"Nothing counts more than blood... the rest are just strangers," speaks Wyatt's father at the beginning of the film--the most important line perhaps in the movie, with the exception of Wyatt's own at the end "Some say it didn't happen that way," commenting upon a flashback recounting his brand of law and justice in the wild cattle town of Dodge City.

I wholeheartedly admit the film is long--but so are many other great films. I also admit that it is not the shoot 'em up Tombstone is, but this film is a far greater one, a character study of a man whose innocence is laid to rest by the harsh wilderness of both the American West and human nature. By the end of this movie, Wyatt is a used up and bitter man, and I would argue that this film was never meant to be a heroic portrayal of an individual, only a dark and complicated one. It reminds me thus of the greatest of character portrayals, Raging Bull--though I'm sure the parallel isn't obvious.

I probably am more forgiving of this film since I like Westerns, dark dramatic stories, and admittedly uneven plots, because the characters usually are so great in them. This one is no different, and was likely made for a viewer like me, and not the mainstream audience.

It's very ambitious, and successful, I believe, on its artistic merits. Whether it's "entertainment" for the masses, well that's another story altogether, and that story's name is probably "Tombstone."


"Law and Order" (1932), a film starring Walter Huston and Harry Carey, had blazed the Earp screen trail with a brave version of the 0. K. Corral happenings, although the true-life characters were never named "Frontier Marshal" (1939) starring Randolph Scott and "Wichita" (1955) with Joel McCrea also told the story

To most modern cinema-goers, however, the Corral incident and the confused events and motivations which led to it have been best served by four films, John Ford's "My Darling Clementine" (1946), John Sturges' "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral," (1957), Sturges' "Hour of the Gun" (1967), and George P. Cosmatos' "Tombstone" (1993). But the question has yet to be solved: should the American West be depicted on the screen as it actually was, or should it continue to be a form of mythology?

Hollywood's version of history is considerably at variance with the facts, and life on the frontier in the 19th century would appear to have been more dull and monotonous than exciting and colorful Certainly, life in Tombstone, Arizona, in its time of greatest prosperity as a mining town must have been anything but healthy, with its vast number of rough working men relieving their boredom with drinking and brawling, and occasionally shooting each other

In Kasdan's epic Western, Earp is the upright defender of the law, and Doc, a dissolute gambler Nevertheless, the men are compassionate and respectful, and both have a kind of dignity Holliday is much more credible as the black sheep of an aristocratic Virginia family and a jaded idealist Dennis Quaid allowed himself to lose 30 pounds of his weight only to accurately portray the gun-notorious Doc Holliday, now, alas devoted to the bottle and in the latter stages of tuberculosis

In this instance we have Quaid breathing fire and fury at the slightest hint of an insult before breathing more heavily into his handkerchief He's a multi-dimensional human being who provides most of the film's best moments His character has his own form of ability Quaid does a far better work of portraying the effects of Holliday's tuberculosis Kilmer, in "Tombstone," never seems to have anything worse than a bad flu, except when it's dramatically necessary for him to look bad in greater degree

Earp (Kevin Costner) finds Doc sincere but nevertheless strikes up an understanding which one feels will blossom into grudging joint gun-action should the need arise The need is obviously there in villainous Clantons and McLaurys The path is well and truly pointed to that rendezvous at the Corral

Kasdan's motion picture covers areas of Earp's life that George P. Cosmatos' film "Tombstone" does not even touch While "Tombstone" was an action picture, centering on the events leading up to and including the famous gunfight, Lawrence Kasdan's "Wyatt Earp" focused on the man himself and his life from childhood to the confrontation and beyondThe film starts with the teenage Earp and progresses through old age

The action in Kasdan's film is firm and fresh, nicely photographed and the story well told But we always remember Ford's "My Darling Clementine" for its other qualitiesfor the unhurried lulls and the 'time off' taken on the way This is Ford indulging himself, as was his habit, but on this occasion the indulgences all come off and are imparted with magic

"My Daring Clementine" was a film of touchesFonda, seated, adjusting his boots and his balance while the world, such as it is, goes by; Fonda, the peacemaker, right-and-properly in church; Fonda, with an old-world frontier concept of courtesy leading his lady in the out of doors dance

Earp in Kasdan's biopic is an ordinary man who met and married a beautiful young woman who died of typhoid a short time after the marriage Profoundly bitter about her death, he goes from a drunken fellow to horse thief to buffalo hunter to stagecoach driver to Dodge City, Kansas where he became one of the most famous "Westerners" of all time...


This is one of the best, and underrated, westerns ever made. It was a very intense, interesting character study of a famous lawman, showing flaws and all. In fact, this is the only version, I believe, that really shows the sadistic side of Wyatt Earp, and what made him a bitter man. To be fair, it also shows his good traits.

It also has a terrific, deep cast and features a good mix of drama, romance and action. Even the music grows on you after several viewings. There is no humor in here: this is a serious story. Unlike the more popular "Tombstone," this Earp story has a lot less profanity and almost no usage of the Lord's name in vain....but there is rough language and some crude sexual remarks, so don't watch it with the kiddies.

At rate, the movie is a lot better than the critics would have you believe. (All nationally-known critics but one panned this, as far as I know.)

Kevin Costner performed one of his better acting jobs. It was nice to see Michael Madsen and Tom Sizemore as good guys. That's not seen in too many films! They were low-key characters, too. Dennis Quaid did a nice job as the fascinating "Doc Holliday." It's generally conceded that Val Kilmer's "Doc" in "Tombstone" was the best-ever, but Quaid version is just fine, thank you, and gets better and better with each viewing.

This is a long movie, but it's never dull and it never overdoes the action, either. The cast is deep so you see a lot of familiar actors. As mentioned, this film is extremely underrated. I know most people prefer "Tombstone" but I'll take this version of the Earp saga any time!


I have to thank Kevin Costner for taking me West. "Wyatt Earp" led me to pick up a copy of the early Earp bio by Stuart Lake while working in Canada, and I was surprised to find photos of the actual historical people tipped inside. The resemblance of the actors to those they portrayed impressed me.

I continued to research. I went to Tombstone and stayed at a nearby ranch. The town itself declined Costner's office to rebuild it with accuracy, preferring the leave things as they are (very touristy). The gunfight was actually held in the street, etc. My research matched at least striking physical/type casting for 17 characters, from major characters (the Earps and their wives/women) to the Cowboys, Beehan, Doc Holiday, his Kate, and Bat Masterson. Linden Ashby is the most striking doppelganger; indeed, he seems to be a physical reincarnation of Morgan Earp. Dennis Quaid lost some 40 pounds or so for the role of Doc Holiday and his resemblance to the TB-plagued gambler from Valdosta, Georgia is eerie as well.

Costner caught a lot of flack for this film; in fact, few critics noted the historical sense that he achieved. Granted, some cuts are made in time frame/continuity to speed plot along (i.e. timing of attacks on Morgan and Virgil), and the film is lengthy. I learned that the Cowboy/Earp feud was not mere ill-will, but that the strife represented political differences and clashing economic interests, as well as the "theft" of a lover. The old diaries and biographies are fascinating! I learned that Morgan Earp told Allie Earp something like, "I want to leave Tombstone and never come back" moments before he was shot to death.

Of note, Johnny Beehan's partner in the Dexter Corral in Tombstone was a man named "John Dunbar". This was Costner's character's name in "Dances with Wolves". Go figure. Read more about it! Granted Lake embellished Earp's image, but the place, the times and the issues are fascinating.


"Wyat Earp" had the misfortune to be released not long after the classic "Tombstone," which told the same story. Nevertheless, "Wyat Earp" is a laudable effort and well worth the time to sit through its three hours and fifteen minutes running time.

The performances were uniformly good, with a skeletal Dennis Quade particularly fine as the doomed Doc Holliday. In fact, I thought that Quade's funny and moving performance as Doc Holliday was in the same class as Val Kilmer's portrayal of the same character in "Tombstone." The women playing the Earp wives, Catherine O'Hara, JoBeth Williams, Mare Winningham, and Betty Buckley, were also very effective. The beautiful Joanna Going was a pleasure to watch as Josie Marcus, the woman who Wyat Earp spent the last 47 years of his life with. Unfortunately, her acting skills did not match her beauty.

The thing that makes the film rise above the mediocre to me is its stunning visual and aural beauty. Its 5.1 Dolby Digital soundtrack is world class, and its outdoor photography is evocative.

Recommended, 7 out of 10.


As an owner of the Wyatt Earp extended Director's edition I can tell you that I thought the film was neither too long or too slow as some "attention-span-deficient" critics have labled it. Admittedly, I have seen shorter movies and movies with more wall to wall action, but I am patient enough to enjoy the slow enveloping experience of a Tarkovsky film. When this film came out, I couldn't convince anyone to see it with me, so I had to go alone. I was blown away by the cast, the performances, the writing and the movie. The cast was terrific. Even bit characters are well-known actors in this film. Gene Hackman was his superb self as Wyatt's stern but loving father. The film didn't skip over significant elements in Wyatt's life like most of the filmed versions do. His transformation from a young adventure-seeking farmer's son to a fearless and feared lawman is believable and compelling. The cinematography was fantastic and was deservedly written up in an issue of American Cinematographer magazine.

On a side note, I think this film works well as an allegory to current events. The United States is represented by Wyatt and the "Wild West" is the world. Like the U.N., Ed Masterson tries to get Wyatt to become less strict and hard-nosed in the application of law. Ed gets killed because he is "too affable". Like France and Russia, the corrupt sheriff Johnny Behan (Mark Harmon) tries to get Wyatt to sell out, because there is "enough money for everybody" if he just looks the other way. Wyatt is too rigidly principled for either of these two men but retains his dignity and honor.


