A 'comedy' about death which makes you think of many questions such as 'When is this thing going to end?' 'Why is it called a comedy?' 'How did this picture get made?'

I really did not understand what the point of this picture was. It was just a mishmash of boring scenes with the main character not going through any pronounced transformation beyond giving away a few of his possessions and voicing his desire to go on vacation before he dies.

Thankfully as promised, Benjamin Kasparian finally does die meaning there is no chance that this bore fest will spawn a sequel.


I've seen some up and down movies on the Movie Network, but none has bored me to death (no pun untended) the way Two Thousand and None did. Ever since being witness to this sleepfest, I've lost all faith in stuff on the Movie Network unless I've heard of it or sussed it out on this website before hand.

There's bad movies, there's good movies, and then there's plain old boring movies, like this one. Even a lot bad movies are interesting on some level but 2000&None is boring on every level. It was such a waste of time to watch it made me angry.

The only positive thing this film has to cling on to is that it seems Turturro can act a bit. Besides him the rest of the cast is hopeless especially his wife. The script isn't funny at all and the directing failed to fix the acting woes, so you're left with a big pile of Hollywood garbage.

I wouldn't recommend this film at all.


I just read all the comments. Some loved it. Some were bored with it. Some were, in my opinion, just trying to be supercritic. Here's the thing though. Having worked in the business of Social Work and Counseling, and having experienced the real world of some of these very real problems. . . I would like to simply add the comment that I thought the movie was so real it hurt. I thought the script was very realistic. It never went for the possible "extras" to hype it up. They could easily have let the former professor and his former student have an affair, they didn't. They could easily have played up the manipulation of the boy against the psychologist, they didn't. In all that it's downplayed, the realistic speaking type of performance, we were allowed to see the wretched grief, and anger, and blocked memories that do come out with horror and a bang. It was REAL. It was superb. It was better than that. From script, to acting, to film shots, to editing, from directing, and producing, from casting so perfectly a real woman who looked like a real mother, and even the psychologist's special lecture to the students at the beginning. It was all so real. So real it hurt.


This is one of the best films I have seen all year. I notice how few votes it has received and assume that it has gone mostly unnoticed. The words "I don't see how it could have been made any better come to mind.". A psychological thriller which kept my interest level throughout the entire film. Thoughtful, believable, emotionally moving and extremely well acted. Highly recommended!


Dr. Michael Hunter (the excellent actor and producer Andy Garcia) is a psychiatric traumatized by the suicide of his son. He is separated of his wife and his rebel teenager daughter lives with the mother. Barbara Wagner (Teri Polo) is her former student and now responsible in an orphanage for the teenager Tommy (Vincent Kartheiser), a boy traumatized by the death of his mother. Deep secrets will be revealed along this brilliant story. The plot starts as a drama, and as far as the characters reveal details about the real facts, the viewer gets more and more evolved by this surprisingly excellent psychological thriller. The story is very credible and realistic, the direction is tight and the performance of the cast is marvelous. Andy Garcia is the producer of this low budget, but excellent movie. A couple of months ago, I watched `The Man from Elysian Fields', also a low-budget good movie produced by him. Andy Garcia is selecting good screenplays for producing and revealing also an excellent producer. I regret the title of this movie in Brazil (`No Limite do Silêncio'  the translation would be `In the Limit of the Silence'). Do not ask me why, but in Brazil most of the movies have their titles changed. The distributors believe it makes the movie `more commercial'. The original title `The Unsaid' is perfect for the plot, but unfortunately, Brazilians have to deal with` In the Limit of the Silence'. This movie is highly recommended for lovers of a dense, dramatic and psychological thriller. My vote is eight.


(There are Spoilers) With no one, including members of his family, taking Kyle Hunter's, Trevor Blumas, symptoms of hurt and depression seriously Kyle ends up killing himself from carbon-monoxide poisoning one rainy evening in the family garage.

Kyle's dad Michael Hunter, Andy Garcia,who should have known his problems and how serious they were since he's a collage professor in psychology, as well as threats people like Kyle all the time is so devastated by his son's death that he ends up leaving his wife Penny and daughter Selly, Chelsea Fields & Linda Cardellini,to live by himself since he couldn't face them anymore. We later learn the real reason for Kyle's suicide and it shows how right Michael was in feeling guilty about his death and what he had, unconsciously and unknowingly, to do with it.

It's now three years later and Michael is getting his life back together, and putting Kyle's tragic death behind him, as he goes on the lecture circuit and is invited to speak at his alma mater Kansas University. It's at Kansas U. that Michael meets one of his former students Dr. Barbara Wagner, Teri Polo, now a licensed psychologist at the Holly Health School for Wayward Boys who asks him about seeing one of her patients 17 year-old Tommy Caffey, Vincent Kartheiser.

Hesitant at first Michael agrees to talk to Tommy who's about to be released since he's doing so well, psychology and is about to reach his 18th birthday,at the school. Tommy, almost by accident, get's to know Michael's young teenage daughter Shelly who falls in love with him when she meets Tommy at a dance by the railroad yard when he was out on a night-time leave from Holly Heath. Tommy also murdered a young girl Chole, Kim Schraner, earlier that evening when she aggressively come on to him by the deserted railroad cars not knowing what kind of monster the shy sweet and good looking Tommy really is.

Tommy learns all about Shelly's deceased brother Kyle and uses that knowledge to manipulate Michael into , or having his personal psychologist Dr. Wagner, give him a clean bill of health and thus release from the hated, by Tommy, institution.

Tommy had developed a murderous hatred of women, or young girls, who try to be intimate with him because of what happened to his mom when he was a young boy; she was brutally murdered by his dad Joseph Caffey, Sam Bottoms, when he found that she was having an affair with another man. The truth behind Tommy's mom's murder, and what caused his dad to keep it secret all these years, is something that Tommy has been trying to keep locked deep inside his mind and that's the reason for his dangerous psychosis that eventually leads to murder and madness.

Disturbing but thought-provoking movie that has you almost as shocked as Michael is by the time it's over with Tommy skillfully getting under his skin, and sub-conscious, by morphing himself into Michael's son Kyle and, unknowingly, bringing out the truth behind Kyle's death that Michael, by his actions in trying to help his troubled son, had a lot to do with. Michael begins to realize later the reasons for Tommy knowing so much about Kyle, he's been secretly dating his daughter Shelly, and even more shocking the real reason for his mothers murder that shaped Tommy's mind and turned him into the Dr. Jeckel and Mr. Hyde that he became.

The ending of the movie "The Unsaid" is a bit confusing at first with Tommy going wild in his effort to get out of the Holly Health School and almost murdering his psychologist Dr. Wagner and then taking Shelly hostage in the process. But when confronted with the truth by Michael, and seeing that he really needs help, and that a life on the outside will only end with him being either dead or on death row the movie couldn't have ended any other way.


I have seen a lot of movies with actors/actresses playing psychiatrists and how they are portrayed. Most of them are quite horrible, a few have a clue, but are saying things, psychiatrists in the field wouldn't say under any circumstances. However, the title THE UNSAID is; if not perfect, very close to it. Andy Garcia again pulls off what I feel maybe the hardest thing to pull off; a professional actor being a professional psychiatrist. I think the acting on every ones part was superb as well as the lighting and make up. I think a lot of detail was put in things as simple as sitting in a chair, when to lean back, when to lean forward. An excellent movie, I highly recommend it.


If you are a father, and you lose a son you will find this motion picture a little to hard to endure 'till the end of it. A good script, directed almost perfectly. I watch it once and i will always remember as i remember my child. The music was i may say, everything ... Actors doing such a great job... Andy Garcia playing so well that you may think that is not a movie but a Real TV story. A drama who can keep you with the eyes on it 'till the end. You'll never know what its gonna happened next. Dunno if i wanna watch it again. It was a movie that made me cry... something that its almost impossible for me. Maybe i'm a not a good person to comment this movie, because some of what happened there i lived and its hard to be equidistant, but it moved me so bad.


There are many kinds of thriller/drama movies.

Some have the ability to confuse and bore you to death during most of the time, with just some good twist in the end, which "should" compensate for the "lentish", sacrificing hour before that. And many overrated movies have that formula, which only works because you become so numb as you watch it, that you feel very surprised by the final outcome of the plot, and then believe that it was such a terrific film.

Others are the exact opposite, meaning that they have a great starting point, but the story gets duller and duller until the final result becomes very predictable. And so many other variations of this genre may arise.

With `The Unsaid', however, you can expect to be tied to your seat the whole time as the plot develops. It has a dramatic starting point, a powerful and constant *thrilling* middle section and well, I won't refer the ending because, believe it, if you start watching this flick, you won't go away until you see the whole thing. It's that good! But that's me, I personally like movies that grab your attention from the start and make you not even take bathroom breaks or answer to your cell-phone calls. What about you?

The acting by Andy Garcia was brilliant; he really got inside his character. Only with a role like this could he show his true dramatic acting skills, and was followed very well by the rest of the cast. The directing was ok, and had some notorious influence on our understanding and dramatic effect of the scenes. It was done the way it's supposed to, clean and sober, even in action sequences. I won't refer to the story or the subjects it's about, since none of that is necessary here. This is a review, not a `plot outline'.<br /><br />The bottom line is this: it's a definitely worth watching film! And if you're not entertained during and pleased after it, well. admit it: You watched some movie other than `The Unsaid'.


A leading psychiatrist has his world turned upside down by a tragic family event. He shuns patients, until being drawn back by a young man who witnessed his father kill his mother, but seems strangely unaffected by the event.

