented Peter Scolari and Julia Duffy, things took off! Some of the wittiest dialogue and funniest moments in a sitcom of... just about any era. Brilliant writing, and well played performances, even with the stock characters Larry, Darryl and Darryl.

Let's get to the famed final episode, which is arguably the greatest "last episode" of any television show ever created. But the question is, why is it so great? You need to know a couple of facts.

There were two other programs of the era that utilized a similar plot twist device around the time of "Newhart's" end: NBC's medical drama, "St. Elsewhere" (from the same production company as "Newhart" - MTM) and CBS's own nighttime soap, "Dallas," which had an important storyline involving Patrick Duffy's character, Bobby Ewing.

Without going into specific detail about any of what these other show's plots were about (in case you haven't seen those programs), I can say that if the "St. Elsewhere" and "Dallas" plot points were not played out the way they had, "Newhart's" ending, though still funny, wouldn't have had the incredible explosive impact it had. It was a joke with an exponential punch line: you're not just laughing about the concept, you are laughing about the context of the concept in history. In other words, you were laughing not only at the moment within the show, but it was a big fat joke on all of television, itself!

Really, this was one brilliant, brilliant last laugh. It is so breathtakingly unexpected, yet perfectly fitted, it's almost impossible to think that it wasn't somehow planned from the first episode! That only makes it that much funnier!

Perhaps best of all, they did it before anyone conceived the notion of a program sentimentally "paying tribute to itself," or having "celebrity commentary," and they managed to stick to their thirty minute format, not "expanding" the program to milk it.

Genius.


I used to watch this show when I was a little girl. Although I don't remember much about it, I must say that it was a pretty good show. Also, I don't think I've seen every episode. However, if you ask me, it was still a good show. If you ask me, everyone was ideally cast. In addition, the costume design was great. The performances were top-grade, too. I just hope some network brings this series back one day so that I'll be able to see every episode. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even though I don't think I've seen every episode. Now, in conclusion, when and if this show is ever brought back on the air, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for good.


(1) Take one star - whose time already came and went - who is disgruntled with the 80s' more sophisticated, smart, and better comedies (e.g. "Moonlighting," "The Love Boat," "The Cosby Show").

(2) Star begs his old production company (MTM Enterprises) and old network (CBS) to do another "comedy" series, who decide to go through with the idea without any shred of sense.

(3) Retain some of the same soporific and uninteresting elements that made star's first "comedy" a success, but this time fold in some of the "dumb" humor that was prevalent in such concurrent "kiddie comedy" series as "Full House" and "Family Matters" and gear it toward the older set.

(4) Also, rip off some elements of those even worse "rural comedies" of the 1960's (e.g. "The Beverly Hillbillies," "Green Acres").

(5) Mix well.

(6) Arrange to have series win some undeserving Emmy awards so it will attract viewers.

(7) When network moves show to a slot where it will get beaten in the ratings by a competing blockbuster, make sure production company still has connections at the network so they can sweet-talk and cajole the network's executives into keeping the show on.

(8) When production company is purchased by a foreign concern (the British-based TVS Corporation) that can't manage the company effectively, budget to continue producing series will begin to dwindle after seven years. Therefore, concoct a quick, convenient, and unconvincing conclusion for the series' final episode so series will (mercifully) come to an end. (I suppose the people who, in one of the threads on the message board for this show, said this episode was a "well, thought-out finale" MUST HAVE been on crack!)

Yield: 8 dumb, ridiculous, uninteresting, and superfluous seasons.

(20th Century Fox, I feel VERY sorry for you that you're now stuck with the unfortunate honor of owning "Newhart," as well as his previous "comedy." So if you're smart, and I know you ARE, please - DON'T put this show on DVD, especially since you recently stated the sales of Newhart's first "comedy" series on DVD were below par - thank goodness - and that more contemporary and MUCH funnier comedy series of yours like "The Simpsons" and "My Name is Earl" on DVD ARE selling!)


I did not expect to like this movie.

I am currently studying animation in college, and perhaps more than other people I've been expecting less and less from Disney since they started putting out sequels to their classics. I've been terrified ever since I heard that a "midquel" to Bambi was in the works, since I was positive it would be another campy, over-the-top rehash of the original.

Imagine my surprise, then, at the quality of Bambi 2. Perhaps it's because there's a legitimate gap in the original story for this to fill (Between the death of Bambi's Mother and his return as an adult), or maybe because of the creative details that were added (Several ideas and sequences were taken straight from the book, which was a nice surprise), but I found myself genuinely enjoying this movie.

Disney really seems to have put some thought into the kind of legacy they're picking up here. The themes and art style of the original are carefully preserved, the characters are expressive and lively. There is no sarcastic or self-aware humour; the writing is thoughtful and the storyboarding is beautiful. My one qualm are the two songs used in the film. They seem too...modern. I missed the choir. Luckily, those are two brief moments in an entire film.

If it had been left up to me this film would never have been made, but I can't imagine it being done with more care and respect for Walt's vision. The characters are treated with respect, the story has real meat to it, and the result is a great movie.


Well, kiddies......... those horrific visions I had of Bambi, Thumper and Flower line-dancing in their ghetto-rap outfits with some knuckle-headed "Poptart" caterwauling in the background were all for naught. I'm not gonna give away all the goodies-would'nt be fair to all my fellow "Mousies" to spew out any spoilers- but I can tell you this......aside from a few issues that sorta chapped my inner child, this is simply the best DTV that "The House of Mouse" has ever released. The animation is every bit as good as a lot of the recent theatrical films , with beautifully rendered background art and an overall "Technicolor" look that was for the most part quite dazzling .........and how about them voices? I gotta admit the casting is excellent.

Story-wise, well....that's one of the things that I still ain't all that thrilled about . Despite having been "kiddiefied" from a book that was essentially written for adults, the original "Bambi" was still a wonderful film that catered to both ends of the age spectrum, a talent that Uncle Walt had in spades. This midquel is squarely aimed at the lunchbox-tetherball set to the point that unless you're a complete animation nut like yours truly, you might find one or two scenes a bit too cloyingly ooky to your liking. Still, it's heads and tail above any of the previous DTV "Twosies" and even a few of the "Feature" flicks released over the past 15 years, and I honestly think it's gonna do quite well.

One other bone of contention I have however, are the songs.Granted, they used a few snippets from the original's score, but all the stuff produced exclusively for the current film was your typically weak, formula-laden "contemporary" numbers that are so cookie-cutter bland that you can't even distinguish one from the other. That was one of the most wonderful things about the first movie ...even more than sixty years after it's release, the songs were so well written that they sound just as good now as they did then. Sad to say, it's gonna "date" the film in a most unflattering way. Second b.o.c. I have is in regards to some of the character animation ie: Ronno, the porcupine and the groundhog, especially Ronno. Pretty average design that clashes terribly with the rest of the animation and the exactly the sort of quality you come to expect from a DTV.As said, the rendering of "Bullyboy"Ronno was the worst...at times his looked like they'd been lifted straight from "Balto III".....not impressive in the least. On the other side of the coin, The Great Prince looked gorgeous as did the other deer.......Friend Owl was drawn absolutely spot on, though Thumper and Flower did look nice they still did'nt look quite enough like their original incarnations to retain all their charms. As for Bambi himself, well.......let's just say that 90% was beautifully done, but unfortunately the animators' attempts to "modernize" his facial expressions in a lot of his scenes failed quite miserably and were very disappointing. Despite it's flaws, it's still better than all the previous Disneytoon releases and well worth at least one watch.


