This movie was better than I expected, given the harsh but unsubstantiated reviews here.

The acting and dialogue were better than I expected from such a low-budget, quick shoot. The script was so-so, but I accept that. I don't need to be taught lessons, just have the story be interesting and coherent. Perhaps they could have taken a page out of Strangers With Candy and been blunt about the lessons they learned; perhaps even learned the wrong lessons?

Contrary to most, I thought Marco Dapper delivered an acceptable, but not great, performance. He was definitely cast in this movie for his looks.

I thought Brett Chukerman really mastered the role of confident guy on the prowl for his next conquest as he teased Troy while changing for art class in the restroom. Andrew Ley's brief appearance in the opening scene really impressed me as well.

The stereotypical flaming art instructor was a throw-away role, nothing to get upset over. Emily Brooke Hands was fairly convincing as being interested in her art. Rebekah Kochan fared better than I thought she might in the role of the self-proclaimed slut. A good cast, for what this movie was.

As for those who think this flick gives the so-called "gay community" a bad name, not to worry: the gay community determines how it is perceived all by itself. I don't see people bashing the "straight community" because married men cheat on their wives left and right. Men like sex, whatever their persuasion. This movie presents the lengths to which some might go to get it.

Speaking of which...if you watch this in the theater, be sure to stay all the way to end after the final credits roll. There is a gratuitous titillating surprise for you, although you might have trouble standing up when the lights pop up.


I saw this on October 1st, 2006 at the Austin Gay and Lesbian Film Festival. I had the chance to briefly meet the writer/director and he is amazing! (and very humble)

I've read the negative comments on this movie and I could not disagree with them more. The judgments they have made on the film are based on it being a realistic comedy when in fact it is a farce. It is sad the we have homogenized the categories of film so much that we really don't get to see outstanding examples of the diverse genres out there. "Desperate Housewives" (another guilty pleasure and a national hit) almost didn't make it to the airwaves because Marc Cherry was selling it as a farce and people did not know what that was. Sad, because Shakespeare did very well with the genre. "DH" had to be categorized as a soap opera before the networks would pick it up. Here is the definition of "farce":

1. a light, humorous play in which the plot depends upon a skillfully exploited situation rather than upon the development of character. 2. humor of the type displayed in such works. 3. foolish show; mockery; a ridiculous sham.

That said, this is a great movie that is hilarious to experience. I was one of many that despite the reviews and comments LOVED the first movie. It was not without flaw, but overall, it was wonderful. This one was in my opinion slightly better. Yes, it had stereotypes and ridiculous situations (see definition of farce above). That structure allowed some very clever dialogue, some hilarious scenes, and some mockery of society's need to categorize "gay" into any specific pigeon hole. This movie makes fun of those stereotypes, and in the process gives you the chance for introspection after the film.

I think the actors (male and female) do an incredible job. Rebekah Kochan (Tiffani) has done a body transformation since the first installment. She looked good in the first one, she looks amazing in this one. Both Emily and Jim are fun to watch. The hot guys... well, they are very enjoyable to watch. I was a little afraid that I wouldn't like the character of Marc in this sequel (he was played by Ryan Carnes, now famous for his role in "Desperate Housewives" as Bree's son's boyfriend... in the sequel he is played by Brett Chukerman). By the second scene Brett was in, I was hooked. He did a great job of taking over an existing character.

Overall, if you go into this film seeking reality, you will walk away disappointed. If you go in looking for a good time and realize it is supposed to be a farce, you will leave with a smile on your face from the laughter and poignant moments in the film. Mink Stole's final scene in the movie actually brought a tear to my eye. What gay son wouldn't want to hear her comments? :)

I would say, check it out.


The previous poster had a real disdain for this movie because it was superficial and insulting and not considered 'art'. He then goes on to insult the director and the writer and that's when I stopped reading. The intent of movies like Eating Out and this superior sequel is to entertain and tittilate. It's not even considered a 'no-brainer' because there is actually a lot of wit packed into the screenplay. Why on earth would someone expect anything less from a film title 'Eating Out' in the first place? Give me a break! This movie is sexy, funny, offensive and silly. Exactly what what we should expect. What we SHOULDN'T expect is the wonderful comedic performances from the cast especially from Rebekah Kochan as sex pot Tiffani and American Idol castoff Jim Verraros (who is way too cute to be playing the 'average' guy). The only thing that saved this film from getting a perfect score from me was the running time was much too short, perhaps when they release the DVD they could give us a director's cut of more Tiffani and more gratuitous nudity by the terrific looking Marco Dapper and Brett Chuckerman!


Finally, the question that has been nagging cinephiles for two years has been answered -- will there ever be a film that's worse than Eating Out? The answer is an unqualified "Yes, Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds."

The script is completely predictable at every turn -- the opening even has two guys ripping at each other's clothing that dissolves into a fantasy sequence featuring one guy and his annoying girlfriend -- I didn't see that one coming. The direction by Philip J. Bartel is, well, sloppy and the actors appear to recite their lines of dialogue rather than deliver them in a believable manner that suits the characters. The sets look like they were put up an hour before filming and could collapse at any moment. Production values are nonexistent. The awful, awful director of the first film, Q Allan Brocka, even appears as an extra in this one in the scene with the nude male model. Brocka is seated right in front of him to get a good look at his genitals. Perv.

How do films like this get financed when there are so many good screenplays languishing on shelves? Avoid this at all costs.It's not even bad-movie good.


Let's put it this way:

Variety writes: "Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds" -- and the film-making continues to be just as sloppy.

You can't argue with Variety, the showbiz bible. This film probably has two more laughs than the first film, Eating Out, which means it has exactly TWO laughs. Trouble is I can't remember what they are now. What I remember is some really bad acting -- just like in the first film. I remember a stupid script that could have been written by a horny gay high school student. I can't comment on the direction since there isn't evidence of any. My problem with films like this is that they create such a negative image of gays and lesbians for the straight community. The characters are stereotypes. I don't know people like the characters in this film and I don't want to. Why can't the producers of this movie use their financing powers for good?


I saw this film at the Miami Gay and Lesbian Film Festival this week and I totally loved it!!!!! Even more than the first.

If you are ready for a Cliché, stereotypical, and yet totally hot and fun gay comedy then sign yourself up for Sloppy seconds. This sequel is very much that, all the while pushing the envelope so much further than the first chapter, Eating Out . Be warned this time its full of much more shocking and crazy situations, yet guaranteed more laughs than the first, so in fewer words if you liked the first you will love this one even more. On an exciting note this is the first ever American gay movie sequel. If you remember in part one Kyle convinces his straight roommate to pretend to be gay to get the girl he was attracted to. Well in this journey Kyle is the one who is pretending, in order to get the surprisingly hot, model Troy. Kyle fell in love or should I say lust with Troy when he modeled nude for Kyle's art class. The funny thing is Kyle pretends to be an Ex Gay to get to spend time with Troy. While doing so he gains self confidence and esteem. To be honest the acting in this movie is clearly not the best, but you soon forget about the over acting once the movie gets started. Even right from the opening scene which basically sets the mood with a homo erotic scenario where two guys were getting ready to go at it, of course with a gay guy seducing a straight guy.

This movie is full of hilarious one liners like when Tiffani says that she wishes a guy would say "I love you" instead of "Take it you tight little ..", that and many more.

I will however say that the most interesting twist is the whole ex gay ministry segment with their homo no more movement lead by Allen who obviously gets off on the other ex gays telling of their sexual slip ups with men.

This movie was Brilliant and funny, yes cliché as in it portrayed the stereotypical gay characters that we usually think of for gay drama. However I honestly know many people like this. They are often shallow and manipulative on their journey to get sex, sex and more sex. So to be honest this movie was not only full of super hot, some of which get fully naked (yes inclusive with cock shots), but it was also believable, enjoyable and ridiculously funny to the point that I was screaming.

PS. Some may say that this movie gives gays a bad name. Well if the shoe fits wear it, why do you think bath houses, and the adult book stores with glory holes are so popular? Most men have a one track mind and its sad but true, but it doesn't mean its not funny to watch


P. a. i. n. f. u. l.

Absurd, insultingly banal sex farce that attempts to make some obvious statement about reformed gays but the screenwriters and director are too superficial to accomplish this simple a task. The film is chock full of character with names like "Marc's Trick," "Hot Shirtless Guy" and "Hot Clothed Guy" - I'd rather receive a hot glue enema than sit through this a second time, but this film does raise so many questions: Why do people see movies like this when there are so many quality films out right now? After watching this, do people immediately rush home to take a shower? Will any of these actors ever work again? What can we, as a civilization, do to stop Phillip J. Bartell from directing another film?


Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds.

You have to hand it to writer/director Philip J. Bartel, the Uwe Boll of the gay niche market, for giving critics such easy ammunition in the title. This wanna be raucous sex comedy is sloppy all right - the screenplay contains dialogue that made me wince, the actors are unbelievably bad (poor Mink Stole, is she aware that she's being used in such a nefarious way? John Waters loved his subversive characters, Bartell only loves the idea of debasing them), well, I could go on with the poor quality of the tech credits but the people who lack self-respect and want to see claptrap like this won't be dissuaded by any criticism. I can only urge anyone reading this to do yourself a favor and rent a porn instead. trust me, you'll have more dignity afterward.


Although the title references a meal, Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds leaves the viewer starved for something resembling entertainment.

Phillip J. Bartell -- remember the name. This hack has written and directed (for want of a better term) possibly the year's worst film. It even makes Open Cam and Sideline Secrets seem like masterpieces. There is not one funny scene in this film, not ONE. He directs the cast to recite their lines exactly the way they did at the table read.

The insultingly banal plot follows Kyle (poorly acted by American Idol's Jim Verraros) who gets dumped and then is turned on by a nude male model in his art class, who claims to be straight. Kyle's pals Gwen (Emily Brooke Hands, surely the shrillest actress on the planet) and Tiffani (Rebekah Kochan) aim to find out so Kyle takes him to a "going straight" session. Ugh!

Why can't gay filmmakers and producers write films that don't insult us? Why are the quality gay-themed films all made by straight writers and directors? This is 2006 and saddens me.

