This doesn't get much attention and I'm not sure why, because it certainly deserves more. The story of a diverse handful of survivors adrift in the Atlantic after their ship is torpedoed, it represents one of the technical and narrative challenges that Hitchcock at the time was beginning to impose on himself. There's only one set -- the lifeboat -- and how do you give the ten or so people aboard enough to do and say to keep the audience watching? You can't have them almost mowed down by an airplane in the middle of a corn field.

Hitchcock and his writers handled the problem deftly. There isn't a dull moment in the film. They fight storms, cut off legs, play cards, get drunk, fall in love, and kill each other.

John Steinbeck wrote the treatment and the screenplay was polished off by Jo Swerling. It immediately ran into trouble with the Office of War Information and the Breen Office. The handful of British and American survivors pick up the captain of the U-boat, now sunk, that torpedoed their ship -- good old Willie. Willie proves to be more focused and more able than anyone else in the boat. He's not only a master seaman and navigator but a surgeon as well. He turns out to be cheerful, practical, cherubic, avuncular, perceptive, melodious, charismatic, and murderous. He rows the boat in the general direction of the U-boat's mother ship while he sings German folk songs and the others tootle along, accompanying him on a flute. "How'm I doing, Willie?", asks the millionaire Henry Hull. The hypermasculine, possibly communist, John Hodiak mocks Hull in a queer voice, "How'm I doin', Willie?", and then cackles. And why not? After all, everybody in the boat is accompanying Willie.

The problem, as the censors saw it, was that Willie was superior to anyone else in the boat and Willie was a Nazi. The fact that Willie was cheating by swigging from a concealed bottle of water, taking vitamin pills, and peeking at a hidden compass was trumped by the obvious fact that he was the only person who knew exactly what he was doing. The Germans could have shown the film throughout Europe as pro-Nazi propaganda.

Steinbeck caught most of the heat for this, as he had for an earlier screenplay, "The Moon is Down," that humanized a German soldier. Was Steinbeck a crypto-fascist? It's ironic that the question should have been raised because before the war, Steinbeck, the author of such modestly leftist works as "To a God Unknown" and "The Grapes of Wrath", was accused of being a Commie.

There are a couple of shots that no other director would have employed because no other director would have thought of them, and they're not necessarily dramatic or suspenseful. It's a languorous afternoon on the becalmed sea. Hodiak, his torso mottled with tattoos is reading an old newspaper. We see the newspaper from his point of view. Then a mischievous finger pokes slowly through the page and pulls the paper away, to be replaced by Tallulah Bankhead's seductively smiling face dropping gently backwards onto Hodiak's lap. While they swap back stories, she produces her lipstick and adds another fake tattoo to his chest -- the initials C.P. They're Bankhead's initials, of course, "Connie Porter", but they also hint at "Communist Party." With only a few minor exceptions, the acting is superb. I never found myself under Talullah Bankhead's Magic Spell but if I had to choose an actress to play a spoiled, snobbish, rich bitch it might be her. She seems to belong in that mink coat and she practically owns that smoke-cured voice. In many ways, this is her story. She's progressively stripped of every material possession she uses to define herself, and it's her character that shows the most development. Canada Lee, as the black guy, is a fine actor and has the right face for the part but he's saddled with a stereotypical role. There isn't space to get into all the characters but it's clear that Hitchcock opted for genuine faces instead of glamor pusses in this story. John Hodiak looks like an ordinary stoker, not like Cary Grant. And I mean -- take a look at Hume Cronyn. A face made for radio.

You really shouldn't miss this one. It's a lesson in movie-making.


I have been looking forward to seeing the film version of Gil Courtemanche's book 'Un Dimanche à la piscine de Kigali'; it was a disturbing yet beautiful film.

The film takes, it seems at first, its sweet time in shaping itself up; but it is merely a way to draw you into the story, making you a part of it.

Robert Favreau did an incredible and sensitive job in being suggestive instead of using candid images but there are moments in the film that remain very hard to witness. By the time you are at the end of the film and the lights turn back on, you find yourself a bit stoned by the amount of emotions you have experienced. You then wish the film had taken even longer in presenting its different characters, or perhaps you wish you had paid better attention.

You want to hate the film because it displays such a level of horror; the hellish reality of the Rwandan genocide is clear in this film. But 'Kigali' doesn't allow you to hate it as you see its love story take center stage and shining despite the darkness of the subject matter...


I've seen Hotel Rwanda and now this film about the genocide of the early 90's in that country. Both films are very poignant. This movie is definitely more intimate as we are following a journalist through his view of that country's drama and, especially, his love towards a young black woman. I think that this movie complements nicely Hotel Rwanda with as powerful performances and story with a more day to day view of the very harsh reality of those times.

Be aware that there are some disturbing scenes in this movie. In hoping that movies like this will help raise consciousness and help prevent other tragedies like that one.


The movie just came out on DVD, I read other comments and agree and disagree with some.

This movie and especially on the BONUS part...the making of Un Dimanche a Kigali, JUST THIS PART IS WORTH IT, where the producers, directors and actors talk about the condition 10 years later after the genocide. To hear and see how professional the Rwandans were and helpful in producing and being extras of the movie was worth buying the DVD.

There are hidden and internally scars that will never heal however my hope is that this movie will present a lesson to how the UN forces from France, Belgium, Italy, Canada and the US were inactive in their missions to police and stop the massacres. My anger was raised when the Canadian general Dallaire who saw all this could do nothing because of the political stance of the countries mentioned and how he wanted to do something but his hands were tied.

Although the story was based on a fictionalized romantic story, and the rest of the characters and events were true, I congratulate ALL for this poignant VISUAL STORY TELLING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED THERE. I have not read the novel, heard it was an international bestseller and certainly raised the question what in HEAVEN is wrong with people/governments who had the military potential, the tools and certainly the possibility to stop this tragedy.

Unfortunately, other dissimulated wars are happening still in Africa such as in Darfur and no once cares...Will it take filmmakers with a conscience to raise awareness??? What are the news media doing in all this? Questions asked but that will be never answered.

If you are one that cares...see this BEAUTIFUL movie...some end scenes are graphic but like one Montreal newspaper critic said...it will show you the bad and good side of humanity.

FYI....according to the movie producers Rwandans are genteel, soft-spoken people....that is what is most surprising about this genocide.


In April 1994, the middle-aged Canadian journalist Bernard Valcourt (Luc Picard) is making a documentary in Kigali about AIDS. He secretly falls in love for the Tutsi waitress of his hotel Gentille (Fatou N'Diaye), who is younger than him, in a period of violent racial conflicts. When the genocide of the Tutsis by the Hutus in Rwanda begins, Bernard does not succeed in escaping with Gentille to Canada. When the genocide finishes in July 1994, Bernard returns to the chaotic Kigali seeking out Gentille in the middle of destruction and dead bodies.

The heartbreaking and powerful "Un Dimanche à Kigali" is certainly the best Canadian movie I have ever seen. The engaging story is a sort of complement of "Hotel Rwanda" and "Shooting Dogs", focused in the romance of a Canadian journalist and a Tutsi waitress, but disclosing also the genocide of the Tutsis in the landscape of a troubled Rwanda while the West simply ignored and turned back to the fate of millions of people. Luc Picard has a magnificent performance that would deserve a nomination to the Oscar, if this award was really concerned with great movies and performances; the gorgeous Fatou N'Diaye has also an awesome performance in the role of Gentille. The direction is realistic, supported by stunning cinematography and scenarios. It is worth seeing this gem recommended to lovers of great movies. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Tensão em Ruanda" ("Tension in Rwanda")


I don't speak French. Yet, when I found myself in Montreal for one night with nothing to do, I asked around for a Canadian Film that I could check out. I ended up watching Un dimanche à Kigali. I was able to follow the film without needing to have known the language -- until the end. **Spoiler coming -- I was totally surprised at the ending. I couldn't understand why the leading man did what he did -- until I read some of the other film comments and found out about the "promise" made from earlier on in the movie. Overall, I liked that movie. We all have our different opinions about "life and death", BUT, considering ALL that the two protagonists have gone through and their strong bond of love and sense of survival, I wonder if they should/could have allowed that strength to carry them beyond the moment and face the new challenges (AIDS, disfiguring scars, etc).


A movie filmed in 1990, with a limited 1993 release, and a video finally released in 2000. Tell you anything?

It's a typically cheapozoid Roger Corman flick about the disappearing rainforest. The film is only 78 minutes long, and about half of it is a digression that takes place in an Indian village.

Here's the general idea. A famous indigenous environmentalist is killed. Although it is obvious that the money interests wanted him out of the way, the murder was performed with an arrow to feign an Indian attack, so the local police somehow decide to arrest a taciturn Indian who "hangs himself" in his cell after signing a full confession. There's a new plot twist, eh?

When the Indian's fellow tribesmen come for his body, a local North American environmentalist (Sandra Bullock) and a magazine reporter (Craig Sheffer) try to talk to them. They are unresponsive so, on the spur of the moment, the Americans follow the Indians up the river to their reservation.

Pause. Let's think about that. Sheffer and Bullock see the Indians paddling upstream, so they commandeer a canoe and follow. They don't know the terrain, they don't know how far it is to the destination, they have no supplies, they don't even have insect repellent, and they're in a stolen canoe paddling through the unfamiliar jungle, surrounded by crocs, snakes, bad guys, corrupt legal authorities, and stone age tribesmen.

Sheffer is shot from the underbrush, their canoe overturns, and they just decide to saunter through the rainforest in a random direction, even though night is approaching, they are soaking wet, and Sheffer has a gunshot wound. Well, as luck would have it, they are captured by indigenous people - the very ones they were seeking - and after some negotiations the tribe finally agrees to advance the plot somewhat:

1. They possess secret herbs that cure the wound

2. They perform a scientific autopsy on the guy who "hanged himself", thus proving he was dead before the hanging.

3. They possess more secret herbs that make Sandra Bullock want to make nice-nice for hours with the reporter (whom she had previously detested).

Well, now that the ice is broken, the lovebirds are constantly stealing a kiss on the corner of dirt roads, or in sleazy taverns filled with environmental terrorists and would-be competitors in the Anthony Quinn lookalike contest, and all of this romance is pursued with the same nonchalance you'd have with your best girly on the streets of London.

