Seven Mummies starts out on a lonely desert road where a police transport vehicle has crashed, the five convicts can't believe their luck & after killing one guard & taking the other (Carina Vincent) hostage they set off across the inhospitable desert terrain towards the border. En-route they find a gold medallion buried in the ground & an old Indian guy (Danny Trejo) claims that there is a town nearby which is stuffed with gold & they can use the medallion to find it, the escaped convicts need no invitation & before long their at the town which looks like something out of a John Wayne western. They quickly discover that the local population are in fact Vampire like zombies lead by Drake (Billy Drago)...

Directed by Nick Quested who also has a role in the film as Deputy Carry I thought Seven Mummies was yet another below average, nothing special, utterly forgettable & stupid low budget shot on digital horror film that steal most of it's ideas from better films such as From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) amongst others. To be honest I've had it with these poorly made, badly thought out, cheap, rubbishy & boring films. I love the horror genre & I'll watch anything associated with it but there comes a point where you have to say enough is enough, right? There is only so much I can forgive, I mean the script by Thadd Turner is boring, makes no sense, has poor character's, weak dialogue & a crap ending. The best thing I can say about Seven Mummies is that it's watchable if you've got nothing better to do & it's reasonably well made, other than that though I'm finding it very difficult to say anything positive about it. In case your wondering there are no Mummies in Seven Mummies, or at least of the typical Egyptian wrapped in bandages mummy, there are a few kung-fu fighting zombie Priests who look more like Monks at the end but there isn't a bandage in sight I'm afraid.

Director Quested does an OK job, the film looks alright although it's not scary, it has zero atmosphere or tension & it lacks any significant gore or violence either. There's a decapitation, a couple of stabbings, someone has their eyes poked out (although why this would make you cough up blood from your mouth I don't know), someone is slashed across the breasts & not much else to get excited about.

I have to admit that I was amazed to learn that Seven Mummies had a supposed budget of about $5,000,000, where on earth did all the money go? That's a lot of money & it certainly doesn't end up on screen. Martin Kove makes a cameo appearance but gets killed off, Billy Drago deserves better than this & a special mention goes to the babe who gets slashed by Drago as I have no idea what her character name was but she was hot & why did they have to kill her off?

Seven Mummies is a pretty poor low budget horror film that offers little, if anything, in terms of entertainment. Maybe I'm being a touch harsh on it as I've seen far worse but I'm fed up of wasting my time with crap like this, having said that I'll still be stupid enough to be the first in the queue when the next low budget piece of crap gets released. It doesn't even have any real proper mummies in it, honestly...


All I would like to say is better job next time. This movie will probably act as a spring-board for all involved but honestly it is flawed in nearly every aspect.

Not to write any spoilers, although talking over the flaws would give some of the story away. So I'll just write the 6 biggest flaws:

1. Title sequence: this goes on for a very long time. Bored me to tears. 2. Sound: most if not all dialogue is inaudible. At times the music tends to totally obstruct everything. 3. Ghost Town: characters are totally unquestioning of their new setting, treating 18th century sheriffs as modern day police. 4. Romance: the two escaping heroes appear to be romantically connected but this is never pursued. 5. Ending: final ending making no sense. 6. Acting: Indian man laughing... if you watch this be prepared for irritation.

The camera quality is very poor, but this is a low budget movie so that is be expected. Lot's of blurring or high frame-rates.

Some of the gore is actually well done, however one scene shows blood coming from a gunshot wound to the foot, the blood is far too thin and even has a froth.

In general avoid, but if you are into seeing others low budget work, certainly one for inspiration.


Two haggard old men are dragging a coffin full of gold coins out in the desert, long story short they're killed. Fast forward to present day which has 6 convicts escaping when their transport crashes in the same aforementioned desert. Taking the hot prison guard hostage, and on their way to the border of Mexico, they run into an elderly Indian (played by Danny Trejo!!) who tells them of how riches beyond their wildest dreams could be had buried under an old ghost town. They decide to take a detour to get this gold while Trejo laughs... for minutes on end. However all the denizens of said town are a little long in the fang, to say the least. The community headed by Drake (good ol' Billy Drago) has plans for these convicts. This flick while never something even approaching what someone might deem good, was enjoyable enough...up to a point. That point being when all the illogical nonsense going on got so high that I didn't know what the hell was going on, much less cared. It would have made an interesting 20 minute short MAYBE, but as a feature film, it meandered too often. Drago was the main draw for this one, as Danny Trejo, normally great, is just plain weird in the movie. Too make matters worse the nudity is very poorly lit.

Eye Candy: it's very darkly lit, but Ananda St. James does bare her humongous rack

My Grade: D+


To start off with, it's bad enough the heroes of the movies are a bunch of blood thirsty criminals. But the whole thing barely makes any sense. Seven monks brought some treasure over, but are they good monks or bad monks? A little more back story on the monks and why the brought this treasure over would have been nice and what about the town? Where did these people come from, since it started with a mere 7? What were these blood sucking monsters supposed to be? Mummies? Vampires? What? If they were mummies they didn't look like mummies and I never heard of blood sucking mummies and if they vampires, then why were they running around during broad daylight? Plus, the title characters, the seven mummies didn't make an appearance to like ten minutes before the end of the film. How lame is that, plus is Drake suppose to be one of the seven monks, because they never said. Finally, the final insult, without giving it away, the climax of the film makes no sense. A complete and total waste of time. THE RASBERRY.


