Today marks the premiere of Jodhaa Akbar here and the reasons for wanting to watch this film are simple - the pairing of Hrithik Roshan and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, director Ashutosh Gowariker, and musician A.R. Rahman. It's simply an irresistible combination, one that everyone in the cinema hall would attest to, given the full house, and the full house in the next screening.

Jodhaa Akbar is set in the 16th century, which tells of an arranged marriage for strategic alliance purposes that blossomed into true love between a Mughal emperor, Jalaluddin Mohammad (Hrithik Roshan) and a Rajput princess Jodha (Aishwarya Rai Bachchan). In fact, as how most historical epics would go, such as the likes of Alexander or peer Bollywood film Asoka (starring Shah Rukh Khan), while efforts are placed into extensive research to try and stay as authentic as possible, there still are various interpretations to characters, some of whom will be taken to task (like Oliver Stone's vision of Colin Farrell as Alexander the Great) by audiences. The contention here is the story behind Jodha, and the various names she goes by with different retellings, and that is put up front even before the opening credits start to roll.

Director Gowariker's pedigree with his successful epics like Lagaan and Swades puts him in good stead as he tackles this love story on multiple fronts. In fact, as he puts it, it's a story about the meeting of two cultures and two religions, so basically, what's in a name? Sometimes I wonder about similarities with the formation of big countries as we know it today, with China undergoing multiple civil styled wars in bids by conquerors to unite it, and with India, it seems that it's no different. We get to see the multitudes of ethnic groups, each with their unique practices which we were given glimpses on, thanks to the superb art direction and wonderful, authentic sets recreated.

Jalaluddin Mohammad hails from the Mughals, and is a Muslim, who from young is told by various quarters what to do, and how to lead his life as Emperor of Hindustan. He gains a reputation on the battlefield, which could parallel those in Hollywood in terms of sheer scale and grandeur, even utilizing hordes of marauding elephants and settled into some icky territory when elephants rampage and stomp on soldiers. Blood aside, we see Jalaluddin slowly become a man of his own, and in a bid to forge a strategic alliance, he's offered the hand of Jodha Bai. However, this arranged marriage was doomed a failure from all quarters, because of the difference in religion (she's a Hindu) and culture. Furthermore, the reluctant Jodha makes it all the more difficult by asking for 2 conditions, that she be allowed to practice her religion, and to build a shrine in their bridal home. He agrees.

And in today's context, I would say this act of proposition and acceptance would also raise some eyebrows sky high. But herein likes the key message that gets drummed through the movie - why can't we love despite our differences? Why can't we enjoy the diversity that each religion or culture bring, instead of baying for blood and inciting hatred? Jodhaa Akbar has its message of (religious) tolerance worn very prominently on its sleeve. It's quite radical and forward thinking in Jalaluddin's character, and we feel for the couple as they go journey from strangers to soul mates overcoming the various challenges posed from the outside, and between themselves as they try hard to break the thick ice.

But it's not all lovey-dovey in turmoil times like theirs, where politicking takes place from the macro with the constant threat of war and the running of a country, to the micro where internal jealousies and the defending of personal turf rear their ugly head, which kind of reminisce the many petty backstabbings found behind closed royalty doors, with Jalaluddin's nanny Maham Anga (Ila Arun) proving to be the attempted spoiler and go between in the marriage. And to leaders out there, there's a scene which while it's something that's not new, is always apt to remind them not to sit on their ivory towers, but to walk the ground and hear the grumbling first hand, as nothing beats ground level intelligence.

In most parts, Jodhaa Akbar had reminded me of Cecil B DeMille's historical productions, with its beautiful sets, costumes, great acting, and intense battle sequences. There are a couple of nice action set pieces ranging from full scale war with the clashing of two opposing sides (the elephants were a great bonus, trust me), to a duel which turns out to be a courtship ritual, something not new since both Hrithik and Aishwarya challenged each other before (though on the basketball court), with the latter quite well versed in swordplay given her earlier role in The Last Legion, and one featuring what I thought took a leaf out of the battle between Hector and Achilles in Troy.

Of course, no Bollywood movie will be without music and dance, and here, it's done quite tastefully as you don't expect sudden outbursts into song. The music by A.R. Rahman is top notch as usual, and dances here happen naturally as part of the narrative flow, with the first song coming out only just before the hour mark. Needless to say I found myself tapping my feet to almost all of them. There are a numerous plus points in this blockbuster, and if I'm telling you I'm getting the DVD when it's released, I'm already giving this a vote of confidence that it's a contender to make it to my top 10 movies of the year. Highly recommended!


Straight to business... Movie is not bad... The movie looks very Rich, music is outstanding.. 3 songs nicely picturised... But at the end you wont carry anything with u other than the song 'Jashn Bahar'.

The background voice by AB was repetitive and boring... War scenes were below average. When we can expect the War scenes like TROY or Gladiator in Indian cinema ?

Many characters in the movie did not made any sense.. it was out-casted .. Rithik has improved a lot...but his voice modulation was poor. Aish as usual stunning but acts like a statue.

I could not make out what went wrong in the movie ..may b it was poor editing / cinematography.. Not at all Ashutosh's masterpiece ...


It is hard to believe that Jodhaa Akbar, the most awaited movie of the recent times, has been so poorly choreographed by non other than our Oscar nominated director, Ashutosh Gowariker. It looks like a work of some bollywood neophyte who is too obsessed with the concept of epic romanticism. Though the story is plagued with historical flaws and misconceptions, thats not the point which should be bragged too much. Its the script and screenplay which went uncalculated. This 'untold' saga of love looks like it has been told a zillion of times in all other mediocre bollywood love flicks. The impact of other characters in the movie is totally missing unlike Lagaan or Swades. The movie doesn't take you to that golden era (remember Mughal-e-Azam). I am not expecting an epic political thriller like Elizabeth I, II(which too were given by our comptariot) but both maturity and tenderness is totally missing. And handling this usual love tale for 3.5hrs...thn dude, i've got to take a break!!! may be two;). In short, its a demo of a half hearted job! I would have given it 5 pts but as it comes from an Oscar nominee, i am compelled to give it 4 pts!!!


On the up side, this film had some magnificent sets, gorgeous costumes, and the story had some great moments. Aishwarya Rai puts in a great performance. Surprisingly, the scene stealer is the underutilized Sonu Sood who reminds me of a young Amitabh Bachan. Sadly, it ends there.

On the down side is everything else. The movie was supposed to be an epic but the only thing it had resembling an epic was its length. In Jodhaa-Akbar it seems like the extras were over worked and underpaid. They were hardly moving in the backgrounds and the camera/director seemed preoccupied with individual fights. I guess the extras thought that with the camera so far away, they would never make it into the frame. I wish that had been true.

Now I said the sets and costumes were terrific but the cinematography fails them. I went out of my way to find out the cinematographer was Kiran Deohans. The rest of the cast and crew undoubtedly have a long career ahead of them but Mr. Deohans' career might come to an abrupt halt after this film. This is an epic and the audience needs to "see" this film as an epic. The camera moves too slowly, sits too still, and those great costumes and sets don't get the treatment they deserve.

The story was quite shallow. You would think the Emperor and Empress of the Mughal Empire would get a story befitting them, but not here. The twists and turns are utterly predictable. The narrative and characters lacked depth. Hrithik and Aishwarya have little or no chemistry between them. I felt like they had more chemistry in Dhoom 2, a film I thoroughly hated and gave zero stars. If them two of them finally come to love each other, why does it look like they're faking it? An epic needs to be long and this film has the length to prove itself as one. But the pacing in this film is painfully slow. Let me explain, there's a difference between a film being too long and a film moving too slowly; Jodhaa-Akbar is the latter. The dialogue needs to be more rapid, the scenes need to be trimmed down. I don't mean to keep mentioning Dhoom 2, but one of the things I hated is how every time Hrithik was on screen the film would go into slow motion. Here, they're in regular motion but it still feels like slow-mo. It's not a good sign when you're looking at your watch and wondering when is the movie going to end.

As much as it hurts for me to write this, one of the film's biggest draw backs is Hrithik Roshan in the role of Mohammad Jalaluddin. Hrithik's performance is inconsistent and quite unrefined. Inconsistent because I felt like I was watching Hrithik play several different characters in the film. It was never the same Akbar from the first scene. I don't think this was a result of the character growing because like I said; there really is no growth after his marriage to Jodhaa or any character for that matter. Keep in mind that inconsistency is really not the actor, it's the director. It's the director's job to keep make sure the performances are everything they need to be and really visualize the look and feel of the film. The director has to keep his or her eye on the ball and in a film this large, it's understandable why they might lose sight but that's no excuse. So this isn't a minus for Hrithik as much as it is for Ashutosh Gowariker. A writer at the Hindustan Times, Mohammed Khalil said Gowariker has miscalculated the technical and emotional content and I think he's absolutely right. Now I say the performance is unrefined because of the lack of character in the character (yes, I know that one hurt). I just didn't see a Mughal Emperor when I looked at Hrithik. Instead what I saw was a Bollywood heart throb/poster boy who hasn't matured enough as a performer to pull off this kind of a role. I still think he has all the potential in the world, no doubt. He gave a very memorable performance in Koi Mil Gaya but this is no Koi Mil Gaya.

Hrithik's biggest flaw is something he has little control over; his looks. Truth be told, Hrithik is just too feminine to portray a character that's supposed to be the embodiment of authority and masculinity. His physique is top notch but it's hard to take someone seriously when they have green eyes. His soft image is what prevents him from properly playing the all powerful Emperor and calculating army commander. There is something that could be said about Hrithik's physical presence in the film though. I'm not giving away any spoilers like I promised. There is a scene in the film where the gate to the palace opens and Hrithik is standing on the other side. It's a long shot and there is no light near Hrithik, all we see is a silhouette. He then screams at Jodhaa. I swear the combination of the sound of his voice and physical presence; I thought he was going to kill everyone in his path. Suddenly we get a close up as he steps into the light and the green eyes melt away the coldness; I heard an aunty in the row behind me say, "Awww, Rohit!" So like Aishwarya, Hrithik handles the confrontational scenes with a wonderful subtle intensity but his good and somewhat girly looks are what bury his performance.