A great script that respects the audience, leaving a lot of information off-screen. When the story moves forward a few years and Garcia and his wife have separated, we fill in the blanks automatically and never have to be told why it happened. Tommy turns up with a car, and we know fine well how he got it, some despicable act cleverly left to our imaginations. Tommy is astoundingly, creepily normal given his circumstances, until his psychosis explodes suddenly. After that he tries in vain to get it back in the box. Garcia has never been better, every inch the grief-stricken father, his expressions nuanced and painful. He handles his 'revelation' in a prison scene near the end with aplomb.

The one downside is a maudlin, overbearing score that draws too much attention to itself.

This is a film that deserves to be better known. Thrillers with this kind of plot seldom have such multi-layered characters, or believable families and settings. An intelligent, rewarding film that I look forward to watching again.


I really liked this movie maybe because I have always been interested about psycology (and not working in that field though I have always wanted..). I have watched this movie twice (and that's a lot because normally I watch movies only once). Both times after watching this I felt that world isn't fair. I cried few times because world isn't fair.... So when you watch this movie be prepared to watch it with time. You really need to think about things.. I think that if you don't like this film you don't like these kind of films at all. But if you "like" this film you "like" film like The Heart is Deceitful about all Things. I really care about children and about their behauviour and it's really important for me to understand what they are feeling. This movie shows that how difficult and how important is to understand and listen that what they have / need to say.


This film has a couple of shortcomings with plot, particularly the neat ending, and there seemed to be some difficulty with the continuity of locations (the family house, for instance). However, it is definitely worth watching for the performances. Tracy McMahon plays a small role at the beginning of the movie with utter conviction, flawlessly transforming from confident undergrad to crushed patient in a classroom demonstration. Andy Garcia is convincing as the haunted psychologist and superb as the grieving father, so much so that it makes for hard viewing. There's no greater pain than the loss of one's child, and Garcia conveys this with heartrending conviction. Not a film to watch alone if you have ever lost a child.


this movie kept me thinking all of the run-time. it is good because of the content, actors, script and pace. what i liked best was the way the movie got me thinking about problems. how do problems from your youth develop in your life, how often parents made the problems (worse), how different ages and experience react to your problems.

beautiful because of the quite simple story without making it more dramatic than in needed, which i read in other comments as well and agreed with. on of the things i also read was that people knew the ending to soon. OK, i am not stupid and thought of it a couple of times, but i was looking-thinking-enjoying; the movie was to good to just saying that a movie sucks because you had a hunch how it ended....

sorry, no more comments on comments, but the construction of the movie was really good, and the ending fitted well. the only thing i liked less was the further the movie got, it could use some other story lines. sometimes it was a little too much, not really annoying or something, but just thinking back and one negative remark is not that strange, concluding 8 out of 10. see it. it is real and keeps you thinking.


The Unsaid is slow and predictable, barely even qualifying as a functional thriller as it seems more interested in piquing the interest of bored housewives who think they're experts on psychology because they watch Oprah and Dr Phil on a daily basis. I wouldn't question this movie's earnestness, but good intentions are no substitute for a smart script, something this movie is sorely lacking. Early scenes with therapists not wanting to let their patient out on his 18th birthday seem strange since there's no indication that the kid has been anything other than a model resident of the youth home. But the audience knows there's something wrong with the kid or there wouldn't be a movie, would there? Rather than take the audience for a ride the movie here has to constantly catch up to the viewer, a backwards way of making a thriller, unless you don't actually want to generate any suspense. An early scene where Thomas the patient flips out violently after being touched by an extremely hot, sexually agressive young woman gives away the fact that Thomas was sexually molested as a child, although like a bad poker player who shows his cards but figures nobody was really paying attention anyway the filmmakers seem to think the audience will react with something other than complete indifference or a loud duh when they finally pull the molestation card out about forty minutes later. Maybe if your brother made movie this you could act surprised out of politeness, but if you're not a relative what's the point. Acting is variable: Andy Garcia brings sincerity and dramatic weight to his portrayal, navigating the hokey cutaways to his suicide son during sessions with the current patient. Terri Polo, who I have to admit to liking pretty much just in one movie, Quick, is fine here through she seems to be channelling Laurie Linney. Vincent Kartheiser who was so damned annoying on the last two seasons of Angel isn't much more impressive here. I'm at the point where I hope I'll never see this guy again. And then there's the daughter played by Linda Cardellini. She seems to have some of the worst man-instincts that a girl could possibly have, moving on from a bullying neanderthal with all the charm of a rapist on his night off and on to deeply disturbed Thomas who has already murdered one one of her friends. This girl needs help.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to sit through this movie, but if you're a fan of Lifetime Movies, in-your-face earnestness and movies where the upper middle class hero finds love and redemption, then, hey, maybe this is the movie for you. Just don't expect any nicities like suspense.


I´ve seen "The Unsaid" recently on the Fantasyfilmfest in Stuttgart. This film leaves me breathless. The actors were magnificant, Andy Garcia in his best role yet and Vincent Kartheisser, oh my God, he gave me the creeps, I think it was his first major role. The story is good, but not excellent, what makes this film so wonderful is the directing and the performances.

Watch out for the guy who plays Andy Garcias son. Cute and talented.


The title of the film is a perfect depiction of what the story is about: "The Unsaid" is a journey full of agony and tension, into the deep-buried and untold secrets lurking in the hearts of Tommy Caffey (Kartheiser) and his therapist, Dr. Michael Hunter (Garcia).

Dr. Hunter, who has not completely recovered from the shock of his son's Kyle (Blumas) suicide, is persuaded by a former student of his, Dr. Wagner (Polo), to take the case of a seemingly normal adolescent, Tommy. The young boy, who in the past suffered a deeply traumatic experience by watching his father kill his mother, initially gets along well with his new therapist; moreover, Dr. Hunter himself seems to draw comfort from the boy's presence, as he reminds him of his lost son. However, things gradually become more complicated, as Tommy and Shelly (Cordellini), the daughter of Dr. Hunter, meet and become fond of each other; moreover, Tommy's case is not as simple as it first seemed...

The film portrays three troubled characters: Kyle, Tommy, and Hunter himself. The performances by the respective actors, namely Blumas, Kartheiser, and Garcia, are simply superb. Although one might expect such A-level acting by a star of Andy Garcia's caliber, it is positively surprising and very heartening to watch young actors doing such a good job. Cordellini is also very convincing as Hunter's detached and confused daughter, while the rest of the cast remains on a generally satisfactory level.

McLoughlin's direction is balanced and well-executed, building up the tension when he should, but without resorting to needless exaggerations.

"The Unsaid" is overall a solid film that studies the secrets buried inside the human soul. 7/10.


This film is brilliant, i loved it,everyone should see it, I only bought it because vincent kartheiser was in it. Im so glad i bought it,definately one not to be missed.A brilliant performance from Vincent Kartheiser (Angel AKA connor)who plays the misguided child, Tommy.Also Andy Garcia (oceans eleven) and Linda Cardellini (scooby doo).


Andy Garcia is always good as an personal character. Which he proves in this movie. It's a shame that the story is being clumbsy told, the movie has a bad flow, well not that bad but still enough to notice. It's good that mr. Garcia is such a good actor so he can lift this movie.

Everyone else in the movie play their part very well, but the main character "Tommy" is a little to "green" on the big screen, it shows, but alltogheter he does a good job.

The "plot" and the final ending or whatever you want to call it is bad according to me, but others disagree, I guess I have a strange taste in endings.. hehe.

But the movie is still very see worthy, and I recommend this movie, it's not a oscar winning movie, but still.


This is a brilliant film, and the actors are great. A "wonderful" story, that makes one think about life and its meaning... I am truly touched by this film. This film is not like any others, so if you haven't yet seen it, then run along down to Blockbuster!!!!


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** It is a great film about what can happen when a father looses a son by a suicide and the feeling of guilt appear when he's the only one who knows all the truth. I liked it a lot, I liked all the characters and specially Andy Garcia's character. I've discussed this picture with a lot of people and there are two points of view about why the boy commited suicide. In my opinion, he had a big depression, he was forced to go to the psychiatrist who happened to be his father's friend, he abused him and he wasn't able to talk about it with his father even though it seemed that he was a good father and was open to hear everything his son wanted to say The boy felt too bad and desperate that he prefer to die than to speak... On the other hand, there's people who told me that they think the boy was depressed and forced to go with his father's friend and when he started abusing him, he started to feel dirty but at the same time he liked it, so he got confussed by the feeling of being gay, that he commited suicide. This is not my point of view, but many people got it that way...


This is not a film with an amazing script, nor has it special effects that will blow you away. Still, there is something about it that makes it distinguish itself from others.

The plot is quite standard for this kind of psychological thriller, but it has its moments, and you can expect some surprises. But it is the solid acting combined with great illumination- and sound techniques that really makes this film worthwhile. Andy Garcia truly shows that he is a great actor, and the supporting actors seem more than believable to me.

All these factors combined results in a solid movie which I highly recommend to anyone.


I saw the film because a friend has recommended it very much to me six weeks ago and since that time she convinced me to see it. I couldn't have gone to the movies but every week I had in mind to see it and when I saw it at last there was many people and it continues for the same reason, people is still interested about this film.

As I have wrote, I like very much the performance of Andy Garcia, I saw him in other two films but now that he is the principal in this movie I think that he should have more opportunities. The young actors are good in this thriller and the story seems to me very interesting.


I hate movies where you know the answer after 10 minutes. Why couldn't the director leave something for the imagination? The movie could have been interesting, but it is completely destroyed by some weird need to underline all of the character's actions, so you are never left to think and wonder, just fed with 1 hour and 50 minutes of boring psychological drama.


The movie in itself has a solid story. Andy Garcia is Michael Hunter a psychiatrist who loses his son by suicide. That leaves him devastated for three years, divorcing his wife and giving not the proper attention to his daughter. (We're all human, right?) By incident he gets a patient that reminds him of his son. This kid seems to be OK, but he has a troubled past. He will be released in a few weeks and Hunter must find out if that is correct. We as viewers no pretty soon, that it is not and hope that Hunter finds out before the deadline as well...