A shame this is so bad really, because I like bad horror movies and actually rather liked the basic premise: Back when the Spanish were being generally unpleasant to natives in America, they enslaved the local populace and got them to mine all the gold out of the mountains and basically ended up with a wet dream's worth of gold. Overseeing the operation were seven Jesuit priests that vowed to protect to gold until the Spanish forces returned for it. They never did. Over the years they died and were mummified and buried with the gold by the remnants of the native population. Fast forward a few hundred years and a bus load of convicts being transferred escape with one of the guards as hostage (the only good thing about the film, the delectable Cerina Vincent). They bimble across the desert looking for the Mexican border, finding en route a mummified body buried in a dry river bed with a gold medallion on it; when they later find a mysterious Indian (the always reliable, although poorly cast in this case Danny Trejo) who spots the medallion, he tells them the legend. Naturally, having just crawled out of the desert and barely survived, they decide to go back and try to find the gold, ignoring the Indian who is now laughing manically at their decision. They find the town, and most of them die. It's the vast majority of components that are wrong with this film.

The dialogue was too quiet, even the slightest incidental music or sound effect totally washed out the dialogue, so you had no idea what was being said most of the time.

The music was atrocious and very very loud, a mixture of gangsta rap and ultra heavy thrash metal, totally inappropriate and made the dialogue situation even worse.

It was shot predominantly in total darkness, so most of the time you could not only not hear what was going on, you couldn't see what was going on either, I imagine it would be like watching a group of people being stalked in a windowless warehouse by Carcass or Napalm Death.

Now when they got to where the gold was buried, there was a wild west style town there, complete with an evil sheriff (Billy Drago! Yaay! Who actually turned out to be the prime antagonist, not the mummies of the title), lots of random grizzled 1860's type western folk and the obligatory bar/cathouse populated with extremely buxom young lovelies. The gang of convicts do not question this one bit, they are not remotely bothered by the fact they seem to have slid back in time 150 years or so.

The explanation for this is either simply not in the film, or is very briefly covered in sub-audible dialogue, but I gathered from a review that some wild west era settlers arrived there, settled, found the gold and woke the mummies, who subsequently killed the entire town and the inhabitants are now cursed.

The convicts are enjoying the bar when the inhabitants turn into undead (terrible effects, ghouls look just like normal people, just with some blue eyeliner, right?) and the prostitutes turn out to be vampires (WTF??) that dispatch a couple of the convicts right there and then.

The remaining convicts run around in the dark, breaking into boarded up buildings for no apparent reason, but they do eventually encounter some mummies, and they turn out to be ninja, high speed kung fu combat mummies with a propensity for crazy jumping around - to be fair, this is actually a pretty good fight scene (what you can see of it in the almost pitch black).

The weird thing is that since things went belly-up in the cat house when the ghouls revealed what they were, the entire population of the town apart from the Sheriff has vanished. Eh? Why? No idea. The convicts spend the latter part of the film just being chased by the sheriff, the mummies don't even join the pursuit after their one fight scene.

And the ending with two blokes and a coffin is completely random and meaningless, it's not anything to do with the rest of the movie as far as I can tell.

I love crap movies, but please, this was dreadful in every conceivable way and it's not often I watch a lousy horror movie and think to myself "Wish I'd done something else, like maybe got some sleep".


This wasn't a bad movie, but the end was ridiculous! The end scene with what I assume was the sheriff was unnecessary, and repetitive.

That said this wasn't a bad movie. I am a fan of B horror, and I have certainly seen worse, much worse. But there were a number of inconsistencies, that could have easily been cleared up without adding any extra time to the film; though at one hour and twenty minutes another 15 or 20 minutes to give us some backstory certainly wouldn't have made this film overly long.

MY biggest complaint is what were Billy Wirth and Matt Schulze doing in this film! Both are good actors that weren't even given the chance to rise above the mediocre script.


i got this film cos I'm a fan of Billy drago, he was cool in it.

I didn't like the montages of images as they were walking through the desert, and that horrible choice of music (ganster rap) i didn't catch anyones name, there were some plot holes in it, but that didn't really bother me all that much. i did like the actual mummies, and i liked the fight scenes with them in it, but i don't understand why is was so short, and what happened to them? they came, kicked back, and then vanished. i didn't catch what happened to, billy drago's two hench men either. i was left with lots of questions after this movie, but i still enjoyed watching it.

but any fan of drago's should get this anyway.


There is one and one reason alone to see this dull, uneventful horror flick: Billy Drago. Its very perplexing to me why an actor with his immense talent and underrated potential ends up in crapsack projects like this. Nevertheless, he is still captivating as a giggling, psychopathic, sleazy town sheriff and supernatural 'mummy'. But as for any parts of the movie without him: boring, boring, boring. Even the usually excellent Danny Trejo looks awkward and embarrassed playing a character whose dialogue consists of chuckling heartily to himself for ten friggin minutes strait.

Avoid unless you're a die hard Billy Drago fan like me.


There are numerous things wrong with this movie, of which I'll just point out a few.

The soundtrack was intrusive and borderline-offensive. You can tune out a John Williams score if you don't like it, but nu-metal or mexi-rap-rock so loud it drowns out the (dubious) dialogue doesn't have that option. If you don't like it--and most people don't--it kills the movie.

The plot... what can I say? There were moments where it seemed a plot might emerge, but they inevitably turned out just muddying the waters further. My theory is that Thadd Turner woke up from a drunken stupor and simply wrote down what he'd dreamed while under the influence of alcohol poisoning. You can practically smell the stale beer and vomit in some scenes. The gosh-golly-we're-in-the-Old-West-but-won't-question-it situation was absolutely laughable. And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't people mine gold in order to spend it, not so they can hide it forever? Are these Jesuit priests actually Smaug the Dragon? Where did they acquire elite kung-fu skills? The motives throughout are completely baffling. I'm still unclear on whether the sheriff was one of the seven mummies, whether he wanted the gold for himself or to protect it, or why he was after the amulet at all. Speaking of which, where did the other six amulets go? And the other three or four mummies? What are the chances that a gassed-up, operational Harley Davidson would be found under a mass of cobwebs in an Old West shanty? How did the dehydrated self-mutilator find the town, and why did he cart along a corpse? Whose corpse was it? Did the "heroes" ever return to burn that godforsaken town to the ground and claim the gold? Does anyone even care? The production values weren't bad, aside from sound and lighting. It seemed the camera operators and editors had extensive practice in the adult film industry. Only a few moments really dragged on, mostly Sheriff Dusty's monologues to his horse and Danny Trejo's self-amused chortles. It was a -horrible- movie, but it wasn't -unwatchable-. Those who claim so clearly haven't seen just how bad movies can be. At the very least, there was no shortage of eye candy. Teenage boys would probably prefer this to a blank screen... maybe.