This movie might take the award for the most abrupt ending ever. Bullock and Sheffer are pursued by about a zillion heavily armed bad guys, including all possible legal authorities. They are trapped on a dock, machine guns to the front of them, water to the rear, with only about a minute left in the film.

A minute to resolve such a predicament?? Well, I'm not going to tell you how it ended.

The production values are execrable. The photographic quality is about equal to your dad's home movies, and the sound track is both inappropriate and cheesy. In other words, the director defied the odds and managed to make a bad script into an even worse movie.

I guess you know by now that Sandra did a dimly lit nude scene, and this is a rarity in her career, but she has said that she had her essentials taped down for this scene, so I don't know exactly what we are looking at. Maybe some Pebbles and Bam-Bam band-aids.

Incidentally, it seems there are still several minutes missing from the DVD cut. According to other comments, the original unrated cut was 85 minutes, but the unrated DVD release is 78. I suspect, however, that the clamor to restore the director's vision will be somewhat quieter than the one concerning "A Touch of Evil".


I guess everyone has to start somewhere. This 1993, direct to video film harkens back to the beginning of Sandra Bullock's film career when she was probably thrilled to get a B movie script. Actually, to call this a B movie would be the kindest of prevarications. It was nowhere near that good. A mediocre plot was marred by dreadful directing, wretched cinematography and awful acting.

The film starts out like a recruiting film for the protest arm of the Sierra Club, with people locked in human chains to keep loggers from cutting down the rainforest. The leader is assassinated and then our heroine (Sandra Bullock), teams up with a whacked out photo journalist (Craig Sheffer) to find the killer and expose corruption. At this point it tries to convert to an action adventure thriller in the jungles of the Amazon.

It fails.

There are so many things to criticize in this film, I hardly know where to begin. Let's try cinematography. The color quality was awful, scenes were constantly out of focus and the lighting was poor. We had overexposures, and underexposures with no regard to effect. How about audio? The sound was muddy, the music was poor. And acting? The acting was amateurish, bumbling and shrill.

Directing? Luis Llosa must have been on a tight budget. It seems like he did the whole film in one take. Actors were flubbing lines all over the place, but the cameras kept rolling.

Okay, but what about Sandra? She was a raw talent at this point (in more ways than one). This film provides us with her one and only nude scene, which may be its only claim to fame. But don't rush to the movie store to rent it because of this. Though it is clear she is fully unclad, you really see nothing, which is probably a blessing. I love Sandra Bullock, but let's face it, she has a body only Popeye could love, and adds nothing to a film by appearing in the buff. Actually, her acting here showed promise, especially in one scene where she is trying to revive a child just rescued from a fire. But there is a clear difference in her skills and confidence compared with present day.

This film is a must NOT see for anyone, especially Sandra Bullock fans. Why mar your good opinion of her. I rated this film a 2/10. It is an appalling waste of time. Why they revived it, I can only wonder.


Deep in the hot and steamy Amazon jungle, activist Alyssa Rothman (Sandra Bullock) helps a brash photojournalist (Craig Sheffer) investigate the assassination of a famous environmentalist, at the risk of their own lives.

So goes the tag line for this film. I believe that Sandra Bullock wanted to block Roger Corman at New Concorde (formerly New Horizons) from releasing this title NOT because of the nude scene (which really isn't, just shadows and hints of nudity) but because of the thin plot. But it is the nudity angle that will drive the rental market on this direct to video release.

It is only interesting to see Sandra in the film before she became a big star in Speed. Short running time makes it easier to watch as well (78 minutes on the R rated, 85 minutes on the Unrated version).


There is a reason this movie was shelved for, how long? 7 years? This should be the first hint.

At any rate, I watched this movie with an open mind. I wanted to like it, and enjoy myself, but there just was not much to it. An Idiot reporter runs around p***ing off the locals and Sandra Bullock meets up with him. I guess there is some environmental activist named santos that meets and unfortunate end, and they are sort of involved. The plot of this movie is so really hard to follow. Maybe because there really is not much of a plot at all. The last 15min are sort of exciting, only because you know it's almost over so you can do something else.

Yes, Sandra has a love scene. No it's exciting enough to watch this movie.

Ever watched a movie that made you keep looking at the VCR to see how long you had been watching it? That is This Movie!

Movie gets a nice big 2 out of 10 from me.


The male star's vocabulary consisted of "one word" The word that would get 'erased' at least fifty times if we were to think this horrible movie would ever make it to the TV screen for humans to watch.


This movie is a joke....not the type of movie I would have expected for Sandra Bullock. The mazazine journalist is angry and swearing constantly which is not normal for anyone (even low lifes). The movie was very poorly written and directed....totals waste of time.


With such an important topic, why does the dialogue and the acting have to be so bad. Who would waste the time to put something like this together; I'm embarrassed to have wasted the time to watch it. The actors must have been very hungry....


Of all the movies I have seen, this is one of the five or so I have ever watched which makes me believe that animals were actually tortured on the set. This is no lie. I implore anyone to watch this movie, especially during the fire scenes and tell me that no animal was harmed during the making of this "film". A scene with a python is especially disturbing. You'll know it when you see it. Prove me wrong, please.


Good God, how did a talented young actress get involved in such a bad film? Sandra Bullock starts out in this otherwise bad film in a good light. Then her character takes a quick turn for the worst. And Craig Sheffer certainly convinced me that he was an uncaring, aloof writer. But his character also went from bad to worse in a quick turn of events. Somehow, after a night of binging in some of the local pharmaceuticals and a very rank nude scene with Sandra, he is a new man.

In all seriousness, don't rent this film. You might as well fall asleep on the couch with a good book. Sandra is such a great talent, but that can't turn a poorly written, poorly directed film into a good one. And she uses so little of it in this flick. It reminds me of the last big scene in Speed 2, where you wish the boat would just crash already, so you can return the DVD to the rental place.

The Spoiler: Sandra Bullock who shows very little of her talent in this film caps it off with a very lousy death scene at the end. Lucky for her, her career didn't die at that moment as well.


This film was one of Luis Llosa's early ventures in Hollywood, and Luana Anders last as a writer. It follows photo-journalist R.J.O'Brien (Craig Sheffer), who is jailed by corrupt South American police while investigating the murder of an environmental activist, being released when rain forest activist Alyssa (Sandra Bullock) kindly tells the police he is harmless.

I don't know how to describe the film except it has such a lazy feel to it. When the Indian that R.J. was jailed with supposedly confesses to the murder R.J. believes he was framed, and when the Indian is found hanged in his cell R.J. and Alyssa decide to dig deeper, though Alyssa is less than impressed with R.J.'s behaviour to this point. R.J. redeems himself a touch by charging in to a burning hut to save a young boy, who is resuscitated by Alyssa, and having a burning ember on his shirt gives R.J. an excuse to turf it and show some muscle to Alyssa, who promptly cries on his shoulder. Feeling the answer lies with the hanged Indian's tribe they paddle up river into the jungle, unaware that the real murderer is stalking them until R.J. gets shot, but they escape to Indian territory where they are stalked again, and R.J. yells loudly while trying to lose them. The Indians turn out friendly and pass around some "feel good" potion by the fire which drives R.J. and Alyssa to get naked and quench their desire. Continuing to enjoy mixing pleasure with business R.J. returns to his hotel with Alyssa, but before they can continue their newfound romance in the hotel room the police ambush R.J. in his room, beating him up and leaving him tied to a chair with a time bomb at his feet. Alyssa arrives at his door, against instructions from her boss, just in time to untie him and they escape once again, but when they run to Alyssa's boss for help they find that she too is on the take and it seems that the happy duo are now left to bring the story to its conclusion by themselves.


Up here in Glasgow, where I'm visiting my potential in-laws once again, you begin to notice certain words replacing others. A "numpty", for example, is a stupid or foolish person and did you known that your "oaksters" are actually your armpits? Probably not but one word I shall take south of the border with me is the word "pish". Describing something with little or no intrinsic value as "a load of pish" shall definitely come in handy in future. For example, take this bland straight-to-video garbage from the director of "Anaconda" (oh yippee) that Sandra Bullock was wise to scrub off her CV once "Speed" made her a star. But here on IMDb, we don't forget those embarrassing early outings so any fans of Ms Bullock (yes, all eight of you) will lap this up with interest. Everyone else should run for the hills.

Deep in the middle of the Amazon, territorial disputes over land rights take an ugly turn when prominent environmentalist Rafael Santos (Eduardo Cesti) is assassinated. American photojournalist RJ (Craig Sheffer) suspects a cover-up and so enlists the help of fellow environmentalist Alyssa (Bullock) in his quest to uncover the truth. But soon, both their lives are in danger as it appears that a conspiracy is behind Santos' untimely demise. Can our heroes escape to uncover the truth?

There is so much to dislike about this early Nineties eco-action nonsense that it's difficult to know where to start. Our two heroes hardly register a ripple of interest throughout the picture, both being little more than over-played stereotypes. Bullock looks very pretty but as far as being a die-hard environmentalist goes, I'm afraid it takes more than dream-catcher earrings to make me believe that. But she's an acting master-class next to Sheffer who is an abomination, coming across like a lost grunge rocker in need of rehab. It's safe to say that Indiana Jones has nothing to worry about just yet, though RJ does display an annoying knack for not dying despite the endless opportunity for the baddies to shoot him, which was often. And it's all very well tacking on messages about the destruction of the rain forest but when it bears no relevance to the plot, what's the point? And while I'm on the subject of the plot, I felt it was fairly obvious from the start who was behind it all and yet, our heroes have to go through Hell and back (and a utterly pointless sex scene) before finally putting the pieces of the puzzle together. You can imagine the villagers out of shot, slapping their foreheads and going "Duh!" while every single policeman tends to their "dirty sanchez" moustache and perfects their dodgy Mexican accent.