It may not seem as original and maybe it isn't, but I am still thinking about it, 12 hours after I saw it and personally I think that is great in this era of popcorn films...

Other aspects that are part of a movie, like lightning and acting are really great!! Vincent Kartheiser was probably cast because of this eyes, but he really gives a chilling performance.


Based on R1 DVD.

After checking with IMDb I watched Unsaid with low expectations. Fortunately the film appears to be underrated at least in my eyes. Garcia and Kartheiser give strong performances and not withstanding an occasional weakness in a script that favours the 'girls do dumb things' school of thought the movie moves along at a good pace.

During the directors commentary McLoughlin notes that Americans have a much tougher time with the big secret than Europeans. Perhaps this accounts for the weak IMDb rating.

Well worth watching, 7/10.


This is an excellent thriller. It's balancing finely between a modest genre psycho thriller and a drama about shrinks, traumas, suicide, guilt and the like. The acting of Vincent Kartheiser steals the show, as his character comes out as real and believable. Don't expect it to ge a 'great movie' though, you will have to endure formulaic elements and shallow psychological insights. Best watched without former knowledge of plot.


When I was only six, my mother and father sent my older brother to

take me to watch the Olson and Johnson routine at a New York

City nightclub called THE CARNIVAL. I had been aware of the

antics of the Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy and Abbott and

Costello, but now I could see first hand the live slapstick of

involved comedy.

The film "Crazy House" is a perfect example of keeping the wild art

of updated slapstick alive on film. It is an update of the pie

throwing of early silents and the progression from Charlie Chaplin

to Charlie Chase. This film even has small roles for all the lesser

known comics of that era. Their roles in this movie are much the

same as the bit inserts into "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World".

For those a little bit younger than myself, this film would be called

the progenitor of "Rowan & Martin's Laugh In", a TV series that ran

from 1968-1973.

All I can say is, "If you want to see the visualization of one liners as

presented in the 1940's try and get to see this film". In the short

while, watch "Laugh In" reruns and prep yourself for a look back

into comedy history.


I recently saw this film with Quentin Tarantino's introduction to this film on video tape from Trio. Quentin goes on about how Mel Brooks lifted a good chunk of the premise of this movie for Silent Movie. While the basic idea is the same, down on their luck film makers try to sign big stars for their up coming film, the results are decidedly different. Brooks played it pretty much as a straight film, while Olsen and Johnson used it as an excuse to do silly things with famous people. I prefer the pure insanity of Olsen and Johnson's take.

This is one of the best films that Olsen and Johnson ever made, even if it has one really big problem (which I'll get to in a minute). This is pure Olsen and Johnson insanity. Its a film where anything can happen, usually the silliest of all possible options. Its wild and wacky with Olsen and Johnson acting as steam rollers over Hollywood and the studio system. When the comedy is happening its a rapid fire collection of jokes and gags that never seem to stop.

Or rather stop a bit too often. The one really big problem I was talking about is that the comedy and the madness stops every couple of minutes for a musical interlude. These interludes pretty much stop the movie dead since any of the momentum thats been built up comes crashing to a halt. Most of the numbers are played straight so its a radical shift in tone that really annoyed the heck out of me. (Actually the numbers aren't bad they just belong in a different film) I know that the numbers are the result of this being one of those "studio" films where everyone in the studio appears partly as part of the story, but also as an advertisement for themselves and what ever movie they are currently promoting. (Hollywood turned these out every now and again often to mixed results)

Music aside I really like this movie. If you want to see Olsen and Johnson in great form this is a good choice to make.


Olsen & Johnson go to Universal Studios to film their successor to Hellzapoppin', while everyone at the studio runs for cover. Since no one at the studio will back them, O&J decide to return to Miracle Pictures to get their film started. Since O&J can get no bankable stars, they decide to do the novel approach of having a film w/ new faces including singer Marjorie Nelson (who happens to catch the eye of director Ed MacLean). When films creditors find out that O&J's backer is an eccentric sort who thinks he's a millionaire broker, they put an injunction on the film, and its up to Olsen & Johnson to prove their case in court to save the film. Probably this film was on the same page w/ the WC Fields film, Never Give a Sucker an Even Break with the plot of the comedian(s) trying to film the movie. Olsen & Johnson are up to their same antics again, but after the opening scene of the Universal lot running for cover, the film can't maintain the pace of that scene or what made Hellzapoppin a laugh riot. The musical numbers are nice, but there just seems to be so many in the film, that this is a jukebox film more than a comedy. Still the film has many funny moments and is a sure treat. Rating, 7.


There were quite a few low budget musicals made during the '50s that were mostly insignificant but very watchable because they made no pretense at being "great." "The Girl Most Likely" is one of the more likable. There's some wonderfully exuberant choreography by Gower Champion and the score contains a few songs that any musical would be proud to own. This was a musical remake (as so many of this type were) of Garson Kanin's "Tom, Dick and Harry."


This was the end of Jane Powells career in the movies. It's not a very good movie to end a brilliant career with, but it's entertaining, and the history of the cast should be mentioned: First we have Jane Powell who started out in movies as a child performer and made it to big time which is something that most child actors and actress' couldn't do. Very few made it such as Jane Powell, Debbie Reynolds both born of April Fools Day, Natalie Wood, just to mention a few. Cliff Robertson was a known actor but never really made it to star-status. Keith Andes was a fine singer and had played the lead role in Kiss Me Kate on Broadway, but never really made it in Hollywood as an actor or the excellent singer that he was. Kaye Ballard was known for her cukoo comedy talents and had appeared as one of the Wicked-Step Sisters in the original Juile Andrews version of Rogers and Hammerstein's Cinderella on T.V., and played in the Mothers-In-Law on T.V. with the other Mother in Law Eve Arden. Una Merkel made herself into a star by playing secondary roles such as Kitty Kelly in The Merry Widow with Land Tuner and the housekeeper in Rich, Young, and Rretty, again, with Jane Powell. Kelly Brown appeared in the movie Oklahoma and Seven Brides for Seven Browthers as one of town-folks line-dancer, but if you were a dancer you knew who he was, and Tommy Noonan made himself into a star by playing secondary roles such as Marily Monores dim-witted husband to be in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, but his best role was as the gum-chewing Pianist in A Star is Born with Judy Garland. In fact, Noonan showed that he was a fine actor by stealing the last scene from Judy Garland in A Star Is Born when he tells her how pitiful she's behaving since Norman Maine had committed suicide, but there is one person in the line-dancers that's had a history that no one knows about.

Here's in Cincinnati, Ohio, we have had our share of famous actors and actress' such as Doris Day, Tyrone Power, George Chikarus, Vera Ellen, and a very famous criminal with the initials of C.M. that we don't like to talk about. Harvey Evens is from our area. He had been studying dancing with Harris Rosedale, I know this to be a fact because I was there too, but his name was Harvey Honnacker. I guess he changed his last name to Evans because he couldn't get his last name up in lights. Too long. So, I remember one day he came into the studio and said, "I have nothing here" and went to study with Leo and Rita McNeil. Later he went to New York. Then he went to Hollywood where he did chorus work in The Pajama Game, West Side Story under his original name, and The Girl Most Likely. Later he did the T.V. version of Applause playing the gay hair-dresser and friend of Margo Channing played by Lauren Bacall. Since I knew LeRoy Reams who played the role originally, I asked LeRoy if he had recommended Harvey to play his role, and he said no; that he got it on his own. I'm not sure, but I heard through certain channels that Harvey passed away. What a talent he was. I remember seeing him in a dance recital given by the O'Neils when he was there and he sang a jazzed up version of Indian Love Call and did a dance ending up with his jumping up on the side on stage and back down like James Cagney did in Yankee Doodle Dandy. What a talent he was. It's just a shame he, like many others, were never allowed to show the full power of their talent in the entertainment field!


This would be the last musical Jane Powell ever made and it's one of her best movies. It was one of the last movies RKO made. They made quite a few films I have liked over the years. She plays the daughter of Frank Cady and Una Merkel(two of the best). Her best friend is played by Kaye Ballard. Jane has three men after her in the movie. First there is Tommy Noonan who loves her from the start. Next Keith Andes takes her fancy. Then finally she sees Cliff Robertson. She thinks she wants to marry a rich man, but she only thinks it's a dream. Jane Powell really looks mature and beautiful in this film. Her voice might be the best here for me because I am not a big fan of her high notes she used to hold in her early movies. I still just love her, she is so likable. Jane jumps into the ocean and meets Cliff. He takes her to shore in his boat. She thinks he owns a yacht. He actually is just a repairman. Cliff really looks in his prime here as well. They have a date that night. Jane looks stunning in a white dress as she comes down the stairs. Cliff instantly falls for her. They have a nice song and dance number on the beach with others. She loses interest in Tommy and then she meets Keith. She makes a date with him. She decides to stay with him until she kisses Cliff one more time. She gets a glow from kissing him and Keith does not give her a glow. She ends up with Cliff. A nice movie and a good way to spend an hour and thirty eight minutes.


Disappointing 1957 musical where within an 1 hour and 40 minutes, Jane Powell gets engaged to 3 guys at the same time.

The Gauer Champion choreography is its usual greatness. Dancing sequence of "Keeping up with the Joneses" is memorable as well as the scene with all the dancing in Mexico.

Powell does nicely in the part but is not convincing in the comedy scenes where she has had one too many.

Tommy Noonan is good as her original guy who is an ambitious salesman. Cliff Robertson, who she meets by jumping over-board is young and simple. Keith Andes, as the wealthy guy, looks old for 1957.

Una Merkel, who seemed to fit in nicely in the 1950s in mother roles, is along for the ride.

The ending is somewhat of a surprise and proves that wealth isn't everything.