Complete bakwaas in story, dialoge, dramatization, editing and accuracy. 3.5 ghante ka torture .. Hoping someone will edit cut it down to 15 minutes and post it on Youtube ( hehe)

politically correct, historically inaccurate, financially flushed, glamorized notions ... look at Ashoka - I personally hated that - after all these reviews, I a can only imagine what a torture it would be sit through 3.5 hrs. Modern day movie makers insist on showing every little piece of crap they get on film - editing and dramatization has absolutely no meaning.. On a tangent here - look at old and new Don... the older director gives more credit to the Audience than the newer one... the new ones make it a point to spell out the subtleties consequently destroying the entire scene ( got that off my chest )

The 10 lines rule is quite painful. I am not a big writer like Mr. Sardarji above ... Let us hope this gets submitted - or else I will have to copy and paste his stuff here - just to fill the lines.


The only reason i gave a 3 and not lower is because of the director's efforts to bring out a classic. The reason the 7 is lost is because he used history to his convenience and imagination. If you want to bring out a classic, why not just do that ? Pick a story that doesn't tell the kids that this was what Akbar was like. Why not Sheela-Rizwan or something that doesn't tell the kids stupid false stories about their country's history. It is a known fact that Akbar was a war monger and plunderer. His relatively liberal religious tolerance compared to his predecessors and ancestors does not make him the greatest ruler of India. It was nowhere mentioned about his warrior abilities. He is known for his administrative and political skill. Yet we are made to believe that he was a great warrior. He had 30 some wives in his harem and they are not mentioned anywhere in the film. Jodha(almost all historians agree thats not her real name) was not his first wife nor his last. We don't even have an account that says she was his favorite. Akbar didn't mention her name in his auto-biography, AkbarNama. So now a movie with an attractive star-cast with great music is being thrust down our throats with history lessons embedded. Bollywood's director's may not be the smartest of the lot but these showmen do a disservice to history and reality by painting everything rainbow when India's past is filled with loot and murder by crusaders and "native" Moguls. It is sad that everyone is happy with false history and lies in the nation that was founded by a man who spent his life finding the power of truth.


Now, I'm an avid Bollywood films fan. I must say, I wanted to see this one as I heard a lot about it in media. However, boy was I wrong. Director is confused - trying to imitate the great Mugle-Azam he fails miserably. Right from the beginning the movie is a confused piece. OK, I give him to use artistic liberty but I cannot imagine king and courtesans of 16th century sing and dance "hip-hop." That was about the only thing to watch, but then the movie would be like a parody of the great Mugle-Azam (you know like what Epic Movie is!!). I'm not sure the director even looked up a book from the era to understand how to vision the period. I thought the director of Lagaan would do better. But then now I know it is the actors behind - Aamir is a perfectionist - Lagaan has to be pseudo directed. And Swades by SRK. Ash like always is best at what she is - a drama queen! She has no acting talent, I must admit Britney of Bombay! Hritik does try hard, but with nothing to work what is to do? Well I lost my $20 (to include my drink and pop-corns - the only thing that kept me awake). I suggest you keep yours on something good - this will be on DVD soon!


Ever since I came to know that a movie is coming out on Akbar, one of the Mughal ruler, I had decided to boycott it by not watching it. As I do not want to watch and be part of a film glorifying and celebrating any Mughal ruler who looted, mass murdered, and converted by force (to Islam) hundreds and thousands of innocent Hindustani (Indian) people. Even after when I came to know that Ashutosh Gowarikar is directing this movie, one who gave us amazing experience in "Lagaan" and "Swades", I was still skeptical to watch it.

But as a movie critic when I got an invitation to watch first day first show with a guest, my mother convinced me to go and take her too. The movie was just what I expected, twisted history, glorifying the Mughals who looted, raped, destroyed Mandir (temples), mass converted, and openly carried out pogroms. The movie was long, boring, and repetitive. For the whole 3.5 hrs I could not figure out where is the story heading and what is the director trying to convey. I can't believe it is from Mr. Gowarikar who gave us "Lagaan" and brewed the love story between Bhuvan-Gauri-Elizabeth so beautifully even when the plot was about getting rid of the lagaan (tax).

But in Jodhaa Akbar I was cringing in my seat thinking when the movie will end and what the end would be as the story was not developing any climax. It was so twisted, sometimes Sujamal is with Akbar, sometimes he is not, sometimes Maham Anga is nice, sometimes she is not, hey Ram (oh God), so confusing. The love story (if there was any) between Jodhaa and Akbar was like making a mountain out of mole. The war scenes were average. There were few good comic one liners from the eunuch. Only the acting of Sonu Sood, Rajesh Vivek, and Ila Arun stood out. The director was unnecessarily bent about showing Hritik Roshan's muscles and Aishwarya Rai's pretty curvature. And yeah, do take a Urdu to Hindi dictionary, because most of the dialogs were just going over most of the audiences head as everyone was asking each other to decode what the actors just said. At least they could have put some Hindi subtitles for the complex Urdu words they were throwing here and there.

Overall under-average one time watch movie. Be ready to spare 3.5 hrs as it is a very very long movie. Even after the movie finishes it is hard to decide if the movie is about Akbar's war with Rajput clan or a so called love story between Jodhaa and Akbar. I am tired and bored, I need some refreshments.


Firstly, there is no proper story line ..... just taking a boy meet girl story and putting it in a historical backdrop doesn't make sense at all .... specially when it is not authentic at all ... its predictable and boring ..... more so because of the constant Urdu dialogs which was hard to comprehend ..... many people are saying that the fight sequence portrayed are good but its not worth it ... when you are portraying a vicious battle a little more gore is expected ... not pushing each other and making them fall to the ground ... thats bogus .... i liked the other films of AG they were good ... but this one is worthless ... the only good thing about the movie is aishwarya her ... acting is really good ... hrithik looks misplaced .... and he is often out of sorts if the role doesn't demand his dancing skills ... so it was expected .... if you do want to watch it ... go with your friends and chat your way ... through the movie .. because what happening on screen will not appeal you at all ... for such a stupendously bad story the movie is painfully long ... on the bright side it gives you a lot of time to talk with your friends ..... and carry some medication it might help .. u may need it ... good luck ...


Jodhaa Akbar is a spectacular Indian epic drenched in colors and music.. The legendary Moghul emperor may not have been anything like Hrithik Roshan, but Hrithik is every inch a royal prince, all 6 feet of him. Both he and Ms. Rai look beautiful and do their best with the minimal script. Lovers of historical romance and adventure films should be pleased...if they don't expect accurate history any more than would be present in a King Arthur or Robin Hood tale. Besides the two stunning leads, the film offers the most glorious vision of a bygone era seen on the screen in quite a while. The action, war and dueling scenes are just as outstanding as the static opulent court and palace scenes. The film is visually rich, beautifully photographed and choreographed. Lavish sets and costumes equal and compliment the beauty of the players.


Written and Directed by: Ashutosh Gowariker. Starring: Hrithik Roshan, Aishwarya Rai. Music: AR Rahman.

A young boy named Jalaluddin stands on a war front In 1555AD India to be crowned as the new Moghul Emperor after the death of his Father Humayun. The ministry wages the war and defeats the rival King. They bring him in front of the new emperor and ask him to behead the defeated King. Only to find that the young emperor recognizes that disgrace is worse than a death and denies following the orders. This young boy grows up to become Jalaluddin Muhammad (Hrithik Roshan) Akbar (as honored by his country eventually). He marries a Hindu Rajput's daughter Jodhaa Bai (Aishwarya Rai). How? You will find it out.

Jodhaa-Akbar is a story of love between a husband and a wife after they get married. Given some exposure to Akbar's learning curve to understand the common man in his country with the help of his wife's thoughts and philosophy this movies tries to connect the dots between a husband and his wife and an Emperor and his people. The first winner of this movie is writer-director Ashutosh Gowariker. Making a comeback after a highly spiritual Swades (2004) Ashtosh may not have as appealing story as Swades but the love in Jodhaa Akbar cannot be denied. He brings in different shades of connections between the two like the first time Hindu vegetarian meal for Akbar, a sword fight or a confession of love in a room lit by setting sun. Gowariker handles these facets very carefully by taking his time to create an atmosphere. He is one of the young directors with his own vision that he follows.

The next one on my list is Hrithik Roshan. With a muscular physique and eyes full of emotions his portrayal as an Emperor with roots of humanity is something to look for. An emperor slowly learning about the people around him and eventually following his heart and philosophies is a very good character to be seen. His fight with his ownself to understand Jodhaa is convincing. Not to forget Aishwarya Rai as Jodhaa bai. Personally I haven't been able to appreciate her beauty in a long time since maybe Aur Pyar Ho Gaya (1997).

I have saved the best for last and that is Mr AR Rahman. His background score and musicals like 'Jashn-e-bahaar' and 'In lamho ke' are appreciable. But 'Khwaja' is something beyond great or extraordinary. The prayer and appeal by sufi singers to the priest are nothing short of 'magical'. You will be drawn into the prayer just like the emperor when he gets up and shows his excitement to God. Wow!!!

Independent movies are said to be daring and courageous. Jodhaa Akbar may not be an Independent creation but it is a period movie with a magnitude that perhaps was last seen in K. Asif's Mughal-E-Azam released in 1960. It took 48 years for Bollywood to make a movie like this so in that sense it is a daring and courageous effort.

My Rating: 9/10.


Finally the 3 DVD set of Jodhaa Akbar came out and it is absolutely worth the agonising wait! And there's an added bonus of a set of 12 postcards with images from the film, included with the package. Onto the film....

Primarily as the director says on the 3rd DVD, the film is about the love story between Jodhaa & Akbar, then it is about the historical reference & the battles. The film grips you from beginning to end and you become involved and consumed by the whole story. There is no doubt Ashwariya Rai Bachchan is beautiful and effortless in the role of Jodhaa and it is captivating to see how well Hrithik Roshan portrays Akbar falling in love with her; his subtle expressions are heart stopping & he manages to convey his blossoming love through his eyes so well, you can see what a genuinely talented actor he is.