Quite accurately the title points out this is a sloppy film. Do yourself a favor and skip this cinematic meal.


Eating Out 2 maintained the off-the-wall dialogue and ridiculous characters that made it's predecessor hilarious. However, the near-constant semi-nudity was a significant detraction to the film, with some scenes approaching soft-core cable pornography. My straight friends were visibly uncomfortable during several scenes and even my gay friends could have done with less nipple biting and stomach licking. That said, there were several fantastic comedic moments in the film and, unlike other raucous comedies (think of the "American Pie" series) there was no endless parade of fart jokes and tired one-liners. Overall, it was a fun movie to watch, but probably should be one to catch on DVD so as to utilize the "fast forward" button.


Just like the first movie under this name that was made,"EATING OUT" this is merely a sequel to the kind of insipid superficial gay movie that gives the gay community a bad name. The total polar opposite of first class writing/directing. If you like all the superficial and unrefined elements of a culture, then this is for you. If you are looking for something more sophisticated and that even attempts to approximate 'art', then look elsewhere. Real Insipid, superficial gay junk movie. Not worth the time or money. I can never understand how this kind of stuff can get made or where these writers or directors heads are when they think this stuff up. It is really the type of movie that has become the bane of existence of the gay community.


A genuinely funny and thought provoking film, with a number of surreal elements, and a lot of humour. The leading lady is always wanting to eat and announcing a meal - with shades of Bunuel's Discreet Charms - and there are very funny jokes dispersed amongst the film in the most unexpected places. It is very off the wall, and although others have said that it has disjointed dialogue etc, that's what's intended, and it is more like real life in a remote Cote d'Azure fort with such an odd bunch of people would be.

It's great - well worth a view. I saw it on a plane with English subtitles, and am now searching to see if I can buy it on DVD with subtitles.


I saw the movie at the Venecia Film Festival. It is a terrible movie. I am even surprised it was selected for screening even as 'hors competition'. First let me say that even though Azema and Arditi are forcedly advertised as main characters, Arditi has probably a maximum of 10 minutes of screen time and Azema hardly says any word during the whole movie. Everything is terrible. Acting is bad, story and editing are awful, and even the filming of landscapes of south of France is totally un-inspired. The movie never builds any tension. We are not sure why Larsan is such a threat to begin with. Then it does a really bad job at setting the stage for the mystery: it never takes the time to clearly help the audience understand the lay-out of the house or where people are supposed to be so that when the murder happens, we really understands that there is clearly something unsolvable about the mystery which would help grad audience attention. Because the movie is so messy and fuzzy, it is tough to understand that there is something really challenging happening here. And then, there are the moments when you are supposed to laugh probably to ease the tension that was never there in the first place. These are the most pathetic. You feel embarrassed for the actors playing such bad lines. In summary, stay away from that movie. It is not worth spending a $ on it.


The Beastmaster himself, Marc Singer (presumably having now lost his telepathic affinity with animals and subsequently washed up and looking like a right scruffy old sod here!) headlines in this action(less) entry as maverick cop (yep, cliché territory, full steam ahead!) Mike Justice, a man who doesn't play by the rules.....etc. etc........yawn. To be fair, Singer puts in a decent performance as always and is additionally backed up by a good assembled cast which includes the consistently excellent Steve Railsbeck and the perpetually menacing looking Tommy Lister but sadly, none of them are given anything of remote interest to do here in what amounts to be an entirely bland and predictable effort. If the truth be told, if not for the high level of violence, swearing and some brief nudity, I would have sworn this was a mundane made for TV movie. Oh well........you have been warned.


I really enjoyed this movie. It should be noted that I have a high tolerance for low-budget fare. I got this as part of a 2-disc set, which I bought primarily to get a hold of Wolstencroft's first feature, "Bloodlust". I finally watched this, and was pleasantly surprised. This is the tale of Daniel, a killer-for-profit(be it assassinations or murder and the subsequent sale of cadavers). Between bouts of drugs, partner-swapping, S&M and crime, Daniel ruminates on the nature of fascism. I don't want to give away too much, but suffice to say that this movie doesn't take the tried and true(not to mention cliché) Hollywood approach of force feeding its audience an affable, cuddly lead character. Daniel's opinions may shock and offend you. The movie's morality is ambiguous and its philosophy unique. If you need a likable, handsome Tom Cruise type "Hit Man" in order to digest a movie, don't watch this. If you are not afraid to have your own notions of film and character challenged, this movie should be an unexpected treat. The film's budget and non-professional cast are evident. However, if this movie had been produced at greater cost, and with a well-known actor or two, it would most likely have been successful AND controversial.


It's one thing to be somebody. It's quite another to be a parody of somebody. I am reminded of Boyd Rice's early years hanging out with Holocaust deniers in his basement in Denver and playing records at the Lion's Lair and how he only appeared to be an actual loser. Because he is the brain behind NON. As in, he is a self devout NOThing. He also has a knack for hanging out with all the real artists while they do good things that he mocks with his bad products. He, I am sure, is the un-Warhol. (ugh.)

Anyways, starring in this piece of garbage as a piece of garbage probably wasn't a stretch. It is something I am sure he'd agree is self-parody. Nevertheless, the filmmakers seem to think their film makes a statement.

Pearls Before Swine ends up being a parody of an attempt to make a film that makes a statement. I don't know what the film is, really, nor what its statement is supposed to mean. So. Is it an Un-film? No it's a film. Just a poor film.

It's "star" is a parody of a satire of a man Boyd Rice fantasizes he is in real life.

The title is a parody of a title, pointing to far too much than a title to a film can signify.

But this film is not even UNpop, as it is advertised. (Unpop is purposefully bad popart, by the way. Kind of like a dumb Warhol; or Stupid Jeff Koons.) Anyway, unpop, like this film, is pure POP refuse and more proof Americans do not really understand IRONY.

Is it funny that a pseudo-NeoFascist like Boyd Rice stars in crap like this? No, it's not funny. It's "Shocking!" Oh wait, that's how the movie is marketed. Well, Pearls Before Swine is certainly Shocking. Shockingly Crappy.

Eventually, it is nothing more than a shocking bore.


I have a fairly high tolerance for low-quality and low-budget movies, especially when they strive to be different from the usual Hollywood pap. In fact there are only two such films I have seen this year that I felt had no redeeming qualities: this film and Red Cockroaches. And even Red Cockroaches made me look at ketchup differently.

The script is horrible. It is obvious from reading the liner notes of the DVD that the writer/director changed the script on the fly (including the addition of the silly twist ending), probably after a late night session bulls^H^H^H^H^Hbrainstorming with the actors. It is even more obvious from watching it ("a Dr Who scene? sure!").

The dialogue is horrible. People don't talk that way. Boyd Rice delivers monologues that sound as if he is reading from one of his own articles. I'm sure these were intended to be socratic dialogues (especially since they reference the concept, albeit poorly), but they managed to sound even *more* contrived than that, impossible as it sounds. And the attempts at slang? Ouch. Painful embarrassment for the character.

The acting is horrible. The only one of any note was Daniel's partner Paul; he may not be able to carry a movie on his own, but standing next to Boyd Rice made him look like John-friggin-Malkovich. Once again, reading the liner notes made it apparent that the director knows/idolizes Boyd Rice, to the point where he was unable to give good direction (if he had it) to an actor. Stilted, wooden, monotonic moments are what we get. Keanu would be proud.

The violence is poor. Maybe a viewing of Doom Generation is in order. It *is* possible to do good violence with a low budget. Simply firing guns (most of which were poor, though Paul's revolver was actually a quality piece) and splattering red paint around doesn't do it. Unless of course you're talking TROMA, where violence isn't actually the point.

I cannot continue this review without addressing the terms 'controversy' and 'artistic integrity'. There is nothing controversial about this movie. The views expounded upon (at great tedious length) are not original or unique; they have been gracing the pages of zines and books from the fine folks at loompanics, paladin press, and the anarchist bookstore in SF for DECADES. In the course of my checkered literary past I have encountered these same arguments and views repeated ad nauseum.

I'm sure the director and actor both hold these opinions as their own -- that's patently obvious from the ham-fisted way they were inserted into the plot(?), and the lackluster delivery (i.e., it's not an actor making you believe they believe this, but a believer droning on and on about their religion with no regard for their listener). I do believe they thought they were casting pearls before swine in the making of this film. But that does not make the opinions original, controversial, well-thought-out, appealing to any but the most philosophically naive, or indeed anything but what they are: a reactionary position against the established order which would not succeed on its own merits and thus must actively strive to emphasize its difference and novelty.

To paraphrase Tom Stoppard's play The Real Thing, which actually treats the subject of watching a work such as this quite well, "Making a bad film is no proof of integrity".

What makes a good movie? Interesting characters. A compelling script. Convincing acting. Natural dialogue. Incredible cinematography. A sense of mood or atmosphere. You don't have to have all of these, but you need at least one. And Pearls Before Swine strikes out.


In this film Boyd rice plays a killer who does a few things that really hack-off the regular film viewer. He runs about for a bit shouting and acting extremely poorly, and rants on in a monologue format about his own views. in fact in one scene he quotes his own book, while pretending to be reading it from someone else's But that's not the point. - This film, to me, is excellent because of its "extreme" ideas and content. Some of which are: Nazis (don't get me wrong I hate racism), sex/BDSM, women, religion, murder and violence.

The thoughts of Rice's character on these issues are extremely important as they relate to the target audience of this film. As most horror/thriller viewers will have at least one or two opinions as to how Nazis (don't get me wrong I hate racism), sex/BDSM, women, religion, murder and violence relate to media and how they may or may not mirror, and/or be applied to, real life.

On the whole I think if you are interested in Nazis, sex/BDSM, Boyd's theories, feminism, or violence this will be of interest to you. However, I beg of you, think open mindedly about the film and the issues raised within, go beyond the aesthetics. No matter what your tastes dictate. - +DO NOT see this film if you get uneasy around sex scenes especially ones with such a low budget that you really do think you are watching porn. +DO NOT see this film if you are offended by neo-Nazis (Boyd Rice is NOT a neo-Nazi however his character does 'hint' at it in this film (costumes and monologues) +DO NOT see this film if you are horney (it way warp your impressionable little mind) +DO NOT see this film if you are disgusted by fecal matter +DO NOT see this film if you think the random slaughter of 'innocent' homeless people is disgusting...

you wont be able to handle it. seriously i almost vomited at the 'fecal matter' part.