I grew up watching the old Disney movies, and Bambi has always been one of my favorites. When I first saw that they were making a new Bambi movie, I was really torn. I hoped that it would be a good follow-up, but was afraid that it would ruin the whole Bambi experience.

I was pleasantly surprised to find that the movie, though not as good as the original is far surpassing many Disney sequels.

The animation quality is good. Not only is it much better than most of Disney's recent sequels, it is is actually up to, and at some points even surpassing, the animation in the original. The songs were beautiful, and to my immense relief, they are all sung in the background in the style of the original. There is only one point at which any of the animals sing. It was extremely cheesy, but mercifully short.

The only real failing of this movie is that it lacks the fresh, genuine feeling of the original. While Bambi I felt unique and novel, Bambi II often feels cliché and it seems like they are recycling some material from The Lion King. The addition of Ronno as an antagonist adds nothing to the story but goofiness and low-quality humor. The Great Prince's character seems to be the caricature "single dad" struggling to understand his kid. And while Bambi's character has always been humanized (as are all animals in Disney movies) he seems far more "human" and much less "animal" than he did in the original.

Overall, I liked this movie, and was able to get a few nostalgic moments. Although it does not quite live up to the original, it is nevertheless a sweet and enjoyable movie.


I had to admitted that the sequels of most the original Disney Picture movie were often disappointing. However, after I had seen Bambi 2, I found that it was an enchanting, funny and warm movie, it is definitely one of the fewest best sequels came from the original one.

The story happened to be in between the scene that Bambi's mother was gone and the prince, his father, took him; and the scene he grew up. It is talking about how Bambi lives with his father. At the beginning, his father took care of Bambi temporarily until he find the suitable one to take care of him. As a prince, his father appeared to be quite tough to him at the beginning. However, when they lives longer and longer, the father and son relationship grew. Bambi started to enjoy living with his father. Though they were living so happy, his father found the suitable one and Bambi was sent away. Through an accident, finally, the great prince changed his mind and determined to raise Bambi by his own.

The film is well organized. The characters are well-designed and redrew and the story unfold naturally. The background music was so pleasant to be listened to and match the scene very well. Some scenes were quite memorable, Bambi plays with his father and his father slowly unfold his mind. I can see that he really care about Bambi. it is so warm.

Although the original one was more than 60 years ago, the sequel gave me the feeling of the movies of 19th. The original movie gave me a little bit sorrow and made me sad; But this one gave me warmth and hope.

All above are just my personal opinions, other may not agree perfectly, but, for me, it is worth watching and it is one of the fewest best sequels from the original one. I scored it 9.


Absolutely wonderful. The casting is the best too. I don't think any one could have played the Great Prince better. I was really worried when I heard there was going to be a sequel. Especially after the let down of Little Mermaid II and Cinderella II. This time Disney hit the target and made a killer movie.

I would definitely advice others to get this movie, even if you have not seen the first one. (Which it has to be impossible for someone to not have seen Bambi. lol) Even if it is very child like in manor, I felt just as touched by it as I was by the first one. I know it kept me on the edge of my seat, and I'm in college!


I'm an 18 year old guy, and I watched Bambi for the first time when I was 3 years old and I still remember how sad I felt when his mom died. I was thinking Bambi 2 was going to be another dumb Disney sequel.. but it was actually VERY nice to see how Disney kept to the "feeling" of the original movie.. very innocent. I loved that about the original. I bought the 2nd movie the day after it came out for my two brothers who are 7 and 10.. and they loved it! So.. I have to say, GOOD JOB Disney! :) We're proud to have Bambi 2 on our shelf with the rest of our Disney classics.

sincerely, "A guy raised on Disney" lol!


Bambi II is one of those rare gems of a movie that you can feel good about watching with your children. It combines a touching story of a father and sons's relationship as they struggle to deal with the loss of Bambi's mother. A subject that is not easily tackled but the director, Brian Pimental deals with it beautifully. He uses humor and sensitivity to show us how Bambi is dealing with his father's high expectations of him. The use of humor between Bambi and his friends, Thumper and Flower keep the story light enough for kids to enjoy.

As far as sequels go this one makes the grade. It's not an easy task to create something as good as the original but Bambi II succeeds where others fail. It's fresh enough with it's humor but still stays on track with the feel of a classic Disney movie from the the opening scenes to the the musical score.


This movie was extremely entertaining. I am not a big fan of sequels, especially animated ones, but this one is really well done. Disney didn't try to use all the same old jokes and funny lines from the first movie. Patrick Stewart is great as the voice of the Great Prince.

I like that the story is not of Bambi's son but goes back to right after Bambi's mom dies and follows his transition at that time. My kids just love it, have already seen it three times! Flower the Skunk is our favorite with his squeaky smell release! The animation and music are beautiful too.

I highly recommend this one for young and old alike!


Bambi 2 really touched my heart. I watched the original Bambi movie frequently when I was young, so seeing such a great sequel of one of my favorite childhood movies really heartens me. The plot of the relationship between Bambi and his father, basically the ideas of love and growing up, and the feel in general of Bambi 2 are almost exactly like those of original film, and the music, voices, and sensational character and background artwork are also very similar. In addition to appealing to those who loved the original, Bambi 2 is also filled with humor and adventure that kids of this generation would enjoy. The correlation between Bambi and Bambi 2 is brilliant too; no awkward adjustments are made to accommodate an altered storyline. Especially when compared to many other substandard Disney sequels, Bambi 2 is definitely a superb continuation of the classic masterpiece.


The animation was the good part, and the ONLY good part. See, Disney has lost its charm by this point (it's lost it for years--at least since the 70's, when the films became more savvy than charming) and they were trying to necromance a charming movie. But you can't slap savvy on top of charming. It just doesn't work. Instead of the atmospheric silence of the original film, we have hideous pop songs slapped in when the characters aren't yapping. Thumper's siblings are inexplicably turned into very annoying little sisters (Hint to Disney writers: Having screechy characters yell out "big bwother!" isn't cute). Faline and Bambi are suddenly in looooove with each other, ignoring the fact that they'd still be in the cootie phase at that point in time if you paid any attention to the original film.

In other words, fine, Disney can be savvy or hip, whatever. Just don't try to wreck a charming classic with it. Make a whole new film with new characters and release your animators on that. They deserve better.


I was so afraid to watch this movie, because Bambi is one of my favorite cartoons ever, and I was afraid that this sequel will spoil it. But it always bugged me in Bambi, that in one scene his mother dies and his father takes him away, and then, in next scene Bambi is big and everybody is happy. I always felt like there's a part missing. And now, Bambi 2 filled that hole. When I watched it I was enchanted. Everything in this cartoon is so wonderful, nature, music... And the characters are so sweet. This movie have a really positive spirit, it can really cheer you up. It's really lovely. And it actually completes the old Bambi movie. I watched it several times. It's really great! It's really Disney!