It's safe to say that "Fire On The Amazon" is not a good film, something that seems to have been Ms Bullock's hallmark throughout her career. Honestly, I could stare at her all day but if it means having to watch her movies then forget it. It isn't even as good as "Anaconda" because at least you could laugh at that whereas this (somehow) manages to keep a straight face. I will say that I did stick with it to the end but only because I didn't have anything better to do and I hoped for some grand unveiling of the villain but alas, it was not to be. Instead, I was treated to a hastily written finale that didn't even finish telling the film's uninspired story. Do yourself a favour. Borrow the DVD (for God's sake, don't buy or rent it) and skip to the naughty bits before running your car keys over the disc so it won't play again. Then slap the numpty who lent you this load of old pish so they won't lend you garbage again. Hey, told you it would come in handy!


Take 1 famous actress (Sandra Bullock - Speed, Demolition Man, Miss Congeniality) and 1 semi-known actor (Craig Sheffer - Nightbreed) and give them a story about the de-nuding and deforestation of the Amazon.

It looks like a made for TV movie, low production values, poor plot, poor script and poor characters - only the locations look any good. The very bad love scene between Bullock and Sheffer does not help the film at all. It was agreed in advance by Bullock what could and couldn't be seen so don't expect to see anything remotely erotic.

It was quite a surprise that Bullock died at the end leaving the lesser known actor, Sheffer to tell the story of the plight of the burning and logging of the rainforest.

Avoid it if you can, it's predictable and very stereo typed.


I'd only seen Craig on A River Runs Through it. Where he was under care from a master.

But in this movie.... he's alone. This is where what little talent is shown to be nil.

(Spoilers)

In truth.. I bought this dvd for $4 and because it's a movie Sandra would rather forget. I can see why. Although it lacks full nudity... it show's enough for us to imagine the rest.

It also shows that Sandra can act (unlike one of her peers Julia Roberts).

And she does act when she wants to. Craig... he can't act. That and his character is asking for a fight.

This movie has such horrible writing. It's probably a good thing that this is a basic student film. Most of the Corman films are. They help beginning filmakers create their first films.

These idiots have no chemistry together. No chemistry and they have to drug the two of them just to get them to bed.

And this movie is way too short. If they coulda gotten rid of Craig. Things might have been better. Then there was the stupid killing of Sandra. It woulda been worth our while for the two of them to escape off in the plane. Bleh. Thank god the dvd was $4. They were having a sale on Corman films. To bad they didn't have any of Krista Allens Emmanuelle films. :(

3/10

Quality: 0/10 Entertainment: 5/10 Replayable: 1/10


This one is a true disaster. Thank god I didn't watch it till the end, cause who knows I might be in an emergency room trying to calm down. I would rank this in my personal TOP 10 of the worst movies I've ever seen. How is it possible that they made a movie like this. And by playing in this movie Sandra really screwed her carriere pretty much. I give 0,0001 from 10 to this disaster.


I saw this movie only recently on VHS tape which was on sale. Luckily I didn't buy this at full price or went to see it in the theaters. In Belgium however this movie never made the theaters due to a law suit between Sandra Bullock and the producers.

 About the movie: Not the brightest work ever to make the screen. Even the "full uncut version" as no nudity up to European levels everyone would expect from the yellow sticker on the tape. So the reason for not releasing this movie to the theaters must be the "overall crappiness" of the movie, rather than the nude scene with co-star Craig Sheffer.

 My advise: If you want to see Sandra Bullock in actions, please choose one of the more recent movies. You won't spoil you evening waiting for some juicy nude shots of Sandy, because that's the only marketing they put into this film.


Bad, bad, bad... "Fire on the Amazon" stands as an example of how NOT to make a movie. The writing is bad, the editing and continuity (especially in the first 10 minutes of the movie) are shockingly poor...really amateur stuff. The characters are generally unsympathetic and their dialog is turgid and forced. The plot had possibility, but once someone started writing the screenplay for this, it was all downhill. Save your money.


This is one of the worst films I have seen in a long, long time. There is a thin storyline about finding out who killed an enviromental activist but it doesn't quite cut it. Bullock performs ok, but the the rest of the cast makes little impact. There is really no reason to waste money on this junk even if Bullock is seen nude.


My favourite story from 'tales from the crypt'. Brion Jones was born to play the part of the maniac lumberjack,axe swinging madman Steve Dixon.Having seen him before in Tango&Cash I can state this actor never got the proper credit he deserved. A jealous husband takes offence in his wife showing an interest in a hunky young worker he's just employed.And you know when Dixon finds out there's gonna be hell to pay!The young worker Ted(Billy Wirth)receives an almighty beating from Dixon leaving him blind.Now how is a blind lumberjack supposed to work? A tribute to black humour if there ever was one! The co stars do a pretty good job too supporting Ted when Dixon when he has his initial suspicions about his wife desiring another man.Dixon's behaviour making the bond stronger closer between the colleagues.One even stated he became a changed man when he got married.Though Ted should have done the wise thing and left when he could!


This is a true Disney Classic, in fact Walt Disney had a hand in developing the story but, sad to say, never lived to see it hit the big screen. In the film, we learn rather quickly that race car driver Jim Douglas(Dean Jones) has hit rock bottom after being a prominent race car driver(what caused his demise? it's not explained but it appears that he got into quite a few bang ups). He lives with a Buddhist named Tennessee Steinmetz(Buddy Hackett)who finds a soul in everything.

Jim soon looks for a new car and comes across a fancy dealership, only to be embarrassed by the owner Peter Thorndyke(David Tomlinson) who refuses Jim's $80 offer for a gorgeous race car. While in the showroom, a VW rolls in that was supposed to be scrapped. As Thorndyke berates the little car, Jim sticks up for it and soon the car thinks it has a friend and follows Jim home. To avoid being blamed for stealing the car, Jim agrees to buy it from Thorndyke but the car acts up. Jim is about to return it when he's caught in a drag race because someone makes fun of the VW. Herbie blows the competition away and Jim falls in love with the car's speed, but Tennessee knows it has heart and names it Herbie.

Soon Jim, Herbie and Tennessee are winning races and Jim's ego inflates while Thorndyke's temper grows since he too races and loses every time to Herbie. Thorndyke decides to sabotage the little car and when he succeeds, Jim turns his back on Herbie. Once Jim realizes HE hasn't being winning the races he tries to find Herbie who has since run off. Herbie gets impounded after an accident and Jim must sell him to a Chinese man who agrees to let Jim drive Herbie in a big race. If Jim wins, he gets to buy Herbie back for a buck. Needless to say, Thorndyke once again sabotages Herbie,but hey, this is Disney. Who do YOU think wins out at the end?

I had to give this movie a 10 because it has so much going for it. Comedy, some drama, romance. We know very little about Jim Douglas except when Tennessee describes him as down on his luck, angry, and one who was prone to getting into trouble. Jones did an excellent job as the cocky, angry, egotistical driver who is knocked down a few pegs by his friends and a little car. The character mirrored Jones back then, who admits in his biography that he was a dirt bike racing nut prone to losing his temper quite a bit and having an affinity for women other than his wife. Michelle Lee is grand but we don't see much of her and Hackett plays the sincere bit amazingly well especially when he tells Jim that he was nothing without Herbie. For comedic relief David Tomlinson was terrific as was his assistant Havershaw(Joe Flynn of McHale's Navy fame).

Yes there are some over the top, goofy and somewhat embarrassing sight gags and a few interesting moments(i.e. Carol thinking Jim has ulterior motives when Herbie brings them to a make-out point, i.e. when Herbie tries to kill itself, and when Jim finally admits to Carol that he's just a bum), but the film has heart, like Herbie. The film had three more sequels, a five part TV miniseries, a re-make in 1998(or so) and there's a new film coming out. Jones only did Love Bug, Monte Carlo(film 3), the miniseries and made a pathetic appearance in the 1998 film. In each one, Jones was still down on his luck but nothing like the sad figure he portrayed in Love Bug. Great classic film, filled with 60's nostalgia.


The Love Bug is one of my favorite Disney movies. A movie about a car with a mind of it's own, a vw beetle with a heart, how could you not love a movie like that. Among all the great characters are the evil Peter Thorndyke, the beautiful Carole, the down on his luck driver Jim Douglas and the best one of the bunch Buddy Hackett as the wonderfully eccentric Tennessee Steinmetz, Tennessee has a Buddhist soul and does not discount the car as being alive. Love Bug is funny, sad and has scenes that will leave you to tears, you will laugh and shake your head. RIP Buddy wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


OK, this movie isn't high art. It's a silly comedy for kids or families. But if that's what you're looking for then this is a good one. Some of the performances are goofy, some of the images are goofy, but hey, there's nothing wrong with enjoying this movie. Just don't take it too seriously (because you can't) and let yourself be a kid for a while.


The phrase "they don't make 'em like this any more" has become a bit of a cliche, but in this case it certainly applies.

This minor classic proves that there really was a time in which family entertainment movies were made for the whole family. The performances are excellent, especially David Tomlinson makes a gorgeous comedy villain. However, Dean Jones' play is equally recommendable, as the heroic lead is a much less rewarding role in pictures like this - while Tomlinson can just go for full throttle lovable nastiness, Jones needs to provide just the right dosages of heroism, arrogant charm, etc. to keep his character believable and flawed and likeable.


After you've watched The Love Bug, you will notice 2 things:

1) You will not be able to get that infectious calypso tune out of your head for at least a week and will be whistling it everywhere you go!

2) You will want to rush out and hug the nearest VW Beetle! And when you see one, you will no longer just see a car - you will see Herbie! You will see Herbie's personality spring to life right in front of you! You will see the headlamps as eyes and the wing mirrors as ears...

This lovely film is a timeless classic, packed with cute moments, great music, and fantastically funny lines !! Script-wise, it is definitely the best of all the Herbie movies. One criticism I have of the later movies is that I would like to have seen Herbie stay with his original owner Jim Douglas, and follow his adventures with that family rather than see him owned by lots of different people - partly because Jim, Tennessee and Carol are great owners for Herbie, but also because how does the poor little car feel being passed from owner to owner?! If Herbie was mine I would keep him and never sell him!!


Many a film has put out the notion that animal pets, dogs and cats etc, have to find the people they are suited for. But until Disney Studios put out The Love Bug, cars definitely did not seek out their owners.