I think it's an extraordinary question of cinematographic life how movies like Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The (2002) received an 8.7 and stands just below The Godfather, while such jewels like "Pearls before Swine" got an 3.1 (last time i checked). It's good to know some critics can see beyond the cultural imperialist Hollywood genre, but sadly, none of these seem to have watched, or shown appreciation of, this particular movie.

"Pearls before Swine" doesn't stand out on quality of acting, plot or any other conventional measure of rating a movie, but, as the title suggests, places itself above the average viewer in its magnificent value of INTEGRITY. Indeed, those who know its main actors, such as Boyd Rice and Douglas P. (Death in June) are well aware of the closeness this particular movie stands with the opinions of aforementioned men. Boyd's lack of a any expressionist inclination with his own statements ('how marvelous') for example therefore not only parallel the plot and introspectuocentricity of the movie, but match perfectly well with personal opinions that, to themselves, hold great value. Essence, being for oneself and a great belief in self-actualisation thus gain their credibility through a whole life of great accomplishments.

Maybe this movie doesn't .shock., or deliver a moral message, but still it delivers a message that centers oneself to understanding itself.


This may well be the worst film ever made! There really is nothing more embarrassing than having a central character in a semi-violent film, spilling forth a monologue about violence in cinema and how good it is and then topping it off with bad scripting to have another character actually say: "Mmm, interesting. Go on." No! It isn't interesting at all! It's boring! No thought for character, thematic premise, continuity (we actually have the guy walk into an empty bookstore and pick up his own book with interest - as if he's never read it before! Who is he trying to fool?).

Worst of all is that the film has been heavily promoted as 'shocking'. Well, it is shocking, but not in the way they meant. Shockingly BAD is what it is!


This is a great example of Australian humor which is prevalent throughout the movie.

With less known names such as Jamie Croft ("The Real Macaw") and Richard Moir ("Round the Twist"), this movie is bound to be enjoyed by those who appreciate and understand the Australian culture, and more importantly, the humor.

Although a couple of Americans appear in this film, they fit in well with the storyline, which is presented as them being introduced to the Australian way of life, which makes a nice change from the usual attempts which American film makers make to put an Australian spin on what is essentially an American film, mostly unsuccessfully. Being made by an Australian film company and including Americans, this movie simply works.

The storyline is consistent and demonstrates perfectly a true Steve Irwin style approach to animal activism and conservation, in this case, the protection of Australia's most well known animal icon: the kangaroo. I would recommend this movie to anyone who is interested in Australian movies, movies about animals and movies about conservation. But most of all, those who enjoy a good laugh and appreciate the uniqueness of Australian humor.


I saw this movie three years ago and thought it was terrible. The kid follows a group of thugs from the bush to Sydney, hooks up with the daughter of the new US ambassador to Australia, and it basically goes silly from then on. The scene where he goes with her to get diplomatic immunity was unrealistic, due to the fact that the boy (I refuse to say his name) is not American, and would be turfed out in a second, while the American girl gets immunity. Also, the end of the movie is also stupid, with the thugs turning out to be brainless.

If you want to watch it and find it funny, switch off all touches with actual reality, and it may become enjoyable.


This... This was, just as I had suspected, very awful. I was forced to watch it in Maths a few weeks ago for some reason, and I found it practically awful. The jokes were lame and used over and over again, and the opening titles were lacking in imagination, and (this is the worst bit) I expect no film buff is a kangaroo lover. I mean, they do make some quite good animal films sometimes, even if your not an animal lover. "Beethoven" wasn't too bad at all, really. But this movie... oh, I like to smash the television to avoid watching it every time I see it playing. Seriously, my mates who watched it with me in Maths actually LAUGHED for some reason. How could they? Those sort of comic disaster jokes are used well too many times, like in "Bean: The Ultimate Disaster Movie" and I'm getting sick of seeing it on screen.


Do not look at the cover, do not read the back, avoid this movie like the plague! The story is horrendous, everytime the kid mentions his dad lightning flickers in the backround, which is extremely fake. It is a pointless, stupid, absurd movie which should of never of been made. Watch this movie solely if you're in the mood for a comedy.


Long ISland's WLIW aired a British battle for the best British comedy to fill an upcoming empty spot in their Friday night lineup. The other choices were Father Ted, A Fine Romance, Murder Most Horrid, and Barbara. My vote goes to this innovative recent British import. Gwen Taylor is marvelous and the cast is surprisingly good. I wanted it to win but Father Ted won the vote. Maybe next time, Barbara who is played beautifully by Gwen Taylor from another British comedy, Screaming, and her husband is played by the veteran comedian Sam Kelly. Her sister is played by Sherry and the woman who plays her best friend are both Coronation Street veterans. I like the fact that Barbara is a strong woman, a mother, a wife, a sister, and a friend and not perfect in any of them. I love Jean Alexander, another Coronation Street veteran, playing her mother-in-law too. There are great episodes too like her grandson's christening, her sister's wedding, and whatever you could imagine happens. Mark Benton is memorable as her celebrity son-in-law.


As a British Working Class person I have to say how disappointed I am of the reviews of this show. As I remember this was a laugh out loud programme. Yes it was written in an American format (like My Family), but it was excellent and hysterically funny.

Basically Barbara Liversidge is not the easiest woman to get along with. She makes life hell for her poor husband Ted. She has two children: Neil who has loads of different girlfriends and Linda who is married to news reporter Martin Pond. Her friends are Jean and her husband Phil and her work friend Doreen.

Each episode of Barbara was laugh out loud, probably the best ITV sitcom in recent times. Gwen Taylor had been excellent as Amy in Duty Free and Sam Kelly had been excellent as Warren in Porridge. The great Mark Benton was also excellent. There were so many classic episodes of this and tragically it hasn't been released on DVD or VHS. What a wonderful DVD set could be made if they released all 4 series.

Best episode: So many greats but I'm gonna have to go for: Valentine, Series 3 episode 3.


I saw this a few years after it came out. The concert footage was filmed in Berry's hometown of St. Louis at the Fox theater on October 18, 1986 on his 60th birthday. It was also the same year the Berry was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in it's inaugural class. Assembeled for the concert are musicians Chuck Levelle, Bobby Keyes, Joey Spampinato and Steve Jordon along with Berry's longtime collaborator and pianist Johnnie Johnson under the musical direction of Keith Richards. Guest performers are Eric Clapton, Etta James, Linda Ronsdat, Robert Cray, Julian Lennon and the guest of honor himself Chuck Berry. Interviews on his career are provided by his rock and roll contemporaries Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, Roy Orbison, Bo Diddley and The Everly Brothers. Additional interviews on his inspiration come from Bruce Springsteen and an older clip from John Lennon. Taylor Hackford directed. Hackford won an Academy Award in the short film category with the first project he ever did. In 1980 he began directing feature films and has since only directed 10 films but they include Against all Odds, An Officer and a Gentleman, Delores Claiborn and Ray. As a producer he also did the documentary When We Were Kings. The cinematographer is Oliver Stapleton who had only photographed some Indy films before Haill Haill Rock & Roll but would go on to do such films as Earth Girls Are Easy, The Grifters, The Cider House Rules, Buffalo Soldiers and Pay it Forward. We see Chuck Berry being his controlling, difficult ornery self here and this likely would have been an amazing film if director Hackford was allowed free reign with his camera and Chuck would have allowed a more introspective view into what is Chuck Berry but Berry calls the shots and rocks and music director Richards reels. This is a good documentary and Chuck Berry and 50's rock & Roll fans should check it out. It's amazing to think that this is 20 years gone already and Chuck Berry will be turning 80 this fall. I would give it an 8.0 out of 10.


If you hear anything bad about this documentary, stop listening. If you don't smile while watching the concert footage, you don't love rock 'n' roll. Betty is a complicated, intelligent, real human being with all the frailties that includes...but he is a generous showman who personifies rock music. If there was any doubt who the father of rock 'n' roll was, with all due respect to the King, there is none after watching this absorbing, if incomplete, biopic about Chuck Berry. Don't rent it - buy it. Today.


If you notice, Keith Richards is drinking during rehearsals and who can blame him?? Chuck Berry must have been a nightmare to deal with, but the concert and film are excellent! Chuck does sound a bit out of tune, but makes up for it with his showmanship. The guest stars are well placed EXCEPT for Julian Lennon. And if I am not mistaken he duets to Jonny B. Goode -- an all time classic. Okay, the guy is the son of a rock legend and had a hit or two, but did he really have a reason to be on stage with Chuck and the band?? Also, why did Chuck cut short the interview with his wife??? Still, a great film that offers insight into a pioneer.


On October, 18th 1986, on the sixtieth birthday of Chuck Berry, there was a concert at the Fox Theater in his hometown Saint Louis. This documentary highlights some of the best moments of this concert, with footages of Chuck Berry playing his famous songs with a unique band composed by Keith Richards, Johnnie Johnson, Bobby Keys and other great musicians and the participation of Linda Ronstadt, Julian Lennon, Robert Cray, Eric Clapton and Etta James among others famous guests. In this tribute, there are also many interviews and archive footages with Chuck Berry's parents and siblings, and artists like Little Richard, Bo Diddley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Bruce Springsteen, Roy Orbinson, Keith Richards, The Everly Brothers, John Lennon, Eric Clapton among others. There are many compliments, praise and recognition of his magnificent work from the interviewees; however there are also many obscure moments that deconstruct the idol. For example, Bruce Springsteen tells about Chuck Berry's concern with money and no rehearsal with the unknown local pick up bands before his gigs without any respect to the audiences and fans. Keith Richards is extremely ambiguous, and tells about the free physical aggression he suffered from Chuck Berry; and playing out of the rehearsed tune. Further, I understood that some of his famous songs actually were composed by Johnnie Johnson, and the keys adapted by Chuck Berry to the guitar. He manipulates many questions, like for example for his wife, and never mentions that he went to jail for tax evasion. Therefore it is a wonderful documentary of Chuck Berry as a player and singer; but regarding his behavior out of stage, I would dare to write that he seems to have at least a weird and egocentric personality. Therefore better off would be watching the concert without the additional footages. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Chuck Berry Hail! Hail! Rock 'n' Roll"


I don't think many people saw Hail Hail Rock and Roll when it came out in 1987. I've always considered it one of the greatest Rock and Roll movies ever made, and actually own it on VHS. Now that it's out on DVD (4 discs!), I'm working through the bonus discs.