Wyatt Earp if nothing else is the Western of all Westerns. It's epically enormous and tells a story of a man that could only be fiction and yet was a real person. There isn't anything that a lover of Westerns won't find in this film. It has absolutely everything. It is a very, very long film. It was originally meant to be a whopping six hours so thank goodness it was cut to only three. Without a doubt I think this is director Lawrence Kasdan's best work although he did work on another Kevin Costner vehicle that was very good, The Bodyguard.

Costner plays the lead role of Wyatt Earp. Now one thing is for sure Kevin Costner is an acquired taste. No matter what he's a commanding presence on screen and his portrayal of tough as nails, take no prisoners Wyatt Earp is awesome!! Sure sometimes he is a little dry in his acting but he has a quiet intensity that makes his roles so watchable. He goes from loving husband to grieving, to drunk, to Marshall, to protector, to the executioner flawlessly and seamlessly. The supporting cast of this film is incredible and too numerous to mention everyone. They have such an incredible ensemble cast and everyone adds to it in different ways. Gene Hackman makes a cameo as Wyatt's father, Michael Madsen as his brother, Catherine O'Hara as his sister-in-law (Madsen's wife), Bill Pullman as Ed Masterson, Isabella Rossellini as Doc Holliday's woman, Tom Sizemore as Bat Masterson, Adam Baldwin, Téa Leoni, Jeff Fahey...and I could go on. The film is a virtual who's who of Hollywood A and B movie actors who come together like I've never seen on screen. It's just fun picking out who you recognize as most of them are done up to an almost unrecognizable state with era costumes and set. However the two performances most noted were Costner and the amazing Dennis Quaid who plays the ill fated Doc Holliday. I did feel that they didn't really establish the friendship as much as they could have between Earp and Holliday but nonetheless Quaid's performance was the best in the film and Oscar worthy. A cold blooded killer, dying of consumption and dedicated to his friend. He's barely recognizable, even his voice is different and he's the perfect choice.

Wyatt Earp's most brilliant part is the entire setting including costumes, locations, and capturing the entire era of any era it displays. The dusty, dark, gritty world of the old west to the plains of Arizona to the Alaskan coast in the end. It's a visual masterpiece. The costumes are spot on and brilliant. I think Costner has a real love for the western and you can see his passion in this film. As producer he likely had a big hand in it's creation and it shows. I think Costner is a worthy Hollywood star and I've always liked him and this is one of the great films he has done. Any fans of Westerns MUST see Wyatt Earp because although made in the nineties it's the essential western epic and brilliantly done just a little long, that's all. Can't beat the content or performances and familiar faces. 8/10


A lengthy biopic about Wyatt Earp, this splendid film tackles the problem of telling the story of an actual man's life, and does it well.

People do not live like Hollywood films in that our lives have no plot. Wyatt Earp does have a plot, but it is not the glamorous rocket ride of an action film. We get to see Wyatt Earp not so much as a hero, but as a man. He had virtues. But he had flaws and shortcomings, and they led to pain for himself and others.

Earp's life was not limited to his time in Tombstone and the movie reflects that. He was around for quite some time before and after that famous gunfight at the OK Corrall. The makers of this movie appreciate that. And though today we associate him most strongly with that event, it did not define him. Rather, he helped to define it. And his life kept right on trucking after that.

Good performances all around, although I did not believe anyone gave the performance of their career.

Often this movie is compared to another film, Tombstone. But Wyatt Earp is aptly titled, because it is not only about Tombstone. It covers decades and brings a sweeping sense of time to the picture. It is also quite lovely. Shot with a sense of honesty, sometimes the characters appear quite unfashionable. They appear real, nonetheless, and don't look like they just stepped out of a Vidal Sasson commercial.

Overall, a good biography about a man of the times.


First of all, I would like to know why so many people are comparing Wyatt Earp to Tombstone. Yes...both films were made within a year apart, but their objectives are completely different. The titles pretty much say it. Tombstone is about the events that transpired in Tombstone...Wyatt Earp is about the man Wyatt Earp. Therefore, they do not have the same goal in mind and are telling two very different stories. I enjoyed both films for different reasons and allow them to stand on their own merits. Tombstone was more entertaining and action-packed, however, the story was not as historically accurate and the characters were a little over the top. Whereas Wyatt Earp had more of a personal, in-depth examination of the life, but not the legend, of Wyatt Earp.

Now, lets get to the intention of this film. Wyatt Earp is suppose to be a story about the lawman, with the convictions and tribulations that shape him as a young boy up to old age. Unlike, Tombstone, which focuses on an array of characters with the plot leading up to a single event, quite historically incorrect, I might add. Yes...Wyatt Earp is cold, unforgiving, bitter, reserved, etc. However, he was not always that way, as his early life traveling with his family to California and marriage to Urella Sutherland, a woman he deeply loved, demonstrates. The turning point in the story is when Wyatt's beloved wife dies along with their unborn child. Wyatt lashes out and loses all reason to live. He becomes extremely self-destructive and sets about roaming the West with no real purpose at all except to die. His father slaps some sense into him and tells him to move on with his life. Eventually, he becomes a lawman and that is when we meet the mysterious and quiet Wyatt Earp that nobody likes. So...okay...Wyatt becomes reserved, quiet, and cruel, but it is not as if we do not know why. He was a man trying to survive in a harsh, brutal land and being a lawman did not make it any easier because he was always a target. He was plagued by external demons as well as internal demons, such as the bottle and a strong yearning, undying love for his dead wife. He was very human and this movie manifests that. Tombstone is fine for those of you that do not care for Wyatt Earp beyond the infamous fight at the OK Carroll or the lawman legend. However, if you can stand a more accurate, in depth character exploration of Wyatt Earp, without any pretensions, than this is a movie worth seeing.


I will say that I saw this film before I saw Tombstone but I have to say, upon further review, this is so far the superior film it's not even funny. It's been 14 years now since these were put out and the more I watch them, the wider the gap between the two films becomes. Quaid is a far superior Doc Holliday. Costner, a far superior Earp. The biggest difference though is in the writing. So many of the lines in Tombstone come across as corny and contrived. They are, for lack of a better term, "goofy." Wyatt Earp the film is the grandiose and much more realistic-seeming film. The characters are better developed and the writing is clearly more polished. I don't particularly like either of the Morgan Earp characters in either film, but Virgil Earp again is portrayed much better in Wyatt Earp than Tombstone's Sam Elliott, who basically does his usual and plays Sam Elliott rather than a character. At the end of the day, I've sat through Wyatt Earp about eight times. I've watched Tombstone twice and I've decided there won't be a third. It doesn't stand the test of time at all. Earp does.


Flawed in so many ways, hard to pick at anything in particular. What's really terrible are the horrible performances by a slew of fine actors and actresses.

Every single performance in Tombstone shines above Wyatt Earp. Obviously, this movie was only made to compete with the other. Quaid's Holiday seems to be very fit and spry in comparison to Kilmer's well thought out and researched version. When Wyatt Earp III informs the viewers on the special edition DVD that he believes Kurt Russell's performance will go down in the history of filmmaking as the most accurate portrayal of his Grandfather, you have to listen. I doubt anyone can argue his credentials on the subject!

What is really bewildering is the vast number of people on IMDB who really liked this one, one should not tout his/her cluelessness in such a manner.

Here's a clue, rent Tombstone!


Months after the film Tombstone was released came this film, but it instead shows the full life journey of one of history's greatest lawmen, from Razzie nominated director Lawrence Kasdan (The Big Chill). It shows Wyatt Earp (Razzie winning Kevin Costner, also producing) growing up on the corn farm with his father Nicholas (Gene Hackman) and brothers Virgil (Michael Madsen), James (David Andrews) and Morgan (Linden Ashby). Then grown up, he marries sweetheart Urilla Sutherland (Annabeth Gish), who soon after died from typhus, while pregnant, and Wyatt burned their house and all possessions inside, turning to a life of crime to survive, forcing him to run away from Missouri to Dodge City. It is there he first makes a living skinning wilder beasts with brothers Ed (Bill Pullman) and Bat (Tom Sizemore) Masterson, then he builds a reputation as a good lawman, grows his moustache, meets partner Doc Holliday (a near show-stealing Dennis Quaid) who is slowly dying of tuberculosis, and makes sure all townspeople do not have any guns. I kind of lost my understanding of what was going on in the last hour or so, but it was still worth seeing the events in Tombstone and O.K. Corral. Also starring Catherine O'Hara as Allie Earp, Isabella Rossellini as Big Nose Kate, Téa Leoni as Sally, Navy NCIS's Mark Harmon as Johnny Behan and The Passion of the Christ's James Caviezel as Warren Earp. The performances are all good, the story has compelling moments, and all scenes seem beautifully filmed, a pretty good epic western drama. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Cinematography, and for some reason, it won the Razzie for Worst Remake or Sequel, and it was nominated for Worst Picture and Worst Screen Couple for Costner and any of his three (film) wives. Very good!


"Wyatt Earp" was where I started to catch on, and the likes of "Waterworld" and "Message in a Bottle" have confirmed it. Kevin Costner considers himself God's gift to women, yet deep down, he has a frightening streak of sexism that affects all his work.

I lost track of how many times in "Wyatt Earp" Costner or someone else tells a woman to "shut up." Usually, the men are upset because those stupid, non-blood-relation women are complaining about having to move and/or be shot at all the time.

When the women aren't making unreasonable demands like that, they cling to him saying things like "I just want to be close to you." Translation: you don't have to marry me or even treat me well, just allow me to hang around and gaze at you adoringly.

Yet "Wyatt Earp" would still be bad without this sexism. It's too long, melodramatic in the extreme.


Costner's films continue without heart or soul. Each is an appendage to the only film he ever made. This episode is more properly judged in the genre of videos, as this film substitutes any plot or character development, and certainly any acting for bland cinematography and overdone music. Discard comments regarding sexism and ignore comparisons to Tombstone, I feel sorry for him and his costars, some of whom actually deliver strong, believable performances. Doc Holliday is always entertaining. I was particularly saddened that the writers chose to trivialize the friendship between Doc and Wyatt by basing it upon a few meaningful looks and friendly handshakes. Showing Doc save Wyatt's life would have made for better watching and historical accuracy. And may I say, I love this legend...