Yet that's what happens when one day racing driver Dean Jones comes into the auto show room of David Tomlinson who usually deals in the most pricey of cars. This little Volkswagen offends his dignity somewhat and Tomlinson abuses it. Jones defends it however.

But what neither of them know, but Jones soon finds out is that this unprepossessing beetle has a mind all its own. And when it wants to the beetle has speed like nothing else.

When Tomlinson finds out what he's lost, he'll stop at nothing to get Herbie back. He's been given a name now, by Buddy Hackett who plays Jones's mechanic. He's the first to really realize how special Herbie is.

I'm willing to bet that those who succeeded Uncle Walt at the Magic Kingdom never realized just what a franchise The Love Bug would prove to be. This and all the succeeding films made lots of money for the studio and Herbie still has plenty of life left in him as his most recent outing a year or so ago with Lindsay Lohan ought to prove.

Herbie's quite the romantic too. He even helps win the heart of Michele Lee for Jones. But this is a Disney film so that's kind of a given.

This first Love Bug movie had a good cast of supporting players who were finding the Disney Studio their employer of last resort. Where else can you see someone like Iris Adrian in a brief, but very funny role as a carhop or Joe E. Ross as a policeman? It's one of the reasons I like the Disney films in general.

The Love Bug set a good standard for the future films. It's got laughs and also plenty of heart and soul.


Sorry to sound like Scrooge, but after seeing these films once again in the late '90s, I did not particularly enjoy this late '60s Disney movie favorite, nor its sequels. I watched them when they came out and was mildly amused at that time, but these Herbie flicks did not age well. I can understand why they did a remake recently.

I know it's a fantasy, but it just looks now so stupid it's almost beyond description. In a nutshell, we have a 40-horsepower VW bug that wins auto races because it's "alive," complete with a personality and - get this - a soul! Meanwhile, the driver of the race car (Dean Jones as the annoying "Jim Douglas") thinks he's responsible for the race victories. Well, at least that made sense. The film turns out to be a propaganda piece for Buddhism!! I kid you not!

In fairness, Disney and other studios who have done animation have always made inanimate objects human-like and many times we laugh at that, myself included. So, I'm not really making fun of the premise but it just looks and sounds so dated 40 years later, especially the San Francisco hippie scenes.

"Herbie," by the way, was a likable "guy." It was good to see Benson Fong (Charlie Chan films) again, and Joe E. Ross (Bilko, Car 54, Where Are You?) and even goofy Buddy Hackett as "Tennessee Steinmetz." I always found it a shame, though, that humorous stand-up comics like Hackett and Don Rickles played so many stupid roles in these '60s films.


This movie has something for everyone, comedy romance back in a time when Disney knew how to make a family film. The Love bug is the story of a man who meets an extraordinary car and how said car changes his life. This movie has a bit of everything, comedy, appeal to kids, romance, racing, Disney villains who are as likable as they are bad. One of the essential to watch Disney movies in my humble opinion. The background music really went to support the film. The footage wasn't always best shots but hey it was the 60s and I think it helps keep the feel of that era looking like that. Overall this movie is the reason that people know who Herbie is today and the reason he has become as iconic as many of their cartoon characters.


Before "Knight Rider" or "Speed Buggy",there was Herbie. This spunky Volkswagon can win a race whenever he can! Hardly anyone can control this machinery, he tends to think on its own. Here you have a racer named Jim Douglas(Dean Jones), a racer who lives for the thrill. Known for wrecking cars, he gets a chance to go on the racing field once again. He and his partner Tennessee Steimetz(Buddy Hackett) get the car and the fun begins. Both he and Herbie get the glory, but the owner of foreign cars has other plans. He wanted to get Herbie out of action, permanently! Carole Bennett(Michele Lee)decides to join forces with Jim and Tennessee, and make sure that Peter Thorndyke(David Tomlinson) don't get all the glory. There was a lot of humor in the race when the bear took the saboteur's place when trying to keep Herbie from winning. And who needed a chauffeur when you have Herbie doing the driving. A great movie, family friendly, and true gem that can make you sparkle. For all you grease-monkeys, here's a movie for you! Also it was my nickname. HAHAHA!!! 5 STARS!


'The Love Bug', stars Herbie (the ''1963 VW bug) in his big motion picture debut. He goes on to have a lucrative but somewhat stereotyped role in motion pictures. All the movies which follow this one have him playing the same role. It's sad when non-living things get typecast. I know this bothered R2D2 quite a bit as profiled in the documentary 'Behind the Dome' (if I got the title right). Herbie goes on to star in 4 sequels, a re-made for TV movie and a short lived TV series.

The title of the film seems to indicate that the main crux of the plot involves Herbie playing cupid to Dean Jones and Michelle Lee. Although the little bug does try to play matchmaker it's much more about Herbie being a race car, kinda like the Mach 5 in 'Speed Racer', accept that this car is alive. But actually the film is more than just a race car movie with silly Disney Moments; it's about the complex relationship between the driver and his car.

The main comic hijinks steam from the story line that this VW bug is alive with a mind of its own. The car is alive in the same way the cars in 'Cars', are alive accept that Herbie doesn't have big eyes in his windshield and a mouth in its front bumper. An amazing little bonus feature, presents a old Disney cartoon with a 'Cars' looking car entitled by 'Susie, the Little Blue Coupe' narrated by Winnie the Pooh. Herbie looks more alive in the way the Knight 2000 looks alive accept that it is not due to artificial intelligence. Maybe it's possessed like 'Christine', or has the spirit of some person like in 'My Mother the Car'. Who knows? The movie never delves too deeply into why the car is alive, but it doesn't need to. The characters in the film and the audience are caught up in the reality of the situation and the reality takes root into their hearts and minds and questions about a car being alive is naturally accepted. The film also never gives questions it doesn't answer. It's a comedy and not an in-depth science fiction film and it treats the story as such.

Unlike other Disney films it takes awhile for the characters to slowly believe that the car is actually alive. Certain incredible things are sometimes processed slowly. Christian faith can be like that to someone who comes to believe in it after believing in some other philosophy (such as atheism) for some time. Thus the story line proceeds at a natural pace. The comedy springs up from the characters and the situations that they are in as opposed to having wacky things happen just to get a cheap laugh.

The whole cast, Dean Jones (lots of Disney films), Michelle Lee, Buddy Hacket, David Tomlinson (Mary Poppins), Joe Flynn (Macale's Navy) and Herbie (Herbie Fully Loaded) himself are delightful folks to hang out with for a couple hours. This is a film that defiantly deserves a place in the family library, right next to 'Cars'.


I liked The Love Bug. I had seen it before, except I just didn't remember much about it, and my friend loved it a lot, so I knew it was going to be good when I was in for a re-watch.It turned out to be very cute and humorous at times, and Herbie was so sweet and cool as well.They also did a good job at building their characters, for all of them were really likable and nice. I got a little bored and uninterested with it at times, but The Love Bug managed to pull me back in sometime or another, and I thought overall this was a nice movie, that I'm surprised hasn't been watched by more people than it has, because it seemed like classic material, but I guess not. It's worth a look if you haven't seen it.


Thsi is one of those movies that was at some point in my earlier childhood that i was obsessed with.I mean this was my favorite movie at the times.Now ill go back and look at this, and obviously I don't love it as much as I did, but I still like it a lot.This film is just so good, and so enjoyable that I can see why I liked it the way I did.Well, now that i understand the film more, i realize that there was some stuff that was not really necessary, and it was a bit to long, but its still a good movie.This movie is just so much fun, and good that its very lovable that anyone could find at least something they liked.Every now and then ill watch this, and remember why I fell in love with this great and funny movie.Overall its a good movie that can be enjoyed by anybody, and is worth a viewing from. 9.1 out of 10 stars


This movie was probably greenlighted by Mr. Walt himself before he passed in 1966, but even if I'm wrong, this is such a great classic, one that I'm sure he would have been proud to have his name on.

I love ANY film that takes place in San Francisco simply because it, like the little car in this movie, has a ton of personality to it. Simply because it takes place on it, the wacky "suicide attempt" scene on the Golden Gate bridge is one of my personal favorites in the picture.

Storywise, Dean Jones stars as Jim Douglas, a depressed and washed-up racing driver. In a posh automobile shop owned by Peter Thorndyke (David Tomlinson is wickedly funny!!!) Douglas meets "Herbie", a white Volkswagen that was returned that day by a lady who was having "problems" with it. Thorndyke kicks the little car viciously, and when Douglas stands up for the VW, the little car decides that it wants Douglas for its owner.

It's true, you don't get a concrete explanation why Herbie is "alive" with "a mind of his own". The closest thing you get is Eastern philosophy from Douglas's friend and racing assistant, Tennessee Steinmetz (the lovable Buddy Hackett) a Jewish man who learned, while on a trip to Tibet that life is everywhere, even in mechanical objects like traffic lights and cars.

When Douglas discovers that Herbie not only has a few "problems" that a little adjusting can fix, but that the car is capable of amazing speeds, he re-enters auto racing and is soon collecting trophies and prizes.

Douglas has yet to learn, from Tennessee, his new friend Carole (Michelle Lee) and from Herbie himself, that in the quest for validation in life, some people are capable of selfishness and stepping on others' feelings. The somewhat arrogant Douglas refuses to believe that Herbie is a living thing, that "it" is only a car, and that "it" can be replaced...especially if it fails to perform to standard. Walter Pidgeon's character in BIG RED was similar. Once Red didn't win a dog show, the guy sold him.

When Herbie destroys a gorgeous candy-apple red Lamborghini within minutes of Douglas bringing it home, the human finally understands what is going on, and goes through a huge transformation with Herbie.