Goonfactor: extremely high, but much of the gooniness was derived from equally goony but less atrocious pieces.


Hard core horror fans might be disappointed, but this film has some good action-adventure with an Old West twist, which makes for a fun time. Vampires, ghouls, a decapitated convict, bad-ass Old West Sheriff and deputies, lost gold, all make for an interesting story, much more than your standard slasher flick. The film contains an upbeat score and strong talent, including popular tough guys Matt Schultz and Andrew Bryniarski, Billy Drago as the wicked Sheriff, Danny Trejo as the old Apache, and a couple of hotties, Cerina Vincent and Adrianne Palicki, nice! Rapper NORE plays a decent part as a convict, who looses his head when chased him down off horseback with a cavalry saber! Opens a little slow, but picks up momentum when the convicts get to town, with some good chase scenes and stylized fight scenes choreographed by Hong Kong action director Tony Hueng. Special makeup effects look good, especially the scissors in the eye and decapitation. Definitely worth a look.


This movie was one of the best straight to video's All in all the acting wasn't that bad It has Kinda Known Actor's And Noreaga a Known Rapper The Storyline Is what keeps you into it.Six Convicts Find A Gold Medallion in the sand out in the desert.The Come Across Danny Trejo Who Gives them A Choice to Either Go Find The Gold Or To The Mexican Border To Freedom,Of Course They Try To Go For The Gold And Thats when the fun starts.The Chicks in the movie are hot The Death's Are Awesome What more is there to ask for in a horror movie Don't Be Fooled by the 1.8 Rating IMDb is giving it If you see this on a shelf at Blockbuster Pick it up and give it a watch for yourself,


For an independent film, this movie has a great cast. The acting is good, the stunts are simple but done well, and the makeup is great.

As an inspiring SFX Makeup artist, I enjoyed the makeup and gore effects best. Most of the horror scenes are done with makeup, like the mummies/zombies and the characters that die by zombie attacks and other oddities, but there are a few CGI effects as well.

If your an indie horror fan, i would highly recommend checking this out... for a couple hours of your time its worth it!

As far as the release date, American World has not given an exact date, but I've heard its set for early 2006...Jan/Feb.


Lost treasure, old west cowboy ghouls, and great special effects. Probably equal parts horror, Western, and action/adventure. The story is based on the real-life legend of Tumacacori, an ancient Spanish lost treasure of gold, and is a fun romp through the Arizona desert. The music is scored well and moves the film nicely. Billy Drago is awesome as the wicked cavalry saber-wielding town Sheriff. Don't expect a typical blood and guts horror pic, there's more here to the legend, as the six convicts look for the lost gold and meet their untimely deaths. Great decapitation scene, and a very cool Harley Davidson/horse chase at the end. Rate it a six, maybe seven, but definitely worth watching.


In a not so well-known piece of the maker of the singing detective, the group of children that is portrayed slowly yet steadily degress from just a bunch of playful kids into a sadistic bloodthirsty mob. Instead of the supposed innocence of children that Hollywood constantly tries to force on cinema audiences, this pic truly portrays children's fantasy worlds in all its crudeness. The fact that all children's roles are played by adult actors (albeit strange at first) works tremendously well.


dennis potter is still the best playwright of the television age and this is his best work.

set in the forrest of dean on a summers day during world war 2,we follow the a group of children at play.but the children's play has a tragic outcome.

potter set out to challenge our perception as all the children are played by adults.(colin welland, who plays willie,in an interview at the time said that the play challenged the actors as well).it could have foundered instead it draws you in until you only see children.children who are by turns nasty,nice,scared,brave,stupid, clever,bloodthirsty and imaginative.one of the best scenes remains when three of the children play mums and dads-adults playing children playing adults-pure genius.

the acting is first-class.none of them has ever done anything better.

an absolute must see


Interviewed shortly before his death, the writer Dennis Potter identified the three of his works he considered the best: his serials 'Pennies From Heaven' and 'The Singing Detective', and this short play, in which he addresses childhood (and the memories thereof) by casting adults to play their younger selves. There's a great thematic consistency to all of Potter's writings, and it's easy in retrospect to see everything he wrote prior to 'The Singing Detective' as leading up to that masterpiece (he was shameless about self-plagiarism), a view which also explains the relative vacuity of his later work; and this means that watching 'Blue Remembered Hills' today, it doesn't quite have the impact that it may first have done, before elements present in it were reworked (together with elements from all his other dramas) in his landmark achievement. But it's still well-observed and disturbing, although it's almost as shocking to hear its really quite distinguished cast speaking in Forest of Dean accents as it is to see them dressed as children. What's really a shame is that Potter learnt his trade writing numerous screenplays for television: produced on low budgets, they nonetheless aired to a mass audience (in an age of few channels); and it's hard to see where today's young writers have a similar opportunity (or desire) to make challenging drama of this sort. Which is not to say there is no talent any more; but another Dennis Potter may be a long time in coming.


This was Dennis Potter's simplest TV play, drawn apparently from vivid memories of his childhood in the Forest of Dean during WW2. Successive productions though became increasingly elaborate, obscure and reflecting obsessions with his own disabling illness and young women largely as sex objects. His increasing reputation coincided with an Emporer's clothes syndrome where each offering became ritually hailed as a masterpiece.

This is a faultless production where Potter's spot-on script and characterisations of a group of 12 year-olds are coupled to the novel but very successful device of having adults play children.

It is a simple original dish made of the best ingredients and impeccably cooked. Something nobody can fail to fully enjoy and appreciate.