There are some deleted scenes on the 3rd DVD & my favourite, which I wished they'd kept in the film, is when Akbar says to Jodhaa whilst out on a hunting trip............well you will just have to buy the whole package to see the scene in question. I cannot recommend this film highly enough. This is just my opinion and people will have their own but for me Jodhaa Akbar has already become a classic.

My final praise for the film is for the music by A A Rahman & the lyrics by Javed Aktar. The music fits into the film perfectly and vice versa, especially when Akbar goesinto a trance whilst listening to Khwaja Mere Khwaja. Amitbah has said this is the best scene in a film in this decade.


This film needs at least 90 minutes of trimming. It would be a great movie, if only it did not extend its welcome. Gone are the days when audiences would be satisfied watching scenes linger on pointlessly or endure unnecessary sub-plots in the name of entertainment. Jodhaa Akbar has too much unnecessary exposition. The first 30 minutes could easily be eliminated, the whole Ila Arun track is superfluous and that elephant vs Akbar scene was a damn bore. Hrithik and Aishwarya are good in their respective roles, but there is nothing brilliant here about either of the performances. Technically though, the film is excellent. Great epic landscapes, lush set designs and costumes and a rocking background score courtesy A.R. Rahman.


Set about 450 years into the past, Agreed, this movie had what it takes! Beautiful sets, amazing photography, awesome music and a very talented cast. However, too many good things come with a few problems. The problem for "Jodha Akbar" is its own director - Ashutosh. No complaints about his story-telling skills - He definitely is one of the best directors out in Bollywood. But, with a film like "Jodha Akbar", Ashutosh failed to carry it on from where he left it, with a film like Lagaan!

When asked, in an interview prior to the release of this movie, Ashutosh said that 30% of this movie is historically accurate and 70% is his fascination. Watching this movie made me realize that if someone had to come up with a fantasy after enormous amount of research, it surely can't get any worse than this movie.

Where do I start spelling disaster?: How about those hundreds of shots in the movie which will give you a "YashRaj" effect. How about omission of facts for entertainment?

"Omission of facts" - oh boy, Don't I sound like one of those who helped this movie get a ban in Rajasthan! Oh yea, this movie ain't no documentary - Yes, but then why on earth would you advertise it with a title that has to do with Akbar the Great! Why have a story line that tends to talk about what Akbar did as a 13-year old? Why all the fuss about those battles which were historically relevant?

Hrithik is an amazing actor. As much as I like him for his acting talents, I can't help being nit-picky: He does a commendable job in uttering all of the well written dialogue, however he did struggle to spell out more than a few of those Urdu words in the way they are supposed to be spelled. Too much eye-blinking! and raising of eyebrow - that is too much of Hrithik and less of Akbar. Yes, none of us knew how expressive Akbar was, but if I were 400 years old, I would be more convincing if not expressive. Aishwarya is one of the most beautiful women in the world!: Women who get better with age! Thankfully she showcased her matured acting skills and I am glad that I didn't get to witness any of those weird facial expressions she owns. Kudos to the master - A.R.Rehman and his team: Brilliant compositions! Background music is the second intense thing after Hrithik's acting, that keeps you engrossed.

Finally:

Yes, this movie is a commercial movie. Yes, it casts Hrithik as "Ideal Akbar": Akbar, who wasn't. Yes, it doesn't care to mention his two other wives and his harem! Yes, you should go see this movie if you prefer watching historically irrelevant movies oozing with "Bollywood Cheese".


It's always kind of staggering to think of other films that deal with love and marriage and the twisted ties that bind when compared to what Ingmar Bergman does in his scripts. Stripped away from the problems that come with such dangerous clichés like the old mother forbidding her daughter from being together with a man she just does not like, or with the marriage being strained by outside influences. Maybe the latter isn't much of a cliché as it might be a convention, but it's all dealt with by Bergman in his story of Henrik Bergman and Anna Bergman with complete, un-filtered honesty, even in the harsher moments. While it's not actually one of his very best scripts, with a couple of flaws here and there and it not being quite long enough (i.e. Scenes From a Marriage and Fanny & Alexander being five hours each), it has more emotionally shattering moments, and even under-stated ones, that would make most other dramas about a relationship in trouble meek in comparison.

That being said, it's also not technically a Bergman film, but directed through Billie August with maybe a slightly differed sensibility. Yet it's not by that much, aside from specific choices in the music (I don't think Bergman would have used the musical accompaniment, not that it's bad but it tells of what is usually different and less frequent for the material), and because of the nature of the material and the characters, it's not surprising if the Best Intentions feels more like a Bergman film than August. The rhythm of the acting, too, feels like it still is out of those vintage masterpieces of the 60s and 70s. Here we're given the story of how Henrik (Samuel Froler) and Anna (Pernilla August) came to be husband and wife. It's basically in two halves- the first dealing with Karin Akerblom (Ghita Nørby), Anna's mother, and her dire attempts to keep the two away from one another. And at first Anna agrees, but soon the attachment to one another can't be broken, even through an early affair Henrik has with a waitress and Anna's tuberculosis scare.

Many specific scenes, like a very harsh (though always under the surface) scene between Karin and Henrik, when she tells him point blank to leave and never come back to see Anna, or when Anna is told after the death of her father Johan (Max Von Sydow, always great to see him even in limited time) about how she destroyed a letter she found that she meant to sent to Henrik. So much of this is so powerful for how all of the dialog, all of the little notes and emotion in the action penetrate to the core elements of the drama. Sometimes I felt like I was seeing even deeper truths being reached about parents and children (not only Anna with her mother but Henrik with his family- both have tarnished relationships, but however much forgiveness is left off or ties severed shows also how the children become as they are), and a take on the free will vs. determinism of such a decision. So all of this is always fascinating, seeing this 'version' of Bergman's parents and their struggles to be together- Henrik the sort of cold yet compassionate loner parish/priest, and Anna the very warm and heartfelt soon-to-be-mother- as they both have head-strong tendencies.

I can't say how much of what unfolds in the 2nd act holds up as being totally true to what Bergman's parents lives were, but then who could? It's all made for dramatic sake, anyway, but what ends up sticking most is the friction in their marriage early on, when they move away to a small, working-class village where Henrik wants to work as the village pastor. It's in this section that the flaws arise, but not big ones, only enough to keep it odd yet intriguing. Like the character of Petrus, who is a weird little trouble-maker who is too sickly and frustrated to live with his parents, so Henrik and Anna take him in, which turns out disastrously. But there needs to be either more context with this character (and, indeed, a version of this film- a mini-series for Swedish TV- is double the length), or nothing at all, as everything that needs to be said about the strife in the two of them is actually there in the sub-plot with the angered villager Nordenson. And with the ending, it's satisfying, in a catharsis way though it's not as great, or even perfect, an ending it could have been had a certain decision been made on Henrik's part when he sees Anna outside.

I won't mention what, but it doesn't matter at any rate. What makes The Best Intentions a gem in the Bergman cannon is his trust in the audience to take these 'characters' as full-on human beings, who have the utmost trouble with one thing, compromise and the real meaning of love for one another- connection, which is what Bergman goes for in most of his films. And helping this greatly are the main actors, who elevate an argument mid-way through (regarding the location of the wedding) to the powerful terrain it's reaching for. August fits the requirements of her character just as Froler does, even if Froler ends up being slightly more constricted due to the nature of his own self-restrictive and hard-pressed priest. In the end, The Best Intentions makes wonderful use of autobiography for the stuff of an often gut-wrenching romantic drama where the personal goes into the theatrical, and the direction and acting brings out the best in Bergman's voice in his golden-age.


In this film, we meet Henrik Bergman, a good but flawed man who seeks to serve God. We are also introduced to Anna, his future wife and mother of Ingmar Bergman. Henrik makes do with very little, but will not sacrifice his pride in order to enjoy a better life. He is a man of deep convictions. Anna, on the other hand, is accustomed to the finer things life has to offer, and will not be denied her desires.

Henrik and Anna have to clear many hurdles, some of their own making, before they marry and move to a forbidding town in northern Sweden where they gracefully undertake their duties as the new religious leaders. It is specially in this part of the movie that we are shown the human frailties of those who represent the church and guide the flock. The best intentions (although the title does not necessarily refer to this) do not saints make. One has to strive to become a better person on a daily basis, and realize one's shortcomings. The characters in this movie do, and it makes one able to better relate to them.

Like the locomotives one sees so often steaming through the glorious landscapes of this story, this movie starts chugging slowly at first - although never boring -- and barrels full steam ahead during the second half. The entire movie is 181 minutes. I recommend it highly, giving it 9/10.


Having seen at least a couple dozen Bergman films, this biographical movie made a lot more sense to me than if I hadn't. I could see bits and pieces of his other films, particularly parallels with Fanny and Alexander. This movie was written by but not directed by Ingmar Bergman and tells about a portion of his father and mother's lives (with particular focus on the father). However, unlike the cruel and over-zealous preacher from Fanny and Alexander, Bergman's father is a flawed man full of dichotomies. A very pious and severe man with little sense of humor, he also apparently has no problem with premarital sex (with two different women) and is an advocate for the working poor. I think these inconsistencies and his father's difficulty with expressing normal human emotions lead to Bergman's earlier works (such as the professor in Wild Strawberries and the persistent theme of living in the barren wilds in movies such as The Passion of Anna and Shame).

So, why didn't I score the movie higher? Well despite the insights, the movie was very long and occasionally tedious--particularly for the Bergman novices. Plus, although the movie gave us some insights, the actual span of time covered in the film was rather limited. It was like a glimpse but an incomplete glimpse of the man.


If you read the box then you are ready to get your heart warmed when you pop in this Bergman scripted film by Bille August. But if you have half-a-brain then you're probably anticipating that the box is exactly what it turns out to be: bull that hopes to get people to watch it even though it's vintage Bergman.

Brutal in a way that "Scenes from a Marriage" never is, in "The Best Intentions" Bergman accomplishes something extraordinary: he gets us to root for him never to have been born.