Yes, yes, it's a comedy. I know. It's loads of fun and Tomlinson has the best lines of all. Even hearing him scream, "HAVERSHAW!!!" is a joy, as well as seeing Herbie "poop" and "pee" on him in retaliation for his dirty tricks! A true comedy classic.


i first saw this film in 1989 when i was 8. i enjoyed it immensely and having taped it off TV i would watch it on a regular basis. Now, most things that i liked as a child i can't stand now but i do still like this. i liked it as a child and i still like it now at 25. probably one of the few things that have stood the test of time with me, i usually go off things very quickly. this is quite superior to most of Disney's other films in that it is good for adults as well as children, in fact this was probably the only Disney film i liked as a kid (bedknobs and broomsticks is an exception) i usually preferred Disney's cartoons as opposed to their films i have to give this a 7 out of 10 far better than it's three sequels, although Herbie goes to Monte Carlo is nearly as good


Disney's 1969 film "The Love Bug" is an excellent one. It took place in San Francisco, and it is about a man who had raced cars for a living. Suddenly, he finds himself at a dealership, and ends up seeing a car that had a mind of its own: a 1962 Volkswagen Beetle!!!!! So, the car got all fixed up and he raced, winning many races!!!!!

I've seen this many times; when I was a little boy, I've always thought of these movies as not interesting. Usually when a really old Disney VHS gets put in, after the logos and such, something boring was to follow! It wasn't until around 1996 or so when I got acquainted with really old Disney live action movies much better.

1999 was when I was sick, and we rented a lot of videos; this being one of them. At that time, that's when the movie became stuck in my head and became an instant favorite.

"The Love Bug" is a great film. Don't drive away from this great one!!!!!

10 stars


I am rating this film based on my memory of it through the eyes of a child who enjoyed it and who loved little Volkswagen Beetles, possibly in part because of this film. As I am rating it from a child's point of view and have not seen it since then, keep in mind that as an adult, the enjoyment may have run out. I thought that it was a fun film, and it seems to be well-received by a wider audience too, based on other reviews and remakes/sequels. I also have seen at least four cars over here in England that look like Herbie and have various 'HERBIE' personalised licence plates and markings. It's a fun film (for children, anyway), and the old VW is pretty cool.


I loved this film and always will love it. I got the complete sets on video until the recent release of "Herbie Fully Loaded" I love that Tennessee Steinmetz, as portrayed by Buddy Hackett. He knows how to "love" a car. I like the antics of David Tomlinson, who portrayed Thorndyke, Havershaw, as portrayed by Joe Flynn is Thorndyke's stupid servant, . I loved the words of wisdom by Mr. Wu, as portrayed by Benson Fong. Herbie, as portrayed by the VW Bug, "hates" Thorndyke. The most dramatic scene was when Herbie "attempts" suicide. Jim Douglas, as portrayed by Dean Jones develops the love for the little car. I hated when Thorndyke beats Herbie and gets the car drunk. I had an aunt from India and she loved this film.


There are not enough bad adjectives in the dictionary to describe this movie. The acting is a joke. Not one actor in this entire movie has talent. Not moderate nor slight talent. NO talent. The dialog is so laughable.

"I'm going to slice you like a turkey" says one of the victims to the killer. "I don't scare easy and I'm pi$$ed" says another.

The girls run around like descendants of Rambo, claiming they are going to kick some a$$. Oh yeah, that's real scary, watching chicks act like they have been shot up with a gallon of testosterone. Why do women have to try and act like men?

The only scary in the this movie is the acting, the direction, and the fact that it was ever made. This movie is an embarrassment to the horror genre.

Avoid at all costs!


A guy with a shady past goes on a "graduation" trip with his friends. There's a killer in the woods and picks them off one by one and blah blah blah. Surprisingly minimal amount of gore, NO suspense (hint to whoever came up with the spoiler heavy play on words title, you stink!!), and the film's 90 minute running time is endlessly crammed with unneeded filler. The acting is horrible, the end reveal that you know is coming STILL doesn't make a lick of sense when it finally happens. In conclusion, my eyes have seen a glimpse of hell, thy name is "Adam and Evil"

Eye Candy: Allison Warnyca as the sheriff's wife gets topless

My Grade: F

Where i saw it: Starz on Demand (available till September 15th, 2005)


Wow. Another clunker from Canadian "auteur" Andrew Van Slee. At least this one is somewhat watchable, unlike his earlier epic "Totally Blonde."

The scariest thing about this entire movie is the teeth of the actors. Instead of rehearsing, the director must have thrown a teeth-whitening party. Almost every character has teeth that look like chiclets which had been soaking in bleach for a week.

The plot line follows that of "Fiday the 13th" -- the only difference, and it's huge, is that instead of watching the kids die one by one in imaginative efx sequences, all of the violence takes place off-camera. A shadowy murderer appears, the victim reacts, and we see the bloody aftermath. The entire efx budget seems to have been spent on a bucket of fake blood and a number 4 paint brush.

Most of the actors are good, but a few are grade A hambones. The characters are entirely generic. In fact, none of the human characters are as interesting as the farm tools used by the killer. And we don't get to see those farm tools act... just the aftermath.

The dialog is atrocious. The opening character set-up is a long, labored discourse which makes it clear to anyone who didn't already know that teenage boys like sex. They also call each other "dude" a lot. It seems dated, but hey, maybe Canada's teens are on some kind of culture curve. Another ten years and they'll be getting into hiphop.

There's a big surprise ending which I won't reveal. Anyone who makes it through this piece of dreck, even on fast-forward, deserves the miniscule thrill of the revelation.

The ending sets up a sequel, apparently intending to rip off "Halloween" in the next installment, since they blatantly ripped off the theme music to set it up.

If you're tempted by the premise, skip this turkey and rent the original "Friday the 13th" instead. Even if you've seen it fifty times it'll still be more exciting.


A group of teens head out on a camping trip to celebrate their high school graduation, but their party mood is short lived when they discover that a masked killer is hunting them down one by one. Now just who is this killer? Is it the two shady fellas who followed them, the park's grounds keeper, the sheriff or is it his unfaithful wife. But there's one thing that's haunting Adam's mind and that's the killer knows that of his terrible secret involving accidental death of a family.

Um, I don't know what to really make of this travesty of a hack job. But I can tell you it's simply textbook stuff all round that's merely plain ( err, but quite a dud more often) for what it is. Ugh, really I think I am being quite generous overall on this particular amateurish indie horror effort. What takes form here is a very typical backwoods survival slasher with just too much talk and innuendo and far too little action and gratuitous nudity. Which can be quite sad for the lack of skin, since there is some nice eye candy on show. It just seems to promise more than it actually delivers, by teasing us with such tame excuses for horror.

You can say that the film is just plain scary for all the wrong reasons with such banal and cringe-worthy dialogues. Real deflated acting from a young cast of stock characters who are either constantly horny, lazing about and when the trouble kicks in, its all about the clueless YELLING(!) and spiting out a good quota of badass drivel like you always do in these situations. The story and atmosphere tries for that 80s slasher feel by going for a big body count, but it totally misses out on the style with its lack of brutality and gory edge. Simply the deaths are quite sudden and reasonably clumsy with some brisk editing. There's a little bit of nudity, but it's rather a quick topless scene from the Allison Warnyca as the Sheriff's wife. She's probably the most fun that the film offers! But what made me grit my teeth was that the opening 30 minutes was incredibly boring with its rambling teens toying around in many filler scenes that I couldn't believe I still had an hour to go. It feels like it takes too long before the real fun begins and when it does, it gets a tad better (well, maybe more like tweeny weeny bit). From the get-go you realise the cliché filled plot is a convolutely rushed project that's completely bled dry of ideas. While, the back-story surrounding this slasher is just very cheesy to believe. But hold on it was the film's revelation that left me stone-cold because of the ridiculous motive and it goes over-the-top in its daftness. You can probably guess the killer just before the revelation with all the hints that crop up, but it's quite unsatisfying and doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you think about it. The usual red herrings feature quite heavily with some pointless characters who are just there for that stupid factor than really adding anything of real importance.

The direction isn't awful but it's just generally uninspired. What was far from uninspiring was the downright noisy and really loud rock soundtrack and overstated score that at times over powers certain scenes. There are moments when it suddenly goes nuts when the film would break into a montage with a supporting rock song. Damn, that did get annoying. The camera-work is pretty standard and quite relentless when it has to be, but when it focuses on the killer we mostly see the lower half of the body. It's looks like it was shot on digital too. The setting is that of campsite by a lake in some brooding woodlands. It does get atmospheric in spots, which is kind of good since there's no suspense to be found.

Well, what's there left to say; it just takes a very big slice out of the slasher market without adding anything special of its own.


Exceptionally bad! OF course you should expect nothing less from the likes Andrew Van Slee. How the hell does that man make a living making crap? Apparently not just movies, but songs too, he has the midas touch - everything he touches is crap! Big smelling pile of steaming crap! This movie sucks so much, here's what really bad: 1) The sets are pathetic! Apparently they were so small, that in EVERY scene the actors had to walk as s l o w as possible in order to stay on set. And they were so fake and bad, like when there in the woods, yet there on sand? 2) The acting is sooo freaking bad, the cast is deplorable, where did they get these people? In one scene the guy is TRYING to cry and emote, it is terrible! This is the poorest casting EVER! 3) The title had NOTHING to do with the movie! Not like there was much plot anyway.

4) The camera work. Wow, really bad. There are so many shots where someone was giving dialogue, but only half of their face was in the shot! They must have been in a rush to get this steaming pile of crap of a movie out to the public.

5) The 'gore' was pathetic. The least a stupid horror movie can do is give us good death scenes, reward us with watching these stupid people getting grusemly killed - but NO, its so bad with just fake movie blood thrown on someone to show that they are dead. I would have liked a big gaping wound when a throat gets slashed instead of stupid red magic marker drawn on the victim's neck - which is exactly what this movie does.

The best part of the movie: One of the characters says at one point "We should just all kill oursleves" to express her hopelessness at the situation. Yes, that is true, they should have killed themselves, that would have been MUCH better. In fact, everyone involved with the making of this atrocity should kill themselves.


My wife and I occasionally like to find the worst films we can and enjoy them in a sort of MST3K sort of way. We came across this #$&! and knew it stunk of "worst film ever" potential simply from the description. Oh my...what a treat of awful "filmmaking". We debated whether someone could set out with the intent of making a "film" worse then this one and succeed. We came to the conclusion that it would be incredibly tough, but possible. Though after factoring in this "film's" collection of some of the least talented "actors" (although I'm still convinced they were pulled directly from a local High School Theatre 101 class), we decided that a worse film script might be possible...but it would be impossible to purposely find a worse cast. I don't care how absurd you want to get...cast a film entirely with drunks off the street, chimps, or computer driven AI with the sort of "Stephen Hawking" speech...it still wouldn't be as devoid of talent, as badly delivered, or as lacking of any semblance of emotion as this cast managed to do.