This could have titled "Issac Newton" because the story bears about as much of a resemblance to his life as it does that of Wyatt Earp's. Some filmmakers will never learn that the truth or a semblance of it can be just as interesting as their imagination. This movie is a historically inacurate tale purporting to be about Earp and is actually nothing more than a plotless, western soap opera with some shootings. I gave it a 2 out of 10 instead of a 1 simply because the visual effects and cinematography are good.


A very good movie, the biggest letdown is the length! Good lord, I'm reading people saying there needed to be more detail, blah blah--you'd need to make a series on TV! It's already, what, three hours long? Some of the acting seemed a little stiff, what is it with Kostner that he always comes off like he's got his lines memorized, and he's trying to remember them? As for passing judgement on historical accuracy--folks, it's a movie, OK? Not a history course. Omission is not historical inaccuracy, it's expediency, as long as the continuity of the story is intact. I liked Tombstone too. Both entertaining movies, neither is Gone With the Wind. Isn't entertainment and performance what it's all about?


Wyatt Earp, has to truly be one of the finest portrayal of a great western hero. I live in the Southwest and here you are closer to the things that took place not that long ago.

Wyatt Earp brings to the screen, an insight to each of us just a small understanding of what took place not all that long ago. The west was the last frontier of man, a place where man lived and died by the gun, where law was ruled by the Colt 45.

The Gunfight at the OK Corral is one of the last great events that took place in the Old West. The movie brings not only the story of the life and times of Wyatt Earp, but also in showing you the events that led up to the beginning of the end of the Wild West.

Any Wild West history buff will enjoy watching and understanding how the puzzle of the Old West fits into becoming a building block of our great nation.

This movie will remain as one of my best loved movies.


I have just watched back to back these two movies and ranked both an 8. Kevin Costner, Dennis Quaid, Gene Hackman Etal made me feel that their movie was closer to history and also brought pride in their perceived honor. The chronicle from childhood to the 20th Century felt complete. BUT Then came Kurt Russell, Val Kilmer, Sam Elliott and Powers Boothe (Deadwood 93) etal and left me entertained to the ninth degree. The sheer pace of this one leaves you breathless.

These movies should be seen back to back and not compared as they tell two different stories occurring at the same time and place. Costner as Wyatt was more believable But Russell's Earp was more fun. Quaid was Doc Holiday but Kilmer had a holiday with the role. I will concede that Sam Elliott made Virgil his and nobody is going to take it away. Rent or buy both movies as it a worthwhile investment of your time.


Okay, okay... I can see why some people might not fall in love with this film. Kevin Costner can do that to you. But I enjoyed this movie and the lead actor tremendously. I liked the sweep of it, the lengthy exposition, as well as the action at the end. Admittedly, I'm a sucker for the subject matter--I enjoyed Tombstone and Kurt Russell as well.

All that aside, Dennis Quaid should've won an Oscar for his portrayal of Doc Holliday. In my book, he was brilliant. Any time an actor that recognizable can fool me as to his identity for an entire movie he's done some serious acting. (I don't really care who's acting when I go to see a movie and don't study the playbills)


This epic and beautifully shot western is one of Costner's best films.

Following the life of legendary law man Wyatt Earp, this very underrated movie pictures the 'real' man with the 'legend' and gives viewers' a chance to decide for themselves what type of man Earp really was.

Costner's performance as the law man is superb. Through the innocence of youth to a moody old man, he fits the role perfectly and proves he is better than Kurt Russell's Earp in 'Tombstone'.

The shoot-outs are superb and there is fantastic support from Dennis Quaid as the ill Doc Holliday, as well as Michael Madsen, Tom Sizemore and Bill Pullman.

Although a tad long and the the fact that there seems to be no dirt anywhere in this film, I urge you to check this out.

8 out of 10


The movie was good enough on most of its parts. First of all, the acting was very good and the script was very good. The only problem I had with this movie is that it was a little bit boring. Most of the movie and dialogue was top of the notch excellent but it got a tad bit boring.

Overall this movie was very cool and I thought that it depicted Wyatt Earp's life well and Kevin Costner and Dennis Quaid are awesome. Rating 9 out of 10.


Like what has been said before, this movie shouldn't be compared too much to Tombstone, since they carried different story angles. I do, however, think that Costner was more what I have imagined Earp as than Russell was. I've always imagined him as somewhat quiet, and less prone to outburst, but what do I know?

The plot carried over very well and pulled at your emotions with real gut-wrenching scenes. The tension between the Earps and the Clantons was very well depicted. You got the whole picture of what went on in the life of the legendary Marshall

Kilmer vs. Quaid for Doc Holliday? Both were effectively symptomatic of tuberculosis, which symptoms mean more to you? Pale fever and a cold sweat (Kilmer), or just the rapid weight loss (Quaid)? Also, I don't think anyone can't really determine what kind of demeanor was right for the Doc, so I can't say which of the two actors were more inline there. Quaid was great and scored big in playing outside himself, but I have to go with Kilmer who managed the same, and consistently stole scenes with his "cool cat" portayal.

As good an historical epic has ever been done!


I've never been a fan of the Western genre, but I found myself enjoying this one. This is not your typical Hollywood Western. It cuts out pretty much every romantic vision of the American west that Hollywood has ever portrayed and just presents a fascinating bare bones account of one of the frontier's greatest heroes. Rather than focusing totally on the OK Corral, there is an emphasis on the events prior to Tombstone that molded Wyatt Earp.

This is one of the few Western movies I've seen where you get a feel for how it actually might have been to live in that time. Instead of the usual Hollywood fluff, you get something much different. There are still scenes with stagecoaches and saloons, but they don't seem as romanticized as in other Westerns. And you also get other non-Hollywood visions of the West, such as scenes with buffalo being slaughtered and skinned.

Wyatt Earp himself is portrayed as a very powerful individual who, while fighting on the side of the law, could also be cold-hearted, cruel, and excessively violent at times. Attributes necessary for survival as a lawman.

Costner is fantastic as Wyatt Earp, with one minor complaint. He's got the attitude, posture and look down pat. It's just that I think his voice is a bit too nasally to carry the power that Wyatt Earp must have had whenever he spoke. As for the other actors, they are all outstanding with Dennis Quaid in particular turning in a great performance as Doc Halladay.

A lot of people have commented on this movie and Tombstone. Personally, I enjoyed both, but the difference is that when I watch Tombstone, I feel like I just watched an entertaining story, whereas when I watch Wyatt Earp I feel like I just saw a piece of history. Overall, an excellent and very under-appreciated movie.


I just want to say that i will be the first person to step up and defend Kevin Costner. With movies like The Untouchables, Dances With Wolves, and Field of Dreams, this guy has proven himself several times over. Just because someone in Hollywood has the guts to do movies that HE wants to do, regardless of their potential at the box office, we shouldn't slanderize this guy every chance we get. People say Costner has taken a big turn for the worse lately, but i liked Waterworld and most recently, Thirteen Days. I would also like to say that i dont' see any of you people who criticize this guy so much makin movies. With that said i would also like to say that i love Tombstone, and bought it right after i saw it the first time. With two movies coming out about the same true story back to back, and with the first release (Tombstone) being such a big success, comparisons are inevitable. But these movies aren't really based on the exact same events. Tombstone is about, just that, Tombstone and what the Earps did there and immediatly after. Wyatt Earp isn't about the Earps, it's about WYATT EARP, hence the tittle. Aside from that, the movies are totaly different. First of all Tombstone, good as it was, is almost a work of fiction. I loved Kurt Russel and Val Kilmer as the movie's center pieces, Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday respectively. The fact is however, Russel plays a very emotionally open person. Costner plays him as a quiet, almost cold person. Now, alot of people who have made comments about this movie have criticized Costner for that.(Big surprise.) But, you can't blame Costner for this because Wyatt Earp is not a fictional character, he was a flesh and blood human like you, and most importantly, Costner plays Earp much more realisticly. Then there is the much debated arguement over who plays a better Doc Holliday, Val Kilmer in Tombstone, or Dennis Quaid in Wyatt Earp. Well, here's the thing, if you mean who played Doc closer to reality....then the undisputed winner is Quaid. But if you mean who is more enjoyable, well that's a matter of opinion. But before i move on i got a bone to pick with somebody who said Tombstone was much better because Russel played the kind of Earp that "we imagine". Look lady, you can have whatever ridiculous ideas about the way past events took place all you want....but don't ever bring me into your childish little dream world by generalizing your opinions by saying what "we imagine". When it comes to this i don't imagine anything, i actually got the facts. Now i don't want to sound like a know-it-all, because i hate those people, but, as i said in my summary, if your going to comment on this movie, research the topic, or at least now the facts. Then this same man or woman who tells me what i imagine poeple as goes on to say she imagines Doc Holliday as a "sly and witty sort of character the way Kilmer played him" Well that is fabulous, but the fact is that Doc, who was a witty person was witty in the way Dennis Quaid portrays him. For example in a conflict a drunk Ike Clanton tells Holliday that Holliday's day is comin. Doc responds by saying, "My mama always said never put off 'til tomorrow the people you can kill today." Then also in the list of comments for this movie is some total moron who said Quaid is at his worst on this movie. Anybody care what that guy thinks? I didn't think so. In closing Wyatt Earp is a realistic and enjoyable accounts of the life of one of the most compelling characters of the old west.

8/10


This was really one of my favorite films...serious and well-acted, particularly by Dennis Quaid as Doc Holiday, taking nothing from the other fine actors in the cast. If I have any criticism at all, it would be that it should have been better edited. The last "flashback" scene in the film could have been eliminated and a good portion of the the train station scene when Earp looks for those who killed Morgan and injured Virgil. But then, that is the Director's call and Kasdan couldn't seem to let the project go. Costner was superb.