What I mean is that his father (as expertly portrayed by Samuel Froler) is such a monstrous egotistical hubristic sociopath that I almost couldn't continue watching as he defined for the first time the ground rules of the Bergmanesque hell we would all become so familiar with in the future. Maybe that's why Bergman writes such strong women, because he casts his mother as the heroine and actually lets her overcome the obstacles, but here we get to watch a saintly intelligent woman get beaten down physically and mentally over and over by her psychotic husband's fetishizing of unhappiness and misery. As an example: he takes the very fact that she does not want to be in the desolate awful town they move to as a sign that it is the exact place she should be. She can't visit her family and she has to work like a slave for him. He strikes her several times, usually when he has been in the wrong. He makes her give up everything but whenever he has to he calls her spoiled and invokes God (but only in order to get things he wants). He holds every petty thing that ever happens against her. He keeps sleeping with his other fiancé without breaking it off when he starts sleeping with Anna, but neither of them can really hold it against him because apparently (though I don't know why) he's such a good person.

If you believe the box then Anna's mother, who opposes the marriage, is the witch who will be proved wrong, but if you saw "Fanny och Alexander" then you remember that the grandmother was right (and that he relegated the monster father to being a stepfather). Both mothers oppose the marriage, and they're both right. That the grandmother is actually a good person is signified by Bergman's giving her the name "Karin" which is usually reserved for the pure of heart. This is so because his mother's name was "Karin," not "Anna." Also he gives Anna's brother his own actual first name, "Ernst," though I have no clue what that signifies.

Bergman knows this, and some of the best evidence he gives of this is tenuously confirmed across a few films: the foil for Henrik Bergman in this film is Nordenson, a soulless capitalist pig who reminds us that secularism can be as monstrous as hubristic piety. Nordenson commits suicide (no big spoiler). In Bergman's final film "Sarabande" there is a husband named "Henrik" (spoiler coming up) whose sainted wife (whom he did not deserve) dies and then he commits suicide. Bergman's opposition to Nordenson looks for a minute like it is going to be the only decent thing he does, then you realize that he just wants to match egos with him.

I wish the other ones ("Sunday's Children", "Private Confessions" and "In the Presence of a Clown") were available readily in the US, especially to see Peter Stormare assay an older "Petrus", that little zombie.

The VHS of this film is shameful, blotchy letter often against a white background, completely indistinguishable. I don't think it is available on DVD which is a joke, it won best picture at Cannes in 1992! I would honestly not advocate that people see this if they are not already familiar with Bergman and inured to the site of a loving person's soul being crushed one step at a time. Pernilla August deserved her award, I saw every lash landing; All I could think in the last frame when she reaches out to him again was "NOOOOOO!"


***Contains SPOILERS**** This episode left an indelible impression on me as a child. I remembered many details from it and was amazed when I saw it years later.

IT'S WONDERFUL!!!! This Ray Bradbury story is extremely chilling and beautifully executed (pun intended). It's superbly acted--Pat Buttram gracefully heads a remarkable cast of actors. George Lindsey's portrayal of a mentally challenged man is sensitive and heart wrenching. William Marshall (Blackula, Dr. Daystrom from Star Trek) is deep and visceral.

Each character is given a chance to say what they "see" in The Jar and it's an actor's playground and a audience delight.

One of the reason I enjoy shows like this so much is that actors who were relegated to bread and butter roles that they could phone in (like George Lindsey as Goober Pyle in Mayberry RFD) got to show their tremendous range and versatility. These are NOT one note actors so give 'em more than one note to sing.

If you see no other Alfred Hitchcock episode ever, see this one! They you'll be remembering it 40 years later!


One of the most offbeat episodes of any anthology series of the time. What the heck is in The Jar that country rube Pat Buttram buys from a traveling carnival act, and for the princely sum of $12, no less. It looks like a deformed creature of some sort floating in formaldehyde. There even appears to be a dangling eye staring back at those country folk who assemble nightly in Buttram's front parlor, each offering an opinion on the hypnotic contents.

Buttram himself only cares about his new found status as owner of the mysterious contents, sitting next to it like some proud hayseed Buddha and keeper of the secret. At last, his once dismissive neighbors envy him. Life would be perfect if it weren't for slutty wife, Collin Wilcox, who sneaks around with James Best, humiliating Buttram in the process. The ending itself turns out to be a horror masterpiece.

As good as the episode is, I can't help thinking it would have worked better in a half-hour format, since there is noticeable padding, especially the quicksand sequence which does add action to a talky story-line, but does little to advance the plot. Then too, the acting is uneven. Buttram surprises with an effectively understated performance-- you just know he's building a head of steam even if he doesn't show it. And George Lindsey delivers an absolutely riveting performance as a slow-witted, but sensitive neighbor. For those of us used to seeing both actors in buffoonish roles, their turn here comes as a pleasant surprise.

However, Wilcox parades her 'baby doll' wantonness so relentlessly, it almost reaches the point of cartoonish exaggeration. I was about ready to write her and the episode off, until she went into the 'purring kitten' routine so abruptly and unnervingly that I was chilled to the bone. This brilliantly perverse stroke also suggests a creepy sexual aspect to her relationship with Buttram, and frankly grabbed me more than than the celebrated climax. Anyway, I've seen nothing quite like it before or since.

Although The Jar contains more flaws than The Unlocked Window, together they remain the only two episodes from the hour-long Hitchcock really worth seeing, and I'm glad the Internet gives viewers a chance to salute such classic episodes, which otherwise-- because of relentless scheduling-- would pass into TV oblivion.


This is a classic piece of Ray Bradbury about a country man who buys a mysterious jar from a carnival and becomes a sensation in his small town as a result.

Night after night, a group of citizens meet at his house to discuss the jar and its contents and to try to discover what it it is. each of the citizens ventures a guess, some very complicated like Grandma's explanation, and some very simple like the young girl who thinks that the contents is "the boogieman". Like most of Alfred Hitchcock's hair raisers, this segment has a surprise ending. In addition, in this particular segment, it has a very gruesome ending at that.

Dan Basinger


I agree with those who commented that "The Jar"(1964) was one of the best episodes in the Hitchcock TV series. I'm actually more a fan of those "tales of the unknown" type of anthology series,(like Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, Night Gallery, etc.). Since Hitchcock's show always seemed to concentrate more on murder/suspense than the supernatural, I found this particular story to be a refreshingly creepy departure from all those Hum-Drum Who-Dun-its! I'm not saying that this story actually contains supernatural elements, but it certainly does suggest them. It was like watching some kind of nightmarish version of those 60's "rural" comedies, I loved seeing Mr Haney and Goober, and others trying to guess what was in the jar. (Heck, I almost expected Jethro and Gomer to make an appearance). Much like the characters in the story, the TV viewer finds himself literally glued to the screen, just dying to know what the heck that thing is in there! Now, I haven't seen this episode for decades and I would give my right arm to see it again, but alas, I can't locate a DVD or even a VHS tape featuring this lost classic. Can anyone help?


I just checked, and there are some clips available on youtube. This show and others like it, used to scare the bajeezabells out of my brother and me. Of course we couldn't wait for the next terrifying episodes. Does anyone remember the Outer Limits Episode w/ the radio station and the alien that comes to Earth on the radio waves? I am trying to reference it, but don't remember the name. I was really young when The Jar was on TV, so I don't specifically remember all that much about it, other than it appeared to be very murky and curious. I wish I could get a copy of this on DVD or somewhere, any ideas? Twilite Zone, Outer Limits, even if there is some place on line available to watch the whole thing. Thanks


I remember seeing this episode as a child of maybe 3. It was one of the few episodes I remember seeing as a child in that series. All the other Hitchcock shows I've seen have been in re-runs as an adult. I never saw the "jar" episode again as an adult. I remember being a bit disturbed by this episode as a child but not bone-chillingly scared like some shows that were on during the 60's. As long as my Mom or Dad was in the room, I thought I had to see some of those programs. However, I sometimes wouldn't sleep too well after watching something creepy. I'd love to see this particular episode again as I'm sure it would be interesting at 46 to view what I thought was a strange & sort of scary episode at 3.


Well done episode, certainly by early 60's standards, cast and direction of Norman Lloyd, create feel of summer in a small southern town. Perhaps the very best of the, "Alfred Hitchcock Hour," series, the ending has a lasting impact; even though I haven't seen it in years. James Best is memorable as the leading man here. Although he always found steady work in films and television since 1950, Best never quite reached the top tier of film stars; despite the fact that he was a remarkably handsome young man. Perhaps, like Dennis Weaver, his southern drawl held him back a bit. He continues to work today. I would have thought his presence in this episode would have elevated him to bigger parts. A must see for Hitchcock fans. Norman Lloyd worked with Hitch in, "Sabateur," and was known in the 1980's for appearing on, "St. Elsewhere."


Continuation of the events in the original "Evil Dead" movie. After recapping the events of the first movie (telling the story somewhat differently, even eliminating three of the characters), this movie has poor, tormented Ash (Bruce Campbell) constantly being harassed and tortured by sadistic demons - including, in the movie's most memorable sequence, his own possessed hand.

Absolutely hilarious; this effective mix of hardcore horror and slapstick comedy provides a lot of laughs, impressive effects, and the very game Campbell putting up with a lot as the film-makers set out to abuse his character as much as possible. "Evil Dead 2" manages to be even more entertaining than the first movie, a goofy and fun horror/comedy with a chaotic finale that I would recommend to any fan of this genre.

What is also funny is that the character of Ash is already showing signs of the super-obnoxious moron he would become in "Army of Darkness".

I loved "Evil Dead 2".

9/10


This film, is without a shadow of a doubt, one of finest, most imaginative comedy horror films ever made. Raimi, has put all the aspects of the film together in masterful fashion. The camera work and sound effects are pulsating, and the timing is perfection. And in Bruce Campbell, the film as a lead actor who gives an exceptional performance. Campbell plays "Ash", an everyday, supermarket attendant who suddenly finds himself thrown into the unusual situation of having to defend himself against, zombies, evil spirits and even his own possessed hand, just in order to survive the night. I laughed, I gasped, and I gripped the arm of my chair throughout! If you like your comedies, black and hilarious, and your horror, gory and sensational, then look no further. Raimi has created the definitive comedy horror! Fantastic!


Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn is the sequel to the ultimate experience in grueling terror. Evil Dead II is the definitive cult flick and perhaps my favorite horror film (top five at least). Bruce Campbell takes on the role of Ash once again in this hilariously horrific sequel to a legendary movie. Few sequels live up to the original and fewer still surpass it. This is one of those rare instances. This movie is out of this world. Sam Raimi is a genius with a camera and has gone on to create some damn fine films. He deserves every amount of success he has gained. The script is inventive, highly original, and funny as all hell. It's a mix of horror, laughs, and gore; or splatstick as Campbell calls it. Once again, Campbell's facial expressions alone are worth the price of admission. If that doesn't get you the laughing deer head will. Evil Dead II: Dead By Dawn is a true horror masterpiece. A completely original concept, some screwy camera angles, and one Bruce Campbell make for an entertaining combination. If you don't like it, "I'll swallow your soul, I'll swallow your soul."


"The Exorcist" made you feel respect and fear to the Devil. Sam Raimi's "Evil Dead II" makes fun of the Devil and demon possession. Although there are some really scary scenes, there are some really twisted funny situations that would leave you wondering "what the f*** just happened?!". The movie is funny for the wrong reasons. I eventually don't laugh about when a man is breaking himself dishes on the head. I don't think it's funny when a man is repeatedly beaten up by grotesque characters. I would never imagine a man getting eaten by a demon locked under a cellar and throwing gallons of blood! "Evil Dead II" makes it look hilarious in a wicked kind of way. For example, when Linda's head tells Ash that "she is being tormented, and suffering in hell; you can feel a little scared but the next scene has a corpse without a head holding a chainsaw. There's no time for logic here, just sit and enjoy!

It also has the ability to make you feel tense and I must say, scared. The combination of demon possessed people, EVIL sounds (I love the weird noise in the movie), wicked laughs and chanting ("dead by dawn!"), and intrepid camera angles are the perfect ingredients to make a sui generis Horror-Comedy movie. Watch out for the "A Farewell to Arms" joke, the whole situation with the evil hand, and the eye that gets in a woman's mouth!.

Sam Raimi went too far for the good reasons. He created an unbelievable and unforgettable work that has served as inspiration for many movies in recent years. The movie is easily one of the most visually stunning Horror movies of all time, for sure. Die hard fans of gore get an eye candy for an hour and a half. Raimi created a cult movie in all the sense of the world. "Groovy!". "Dead by Dawn" will never bore you because in every scene there's a feeling of uncertainty and that makes it even more interesting. There are no rules here.

The plot is as scary as you can imagine but it's held in such a way that it isn't taken very seriously. I mean, demon possession caused by the Necronomicon is something that happens in the real world. Not exactly with that book but it can happen via satanic books and rituals. Raimi takes it to a different level of humor mixed with gore.

Bruce Campbell deserves a special mention. He delivers a wicked, solid, and totally believable performance. Something you haven't seen before mainly because of the strange situations he goes through. His performance could be described as a "solo". Easily, one of the best performances of any actor in a Horror movie. Also, one of the characters that suffers the most in any movie! Ash is beaten up by demons, humans, objects, etc. Even possessed creatures make fun of him.

The gore here is great, glorious. You get decaps, mutilated bodies, a hand cut off, bleeding demons, etc. Blood spread all over the cabin is the common denominator. One of the goriest movies of all time.

Watch "Evil Dead II" to witness one of the most creative, brave, and goriest movies of all time. It delivers something for everyone. It has action, gore, spectacular camera angles, and some action! Check out Ash V.S. possessed Henrietta. * After it, phrases like "join us!", "swallow this!", and specially "groovy!" will be part of your daily vocabulary.

Recommended for every Horror fan in the world. This movie is an obligation to watch.


Nonstop fun as a group of people are trapped overnight in a remote cabin and tormented by the evil dead.

Not really a sequel to "The Evil Dead"--more of a remake. Director Sam Raimi expected this to be R rated and figured most people never saw the unrated (meaning it was X) first one. So, he decided to just redo the movie--just quicker, less gorier and with STRONG doses of comedy (the first one was dead serious). He did it, cut some gore but it was STILL unrated. So it was released (with the gore never put back in) and, like the first, didn't do too well. And, like the first, it quickly acquired a following and is now considered a great movie!

Basically once the movie gets going it never stops. It's more a comedy than a horror movie--a very SICK comedy! Hands are cut off, eyeballs go flying, BUCKETS of blood are thrown around, knives and axes are used, etc. If you go expecting a horror film, you'll be disappointed. If you approach it as a sick comedy you'll love it! I recommend this highly but only if you have a strong stomach!

The sequence with Ash (Bruce Campbell) and his possessed hand is a horrific and comedic highlight. Cool ending too.


... in the evil dead series. From the very beginning I couldn't stop smiling... every time I saw Bruce Campbell i laughed and every time there was a fight I chuckled. It is an extremely fun movie with a no mercy attitude. Sam Raimi perfects his shaky cam shots and first persons and makes for the most enjoyable experience in a long time. The plot is sturdy (identical to Evil Dead) and the technology is painful (purposefully). The movie moves leisurely from event to event. The supporting cast are stupid and bring more trouble to the film (a much needed element) and the best part is, the carnage starts 5 minutes into the movie. A no-think great movie, possibly the best movie the horror genre has turned out in the last 20 years.


How good is it? This movie means everything to me. It's the most perfect horror viewing experience you'll ever have. The whole trilogy is great, but I have to admit this one's my favorite. Part one is a pure creepy and extremely violent exploitation horror film. Army of Darkness (the weakest of the trilogy but still pretty good) is an awesome horror/adventure movie, with more laughs and less scares. Evil Dead 2 Dead by Dawn stands right in the middle, just where it belongs. A perfect mix of comedy and horror! I remember the day I first watched it. I was with two friends. We rented it at our local video store in the early afternoon. I laughed, I got scared, I enjoyed every little second passing by the screen. We watched it four times. Since then, I never stopped watching it. It never gets old. I never get bored. The performance by Bruce Campbell (Ash) is still the best I've ever seen in a horror movie. No wonder Sam Raimi is now directing the Spiderman series. This guy's a genius! The music is excellent, and the atmosphere... what can I say? An awesome movie is an awesome movie. If you never ever watched this film, I order you to turn off your computer right now. Life's too short not to see Evil Dead 2!!


This is one of the few horror movies I truly enjoyed, because the film offers a great combination of horror and comedy. It adds up to a very entertaining 85 minutes.

There's a lot to like in this kinda-goofy movie: nice visuals; good humor to counteract the scariness and gore of a horror story; a small amount of ridiculous theology compare to what usually is offered in this genre, and some totally outrageous scenes. They include a woman's head loose and then biting a man's hand with the rest of her body running around with a chainsaw; a hand with a mind of it's own, monster-type grandma and grandpa in the cellar, chase scenes through a forest with trees coming to life and attacking people, on and on....wild, wild stuff.

My main complaint is not enough lulls. There is too much action, and it's so intense it's almost too much to watch in one continuous sitting even with its fairly short length. One needs a break once in a while!

There is no credibility in here, but that's okay since I think most of this is played for laughs more than horror. Bruce Campell suffers physical damage that would have killed a person many times but within seconds, he's back to normal. Campell, by the way, must have set the all-time record for making rubber-faced wild faces in a movie, more than Jim Carrey. However, this movie certainly isn't one to be scrutinized for realism. You have to look at it, with all the gory scenes and shocking violence as not much more than just tongue-in-cheek satire on horror movies. It's great fun.


Evil Dead II (1987) After the huge success of the first film, Sam Raimi and

Bruce Campbell reunite for this Quasi-Remake/Sequel. Ash and his lady

are off on a nice trip through the woods. They stop off and rest inside an

old cabin. Does Ash realize that he's been here before, or hasn't he? Raimi and company (armed with a bigger budget and over the top special effects) bring us the second installment of the Evil Dead series. This film focuses

more on black humor and camp instead of shock and horror. Technically

this film is far superior to the one that was release a few years back and in many ways it's a better film.

What a better way to spend the night? Watch Evil Dead II with some of

your friends and let the party begin! Leave all logic at the door.

Remember, this is a movie, and a fun one at that.

Highly recommended!

A++


This movie is equal to the original Evil Dead, here we have ASH the lone survivor from the first encounter with the evil dead, fighting off the deadites yet again. ASH encounters some unexpected guests and now everyone must fight for the lives, or become the evil that hunts them.

Sam Raimi does an excellent job of keeping us scared in a cabin in the middle of nowhere, with the dead surrounding us. When ASH is alone in the cabin, we are alone in the cabin and every creaking sound we hear feels like it's right beside us. The eery feeling is not as terrifying as the original, because the original was a punch in the face of terror. This one is more of a drench you in the face with blood, instead of a punch. The touch of dark comedy is great. ASH versus his hand is some comic gold and is a great way to give you some breathing room when you're not terrified of what might happen next.

The script of course is just one guy in a cabin against the dead, but what makes it different is the great one-liners "Swallow This", "Groovy". The movie showcases other characters that hold no emotional value to the viewer what so ever. You don't even feel sorry for the hillbilly who gets stabbed, slammed by the door, kicked, yelled at, while still being stabbed mind you, dragged and then finally something unknown happens to him under the cellar, but it involves gallons upon gallons of blood.

The ending to this film sets up the third installment ARMY OF DARKNESS, which is a total turn around from the first two. The cameo of FREDDY'S glove is a classic nod to Craven's work...or a diss, however you look at it. The whole idea of an evil unknown force underneath you in a cellar is scary enough, not to mention the fact that we have to go down there with our hero, who's armed with trademark boomstick and chainsaw.

This film holds one of my all time favourite scenes. Can you guess it, it's when Ash "saws" off his own hand with a psycho laugh, while blood splatters across his face and his laugh slowly grows into agony and screaming. If you love blood, dark comedy, great directing, classic B movie acting, one-liners and want to be scared ****less, then check this movie out, as well as the original.