Disc 2:

Disc 2 contains a number of rehearsals plus a piece on what a nightmare it was to work with Chuck Berry on this project (which was, after all, to celebrate himself!). In the film, if I remember correctly, Keith Richards says something like, "Man, I've worked with Mick Jagger, but this guy (Chuck) is something else." Now, on this DVD, the producers tell their story, and what a story it is. A lot has been said about the great scene in the movie where Chuck continually criticizes Keith's guitar playing on "Carol", but that is nothing compared to what he put the producers through, between constantly asking for more money, being late or not showing up, plus an incredible experience at one of the prisons where Chuck spent time in his youth. (On the other hand, even in 1987, everyone knew Chuck Berry was a total prima donna, so expecting to get all the filming done in 5 days was a bit of hubris, no?) While this piece is a bit wordy (as many "bonus features" are), it's a great story, and it's too bad there wasn't more film and less shots of people speaking to the camera.

The rehearsals really show the difference between Chuck Berry when he's off stage (picky, self-centered, neurotic) and Chuck when he's performing (a unique entertainer). The rehearsals all take place at Chuck's house, and the main players are Keith Richards, Eric Clapton, and Johnny Johnson. Again, too much "talking heads" between the music, but the point of the rehearsals (we're told, but can also see), is to witness the incredible coming together of the band as they learn to play with each other. That's something you rarely see, particularly with musicians of this caliber, and if you love Chuck Berry music, you'll really love these rehearsals tapes.

On the production side, I thought the sound and camera work was uniformly excellent for the live music parts of the disc.

Disc 3:

Disc 3 contains three bonus features. The one I liked most was titled "Chuckisms" and covers Chuck's language and love of poetry. The best scene is with Chuck reciting a William Wordsworth poem from memory while Robbie Robertson strums his guitar. "Just beautiful," as Chuck says several times in the recitation. You can really hear the origin of Chuck's own lyrics.

The second bonus feature has Bo Diddley, Little Richard and Chuck sitting around a piano discussing the early days of rock and roll. This feature touches (very lightly) on the trials of black performers in the 1950's trying to break into the white-dominated business. However, mostly due to the influence of Little Richard, it never really gets very serious. If you're really interested in this period, I recommend Chuck Berry's autobiography.

The last feature on disc 3 is Robbie Robertson and Chuck sitting around the coffee table talking about Chuck's life as they go through a huge scrapbook. This has some poignant moments, but again, only lightly touches on stuff that Chuck's autobiography covers in great detail. I have to wonder if Robbie Robertson knew much about Chuck Berry before sitting down with him. He asks questions like, "Why did you write about high school?", when everyone knows that Chuck wrote about what his fans were interested in, because Chuck himself was mostly interested in making money.

As a result, I think the Robertson interview gives the wrong impression, of Chuck as a genius inventing a new music form. The truth, if you believe the autobiography, is that Chuck had a genius, but it was for being incredibly sensitive to his audiences. When they applauded, he did more of what caused that, and when they didn't, he didn't do that again. Robertson also mis-reads Chuck (I thought it was pretty funny), when he calls Chuck's second prison term, "running into a brick wall". Chuck says, not at all, that's where he took all those business courses that made him into the businessman he is, and as a result, he's rich when many of his contemporaries are not. Robertson also seems amazed that Chuck never took drugs. Chuck replies that with a list of entertainers (Elvis, Janis, etc.) who are now dead, and he does have a point.

I thought the part about why Chuck's lyrics are so easy to hear missed the truth. The truth was that Chuck listened to music, and realized that the guys (white) who were making the money clipped their words distinctly, so he did too. As a result of that (plus a publicity photo that made him look white), Chuck got booked in venues where he could not play when he showed up. Did he mind? Not if he was paid.

So, in summary, disc 3 is exactly what the director promised. They had a lot of footage that didn't make it into the film, for good reason, so they stuck it in the bonus features. I recommend disc 3 for folks who just can't get enough of Chuck Berry. There is almost no music on this disc, but Chuck comes across very well and the mature "Father of Rock and Roll".


I liked this film. Well done and interesting but it could never be complete. Wouldn't play to a caring crowd.

It was a long time ago in a bar in Minneapolis called the Cabooze that I saw this fellow that I admired so. His band came in a Grayhound and he came in a limo just 20 minutes from show time(10pm)..warm up band was done and he came into the back room office with two young women that couldn't have been more than 14years old tops, flopped himself down on our couch and tells us that unless we pay an additional $2500 for his services he won't go on the stage. I counted out his money, he played two hours for $5000 and left for the big gig in Chicago. The two young women spent the show in the limo and as far as it goes that was it. All hail rock and roll...deliver me from the days of old...Chuck as great as they were I never spent one dollar for your music OR quit telling this story...told ya one day it would bite you in the ass...and these are my teeth


I just happened to catch this for the third or fourth time, and first time with my wife, on Universal HD today. Taylor Hackford does a phenomenal job in this movie. Chuck Berry, one of the most complicated and conflicted figures in the history of rock and pop music is rich territory and Hackford managed to catch Berry in all of his many guises - charming, professional, intelligent, thoughtful, bitter, petulant, unprofessional, difficult, and combative. What really marks this movie as a superior documentary is Hackford refusal to judge Berry to focus on just documenting the man and his behavior in a variety of situations and from a variety of sources. There really is no ax-grinding going on in this movie and there is no whitewashing - everything is what it is whether it's Berry in a touching scene with his mother and father or it's Berry in a petulant rehearsal stare-down with Keith Richards when Berry isn't getting his way.

Hackford's other great achievement in this movie is the excellent recording of Berry's 60th Anniversary Concert, the predominate reason for the whole project and the involvement of other pop/rock music notables, at St. Louis' Fox Theatre. Backed by Keith Richards, Johnnie Johnson (Berry's pianist and forgotten early influence), Steve Jordan, Bobby Keys, Robert Cray, and Joey Spaminato, Berry performs what is probably his best show in 30 years. Hackford catches the performer's excitement, the crowd's excitement, and Berry's energy and showmanship in a way those of us too young to have seen or heard Berry can begin to understand why he serves a such a seminal influence in pop and rock music.

The movie is full of entertaining nuggets. Hackford's interviews with Keith Richards are fascinating. Richards' comments are just insightful about Berry, the influence of Berry's music, and the influence of Johnson of Berry's songs; they're also fascinating in just watching and listening to Richards himself - part mystic, part philosopher, part drunk. Also particularly interesting is a three-way conversation between Berry, Little Richard, and Bo Diddly who go into great detail about their early careers, music, business, and how racism negatively affected their careers and their recognition as the earliest purveyors of rock and roll.

I think this movie is interesting regardless of whether your actually interested in Berry beforehand or not. It is as fine a documentary that any director could produce and you should watch this movie whenever the chance presents itself.


This documentary is pure hero worship on director Taylor Hackford's behalf, so don't expect them to remotely touch upon Chuck Berry's personal demons, his various run-ins with the police, and sleazy practices. As a portrait of the man, it isn't extremely successful. However, the film is such a vibrant and full of life profile, that hardly matters. In fact, while touching upon Berry's low points may have made it more interesting, it would've detracted from the entertainment value. And fortunately, the documentary fully illustrates Berry's influence over all rock 'n' roll and his importance as a songwriter. If anything, it'll make the casual fan appreciate him even more.

The concert footage itself is a tad uneven. I couldn't care less about most of the guest performers brought out to share the stage, particularly the always anemic Eric Clapton and the pointless spot for Julian (son of John) Lennon. Luckily, when Berry himself performs, all that hardly matters. Sure, this isn't his prime and his voice isn't as strong as usual, but hes full of energy and charisma. Between the interviews and his stage performances, the man comes across as being surprisingly intelligent, if a tad egotistical. For anyone who believes in the life affirming powers of rock 'n' roll, than this documentary is a must. (8/10)


To hear Bruce Springsteen say he first heard Chuck Berry via the music of the Stones makes me feel ancient. I was thirteen when I first heard Chuck Berry on a car radio in 1955 jamming out "Maybelline," the first true rock song I had ever heard. This was before the King, Elvis, signed with RCA and popularized the rock 'n' roll sound for us all.

In celebration of his sixtieth birthday, Chuck, with the help of friends, rocks out with many of his creations. The Berry rifts are still fast and furious but there is now an air of cynicism that was absent at the creation. Those unfamiliar with the early Berry sound should check out the original recordings to hear Chuck wail out his affirmation of youth and beauty. "Sweet Little Sixteen" was written and performed by Chuck Berry when he was thirty two years old; yet the rocker captures the innocence and lust of being young and carefree. Chuck continued through his music to invent many of the terms and lingo of the youth culture taking shape at the time. The only other recording artist of the day to even come close to Chuck Berry's lyrics of teen angst and a vocabulary to accompany it was Carl Perkins.

Chuck Berry was a seminal artist in the early history of rock 'n' roll. His approach was revolutionary, not just rebellious. Listen to the words of "Roll Over Beethoven." Chuck is stating emphatically that the new movement in American music is not merely a fad as critics would have it but a complete overhaul in musical standards: "...and tell Tschaikowsky the news."

One of the highlights of "Hail! Hail! Rock 'n' Roll" is seeing and hearing the three pioneers of early rock exchanging barbs and ideas with each other. Bo Diddley, Little Richard, and Chuck Berry discuss the white cover versions of black songs so prevalent in the record industry of the 1950's. Bo Diddley tries to keep an open mind about it all, for example, saying that Dick Clark couldn't showcase a mixed dance crowd on his "American Bandstand" because the producers wouldn't permit it. Little Richard interjects humor into the proceedings when he talks about white-shoes Pat Boone crooning "Tutti Frutti," making the salacious lyrics, "Awopbopaloobopalopbamboom," sound like light opera. Little Richard comments with a smile that he got over Pat Boone bowdlerizing "Tutti Frutti" only to have him expropriate "Long Tall Sally" ducking back in the alley. Chuck Berry, on the other hand, is militant and angry about the theft of property by the white record producers from black artists.