An awful...bloody awful film that is hilarious in it's awfulness.

Brody Harms is now in the running for the "worst actor to ever be put on film" (or video in this case as I believe it went straight to) award. I'm talking hideousness in epic proportions...


Well, what can I say - when the cable channel program guide classifies this as a "Substandard slasher film" then you KNOW there must be something wrong...

SPOILER AHEAD!!!!! The film imitates (a nice way of saying "RIPS-OFF") a couple of other slasher films, like Jamie Lee Curtis' "Prom Night", where the slasher is mentally deranged and taking revenge for crimes committed against someone special in his/her life by fellow classmates. In this case, the classmates are high school students who accidentally burned down a house of the slasher's foster parents (I think - it's hard to follow)with a wayward roman candle. So, when the slasher disposes of one of the victims - a roman candle is left next to them.

Anyway, the movie tries real hard to drag red herrings across the trail at various places. For example, the wife of the county sheriff is over-sexed and under-appreciated, and so she gets out of her bed in the middle of the night and drives 10 - 15 miles to do it with one of these kids. The sheriff may of noticed - or he may of not - all we see is him fumbling around the suddenly vacated bed. The problem is there is so little back fill of story, that its hard to figure out what the heck is going on, or who would have motive to kill anyone.

Instead, much time is wasted on useless story elements. For example, the kids are on a camping trip, and they unpack their SUV in a five minute sequence where the motion is sped up - think something along the lines of a Benny Hill chase scene. Then, we are treated to another five minutes of kids playing in a lake, who don't seem to miss one of their own who was murdered in the middle of the previous night.

The gore is not really gore, with low budget movie blood being used. Some of the murders seem improbable - like one where two kids are shot through the neck with the same arrow, when they were both facing the slasher? Overall, don't expect much of this film. It's a confusing muddle of elements, too bad to be entertaining in the least bit (some films are so bad they're actually enjoyable to watch, like a Mystery Science Fiction Theater 3000 film). It apparently got an R-rating, although I suspect it's more due to the kids using the F-word every 30 seconds than gore or nudity. If you're bored, and this happens to be on - well, its better than nothing, but barely.


After their high-school graduation, eight friends decide to celebrate in a campground in Lake Nede with booze and sex. They get lost and stop in a bar to ask for directions. One of the boys is seduced by the slut wife of the local sheriff, while the group is chased by two bad elements from their school. Once in the lake, one by one is killed by a murderer, and the survivors guess who might be the criminal.

"Adam & Evil" is the perfect cheesy movie: the silly and flawed screenplay seems to be written by a moron, so stupid it is with laughable dialogs and situations; the shameful direction is inexistent; the unknown ham actors and actresses show a total lack of talent at least in this movie. The story has lots of holes and clichés, and it is funny to see, for example, the car fully loaded with eight persons, and I guess where all of the camping stuff was transported. When the group finds that there are three dead friends, they split to facilitate the work of the killer. The twist disclosing the criminal is one of the most terrible and ridiculous that I have ever seen. I could spend the whole night writing flaws in this flick, but I believe that this sample is enough to show how bad this film is. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Segredos Mortais" ("Deadly Secrets")


Adam & Evil starts as a group of high school friends intend to celebrate graduation by driving to some old camp & spending the night there, while stopped off at a bar the local Sheriff Earl (Jodie Graham) & his wife Maureen (Alison Warnyca) warn them that the camp they are going to was once the site of grisly murders but they should be OK anyway. Not put off by the reputation of the camp the friends set their tents up & start partying, however someone intends to crash the party & kill all the guests as Seth (Kevin Robson) has his throat slit. When his body is found the friends panic & try to find help but are unsure of who to trust as the mysterious killer continues to bump them off one by one...

Known under the title Halloween Camp 2: Scream If You Wanna Die Faster here in the UK this Canadian production was written, produced & directed by Andrew Van Slee & one has to say that as far as low budget teen slashers go Adam & Evil really isn't that bad, it sure ain't no masterpiece but but it was a lot better than I had expected. Adam & Evil most resembles a Friday the 13th (1980) or The Burning (1981) rip-off with teens being killed in & around a camp, the identity of the killer is kept a mystery until the end when there's a twist & the killer is revealed although one has to say the title sort of gives away who it is. The film doesn't feel too long, the character's are slightly better than usual for this type of film, there are a couple of OK kills & the basic who did it murder mystery while not groundbreaking will probably keep you watching & guessing until the end I suppose. Of course Adam & Evil is far from perfect, it's very unoriginal & the basic idea has been done to death & if the motive for the killer was revenge why did they kill the woman at the diner, the Sheriff & Maureen none of who had nothing to do with what happened previously? I expected a lot worse to be honest & maybe that's why I am being generous here but I think horror & slasher fans might find something to like here, don't expect a masterpiece & I am sure that Adam & Evil will pass 90 odd minutes for you harmlessly enough.

The kills are alright & at least there's a bit of variety between them, in a moment that looks like it could have come straight from The Burning a guy has his throat slit with a pair of garden shears, a couple are impaled by the neck when they have an arrow shot through them, someone is stabbed in the stomach with an axe, there's another slit throat, another arrow death & some more blood splatter along the way. There's a little sex & nudity but not much. The film looks pretty good actually although there's not much tension or build up to the kills & they do tend to come & go a bit suddenly.

Apparently filmed in Los Angeles & Vancouver in Canada according to the IMDb which I find hard to believe, why would the film need to be shot in those two locations? The acting isn't great as expected but the cat try & they are attractive enough to take your mind off their acting abilities.

Adam & Evil is a moderately effective teen slasher, sure there are loads out there already & this is far from the best but likewise it's far from the worst. I thought it was alright, nothing more nothing & less really.


Actors were good considering what they had to work with.If you are going to write disparaging remarks,they should be directed at the editor.They all had to start somewhere.Good movie.James Clayton did an excellent job trying to make something out of the script.I've seen his work in other movies that were written far better and the editor didn't butcher the work.He has a lot of talent.I'll bet money that if he ever gets involved with a dynamic script that allows him to show what he can do,he will be a force to be reckoned with.Don't forget,this is Canada.It is a heck of a struggle just to get started and then even harder to find a project that will do a good actor justice.


This movie managed to do what most movies can't, no matter how bad they are - this one was so unbearable that I couldn't finish it. An absolutely awful "slasher" that is lacking everything a slasher movie should have; gore, sex, nudity, suspense, scares (give or take that last one). This one didn't even try to deliver any of that. Once I heard one of the female actors yell out "I'll cut you like a Thanksgiving turkey!", I knew it was over. Damn! At least say something original or witty! I hate these slasher movies with the supposedly "scared" kids treating their situation like a game. I finished off the remaining 45 minutes watching static with a smile on my face.


Utter piece of trash, I can't believe I actually watched it all the way to the end. Speaking of the ending, I have to admit I didn't see it coming. Probably because I stopped paying close attention after ten minutes. I won't spoil it for you, but hopefully you won't ever be watching this c - - p. Reading the back of a cereal box would have been a better use of time than watching this movie.

That said, there are a few fascinating things about this movie. There is, of course, the obvious: fascinatingly bad direction, writing and acting. The other is, where did they find actors with mouths this big? I mean, honest, they all make Julia Roberts' mouth look petite. You can't help but just watch these people talk... it's like watching alien lifeforms. I notice on some of the cast's filmographies here on IMDb they've done nothing much else but this movie. Thank God. We've all been spared. I hope the director and scriptwriter realize they ought to be selling real estate and stay out of the movie business.


While nothing terribly original, "Adam & Evil" takes the classic elements of the woodland horror tale and crafts a fine picture, better than many of its similarly obscure peers. Well acted, actually funny where it's supposed to be funny, sexy and suspenseful with an ending that isn't telegraphed from the beginning (though admittedly not nearly on par with the shock endings of such films as "Jason Goes To Hell - The Final Friday" or the shocks all throughout "Jian Gui" (aka "The Eye"). One of the better of the unheralded films in horror's 'slasher' sub-genre; recommended to fans of "Tourist Trap", the "Friday The 13th" series, and similar greats.


Hello, My husband and I and our five kids were one of the featured families on this documentary. I just want to say after reading some of the "critics" responses to this documentary if you ever wondered about what exactly a gay family is this is the documentary to see. Not because we were in it but for a very important reason. Instead of "set" ups where they asked a bunch of personal questions of the families they let us just be ourselves and to tell you the truth most of the time we had forgotten the camera people were even around. This was the first of its kind and Rosie and her wife Kelli and Gregg put together an experience for not only gay families but gay friendly families that will be in our memories for ever. Being able to cruise with our kids knowing we are safe with other families just like ours was amazing. We were very blessed to be on the first cruise ever of its kind like this and have enjoyed each year after that on this cruise. This documentary educated me as well, there were so many different sides of the gay community that people just do not get to see because the media usually portrays the GLBT community just in one light from our gay pride parades and you never see the families. This documentary gave gay families voices for the first time.


This documentary sets to prove that basically, there are no differences between the lesbians and gays, with families, that came for this cruise, than with straight folks in the same situation. Shari Cookson, the director of this informative film, doesn't pull punches. She just presents the material about people that are no different than others in their same social status, These folks are seen spending a relaxing vacation aboard a luxury ship, like any other regular family.

What comes across is a picture of caring couples who love their partners and their children, who happen to have a different sexual preference. It's evident the love for their families. Rosie O'Donnell is prominently shown. She was the driving force for bringing people of all kinds of backgrounds into this sea voyage that happened to be geared toward gays and lesbians with families, so they can share the experience and fun of a carefree vacation.

These passengers and their families show they are more normal than the world would think they are.


I am a 50 year old woman from one of the most conservative states in the United States (one that banned gay marriages). I watched this documentary with tears streaming down my face the entire time. What a wonderful story! The families were fabulous and loving. During the documentary I realized that being a heterosexual was only a small part of who I am. I am a mother, a wife, a friend, a businesswoman, a productive member of my community, and a woman who relies heavily on my faith. These people are just like me. The only exception being I have a partner that is man. These wonderful people are families first and their sexuality, while it is important does not define them exclusively. I am hopeful with Rosie and Kelly's continued work we will approach a better understanding and acceptance of non-traditional families. I know without a doubt that my God loves them all.