Probably one of the more accurate filmatisations of Wyatt Earp. And Dennis Quaid is without a doubt the best Doc Holliday to this day. I really like that they at no point try to idealize the life in the west at this period. There were no real heroes. Only people who tried to live their lives or to make something out of their lives. Wyatt Earp is portrayd as an at sometimes ruthless character, yet someone who cares for his close family and friends. One of Kevin Costners better movies and worth watching at least once. If you choose not to it's really your loss.


I really liked this film. Kevin Costner and, for that matter, the whole cast was outstanding. Dennis Quaid was exceptional and surely deserved more recognition from the critics than he received. My objections to the film must be laid at the door of Kasdan...it could have been edited with a sharper hand. I under-stand the desire to expand the story to it's fullest but many minutes could have been cut during the manhunt at the railway station and the end scenes done in retrospect weren't necessary. More careful editing might have saved the day on a fine film.


This movie, unlike its counterpart, Tombstone, is actually a good piece of storytelling. The character development of the Costner role is one you rarely see anymore in any genre, let alone an action western. Based on historical accounts that I've read, this movie is very faithful to details and does not necessarily portray the Earps in the most sympathetic light, though they are definitely the protagonists here. Though this is a long movie, it is beautifully photographed and scored and well worth the time.


this movie is quite a bit different than 1993's Tombstone.obviously it focuses on Wyatt Earp,more than anything.this movie paints quite a different picture of Earp than Tombstone does.it depicts him in a much different light.Kevin Costner's portrayal of Earp is much different than Kurt Russel's in Tombstone.i think i liked Russel's portrayal a bit more.Dennis Quaid portrays Doc Holliday,and his portrayal is much different than Val Kilmer's in Tombstone.i actually liked Val Kilmer's performance better,and i liked his character more.Quaid does a good job though.the supporting cast is also very good.another big difference between this movie and Tombstone,is that this movie is very deliberately paced,and more in depth.the story is much deeper.there is not that much action,and some may be turned of by the length of the movie at over 3hrs.but if you can view it as character study,you might enjoy it.one thing i really liked rising the musical score.i found it very rousing and poetic.for me,Wyatt Earp is a 7/10


Sadly, a great film such as director Lawrence Kasdan's (Silverado) "Wyatt Earp" was not properly realized by the audiences of 1994. Possibly because of Tombstone (basically a film on the same point), having been released only a year prior to it. When comparing "Tombstone" to "Wyatt Earp", I have to say that they are both good films, although "Wyatt Earp" has many points that overpower "Tombstone".

First of all, we have a great cast of talented actors including Kevin Costner, Dennis Quaid, Gene Hackman, Michael Madsen, Mark Harmon, Jeff Fahey, Joanna Going, Tom Sizemore, and Bill Pullman. I strongly have to disagree with the people who hand out the Razzie Awards. They gave Kevin Costner one for Worst Actor. Although it's definitely not his best performance, it is still very good, not worthy of a Razzie. True, he wasn't so great during the scenes of him as a young man, but when he portrayed Wyatt Earp as a famous lawman during the 1880s, he pulled the job off great. Dennis Quaid's performance of Doc Holliday was excellent and one of his best to date.

Music was done by James Newton Howard, who is the most underrated music composer of the day in my book. Howard is one of my favorite composers and he created a mix of excellent scores for "Wyatt Earp". The scene where Wyatt Earp, his two brothers, and Doc Holliday walk to the O.K. Corral shootout is a wonderful theme. The film's main score is also memorable.

Of course, the one thing that "Tombstone" definitely beats "Wyatt Earp" by is action and entertainment. The gunfights in "Tombstone" are far better than the ones in "Wyatt Earp", keeping the audiences interested. And probably the only other thing is pacing. "Wyatt Earp" is three hours long and in my personal opinion, a half-hour longer than it needed to be. I could have picked out a few scenes worth removing.

"Wyatt Earp" although receiving some positive reviews from critics, was a box office failure and it won two Razzie Awards (Worst Actor and Worst Remake or Sequel) and it was nominated for several others including Worst Director and Worst Picture. In my opinion, it is a great film that is far too compelling to be worthy for those and it should have been nominated for Academy Awards rather than Razzies. The only Academy Award it got a nomination for was its beautiful cinematography.


I wound up with this movie on one of those dubious £3.99 four-packs full of 'films you've never heard of'. And, well, on a slow Sunday, I treated myself to the experience...

And, frankly, I was more than pleasantly surprised. Snappy banter plus strong performance from the leads made up for a transparent plot and lackluster 'action' sequences.

Gangsters, reporters, dames in distress (and even a particularly dismal 'car chase scene') - all the traditional trappings of the 'noir' genre, but given a slightly humorous edge by Ayres' enjoyable performance as a wise-cracking reporter.


Two questions arise when watching a film mixing these 2 genres. First, what makes anyone think these 2 can be compatible or symbiotic? On the contrary, they are mutually exclusive except in rare cases - "Home, Sweet Homicide" is an exception which comes to mind. For the most part the components of the one nullify those of the other.

Second, what were the qualifications for a screenwriter in the 30's? This picture had some of the lamest dialogue and contained so many non-sequiturs that much of the plot was unintentionally funny and many gag lines fell completely flat. On the whole it made little sense and was a chore to watch.

Saving grace here was the surprisingly able cast and better-than average screen credits which signified a superior production - but which was wrecked by and uninteresting final product. I gave this one a rating of 3 and it was richly deserved.


When gangster kingpin Nate Girard gets off the hook at his trial for murder, his high-priced shyster lawyer throws a party to celebrate...and the guests are the reporters and news photographers who covered the trial. What a bunch...cigar chewers, bumbling shutter clickers and wise alecks. Yeah, and Kent Murdoch (Lew Ayres) was there, ace photographer always with an angle and a wise crack, fast with his words, especially "Now listen, baby..." when he's with a good-looking dame. He's a decent guy. There's I. B. McGoogin (Paul Stewart), fast- talking, wisecracking news reporter who always winds up one step behind Murdock. But one guest doesn't fit in...a beautiful raven-haired dame named Meg Archer (Gail Patrick). She comes across as so aristocratic that we can't be sure if it's ice water in her veins or just the slow syrup of delayed gratification.

And wouldn't you know it, murder shows up, too. Right in the middle of the party, when the flashbulbs are popping, a guy also gets popped. Not Nate, but his lawyer. And who immediately disappears? Yep, Meg vanishes even faster than a pair of straight dice at a crap game. She winds up at Kent's apartment with a story and a plea for help. It's not long before someone realizes that a picture Kent took at the party just might show the murderer, that Kent's former girlfriend wants some money, that Nate Girard is willing to pay big for what he says he has to have, that the cops think Nate is in the middle, that Meg has some sort of side deal, that Kent will go all out to help Meg, that...a lot keeps moving around in this mystery played with a light touch. Murder with Pictures is just what it is, a 69-minute programmer with a few good points, a plot that gets too complicated for its own good, and a production that never received the studio love that might have made it better.

Among those good points is seeing Lew Ayres, who played the naive, sincere gun fodder in All Quiet on the Western Front, turn in a wise guy performance by channeling Chester Morris. He handles the role with some style. Ayres was a reliable, likable lead actor whose strong suit was decency. He became a pacifist after making All Quiet. With the Doctor Kildare series that started in 1938, Lew Ayres found himself a matinée idol. When Pearl Harbor was attacked and Ayres was drafted, he declared himself a conscientious objector. He was crucified in the press and his career vanished. He finally was granted his earlier request to join the Army Medical Corps. He served under fire in the Pacific and in New Guinea. After the war, when it became known he had served as a combat medic, he gradually began to get film offers but for seldom more than character roles. Ayres received an Oscar nomination for best actor for the doctor in Johnny Belinda. Just like Dr. Kildare, Ayres was a decent guy with the backbone to stand firm for his beliefs.


I happened upon this movie just channel surfing and was just floored. Great movie from start to finish. Elias Koteas gives an awesome performance that just shows once again how he is one of the most overlooked actors in Hollywood. But what really caught me was the story and dialogue. This movie was wonderfully written. I would've never guessed Hogan had it in him. Enjoyable movie and I strongly recommend it. Two enthusiastic thumbs up!


Just like Crocodile Dundee this is a humor-packed film from beginning to end. Paul Hogan is as charming and charismatic as ever and the jokes are at five minute-intervals, enough to make it a somewhat serious (and sad) film.I am glad I stumbled across this film, as I think you will be.


Someone else - who apparently didn't stay to the end of the film - has utterly slated "Almost an Angel". I, on the other hand, saw it to the end, and loved it. Terry Dean (Paul Hogan) is a small-time crook and electronics wizard who, as soon as he's let out of prison, proceeds to plan a bank robbery. But the best-laid plans... In this case, he gets beaten to it by an armed gang. And Terry takes a bullet for a child.

In hospital, an experience convinces him that he has become an angel. On probation. (The viewer is left guessing until close to the very end whether it was merely a delirious near-death experience, or whether it was more.) Charlton Heston makes an excellent God-figure: and probation is a term that Terry understands.

So, believing that he's an angel on probation, Terry is sent back to make a difference... and has to work out what sort of things "The Boss" approves of... Robbery? Maybe not. But what about robbery to feed the poor and hungry?

We follow Terry as he learns - at times hilariously, at times deeply touchingly - to fulfil the terms of his probation... This is a tale about redemption - not merely Terry's, but those people with whom he becomes involved. It's a story about death, but most importantly, about life. It's the story about a man's relationship with "the Boss", and what faith is about.