I was really surprised at how much I enjoyed this film. It's so rare to find a good sci-fi type thriller. It seems like all the scary movies these days cater to the lowest common denominator, doing fast cuts, lots of gore. I enjoyed the creepy pacing and the smart story.

There were a few groaner moments, of the "oh, that was very convenient" kind, and it's clear that this was a low-budget movie. But overall it had a very smart plot, with solid acting, and a nice creepy tone. A fun find!

I wouldn't recommend this to the horror gore-hounds, but if you're looking for a smart, thriller type of movie, this is a good one.


The paramedics David Vaughn (Johnny Messner) and Victor (Jon Huertas) receive an emergency call from the girl Libby (Saige Ryan Campbell) in a remote gas station. While trying to save her mother Deborah (Elizabeth Godush), they are abducted by members of the sect Quanta Group, composed by scientists, philosophers and mathematicians that foresee the end of the world after a meteor shower. Their leader The Teacher (Daniel Benzali) converts Vic to his cult, but the reluctant David resists and faces a weird mystery.

"Believers" is an above average B-movie with a very intriguing story, but also flawed since there are some points that are not well-explained or developed. The greatest flaw is the lack of a reasonable explanation why David and Vic are kidnapped in the gas station. It would be certainly easier to leave the paramedics inside the firemen's ambulance on the road, the same way they did with their boss. How Deborah was resurrected and how The Teachers knew personal details of the lives of David and Vic is open, but may be well explained with the fire in the sky in the last scene meaning that The Teacher was really a powerful entity. I understand that the formula was the deadly gas, but it is not clear. I am a fan of original and low-budget movies, and in the end I liked this refreshing story. The direction and the acting are great, and I believe there are some unfair reviews in IMDb, probably from users that like commercial and easy to understand movies. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Fórmula Fatal" ("Fatal Formula")


Great film! Some rather large plot holes that could have been easily avoided, if one were going to be honest, and at times the thing is frustratingly obscure and careless with logic. But Believers has a very creepy air, the acting is generally superb, and the ending is - if predictable a light year off - totally BRILLIANT.

The movie plays like a very long episode of The Outer Limits (the 60s original, not the wretched colour revivals), and that's no bad thing. I suspect this movie played better outside of the US - American audiences tend to like everything explained with a minimum of ambiguity, and this movie has a very cavalier attitude towards plot information. Bad plot flaws damage the overall impact - the incredibly half-hearted search for the paramedics, the far too swift 'sex conversion' of the hero's buddy, the unexplained resurrection of a woman cult member, the badly answered question of why the paramedics needed to be kidnapped at all etc. But, ahhh, I've seen A-films that have made worse mistakes.

Believers is most effective in the little details...the ever present loud speakers in the compound, constantly burbling propaganda you can only half hear, the glassy expressions on the faces of the cult members, the fact that these weird people are scary because they are NOT overtly evil. Perhaps more important is the fact that, like the Leader with the hero, the movie never tries to convince you to believe in what is happening...you can take it or leave it on one level or another. Comparisons with Jonestown are obvious, but the film's general tone owes a larger debt to the Aum Supreme Truth cult in Japan, with its' fetish for electronic devices and quasi-scientific esoterica, the usage of poison gas, and the idea that the charismatic leader holds a revealed "indisputable truth".

Daniel Benzali is electrifying as 'The Teacher', creating a sort of Colonel Kurtz character. The Quanta Group's second in command, who appears at the start in the TV interview, and whose name eludes me, is also superb. Check out the deleted scenes on the DVD for moments featuring both men, both apparently improvised for the most part, that are better than anything kept in the movie. Puzzling omissions. The movie also contains one of the more chilling torture scenes in recent memory, in the shape of the electro-shock 'purging' of the hero. Devoid of gore, this scene is made frightening (for me at least) by the complete lack of emotion shown by the torturers. "It's for your own good" delivered in a weary monotone is far scarier than a truckload of Texas Chainsaw evil-chuckling over a victim.

But *that* ending, a very erotic sex scene, the aforementioned EST torture moment, and a general air of weirdness and repressed hysteria, gives this film an edge. Well worth seeing.


Two paramedics, David (Johnny Messner) and Victor (Jon Huertas) received a emergency call to help a mysterious woman (Deanna Russo) and her daughter Libby (Saige Ryan Campbell) in a deserted area outside from a gas station. Once they arrived, they tired to save this woman until a bizarre group of people arrived with a truck. They find themselves being kidnapped and bring them to a isolated building. The two paramedics finds out, they have been kidnapped by the Quanta Group. Which this group are actually a strange group of cults. Which they are composed by Scientist, Philosophers and Mathematicians. Which is controlled by a man, who called himself "The Teacher" (Daniel Benzali). But David and Victor learns by the Quanta Group truly believes the end of the world is coming soon and they are preparing a mass suicide. While Victor is been seduced by this group. David tries to escape to from this cult with the help of Libby and saves his friend before it's too late.

Directed by Daniel Myrick (Co-director of "The Blair Witch Project") made an fascinating, clever, low-budget thriller with hints of horror and science-fiction. Myrick certainly handles well the low-budget of the movie by giving good performances from his cast, creating genuine suspense and an creepy atmosphere in the story. For a Direct to DVD project, this has good qualities. The director certainly shows a lot of talent behind the camera. But the film does it's usual share of flaws, especially during the third act but Myrick certainly does take his time by making the movie works. I think, the viewers will find themselves intrigue by the premise and they also will be modestly entertained by the picture. It's certainly worth seeing. (*** ½/*****).


I didn't have high hopes for this movie after seeing the two previous and awful offerings from Raw Feed. But this one is actually very good. We start by watching a TV interview of a member of a cult called Quanta Group who explains to some foolish and silly interviewer what the group is all about. And he sure seems brainwashed although nice and soft-spoke.

Next we meet a group of paramedics in a fire station. One of them just finds out that he's going to be a father when a call comes in and he and his friend have to answer it.