Fun was had by all and a real joy to view. One woman on your show looked similar to our Anne Murray here in Canada. She married her partner and I love the rose/gardener reference. Marriage certainly goes like that for my husband and I too! I, of course, am the rose and he the gardener. We are straight as flipping arrows and watching the cruise families emulated the behaviors and family dynamics that we practice was so much fun that the time went too fast. My daughter is gay and that was difficult for her to tell me. I take responsibility for that. Children learn what they live. When I was a younger woman and gay women were attracted to me I would pump the biblical premise as well because it worked for me. They kept their distance and I didn't have to deal with what came up for me! Interesting because plenty of years later I became a minister and my teacher is a married gay woman. She has taught me how to live happy, joyous and free! Still straight and straightened out. Source Mother/Father God knows us each and every one as individuals. Thank you for taking me off the "Biblical Stand" and placing me in the Grace of Being who and what I am and knowing gratitude for LOVE one and all. No separation! Bless You All


My husband and I just watched the Family Cruise and found it utterly inspiring. The world could use more programming such as this, and hopefully one day soon people will find a way to accept, if not embrace, our precious diversity and accept the part of themselves that prevents acceptance of others. This program shows in a very unaffected way what all families seek. These particular families are a great example to follow, and we enjoyed sharing in the honesty and courage displayed by the members of the cruise. Please do show more programming that focuses on the more positive aspects of life on this ever shrinking planet.

Thanks, Rosie, way to go!

Aggie Lukaszewski


I am a single gay man who never really thought of ever having kids. I think I never considered it an option, but watching this documentary made me see things from another perspective. Never say never. Also just the general sense of love among family is a universal theme in this film, and it made me grateful for the love and support I get from my family. I'm very fortunate to have that. And all those kids on there are also very fortunate to grow up in a loving environment, too bad so many people in the outside world don't see that. Congrats to all the family members who went on the cruise to support their gay family members. I have a newfound respect for Rosie O'Donell. Best wishes to her and her family.


Hi. I'm Doug Van Doren, the writer and producer of this movie and I just checked in with some of the user comments and votes for the first time in a while. Always good to see those who like and don't like your work. However, after reading the comments of Hunterdu below, I'd like to offer my own two cents -- not because I think he's wrong per se, but because I think he's unnecessarily nasty and unfair with his comments. Here goes:

"Parodies are only funny if they can stand on their own somewhat."

True, but I think this one does, and not merely "somewhat". I've received hundreds of e-mails from people who have worked both in Hollywood and in other jobs, all of them able to relate to the oppressive conditions and the abusive bosses who think they can get away with murder simply because they make a lot of money. One does not need to see the original to get that, although it certainly helps with this one, especially since Alfonso Freeman (Morgan's son) is so darned dead on with his impersonation of his father.

"It does not take a good writer to simply take dialog almost word for word from one of the best movies of all time and put it into an office situation."

That's EXACTLY why I think this concept is so good, because it is so simple: working in a bad office job is like being in prison. You want to break free, but you can't because you need the money/security. How many people in this work are working in jobs they can't stand? How many have never had the courage to follow their real dreams and thus "settle" for what they've got? I'll bet anyone a shiny new dime HunterDu is probably doing exactly that in his life. This movie is about finding the courage (or "hope") to break free despite being in a dark place, which is the EXACT same message in the original "Shawshank Redemption".

"And three year old can do this. But most don't because they know better."

I think he meant to say "any". Perhaps HunterDu should proof his own work before criticizing the work of others. Plus, I didn't take the movie word for word. "Shawshank" is nearly two and a half hours. Ours is 21 minutes. It takes a lot of effort and skill to boil down a movie as great as Shawshank and pull out all of it's thematically meaningful and emotional scenes and then transcribe them as a comedy that's 121 minutes shorter. I'm not saying I'm the best writer in the world, but comparing me to a three year old is juvenile in itself and obviously said just to be inflammatory.

"The funniest thing about this is that it was released as an Oscar engagement. As if this movie was going to get any Oscar recognition."

No, we didn't get an Oscar nom, but neither did the other couple of hundred very good films that were eligible. That said, we just landed another film because of it (the entire purpose of making it in the first place) and HBO, the biggest cable movie network on the planet, liked it enough to fork over a good chunk of money to buy it, not bad considering they only buy a handful of shorts every year.

"But I guess it would make any sense to release it for a Razzie engagement."

I don't know what a "Razzie" is, but this smacks of yet another childish insult. I think the best way to close is to quote a personal e-mail I received from Frank Darabont (the director of "The Shawshank Redemption") after he saw it:

"Message to Natalie and Doug: Just saw SHARKTANK and loved it. Very clever and loving send-up, but with a core identity of its own which prevents it from being mere spoof. Good stuff. Congratulations to all. Odd (though wonderful) sensation, I must admit, to be the one being riffed. Honestly, I love it. Makes me feel like I finally arrived. Again, what a treat. Thanks. -- Frank"

And thanks to IMDB for letting me have my rebuttal. I feel much better now! ;-)

Bottom line: like all movies, everyone should just see it and judge for themselves. I think I know where the large majority will fall.


The movie has the insight of Office Space while loosing none of the style of Shawshank. The deep voice of Freemen and musical score adds to the overall strength of the movie. I hope to see more like this. This producition took guts.


Comment #55

The SharkTank Redemption is a satire of The Shawshank Redemption that is included on the 2-disc Collector's Edition DVD of the latter-mentioned film. This 25-minute film is good for a lot of laughs and is highly enjoyable.

Fred Redding (Alfonso Freeman) is an assistant at the Hollywood agency CMA, and he is seeking a promotion. He is denied, and is miserable because of that and because of his crappy cubicle job. However, he befriends the new guy at the office, Randy Tulane (Steven Amato), and finds new meaning in life with his friend.

The movie is hilarious as it is, but it could be funnier. I'm satisfied with it, as most of the funny parts are on the brink of or are hysterical. Most of the humor involves Fred's and Randy's boss having fits and almost insane.

The SharkTank Redemption is a very refreshing satire of a classic masterpiece, and is definitely worth seeing. Some scenes could have used some changing, but I guarantee you will be laughing the whole way through, as I was.

8/10


Alfonso is as gifted an actor as his dad. It's a work of genius to capture the essence of "Shawshank", turn it into a comedy, and then squeeze it all into a 21 minute film...It would be great to see Morgan and Alfonso in a movie together portraying father and son...


There are lots of short film parodies out there, but this is unquestionably the best one I've seen. Actually, to simply call it parody doesn't do it justice. Whereas most parodies are disposable little one-joke pieces of fluff, this one is actually ABOUT something universal and profound, kind of the way "Shawshank" was. It's funny, yes but it's also very touching and very well made. Morgan Freeman's son is hilarious in that he mimics his dad in any uncanny fashion, yet brings his own style to the role. Really well directed and written, with fantastic music.

See it if you can.


I liked this short movie. It seemed like a nod towards Shawshank while at the same time mocking Dilbert farms. They (prison and cube farms) are quite similar and I think this short film demonstrates this. The fact that they have Morgan Freeman's son playing his part was fun. The guy in Tim Robbins role was also a very close likeness. I ran across this movie on the Sundance Channel.

I really liked the promotion hearings. It really felt like Shawshank in 30 minutes. You had to have seen Shawshank recently or more than a couple times to notice all the little things that this film copied so well.

I only noticed a couple glitches or places that I didn't care for. The very ending scene while panning to see the sun I thought was a little overdone. But all in all I think they paid homage to The Shawshank Redemption quite well.


I've been watching this every night it's on Cinemax recently. My favorite parts are when Fred is pointing the sub at Randy and when Fred reads the letter and says "Sharktank." I wish they used the part where the boss tells Red "You don't have to tell me everytime you have to take a p**s," because I would have just lost it. I think another reason I like this so much is because I find Shawshank to be somewhat cliche and extremely manipulative (for creating loveable prisoners and for that sappy closing monologue). Don't get me wrong...I think Shawshank is very well done, but it has become overrated, and this is exactly what it needed.


I enjoyed this film very much. It was entertaining and comical and superbly produced! The correlations between the original Shawshank Redemption were masterfully orchestrated. Additionally, the actors performances could should be closely watched as they did a phenomenal job!


The Shawshank Redemption is my favorite movie of all time. I love it. I'm crazy for it. So on my 10th Anniversary DVD, I saw this little short and I decided to watch it and maybe get a good laugh. I didn't.

I popped this in because I had read that it was a good parody of a great film. I watched the whole thing and from beginning to end, I was horrified. I had read also in the trivia section for Shawshank that Alfonso Freeman had several cameo's in Shawshank, and when I saw his name appear on screen in Sharktank, I thought I would enjoy him. I didn't. His acting is one of the worst performance's I've ever had to watch on screen. His character is essentially Red from Shawshank, and he portrays his father's role terribly.

This short is horrible. The acting is terrible, the jokes are stupid, the music made me cringe--its a cheap rip off of the films amazing score. The whole thing is just so horrible. As a Shawshank fan and a huge cinema fan, as well as an aspiring filmmaker, I was so disappointed with this. Its terrible from the opening credits to the end credits. If you're a Shawshank fan, try not to give into temptation and watch this terrible short on your DVD. Its not worth it.


Parodies are only funny if they can stand on their own somewhat. It does not take a good writer to simply take dialog almost word for word from one of the best movies of all time and put it into an office situation. And three year old can do this. But most don't because they know better.

The funniest thing about this is that it was released as an Oscar engagement. As if this movie was going to get any Oscar recognition. But I guess it would make any sense to release it for a Razzie engagement


"The SharkTank Redemption" seemed to indicate that the DVD would contain a humorous spin-off parody of the movie involving sharks trying to escape their tanks at an ocean exhibit. That sounded rather lame, but it's a better plot than what's here.