I'm sure everyone can remember the first time they saw Bambi, I'm also sure that most of you have cried while watching Bambi, it's one of Disney's most touching films. So I got to see Bambi 2, while normally we have a million Disney sequels that are major disappointments, but Bambi 2 surprised me, it was very well done and was nicely put together. I really enjoyed the animation, the voices, the story, they were really lovely. The one flaw that comes into sequels is how different the voices are from the previous film, despite that you can still notice a difference, Bambi 2 fits the voices very well for the characters. I also enjoyed this new chapter into Bambi's life as he is learning how to become a prince, but still holding onto his childhood and his favorite friends.

Bambi is having a hard time, his father has to take care of him but his father also has no respect for him since Bambi isn't as brave as he is. Bambi will do anything to just get his father's respect, with the help of some old friends like Thumper and Flower, he'll try his best to over come his fear and be a brave prince. But he's got a new enemy, a mean fawn, Ronno, who constantly teases him about his flaws. Bambi is also having to learn how to grieve the death of his mother and make sure that he doesn't meet the same fate as she did.

Bambi 2 is a definite recommendation, it's a different Disney sequel than I've ever seen because it seems like this one could have been in the theaters. It's very well done and just a total pleasure to watch, wither it's by yourself or with the family. I loved the return of Thumper, it's always a pleasure to see him on screen, I loved when he was trying to show Bambi's father that Bambi could be brave, but Bambi needed more time, so Thumper does his best to distract Bambi's dad, it was so cute and funny. This was a good movie to watch, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

7/10


"Bambi 2" is one of those rare cases which one can possibly say that at least they tried to create a sequel as good as the original. Despite the fact that the original is a far superior film, this one at least tried to be at the same level in many ways, even if this aim wasn't fully achieved.

Unlike most Disney sequels, this one has great artwork. In fact, the artwork of this one is very similar to the artwork of the original "Bambi". The difference is that in the original the artwork is more refined, while this one combines the fabulous artwork of the original with computer/digital techniques and technologies.

Patrick Stewart deserves recognition for his work as the Great Prince of the Forest's voice. He does a very good voice by replacing the original voice actor of this character.

This sequel focus mostly on Bambi and the relationship with his father, something clearly missing on the original. Bambi's father takes care of him now, after the death of Bambi's mother. Not only we get to know the relationship between Bambi and his father, but also to know his father better. We also get to know Ronno when he was little.

However, although "Bambi 2" is quite better and more "logical" than most Disney sequels, it suffers from the same "syndrome" of the rest of Disney sequels: it doesn't fit well on the first one's story. The time when this takes place makes one wonder and to make this question even more difficult, there are things that do not make sense when we look at the way how things happen in the original.


This is another case of the sequel not being quite as good as the original. But don't take that as meaning that this film is bad because it was actually a pleasant surprise. For a sequel, from Disney, this actually hit the spot quite nicely.

This sequel returns all the original characters from the first one and they all play off each other nicely. I am partial to these movies because I live in Wisconsin where deer hunting is part of our culture but this one is still a cute movie(I really wish we'd get a look at the hunters in these movies though!). It has everything that successful Disney movies have with the smooth animation, decent storytelling and the occasional tug at your heart strings. I can think of many worse ways to spend 70 minutes of your time. I, as an adult, enjoyed this film but if you have kids this is a great one for them too. If animation doesn't bother you, give this one a shot!


I had no expectations whatsoever of this movie when my family and I sat down to watch it.

I was blown away. We thought it was brilliant, from start to finish. I also felt the animation was of a very high standard and it evoked memories of the original film.

Everyone at Disney who were involved in creating this film should be very, very proud of themselves. They did a fine job. I could be wrong, of course, but I just felt that this was a labour of love for the creators and their care and artistry just oozes out of every frame of this movie.

Easily the best of the direct-to-video sequels.


I know many find that the sequels are disappointing and a real let down for the original film however i found this sequel fantastic! The animation is superb, and you can tell there was a huge amount of effort into making the scenery as great as the first one. It's a great in between story about from when Bambi's mother dies and he is reunited with his father the Great Prince. Bambi and his friends Thumper, Flower and Faline are all there and are wonderfully voiced. It was very funny yet it was also a strong story showing Bambi getting to know his father, very emotional at some points! I really really enjoyed it!! I hope that you give Bambi 2 the chance to prove its quality before discarding it as another disappointing sequel.


One of Disney's masterpieces, a true work of art was brought back to life. I loved the loyalty of this sequel, to the original drawings and voices. The characters are endearing and there is added humor in this movie. Thumper's personality has been rounded up more and the beauty and dignity of the forest and the deer in the forest is unspoiled. In my opinion, it is a keeper. The music, though, leaves much to be desired. It would have been more respectful regarding the artistic value of the movie, to have richer music written for it. It was mediocre music and it didn't take away from the movie itself because the animation was so true to the majestic original. I believe that Disney had a keen pedagogic sense. Through his media resources he taught his young audiences (even the young at heart) to appreciate cultural manifestations: Music, a very notorious one. So this is how Disney's aim fails in Bambi II. It doesn't really teach the ear, so to speak, to appreciate the sonic expressions in its music.


Maybe the animation is computerized now and maybe the DTV Sequels are not going to hold a candle to the original art from the hearts of incredibly talented artists under Walts guidance, But Bambi II is much better than many of Disney's other Classic sequel attempts to make money on nostalgic baby boomers.

It may be blasphemy to say this but Bambi felt incomplete to me. Once I got over the misery of his mother being shot and watched it as an adult, I figured out why. The sequel answered the questions I didn't know to ask as a kid about the first movie. What happened after Bambi met his father in that heavy snowfall and before the spring he shook owls tree scratching his antlers? Why was the dancing on clouds moment after meeting Faline ruined by some buck challenging Bambi. Why did Thumper ask if Bambi remembered him, where had Bambi been, and for how long? He was teaching his dad how to loosen up. He was dealing with a big mouth bragger and unintentionally creating a rival that would later challenge him for Faline. Rondo, as far as I could tell was never named in Bambi, but the fight between him and Bambi makes more sense after the sequel.

If you stop the DVD of Bambi just as Bambi goes looking for his mother and you start Bambi II the story picks itself up almost seamlessly. I am still a little confused by how many springs go by before the birth of the twin fawns.

My only negative is a very minor one. Two new characters: The porcupine and the ground hog are funny and slapstick but I am not sure how essential they are to the plot and how much was an attempt to get a better running time.


I have seen all of Disneys films; with Bambi as one of the tops of my list. Anyways, when I heared that Bambi 2 was coming out I rolled my eyes and thought that here goes another classic. I wont lie to you Disney, in the past has done some terrible second takes on films, ruining the reputation of the original. I love Disney animation (I also enjoy drawing drawing it to), but usually second takes to the films animation is terrible. But I looked at Bambi 2 in a whole new light when I heard that Andreas Deja (one of Disney's best animators) was on board for the project.