This is what horror is all about, the gore, the atmosphere, the EVIL DEAD


Not so much of a sequel to Sam Raimi's groundbreaking horror feast the Evil Dead, this is more of a reprise of the same film with more proper equipment, professional pacing and further developed gore. Sole survivor Ash (Bruce Campbell in the role of his life) returns to the cabin in the haunted woods and faces the same demonic forces he dealt with in the first film. The first half is kind of like a one-man horror comedy show that provided Campbell with his constantly growing cult-icon status. Ash chops up his possessed girlfriend, loses essential body parts and nearly goes completely insane up in that shed. The second half introduces new characters or - in other words  fresh new victims to dissect. Sam Raimi updates his initial Evil Dead idea with rushing camera movements, inspired gore and comic book-style action. The pacing is fast and the blood is omnipresent! According to most horror fans, this is the finest installment in Raimi's trilogy (completed in 1993 with 'Army of Darkness') but I still prefer the charming cheapness of the original. Nevertheless, this is one outstanding horror adventure. Campbell's acting skills have remarkably improved and Sam Raimi's directing also is a lot more solid. Great fun, warmly recommended to every horror fan and admirers of twisted black humor.


While the original EVIL DEAD was genuinely a horror film, this one went completely the opposite direction and decided to amp up the gore factor to make it basically a demented cartoon show. EVIL DEAD 2: DEAD BY DAWN is really a re-telling of the same events from the first story, but in this case, only Ash and Linda (Bruce Campbell and Denise Bexler) come to the cabin and less than 10 minutes into the movie he has played a recording from a professor who mouths the infamous lines from the Necronomicon and unwittingly brought his girlfriend to an untimely death, though she herself becomes re-animated and returns to torment him as a severed head and a body with a chainsaw in its hands who unwittingly slices itself in two.

And this is only the beginning of a movie that will not let down the zaniness, as the professor's daughter makes an appearance with her partner and two locals and get sucked into the madness that ensues. Raimi uses a hyper-kinetic editing to make the essentially silly story even sillier -- the POV of an eyeball flying into the screaming mouth of a woman is a (pun intended) scream -- and distorting the dead into stop-motion figurines only adds to the lunacy. Looney Tunes gone berserk (even the furniture becomes possessed), not precisely frightening, but swiftly paced and with great use of Bruce Campbell's over-the-top acting and slapstick humor. Hilarious, entertaining stuff.


Sequel or remake? There has always been a huge debate whether Evil Dead II is a sequel or a remake, since the second film contradicts the story that occurred in Evil Dead. Such as, the ending of Evil Dead ends with Ash being chased down by the evil spirit which deceased the other characters. However, after the paraphrase of events at the start of Evil Dead II, which only features Ash and Linda and Ash is once again hit by the same evil spirit. That's where the story begins in the second film.

So, the book was destroyed in The Evil Dead, whereas it appears again in Evil Dead II. This certainly isn't a huge factor. Actually, if one can recall James Whale's 1935 masterpiece sequel entitled Bride of Frankenstein. There is no question that director Sam Raimi used the Whale masterpiece as the blueprint for his sequel. In Bride of Frankenstein, the film starts with a prologue that recaps the events of the first film, however, completely contradicting the entire ending of the film which is where the sequel starts. I understand that Raimi was going through legal issues, so he was forced in this position to contradict the first film, but he certainly used the way that made Bride of Frankenstein the classic in remains. Not to mention, in Frankenstein, it is a straightforward horror film, whereas in the sequel it is a macabre, satirical film that uses the blend of horror and black comedy at it's finest. No doubt Raimi's Evil Dead II uses the same concept.

So is Evil Dead II a sequel or a remake? It is undoubtedly a sequel! A fairly good one as well, that in many ways surpasses it's original prototype. It's certainly not one of the most visually inventive, relentless, and truly original films ever made as some claim it to be, it's not even one of the top films of it's very own genre. However, it remains one of the best full-on gore slapstick's ever seen. The script is witty, and well written (mostly on the part of Scott Spiegel). It's no secret that one of films main inspirations was The Three Stooges, along with many other slapstick comedy's. Though it's director Raimi's unbelievable POV shots, weird lighting, stop motion animation, moving hand held camera, etc. that makes the film work.

That being said, Evil Dead II just isn't a grade-A horror film, it isn't on the level of the classics such as, Peeping Tom, Freaks, Nosferatu, Vampyr, The Phantom of the Opera (silent), The Man Who Laughs, etc. It does not have much of a plot. It has very little acting, little continuity, and no logic. Evil Dead II is a classic cult horror film in every sense of the word. You simply have to come along and experience it for yourself.


"The Evil Dead" is probably one of the most popular horror films of all time and it has inspired too many horror flicks to name.It is not only extremely scary,but also gory as hell.In comparison to that masterpiece "Evil Dead 2" is nowhere near as gruesome,but it is still worth checking out.The camera work throughout the film is spectacular and the special effects made by Mark Shostrom are pretty good considering the budget.The cinematography is really beautiful and the action is furious.Some scenes are deliciously funny especially when Ash cuts off his own demon-possessed hand or when a woman swallows a flying eyeball.Sam Raimi was a really talented guy,he could be a real horror master but nowadays he is making Hollywood garbage.What a shame!!!To sum up,if you love horror movies this one is a must-see.Highly recommended.


''Evil Dead II ''is a very funny trash comedy that I watched just yesterday and I had a lot of fun! I thought this movie was older then actually is, because the character's hair in general looks from the 60's. I love the scene where Ash loses his hand and he attached a chainsaw to the stump. The monsters and the special effects are not perfect and you can clearly see that is a doll in many of the scenes, but that's what makes the movie a trash cult. Ash is a young adult who takes his girlfriend to a recluse place thinking that they are going to have a good time. The problem is that Ash plays back a professor's tape recorded recitation of passages from the Book of the Dead, and this makes many zombies,evil spirits and monsters to be awaken. Linda is possessed and becomes a zombie monster, and Ash needs to prevent himself to have the same faith.


I didn't think it was possible, but "Evil Dead II" surpasses the original in nearly every way. It's scary, it's gory and lastly, it's hilarious. It's pure, inspired comic mayhem and madness for 80 minutes straight! It's no secret director Sam Raimi loves to torment star Bruce Campbell, putting him through the most grueling experience an actor should ever go through. Essentially, it's a sequel/remake of the first film, and Ash (Campbell) is once again battling the forces of the dead, which have been resurrected by the reading of passages from the dreaded "Book of the Dead." But unlike the first movie, the "Three Stooges"-type humor is rampant and outright, and it makes this entry deserving. The funniest scene of all is Ash having to sever his possessed hand, of course after it literally beat the living crap out of him. Not to be missed. 10/10


Evil Dead II once again sees Ash (Bruce Campbell) battling the evil demons in a run down cabin in the woods with his teenage friends. Its the centrepiece of the Evil Dead Trilogy and yet it feels a little like a remake of the original, it does follow on from the events of the first film but the similarities between the two are very apparent.

Once again there is plenty of horror, gore and chills; but this time there is even more humour than in the first outing, and once again it is a great film.

The character of Ash and the direction of Raimi combine well again and this time the effects have improved a little too.

7/10 I still prefer the first film, but in truth they are about as good as each other.


this is by far, the scariest movie i have ever seen. and it even made me laugh. i saw this a very long time ago, in the theatres, and i had never heard of Sam Raimi at the time. this film is an example of what you can do with a bit of money and a brilliant mind. using cameras, sound,editing and anticipation, what we have here is an engrossing, raw horror movie with a uniquely charming eternal champion. and i loved the special effects, which includes his use of sound and camera work. they weren't up to the block-buster digital computerized seamless stuff we see now, but for me this only added to its' charm. the film also didn't take itself too seriously either, which is always appreciated. i really like the character of Ash, and his progression from ordinary guy to cocky, evil dead fighter. as for Sam Raimi, it didn't take long to see just how gifted he is as a director, and i couldn't wait to see what he could do with a bigger budget. i think his track record now speaks for itself. this is a hard-core, for horror fans movie. i'm only guessing but i think baby-boomers who want to be scared will love this film. i also like seeing Bruce Campbell show up in Raimi films, like the face in the crowd in the last shot in Dark Man, right on up to his television shows and the power-tripping gate-keeper in Spider Man 2. He uses his brother in his films too,(aarrgh Henrietta!) nice to see, as well as seeing his partner's wife in cameos in his other films( great punk look, xena). i understand that Bridget Fonda asked Sam to give her a small role in Army of Darkness because she is such a fan of the movies, and probably of Mr Raimi as well, whom she worked with in A Simple Plan. great film. my understanding is that he has written the screenplay for an Evil Dead 4. this is great news to me, and makes sense considering how Army of Darkness ended. Army didn't scare me, but i loved it all the same. i don't know what to expect from a fourth one....scarier than hell or campy fun, or both? i say, bring it on! he wont have any trouble getting real money for #4, which he didn't need in the first three to make them so truly great. so, trust me on this. if you love horror films, check out Evil Dead 2, dead by dawn. i wouldn't watch it alone either. i don't care how macho you are. it's an engaging roller-coaster,fun ride. not for the uninitiated and not for Sleepless in Seattle-type fans. this is pure, classic, camp with a great ending.


Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn is a splashier, dare I say, more sophisticated re-make/sequel of the original Evil Dead. It is not a true sequel as it revisits basically much of what happened in the original but only changing things around. Things are changed around enough; however, to clearly make this a different film and not a true remake. At any rate, this aspect of the film was interesting to me. Now, confessedly I was not a huge fan of the original Evil Dead. I didn't think it was a bad movie nor a real good one either. I do understand why so many people love it, but I admitted then - and now - that this type of material is just not my cinematic cup of tea. Bruce Campbell(again playing Ash) and his girlfriend wend their way over the river and through the woods to some cabin in the remotest part of nowhere - where only weeks before an Archaeologist(something like that) and his wife were staying decoding the book of the dead(Necrominicon(?)). I did like the obvious homage to Lovecraft. Anyway, Campbell arrives, plays a tape revealing the words that wake the evil dead, and his girlfriend quickly dies, only to come back and lose her head, be chainsawed, and dance(through a type of clay-mation) naked in the woods with her headless torso and head in hand. All of this happens in the first ten minutes or so into the film. From there, Campbell begins his one man comedy/horror show. He is about as big a slice of ham you will find. Obviously, more people come - and die - and there is a neat ending to the film which opens for another sequel(Army of Darkness). Campbell breathes some life into this movie creating a frenetically eerie, over-the-top performance of Ash, a man having lost his hand by cutting it off himself still having a sense of humour and seeming to fear nothing(including in his performance). Director Sam Raimi shows us why he became a big league director. He has talent. He still is using a small budget in comparison to what an A-list film would take. You can't tell watching this. Raimi gets the most out of everything(and even more with Campbell). He also creates some innovative camera shots - uses a lot of the same shots from the first Evil Dead - and paces his film with a high energy that will make you jump a lot. That all notwithstanding, I like a little more meat to my story. I like a bit more logic - not just fun. That is why again I will say that Evil Dead 2 is not a bad film, not a great one, but just not my kind of film. I am ecstatic that so many people enjoy mindless violence in rural areas with chainsaws, cleavers, etc...but it's just not me. For me, I just didn't find Evil Dead 2...all that Groovy! I did prefer it though to the original. This one is a bit more fun and doesn't have nearly as much screaming. The best part - hands down - was when Campbell, after having taken his hand off, places a bucket over it to restrain it and then puts a bunch of books on top. The top book was Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms. Now that was clever!


i just finished watching ED2 and i can say it's the best gore-black-comedy that has ever crossed my gore-terror thirsty mind... i'll check army of darkness tomorrow, but i can say undoubtedly that if you loved ED1, then this one will make you cry for more!!! but you'll cry with blood tears and zombie laughs!!! this film is so over the top!!! PLENTY of GORE, BLOOD, ZOMBIES, AWESOME SPECIAL EFFECTS, PAIN and PURE BLACK HUMOUR -> that's right, capital letters!!! it is impossible to stay away from such a master piece!!! there's not one single boring moment in the movie, it's pure terror from the first minute to the most unexpected and unpredictable end!!! the movie hero makes leatherface (the Texas chainsaw massacre) look like a church chorus boy and "swallow this" is just the most wicked line ever in the gore/terror movie history!!! this movie is a pure "show no mercy" to people wishing to see cubic litres (not litres) of blood spilling all the time and creative scenes as the dance of the dead bride or the inphamous zombie hand... pure magic and entertainment!!! too bad the scale only goes till 10, the movie makers and the characters should get a 20, and i'm being modest... just run as fast as you can and rent it, and trust me, i'd change a date with a nice girl to stay home watching this masterpiece, it's PRICELESS!!!


Here is one of the great bad movies! A legendary artwork from the genius of Sam Raimi and beloved of myself. Terrific sight gags, a lean and mean Bruce Campbell as Ash, and soul swallowing demons! Ash and his woman Linda want some time alone so they shack up in a deserted cabin. Unfortunately it was being used by professor Knowby while he translated "The Book of the Dead" and when Ash plays the recording evil spirits are summoned. Having to chop up your girlfriend makes you a little loco and when demonic forces are screwing with you it just gets worse. About half the film chronicles Ash's struggle against insanity and the unholy terrors. When everyone else arrives they misunderstand the situation of course, heck - there's some maniac with a bloody chainsaw and shotgun in the Knowby's cabin. They learn soon enough Ash isn't perfectly sane but right on track with his assessment of the situation. Unfortunately the newcomers aren't the hardy breed though, and they fall one by one. In the end Annie is able to recite the passages to dispel the evil with her dying breaths but Ash is dragged through the time warp and into the medieval past. I really love this movie, the Hand is a riot! More movies should use the idea of the main character's hand becoming possessed and menacing them. Like... ..."Dirty Dancing!" Now what if Swayze's hand had become possessed and he was trying to deal with that while doing the Tango or something. Hey, what about "Forest Gump?" Hehehehe! (Say this in a Gump voice.) And mah hand was acting all funny like, it even tried to stab me. Momma never said nothing bout no hand trying to stab me so that jus didn't seem right. What it boils down to: If you have not seen this film you are missing out.


*The Evil SPOILERS 2* Ash (Bruce Campbell) and his girlfriend Linda (Denise Bixler) go for a weekend in a dingy cabin in the Michigan woods, hoping for a good time, but it seems that Fate has other things in store for them, when they unwittingly awaken the Evil Forces luring nearby, that possess Linda and try to do the same with Ash...

In the meanwhile, a young woman, her boyfriend and two hicks (one of which - a girl - is going to A) get raped by vines and B) choke to death on an eyeball, while her boyfriend is going to leak some massive blood) have arrived in the cabin too, and as it turns out the whole blame of the situation stands on the parents of the young woman, herself, and her boyfriend, because it's them who looked for, found and tried to translate the Necromicon (yes, THAT book) in the first place...

Bloodier and also funnier than the first one, 'Evil Dead 2' manages to be as good as the original, but in a different way.

Some scenes (like the eyeball choking and the blood fountain) are some gory slapstick! And Bruce Campbell makes his Ash into a horror icon.

Evil Dead 2: 9/10.


When the first EVIL DEAD came out in 1982 or whatever 80 something it was gore after gore after gore in such a small budget and it became known as one of the most shocking films. Then when EVIL DEAD 2 came out director Sam Rami give it a new turn on the first one. And also adding a very good blend of slapstick humor into it.

Ash (Our well known hero) is back on the road to the cabin in the woods with his girlfriend Linda (The one with the missing head) this time and all too soon they came upon the book of the dead and release the demons upon the woods and same as the first one Linda gets killed in the same style and new characters and scenes came along, Annie along side with her boyfriend Ed (Soon to be Evil Ed) comes to the cabin to put the missing pages together and the redneck Jake and his girlfriend comes for the ride. The new moments added Ash's hand coming to life running around a dead old women coming out of the basement and a new spin on the attack of the forest (they do much more than raping)and added crazy comical moments into it which works very well.

EVIL DEAD 2 is one of those well creative turns in low budget film-making, sequel to EVIL DEAD and prequel to ARMY OF DARKNESS.


Good old classic horror movie which delivers everything a horror fan wants. More blood, more limbs, more scares. Overall: More fun!

Bruce Campbell returns as Ash, the foolish but cool hero who has to fight for his life and kill his friends when they get possessed and turn on him. KNB Effects Group (Kurtzman, Nicotero, Berger) really did an amazing job with this movie. The amount of monsters, limbs and all others kinds of special makeup effects alone is worth watching this movie.

Once again directed by Sam Raimi.

Funny, Scary and one hell of a ride!

10/10


"Evil Dead II" is not nearly as good as the original in my opinion. Despite the more professional look and better pacing, I prefer the original for its lack of slapstick. The first worked so well because it was such an unrelenting and grueling experience and was the finest horror film since "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". It didn't take prisoners, and while its a bit dated it still has the power to terrify the audience. Not to mention it had some great if primitive stop motion effects. I really wish Sam Raimi would make another all out horror film again as thats what he does best.

That being said, "Evil Dead II" is still quite enjoyable on its own merits. I usually hate films that attempt to combine horror with comedy (such as the reprehensible "Scream" series), as they're often neither scary nor funny. While "Evil Dead II" is never scary, its often hilarious. Imagine an off the wall combination of "Friday the 13th" with the Three Stooges, and you're coming close. The sight gags are often surreal and inspired, the sequence with the hand being the finest. Also, the film is very atmospheric and still maintains a sense of unnerving creepiness, which was completely jettisoned for "Army of Darkness". I'm not a fan of "Army of Darkness", as it had too much slapstick and seemed to be made to appeal to a wider audience. This one has plenty of gore to still appeal to fans of the original. The gore is so over-the-top its difficult to find it even remotely offensive.

Special mention must go to Bruce Campbell. While he was a meek and unwilling hero in the first film, he is a completely over-the-top bad ass in this one! Its a very finely tuned parody performance of action stars. While this is the role that lead him to being typecast, it also made him a cult legend. Its a shame he didn't become a bigger star. While its not as successful as the first installment, "Evil Dead II" is still a lot of fun and one of the best combinations of horror and humor. (7/10)


In the middle of the movie,some totally new characters show up and it's pretty obvious they're only there to get killed by the demons.But then again,what other purposes can characters in a horror movie have anyway?This second movie in the "Evil Dead"-series is kinda different actually,it gets more surreal here,mainly because Ash has really lost it here in the first half,and the demons appear to be even more over-the-top and more evil.However,they both grab themselves together near the end for their final showdown.Ash is accompanied by a bunch of idiots but as they're idiots,they don't help much and get killed in some rather original ways.I'm not sure when this movie is situated,but I'm guessing this movie acts like the first one never existed.Not that it completely retells the story,it merely summarises it.And as I took this walk on gross-out lane,I found myself very entertained,somehow shocked but I don't have a clue by what exactly and I did laugh along with Ash and the deer head I must say.That scene really puts a spell on you.Almost as great as the first one