Chuck Berry has good reason to be so adamant in his denunciation of the racial overtones that existed in the record business of the 50's, for he suffered not just monetary loss as a result; his private life suffered too. Chuck wouldn't talk about his run-ins with the law for director Taylor Hackford, saying that he would discuss it in its proper context but not across an office desk. Chuck made a fantastic comeback in 1964 following a prison term resulting from a setup engineered by the government. Since Chuck refuses to comment on it, we may never know for sure exactly what happened.

One of Chuck's songs that stands out today is "Too Much Monkey Business." When Chuck recorded this in 1956, it represented, to my knowledge, the first rock 'n' roll protest song, several years before Bob Dylan would turn the rock world around with his protest-oriented music. Only one other protest rock song of any significance came out during the early days of rock 'n' roll. That was the Coasters' "What About Us?" not nearly as good as "Too Much Monkey Business."

There are better rock concert films around, the quintessence being "The Last Waltz," but this is the only place where rock fans can get a glimpse of the legendary Chuck Berry in all his glory accompanied by some of the best musicians in the business. It's easy to understand why NASA put "Johnny B. Goode" on the Voyager Golden Record as the best example of American Rock 'n' Roll.


If you were young when rock-and-roll was young, then you will probably enjoy this; if you were not young at that time, then this would give you a bit of history. Even though I was not around for the era of the big bands, seeing movies like "The Glenn Miller Story" or listening to some Artie Shaw or Tommy Dorsey gave me an appreciation for the music of a previous generation, and an understanding that those of that generation are not hopelessly antiquated.

The bulk of the movie is footage of a concert in St. Louis at the Fox Theater in celebration of Berry's 60th birthday in 1986. Berry plays a lot of his classics - he was still an amazingly agile and robust performer at the time. Kieth Richards plays a big part in this movie. Apparently Richards was bothered by the fact that Berry always picked up lackluster backup bands wherever he played and he put together a good backup band for this concert, himself included of course. There are guest appearances by Eric Clapton, Robert Cray, Linda Ronstadt, Etta James, and Julian Lennon. There are interviews with Bo Diddley, the Everly Brothers, Jerry Lee Lewis, Roy Orbison, Little Richard (a delight), John Lennon, Bruce Springsteen, and much talk from Keith Richards. The fact that Richards is still alive at this late date is a testament to the resilience of the human body.


Incredible to only seeing it now! VHS from the library. Can watch the "confrontation" scene between Chuck and Keith over and over! It's like minutes 33-37 with Chuck serious mind-fudging' with Keith over this cool riff in "Carol" Just over and over and over. That guitar should have gone directly over Chuck Berry's head with a bigger bang! Though maybe there is a subtle different from the first try to the final approval. Beats me, but teaching Keith? Never thought I'd see that!

What a fun movie and SO well done! Chuck Berry is just a genius, but a total lunatic and not what you'd call a people person! Just wildly good history. Glad it will be there as documentation.


This is an excellent music documentary about Chuck Berry and people who is inspired by him and his way to play the guitar. Its mix of live conserts, interviews and the scene when Chuck is teaching Keith Richard the riff for "Oh Carol" is probably the best i have seen. This is a "must see" film for anyone who likes music.


Is it just me or is Chuckie's ax always slightly out of tune? I really enjoyed this film and learned a lot about Berry, his past, the career, and a sometimes tyrannical attitude. Not to much on his arrest or marital life; Chuck nipped that in the bud before it got off the ground. A lot of good footage is offered of the band rehearsing and then giving a sensational concert featuring several other artists. Also the viewer is treated to several interviews by various recording artists. Clearly, Berry is an out of the ordinary man, likeable in many ways, but a bit hard to swallow at times. I felt his attempt to change keys in the middle of a song during the performance was an amateur stunt at best. He is anything but a great guitarist, but none the less a complete showman.


Love, romance, action, thriller, surprise ending, history of triads and China/Taiwan/Japan/Hong Kong relations, politics, betrayal, and the good guys/bad guys win in the end (happy ending). So, how could it turn out so boring? Whatever your interest, there was too much of the other stuff and too little of whatever your interest might be.

Maybe it was how poorly woven all the elements were? Maybe it was the not so surprising ending? Maybe you need to have seen the first five episodes in this series? Maybe you should skip this one!

For aspiring filmmakers/cinematographers this could be a valuable lesson in why the KISS principle should be applied to cinema.


Keep in mind that the title here is "Young and Dangerous Part 6." It would be an insult to the audience if each of these flicks had to recap the previous plot points for those who can't make it down to the local video store. Personally if I see Kickboxer III on the shelf I look again till I can find Kickboxer. It's the best of the series since part I, and chicken again steals the show from Ekin Cheng as his character allows humility and depth. Real treat to see Sonny Chiba of the over-the-top streetfighter series hold it down. It was nice to see Gigi Lai overshadow Shu Qi even as a dobbleganger. This genre of hong-kong action flicks often asks the western audience to suspend their standards of Hollywood style visuals and comprehendable plots. But "Born to be King" is visually appealing throughout and is logistically comprehensive. We need not know the backstory of each of our leads to grasp their current position on the triad totem pole and their moral dilemmas in a grasp for more power and responsibility.


The movie was like the Godfather Part II. The truths of the triad society is shown. The loss of each person reveals that they are not heartless. Ho Nam had a heart. Chicken was capable of caring for a woman. The men's love is shown more in depth in this movie than all of the other movies.

Ho Nam's love for Smartie had never been forgotten after her death. He changed his life after her life. What he had held most important, the triad society, changed. Losing Smartie was his awakening. While Ho Nam was in Taiwan helping Chicken with his situation, he saw a girl that looked like Smartie. But the girl was not Smartie, she only resembled Smartie and her name was Tuan Mu Rong Yu. He approached her with his situation and learned more about her. She was completely different from Smartie but Ho Nam was not the same Ho Nam before Smartie died. Ho Nam had developed into a more mature person after seeing the repercussions of his triad lifestyle. A girl like Tuan Mu Rong Yu was right for Ho Nam. Mei-Ling did not like that Ho Nam found someone that looked like Smartie but kept it a secret from her. She believed that Ho Nam would pick a person that resembled Smartie over her because she had started like Ho Nam because he resembled her ex-boyfriend that died.

The movie has a good ending but there should have been more scenes with Ho Nam and Tuan Mu Rong Yu. The movie shows a good portrayal of the good in bad guys and the bad in bad guys that pretend to be good. All the secrets between the triad groups were exposed.


The Long Good Friday was and still is a great piece of British Cinema. After watching the film after a good many years it still holds the power to shock, amuse and thrill.

Bob Hoskins pulled off a performance comparable to James Cagney's tour de force in 'White Heat' as the tough London gangster whose empire starts to tumble, as he's trying to seal a massive development deal with the aid of the US Mafia in London's Docklands.

Helen Mirren gives an impressive performance as Hoskin's love interest, who basically calls the shots in Hoskin's organisation almost as much as he does. Her cool, tough performance putting her in good stead for the 'Prime Suspect' mini series which followed in the early nineties in the UK, where she played Lynda Le Plante's tough female detective Jane Tennyson.

The usual seventies film actors who play crooks turn up in this film, as do some fine character actors, including Dave King who plays a bent copper on Hoskin's pay roll and Bryan Marshall as the crooked councillor. One of the most memorable of the support cast is Derek Thompson, who would later go on to play Charlie Fairhead in BBC's long running 'Casualty' drama, who takes the 'Introducing' credit.

Also, look out for the actor who played 'Denzel' in Only fools and Horses, and a mute role for Pierce Brosnan before he went to the States to play Remington Steele.

A fine film, thats quick in pace, and excellently directed by John McKenzie, who will probably be always most remembered for this film.


I love movies and this is one of my all time favorites. I think Bob Hoskins is one of the most underrated actors of all time. The movie is incredibly entertaining to watch and interestingly enough it marks the beginning of Pierce Brosnan's career (pool scene). The characters are fascinating especially Harold. It is also very interesting to observe him as his grip upon his gangster empire on brink of creating a partnership across the Atlantic slips through his fingers because of a mistake. In the final scene Bob Hoskins does an awe inspiring job of relaying all the emotion and anguish without saying a single word. Fantastic. I highly recommend that everyone see this movie.


A London gangster boss takes a short break abroad and returns to find someone has it in for him.

The film that took Bob Hoskins from minor British actor to Hollywood and the rest of the cast back to mainstream British television. Helen Mirren proves she is one of the few actresses that can play tough and sexy at the same time.

This modest budget film is quite clever. It wears the clothes of a gangster film but is actually a violent whodunit. The setting of London gives it novelty and like all British pictures it has an array of small parts played with gusto by local actors.

The film seems to borrow from real events (at one time the Mafia did want to bring gambling junkets over to London) but is mostly a work of fiction. Also curious is that it seems to give the impression that police corruption is rife which is not true of the late 70's. But this at least helps us understand Hoskins power.

This is not to be missed if you are a fan of gangster films and want a change of scenery. Hoskins performance alone is worth the price of admission and look out for Pierce Brosnan at the end in a non-speaking role.


When thinking back over the decades of British gangtser films, The Long Good Friday stands out in memory. This is due to the way the story is executed and the way a certain degree of suspense is held throughout.

Everything starts off well in this film. We're shown a rather perplexing, confusing but well shot sequence involving several people and a couple of deaths over what seems to be a case of money. We hear nothing of these events until much later in the film, keeping it at the back of our minds and creating a certain shock element when we eventually realise everything that's come together.