Andreas Deja did not disappoint. He supervised the animation and they did a fascinating job, almost at par with the original. It does need some tweeking here and there, but over all it is a great movie. The animation, as I said, was well done, the voices were perfectly casted and the story line was fairly well written.

All in all this was a one of a kind in Disney second movie films!


Saying Bambi 2 is better than the original is a complete understatement. The film is perfect on every level of film making. It's an intoxicating feeling when a movie excites and enlivens us like this -- and there's a particular giddiness to be had in thinking about what movies can (but don't often) do for one's soul after imbibing such a fine vintage! Honestly, it is amazing. A must see film. Disturbing, brilliant, FANTASTIC! The film's screenplay is amazing, fantastic writing. Unpredictable. Seriously, didn't know what to expect next. The voice work, I consider, to be Oscar worthy acting! A complete masterpiece. 10/10.


I, like most, worried that it would degrade "Bambi"...WELL IT DIDN"T!!! I was impressed with Disney in what it put out in content as well as quality!!! Great Job Disney! I recommend this for all our children & grandchildren, and of course, those of us who are children at heart... This movie contained good lessons in morals, honesty, and integrity. Most of all, it was a lot of fun! The movie is so enjoyable for everyone...I wish I could write about the contents of the DVD, however, this would make it a spoiler. I recommend that you purchase this delightful DVD for hours of replay enjoyment!!!!!!! Share this with your friends and family for wholesome enjoyment and family bonding.... :)


Since The Walt Disney Company started to started to make direct-to-video sequels to their feature length theatrical releases in 1994 (with the release of "The Return of Jafar", sequel to "Aladdin"), it has earned an infamous bad reputation due to the often low quality of these sequels that seem to be made to capitalize on the original's name only, without really caring for delivering a good story, or good animation; almost as if there was not a real concern about making a good film. To my surprise, "Bambi II", the direct-to-video "sequel" (as it's more like an addendum) to the 1942 classic, is a considerable improvement over the previous series of sequels and it even surpasses most of the current Disney theatrical releases in terms of quality, art, and most importantly, entertainment.

"Bambi II" is about the long unexplored gap of the first "Bambi", covering the events between his mother's death and his growing up to adulthood. Under the care of his reluctant father, the Great Prince (Patrick Stewart), the young saddened deer (voiced by Alexander Gould) must learn to overcome his grief, his fears and to assume his place as heir of the position of Great Prince. However, his father is not too fond of caring for young children, so Bambi's tutelage will prove to be a difficult experience for both. Fortunately, Bambi will find some support from his friends, Thumper (Brendon Baerg) and Flower (Nicky Jones), but he'll also have to meet his soon-to-be rival, the mean deer Ronno (Anthony Ghannam), for the first time.

Making a follow-up for a classic like "Bambi" is not easy, but the fact that the writers (Director Brian Pimental and newcomer Alicia Kirk) decided to explore an entirely "missing chapter" in the life of the young deer instead of making a proper sequel, gave them enough freedom to create a story that not only is fresh and original on its own, it also gives continuity to the original without disrespecting it or blatantly copying it. Using the original film and Felix Salten's novel as inspiration, Pimental and Kirk craft a story about learning to be a father, and overcoming the loss of a dear relative, as well as about growing up and facing the vicissitudes of life.

Brian Pimental (one of the writers of the 90s classics "Beauty and the Beast" and "Aladdin") takes his first chance as director giving life to this story and he doesn't disappoint. With a respectful, almost humble approach to the original film, he manages to capture the essence of "Bambi" and setting up the events that lead to the original's conclusion. Most of the current direct-to-video sequels by Disney have distinguish themselves for a considerably lower quality in the art department, but "Bambi II" is truly an exception, as it seems that the animators really tried to stay true to the first film's style (although of course, there were some modernizations), as even some backgrounds were reused to keep the same art direction.

The young Alexander Gould (Nemo in "Finding Nemo") once again proves that he has an enormous future as an actor (at least for voices) and gives life to Bambi with a natural freshness. Patrick Stewart, who voices the Great Prince, truly gives the feeling of stoicism and coldness the Prince must have, as well as his hidden heart of gold, forced to be hidden by the Prince's duties. Overall, the rest of the cast make a very good work, considering they had to try to emulate the work done almost more than 60 years before. Without modern slang or self-referential phrases, the cast gives an effective (and welcomed) sense of continuity between this film and the first "Bambi".

"Bambi II" will surely please most fans of the original, but while it's an honest attempt to make a respectful and original addition to the main storyline, it becomes a bit too clichéd for moments. The use of a couple of pop ballads may prove damaging on the long road, as while the songs are really good, they take away that atemporal characteristic the first film had and will definitely make the movie outdated a lot sooner than expected. Anyways, when compared to the other sequels Disnaye has been releasing, this flaws are really minor, as "Bambi II" makes a nice addition that at times surpasses the current theatrical released Disney films.

Sure, "Bambi II" is not better than the original, and that's OK because it doesn't try to be better. This modest and humble addendum to the story succeeds in what it's set up to make and delivers good entertainment and brings back good memories of the original. Walt himself would be proud of this sequel to his favorite film. 7/10


It was as sequels usually are...

Bambi was a such a huge movie when I was a kid. I must have cried 5 liters... And it left me with such an impact that I still remember the feeling that I had.... I had my mum but was without a father so I could relate... And now I am a step-mom for two children who have lost their mom, so I can now relate in otherwise as well.....

Original is Original, this is a nice movie but no masterpiece and should have been left without the name Bambi II as it is so far from the Original, especially since the Original showed Bambi as an adult already.....


NO Spoilers. Read on, all ye who dare !

I say Bambi 2 is better than the original Bambi. YES.

This is the best Disney sequel yet, even better than enjoyable efforts like the Lion King sequels. The animation is absolutely gorgeous, brilliant, and overall the best in 2D production you've seen in a good 10 years. The portrayal of Bambi's world is beautiful and moody, making the forest its own, living character. They use light and darkness and just solid artistry to give it even more depth and color than the original film had. I'm sure CGI was used in some scenes, but it is not obvious or even noticeable. They went for beauty and surrealism rather than photo-realism, and it's glorious. The drawing itself is superb, with Bambi looking as he did (actually a little better), and the Prince is just masculine splendor in every step.

The story is a lot like the original film's, but without the very slow pace. Bambi 2 moves nicely and doesn't plod around in overly-long forest pans or minutia (a million rain drops falling). Some might say this means its "magic" is gone, but I prefer the adult pacing that gives you something new and interesting happening every few minutes. At the same time, the film pauses where you want it to, gives you a silent moment to watch Bambi's ears fall slowly when he is disappointed, or freeze with him when he's terrified. Sometimes there is silence in the forest, and a character standing still while the light falls just so, to convey wonder or loneliness.

This is a kind of beauty in storytelling that we haven't seen in a long time.

Best of all, the characters don't sing, there are very few modern, trendy references to ruin the timelessness of it, and the whole feel is a good blend of natural, serious scenes and lighthearted innocence in Bambi and Thumper's more fun escapades. The methods here in conveying emotion are excellent; you really feel it when Bambi is sad or trying to earn his father's pride, and there are moments when you feel him growing up. And not just emotional growth, as modern animation is often so limited to, but also that he is maturing in a natural/physical way, so that you can really imagine him becoming a strong and brave prince.