A ghoulish mixture of Liszt, murder, violence and carrots, 'Rhapsody Rabbit' is an exuberantly inventive Bugs Bunny cartoon which manages to explode the boundaries of its single setting. Bugs is a famed pianist, the kind of fastidious virtuoso you still find today, but worshipped in the 40s because arrogant eccentricity somehow signalled class. Having removed his many gloves, Bugs, a proto-Glenn Gould seats himself down in near-religious preparation, only to be interrupted by two loud coughs. He shoots the culpable party.

The film is full of gloriously unpredictable moments like this, helping it transcend the immediate object of satire, which has dated, now that Hollywood has given up as unprofitable the attempt to educate audiences in high culture. So Bugs interrupts his playing to chomp on a carrot, or play with his feet. One lovely sequence has him gathering all the keys and throwing them back in perfect rhythm. Like Fischinger's 'Allegretto', 'Rhapsody' is animated music, full of a strange, mercurial, yet elegant fluidity.

The centrepiece is a Tom-and-Jerry-like battle between Bugs and a small mouse who tries to undermine Bugs' pretensions, changing the solemn rhapsody for swing at one point. Despite the violence and disruption, conflict, as so often in music, leads not to chaos, but harmonic rapture. Freleng is no Tex Avery - his use of colour and camerawork is restrained - but the relative plausibility of his composition have a pleasure all of their own.


Bugs Bunny is a musician playing Franz Liszt's 'Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2' for apparently a large audience. First Bugs has some problems with a coughing guy in the audience, he knows how to solve that, then with a mouse who plays parts of the rhapsody.

The way this cartoon makes fun of the preparation of a musician, the way Bugs solves the problem with the noisy audience, the way the mouse is used are hilarious. When the piano slowly changes into other things (typewriters) and the keys begin to move it gets even funnier. The music put together with the animation is a good reason to see this cartoon, the great gags make sure you will like it even more!


This is a truly wonderful and imaginative cartoon. The animation is very effective and beautiful if rather simple. The music is a real highlight, I love the cartoons that feature classical music, and this is no exception. Franz Lizst's "Hungarian Rhapsody no 2" (amongst others) is a real treat, but extremely complicated to play on the piano and put to really clever use. Bugs is not as funny as he usually is, but he does a stellar job, courtesy to some brilliant vocal characterisations from Mel Blanc. During his performance of "Hungarian Rhapsody no 2", Bugs has to overcome many obstacles, such as the coughing audience member and being upstaged by a musical (and cute) mouse in a Tom and Jerry-like scenario. The minimal use of dialogue is good, the funniest gag of the cartoon was the telephone call where Bugs says "Franz Lizst? Nah, never heard of him!" Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this, it mayn't be Bug's very best but it is great fun. 10/10 Bethany Cox


This is another very good Bugs Bunny and one of a few where he is involved in classical music (others are "A Corny Concerto" and "Baton Bunny"). Unlike those other ones I have seen of Bugs Bunny playing music, here he combines some of his more slapstick-style humour as well as verbal humour, along with his various styles of playing the piano. The episode references to some past and future Looney Tunes jokes and makes new jokes with an original style. All the humour in this episode is very good and works well.

In this episode, Bugs Bunny begins to play Lizst's second Hungarian Rhapsody, when a mouse, who lives in the piano, interrupts Bugs Bunny and the rabbit begins to play various other tunes (not all classical), all very well. Bugs Bunny constantly tries to battle with the mouse and make him stop interrupting HIS show, but does the mouse pay any heed..?

My favourite joke in the cartoon (I found it even funnier when I realised that it was Lizst's music Bugs Bunny was playing), is when Bugs Bunny receives a call in the middle of the show. At Bugs Bunny's end we hear, "Franz Lizst? Nah, never heard of him."

I highly recommend this cartoon to anyone who likes music, Bugs Bunny and cartoons. Enjoy "Rhapsody Rabbit"! :-)


The actual fact of the matter is that production was so fast and furious for Warners, "Termite Terrace" animators, that they decided to do it as a parody of the Tom and Jerry cartoon, Concerto Cat" that had won the academy award earlier that year. Warners released there parody later that same year. In my opinion, the animators at Warners were light years ahead of Hanna Barbara. Yes there is a charm to the H-B characters and the gags are solid but the Tex Avery stuff at MGM was superior and no one could make something look and move funny like the "Termite Terrace" gang over at Warners. This also explains why the scenario for Bugs was so odd - to be the tormented instead of the tormentor.


In one of many Looney Tunes cartoons involving classical music, Bugs Bunny is in concert playing Franz Liszt's "Second Hungarian Rhapsody" (despite claiming to have never heard of Liszt) but gets interrupted by audience members and then by a mouse. When I heard the tune, I remembered the scene in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" where Daffy Duck and Donald Duck are playing that song and keep undermining each other's performances. Hopefully, I'm not the only one who thinks that cartoons and Franz Liszt's music are a cool mix.

Anyway, "Rhapsody Rabbit" is truly part of the pantheon of classic cartoons. You may just feel like playing the piano yourself after watching this.


I could attempt to review like a certain Nutball! of Movies!! And use the same exact "review"!!! Cutting...and pasting!!! said exclamation heavy!!! review on every single Looney Tunes Short!!! But that's not my style!!!... OK sorry about that but it just really peeves me. Anyways on to the review proper.

Bugs is trying to play a classical piece for the audience, but is constantly troubled by a mouse in the piano. This cartoon is funny when taken on it's own, but very similar to "Cat Concerto" a Tom & Jerry short made around the same time with the same storyline. While this short is great, that one is utter brilliance. And this one sadly pales in comparison. This animated short can be seen on Disc 4 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2 and also features an optional commentary by Daniel Goldmark.

My Grade: B+


Telling a simple tale of Babe Ruth's life in his small hometown just before his rise to fame, the intertitles relating the story as it is supposedly known by an "oldtimer" from Babe Ruth's birthplace of Haverlock. Following the goings-on in the town including stuff about various locals, Babe's life at home with his mother and foster-sister (an adorable little gal known as "Pigtails" who sports braids that stick out on each side of her head) and Babe's interest in a local woman who appears to be rather fickle. Babe is seen doing homespun stuff like carving baseball bats out of kindling, letting dogs loose that have been caged by the local dog catcher, and playing in a home town game, batting for the other team!

This is a mildly entertaining film - mainly of interest for the view of a young (and fairly trim) Babe Ruth, who plays himself in this. He gives a somewhat bland performance, his facial expression barely changes no matter what is happening on screen. Nevertheless, he has his charm and comes across as a real nice guy - it is certainly very interesting to see him. Some humor is attempted at in this film, via the title cards - but it pretty much falls flat. The backwoods way of speaking as told by the old man who narrates this comes across as slightly annoying - the word "wuz" is used over and over again, you get the idea. Interesting shot of a sea of men in straw hats pouring into the ball park - and I agree, Pigtails (not to mention her cute little dog) steals the film. The print of this, as seen on the Kino DVD, looks very nice, with a good deal of contrast - the music is an old-fashioned organ score that suits the film. All in all, not a great film - but for baseball and Babe Ruth fans, a must see.


The movie hardly makes sense. However, its redeeming value is seeing a young Babe Ruth and the historical footage of the Polo Grounds as it appeared in 1920. The highlight is seeing Ruth at bat in a real game -- the pitcher winds and throws and the Babe swings and hits the ball, and then runs the bases. Terrific stuff. Early in the film Babe takes a turn on the mound. Before he gained fame as a hitter he was an outstanding major league pitcher. The scene involves a sandlot game. I'm not sure Babe gave it his actual windup, but it looked good and professional. The view of the Polo Grounds stands shows the largely male crowd in derby and straw hats. The closing shot was taken from the clubhouse area, which was in back of centerfield. It's too bad all this happens at the very end of the picture.


Never mind that this supposed biography of professional baseball player Babe Ruth is entirely fiction (a brief search of his biographical information reveals a rougher upbringing); the more aggravating problem is how it is so stupid. The film-making is visually incompetent, as is the acting, but the worst aspects are the scenario and titles. The picture is stuffed with title cards, especially for exposition at the beginningintroducing handfuls of characters we're barely going to hear from again or whom we'd be better off not having seen. Episodes such as the dogcatcher and block of ice bits entirely fail at humour. Babe carving baseball bats and the indications of romance at the town's social go nowhere. Even worse is the irritating title cards, which mimic being folksy, with their stupid slang, bad jokes and intentionally misspelled words, which I guess were supposed to be remembered narration by one of Ruth's townsmen who's seen at his game in the beginningotherwise, I don't see why there are quotation marks around every title card. I only counted three dialogue intertitles (that is, title cards stating what the seen characters say), and they occur near the end of the movie.

Some brief footage of Ruth playing baseball might be of some documentary interest.


This film which purports to chronicle the childhood of the Babe is almost entirely a fabrication....he didn't grow up in some small town....he grew up near the waterfront docks of Baltimore,MD for the first few years of his life where his father owned and ran a saloon that catered to a very rough crowd.Young George was largely unsupervised most of the time and was continually getting into one scrape or another...as a result George Sr had him enrolled in the St. Mary's Industrial School for boys and pretty much stayed out of young George's life from then on...I'm sure this film's version made for better publicity for the up and coming Babe as well as for the Yankees...Colonel Ruppert was very mindful of his team's public image and making a film about the real version of Babe's young life at that time would have had a lot of negative consequences


Babe Ruth (as Babe) helps his foster sister Frances Victory (as Pigtails) get her dog Herman out of the Dog Pound, where he is brought for having no flea license or tail lights. Mr. Ruth is heels over head in love with Ruth Taylor (as Mildred Tobin). Professionally, he wants to be a baseball player. He loves baseball more than eating. Eventually, he'll become accomplished at both. Pitcher William Sheer (as Harry Knight) is an embezzler. James A. Marcus and Ralf Harolde impress as father and son Tobin. This film is very silly.