The film contains action, comedy, cops and robbers, tragedy and victory... No, it probably doesn't rank as One Of Ye Greatest Films In History. But it is a funny, touching, heart-warming, beautiful film, and I only wish that it were available somewhere on DVD. For personal preference... I score it a 10 out 10. And am keeping my fingers crossed that SOMEONE will decide to release it on DVD! Please, pretty please!?


An entertaining story of a convict who goes straight, well almost. The opening scenes set the pace and style. And throughout the film it just gets better and better. Rated at PG this film gives me no doubts about my kids seeing it. They did, they laughed and they cried and then laughed some more. This has to one of the most under-rated films starring Paul Hogan. It is certainly one of the best he has written. The film is a good mixture of story and humour and any fan of Paul Hogan should enjoy this film. I had to get my copy from ebay because they have stopped producing it. As somebody else says 'come on do it on DVD'. And after you have seen it, I think you will agree it is worthy of a sequel.


Paul Hogan plays a criminal who steps out in front of traffic to save a child, and becomes an Angel... almost. He says he's on probation, sorta... but what are you to believe? Is he nuts? Hmmm. Maybe. The humor and light-sided religiousness makes this film a delight.

Don't worry about being converted or anything, this is an open-ended movie with morals, granted, but also with that special touch of human bonding, and what it means to love others.

Hogan's writing, directing, and acting career spans just 6 films that I know of, and this is a lesser known one... I had the feeling at the end that it was looking for a sequel, or a TV series. No such luck.

Magical, humorous, charming, disarming, alarming, and inspiring... see it at least once.


A lot of people will watch this movie and shrug it off as a simple comedy or even say that it isn't that great, but the fact is this movie does have some new and unique parts to it. The numero uno of these is the way Hogan's character Terry interacts with the handicap Steve. The lines in the bar are excellent to explaining how one should treat someone with a handicap. But they just don't stop there, they continue to show this throughout the rest of the movie. The scenes with Terry & Steve are priceless at times. But this movie has a good deal of tongue in cheek humor as well. Taking a convict and making him an angel of mercy was quite hilarious, like when he robs the fast food restaraunt to feed the poor and especially the scene where he talks with Charlton Heston as God. And of course the very convincing impersonations of Willie Nelson and Rod Stewart are classic. I especially love the scene where the police are interviewing the bank tellers after the robbery. The movie cleverly uses plays on words like "born again Christian" and periodically makes fun of itself, all of which work. The ending was both surprising and touching, especially since the whole movie you aren't sure if Terry had a dream or whether he really was sent back. All in all I must say I was pleasantly surprised by this film. It's too bad the world didn't feel the same way about this movie.


I have completely enjoyed every single movie that Paul Hogan was in. He is a comic genius. I find it unbelievable that this particular movie is not available on DVD. His movies are not slap stick or like anything else I've seen. The things his characters do is just incredibly funny. Even years later when I remember something he did I can't help but laugh. This particular movie was funny as well as heartwarming. When he picked the fight with the guy in the wheel chair I thought I would bust a gut. But, he was just trying to prove a point. When he was shot with the gun loaded with blanks you start to worry, will he do something stupid and end up dead, or is he really an angel. My all time Hogan favorite. It has everything, romance, comedy, and will bring tears to tour eyes. I can't wait to find this movie on DVD.


I have seen this film many times and enjoyed it each time. Although it contains only minimal language concerns, it is best when viewed uncensored and uncut--as are most films. I find the humor that Paul Hogan uses to bring this concept to film takes what sometimes seems familiar story lines and raises them to the wonderfully unique. It has one of those rare mixes of humor, drama, and bittersweet and thought-provoking themes. Hogan provides a consistent character throughout and writes an ending that should be quite satisfying for those who hate the vague, confusing ends so popular with script writers today. Like, Oh God!, I find the movie uplifting with each viewing, as I find Crocodile Dundee's offbeat humor refreshing each time. Regardless of the rating you would give, I am sure you will at least feel the time spent watching this film was worth it.


This is definitely my favourite of all of Paul Hogan's films. I remember watching this back when i was younger and i loved it. The whole story about a bank robber who finds his calling in a much different sector of the spectrum made it an entertaining film. The acting is superb by the three main characters which really helps flesh out this story to the point that you really care for the characters. Paul Hogan plays a likable con turned good guy, his real life wife Linda Kozlowski plays a church/charity worker for disadvantaged kids who has a heart of gold and lastly kudos to Elias Koteas whose portrayal of a disabled guy gives the movie the heart and emotion that I must say I didn't expect. All in all almost an angel is a great little movie with some surprises


Terry Dean is an exceptional career criminal, after his release from prison he is hit by a car saving a young boy. He awakes in what appears to be a heavenly place, and much to his surprise he is visited by a deity, and told that he is on probation, he is in short...almost an angel.

Paul Hogan will forever be known as the bloke from Crocodile Dundee, a highly efficient fish out of water comedy that became a huge hit, the sequels and his other subsequent films are either roundly ignored or highly frowned upon. That's a shame because Almost An Angel is a very engaging comedy, the sort of picture that stands up like a Capraesque piece for the 90s. It's the sort of fable that cheers one up when the blues draw in and then turn into a blackly dark cloud, yes it be true, old craggy faced Paul Hogan has the gift of comedy. Yes the doses of sentiment are at times like a treacle itch to be scratched, but is that a bad thing?, watching a street wise criminal turning his less than honourable skills into a thing of goodness?.

The film has many visual gags to go with the ream of religious ones that flow within the piece, be it Hogan attempting to fly or a quiet word about Elvis, Almost An Angel delights if one accepts the nature of the beast. Linda Kozlowski again teams up with Hogan {after the earlier Crocodile Dundee pairing}, here she has very little to do but she slots in very nicely, even if a pre-end credits sequence does her and everyone else no favours at all. The best actor on show is the criminally undervalued Elias Koteas, playing the wheelchair bound Steve Garner, he exudes a believability factor that many modern day actors can learn from, the ability to act with just your face is high art if it's done correctly. Check out both the first and last scenes that Koteas shares with Hogan, great stuff that seems to have been forgotten due to disdain shown for this particular film.

I rate it 7/10 because it hits my spot when i need a pick me up, perhaps that is too high in this age where comedy is the hardest genre to succeed in, but don't believe the low rating here on this site, it's a delightful little comedy that is far from perfect, but hell!, it's a heavenly piece knowingly incorporating the serious side of religious belief.


I'm 36 years old and have been going to the cinema for well over 20 years now. This is the only film I have ever walked out on. I've sat through some crap - but managed to stay until the end. Had I stayed until the end of this I fear I would have killed myself. Paul Hogan is a one-trick pony. Crocodile Dundee was fine for it's time - and it's even aged reasonably well. Croc2 was inevitable - and just about palatable. But IMDb won't allow me to type what I really thought about Almost An Angel in case it offends the readers....

And now because of the 10 line rule I'm forced to sit here and type even more about the wretched film which is causing me to despise it all the more. Unfortunately I cannot score it 0


An evil lethal bright orange yellow fireball comes to earth and goes on a rampage in a remote lakeside area; the flaming thing rolls over various hapless folks and reduces them to ashes. It's up to nerdy scientist Dr. Iane Thorne (blandly played by Marvin Howard) to figure out a way to stop it before it's too late. Writer/director Harry Essex, who also wrote the scripts for the classic 50's fright features "It Came from Outer Space" and "The Creature from the Black Lagoon," pukes forth a 50's style micro-budget clunker that boasts all the necessary bad movie vices to qualify as a real four-star stinker: the flat acting from a lame no-name cast (flash-in-the-pan 70's drive-in flick starlet Maria De Aragon in particular just takes up space as fetching love interest heroine Jeanne), sluggish pacing, ragged editing, rough, grainy cinematography by Robert Caramico, meandering narrative, a roaring, overwrought score by Robert Freeman, several ludicrous touches (the fireball stalks people before it kills them!), and a hackneyed "it ain't over yet!" ending all combine together to create one laughably lousy and leaden lump of a total stiff. Only Doug Deswick's surprisingly nifty special effects manage to impress. A shamefully unsung crud anti-classic.


Hidden is one of the worst movies I have ever seen, and I've seen Battlefield Earth. This movie manages to straddle horror, daytime soap, the punchline to "The Sixth Sense", art house, and whatever genres have misconfigured cameras with too much white balance.

The movie is set in bush tracks, kids camps, and trees, somewhere in New Zealand. People are being chased by something or other people. There are deep conversations. Sometimes people start shaking and pass out... unfortunately this effect did not extend to the audience and so people had to leave the theater to avoid the movie, which they did, in droves. Like a train of lemmings person by person got up and left. Sometimes group inertia would apply and people would leave in groups. I can't express how many walk outs this movie had but I'll continue doing so anyway: This movie has been widely reported as one of the most unpopular movies ever shown in Reading Cinemas NZ.

Hidden is full of uncomfortably long and lingering shots of peoples faces. This gives you time to guess what's going on in their mind... certainly the plot or the narrative give you no clues. Perhaps they're wondering why they were given a script that told them to pretend as if they had finger guns and shoot at each other making "Peyaow!" bullet ricochet noises, a script that told them to crack jokes so bad they'd be rejected from chippy packets. Perhaps they're wondering how how this movie could possibly get them to where they want to be.

There's no coherent story-telling going on here and each 5 minute story is never built upon. There's nothing that makes you care for the people. The characters are two dimensional and boring (for example there's a fat girl who was teased for being fat and that's her character). There are hints towards a Maori Taniwha but no reason given why other than that the character is Maori. New Zealanders might recognise some references to Cave Creek, but they'd be reading in to the storyline rather than being told it.

A lack of budget isn't an excuse for a incoherent story, and movies like The Blair Witch Project have shown what small budgets can achieve. This movie isn't lacking special effects and 35mm film -- it's lacking story telling ability.

On the positive side the movie does feature a girl with a great heaving bosom who runs up and down a track for a while in the movie. There is also a scene where someone runs up a tree against gravity. When a movie lacks plot, acting, and other appreciable qualities you have to take what you can get even if it is rather crass.