They arrive at a public phone near an old gas station where a woman is lying on the ground and her young daughter immediately warns the paramedics to hurry up because "they are coming." The woman goes into cardiac arrest and as the paramedics are about to resuscitate her heart and notice that she has numbers tattooed all over her chest, a bunch of crazies wielding rifles arrive in an old truck. In the dispute that follows, one of the paramedics is shot in the shoulder and in the end all four are kidnapped by these people.

They are taken to some underground facility, where megaphones constantly play some type of speech/mantra. The woman is taken away and the three others are places in restrooms stalls where the walls are completely covered in mathematical written. Eventually our paramedics are taken to a room and told by the same cult member who did the interview what they are all about and wants them to join the group. Later, the leader of the group called the Teacher, played fantastically by Daniel Benzali, speaks to them and takes their questions via mic and speakers.

The woman is healed with by touch of hands of the other cult members and the shot paramedic is more open to what they have to say than the soon-to-be-dad. Eventually, the woman will convert the shot one. While the other one stays a skeptic till the end.

What is the cult all about: the Teacher has discovered or been given the Formula, which represents undeniable truth. It warns of impending doom and that the group cannot be left behind. They will leave this sphere and after some event for which they are all preparing will be transported to some other level of existence.

Eventually, the inevitable event, for which they are preparing and which we anticipate happens: all the cult members go in a freezer room and open gas containers. But some of our characters will be outside of the freezer and survive this.

A month later we meet the survivors again on a regular morning. But something is going on outside, everyone in the neighborhood goes out to see what is happening. And it is a very interesting and surprising turn of events.

This move is very good. The acting by Johnny Messner, Daniel Benzali, the main cult members, and the little girl Saige Ryan Campbell is outstanding. One can see the budget limitation in the sets and the lack of action, but despite this movie going at a slower pace, it is captivating enough to keep your attention. The script is surprisingly smart: there's mention of transcendent states of consciousness, time, theoretical physics, ontology, etc. I would have to watch it again to see if it the worldview of the cult is entirely coherent or not. It didn't seem like it was. But there's some very interesting and intelligent material here. Also, there are some great Special Features on the DVD. Not the usual annoying 5 minute cast interviews mixed with 15 minutes of movie scenes. Rather we have extended part of the movie, that I think could been added to the original film. There is an extended interview of the cult member, a monologue of the teacher, a description of the facility, a fascinating mathematical explanation of what they believe in, and a forensic report of the investigation by the police the morning after the cult takes part in the event.


I think Daniel Benzali is an interesting actor, but here he is totally wasted uttering nonsense. The film is extremely predictable and extremely dull. I mean two guys talking to each other across toilet stalls for minutes on end is not entertainment. The script seems padded to try and expand such weak material. Numerous lines appear to be repeated almost verbatim. This was a big disappointment. Even the ending seemed like it was tacked on for some kind of message, that somehow would justify the brainwashed cult. If you are looking for entertainment, I suggest you steer clear of "Believers". Not recommended. - MERK


With two competent leads (Johnny Messner and Jon Huertas as paramedics abducted by a cult), one fairly entrancing nemesis (Daniel Benzali as the cult leader), seeds of a good story and decent direction, one immediately thinks this movie could have been much better.

Writers Daniel Myrick, Julia Fair and Daniel Noah seem to have come up with a basic idea, without being able to elaborate the concept further. The result is a story with few interesting elements in-between its introduction and conclusion, and no rhythm whatsoever.

Details of the cult are brushed over. Viewers are probably supposed to see this as shrouded in mystery but instead, the sentiment is that the writers failed to flesh out these things. And since none of the imagery, dialog or plot element is particularly engrossing, we can't take a "mind trip" as if this was a Lynch movie either, because use symbolism in this film is weak and immature.

Director Daniel Myrick (Blair Witch Project, The Objective) has done much better in the past but here, there's simply not enough happening to sustain our attention for long. If the details were to remain that sketchy, I think this would have been better off as a sort of Twilight Zone TV episode.

I appreciate the attempt but this is Myrick's weakest movie I have seen.


The problem with any belief (an abstract), dependent on faith (an abstract), is that no concrete evidence is provided. Choosing the belief of any cult, versus one's own belief, is a quandary. An atheist does not believe in any God, whether it be a cult's God or anyone else's concept (an abstract) of God. A concept (which, again, is an abstract) may be confusing or difficult to understand. An agnostic will not accept God, without concrete evidence, but faith-based religious and spiritual systems require an acceptance based on the abstract (such persons believe that their concept of God is rooted in a higher power). God is invisible. Yet, some say that they feel, hear and see God in the nature, the rain and the wind. But, what is the formula? This remains a mystery, in this film, because it is never completely revealed. And, will our world soon end?

"Believers" (2007) promotes critical analysis, divergent thinking, introspection, and reflection. Set in a dark, creepy and furtive realm, one can be hypnotized by the bewitching mood and musical score. In Myrick style, this film becomes a masterfully-crafted thriller, effectively supplying anxiety, fear, menace, suspense, and tension. The cult represented, in this film, seems to promote life. Yet, is there life within the shroud of the death scent of Hitler's control and manipulation, his experimentation, coercion, and force?

The riveting performance by Daniel Benzali, who plays the Teacher, is at his insidious, evil best. His spellbinding, measured, and haunting tone of voice brilliantly captures the cult's intended mission, fails to reveal--until the end of the film--just how it will carry out. But, the actors and director are faithful to the script, and they do become masters of horror, without most of the blood and all of the gore. The film, beautifully counterbalanced and integrated, seems to show (at least on the surface) pratfalls of blind faith and misdirected trust. All people are born. All people will die. But, what is the eagerness for death, if we never have lived?

Because the film asks questions that our finite minds are unable to answer, I rate this film an 8 out of 10. It is entertaining, and the film is good because it makes one infinitely think. The film expands one's horizons beyond earth, heaven, and hell.