Dad grows, too. Patrick Stewart is wonderful as we get to see the prince struggle with his role as a leader vs. being an affectionate parent. So the film has some modern influence in the way it addresses character development and everyone *sort of* learning a lesson, but it's not bashing you over the head with it the way Nemo and similar films do. This is a natural story that manages, just, to keep to deerhood and not lose us with too many humanlike gestures or colloquialisms.

One aspect about the technique that *is* more humanized is the exaggerated facial expressions, but I did not find this too distracting or overdone. There has thus far been some kind of rule in Disney sequels that characters constantly have to be rolling their eyes, lifting one eyebrow drastically, or saying "Eeeeyew !" with way too much lip action (this seems even more important than the other modern sequel clichés like characters' pants falling down to reveal red-heart boxer shorts), but Bambi 2 largely avoids such annoyances, and it's actually really interesting to see the deer (especially the stag) rendered with facial expression.

The voice acting is excellent all around, and the film resolves itself very well without intruding on or changing the original film in the least. It's simply a very good film that is definitely worth a buy. I suspect the people scoring it a "1" have done so out of spite without having seen it. This movie does its original justice, if not surpassing it in many regards.

Oh, and one more time.... Patrick Stewart !!


Impressive. I watched this expecting to be disappointed. I've never had a movie surprise me like this, in fact, I'd say this is the only animated sequel I've seen that actually meets the standard of quality that its original set. The tears, the laughs... my kids actually were far more into this movie then they were the original.

The artwork was detailed and intriguing. Bambi's facial expressions were superb. Sidekicks Thumper and Flower stayed true to their personalities, and all the various other animals were unique and interesting characters in their own rights.

I'm amazed. And still laughing about those growling frogs!


I know a lot of you hate these sequels(Or prequels), but seriously, this one was great! It explains what happens between after Bambi's mother's death and before he grows up, and focuses on Bambi and his father, The Great Prince Of The Forest.

I found it entertaining, not wandering off the original's storyline too much, and overall really good. It's better than you expect it to be.

I don't know why people hate sequels and prequels so much. To be honest, I think most people don't give them a chance. But you should give this one a chance, it's not disappointing.

I'm really fond of the songs. And did I mention the voice-work is great? Obviously not like the original voices, but hey, that can't be helped!


I honestly wasn't expecting Bambi 2 to be as good as it was. I found it it sweet, funny and adorable. The original Bambi is not only one of my favourite Disney movies, but one of my favourite movies ever. I thought this a very worthy sequel, well it was more of a midquel really, if a tad rushed in places. I liked the fact that they focused on Bambi and his father, after his mother dies, and the story itself was very sweet and well crafted. The animation was beautiful here, not quite as splendid as its predecessor. I have seen sequels like FernGully 2 and Secret of NIMH 2 where the animation is dull, tacky and choppy. Here it was colourful, vibrant and fluid, just look at the wondrous backgrounds. And I absolutely loved the soundtrack, that alone contributed to the film's charm. Of course I do slightly prefer the original's music, but the soundtrack here was so pleasant to the ears. The characters were every bit as likable as they were in the first- Bambi if you forgive the fact his facial expressions were overdone at times, was still adorable and appealing, and Thumper is hilarious. If there is one thing I prefer over the original, it is that the sequel is funnier than the original. The original, while having some very funny moments was more of a tearjerker and a genuine one it was too. In the sequel, there are five or six funny bits in the first fifteen minutes alone. The voice acting was most impressive, special mention must go to Patrick Stewart, who was perfect as the Great Prince. My final verdict is that it isn't quite as good as the stunning original, but along with King Of Thieves and Enchanted Christmas, this is in the top 5 of my favourite sequels. A solid 8/10 Bethany Cox


But still a disappointment. Let's look back to the original film for a moment. Overall, not much dialogue. The humor was scarce but touching, the fawns a picture of innocence. Now take a look at Bambi 2. A lot of unnecessary yapping in between cheesy pop songs. Some of cute moments, some jokes reused from the original, and the movie even has its fair share of toilet humor. The fawns are now rambunctious and argumentative, at points even fighting with each other.

Now I'm not saying that Bambi 2 has to be a carbon copy of the original, but shouldn't it at least possess a similar tone? There were many things I did like about this movie- the animation was spectacular, and the movie was, overall, pretty sweet. The original movie had a style that's hard to emulate, I'll admit. And hey, toddlers will probably pay attention to this one much longer than the first.

However, in history, there are some films that just shouldn't be touched. Cinderella? Aladdin? Okay. But Bambi 2, as entertaining as it was, left me with a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. However, for what it's worth (a cheap, straight to DVD release), I guess I can't complain.


What exactly is the point of making a sequel when you don't actually retain anything that was good about the original? The thing about the first 'Bambi' was that there was very little dialogue, letting the drama (or humour or whatever) in the animation speak for itself. And it was frankly the better for it. Now, no one shuts up.

That said, it could have been a lot worse. This is because one of the characters that doesn't shut up is the Great Prince, and he's voiced by Patrick Stewart. Not only does Patrick Stewart have a wonderful voice, but I swear this man is actually incapable of giving a bad performance.

And on the other hand there is Alexander Gould (Bambi). He's not a bad actor per se - he hits all the inflections and emphasises the right words, but that's just it. He's a paint-by-numbers actor who manages to say everything so that, no matter what he says, it bores me to tears. He could be reading a literary masterpiece like 'The Call of the Wild' and I wouldn't be able to keep my eyes open. I'd frankly have preferred a ham.

On top of that, Bambi is suddenly a precocious little twerp. Sure, I know it's 2006 and peoples' expectations of children is radically different from what it was in 1942, but is this a sequel to 'Bambi' or not? Seriously, it would have been nice if the filmmakers had taken a few hints from the film they were supposedly honouring with this brazen cash-cow milker.

And finally, the fact that 'Bambi II' is set _during_ the first film doesn't do anything to help the drama, as we know that Bambi must survive any danger he faces, which is more than a little cheapening. Oh, sure, even in a proper sequel the chances of Bambi actually dying are 99.99% against, but at least you'd have that all-important 0.01% to add to the suspense. This is just, well, nothing.

In the end, Patrick Stewart is, as always, a joy to behear. But as Yoda once said, "Patrick Stewart alone does not a good film make." Or at least he would have if he'd seen 'Bambi II'. Because even Patrick Stewart can't save this frankly lame film.

And on top of that, Flower isn't nearly as effeminate this time around. Is Disney _trying_ to crap all over their classics?


This was one of my first "Disney Midquel" experiences, the very first being the Fox and the Hound 2. I haven't a clue why Disney has taken up this hideous trend. Their midquels spoil practically everything about their original counterparts.

I was (and I'm sure that others were too) hoping for a story about Bambi's twin fawns Geno and Gurri from the novel Bambi's Children. Instead I received this nightmare. I'll not spoil the story for those interested in this garbage, but I will say that every classic character was ruined by a chatty, modern attitude. The character that bothered me most was the redone Faline. She was not at all her adorable old self, but quiet, reserved, and having a slightly darker, more dullish-brown coat, thus erasing all of her original appeal.