The sequel to the gory, atmospheric horror flick The Evil Dead is really more of a (black) slapstick comedy... something there was a hint of in the first. Here, it's pushed all the way through... it's cartoony and provided you're into the humor, fun. I found it more cool than fun, honestly; never been into laughing at pain, no matter whose it is. But there's no doubt about it; this film is cool. It's also very much a 'guy' film... get 'the gang' together, call up all your guy friends and get a copy of this film, preferably an uncut one. You'll love it. So did I, no doubt about that. The better part of the film is basically a remake of the first... new characters and new plot points, but the progression and such is the same. The situations are the same, but the ways in which we get to them are different from the first film. It's a fine idea, and it works great, too, because the outcomes of the situations are different, as well... meaning, you see a scene and go "Oh, right, I remember this from the first... oh yeah, now he... what the ...!?" The plot is interesting, new and old parts alike. It's not Shakespeare, but it keeps your interest. The acting is the same fairly low standard as that of the first. The characters are equally ill-developed(though this time, I *could* tell them apart... they were easier to tell from each other, however, so maybe I wasn't the only one who couldn't tell those in the first apart?). The editing is excellent, just as the case was with the first. The special effects have improved... harder to figure out than those of the first, and that says quite a lot. The budget is higher(ten-fold, according to this very site), and it's most definitely noticeable. The emphasis throughout all of the film is mostly on humor and 'coolness' factor, very little on scares and horror. There's about the same amount of gore, at least as far as I could tell. The film is worth watching for just about any guy... regardless of maturity, really. There are things here that will make every guy watching it go "way cool!". One scene in particular had said effect on me... around the one hour mark, involving a chainsaw and a shotgun... anyone who has seen the film already know what I'm talking about, and I won't say anymore so as to not spoil it for anyone who hasn't. See it for yourself; you won't regret it. I recommend this film to any fan of Sam Raimi, gore, the first The Evil Dead, slapstick and/or Bruce Campbell. Of course, all guys should check it out. The film has such a thick 'guy' vibe, it should almost be mandatory for guys to watch it. Anyway, if you fit into one or more of the aforementioned groups, get a hold of this flick and watch it. Chances are high you'll love every second of it. 10/10


"Evil Dead II" is one of the most hilarious, over-the-top, gory, and tasteless comedies of all time. Naturally, that means it's a great film. Sam Raimiis a surprisingly energetic director, and puts a brutally quick pace on the movie. Bruce Campbell gets the role that made him into a star, and with good reason. He is great fun to watch - energetic, and dashing. The fact that the plot is basically non-existent (and what is there consists of ridiculous horror clichés) only serves to make the film more amusing. Sam Raimi's and Scott Spiegel's script is brilliant with it's bizarre jokes, and insane situations. The ending is particularly clever.

Any fan of black comedy will find "Evil Dead II" hard to resist.

7.9 out of 10


I wasn't able to get into the Evil Dead trilogy at first because I watched them all out of order. I was put off by the over the top juvenile humor in Army of Darkness, but I now realize it was just an extension of what Sam Raimi was perfecting here. This is an awesome black comedy featuring some of the sickest slapstick I've ever seen in a movie, and loads of dry humor (example: horrible demonic noises start coming from behind a bedroom door. Girl points to door and says, "It's in there").

The first half is basically a one-man comedy show starring the amazingly talented Bruce Campbell, who makes an idiot redneck into one of the most memorable movie heroes ever. In fact, when other people finally reach the cabin, it slows the whole thing down. That's my only complaint: the movie is too long. It would have worked better as a short. For example, they could have done without the tiresome sequence of the girl running into the woods and the others coming after her (and no shock factor like in the first movie's version). I'm not watching this to see a damn search party, for heaven's sake, I'm watching it to see Bruce Campbell fighting off possessed body parts with a chainsaw and saying things like, "You're going down!"

If your idea of a good movie is black humor combined with old-fashioned slapstick, this is the movie for you. It's a shame Sam Raimi abandoned stuff like this to make trendy crap. I'd rather watch insanity like "Evil Dead 2" than the Spiderman movies any day. 8/10.


(my comments are based on the uncensored 85 min. director's cut. stay away from the butchered 72 min. cut R-rated version)

everytime i have seen this movie i always have the same reaction. What a strange, f**ked up film!!

the film has a real sleazy look to it and it fits the subject matter like a glove. the movie is basically stating that todays teenagers are basically damned souls creating and existing in a hell of their own creation.

Rose McGowan fans should take note that she basically stays nude and in some provocative and graphic sexual situations throughout practically the whole movie. i've never been that big of a fan of hers. other than having fantastic breasts, up until seeing this movie i never found much to like about her. she seems to exist in her other movies just as window dressing.

well, for some reason she seems to really connect with her character in this movie and bring a highly believable sense of in your face sexuality that really makes an impression on the viewer. the other actors in the movie do pretty solid work but in my opinion this is really a Rose McGowan vehicle.

when violence occurs in this movie it's usually very quick, explicit and bloody. the numerous sex scenes and dialogue are also more explicit than most people would care for. the filmmakers leave nothing to the imagination and that is this movie's strong point in my opinion.

if you really want to check something out that is different but at the same time a good movie, check this one out. but be warned it is a weird, weird movie.

rating:7 (unrated version)


The opening credits claim this is a `heterosexual' movie by Gregg Araki Now that statement is still open for discussion. Something that isn't open of discussion is the fact Araki created one of the meanest, most good-looking pieces of trash of the 90's! Imagine yourself a lesser-hyped version of `Natural Born Killers' and exclude that last bit of political correctness. It seems like Araki was testing how far he could goand then cheerfully exaggerated some more. The Doom Generation is a speed-driven and absurd road movie against all forms of good taste. A young couple, accompanied by a trigger-happy madman, faces the most eccentric situations and deal with the most extravagant characters. The film contains a lot of violence but even more absurd and demoralizing humor, so the whole thing never really becomes disturbing or provocative. Lots of naughty language and nudity, though! Rose McGowan's character Amy is the closest thing to a cult/trash queen we saw in the 90's and her naked body is always a joy to behold. James Duvall (sort of like Araki's lead in his entire teenage-alienation trilogy) is terrific as the confused teenager with the `whatever' attitude! Gregg Araki's visions are downright brilliant from time to time. Many people don't seem to think so (just check the other comments around here) but his film is extremely stylish and a perfect portrayal of a pop culture generation. Heck, even his colorful slang  which includes a whole dictionary of genitalia synonyms  alone is worth the effort. The Doom Generation is one the most special films of the past decade and it really deserves the cult-followings it developed over the years. Check it out if you're open-minded, not quickly offended and not faint of heart!


Scaldingly angry and hateful, this is the tale of a trio of young people on a roadtrip to hell. Amy Blue and Jordan White are a teenage couple who have been dating "a really long time"- 3 months. One night Xavier Red jumps in the backseat of Amy's car and leads them on a mad, illicit journey through Greg Arraki's twisted vision of young America. Much has been made of the 'excessive' violence and sex this movie has, but that very excess is part of the point- that pointless excess has led the youth of America down a path where death barely registers, and intimacy doesn't at all. Greg Arraki *likes* these 3 characters. He grieves for the innocence they never even had and the love they try to fashion from the bloody shards of their hearts. And he rages at the widely held and ever-so-patriotic belief that regressing back into intolerance is the answer to America's problems, especially in regards to the young. Maybe he's looking for a third option, one that actually does children good, rather than oppressing them or leaving them to run wild in an irresponsible world. Rose McGowan once stated that Amy, with her sharp tongue and wounded eyes, is Rose herself at 15. Like Amy, Rose suffered a horrible childhood and because she put her fury and pain into her character, any 15-year-old girl who has suffered at the hands of those who are supposed to protect her can relate. Jordan is just adrift. He finds that Amy is having sex with Xavier, and he dismisses it- a soft, honest "whatever, Amy." Xavier plays demon-imp, tormenting and tempting Amy and Jordan headlong into their bleak, surreal adventure. Ultimately this story is Amy's, and the story is about isolation- hence Amy's whispered, matter-of-fact assertion at the beginning that "there's just no place for us in this world", her attempts to connect with both boys in the only way she knows how, and then her unseeing stare at the end.


Gregg Araki's THE DOOM GENERATION is reminiscent of everything from MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO to THE RIVER'S EDGE to TRUE ROMANCE to the experimental films of Pasolini, of Warhol (Morrisey), as well as of Richard Kern. The film reveals its thematic message when the most innocent and selfless of its three main characters asks the other, more self-centered, two if they ever think about the meaning of existence. Dismissing the very question, they reveal to the questioner an answer of sorts, one which suggests that we each create a meaning for ourselves, and are all existentially alone as we do so.

While offering us a rather slight story of a pair of teen lovers on the road who encounter a slightly older bisexual who becomes their nemesis, companion, lover and protector, THE DOOM GENERATION offers a great deal of visual style and wit, and some genuine moments of suspense. In fact, the film's gory and discomforting climactic scene is perhaps the artistic highlight and suggests some real filmaking talent by writer/director Gregg Araki. This is probably not everyone's cup of tea, but is worth a look for those who like a film which challenges them to react to strong imagery and who don't mind transgressive depictions.


I am a big fan of Gregg Araki's movies especially the trilogy this movie is a part of. My friends and I have even assembled our own little cult following for it. It is for sure a twisted and perverse movie but at the same time it has a message and funny all at the same time. I would only recommend this if you are into shocking, graphic commentary on our society and can stomach violence and sexual deviance. Now since the waring is out of the way I want to say i think this movie is genius and i love the WTF? feeling you get after watching this and the other two movie in this series (Nowhere and Totally F***ed Up). If you do watch this movie and don't like it the first time I suggest you watch it again, i promise after the initial shock you will see the art behind it all.


Wow. What a film. This highly enterntaining, slick, fast movie, requires multiple viewings. The more you put in the more you get out. The story is a simple one. A teenage couple, sick of the world, pick up a drifter after a concert at quite a metaphorical venue. They then get dragged through murder, drugs, sex (Highly un-erotic), ya know, the usual. The dreamy, surreal visuals are a delight, and the symbollic use of colours and light are mind-blowing if not hypnotic. Please dont be disgusted, during the first viewing, instead look between the lines, where you will find the truth. I highly recommend this film to anyone who like to ask 'why?'.


Where to begin... This movie tries so hard to be dark and say something sarcastic about GenX kids that it abandons all attempts to explain itself. Note to filmmaker: Just because your movie is inexplicable doesn't mean it's profound.

Some movies disturb you to catch your attention... not this one. Not that it's not disturbing--it is--but it just never holds your attention with any of this. Chances are you'll be bored watching this movie, even with a slew of sex scenes and a decapitation.

James Duval's confused looks and line delivery invite comparison to Keanu Reeves. Rose McGowan's lines are not only unfunny but increasingly irritating as the movie goes on. The best parts of the movie are the cameos by Skinny Puppy and Perry Farrell...

The best way to watch this movie would be with a bunch of sarcastic friends. The more you rip it apart and laugh at its attempts at drama, the more you'll enjoy it.