After the dramatic introduction, everything is toned down slightly as Harold Shand (Hoskins), the man of the film, is introduced to a rather catchy theme tune. His world is also introduced to us through very good use of London iconography as we realise he's rich, got plenty of friends and also has a good looking girl; with his biggest problem seeming to be what nationality to make the chef for his next get-together. With so many faces being introduced and so much pleasurable interaction, the events that follow fuelled by great hate for Harold are rather shocking as they are surprising and that's what really kicks this film off on a good path.

What's also good about the film as well as fascinating is that it takes a certain detective route. So many crime and gangster films often use a revenge plot or a hierarchy technique whereas this one, the enemy is unknown and the hierarchy has already been climbed. He's on his own with two or three of his most trusted accomplices attempting to discover what the hell's going on and this is very interesting as we find out what they find out, and at the same time as they do creating a nice, steady, plodding feeling of consistency.

As the battles and discoveries occur whilst the film wears on, numerous desperate situations are dragged out in a gritty and entertaining way such as Harold's relationship with his girl that is starting to fall apart amongst the terror and confusion, the personal battle with the American businessmen who foil Harold on several occasions and the question marks that arise over loyalties within his own organisation, as well as disagreements with his crooked policeman colleague and rival gangs. Not only are these scenes and plot points gripping; amusing dialogue and good one-liners from Harold himself help move them along.

As the film reaches its final third and Harold gets closer to the truth, the film reminded me of the original 'Get Carter' when Jack realises who's behind it all. Our anti-hero gets more and more angry and each scene gets more and more intense, culminating in pure chaos at a race car track and a monologue of insults at the American's who, up to this point, have had Harold and his outfit rolling over for them.

With strong acting performances all round and an impressive, well paced plot; The Long Good Friday has managed to sneak into my personal favourites list and definitely withstands the test of time.


A British ganglord (Bob Hoskins) finds his empire crumbling after 10 years of peace...and just as he's about to make a very lucarative deal with the U.S. Mafia. Bombs go off in his businesses, friends and members of the gang are brutally killed...who is doing it, and why?

Great British film...completely ignored here when it was released in 1980. The British accents ARE hard to follow at times but I was able to keep up with the plot. Also this film is not for everybody--there are some pretty frequent bursts of graphic violence--VERY graphic! I pride myself on being able to sit through a lot but these scenes even had me cringing! Still, it well worth catching--it has a very intricate script with good dialogue. And all the acting is great. Hoskins is just perfect in the lead--you see the confusion, pain, fear and anger in him as his world starts to crumble apart. Also Helen Mirren is excellent as his mistress. Calm, sexy, controlled and VERY intelligent--she's just great. And the final shot of the eyes is chilling. Great electronic music score too. And it's fun to see Pierce Brosnan so young (28) and sexy in an early role.

A really great gangster film which deserves to be rediscovered. My one complaint (and this is minor) is that it goes on a bit too long--it could have been tightened a little. Still, a great film. A must see for crime film fans.


Forget Lock Stock and the rest of Guy Ritchie's overrated rubbish,this is a real British gangster film.Great performances by Hoskins and Mirren and great support from a variety of dodgy looking geezers from TV. Hoskins final speech is electrifying , and deserves to go down in movie history. In conclusion,if you have'nt seen this movie ,get hold of a copy NOW. IT'S THE BUISNESS ********** 10/10


"The Long Good Friday" was given a limited release in the U.S. but fortunately it opened in Los Angeles. Based on a very short synopsis in the L.A. Times, my wife made the 30-mile drive from Pasadena to Santa Monica and were rewarded with the best crime drama I've ever seen. This film is the perfect coming-together of writing, directing and acting to produce a cinematic gem. Nothing overblown and grandiose like "The Godfather" but a tight story that never bogs down, filled with real characters that stand out from the screen. We were introduced to Bob Hoskins and Helen Mirren and both of them have since provided us with some great performances on both large and small screens. I would definitely take this one to the proverbial desert island.


Very much in the tradition of the American gangster films of the 30s and 40s, this movie centres around a bravura performance by the central gangster (Edward G Robinson/James Cagney then; Bob Hoskins now). Bob Hoskins raves and fights against a world that is rapidly moving beyond his control and, although he is an unpleasant, violent and vicious character, you end up caring for him.

Interesting also as a historical snapshot of a period in London's history (the redevelopment of the Docklands) now gone.


Note: Possible Spoiler.

Terrific film with absolutely standout performances from both Bob Hoskins and Helen Mirren, along with a fine ensemble of lesser-known castmembers. The much-talked-about climax in this movie is surely one of the most enthralling and riveting in the history of cinema -- and this is no exaggeration! Bob Hoskings virtuoso performance in the final scene transcends mere acting or descriptive superlatives. He is just stunning. In a brief few seconds, Hoskings exudes surprise, fear, realization and acceptance as to....... The accompanying pulsating musical score from composer Francis Monkman gives further power and emotional resonance to this scene. Your heart simply races along with Hoskins' "ride".


If you haven't seen this movie yet, you should make it your next rental. It's a gangster movie, and like all gangster movies it stands or falls on the strengths of the lead actor. In this case, we have Bob Hoskins, whose performance is so powerful that it will be the only thing you remember, except for a vague picture of Helen Mirren looking exquisite but uncharacteristically bland. Even as formidable a presence as Mirren's can't stand up to the lunatic intensity of Hoskins' performance. She actually seems to shrink from him, as who would not in this movie? Highly recommended.


The Long Good Friday is about a gangster named Harold Shand who has eliminated all rivals, hob knobs with a portion of London society, and has big visions about deals that will make London great again. However, just mistaking this as just a gangster film, and not about much more, is a huge mistake.

On one level, Shand represents the state of England. Like England, he is tired of the Americans always having the upper hand. He is arrogant, brash, and at the same time tired of being put down and treated as second-class (like the United Kingdom at the time). He knows that there is the lure of an united Europe and the potential profits are tremendous. .

On the next level of interpretation, the Irish issue always somehow shoves it's face into the picture. That is the "iceberg" that Shand has unwittingly hit. His loyal friend (Paul Freeman) from long ago (the Frenchman in Raiders Of The Lost Ark) has accidentally had a deal with some wing of the IRA in Belfast that cost him his life. The audience gasps at the word IRA, because now he has to confront a powerful and well organized rival. As one of Shand's associates says when Shand attempts to confront a group of IRA in London, "They are political. These are fanatics!".

On another level, the reality of the movie is that Shand's gang is slowly bumped off and his prized pub blown up, Shand slowly starts to find out what really is the cause of the vendetta against him. The movie is also a detective's mystery. Shand becomes Poirot for most of the movie - trying to figure out who really is out to get him. He is as clueless as the audience is.

On the next level, this movie is called The Long Good Friday, because it is also a religiously symbolic movie. It takes place on religious holiday. It is about a man who thinks that he is righteous, accidentally kills perhaps his most loyal lieutenant, and then thinks he can cover it up and redeem himself by committing himself to focusing on revenge. But, he can't redeem himself. He has doomed himself by his own sins. It is too late. So,the movie is really about a man who lost his soul in his lust for power, and now deludes himself that he can hold on and justify his power for eternity. However, the unknown is sealing his fate. Isn't the the heart of what Christianity is all about?

Lastly, the ending. In the end a young Pierce Brosnan is holding a silencer to him as he gets into a car. The look on Shand's face is the last minute of the film. He says nothing, but you can see every thought and emotion on his face. The only thing that we know about the young assassin played by Brosnan is the credits say he is an "Irishman". But that's all we really know. He is probably a member of a rogue element of the IRA that Shand could not possibly account for. However, I think that this is part of the mystery of the movie. All the viewer knows is that some Irish are out to get him. You never really learn their true motives, and who they really are.

This movie has a lot of mystery and depth to it. We don't know what it is all about. All we know is that somebody wants to get the most powerful mob boss in London. As I have said, there is a reason the film is entitled "Good Friday". It is about a man who confronts his own soul and loses. His bitterness, rage, and ambition cause him to kill lieutenant accidentally with the broken glass of a wine bottle. I don't think that Shand intended to kill his lieutenant named Colin. I think he wanted to teach him a lesson, but he is horrified to see that the bottle he wielded broke and slashed up his lieutenant. You can tell by the look of horror in Shand's face that he is even in disbelief of what rage can do to him.

Instead of walking away from his life of crime, Shand is too proud and arrogant. He thinks that he can make up for his brutal accidental murder of Colin by being righteous in revenging himself on his enemies. In this gruesome scene, life's fragility is shown. And even the cold-blooded Shand is horrified by his sin and his lack of control of his anger. And then, like a delusional sinner, he thinks that he can redeem himself by finding out exactly who is out to get him. He thinks that by getting his enemies he will finally find true peace. However, he deludes himself, and in the end he is doomed to die at the hands of the young assassin (Brosnan).

In the end, he was undone by his own ambition and foolish pride. And only then does Shand see the full extent of his life of greed and lust. Shand sees that all along he deceived himself into being greater than he really is, and that he could actually escape his own fate in the end. As the film draws to a close you can see that Shand is now resigned to be punished for his sins.


With the possible exceptions of BRIGHTON ROCK and GET CARTER,"The Long Good Friday" has a strong case in being the best British gangster film yet produced.It thankfully lacks the jokey,facetious and overtly bloody attitudes that has plagued most UK-based hybrids since the 1990's (as personified by Guy Ritchie and others).It's occasional lapses into nastiness and schematic excesses are easily outweighed by an excellent script (which possesses considerable caustic wit),fine direction,great performances and memorable scenes.

Gangland boss Harold Shand (Bob Hoskins) is on the verge of something big in his native London's docklands;replacing the declining port-side areas with vast new modern developments and buildings,even with a view to holding a future Olympic Games there.There is however a considerable fly in the ointment;would-be mafia backers are concerned as Harold's manor and underlings are subjected to a campaign of murder and bombings,later revealed to be the work of the IRA,who think Shand was responsible for the deaths of several of their members (when in fact he wasn't).An enraged Harold plans his revenge,but should he go ahead and do so?