Babe Ruth fans must have known this was all hogwash in 1920, so it's difficult to ascertain the film's point possibly, this was a proposed film about a baseball player; after Ruth signed on, the story was probably tailored for the famous baseball star. Certainly, people knew, for example, of Ruth's longer history with the Red Sox. It's interesting to see Babe Ruth as he looked back then, but the film isn't very good, and the better performances are by some of Ruth's supporting cast.

*** Headin' Home (1920) Lawrence C. Windom ~ Babe Ruth, Ruth Taylor, William Sheer


Babe Ruth was as wooden as one of his bats, but Pigtails hit a grand slam! I understand that Frances Victory went on to a distinguished Broadway stage career with her equally talented chien partner. It has been hinted that this superlative duo drove the Astaires from Broadway.


"The Living End" is definitely not for everyone. But for those who can appreciate its audaciousness and free-wheeling spirit, this film offers bountiful rewards. The two leads are very attractive and play together with remarkable compatibility. They're right in tune with the director's amoral consciousness, and act the heck out of their roles. The "home movie" look to the film contributes to its quality. To me, "The Living End" is a gem of a low budget effort, brimming with vitality and youthful vigor.


The cutting edge of early '90's American film includes this work by Gregg Araki, a frightfully funny, harrowing tale of two HIV positive dudes who can't stand it all, blame (then president) George Bush, and take it all on the road for a final (?) spree. The film contains the typical cute gay boys, friendly fag-hag with her own hetero issues, violence, and ridiculously corny Araki dialogue. And guess what? It somehow all works! By the end the two protagonists are likeable people with relatable feelings. The closing scene is one of the most memorable in indie cinema of the '90's.


Two HIV+ men go on a road trip. Basically that's about it. It's not as depressing as it sounds. There's lots of humor in the movie but no pulling back on the anger they feel.

The camera-work is shaky, the sound goes from audible to inaudible more than once and there really is no plot. Also, must we have the tired old stereotypes of two lesbians being psychopaths? But the dialogue contains more truth than any Hollywood movie I've seen. For instance, at one point, one of the guys goes "Let's go to Washington and inject our blood in the President. Want to bet they'll find a cure in 30 seconds?" Sadly, I believe they would. This was WAY ahead of its time in 1992. It was angry, in your face and catch a look at a little message after the closing credits,.

Grim, funny, powerful with a sad (but truthful) ending. Also Mike Dytri is one of the most beautiful, hunky men I've ever seen.

A must-see for gay men.


By chance, this movie caught my attention late-night and I was lucky enough to watch from start to finish. As much of a docudrama as it is a character study from the early gay nineties, some people may find this flick utter crap, or at the very least, sophomoric. To those people, I suggest sticking to "Eight Below" or anything starring Reese Witherspoon.

As the viewer, I felt transported back to 1992, having been 25 years old at the time this movie was released with no idea it even existed. The somewhat surrealistic, exploratory journey between the two main characters brings back so many memories from a time where such strange pairings and outrageous actions seemed to occur regularly. Whether you grew up in Dallas, LA, or New York makes no difference; chances are you knew any one of the characters from this film in some aspect.

At times overtly philosophical, others completely abstract, the exploration of two peoples' mental struggle with HIV was at least done from an unflinching perspective. This is a case study in human nature, no matter how uncomfortable the subject matter. It also proves that the nature of the beast hasn't changed and that HIV/AIDs still isn't really a priority of the U.S. government...at least, not in any beneficial way to those afflicted. Be sure to stick around for the final message in the film credits and see if you can tell if anything has changed in the last fifteen years.

As a special treat, if you've ever been a fan of industrial/electronica from the Wax Trax! label (among others), you'll recognize some great stuff, from Chris and Cosey, Coil, KMFDM, and even Psychic TV.


interesting movie. Both actors who play the leads are very leasing to the eye and Mike Dytri (Luke) verges on being beautiful. IF you like nice bodies shown off to their best this is the movie for you. The shower scene is erotic but not vulgar and has some great shots - nothing below the belt so-to-speak but very nice all the same. A bit weird in places but considering the time it was made it fits. I enjoyed most of it. I would watch it again. I would own it. I would recommend it. It could be classified as a "buddy movie" a male version of "thelma and Louise"--in a way. I think most people would enjoy it--it has a gay plot but not that gay.


My first impression going in to see "Brokeback Mountain" when that one came out, was; "How boringly common gay love seem to be". And i thought of it being boringly common in a cinematic sense. Only rule broken in that movie was to make it possible for a large audience to have empathy with it characters without hiding the gayness of them. It worked. I salute that. And i still think that was the performance that earned Ledger his Oscar.

But Arakki does not stay within content when making his movies great (when they are). His style is widely overlooked by his "controversial" content. Even though the two are matched as should be in good art craft.

Let me just give you one example to look for. One scene, in the beginning of the movie, we see the character of Luke, who's been hustling another man, back at that mans place. Suddenly the john's wife or girlfriend appears and the acting style changes to that of badly made porn. But not only the style of acting, also the cutting. The woman and Luke never appear in the same frame and the shots of him reacting to her, could have been taken weeks apart (a common use in porn to make models appear in the same scene, although they were never on set). The woman is acting so badly, that it can only be a parody of the clichés of porn too, since, Arraki surely knows how to get good actors and know how to direct them.

Lots of other good stuff could be commented on, but let me just get back to my pronouncing it the best gay LOVE story told on screen; Even thought the character of Luke can be seen as only a projection of Jon's diagnosis as HIV positive (His way of coping with it as Scottie has to invent Madelaine in "Vertigo" facing death).... it still is a love story, sick as it may seem. And a hell of a lot closer to fulfilling what we look for in love stories, than the ones with either happy or weepy ends. This one has both and rings truer.


It's difficult to make an 85 movie drag on, but somehow, Gregg Araki manages to do so with his amateurish direction. The plot is inspired, the cast is competent, but Araki ruins it with draggy direction and corny dialogue. Even talented and charismatic Mike Dytri can't save this clunker. By the time it got to the end, which I had heard so much about, I was ready to just turn it off and return the tape. It's very hard to care about the characters, likeable though they are, when every line of dialogue is punctuated by unnecessary pregnant pauses (a sure sign of incompetent direction). The film had great potential, but it came out as just a bunch of scenes slapped together with a really bad soundtrack (not the music: the volume kept jumping up and down alternating soft to loud from scene to scene).


I wanted to appreciate this "male version of Thelma and Louise," and I thoroughly enjoyed the young leading actors. I think their chemistry worked very well, and I was glad the story didn't degenerate into a crime spree. I was pleased that they didn't just throw everything aside for the sake of rage and violence, too, despite their disillusionment caused by their HIV+ conditions.

BUT I must have gotten the WORST film transfer copy ever made! Was my copy the only one like this? It looked like the film caught in the projector gate during the film transfer, and the projectionist was out having a smoke someplace and didn't ever notice! This happened for at least half the film. I can't believe ANY company would distribute such a LOUSY film transfer. This completely ruined the film for me!


City of Ember employs a supremely majestic setting to unravel its end-of-the-world sci-fi adventure, but several missed opportunities keep it from escaping its family-friendly roller coaster ride feel and becoming something truly unique. However, a few too-convenient outcomes and a rushed introduction can't take away the undeniable enjoyment of solving the epic mystery of the once-grand city with the two enthusiastic leads.

When the world ended, a group of elite scientists and engineers determined that the only way to save their way of life was to build an underground city far below the decimated surface. Deciding upon a lifespan of 200 years for their city, the key to salvation was locked away in a metal box to be handed down from one mayor to the next until the time was right. But somewhere along the way the box was forgotten Years and years have passed and the once mighty City of Ember steadily falters as corrupt officials dictate an antiquated way of life and the massive generator that powers the city frequently fails. Now it is up to two ambitious youths, Doon Harrow (Harry Treadaway) and Lina Mayfleet (Saoirse Ronan) to solve the mystery behind the origins of their city and find a way out before their world is blanketed in darkness forever.

Easily the most impressive piece of the City of Ember puzzle is the delightfully ominous science-fiction visuals. The massive sets were built in Northern Ireland in the shipyard-turned-soundstage of the location the Titanic was actually constructed in (now the largest soundstage in the world) and it's never more apparent than in the beautiful crane shots through the underground city. The CG elements are also top-notch, but the practical effects flawlessly immerse the audience in the fantasy world of pipeworks and generators.

While the setting is brilliantly realized, the characters that populate the grandiose city receive far too little development. The introduction and relationship between the two main characters feels truncated and never really furthers as the story progresses, and the origins of each remain as enigmatic as that of the shining city. The adult characters throughout never provide as much support as they should to enhance the understanding and motives behind the city's cryptic suppression. At least Bill Murray hams it up as the gluttonous mayor with a devious agenda of his own.

Like something blended from a video game universe (Bioshock in particular) and 12 Monkeys' post-apocalyptic subterranean sewer-world (or even Terminator's hypogeal bomb shelters), City of Ember packs adventure and intrigue into the wondrous exploration of a society crumbling from age and deceit. As the young heroes scour the dank passages and forgotten tunnels, it's difficult not to become immersed in the fun of uncovering clues and discovering secrets alongside the venturous duo.

- The Massie Twins


I've read quite a few negative reviews but i think some of the people who have read the book need to realise this was a children's film that would no doubt have to be simplified and draw people in from the start. It hasn't had an easy launch either because it's been competing with High School Musical 3, when i went to see it the cinema was empty apart from me because everyone else had gone to see a certain other film.