Despite the lovely animation, I could not enjoy how Disney made such a lackluster and unoriginal followup to one of their most successful films of all time.


OK, I can't say it's the masterpiece, but surely one of the OK movies that were released in the post-Yugoslavian era. the plot: syphilis appears in the small Yugoslavian army unit on the border with Albania and a soldier-doctor is forced to visit lieutenant's wife to send her his regards, but he falls in love with her... but the main problem in this film is bad adaptation from novel of Ante Tomic to scenario... so we see a lot of lack of motivation and when the comedy is turned into tragedy we can't understand why. it had potential to be a very very good movie, but still it's very good directed. i liked using the symbols of the sea and the lake. main actor is excellent. and the end. the bloody end of one country... that is shown in a very poetic and peaceful way. the way that we'd like it happened in reality.


...this is like watching some movie from Yugoslav era, it gave me eeries. Same plot as always when it comes to Yugoslav film school-everything begins with funny plot and everyone think it will end funny, too. But for people from ex-YU it is always predictable-IT HAS TO END WITH A TRAGEDY. That is how all movies from ex-Yugoslavia end. That is how ex-Yugoslavia ended its existence. Also this movie is not Croatian only, unfortunately, it is Croatian-Bosnian-Serbian-Macedonian-Albanian production. Actors did their job excellent, three main male characters were superb, female role is a little bit pale and unconvincing to any foreign viewers. Rajko Grlic did an excellent job with "Stefica Cvek-U raljama zivota", I think he should stick to urban sophisticated stories as Stefica was.


I just watched this film. The story itself was explained in the others comments, so i wont focus on that. Let me just begin somewhere else. For starters, the lead actors are very beautiful, lots of sex scenes. The main actor reminds a bit on Tom Cruise from Top gun, and the lead actress a bit to Paz Vega. I predict those two, will star in Hollywood films very soon. It would probably be rated NC-17 in USA, or at least a very hard R. Especially because of the pubic hairs, lots of graphic sex scenes, penis shown etc, hard swearings...The story is good, nice and funny dialogs, great swearings. I have watched this movie on DVD, and just for the fun of it i watched it with English subtitles on, and i must say they were beautifully done. I laughed a lot there. I bet the Americans are not use to that kinda talk... Of course some of the swearing cant really be translated into English. Lets face it, we use some of the most juicy swearings in the whole world (probably). I watched the movie in the dark, lights off, and sound almost to the max. Cinematography was beautiful, DD.5.1 worked perfectly, maybe only a corny Hollywood ending would made me feel better, but if i think back on the movie, the one that is there, stands much better.


Possibly the best Balkan comedy in 10 years! Masterful direction by Rajko Grlic and riveting performance by Emir Hadzihafizbegovic (without doubt the best Bosnian actor ever).

A comedy that's actually funny! Because the humor is so raunchy and scatological some people may be a bit embarrassed about entering into the spirit of this film, but I'm sure they wouldn't be able to help themselves. I roared laughing out loud and that didn't stop until the final chapter that turned into a tragedy (there is always a thin line...) This is not so much a 'political' movie as some people may believe, rather it's a story focusing on the character and mentality of people from the Balkans. Despite all problems and absurdities of soldier life on brink of war their sense of humor remained second to none. Highly recommended! 10/10


This movie is one of my favorite movies. It is a 10 out of 10. Comedy, Drama, Nostalgia, and the multiple plots being introduced throughout the movie. Never mind the other critic, I have shown this movie with English subtitles to over 15 non-Yugoslav friends both male and female and they loved it. I've watched it over ten times, very very funny movie. The best comedy is between the soldier Paunovich and his lieutenant. I recommend this movie to everyone, but especially to the Yugoslav folks who enjoyed their life in the Former Yugoslavia because it will give you a good feeling of being there for 90 minutes. The reason I've watched it over ten times.


I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It really did capture the Balkan temper, passion and mentality. What I did not enjoy is the sudden transition to a tragic end, but nonetheless it deserves to be there. The main actor was great and there could not have been a better choice for the actress. The soundtrack was fantastic and added so much value to the movie (especially the transition to the last scene on the train), even though it contained really only 2 songs. I sometimes find myself re-watching that scene a few times. Also, the minute silence over Tito's death scene is masterful. Much props to the director for leaving me with two of the greatest scenes i've seen for a while. Overall, a must watch movie.


The movie is a true Balkan Love story - Sex, Passion, Love, Tragedy. If you watch some of the American romantic comedies before watching Karaula, you'll see the diffеrences. And there's a second line of the story (that is a bit difficult for people outside the Balkans to understand - which is the reason for the words on the screen at the end of the film) - all the main characters are from different ex-Yugoslavian countries, but they are no different as people. So when you start watching the film you get the feeling of a happy story, maybe even comedy, but the film goes deeper and deeper. Pretty good film, makes you think. Actors are perfect, maybe because it's a true story and it's not very different from what happens in their real life. So go and watch it if you have the chance, you wouldn't regret it.


what do u know about the masterpieces' this story is a history. it is a mith. Full originality about what Yugo army was and all status of ex nations inside. I have never seen anything like it before.

You must watch this film two times to get it, and u must know something about the Croatians, Dalmatians, Serbs, Albanians, Bosnian... and about the capital cities... including about the Tito and partisan believes and fate in him.

for me this film is better 10 times than no man's land or Balkan can

only film i can name it here is Balkan express

...........

..........

...............

....................


Not many movies made such a good use of stereotypes and urban myths of former Yugoslav Army. Two older guys in the story, Ljuba and Sinisa, are smarter than the rest of the lot, supposedly 19-years old conscripts (one is educated, the other is street-smart sociopath). Ubiquitous sound of so called folk music and appalling rudeness in communication are also contributing to making this movie the closest thing to actually being there. And strangely enough, not hating it.

It is a bit unfortunate that Grlic, with his incredible sense for funny and bizarre, hadn't had a chance to make more films in the past.

Still, this one almost makes up for years of his absence from the scene.


I've never enjoyed movie-making by a committee.

"Karaula" is a cinematic equivalent of those 1980s hammy pop-folk-rock-whatever-happens-to-be-selling-at-the-moment-that is-what-we-play Bijelo dugme clones (Merlin, Hari Mata Hari, Valentino, Plavi orkestar, Divlje jagode, Regina) - a populist, don't-you-dare-go-deeper-than-the-outer-layer, watchable but ultimately quickly forgettable experience.

It has identified a pretty wide group as its target audience and panders to it relentlessly in the most general sense possible. From the folksy screenplay full of snappy, and unfortunately often corny one-liners right down to the Halid Beslic cameo, "Karaula" plays like a checklist of movie devices and stock characters that have gone over well in the cinema(s) of former Yugoslavia throughout the last two decades:

1. Goran Bregovic music score. CHECK! (And also some Sanja Ilic added for good ethno-mood measure.)

2. Adolescent men of different (yugo)Slav nationalities spouting cheesy jokes. CHECK! (In "Karaula" they're, of course, led by a wise-crackin' Belgrade bad boy and his constantly smiling Dalmatian tag-along buddy - all of which seems lifted straight from that 'Bolji zivot' episode when Boba (Dragan Bjelogrlic) goes to the army and is entrusted with forming a multi-ethnic band.)