I love New Zealand film. If WETA's Richard Taylor said the lavish quote that's adorned on all the movie posters then he was either intoxicated or motivated to encourage New Zealand film, not to give a fair opinion of the movie. Not saying negative things about a New Zealand movie has propelled this movie (and possibly "Spooked") to mainstream, not the movies quality.

PS. the punchline is that they're all dead and ghosts. I ticked the "contains spoiler" check box so there's the spoiler. Now you don't have to see the movie. Good for you.


I really enjoyed Hidden for what it was - a no budget digital feature made on the back of writer/director and stuntman Tim McLachlan (who is one of New Zealands best stunt men and a Director with a bright future).

You have to admit it's got some mean stunts! And I don't think a 13 year old could get those performances out of the actors!

There was some choice acting by Hayley Halliday (played Brooke), Kiel McNaughton (played Mark) and Luke Peary (played Carl) and all the other actors were really easy to watch and likable.

I'm curious as to weather people know just how hard it is to write a film, shoot it, edit it, and do post production all on your own because you have no budget?!

Hidden won 4 awards at over seas festivals and was nominated for an award at the 2006 New Zealand Film Awards. And I can see why but I guess its a matter of taste - can't please everyone!

I highly recommend renting it!


This is coming from a NZ'er, so I've seen a fair bit of films from this country in my time, saying that, most of them have completely bored me, or irritated me.

However, I was so very pleasantly surprised with Hidden, I was impressed with how good they managed to make the film on as I would suspect a low budget, of course having the scenery is a bonus.

Another thing as well, most of the actors I had never heard of before, I think it might have been only two people from shortland street (wow!). Which in my opinion was very surprising. Both people acted very superficial and professional.

I was astounded at the storyline, the whole plot kept me captivated because I had absolutely NO idea what was going on, the characters were special in one way or another, you got to understand them well and sympathize if they got hurt or died.

Some even gave me the creeps, the guy with the sore lip especially confused me, when I saw him do the whole act around the tree part I was thinking "oh no, he's going to end up an alien, just like that movie where the woman loses her son and everything's a mystery and suddenly there's people jumping through ceilings." But I soon realized it was nothing like that, and it had a much more appealing twist to it.

One thing that worried me was there was barely no communication with the group of campers, but in the end it didn't bother me because just their actions, the close-up's of the girls faces, the expressions, it was incredibly masterful and artistic. It was like a new kind of interaction.

I loved this movie, the odd feeling of confusion it gave me at the end, that almost uncomfortable sensation, it's wonderful when a film makes you feel so much.

Whoever compared this to the Blair witch project must have been on crack, and I am bewildered to the fact it has such a low rating. This is one of the best movies NZ has ever made.


I rented this DVD partly because it's a thriller (and I'm really into those at the moment) and partly because it's an independent New Zealand film that I hadn't heard of before. Hidden did the film festival circuit last year and won several international awards (including Best Feature at the Harlem International Film Festival, the Rebelfest Director's Award and the FAIF Best Director Award) before its limited local release last February, but it's on DVD that most of New Zealanders will get to know it. Tim McLachlan (the film's writer, director and producer) is pretty much an unknown even in his native country (although he was Ian McKellan's stunt double in Lord of the Rings) but if there's any justice in the world he'll be making a name for himself from this debut.

I'll admit that I was a little put off by the premise  a group of teenage camp leaders go out into the bush to play hide & seek one afternoon, and scary stuff starts happening to them in the woods. Scary stuff happening to teenagers in the bush is a fairly well-trodden plot for New Zealand thrillers (the best example being the classic Bridge To Nowhere back in the 80s), not to mention for horror/thrillers in general, but I decided to give it the benefit of the doubt. Besides, playing hide & seek in the bush is something that just about every New Zealand kid/teenager's done at some point, so it kind of speaks to the national psyche. Crawling through wet "cutty grass" with mud smeared all up your pants, trying to keep out of sight and wishing you'd worn a darker jumper, itching from a dozen mozzie bites and hoping you don't sit on a tree weta This is the stuff that Kiwi childhoods are made of, and when you see an unlucky movie character slide down a wet bank and land in the creek you know exactly how he feels.

I'll also admit that the film doesn't start off terribly well. You're about ten minutes in before you hear a single line of dialogue, and the first twenty minutes or so seems to consist mainly of people running around and hiding in the bush (actually, there's a great deal of that throughout the movie). There are approximately a dozen main characters to get to know, which isn't easy when all they're doing is chasing each other through the undergrowth and climbing up trees. There's a lot of stylish camera work (most of it done very simply with home-made wooden rigs and clever editing  watch the "Behind The Scenes" featurette for a lesson in independent film-making) and a generally creepy overtone, but not a lot in the way of plot or character development for the first half hour or so.

But be patient with the slow start and and stick it out, because it gets a lot better. As the film goes on, you start to realise that you ARE slowly getting to know the characters (and starting to care about them) simply by their behaviour and their reactions to each other. The film gives up its secrets slowly as you observe the characters and solve their little mysteries. Why does Carlos seem to hate Mark, and why is Brooke so edgy around the both of them? What happened to Imogen when she was a little girl? Why is Isabelle so morbidly obsessed with the graveyard? Why does Mark keep hearing his dead grandfather's voice as he goes deeper and deeper into the woods? And how are they all connected to Emily, a little girl who drowned in the creek years ago and whose ghost is now rumoured to haunt the camp? There's an air of mystery surrounding them all, and McLachlan trusts his audience enough to let us solve it all for ourselves rather than hitting us over the head with each plot point. For example, there's a rather well-turned sub-plot involving one of the girls and the creepy caretaker, which relies on the audience's assumptions - and society's suspicious nature - to provide the necessary tension and resolution.

The payoff comes in the final ten minutes or so  this is one of those movies where everything suddenly falls into place in one scene. The "surprise" at the end isn't terribly original  though it pays to remember that this film was shot in 2001 and spent three-and-a-half years in troublesome post-production before being released, so it's kind of coming in after its time. Besides, the twist is managed covincingly enough  and with enough respect for the audience's intelligence  that it still packs a pretty good punch. This is especially true for a New Zealand audience, as the film's climax is almost certainly based on an unfortunate event in our recent history. I won't say any more, but you'll know what I mean when you watch it.

For a movie that was shot in the bush on a shoestring budget with a film student cast who doubled as crew, this is a surprisingly slick and powerful little thriller which proves once again that imagination, talent and Kiwi ingenuity is worth more than all the digital orcs and giant monkeys in the world. Not only will it give you the jitters, but you'll probably shed a tear or two by the end. Highly recommended.


This is actually a very innovative little production and comprises a solid manifesto of one way to execute an action film. The 'making of' is a gift to filmmakers, particularly the examination of the camera rigs.

Unfortunately all this skill and cleverness wasn't applied to a good story. For all that I liked about it, I couldn't endure the duration of the movie and wound up fast forwarding to the few cool bits, my favourite being the guy scaling the telegraph tower then crawling like a spider across thin air.

Also well worth it just for the extras.


i paid 4.95 to rent this movie. after the first five minutes i considered throwing it into the fire and paying the fine just so nobody else would ever have to go through what i just did.

for a start, it's meant to feature teenagers, not a bunch of plain, emotionless mid-twenties huffing and puffing their way past some trees. The camera work is not impressive. the scenery is dull.

hide and seek. i'm sorry but tell me who among you of this age has a bunch of friends who all go out and play hide and seek together? just coz they run fast doesn't mean it's a hardcore game. it's hide and seek. it's the hardcore version of peek-a-boo. it doesn't get any higher than that.

i did watch this to the end, while i was watching another movie at the same time on my laptop. i looked up every time somebody spoke. which was what like about three times. other times i accidentally looked up i saw running.

I could write a lot more on how unbelievably horrible this 'movie' was. but i won't. some people like to watch running. if you enjoy ugly people, running, and trees, then you've found your cult classic. I will say though, movies like these are terribly necessary because without them we'd never appreciate good films.

My advice: get every single copy you see, snap the disc in half then put it in a box. then put that box inside another box. then post it to yourself. and when it arrives, smash it with a hammer.


Hidden is a classic example of what happens when someone makes a short film idea last for 90mins. With the odd piece of dialogue here and there we mostly get footage of people playing hide and seek, most of which is people running, people over reacting to being found you know the classic things that happen when there is no clear or actual narrative.

Some of the camera work was OK, however the over bright white effect got annoying quick as did the Shaky cam.

Now on to the misleading part, the cover art is hugely misleading, one it makes it look like a horror film, it isn't it is an alternative art house film, from the red eyed person on the front you would think it is something similar to Blair witch and the Ring. The only similarity is they all suck.

The ending twist was remarkably predictable, lets see, people in an unrealistic situation, acting very oddly, well clearly something about them all is off, so either they are Aliens, Monsters, or dead. Considering how the film is shot in the over white effect, the answer was clearly they are all dead...perhaps the oldest "twist" in the book next to "it turns out it's man!".

If it was a 15 minute film I would give it a good rating, but clearly it shows the director is unable to tell if a story can actually play out for that length of time. The characters are bland, with very little dialogue, in fact, there is really only an escalation of dialogue after the 40minute mark, till then it is pretty much people running, but don't worry after the 40min mark, people still run for the majority of the film.

Dull as dishwater.


This movie is kinda vaguely like the Blair witch project but much much more boring and not even vaguely scary.

I kept watching because some comments said it gets better as it goes on. They lied. Well I guess it did get better, after all it couldn't get much worse, but even better was pitiful.

It's the kind of movie that I might watch if it was on TV and there was nothing else on and I was too tired to get up and find the remote, but I would not suggest that anyone should rent this movie.