It wasn't great and i am certain that if i had read the book i would have hated it because the characters were not brilliantly written and it was a messy mix of excellent fantasy sci-fi with the appropriate special effects and corny American generic children's movie. But it was good fun.

The girl in it displayed a superb acting performance the general set and costumes and well mise-en-scene in general was excellent and well worth watching just for that.

It was good to watch in the cinema and throughly enjoyable if a bit predictable. As i say, generally i liked it.


When moving from book to motion picture, there are a myriad of problems associated with such a task, one of which comes from those die hard fans of the original story. Fortunately for myself I have never taken it upon myself to read the source material on which this movie is based upon, nor had I even heard of it until now. As a result I found City of Ember to be a gratifying and sensually enticing experience with brilliant performances, an endlessly captivating story and pace, and a great mix of fantastical environments and characters which pave way for subtext that is grounded in simple allegory of our own, current world. To be sure, there are moments when the film dabbles in and out of tired clichés, most of which we have seen countless times this year alone in other children's adventures; yet what distinguishes this from, say, The Chronicles of Narnia or The Spiderwick Chronicles is through its mature themes and presentation that keeps the older viewer in mind. In this respect, City of Ember is a solid family film that most audiences should enjoy regardless of age, gender or anything else; good entertainment, and a wonderful story to remember at that.

Taking place almost exclusively within the confines of Ember, Gil Kenan here presents us with a vision of a dystopian future, where mankind has been forced to live underground in order to survive. Set many years on from this event however, much of the inhabitants of Ember are unaware of their origin and all the more scared of it as a result. However, in a time of desperation, two citizens Doon Harrow (Harry Treadaway) and Lina Mayfleet (Saoirse Ronan) go on their own quest to try and find an exit from the underground city, which doesn't go down well with gluttonous Mayor Cole (Bill Murray) who just wants his next meal in peace.

What follows from here is a story that isn't entirely unfamiliar (in fact, it's dangerously close to this year's WALL-E), and yet director Gil Kenan manages to take the script and turn it into his own compelling take on a tried and trusted concept. From the arresting opening monologue to the somewhat anti-climatic ending, there is barely a spot here that feels out of place or contrived for the sake of playing to the camera. The pacing, particularly during the middle act, could have been a little tighter, and you often get the sense that there's a lot of footage missing from this cinematic cut, yet as a whole, City of Ember does enough, and with the right amount of originality in tact, to cover up the rough edges. The ending, as I stated, is a little underwhelming and all too brief, but it at least feels coherent and natural to that which comes before it.

If there's one thing that Kenan manages to get across here however, it is the imagination and vision that is present in the script and story. Immediately, and most strikingly poignant during the opening sequence, the City of Ember itself is a sight to behold; from the countless lightbulbs that give the city its light to the murky tunnels that run underneath to provide water, the production values present are superb. Furthermore, the special effects work, although a little obvious during certain sequences involving humans, is noticeably strong; particularly when a giant mole-like creature appears. Not only does the creature look disgusting and completely frightening, but the director does well to stage the beast in such a way as to bring out its realistic characteristics; saying that I got flashbacks of Jurassic Park's raptors scene and a few from Aliens certainly wouldn't be a negative link to make.

Yet as good as the CGI actors are, thankfully the more traditional skin and bones performers aren't so bad themselves. As Hollywood unknowns (to an extent) Saoirse Ronan and Harry Treadaway give convincing performances in their lead positions and very rarely give attention to their ages. Sure enough, their roles aren't the most demanding of jobs, but despite their characters' underwritten nature both fulfil the requirements of leads nicely and with enough conviction to consistently carry the film forward. Of course, it's always good to have a familiar face around, and Bill Murray, playing the obnoxious and gluttonous slob Mayor Cole, is the one to provide such a role. Murray, although arguably underused as far as his talents go, does well to establish a character that nobody is necessarily going to warm to, and uses whatever screen time he has adequately to further the movie on and to back up his lead performers.

In the end however, all these elements simply come together to create one thing; an adventure. As just that, City of Ember is a very strong and convincing effort from director Gil Kenan who makes his live-action debut here. Sure enough there are countless rough edges present, and characters, although compelling in their quest, fail to resonate emotionally, but the overall adventure itself  that is, the tale  is one that will be sure to captivate imaginations and the attentions of many diverse audiences. With stunning visuals that complement the script's wonderful sense of imagination, fitting performances, and a very memorable, intelligent and socially relevant story, City of Ember is a fantastic slice of entertainment for all the family to enjoy.

- A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)


Overall, this was an "okay" film; not bad, but nothing that memorable. I enjoyed the sets of the subterranean city and the teen kids were likable, but it took a little long before anything happened and when it did it was a little too far-fetched with poor special-effects. Nonetheless, the visuals and acting were fine and supporting performances by the always-goofy Bill Murray and Tim Robbins were somewhat entertaining.

The most intriguing actor, to me, was Saoirse Ronan, as "Lina Mayfleet." At first she minded me a bit of Peggy Ann Garner in "A Tree Grows In Brooklyn," but maybe two years older. Ronan has a plain but expressive and intelligent face, a la a very young Cate Blanchett. She looks like she's on her way to a good career.

Her counterpart, the male teen "Doon Harrow," was played nicely by Harry Treadaway.

Although it's a nice, safe family film, I think a lot of kids will be bored by the time anything happens, and adults will be so-so on it. I stuck around for the visuals, mainly, but was disappointed in how amateurish the action scenes in the last 20 minutes looked.


I wasn't expecting much from this film, but I ended up loving it quite a bit. It's a great kid's adventure, lots of mystery and action, good character development, and plenty of cool settings.

Bill Murray and Tim Robbins do a fine job in their roles, but they are mostly supporting cast. It's the two kids who are the real heart of the story. I also love how the filmmakers created an entirely plausible distant future where beauty still thrived despite crumbling infrastructure. Above all, this is a movie about hope for the future.

If you are looking for a good adventure similar to THE GOONIES, check this out. Great for kids, and great for folks of all ages who enjoy light adventure.


"City of Ember", director Gil Kenan's follow up to his horror-lite for preteens "Monster House", is a fun ride that's well worth the admission price if only for the superb production design and the likable leads.

Lina Mayfleet (Saoirse Ronan) and Doon Harrow (Harry Treadaway) are two of the inhabitants of the City of Ember - an underground city designed to house humans for two centuries as an unspecified disaster takes place on the surface. But as the 200 years have passed, the generator that powers the city gradually falters, causing more frequent blackouts and scarce provisions.

When no one would listen to them, especially the city mayor - Mayor Cole (the effective yet underused Bill Murray) - it then becomes up to Lina and Doon to find the exit that leads to the surface, which is infinitely easier in theory than in practice, considering the plethora of puzzles and riddles they would have to solve.

Without having read the film's source material - Jeanne Duprau's novel - there's no way I can say if the script holds up to the narrative of its literary counterpart, but here's where the film mainly falters. The film feels like a rushed end product crammed to fit within the confines of a typical family flick. Exposition is kept in the sidelines and character development seems more of a ploy to advance the plot than genuine attempts in sculpting something more than cardboard-cut supporting characters.

But despite the narrative faults, Kenan imbues such a magical quality to the dank environment. And for a film lacking impressive turns from its more mature and established actors (including Tim Robbins as Doon's father), upcoming stars Ronan and Treadaway's animated performances save the day, right from a sweeping introduction of the claustrophobic city to a touching finale that finally affirms the characters' quest for light amidst the darkness.


Brings to mind 1984, Brazil, and THX#### add in a little doom and gloom (the Happening) and blame the human race for doing whatever we did to the environment to require us to run hide at depth inside the earth, and you have a bad action adventure version of Inconvenient Truth meets Journey to Center of the Earth. Didn't see Tim Robbins in the preview or I would have known better. We've beat this global warming dead horse long enough...how about the writers write something new and original. The movie was terribly predictable for anyone over 15. I'm sure many people would agree...the instructions for escaping from the City would have been clear and know by many, and would not have involved a sixflags water slide escape taking you down to make you walk up... Reading the subtext of the "map" the kids had suggested that the people were only supposed to stay in Ember for 200 years...the supplies were obviously meant to last for less...and many more people would have been attempting to leave or at least explore. When they finally leave the city via escape slide they go down down down...then they walk up up up stairs to escape to the surface... when they are at the surface they can see the city far below through a karst window (cave)yet when the generator stops they see no light in the city...I didn't really need ten lines of text to say this movie was a lame waste of time and money.


At first blush, City of Ember seems like it would be a thrilling sci-fi adventure, a page out of Jules Verne's playbook, but ultimately it fails to completely scale the dizzying heights of its creative premise. The movie does deliver some intrigue and some compelling performances (not to mention some mailed-in ones), but huge lapses in logic that might be detected even by the youngest audience member prevent it from being the heart-stopping classic it wants to be.

Some 200 years ago, life on Earth was dying, and in its waning moments great physicists, inventors, and architects designed and built a huge underground city powered by a gigantic generator. The Builders, though, possess some forethought and, assuming that someday the surface will again be inhabitable, they enclosed specific instructions for the citizens of Ember to eventually escape to the sunlight. This information was placed inside a metal box and alarmed with a 200-year timer; by the end of that time, the Builders reasoned, the surface would be habitable. This box was then handed off from mayor to mayor for nearly 200 years. But, as might be expected, the chain broke somewhere along the way, and at present the box sits in a closet, its owner unknowing of its raison d'etre. So here we are, 200 years down the road, and the lights in Ember flicker occasionally, sometimes more than occasionally, and it's apparent to a few that the generator's days are numbered.