3. Zany supporting character with a portmanteau-like nickname and a weird hobby. CHECK! (Enter botanically-obsessed colonel Rade Orhideja who follows in the long line of Mile Rent-A-Bubregs and Bili Pitons. Unfortunately he's not nearly as funny or as memorable. According to bloggers, obviously bored out of their skull, the character of Rade O. might've been inspired by Ratko Mladic who also served in Macedonia during the late 1980s and apparently also loved flowers - all of which I guess is the closest this unremarkable film will come to generating any kind of post-viewing discussion.)

4. Lots of crass, unrefined sex scenes, used either for comic relief or as prelude to something tragic. CHECK! (Bascially any number of Yugoslav movies use both, but unfortunately unlike in, off the top of my head, "Ko to Tamo Peva or "Lepota Poroka" where sex is skilfully woven into the story, "Karaula" uses it for nothing more than cheap thrills.)

5. An out of the blue prominent (turbo)folk star cameo. CHECK! (Though "Karaula" seems to be presenting Halid Beslic with an ironic distance, his appearance is essentially no different from "Tesna Koza" or "Zikina Dinastija" stopping the plot for 2 minutes so that Brena, Sneki, Zorica Brunclik or whomever can sing their little song. Unlike "Karaula" those movies are at least honest about being populist crap.)

In summary, I really have nothing apriori against usage of any of the above as movie devices, but "Karaula" simply misses the target on all of them - and misses it badly.

The one bright spot is Emir Hadzihafizbegovic in the role of ST-diseased lieutenant. Trifunovic and the Croatian kid aren't bad either, it's just too bad both of their characters are written so sketchily and incoherently. This is especially true of Trifunovic's Ljuba who suddenly goes from a friendly simpatico smart-ass to a raging sociopathic monster within like a day with absolutely no proper justification in the script or plot.


you must see the movie more then once,then you will get the real filling of the movie.the movie is very good also from the professional side,the photography the music everything.everything is happening by the most beautiful lake the Ohrid lake in the mountain and national park in Macedonia.the crew is perfect from Pasic to Paunovic from Mirjana to Sinisa.i m very impressed with the acting of Pasic i think it is a masterpiece.and by the way is co-production of all ex Yugoslavian republics(its not a joke)..............................................more times you see the movie it gets better.


I have seen the movie and i can say that this motion picture is pure Croatian all thought money gave many all ex republics of former Yugoslavia for production of same.I know same of readers of this will think that i loved Serbian former politics but that is not true and this is not politics that i am writing about.In the movie you will see all the god and the bad things about the former homeland, beginning is full of the beauty of Yugoslavia and the end is going with the beauty of Croatian islands same can say OK it was nice but this is nice too it is far smaller but it is beautiful.OK never mind i like all ex republics but why going beck? may-bee because it was good for living? if you ask me i do not know. In my opinion the movie is great and you should see it. When the movie ended same people in front of me sad: It had to be comedy!?????.but......


I have seen the movie on it's preshowing in Cinestar Zagreb on Saturday 18th. The movie is in my opinion - the best Croatian movie in last 15 years. In one word - MASTERPIECE!!! You must see this brilliant comedy. All credits to Rajko and Ante, and also to Emir who's acting is superb !!!!

Story plot: At a small border-post on the Yugoslav-Albanian border, yet another generation of soldiers suffering the usual amount of boredom awaits the end of their service, counting days to the moment when they should take their uniforms off for good. It is the spring of 1987 and the thought never even crosses their mind that they would, in fact, put them back on quite soon and go to war. These are the last days of the country called Yugoslavia. Yet no one knew at the time.

Daily routine of the army is disrupted by unusual circumstances. Frustrated and always drunk, lieutenant Safet Pasic feels a strange pain in his groins. He seeks help from the only doctor among the soldiers, Sinisa Sircevic, who finds out, very discretely, that it's a sexually transmitted disease. Not wishing his wife to know about it and trying to find excuses not to go home, Pasic declares a state of emergency, claiming that the Albanian army is preparing an attack against Yugoslavia. A joke transforms into war hysteria: soldiers dig trenches, Pasic grows wilder as days go by, Sinisa embarks on a dangerous liaison, and his best friend Ljuba Paunovic makes an unconditional decision to leave the army. The situation slowly runs out of control...

Speaking about not so distant past with no nostalgia and no hatred, Border Post is a comedy about people on the verge of tragedy.


This movie is complete waste of time. Yup. Why? Oh, boy, where should I start? Bad acting? Lousy screenplay? Fact that movie is to late?

Emir Hadziwhateverhisnameisić hated this role, he admitted it in some news interview, and that can be easily seen trough this entire move. I even felt sorry for him seeing how much he suffers acting in this movie. I doubt he faked his drinking... He is talented actor, but not even his talent couldn't make him even to try to act. I don't blame him. Sergej Trifunović is giving his best. Which means that he suck. Yup, Emir at least has talent, this poor sob doesn't... Only possible explanation why would anyone even consider him for (any) role is fact that he look like what other ex-YU nations see as a stereotypical Serb. Funny enough, Serbs see him as stereotypical Albanian... Toni Gojanović... is chosen for this role simply because he's Croat... Croatia have much better actors than him (is he an actor at all?), but he does seems to be trying, and since he's a "newb", we can look trough his fingers...

Now, take a better look... Bosniak, Serb and Croat... and voilà, you have a generic ex-YU wannabe comedy... and that's it. It tries to look at war and reasons for war trough comedy but it just fail... there is no deep background story, there is no secret agendas, there is no comedy there is no nothing.. Movie was heavily advertised here as "Movie that put together Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks in hilarious comedy" and people wanted to see trough Karaula their youths and lives in pre-1991. Yugoslavia, but most of them abandoned theater before end because they have found foreign country and foreign army with foreign people and foreign stories. Something they didn't wanted or cared to see. Macedonia is foreign to Serbs, YPA is foreign to Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats are foreign to Serbs. Famous scene at the end of movie where actors get out on stage and public isn't tapping is clear sign what public thinks about this movie.

I thought that pathetic ex-YU ethnic humor has died in 1991. And it did. This is just zombiefied version if it, and it's not funny. It's sad. Strange thing I find is the fact that only in Serbia this movie was advertised like this is 1975, like we all live in perfect "brotherhood and unity" and that war never happened. Film had financial success in all countries of former YU, except in Serbia, despite big advertising campaign. Movie entered trough big doors, but it exited through back door, quietly and shamefully. This movie is wanting to look back at last moments of Yugoslavia, it is trying to say to us that it's not our fault, that we all were seduced by "drunken and selfish" leaders, blah, blah, blah... It could make some point if it was released during 1995; 1996; or 1997; considering that war and Yugoslavia were still "fresh" and all... but in 2006, this movie just doesn't make sense...

Legacy of this movie is big. Yup, before this movie, many various EX-YU actors and directors were talking about making some new movies as homage to old partisan films... luckily, this movie showed that it would be just waste of money...