The only plus point I can see is it would have been very low budget. The scenes were probably real NZ bush and old buildings, there were no special effects, no big actors. Some of the camera work was fairly good otherwise I would have said it was made by a third form (13 year olds) drama class.

As others have said you do get to know the individuals a bit and the twist at the end was unexpected but all in all not really worth watching.


Here's the deal: It's real, it's heavy, and it's inspirational, but NOT AT ALL cheesy. Don't like that? Don't see it. I won't say much else. I will say that Will Smith was shockingly good now that he's paid his dues with "Men in Black" and "Bad Boys."

I was very happy that this film never got political and blamed Reagan for the number of "down on their luck" people that were shown, nor was the race card ever pulled out. It was also refreshing that Smith's character never blamed anybody for his troubles.

It's very funny at parts, but be prepared for some serious drama. In no ways is it cliché or contrived or boring. Let's just say that's it not Oliver Stone dramatic. This truly is a must see. To say "I laughed, I cried" would be really lame. It is the truth, though.

We know that Scorsese's crowning achievement "The Departed" is going to take the cake at the Oscars, and I won't be complaining. But this movie deserves to be experienced and taken in by the masses.


I was fortunate to see this movie in a screening. I really enjoyed it, and felt that it lived up to the teary and heartwarming trailer. While the movie has an uplifting "go for your dreams" message, the deepest theme is that of family.

Will Smith did a great job as the father trying to protect his son from their circumstances of becoming homeless as much as he can, while at the same time trying to work in the competitive world of stocks as an un-paid intern. Jaden Smith was outstanding as the preschool-aged kid who knows things are going wrong and tries to have a stiff upper lip, but just can't do it all the time.

The story is very touching and was close to home for me. My family has been through some tough times, and this movie just reminded me of how much my parents struggled to provide for our family and yet kept life fun as much as they could. I am excited to go see this with my parents as a way to say thank you.


I was blessed to have seen this movie last night. It made me laugh, it made me cry and it made me love life.

This movie is a great movie that depicts a love of a father for his son. Will Smith did an incredible job and deserves every accolade available to him. His son also did a fantastic job.

There is a great lesson that is learned in this movie and it truly shares the struggles of everyday life.

This movie was heart felt and touching. It was truly an experience worth having. Thank you for making this movie and I look forward to seeing it again.


If you've ever been poor, this movie may be hard to watch. It depicts poverty in America in gut wrenchingly accurate ways. I've been as poor as Chris Gardner, and, like him, I've been poor among very rich people in the Bay Area while trying to work my way up.

Chris Gardner is a loving father and failing businessman. He is chosen for a competitive internship at Dean Witter, a stock brokerage. The internship, which offers Chris a very long shot at a better life, doesn't pay any salary. Chris has to live without a salary for six months while risking just about everything for that long shot gamble.

Chris is really smart. He can solve a Rubrik's cube in minutes. But, he's poor. Poverty, like an octopus, keeps trying to suck him down to the bottom, and make him stay there.

His car is towed. His wife walks out on him, leaving him with a five year old son. He is arrested for unpaid traffic tickets. He becomes homeless. He has to rely on a homeless shelter.

All this while, he must appear for work in the morning in a suit and tie, and be ready to charm some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the Bay Area. These people take wealth so much for granted that two of them stiff him for cab fare.

Having lived through similar experiences, I cringed throughout this movie. My stomach hurt. I winced. I cried. I hugged my knees to my chest.

The movie is very accurate, but painful to watch. I hope a lot of rich people, who think that they understand poverty, see it.

This movie will be politically controversial. First of all, it doesn't touch the race issue with a ten foot pole. For example, when Chris appears to stiff a taxi driver for fare (it was really the rich white guy who failed to pay), the taxi driver never uses the "n" word. In real life, I think he probably would have.

Is the movie afraid to talk about race, or does it not want to? I don't know, but I know that some will protest the movie's not shoving race in the movie goer's face. I'm not one of those people. The movie's approach to race -- treating it as almost incidental -- worked for me. As a poor white person, I can tell you that poor white people face the same obstacles Chris did.

Second, does the movie sell the message that if you work hard, you will succeed, no matter what, and does that message tell the truth about success in America? I think that the movie is open to interpretation. Some will see it as an indictment of poverty in America. The scene of carefree rich people driving past the line to get into a homeless shelter is pretty devastating. Other people will become angry because they believe that the movie's depiction of hard work leading to rewards, in some cases, is too facile. I disagree, but that's what you'll hear.

Third, is this movie meant to chastise black men who abandon their children? Chris is a role model exactly because he moves heaven and earth to be a good father to his son. This will be debated back and forth.

The movie has a big philosophical statement to make, that has been lost on many reviewers, for example, Richard Schickel in TIME.

Chris is shown running throughout the movie. Remember the title of the movie: "The PURSUIT of Happiness." Chris places emphasis on "pursuit." Jefferson, when he penned the Declaration of Independence, did not promise Americans happiness, but only the right to pursue it. Chris says, at one point in the movie, paraphrase, "I am happy right now. It is a fleeting moment." We experience happiness in eyeblinks. The rest of the time we, like Chris, are chasing after it.


They just don't make many this good. The audience and I cried, laughed, cheered and applauded. The climactic scene is as powerful and cathartic as The Shawshank Redemption's golden moment. Will Smith is terrific, his son Jaden is just perfect, and Thandie Newton puts in a convincing supporting act. The movie's 1980s San Francisco is absorbing and authentic without stealing the show.

Best of all, if you are a thinker, this movie will challenge your visions of family, business and society. On one hand, the film reinforces the great American myth of the self-made man and equal opportunity. Myths are not necessarily false simply for being myths--we can make some of them true by choice, and our belief in this myth still helps make America great. Free-market capitalism is not the cure to all ills--surely it is the source of many ills--but it does open social doors that nothing else can even budge. On the other hand, if you can leave this movie without a burning indignation that any American child of any race should have to struggle just to have a place to sleep, you must be cynical indeed. This movie doesn't get on a soapbox, not even for a second--it just tells a real-life story that owns you before you know it.

I hope a few of us will let our motivations own us for years instead of hours after the movie's over.


My husband and I had an opportunity to attend a screener of this movie last night. We had seen several commercials and a trailer for the film and we had high hopes, we were not disappointed. Many times "inspired by" films feel like hard sells or bids for Oscar glory. "Pursuit of Happiness" is none of that. This is an honest, meaningful film that will stay with you long after you leave the theatre. The viewer becomes fully invested in the struggles of Chris Gardner and his son. Will and Jadyn Smith deserve huge kudos. The real-life father and son dynamic enriched the film and don't know if other actors could have been as powerful. Be warned, there are several tissue inducing moments. This movie is well worth a ticket!


I have been a fan of Will Smith for years and I have to say this may be his best film yet! "The Pursuit of Happiness" is just a wonderful (based on a true) story, full of adventure, hope, and pain. I saw the movie last night in a packed theater. Big Willie Weekend has returned, and for good reason! It's a great movie to see during the holidays and definitely a tear-jerker! Perfect for a date, a night out with friends, or even with family. If you ever thought Will Smith really couldn't act (and shame on you!), you'll think otherwise once you see this movie. You can really feel what he's going through just by looking in his eyes. And Jaden Smith is too adorable! Their on screen chemistry is almost unbearable to watch! Go see this movie! Great acting, great directing, great writing...you won't regret it!


I was involved with one of the first test audiences almost a year ago, and came away quite impressed with the acting performances and heartfelt punch of Pursuit of Happiness. This is easily one of Smith's best films, as he pours his heart and soul into the main character. While the plot may remain a bit transparent, it leaves you asking the question of yourself - how long would you keep battling to get what you really want out of life? I plan on seeing the film again when it releases to the general public, and am very interested to see what changes were made after running it through the test screenings. As I saw it then, it needed very few, if any, changes.


This is one of the best films of this year. For a year that was fueled by controversy and crap, it was nice to finally see a film that had a true heart to it. From the opening scene to the end, I was so moved by the love that Will Smith has for his son. Basically, if you see this movie and walk out of it feeling nothing, there is something that is very wrong with you. Loved this movie, it's the perfect movie to end the year with. The best part was after the movie, my friends and I all got up and realized that this movie had actually made the four of us tear up! It's an amazing film and if Will Smith doesn't get at least an Oscar Nom, then the Oscars will just suck. In fact Will Smith should actually just win an Oscar for this role.!!! I loved this movie!!!! Everybody needs to see especially the people in this world that take everything for granted, watch this movie, it will change you!


Chris Gardner is struggling in life to live up his tax expenses and other things. His wife now leaves him with his son. Chris will do what ever it takes to pay his expenses and to get a new job.

Will Smith is a great actor, now taking serious roles. His acting, along with Thandie Newton and Jaden Smith, were great. This film is based on a true story by the life of Chris Garner who struggles with his life and is now a multi-millionaire.

Although this film is depressing in many points, Will Smith's son, Jaden Smith, lifts up the screen. Thomas Jefferson says we need to pursue happiness. That's what Chris Gardner does. He never gives up. He could even inspire some people.

This is a good, uplifting film. Great acting and has a great message. This will be a good family film and has it's father-son moments.


I was so hesitant to see The Pursuit of Happiness for one reason, this movie looked like an incredible tear jerker, just from the trailer I was nearly crying. But my friend and I had been hearing incredible reviews about this movie, so we decided to suck it up and see the movie today and we were just blown away by how amazing Will Smith's performance was. He and his son were just so incredibly heart warming and really reminded you of the important things in life. I was so touched by Chris's story, he was so determined, this movie makes you wanna go out and achieve your dreams and to never let anyone tell you what is right and what is wrong, what you can and cannot do.

Chris Gardner is a struggling salesmen trying just to make the rent, buy food, and take the best care of his son that he possibly can. When his wife leaves him and his son to go get a better life, Chris is left on his own, but he wins an internship at a stocks broker company that is very competitive. Against incredible odds, he just pulls through the ultimate lows of life and keeps his head up with his son by his side. They become homeless, living in hotels, homeless shelters, and even a cruddy subway bathroom! But Chris holds on to his ultimate dream of being happy and giving him and his son the life they truly deserve.