Set in the eerie, furtive realm of cult followers to a bewitching music score by Kays Al-Atrakchi, "Believers" is, in true Myrick style, a masterfully crafted thriller, reliant on an atmosphere of menace and suspense, as opposed to the ubiquitous gore of most contemporary film. Through the terrifying ordeals of 2 paramedics kidnapped by the Quanta Group, led by the Teacher, issues of destiny and its attainment, introspection, religion versus science, power of suggestion and gullibility are highlighted, enabling the viewer to evaluate and ponder what might be. Most notable, is the riveting performance by Daniel Benzali, who, as the Teacher, is at his insidious, evil best. His spellbinding, measured, haunting tone of voice crystallizes the mood of the whole film, making him, without doubt, the "master of creepy". Brilliantly counterbalanced to his character is that of young Libby, whose mind, like all the others, is anesthetized by the miasma of unconditional trust, innocently misplaced in that false sense of security of blind faith, so intrinsic to cult rationale. Believe it! "Believers" is a must-see.


the entire movie was predictable. the "surprise ending" was a running joke i had as i watched it with my wife. for the most part, the entire movie was a running joke, really. my wife and i moaned and groaned our way through this sub-par plot and pitiful acting. i can't think of a good reason to watch this, unless maybe i had a friend playing a part, but then he/she would never hear the end of it. i do not suggest watching this movie unless you have some time to waste that you will never need back. i'd rather watch "COPS". i now know the value of checking with IMDb as to whether or not a movie is worth watching. i should have just played video games.....


Is that a weird freaky cultist being interviewed on the telly? Welcome to the world of Believers.

It has to be said that this film isn't bad but it isn't great either.

After the early introduction of a TV interview the action moves to the County Fire Department, the fire chief telling one of our heroes, Victor, to, "eat his own lunch"  obviously a problem in this fire house. Acting at the beginning is of numerous types of wood. Fortunately Victor and Dave (two of the less wooden ones) get sent off to deal with a woman who fainted.

I don't really know the structure of County Fire Departments in the US but do they really do ambulance work? Here they find a mother and daughter (the best actor in the film) the mother having tattoos that Victor notes "Never seen tattoo's like that before", possibly because they were drawn on with a marker.

Then suddenly the evil garage owner has rung the cultists and they turn up and take them captive. Why the garage owner waited until now to contact them and why the cultists take them with them is unknown, but take them they do.

We then enter the conversion phase where they try and convince them, indeed this is the main part of the movie.

Oh I forgot Victor is shot. Not terminally.

Dave makes some abysmally weak attempts to test the wire mesh and you wonder why he doesn't brace himself against the wall and kick it through. You also wonder why he doesn't use the cistern lid. (Carefully removed in the other cells).

We go back to the girls mother who goes through full conversion while the cultists complain that her daughter shouldn't be here (erm put her somewhere else).

Then back to Dave, Victor a completely unconcerned Fire Chief, even though his men have been missing for ages and the obligatory Dave's wife ringing him to find out where he is shot. You wonder how long the emergency services are going to wait before reacting. I also thought emergency vehicles had tracers.

Dave continues to fail to note he has a cistern lid to use as a weapon. Victor's strong faith seems to be put to the test with the merest nod of his history being revealed and the viewer is possibly left a bit perplexed by why they might be watching this.

As the Chief comes to find his men the garage attendant uses a monkey wrench to disable the radio  which part of this cult of elite scientists did he belong to  and then takes out the chief who manages to miss a huge fire vehicle in a garage at point blank range for longer than any normal human.

The big cheese finally talks to Dave and Victor to reveal Victor trained as a priest. Victor is alarmed and wonders how he knew as he has not told anyone. I assume the church keep records.

On return to the cells Dave fails to use the cistern lid again and then tells them to stitch Victor's bullet wound  a puncture wound shouldn't be stitched.

Victor then falls for the old conversion by sex routine (the girls mother and general titillation for some watching) and Dave finally after another pathetic attempt to break from his cell finally does what the audience wants and uses the cistern lid. Hooray.

Rebecca (mother) sure fire conversion seems to be failing (possibly being used as a sex tool by these great minds) and I began to ask exactly why the cult needed her and her daughter back.

However they make an escape, Dave and Libby (daughter) and drive the ambulance for what seems a few yards, driving onto a dirt track  why not stay on the road?  to find a view over the city. Again weren't they miles out and hard to find. The four wheel drive vehicle then gets stuck in dirt. Well they had to be captured somehow! The leader (called "Teacher") who initially said he couldn't see anyone due to infection is suddenly out amongst his people and tells Dave that they, "Don't kill" ending his rant with the fact that he'll "see he (Dave) is put to sleep." Vic's sexual exploits have obviously taken their toll as he is now in a wheelchair and has had the fastest tattoo (cult symbol on back of neck that represents their individualism in the universe  or it's just a Greek letter!) obviously that marker again.

They escape, except Victor who can't break the conditioning  no wonder he failed as a priest. They had to really and social services leave Libby in Dave's care, because you would wouldn't you? The ending is good, I want to know which film they nicked the special effect from and all in all the films not bad.

Music and direction are more than adequate but someone should have looked into the continuity and filed off all the sharp edges that didn't make sense.

You're always limited by your budget and they used it well and the end product is enjoyable but by no means perfect.


"Believers" is your very average end of the world/suicide cult movie if not for the fact that it was directed by Daniel Myrick, one half of the director duo behind "The Blair Witch Project", if only Mr. Myrick had used one half of his brain too then this might not have ended up such a total mess.