I want my 94 minutes back.


after 15 years of painful waiting period for the new Real Rajko Grlic's movie, I saw Karaula last night and I was so sad and disappointed... The movie is not solid, it is to short and the energy and emotions are not distributed so well that we could feel and recognize that this is Grlic's movie... Story is nice, maybe even good, and out of this story he could not make a better movie... Sorry, either the time is changing all of us either there is something else... and also, some of the symbolic is so... well, political. with the clear political message, that was surely not expected from someone like Rajko Grlic... Anyway, I will always love his movies made before 1991.


When I got about one hour into the film I noticed something. THIS IS EXACTLY LIKE PREDATOR! These people basicly lifted scenes right out of predator. i.e. the monster is invisible, the hero makes traps and then waits on a tree, the monster has heat seeking vision and the monster looks a lot like the predator. This film had a good creature costume and some good cgi for the it too. But near the end when the helicopter crashes, the effects are probably the worst you have ever seen. Rent it if you want a good laugh. But rent Predator first.

Rated 14A for some violence and some language (Canadian rating)

14A is like a PG-13 rating in the U.S.A.


DNA is a sub par movie, but a shining B-movie. Ripping off material from such box office hits as Indiana Jones, The Predator, Species and Alien, it mixes action, suspense, romance and horror into one hilarious stew.

The plot is convoluted even for a B-movie. Our main hero (Marc Damascos) begins the movie as a doctor of some kind but is forced to become an elite soldier as the plot progresses. He and his female companion must fight an evil professor and his Predator-like space monster through a jungle, aided only by their wits, heavy firepower and some jungle magic provided by the local natives.

The special effects deserve a special mention. They are nothing special up until the last moments of the movie, at which point the budget must've ran out, for they suddenly look like something out of a 60's action movie.

You'll cringe, you'll groan, you'll laugh and you'll have a great time. Cheese at it's finest!


Well, since I watched this movie for the third time, I must like this rubbish, no? Damn right I do! This is one pretty bad PREDATOR rip-off. Actually, this movie borrows so many elements from so many other movies, you can't even bother beginning to count them. Jürgen Prochnow looks like he's on cocaine or something, over-acting every line he speaks intensely. He looks pretty insane as the mad scientist with no conscience or morality. Mark Dacascos plays a doctor (haha!) who suddenly turns into Rambo (hoho!) or (more appropriate) into Major Alan"Dutch"Schaeffer (hihi!). The special effects are hilarious (that helicopter crash!!!) and the monster-suit is cool (with red & green colors). Of course it looks extremely rubbery. Plus: that annoying native kid gets killed! Way to go scriptwriter! So yes, this is rubbish, but of the enjoyable kind!


I have a feeling if this mediocre movie had been more successful, the makers of Predator would sue.

So it's not an alien, but a resurrected prehistoric monster. It even goes invisible like the Predator. And it ends up being a man vs monster battle with many scenes very similar to Predator.

A b-grade movie from a small name company, worth watching simply as an example of a badly plaguarised attempt at a real movie. Made more than 10 years after Predator, the effects are actually worse. It's funny that the video cover mentions that some of the crew who worked on Return of the Jedi and Terminator (1) did the special effects for this movie, and that makes sense considering how old and outdated those movies are.

If you liked Predator... watch it again, rather than this tenth rate rip off. The only other reason is if you're a chick and you want to see some well built (but not really that handsome) hunk running around with his shirt off and his muscles glistening for half a movie.


DNA rip-offs so many movies... First there is the beginning when you think this is going to be an Indiana Jones rip-off... Then you get the feeling that you are watching a rip-off of Jurassic Park, but near the end it becomes a total rip-off of Predator. The climax is pure rip-off... Actually, the whole movie is... Mark Dacascos brings his special "lack of special touch" to this movie, where he doesn't seem to get that he is playing a DOCTOR!!! And he also has to to take his shirt off because he seems to be really proud of his chest. He simply loves to take his shirt off since he does it in every movie he plays in. OK, Mark, I mean the doctor played by Mark, is really annoying but the worst character is Matzu, a kid which has everything required to make you hope he dies soon: an annoying voice and awful lines he delivers with no conviction whatsoever. The bad acting doesn't stop there. Jurgen Prochnow plays the bad guy. You know he is the bad guy from the start since he looks like a bad guy and sounds like a bad guy... Not very subtle since you are supposed to believe he is there to help Mark, I mean the doctor Mark plays(sorry, it's just that Dacascos seems to play the same character whether he is a soldier or a doctor). Also, the script is so bad, it's almost confusing. I am sure you know the kind of script where the writers make things confusing to make you believe there is actually a story behind all the killing... Did I mention the special effects? If I didn't, I should... Beware, this movie has the worst helicopter crash I have ever seen in a movie. I mean it is a must-see for any cheesy movie watcher just for that crash. It is so fake you will have to watch it twice to believe that in these days of CGI, someone could do a crash that bad... Simply unbelievable... As much as the acting and script of this huge 90 minutes rip-off... At least you get three rip-offs for the price of one...

7%


This film is the worst rip-off I've seen. The poor acting and poor special effects stand to mark the lack of money for this film! It was torture to watch, my eyes started to bleed and my my head started to hurt!

DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM!


Wow, I must say: not anyone can watch this movie all the way to the end. I did, and it was one of my best deeds. So, I am a fan of Trash (if you check on other comments of mine you will see it). Alas, but this movie is not Trash: Trash has got style, for the ones who understand. This is just a real bad and boring movie, full of cliches, ridiculous stuff and so much sucked from Predator that, if I had the rights on Predator, I should sue this guys for this.

Mark Dacascos usually acts on some B blockbuster-wannabe movies, but this is beyond him: not even he deserves this. I wonder if Steven Segall deserved to be on this flick.

The scientist is real mean, and believes he created the perfect being, and nobody understands his creation. Huh-huh. I've heard this on practically ALL bio-accident movies I've watched.

In the final showdown, the doctor goes back to his native roots (ugh!) and takes on the creature in a scene obscenely sucked from Predator.

That spec-ops team is no match for the little kid. He saves the day.

The monster and the helicopter crash are true special defects.

Was this movie profitable? For the producers, I mean. For the audience it surely isn't.


There were a lot of errors in this movie.

First, they claim the story takes place on Borneo. Wrong. They don't have jeepneys in Borneo, but in the Philippines. Funny, the credits talk about Philippine crew...

Second, tribes living in the jungle with only spears and bows with arrows for protection/food and only a cloth around the waist is a cliché and as far as I know, dead wrong.

Third, the special effects just suck. The helicopter tumbling after our "heroes" looks animated - and "glued" in. The ambient colors are different on the helicopter and surroundings.

Possible "spoiler" in the following paragraph... The story itself is a mix of "Alien" and "Predator". Those two movies are great - this one is not. We never get to understand the nature of the monster - and why it all of a sudden is so darn easy to kill it in the end. If that may be a surprising element...


DNA joins aspects of those two films to make something very cliched indeed. The river scene is lifted right out of Predator. Also, the special effects attempt to look full blown, but defects are too obvious - such as the scale of the exploding helicopters being the same size as the people running away from them. Avoid if you favour originality.