This movie in every way possible is perfect, it was so brilliantly made and just so inspiring. Will Smith better be nominated for an Oscar next month! This was an incredible performance and his son was just so cute, I guess talent really does run in his family. :) I would highly recommend The Pursuit of Happiness this year! It was a beautiful film that makes you feel like you can achieve anything you truly put you heart too, I just wish I brought more tissues!

10/10


The best drama movie of 2006, so sincere, real, intense, inspiring but at the same time challenging you to participate in the movie, you are being dragged into the movie, in the end it will not only bring happiness to your face and heart, but it will also make you a better person or at least highlight the great parts you have in your character. What feels most striking about this film is not its truth or accuracy, at least not in a technical sense. Rather, it's that the film does not seek blame or create unfounded obstacles for the character - particularly racial ones - instead enabling Chris' triumph as a personal one unencumbered by social or political context. Ultimately, this isn't the story of a black man learning how to succeed in a white world, or a poor person becoming rich, but the achievement of one man who looked past the litany of obstacles to which he could have easily surrendered. The fact that no one in the film looks down on him because of his sometimes unkempt appearance, much less the color of his skin, is a testament to the unfiltered purity of the real Gardner's story, and what makes the movie accessible to all audiences.


If you ever wanted to see a movie that portrayed what really makes a man, then you must see this movie.

Forget Stalone. Forget Arnold. Forget Bond. Forget all those romantic comedy whimps. Bruce Willis never had to make this many life threatening decisions in Die Hard.

Will Smith gives a better performance of toughness here than he did portraying Muhammed Ali.

This movie is raw. This movie will force you to examine your manhood. See if you can look in the mirror after watching this film.

Fathers, don't let the PG-13 rating fool you. This movie is not for kids. If you let your child see this movie you may regret it. Your child may never be able to look at you the same way again. Your child will wonder why you are not more like Chris Gardner.


I went in to the cinema not really knowing what to expect of this film. I thought it might be another badly acted emotional film that bores you for 2 hours. But I was wrong. This film is superb. Will smith plays his part great and although it was very touching many parts of it were very funny.

The story line was great and to think that the film was based on a true story it made me think about how lucky I was sitting watching a film on a 80 inch screen spending over £30 when this guys entire money was £20.

When i got home that night and went to sleep i imagined what it must have been like for him and i felt as though i was a part of this mans life and thats what made the film so great.

Throughout the film you wanted things to be good for this man. When things went bad you felt as though you wanted to help.

I loved this film and i think many others will too.

I hope you found this useful.


This year is but 9 days old, and I already know I have seen the best movie of the year. The history books will show that this film was released in 2006, but nothing from that year can compare to this either, so it is in my opinion the best movie of two years! Will Smith plays a struggling single father trying to make the best life that he can for his family and for himself. The part is played to perfection, and shows a true master of the craft. His comic timing is still evident in the lighter moments, but it is his sincerity in playing a man with no options, no family, no help and little hope that shows him shining.

Special praise should also be reserved for Will's own son Jaden, who plays Christopher Gardner Jnr. Some people hate child actors, but its perhaps that they are not good child actors... Jaden is a great one. I challenge anyone to point to a scene where he even gives the slightest of hints that he is acting... perhaps it was perfect casting to put a real father and son together here, as they are an outstanding double act playing themselves in different, more downtrodden circumstances.

I rarely give movies a full 10, but this throughly deserved it, and should be an example to us all on how movies should be made, and even how we look at our own lives and wonder if we are living up to our own potential in our own "pursuit of happiness" Outstanding.


This has to be the best movie of 2006. It is without a doubt the performance of Will Smith's career, and anyone who says that that isn't saying much is crazy. I have just finished seeing the movie in the theater and was moved more than any movie since Titanic. I am a very hard critic, I'll admit, but this was a gem among all the dull stones this year. It is not just the movie of the holiday season, it is a spectacular story. The parts of the movie that have been criticized, mainly by those that have yet to see the film, are easily negated by watching the movie. The story wasn't about Mr. Gardner and his wife/girlfriend-it was about him, his son, diligence, hope, happiness, and so much more. It is so refreshing to be inspired by a film again. There was plenty of chemistry between Gardner and his son. Will Smith can act. Like he says in the movie, and I'm paraphrasing, "People will tell you that you can't do it because they can't." That's what I say to anyone who questions the writing or directing of this film. You mock what you cannot do yourself. This is utter brilliance, ten stars.


In preparation for writing this comment, which I am compelled to write for reasons which will become clear, I read a fair few of the major critics to see, if on this occasion, they had seen and felt what I had.

James Bernadelli suggests this film should be known as the "Pursuit of Richness"; another column I have read suggests that the money-will-solve-your-problems resolution is depressing and not the message Hollywood (or art in general) should be trying to put across.

I ask myself when the last occasion might have been that any of these critics genuinely had to :spoiler: run, under painful, embarrassing duress, from a cab - because they didn't have the money; or when the forces of life seemed to conspire against them so unfairly that they broke down in tears. Spoiler: when your wealthy boss, who you CANNOT disappoint, asks you to borrow the last five dollars in your wallet, and you know that that money is all you have in the world - to feed your family, to pay your gas.

You go through times in life when you feel that things couldn't possibly get worse - and then they do - and then they do again. Sometimes, (like Chris and son at the beach towards the end of the film) you just want to get away from it all, other times you cry. Sometimes, and this is rare, you laugh - because if you don't you'll cry. You know that if you let it all become too much, you will sink to the bottom of the sea.

Chris Gardner (not the real one perhaps, but the one in this movie) is my personal hero; my shining example; my inspiration - the guy that never allows himself to sink - even when he can feel his shoelaces trailing on the seabed.

I realised as I was watching this film that I was watching another me, so I never once stopped rooting for Chris. When he :spoiler: fixes the scanner in the shelter, I felt like I had fixed it.

I'm still working on getting the job that earns me enough to have a less painful life - when Chris finally achieves it, I want it for him so badly that I feel it in the very fibre of my being.

I suppose that it doesn't matter that much that Chris wants to succeed as much for his son as for himself. In a way, the fact that Chris has a son makes this movie emotionally frightening and if (and only if) our basest fears are being toyed with by the director, it is only in exactly the same way that we sometimes look up in to the sky and say - like Jim Carrey in "Bruce Almighty" - is there anything else you could possibly do to me today? In my life, God doesn't appear and explain why he keeps toying with me. The truest belief is in oneself and one must never lose it.

I adore this movie and I couldn't be more grateful for its existence. It comes at a time when I need it most. Its message: Keep going - never, ever give up.

And so I come back to those reviewers. Money certainly doesn't mean happiness in this existence, but no money, in this cruel capitalist world, can cost you your life. Do not be judgmental of those who want more, it might just be enough to pay for their son to eat, to keep a roof over his head, to keep their dignity. This film is not about rags-to-riches as some reviewers have said. It's not about the American dream either. It is about dignity and integrity and how money (or lack thereof) could easily strip you of both.

Chris Gardner never loses either and for this, he is an inspiration to us all.

See this film TODAY.


I figured how to reset my account just to give this movie 10. This movie is inspirational, and it shows that you should never give up. However, it also portrays the conditions and day-to-day struggle that the poor have to undergo, making you question equality in todays society.

The acting is exceptional, especially Will Smith, who allows the audience feel every emotion that goes through his body be it sadness and desperation or sheer relief and "happyness". It's nice to see him move towards movies that raise issues in today's society and provide inspiration to the average person, however I hope he still does some action films :D.

I would recommend this film to someone who wants to experience something real in society, instead of cliché violence and romance. Even with its serious nature, it is an entertaining film that keeps you hooked and hoping, and I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

10 out of 10. Good work Will Smith!


One of the most emotional 21st Century films to grace Cinema screens! This production is simply awe inspiring. With Will Smith in somewhat of an unusual role than stereotypically seen, this depiction of working class society shows a new dimension to Smith's acting credibility. Every individual specific regarding the film works undoubtedly brilliant. The Genre, Mise-en-scene, Ideologys, Media Language, Representation and Narrative gel comfortably into one emotional tear jerking spectacle. As the narrative progresses and audience follow Chris's life, they are almost drawn into events, surprisingly sharing the pain, laughter and emotional on screen state off screen. A spectacle as good as this is unfortunately rarely seen in the movie industry with concentration focused on cinematography and character rather than other "distracting" aspects of production. A MUST SEE EMOTIONAL Roller-coaster.


I am 66 years old. I have never written a comment on this site. Yesterday I saw the movie with my 23 year old granddaughter. We loved it. Following the viewing, she commented, "Qhen we have hard times, we can remind ourselves of this movie and its message." Most people would have given up somewhere along the way with all of the obstacles that befell him while trying to seek a successful career. He never gave up and Wow!, did it pay off to stick it out regardless of the logs in the road.

This movie leaves you with a message you will not soon forget. I cannot say that above most movies.


I wasn't familiar with Chris Gardner's story before this movie. I think it's a great story. The struggles he face seem hard to bear. But, believing in himself got him through it. Everyone has that capacity no matter their color, background or religion. Those of you that only see Will Smith as an actor that can only do comedy are sadly mistaken. He will win an award for this role. I'm sure of it. I feel it in my bones...as the old folks use to say. Movie goers need to open their minds to actors or actresses range on screen. Thank God they believe they could do it. Look what Jamie Foxx proved. Who knew Robert De Niro could be so funny. That little Ronnie Howard would grow up to be an award winning director. Maybe, just like Chris Gardner they are able to dream and dream big. To make those dreams come true it takes hard work. My motto is if you're going to dream you might as well dream big. Good luck to this film and all that took part in it.