Obviously, the Hollywood producers didn't trust the film-making skills of the "Blair Witch" creators, since, they both have been virtually inactive in the new millennium so far. Still, it seems that Myrick had enough time on his hands to hatch a few cinematic eggs. Since last year, he was not only producing "Rest Stop" (which I kind of liked) but also directed another three feature length movies ("The Objective", "Solstice" and "The Strand"). Although, it remains to be seen whether they will make it beyond a straight-to-video release. As for "Believers" it pretty much follows the formula of "The Blair Witch Project", but while the twist in that movie consisted of surpassing our fear that the witch was real in "Believers" we are introduced to a bunch of frauds that in the very end... I really don't want to spoil it for you here, because the movie has not much else going for it than the twist ending, and even that twist is paper thin, almost as if Kevin Costner at the end of "Water World" had found out that he belonged to the latest Sea World attraction (no, it's actually not THAT bad). The story of "Believers" is about two paramedics who are on an emergency call to rescue a woman lying conveniently in front of a gas station, having some sort of a heart attack. Subsequently, David Vaughn and his partner Victor are abducted by a bunch of weirdos who take them inside an old bunker where their fellow cult members reside. I forgot the name of the cult, it's probably some Greek letter of the alphabet. From there on, it's pretty much business as usual. There's the sinister end of the world cult and it's mysterious cult leader, lots of teaching and indoctrination, members who try to escape but are caught (the woman with the heart attack and here little daughter), some attempted brainwashing of the paramedics, large gas canisters with the required bio-hazard warnings all over them and a lot of mumbo jumbo about numbers and how God can be found in science and such. The story arch, if you can call it that, largely consists of Vaughn's partner Victor having a spiritual crisis and slowly turning over to the dark side (hey, it's a character driven movie!). A lot of hokey acting is involved in that process and finally culminates in a scene where Victor gets to bang a hot cult member chick. Well, who can resist the power of love? Overall, this is a fairly weak effort to give a new spin on the old evil suicide cult story, which would have worked a lot better as a short movie instead of a feature length film. The material is too second rate and the actor's are too third rate to carry this anywhere but the nearest lowest price blockbuster bargain bin. There is too much focus on the twist ending and not enough substance to sustain it. In order for the twist to succeed the movie has to lull the audience into the belief, that there are religious fanatics at work here like we've seen them a thousand times on TV and congregating in the living room of our neighbor's house. The "show them something ordinary and at the end reveal that they have witnessed something extraordinary"-formula usually works better in the short form. Here, the cult's religion is not intriguing enough to merit any second thoughts as to whether their predictions about an imminent doomsday might actually be true and grounded in hard evidence. ***imminent spoiler ahead*** Finally, when that doomsday arrives - oops? did I spoil anything? - it's a mere afterthought to a poorly digested potpourri of religious fanaticism and spiritual sci-fi. Thus, it also confirms my impression upon viewing the "The Blair Witch Project", namely, that its strength comes from its fraudulent direction, since, there was no direction at all. Unfortunately, for Sánchez and Myrick that means that they will be forever condemned to have directed only one great movie, which is great only because it pretends not to have been directed at all. That might turn out to be the true curse of the Blair Witch.


I'm sorry this movie sucked. Terrible acting, really really confused story that never really explained anything. If at least a small attempt had been made do actually explain the story or show a plot or something it might have gotten i bit higher grading from me. All the foolishness about a formula was almost making sound like a commercial for toothpaste.

My vote of 2 is for decent music in the movie and for at least a twist of an ending.

Unless you really don't have anything else do do like operating on yourself with a worn out spoon, then do not see this BORING movie.

/D


A story capturing my mind: although most of the audience in the cinema were laughing a lot and the two user comments I found in IMDB both claimed it was a funny movie, I found it rather sad. It is about the anger of a man who cannot handle his personal tragedies and decides to challenge the most powerful man in the village with no reason. The events eventually lead to an inevitable tragedy. The striking motif of self-destruction in this movie is similar to the one that exists in the Balkan and beautifully presented in some Kusturica movies, so despite the Irish environment, the director's (Goran Paskaljevic from Serbia) origin is clearly felt.


As an American, it took me a bit to get used to the language of rural Ireland in the 1920's, but this film draws you into a world that seems not at all foreign after a while. Unlike the relentlessly depressing "The Field", this is a drama of real tragedies - the small, silly tragedies that we create and that are created for us- and also, of real hope. The original Irish title of this film "How Harry Became a Tree" is so much more fitting than the US "Bitter Harvest" (what were they thinking?), though fortunately the brilliant allegory of the tree is not lost with the title change. Performances are universally outstanding and poignant, the photography beautiful, the music haunting. See this film and see how the Irish continue to astonish with their mastery of language and vision.


Well the main reason for seeing this movie would be to see Colm Meaney at his best. During the 1st 10 minutes of this film I was quite irritated by what I thought was another shamrockery and begorrah script. But once you get past that, its a very well acted, well-shot film. The humour was very dark though. Some in the audience were laughing while I felt like crying. I suppose the humour is open to your own interpretation. Overall a very sad story though.


I went seeing this movie with a group of teaching colleagues at the annual International Film Festival of Gent. It was indeed a festive occasion and we all felt very happy and high-spirited afterwards. I won't easily forget this film and will always highly recommend it to all the people I love, not in the least the students that have been appointed to me.

For indeed I believe in the introductory comment by Goran Paskaljevic, the director of this beautiful film, whose presence together with that of the wonderfully acting Colm Meany was of course also part of an utmost enjoyable cinematographic evening.

Mr Paskaljevic expressed two things during the measured time of the interview. He hoped that the audience would have a real good laugh and that after leaving his film one would consider the reason(s) for having an enemy.

I forgot about the audience, but the movie did certainly make me laugh. And there can only be one consideration : how unwise it is to have an enemy in one's lifetime. Harry did not become the tree of life.


This really was a strange little Movie.The Musicians in particular had a great time playing (or miming as happens in Film) up on "Sally Gap" in Wicklow in Ireland in November where it was at least 8 degrees below and the cast and crew were up there for 12 hours at the wedding scene.It really was freezing.I played Bodhran (Irish Drum) and i had to put my hand in hot water because it was frozen to the stick which plays the instrument.But for the fun value we had making that movie deserves 9/10.We filmed the pub scenes in Ardmore Studios which was a much warmer affair.Maybe i'm wrong but i seem to remember a day being taken off when Malosovich was captured due to Goran our Director being an immigrant Serb.