Basically Alfonso Freeman (Morgan's son) works at a Hollywood agency. It's a ruthless place a bit reminiscent of the movie "Swimming with Sharks" - which is ironic, for obvious reasons.

A new guy starts working there and receives a lot of criticism from his boss, but he seems able to ignore it. Freeman wants to know how he does this, but it seems Randy (the new employee) just has a way of keeping his cool.

Finally Randy snaps, but first he provides his fellow workers in the office environment with a moment of inspiration.

Let me get something straight: THIS IS LAME. Really lame. I tried to laugh. I wanted to laugh. But I couldn't. IT'S JUST NOT FUNNY.

It has to be just about the lamest idea ever...it was already done in "Swimming with Sharks" and even as a short film it seems dry. In terms of "spoofing" "The Shawshank Redemption" (which is what I had hoped for), all they can come up with are stupid puns on words from the movie, like "Randy" instead of "Andy." The movie's ending is disappointing and just not very funny at all. I suppose if you were a huge "Shawshank" fan you might get something out of this, but for casual viewers, it's just one big (or small, depending upon how you look at it) mess.


There is this father-son conversation in the climax of 'KALPURUSH'. I quote the English DVD-subtitle version. Shumonto tells his father: "I may not have become someone, but when I see two people in love, I smile. And when I see someone eating alone, I cry." Ashvini, his father, replies wistfully: "I wish I could've lived my life like you did." These 2 lines, perhaps, comprise the gist of this new film by Buddhadev Dasgupta - director of teeny-weeny gems like 'Tahader Katha', 'Bagh Bahadur', 'Uttara' & 'Mondo Meyer Upakhyan' - which took nearly 3 years to reach the cinemas in India.

The film opens with a man called Ashvini following a younger man called Shumonto, who, we are told, is his son. It seems that the father is stalking - or haunting, rather - his son. As the film progresses and we meet Shumonto's ambitious wife, Supriya, and his mother, Koyel, who seems to be tied up with something in her past, we realise that the son is, indeed, haunted by his father who was a somebody. He was a successful doctor and they had this beautiful family, but something - or someone - comes in and this happy husband-wife-child drift apart. This drifting apart is too hard for these three to endure, and the son, we see, is unable to lead even a proper relationship with his wife.

I don't know of too many father-son films from Bollywood or other Indian language films. I've seen only Ramesh Sippy's 'Shakti' & Feroze A. Khan's 'Gandhi, my father'. Both were the powerful types with dramatic, sad endings. I've also seen 'Thevar Magan' & its Hindi remake 'Virasat', but they were different. KALPURUSH is drama, but not the powerful type. It is, like other Dasgupta films, creatively- photographed, dream-like, poetic & soft. This keeps the viewer absolutely un-prepared for the surprise ending, for the film hardly feels like a father-son film. It starts like a husband-wife story, creates the tension, goes to become a mother-son film, and then explains why it is so, why the son is so, what was his relationship like with his father, what happens to the father, the mother, what the son's wife does, and how the son carries on with his life.

It would be unfair to dub KALPURUSH strictly for Buddhadev Dasgupta fans. However, I do suggest that the viewers acquaint themselves with Dasgupta's films before going to see KALPURUSH. Dasgupta's films are often accused of having a near-invisible storyline. KALPURUSH is no different. It starts, too, in a very un-Buddhadev Dasgupta-ish way. Instead of bare landscapes of Puruliya & Midnapore, one sees the trams of Calcutta in the opening credits. It helps, though, for it is like - What is this, urban Bengal? Soon after this, the film turns typical Dasgupta. The rural Bengal, this time, are the scenic outdoor locales of coastal Orissa.

The actors are stupendous. Mithun Chakraborty is a legend. This is his second film with Dasgupta. He plays his age, suits the part, one just has to see him in this one. Rahul Bose is so silent one could feel the loss of his loser character. Sameera Reddy has looked good in just 3 films - 'Musafir', 'Migration' & 'Kalpurush'. I haven't seen 'Ami, Yasin ar amar Madhubala' so I can't comment on that. She better shift to the Bengali film industry. A mentor like Dasgupta would surely do her a lot good. Sudipta Chakraborty's Other Woman role is short, but long enough to bring in that right amount of glamour, desire & heartbreak. Labony Sarkar is natural with a capital N.

With the usual Buddhadev Dasgupta tropes in place, KALPURUSH is a visual treat. There are bare landscapes, dry leaves flying in the wind, haunting background score, mysterious folk artistes in even more mysterious costumes & masks, dilapidated, old buildings, and things rustic and antique. This time there is also the sea and an aeroplane flying right outside the open window. KALPURUSH is a film which needs to be seen.


A true successor of the Apu trilogy!'Memories in the mist'by Dasgupta artistically and metaphorically inter-wovens the memories and fantasies of a man of his beloved and lost father.Set in the backdrop of North Kolkata,the story paces to and fro between past and present,between reality and imagination,between innocence and lucre!Amongst the numerous metaphors used in the movie,the one which cant be helped mentioning is the reference of the piper which beckons the man to his past,his childhood and his unfulfilled dreams.With this movie,Dasgupta has also endeavored to find the base of our relationships.At the end of the film,the man reveals himself to his father and thus to the audience,and thus forces us to remind of Apu who would,despite hostility as conferred by fate,love and wonder!That is probably the reason some critic has mentioned it as'the closest modern equivalent'to a Ray movie.But whatever international applaud it gets,it may not get along too well with the Bengali audience because of its sheer lack of bangaliyana(Bengali traditions and customs)as compared to a new wave cinema by Ray or Ghatak.


Dasgupta's Kaalpursh is easily one of the finest films to come out in Bollywood. A mind-blowing astounding film. What a film! A film which isn't a commercial in any aspect, yet your gloved in it. Any award given to this flick will be insulting it. Two Thumps Way Up!

Performances: Mithun Chakraborty is a Legendary actor of Indian Cinema, My favorite actor. His performance here once again proves that he's the best in the business. Rahul Bose is outstanding, he's an actor who has the potential to go down as one of the most natural actors of Indian Cinema. Sameera Reddy is effortless. Others are also Good.

'Kaalpurush' is outstanding, mind blowing film, Which is rich in each and every aspect. Bravo!


A military mapping operation goes awry and lands a helicopter in a hidden volcanic crater with live dinosaurs.

This movie oozes potential. A reasonable script, decent actors, good pacing, spectacular sets, and the grandeur of CinemaScope. Then you see the dinosaurs.... oh lord, do you ever. One can easily see where their budget ran dry. The movie employs the two worst methods of portraying dinosaurs, and doesn't even do it well. However, the compositing is nearly seamless, so if it were possible, one could become convinced that the producers managed to find a 20 foot tall man to wear a full size Tyrannosaurus costume.

Aside from the special effects, the movie is quite good, nearly rising above B-movie status. The actors all seem for the most part, naturalistic. They all seem to find the line between flat and hammy. The movie never wastes much time on non-essential plot elements, and the running time works out quite well.

Recommanded for those who love the genre type, be it dinosaurs or jungle movies.


Okay, I love lost world films. I'm a sucker for them. It has to do more with the monsters more than anything else. Here we a bunch of reasonably okay dinosaurs running amok.

The plot is simple, a helicopter crashes into what had, until then, been a hidden tropical jungle in the frozen wastes of Antarctica. It then becomes a race to repair the helicopter before the dinosaurs eat the entire party.

This is a reasonably well done movie with some reasonably well done dinosaurs that get points for NOT being lizards enlarged with trick photography. No they aren't the best monsters in the world and nowhere near as good as what they do today, but what monster is, aside from King Kong? Frankly its the dinosaurs in both the relative quality of what was done and the variety of what we see that makes this movie for me.

I'm hoping that the film will get a restored DVD release soon. This film was shot widescreen however the release on videotape is pan and scan so much of the composition appears to have been lost. I've seen a widescreen trailer and the dinosaur scenes looked better un-pan and scanned.

If you love old black and white, monster or dinosaur films see this film. Yes its been done before but there is something about the way its done here that lifts it up from the rest of the pack.

8 out of 10 for dinosaur/monster lovers.


All I'd like to say about Universal-International's The Land Unknown is that three navy men and a woman reporter land accidentally in a warm spot in Antartica with their helicopter stuck for 30 days during which time they encounter some dinosaurs and another man who had survived there for 10 years from another expedition after his three crew members died there. Jock Mahoney is the commanding officer Harold (though I could have sworn he was called "Alan" here) who tries to keep everything together. I recognized him from the TV western "Range Rider" on America One a few years ago. Shirley Patterson (credited here as Shawn Smith) is the reporter, Maggie, he falls for. Henry Brandon (best known as Silas Barnaby in Laurel and Hardy's Babes in Toyland where he was then known as Harry Kleinbach) is 10-year survivor Dr. Carl Hunter who initially tries to make a deal for the 3 men to escape in exchange for the woman to stay with him. Great conflict results. The dinosaur scenes are a combination of actual footage of close-up lizards and a man wearing a tyrannosaurus outfit. The outfit makes this movie a little cheesy but they worked with what they had at the time on whatever budget was allowed. Otherwise, a mostly compelling entertainment for anyone interested in '50 sci-fi movies especially of the Universal-International kind. Wonderful atmospheric score by Joseph Gershenson. P.S. Jock Mahoney was Sally Field's stepfather.


It is a shame that this little known movie hasn't gotten more exposure over the years. For fans of all ages The Land Unknown is a great film that is sure to delight all but the most critical of viewers.

This has got to be one of the most atmospheric movie sets ever to be captured on film, and it just gets better from there. The acting is very decent, as is the storyline and pace of the movie. We are treated to many dinosaurs that, although not the most realistic looking, are quite effective and are integrated well into the movie and the overall storyline.

Yes, the FX are somewhat lacking, but compared to the many, many low-budget horror and SciFi films of the 1950's, The Land Unknown stands tall and delivers a face-paced action adventure that surpasses many of this era. Actually, this movie reminds me a bit of the 1925 silent The Lost World...from what I have read was indeed an inspiration for this film.

If you are a fan of dinosaurs, action-adventure, SciFi, thrillers or just plain fun, well made movies, The Land Unknown has just what you are looking for and will deliver a pleasant viewing experience for all ages.