Our story focuses on two children, Lina Mayfleet (Saoirse Ronan) and Doon Harrow (Harry Treadway). At the movie's outset, each has received his and her assigned job for life - Lina as a messenger (all verbal), and Doon working in the pipeworks, where he hopes to find a way to save the generator. During the course of their duties, as the blackouts increase, each learns about the mysterious silver box, and they team up to decipher the tattered remnants of the exit instructions. Naturally, they run into complications with Doon's father (Tim Robbins) and the current mayor (Bill Murray), and just as naturally they're eventually pursued by people who'd just as soon no one ever figured out how to leave the dark city.

For the most part, the casting is on target; Ronan seems a lot more engaging and appealing here than she did just last year in Atonement, and Treadway, although looking like a refugee from High School Musical, is just as impressive. Robbins is excellent in a small, but pivotal role, as is Martin Landau (whatever became of him?) as the requisite old-guy-who-sort-of-knows-stuff. The only puzzling casting is that of Murray as the town's jovial mayor; he seems glib and cheerful enough, but it almost feels like he's being ironic, rather than being a part of the story. Often, this sort of approach makes for a hammy performance, but Murray's too subtle here for pure hamminess; he's more like a square peg in a round hole.

The lapses in logic take some willful ignorance to, well, ignore. We see various businesses and transportation, but there's apparently no police, no cemeteries, no fresh fruit. Now, bear in mind that these people have been down there for two centuries. Sure, they have a lot of canned goods, but something tells me they'd be in poor health after a lifetime of poor eating habits. Then there's the fact that everyone seems clueless about the surface. I don't mean that they don't know what's on it; they don't even know there IS a surface. Attempting to leave the city is a jailable offense, okay, but these people don't even know there's something to escape to. And that makes no sense right there. They haven't been down there for 2000 years, just 200. That means approximately nine generations after the ones who first lived there, and in often there are three generations alive at any given time. So it's not tough to imagine the tales of the outside world being orally handed down from generation to generation, tales of Super Bowls, Shakespeare, Sex and the City, and Snoopy. But apparently the first generationers vowed never to speak of their upper lives again, or something.

City of Ember is pretty fascinating and not complex, meaning it'll grab you (and, more importantly, teens and younger) and not force you to figure things out in order to keep up with the plot. Yes, there are twists and turns, but there aren't huge lapses in logic, at least nothing to dissuade you from staying through to the end. The end, by the way, is satisfying, even beautifully rendered. This might be one time (of many) to read the book, too. Or instead.


In the end of mankind on Earth, the scientists build a self-sufficient underground city for a few people to preserve the human race for two hundred years. They leave also instructions for the future generations to return the surface of the planet in a steel box that should be kept by the mayors through the generations. However, the instructions are lost and the inhabitants stay in the city that is completely deteriorated. The power generator has problems and the blackouts are longer and more frequent and the city is running out of food that needs to be rationed. On the Assignment Day, the teenagers Lina Mayfleet (Saoirse Ronan) and Doon Harrow (Harry Treadaway) are assigned to work with the pipework and as messenger, but they swap their job positions. Lina, who is the descendant of the seventh mayor, finds the box of instructions in the house of her grandmother and shows it to her friend Doon. They decide to explore the way out of the city and they discover that the corrupt major and his henchmen are stealing food of the population. When they are hunted by the major's hoodlums, they have to find the way out of Ember to survive and save the populations from the imminent darkness and end of the city.

"City of Ember" is an original and engaging adventure and it was a great surprise for me. The dark city is a sort of combination of the environment of "Brazil, the Movie" and "Metropolis". The cast has names like Martin Landau, Tim Robbins and a hilarious Bill Murray that performs the typical politician, corrupt, selfish and manipulative. Unfortunately the fate of politicians in real world is not the same of his character. However, the unknown Saoirse Ronan steals the movie with a great performance. It is irritating the repetitive type of review that tells the obvious ("the book was better and better"). My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Cidade das Sombras" ("City of the Shadows")


What the humanists among us are thinking is varied and deep. Among those same great thinkers are a group dedicated to the thought of what would happen to Mankind's children if the ultimate disaster should strike the populations of the earth. Here is one movie which is straight out of a science fiction novel. The futuristic film is called " City of Ember " and purports to suggest what futuristics plan to insure survival. In this story, a group of future planners conceive, design and implement the construction of an underground city which accepts a sample of people to safeguard for a period of 200 hundred years. As always, not every contingent has been prepared for. To insure the people's return to the surface of the planet, the instructions for said return is stored within a small metal box. Then the box is given to the Mayor of Ember and is thereafter passed on down through the generations. Like all good plans a flaw is discovered when a succeeding mayor dies without passing on the box. After two hundred years and the information stands lost, it falls to two youngsters Doon Harrow (Harry Treadaway) and Lina Mayfleet (Saoirse Ronan) to save their town. Not trusting the corrupt mayor (Bill Murray) Doon seeks his father's (Tim Robbins) advice and help from an aging plumbing worker (Martin Landau). The movie is an excellent vehicle for entertainment and with the addition of Landau and Murray, they accomplish that. Although the film is slightly flawed in several places, the overall movie is dramatically cohesive. Easilly recommended for adults and youngsters alike. ****


My 11 year old son and I enjoyed this movie very much, perhaps because neither of us has read the book. Visually it was a treat to visit Ember, a handmade city with no cars, creative clothing and houses and a community where everyone knows you. It just looked so interesting.

The movie got off to a quick start, giving just enough back-story to get the mystery of the plot going. I think it is predictable from the beginning that the kids will find a way out, but how they piece together the clues and the specifics of their escape are unravelled in exciting bits and pieces. The suspense worked on two levels- will they find the way out before the City collapses- and will they find the way out before "the law" stops them?

While all the actors did a fine job, I particularly enjoyed Saoirse as Lina. And the girls who played Poppy were adorable.

My son said the same thing as other reviewers about the end- he would have liked to have seen the whole town pouring out into the light.


Had some trouble deciding my rating on this one. There is much about it to like, for sure, but there are also some flaws that cant be overlooked. It has great setting and atmosphere, an intriguing plot and charm to boot. Such things scores a lot with me. The directing is at times questionable though, there is little sense of pacing and there are some parts that feel tacked on (the crazy flumride anybody)just because its supposed to be a summerfranchie. The cute little girl is completely superfluous, and Bill Murray and Treadaway's Doon doesn't make enough with their characters (or isn't allowed too). One thing is clear. Its strenghs of this film mostly resides within the source material(witch i haven't read though). Its really nice for a change to see a fantasy film without a lot of monsters, the enemies here are brain-stagnation, greed and selfishness. Some parts had me snickering. The parts where they are handed there jobs through lottery (a jab at communism?)and the old man with the pipes. THe story is actually pretty good, not original, but tightly woven and deceivingly fresh with a timely message. In short, the source-material had the brains, but the director lacked the guts (or maybe just the talent, or were assasinated by his studio) too go through with it.

Still, it beats the latest Narnia installment, and the latest Harry Potter too for that matter. Also, Ronan, the kid from Atonement, turns in a good performance.


A lot of the reviewers pretty well panned this, so I actually was quite reluctant to watch it. Turned out that it was a good thing that I did, as it was quite a satisfying SF flick. The young leads are both very engaging, the set design and art direction are excellent and the whole affair is kinda suspenseful. The myriad big-name character actors are slightly distracting, particularly Bill Murray and Tim Robbins, but all turn in OK performances. I think some of the critics were a little turned off, frankly, because the movie did so very poorly at the box-office. As the years go by, I am betting that this little movie holds up a lot better than some of 2008's big hits.


All in all, this is probably in my top 5 books-turned-movie. I absolutely loved the book when I read it while I was in gradeschool. Its one of those eye-opening books that makes you look at humanity in a completely different way, and so I was incredibly excited when I found out that it would be adapted into a movie. About 90% of what happens in the movie happens in the book, and the remaining 10% are things I would consider improvements to the book. While many people complain about the "lack of action and adventure", the movie kept my interest the whole time, and there was more than one scene that caused me to hold my breath--sure, there were no gory fight scenes, but there was plenty of suspense. I would definitely recommend this movie for all ages, as it has just the right balance of mystery, suspense, and comedy, as well as lessons that can--and should--be taught to everybody.


I read this book years ago for a school assignment, and it become my favorite. The plot is simple, an underground city where people were sent to be saved from the end of the world and two children find the directions out. Doesn't that sound like a good plot for a NOVEL? Which brings me to my opinion of the anticipated (for me) film adaptation of my favorite book of the year. Being as it is a movie based on the book, there will always be somethings changed. But this one stayed pretty close . . . as I could point out the three or four alterations while viewing the film. I had hoped for this to become a movie for a long time, and I say to you do not listen to the low box office. It is a good film, thought predictable and screams out "There's a novel better than this!" throughout the whole film. For a fan of the novel, it's good.


Fox you fools!!! you have a real gem of a movie here and you are wasting it there may be 'more to a bottle cap than keeping liquid escaping' however there is also more than selling a movie than the odd random TV spot! This may be a film that succeeds in capturing the magic of the family film glory days of the 80's, (it took me right back to when I was ten years old and for the first time in years allowed me to become totally engrossed in the world that was portrayed before me) this does not mean you have to stay true to the 80's in your marketing campaign !!! Merchandise?Billboards?Internet?Giveaways?Video games? .. ..No- just a lame trailer! Its 2008 get with it FOX! This movie will no doubt become one of those titles that the next generation discovers by chance who will pour upon it the real attention it deserves strangely much like the box in the movie how ironic! 9 out 10


City of Ember isn't perfect, but I personally enjoyed it, and so did my family. I admit I haven't read the book, but I am the sort of person who likes to judge adaptations on their own merits. The film does look phenomenal, the set design is intricately crafted and the costumes are beautiful. And the special effects are mind-blowing, not the best special effects ever but not the worst, far from it. The soundtrack is also rousing and fun, the story is intriguing, the script is decent and the acting is very well done. Both Harry Treadaway and Saoirse Ronan(the better of the two) give appealing lead performances while Amy/Catherine Quinn is very cute as Lina's little sister Poppy. Bill Murray is deviously obnoxious as the slob of a mayor if there ever was one. However, despite the impressive visuals and performances, there are some problems. One is that while Tim Robbins is a good actor, he is given little to do as Doon's father. Second, the ending felt rather abrupt, the film could've done with a more rounded finish. Thirdly, the pacing is rather slow and drawn out at times particularly in the middle half. This is probably not helped by the occasionally sluggish direction. Despite these flaws, I liked City of Ember. 8/10 Bethany Cox


When a film boasts a cast list comprised of some of the most talented Hollywood actors in Bill Murray, Tim Robbins, Martin Landau, and Toby Jones, not to mention newcomer and extraordinary talent Saoirse Ronan, it will most likely go one of two ways: Either the film deserves such a fine cast and will be a great film (take 'The Departed' (2006) for example) . . . or the cast is set in a subpar piece to make up for the film's lesser elements (like 'Valentine's Day' (2010)). Luckily, 'City of Ember' falls in closer with the former instead of the latter.