The basic plot of "The Long Good Friday" is perhaps the film's only real weak point.In it's favour,it is certainly unusual but often somewhat over-complicated (several viewings may be needed to properly connect all it's threads) and a little far-fetched;the fact it is set around Easter (Ireland has had some very important events occurring around this holiday period throughout it's long history) may be intended irony.But in the midst of the considerable quality around it,these are modest complaints.John McKenzie's direction (what a shame his subsequent work has been much lower profile) is very well-judged,being either fast,exciting,subtle or reflective when the situation demands it,serving the thoughtful,literate,clever,often droll script by Barrie Keeffe.The characters are not the familiar stereotypes you'd expect in such gangster dramas,and performers like Bryan Marshall,Alan King and Eddie Constantine (in a rare English-speaking part) are given slightly more depth to roles that could have been mere ciphers.Helen Mirren is first class as Harold's mistress,one of the most interesting gangster's molls ever put on screen,but the entire film is dominated by the career defining performance of Bob Hoskins.His searing,commanding presence as Shand is outstanding,carrying conviction in every moment.Hoskins' portrayal is arguably the most anti of anti-heroes in cinematic history.Harold Shand thinks himself as a businessman and no longer a criminal with the 1980's about to loom,with apparent peace with rival gangs for a decade further emphasising this point.But with the uncontrollable mayhem taking place around him threatening his legitimate credentials,Harold is more than prepared to dish out some extremely brutal (if not sado-masochistic) treatment to find those responsible so the lucrative deal can go forward,making cynical,hypocritical remarks about the decline of various neighbourhoods along the way.

With the exception of a brief view of Tower Bridge near the beginning,director MacKenzie does not fall into the trap of familiar tourist views but less known London back streets and perhaps the last real view of the UK capital's somewhat neglected docklands in the pre-Thatcherite/Yuppie era in the late 70's/early 80's before it's redevelopment,Canary Wharf and all. This aspect of the plot turned out to be fascinatingly prophetic and accurate (if in a slightly different context),along with hopes for a London-staged Olympic Games.What with his desire for enterprise and virulent hate for Irish Republicans,it is no surprise that the character of Harold Shand could be perceived as a hero with certain right-wing types in Britain! Hoskins in fact often makes this most unpleasant of characters sympathetic (with some witty one-liners part of his repertoire) in the midst of similarly unsavoury individuals.His grotesque arrogance and megalomania however get the better of him when he somehow thinks he can take on the even more ferocious and brutal elements within the IRA.He is warned of the risks by one of his closest associates,fresh-faced Jeff (who is killed by Harold in a savage outburst) but to no avail.The irony of course,is that Harold himself did not instigate this chaos;it the aforementioned Jeff and one of his most trusted friends and associates,Colin,a homosexual,who fell prey to the dual temptations of sex and money while in Belfast (doing an errand without Shand's knowledge or approval),placing Harold's business plans in dire jeopardy.

The support cast has many future TV and Film stars who turn up every few minutes:Gillian Taylforth,Paul Freeman,Dexter Fletcher,Paul Barber,Karl Howman and Derek Thompson among them.The most notable of all is Pierce Brosnan,in a one word role as a IRA hit-man.It is Brosnan who appears with Hoskins in the film final and most memorable scene.The infamous abattoir sequence (with Shand's rival gang members hung upside down on meat hooks) is unforgettably horrifying and darkly funny,along with Harold's apocalyptic rage after finding out of the IRA's campaign against him. But the final drive away,with Brosnan holding Hoskins at gunpoint is now justly famous,holding on Harold's face seemingly endlessly but ingeniously,with all number of expressions telling us so much.This aspect of Hoskins' performance may be it's most impressive,despite being wordless.There has been a problem in some of Bob Hoskins' film roles since;undeniably a very fine actor,Hoskins however has sometimes fallen into the speech patterns and mannerisms of the role that made him a star into some other parts he has played,much to his detriment,though this has mostly been the exception rather than the rule.

In retrospect,"The Long Good Friday" has a lot to answer for;many other British filmmakers have followed it's example for nearly three decades in mostly resistible imitations,but the original has not dated much at all and is still superior to the virtually all of it's prototypes.

RATING:8 out of 10.


A tour-de-force from Bob Hoskins playing a tough crime boss in London's East End. Living high on success while fancying himself a political entrepreneur, he's about to close a lucrative partnership deal with the Yanks when the Irish Republican Army, bent on revenge, begins eliminating operatives from his "organization", undermining his reputation. Whether prudishly turning up his nose at the unsavory aspects of London's poor neighborhoods or shamefacedly trying to cover up this embarrassing attack on his solid standing within the community, Hoskins never misses a beat and is wonderful to watch. His character, caught unawares when the violence starts, can't figure out who would do this to him (it isn't so much the 'why?' that has him riled up, it's the 'who?'). Unquestionably the finest movie produced by Britain's Handmade Films, with some arty pretensions that aren't too distracting and a brisk pace supplied by director John Mackenzie. Intriguing supporting characters, fine location shooting and electronic scoring (by Francis Monkman, whose repetitive themes are initially off-putting). Funny, scary, gripping and haunting. *** from ****


If there ever was a case in point to make about Gangster/film art in history, L.G.F. would be one of 3 cases to put forward, the other 2 being,Get Carter & Layer Cake: I cant see why other IMDb-ers have commented on futility's such as, water running backwards in the swimming pool, when what you have here is the making of two screen idols, coupled with the teaming of probably the greatest film making talent in our history. The music/film score, Francis Monkmon (Sky) fame: Manic orchestral dizzy strings,coupled with the heavy saxophone solo's,puts this film tune theme, up there with the greats of Barry & Roy Budd inclusive: Super-stellar performances from Hoskins & Mirren, make this a must see No 3 of the Bulldog switchblade movies, before your soul, starts feeling the heat or touching the sides of your wooden crate: Helen Mirren (Probably the greatest British female treader of the boards, in our history). Was truly stupendous. Sexy,cohesive and method, on a very weak and poorly written part for her, demonstrated the ability of sheer acting genius: The story is self explanatory and does not require brain surgery to assimilate and nor should it: Now to my case in points 1. If it was not for the late great George Harrison(Same birthday as my dad!) and one or two others, this film would not have seen the light of day(Hand made films). 2. The beginning of the highly artistic 70s started with "Get Carter" the ending of the 70s Long Good Friday was born and subsequently, finished the off the decade! I rest my case in point, regarding the silly 60s. This IMDb was written on a Friday, a long hot sweltering one, wait a minute there's a knock on the door! "Oh hello Harold! Long time no see".


Considering how lame the British crime movies of the last ten years have been for the most part, its just surprising how good the country's entries in the genre used to be. They're tough and taut, lacking the operatic excess that characterized the American gangster epics (such as "The Godfather"), but more than making up for it with brutality. "The Long Good Friday" isn't a portrait of the history of a certain mob family, but a tight and cohesive story detailing a few days in the life of a head mobster. It works very well because of how basic the initial concept is. It ranks with both "Performance" and the original "Get Carter" as the country's best crime film.

"The Long Good Friday" is effective for several reasons. First, the direction by John Mackenzie and the screenplay by Barrie Keeffe both compliment each other very well. The script is full of witty dialog, constantly intriguing and suspenseful situations, and an absolutely memorable lead protagonist. The characters here are all interesting and well developed. Mackenzie's direction knows what to do with this material - keep it moving at a quick pace.

However, what makes the film for many viewers is the lead performance by Bob Hoskins. The character was already fascinating enough, but Hoskins' portrayal makes him downright memorable. Sneering, brutal, impulsive, yet fragile, Bob Hoskins infuses the character with swinging histrionics that'd put Edward G. Robinson to shame. "The Long Good Friday" isn't flawless (the music score is a bit irritating initially until you settle into the groove of the film's style), but is one of the best gangster films ever made. (8/10)


Along with Get Carter, perhaps the elder statesman of brit-gangster flicks, The Long Good Friday's offspring have a hard act to follow. Can only echo most of the comments here; peerless Bob Hoskins performance, with Helen Mirren showing a masterclass of understated support. The film is dated in some respects, but it's worn well, a timeless cult classic, with numerous actors - Pierce Brosnan among them - going on to make great careers. Other reviewers have commented on Guy Ritchie's efforts with Lock, Stock/Snatch failing to live up to this benchmark, but I'd take issue. Ritchie must have paid reasonable attention as I'd like to add a 'Trivia corner': To quote Razors (P.H. Moriarty) "...from little acorns" (referring to kids who extort car valeting money from Hoskins)...the actor went on to play gangster boss Harry in Lock, Stock...Harry also being the name of Hoskins character. Jack (Alan Ford), one of Hoskins' crew, went on to play boss Brick Top in Snatch Pierce Brosnan's 007 is now played by Daniel Craig, who was xxxx in Layer Cake, the latest brit-gangster flick to attempt to wrestle the title from TLGF...


There are so many things to appreciate in this movie. First and foremost, Bob Hoskins and Helen Mirren give outstanding performances as the First Couple of London's underworld. He, with the Cockney-made-good aspirations for status and the "class" he can never attain, epitomizes the hands-on manager overtaken by larger events. She, the cool-headed savvy- tough-and-sexy moll, is almost on top of things enough to redeem the situation but not quite. The key elements of the underworld ruling coalition-- dirty councilor and policeman, lieutenants of varying backgrounds both tough and educated-- make you believe in how this man has achieved peace through strength.

The film's plot is Byzantine whodunit, with gangland-style violence as an accent piece that seems downright tame in the age of "Pulp Fiction". The real hidden star, though, is late-70's London-- oh so run-down and yet full of the potential that drives Harold's ambitions. The views from boating on the Thames are unrecognizable to those who have only seen modern London--- the sole landmarks in common are Tower Bridge and the Savoy hotel. The towers of the City and modern Docklands are just a twinkle in dreamers' eyes.

Overall TLGF is a modern tragedy in the true land-of-Shakespeare tradition, somewhere between Macbeth and Hamlet and King Lear: ambition, betrayal, and the sweep of history interact richly without being heavy-handed in symbolism or over-artiness. This is a satisfying and complex film that invites re-viewing and reflection.