The film, adapted from the novel by Jeanne Duprau, tells the story of a small city named Ember that, over two hundred years prior, was locked away by the city's founding builders. The city is run solely on the power of its massive generator that lies beneath like a beating heart. However, the old generator is slowly falling apart, casting the city into short periods of darkness. Doon Harrow (Harry Treadway), a young boy recently assigned to work on the pipes of the city, is convinced that only he can fix the generator and help the city. During his explorations of the piping systems, he finds a mysterious room that is unmarked on his maps. With the help of Lina Mayfleet (Saoirse Ronan), the two teens discover the secrets of Ember and the answers that may help save the townspeople from eternal darkness.

When 'City of Ember' was released into theatres, it seemed to have gone by the attention of most people without much notice. With a production budget of over $50 million, the film only raked in about $8 million domestically. But, why was this film such a tremendous bomb? From the looks of it, it had little to do with the film's quality. It has a very solid cast behind it, the story is entertaining, kids movies at this level typically do well, and the trailers made it look to be very beautiful (which it was). It would seem, then, that the film was simply just undermarketed. Very little attention was given by the marketing team for this one and that's what killed it.

Had 'City of Ember' been given a proper marketing campaign, it could've been very successful. The film is really quite good. The acting, as expected, is fantastic. The cast of legends like Bill Murray & Martin Landau were fantastically chosen; and, the 'Lovely Bones' star Saoirse Ronan is quickly becoming one of the best actors of her age group, not to mention a definite for a few Oscars in her lifetime. The story is very entertaining, even if it isn't the most original or mysterious. The set design, however, is really what sets the film apart. Ember is built into a fantastic and beautiful city, from the underground and above. One issue that many seem to have deals with the CGI effects in the film, especially some of the scenes towards the end. While some of the CGI is spotty, it's hardly distracting enough to remove from the overall beauty of the film and no one should allow such small issues to detract wholly from an overall good film.

While book purists appear not to love the film for the oversimplification of the adaptation, those who have not read Duprau's novel should have a good time with it.

Final Verdict: 8/10.

-AP3-


Some reviewers seem to think this movie was not sufficiently faithful the book. Personally, I could care less. (And I'll happily say the same about film versions of books that are near and dear to my heart.) You want the book, go ahead and read the book. THIS City of Ember happens to be a movie. A really entertaining movie, that works amazingly well on its own terms. (And made me want to read the book, which you'd have to agree is a good thing.)

Other reviewers seem to think this movie ripped off the game Fallout, or the movie Dark City. Well, I'm afraid you are WAY out of touch with culture. This movie 'rips off' endless previous works. The first one I thought of was Arthur C Clarke's haunting novel Against the Fall of Night. Then I thought of the game Bioshock. Then Robert Heinlein's novel Orphans of the Sky. Then George Lucas' film THX-1138. Then a rather under-appreciated book by British SF writer James White, The Watch Below. And THEN I thought of Dark City...

None of those parallels bothered me at all. Why should they? I can't recall anyone disliking Bioshock as a "rip off" of Against the Fall of Night. The theme of people trying to escape from a 'lost' city is classic, well worth revisiting periodically.

And this movie does it really well, bringing a number of unique strengths. I very much liked the two kids that are the heroes of this story. I liked all the small characters, especially Martin Landau as the over-the-hill maintenance man. I LOVED Bill Murray as the villainous mayor. He should play bad guys more often. And above all, I really enjoyed the visualization of a 200-year-old city where all the technology has been failing for generations.

No, the story held no surprises. So what? Tell me you didn't know from the start how Die Hard was going to come out. Or Raiders of the Lost Ark. Or The Guns of Navarone. Or, in fact, ANY 'genre' movie. When the destination is known, it's the journey that's important. And I really enjoyed every minute of this journey, from start to finish.

City of Ember (the movie) is well-written, well-acted and visually beautiful. It's got a rousing story, quite a few laughs and a really great (if well-worn) premise. That's more than enough for me.


I have not read this book, but I read a lot, and something I've found to expect is: Books are 9 times out of 10 better than the film adaptations.

My thoughts on the movie Fabulous work paid to the environments, sets, ambiance, all in all, the entire community and style of ember was very enthralling and interesting indeed. But unfortunately I think the movie suffered from the same things with a lot of movie/book adaptations. As the film continued, too many things are introduced, too many story elements, characters and events are cramming together, and it just starts to feel like they are rushing things to get everything that made a good story in a book into a hour and a half movie.

I find I am left far too curious about too many things that they didn't have time to properly explain or explore. (big bugs?? wha?) I am most defiantly picking up the book for a more detailed story of ember, but as it stands now the movie is an enjoyable one. It's just so hard to trump books.


I saw this movie 2 days ago in a very rainy day. I wanted to escape worries of the day-to-day life, and I gave this movie a shot without really knowing what I should expected from it. And what a surprise! This movie was a great adventure fantasy movie with a good plot, a coherent universe and sweet characters. Probably the movie was targeted principally for kids but as an adult I never got bored a minute. I think that nowadays we do not have enough of these movies that main purpose is to create a viable alternative universe and allow you travel fro a few hours far away from your place. And this one does, so don't hesitate if you tired of watching City of Lost children for the 25th time, or you know all the dialogues of Dark City by heart, a must!


It could have been better. Tim Robbins and Bill Murray in a kid oriented movie about the last city on Earth. It could have been grand! Philosophical and funny, witted and dark. But no, they were in the film just to attract audience in roles not worth mentioning.

Also, the movie got stuck between two genres and therefore was destined not to satisfy neither audience. Logic holes in the script so blatant that it limited the viewers to the age of 8, but had social irony which could have never been understood by said kids. It was happy happy joy joy like a fairy tale, but it showed the complete obedience of a populace in the face of corrupt officials. It had a steam-punk appearance and a fine satire to the religious cultists, but a ridiculous premise.

Too bad, so much potential and so little achievement. Better luck next time. This one is merely average.


Yeah That Summarises What I Have To Say. The Plot If any is (now please don't hate me for revealing it) At the end of mankind on Earth, the scientists build a self-sufficient underground city for a few people in order to preserve the human race for two hundred years. They leave also instructions for the future generations to return to the surface of the planet in a steel box that should be kept by the mayors through the generations. However, the instructions are lost and the inhabitants stay in the city that is completely deteriorated. The power generator has problems and the blackouts are longer and more frequent and the city is running out of food that needs to be rationed. On the Assignment Day, the teenagers Lina Mayfleet and Doon Harrow are assigned to work with the pipework and as messenger, but they swap their job positions. Lina, who is the descendant of the seventh mayor, finds the box of instructions in the house of her grandmother and shows it to her friend Doon. They decide to explore the way out of the city and they discover that the corrupt major and his henchmen are stealing food from the population. When they are hunted by the major's hoodlums, they have to find the way out of Ember to survive and save the populations from the imminent darkness and the end of the city. Now a city built underground wouldn't last for 200 years. what kind of government tells kids to pick jobs out of a hat? a ####ing horrible one if you ask me.

To all people who like The Shawshank Redemption and people thinking that Tim Robbins actually saved his career with Shawshank Redemption (even though I've never seen the film): Tim Robbins ####ed up his career with this movie

The Only Reason I Gave It A 2 Is Because Unlike Most Book Movies It Didn't Spawn 8 Sequels (I'm Talking To You Harry Potter)


While the story and the scenery are fantastic in their whimsical scope, the actual technology of Ember will make anyone with even a high school physics education scratch their heads from time to time.

Outside of the minor head-scratchers (no foundry/ironworks? how did the phones and phone lines 'deteriorate'? Why does everything look so weathered in an underground bunker?), one major flaw sticks out at me (!MAJOR SPOILER HERE STOP!) as the three are escaping, they exit VIA this kind of log ride DOWN several tall chutes... yet somehow they emerge several hundred meters above the city and are able to look directly down on it. Who would build such a terrifying escape mechanism to begin with, and how do they gain all that altitude? Overall the movie is nice, but if you have a passion for the sciences you will cringe throughout this movie almost as much as you did while watching The Core (maybe a little less).


with a few plot changes, but that's understandable, I mean, they can't go exactly from the book, word for word, because there are some things in books that just can' be put on screen.

I don't get why people don't like this movie so much, I mean, THIS MOVIE IS AWESOME!!!!! The whole idea of a City of Ember is very believable.

You can tell they used every cent of their 55 million dollar budget, because, jeez, the sets are fantastically real, the costumes look authentic! The part of the boats actually being the lockers was genius. I never saw it coming. It was a little easier I bet for the filmmakers to film a moving turnstile than a cave against the rushing water. ;)

Love this title, go see it while it is on DVD, because (sadly) it did not do well at all in the box office, so probably no adaptation of "People of Sparks" :(