This is one of the great British movies and when I say British I mean it's made by a British film company - Handmade films - and not an American studio . Perhaps this is something of an unfortunate thing for an international market ( Read that as an American market ) since being made for a homegrown market the accents and most especially the slang doesn't translate well over seas but the dialog alone makes up for any shortcomings :

" I knew Colin fancied soldiers but going to Belfast that's a bit much innit ? "

" That's dignified that is , going out like a raspberry ripple "

and the classic line

" I've heard of sleeping partners but you two are in a f--ki' coma "

Are there any shortcomings ? I've got to be honest and say that first seeing this in 1983 I was shocked by the clever twist of making the IRA as the bad guys but having watched the movie a few more times over the years the radical idea of having the provos muscling in on the London underworld isn't as clever a plot as I first thought and once you know who's been putting the pressure on Harold Shand and his corporation the story becomes a little threadbare after multiple viewings . It's probably also uncharitable to point out that Shand is a bit too old school to be taken seriously as a gangland emperor and it's not helped by umpteen films and TV dramas since then showing the London underworld who don't hurt women or kids and who don't grass .In other words it's all a bit clichéd this gangster lark innit ? And let's not mention this role caused Bob Hoskins to be typecast for the rest of his life

But the failings are more and made up for by the pace of the story , by Francis Monkman's very memorable score and by the cast , some of whom went onto become household names and many who became familiar faces in film and television . Admit it , you've watched this movie over the years and thought to yourself " Now where have I seen that actor before ? " The ending gives way to a well told story by Hoskins who is ordered by director McKenzie " I want you to sit back in your seat and think about the things you've done in the story all your success , all your failures " so Bob does what he's told and seeing the final cut exclaims " bleedin' 'ell it's true the camera can read an actor's mind "


From a British perspective, part of the fun of watching this is seeing people who later became famous for other roles. Derek Thompson had had a minor role in Yanks, and this suggested he had a bright career in films, but he ended up playing nurse Charlie Fairhead in Casualty, and has now played that part for 23 years! Gillian Taylforth became better known in EastEnders, and Paul Barber was in Only Fools and Horses, but returned to the big screen in the Full Monty.

Some of the violence in The Long Good Friday is very graphic; the scene in which Harold (Bob Hoskins) ends up glassing his sidekick Jeff (Derek Thompson) after the latter had betrayed him is VERY nasty.

Helen Mirren is now an international star. Here she is supposedly playing a gangster's moll, but where she doesn't simmer with sexuality ("I want to lick every inch of you", says Derek Thompson in an unguarded moment in a lift), she shows that she has as much control over Harold (Bob Hoskins) as he has over everybody else, never more so than in the immediate aftermath of the glassing scene. It is a tour de force in a supposedly supporting role.

But this film undoubtedly belongs to Bob Hoskins. Despite the violence, it is the film's climax which is the most memorable and chilling scene. Hoskins is held at gunpoint by a silent and menacing IRA gunman played by a young Pierce Brosnan. This takes place in a car driven by another IRA hit-man. The camera focuses in close up on the face of Bob Hoskins for over a minute, while the very catchy theme music plays, and while Hoskins, without a word of dialogue, goes through a whole raft of emotions, showing a man struggling to accept that he is finished, but is finally resigned to his fate. This is a magnificent performance.


WARNING - THIS REVIEW DISCUSSES THE ENDING OF THE FILM AT LENGTH.

Portraying Britain at the dawn of Thatcherism, The Long Good Friday presents its central character and itself like a spinning coin, looking towards the future but always about to slip back into the past, about to go one way or the other. Harold Shand (Bob Hoskins) tells nostalgic and emotional stories about his National Service (which had been abolished for almost two decades when this film was made) and how he began his career as a street urchin An hour earlier, he had been proclaiming his glorious vision of 1980s Britain while  in a rather unsubtle piece of direction  framed by Tower Bridge. This world of opposites is expressed most clearly in Francis Monkman's zesty score, blending traditional classical instruments with Moroder-style synth-pop. It is ultimately hubris, the kind of overconfidence normally associated with '80s excess, that delivers Shand helplessly into the maw of a truly monstrous enemy that had existed for decades.

Not as complex as I've heard it made out (admittedly the DVD age means I can zip straight to the exposition scenes without effort, which helps), The Long Good Friday is still a breathtakingly audacious film and one that at times runs a real risk of alienating its audience while still retaining mass appeal. It blends together elements of various crime subgenres: it takes the criminal-turns-detective idea from Get Carter and marries it to the sickly, sleazy decadence that Scarface would portray so unflinchingly three years later, while the outlandish, ostentatious tactics Shand employs to intimidate his enemies come straight from The Godfather. Harold Shand is essentially a Tony Montana-style character: someone not very bright who has gone from poor to rich very quickly and doesn't know what to do with his loot, who thinks that money somehow equals invincibility. As his enemies continue to undermine his modern-man fantasy (he refers to himself as a businessman, not a criminal) he becomes steadily more delusional to the point where he eventually expresses an intent to wipe out the entire IRA. This is a self-evidently absurd statement that Shand takes totally seriously, immediately before slashing his most trusted lieutenant's jugular with a broken bottle, as Hoskins's incandescent performance charts the erosion of the character's veneer of sophistication. As the first two members of his gang are assassinated he asks himself who could make him and his associates a target: a legitimate question in the circumstances, but the emotional burst with which Hoskins delivers the sentiment suggests less a rational question and more a little child screaming that "IT'S NOT FAIR!".

Now, the IRA. Before September 11 2001 they were synonymous with terrorism in the UK and their omnipresent threat throughout the 1970s led to London becoming one of the most CCTV-heavy cities in the world. No wonder the film's original backers got cold feet, since while it doesn't in any way romanticise them it does portray them as the very essence of power. Against them Shand  no small fry in his own right  is nothing at all and even his ice-cold mistress (Helen Mirren) cracks under the threat against her despite being able to effortlessly parry the advances of Shand's lecherous thugs. But here's the twist: the whole thing's totally pointless.

This is what makes the film so daring. Virtually the entire film concerns the quest for Hichcock's MacGuffin, which in this case is defined by its absence: it is the answer to the mystery itself. The IRA are fingered fairly quickly, but the question is why. Keeping this question unanswered for so long rather than giving hints occasionally requires a predictably huge scene of exposition, which is totally subverted when it turns out that Shand hasn't actually done anything at all. The IRA mistakenly believe he is responsible for the murder of some of their agents and once fanatics get an idea in their heads that idea stays there. I can't think of another film that has its central premise turn to fairy-dust so spectacularly  not even The Maltese Falcon. This I think is where it risks losing its audience, because everything turns out to be so pointless. Is that dramatically satisfying? In the event yes, because rather than going into hiding (like Michael Corleone in the first Godfather) Shand's feathers get ruffled even more and, the irony apparently lost on him, he kills two IRA agents for real and is tracked down and captured within minutes. As he's driven away, almost certainly to his death, we get an extended close-up of Hoskins's face. Among the despair and panic, there's the occasional flicker of an impression that he's finally got the joke.

With complex characters, great writing, scintillating performances and a brave, uncompromising attitude to storytelling conventions, The Long Good Friday is an essential piece of British cinema.


Bob Hoskins is a tough as nails gangster in The Long Good Friday, a British gangster movie set in 1970's London. Its funny reading that the studio tried to dub over Hoskins dialogue because they feared American audiences wouldn't understand it. I had a problem understanding that strong Cockney accent. He talked very fast and had a really strong accent - but that added to his persona as the tough gangster.

Hoskins is Harold Shand, top gangster of London who is trying to secure a big deal with the mafia. Unfortunately, on the day they visit, his top lieutenants are killed and his casino bombed. It looks like the mafia may back out of the deal, so he goes on the warpath to find out who is targeting his organization.

The movie has a gritty feel to it and the genuine Brit gangster look is helped by copious amounts of violence and Hoskins build, voice and manner. The dialogue is quite funny (especially the last scene with the mafia guys). Helen Mirren is quite sexy in her supporting role and their is a young assassin in this movie who would go on to much greater success as James Bond.


Though a completely different film the plot has elements reminiscent to me of Coppola's Godfather with the move to different methods of obtaining proceeds from crime (proposal of drugs in The Godfather but not in this case..). Also the popping off of your boys by the opposition is a familiar scene.

In this film it looks like someone bigger than both our gang boss Bob Hoskins (our Godfather here) and his local rivals has arrived in town!-London town that is...

It has everything and like all great films captures a certain mood throughout. This is crucial to holding the film and its audience together throughout. It is unlike many British films: not too wordy and as one other reviewer i've read in past mentions is a gold standard set 16 or so years previous for Guy Rithcie (with his dubious Lock stock, etc.) et al.. to look back in wonder and emulate but never achieve....yet...

Afterthought: Please note there are some other Brit greats since though with the likes of "sexy beast" and "Gansgter NO1" providing extremely entertaining viewing! TRIVIA: If you are British it is great fun to spot the Brit soap stars and other more for TV actors such as the wonderful (Prime Suspect fame) Helen Mirren.

Of course wherever you are from a young Pierce Brosnan appears in the closing sequence - what a shock to behold the silent killer! Turn the lights right down pour your preferred poison and watch it all unfold and explode at the end! Bon viewing!


The Long Good Friday, with Bob Hoskins and Helen Mirren introduces us to

characters I won't soon forget. Hoskins, as Harold Shand, a London crime boss, is a standout performer. Having never even heard of this movie until I ran across it on cable, I was truly impressed with Mr Hoskins' acting chops. The rest of the cast is truly excellent also from Helen Mirren's performance as Shand's

business-like wife, to PH Moriarty's role as one hell of an enforcer aptly

nicknamed "razors", this movie really does send a chill down your spine. The

casual violence inflicted by the main characters is never gratuitous, as

evidenced by the scene where Shand's competitors are hung like sides of beef

for questioning. In this case, less is more. The ending is truly a classic. Im thinking about it now and I still feel my stomach drop when I imagine myself in Shand's shoes. An excellent addition to any DVD collection, I'm very happy to have stumbled across this gem. Highly Recommended.


A brilliant film from start to finish. Bob Hoskins performance in the last minute alone was worthy of an outstanding acting award without him uttering a word!!! Biggest moan is WHY the best British gangster film ever made is STILL not available on PAL VHS or region 2 DVD, I cannot believe you can only get it from the USA.