I had the pleasure of seeing the world premiere of this film at the Toronto International Film Festival. It is a wonderfully funny movie with a great performance by Colm Meaney.

The script borrows from a Chinese story, but is placed in Ireland. The film is well-paced, beautifully shot, and includes wonderful performances by all involved.


Perhaps the problem with this movie is the fact that the director is a Serbian filmmaker. Or that the co-writer is his wife. It could be that his Balkan background was ill equipped to adapt a Chinese story to a 1920's Irish village. (Maybe the multi-national money people behind this project insisted on using Ireland.) Whatever the reason, when you name your leading character "Meaney", portray virtually all the characters in a realistic style and then have the main character turn into a tree, then you've got a melange that sinks under the woven strands of too many stylistic ideas.

I would also like to comment on the cinematographer's lighting (though ultimately the director has to o.k. the look when he sees the dailies.) Disclaimer: I worked as a lighting technician in the mainstream U.S. film industry for 25 years. Most of the time when movies are transferred from film/digital to DVD, the bottom line is to do it as cheaply as one can. One really can't fairly comment on good lighting or bad lighting because of this (this cheap approach also heavily impacts sound transfer). But in this film the aesthetic behind many of the interior scenes was that of a hack; let's bash the light in and shoot it. There's way too much "flat" lighting. That is, no contrast in the light on faces or objects EVEN THOUGH THE LIGHT SOURCES LEND THEMSELVES TO GREAT POTENTIAL LIGHTING; lighting that could help further the story.

Good performances don't make it when they are serving a poor story in a technically flawed movie.


Director Mark Burson is highly creative and in this debut feature there are many moments that reveal the energy of an auteur, but Burson's fondness for shock cinema eventually causes the film to collapse into near chaos. The work begins with a voice-over by immigrant Joe Dekko (Colin Gray O'Hara), his text indicating inner turmoil, while he and two crime partners prepare for a robbery of two drug dealers. Dekko craves a more responsible life but any chance of achieving it is slim as it is soon apparent that Joe consistently makes poor decisions. These generally involve his criminal peers although his donation of his share of the drug rip-off loot to a friend as an investment in the latter's computer business only backfires when the treacherous fellow blackmails Joe. Revenge then becomes the film's cardinal motif as Joe, along with his cohorts and his enemies, all go on the attack during scenes of wildly escalating violence. The eponymous Dekko, with a bullet reposing in his skull, and with a proclivity for extreme self-abuse, ostensibly has also an iron constitution, as he struts along his path of vengeance with unalloyed intensity. Prominent upon Burson's cinematic agenda is development of scenes for their sensationalist value, including repugnant violence, heroin use and stylized sexual activity; unfortunately, few of these advance the storyline and none has narrative worth. However, he uses his players very capably, deriving strong performances from many of the cast, the charismatic Glaswegian O'Hara impressive with his turn, and with his versatility, as well, contributing the music performed during the closing credits. Multifaceted, too, is Burson, as for this low-budget affair, shot in Ohio and released in 2000, he produces, directs, and edits, with more naked force than most directors within any genre; it is a pity that his penchant for frenzied grotesquerie is not a minor imperfection; Mark Burson - - thy name is excess.


...yet I'm amazed that other people enjoyed it at all; the friend who watched it with me seemed to enjoy it too, but I know his tastes.

Even for a low-budget affair, this is bad: the violence was not necessary, the story was not cohesive, the random "truely tasteless" jokes thrown into the dialog were old in the '80s (I recall at least two word-for-word), the one-dimensional characters (dad with a cane, brothers who follow dad's orders without question, cursing street preacher), and the longest set-up for a plot ever: not until an hour into the movie does the incident happen where the movie title gets it name! I was hoping to see a cheap splatter flick about an undead murder victim exacting revenge, as the box had alluded to, but instead I myself became an undead victim by the end of the tape. They were trying to achieve some level of "Pulp Fiction", but only amounted to a plump infection...


Low budget film-making at it's best. Seriously, this movie is everything an indie film should be. Dark and gritty with plenty of nudity, violence, and drug use. No big name actors, either. Fans of Killing Zoe should definitely check this out.

Even though Joe Dekko is obviously a real lowlife, you can't help but like him. Colin Gray O'Hara (whom I have never seen in anything else) gives an outstanding performance. Perhaps we will see more of him in the future.

This film has been out for quite a while. I keep hoping that someday it will be released on DVD, but I'm not holding my breath. They don't make movies like this anymore.


I have seen this movie and I found it pretty decent.

My father is the forklift driver in the movie. It was filmed in Columbus Ohio and right where my father works. It may not be big budget but it does have a decent plot and storyline. It is full of betrayal and shows you can not trust anyone. At first I only wanted to see the movie because of my father but I enjoyed the film. If you like movies that are crime dramas basically then you will like Bullethead.The dialogue was great in the movie and I found it very refreshing seeing a movie that did not have to rely on a bunch of special effects to captivate the audience. It was a clean true film that reminded me of films from the 1940's and such that drew you into the story and held you there.


I saw this movie in another country as "7 days." It's pretty good and Colin Gray O'Hara is totally hot! (?Spoiler?): the violence in one scene (culminating in the bathroom): we see it all second hand on video (mostly hear it), was pretty extreme by my standards. Reminded me of Al Pacino in Scarface or Paul Bettany in Gangster No. 1. All in all, though, a good two hours on Sunday afternoon. I hope we see more of Cherie Davis in the future too.


Even from the opening credits, I knew this movie would be enjoyable. Unlike most movies, the characters (no matter how minor) were entertaining, it was thought-provoking, and it had an actual PLOT. Despite all the violence, there were even some parts where I was laughing hysterically. The only thing I would advise is: if you don't like to watch movies with gratuitous sex, drugs, and (extremely) excessive violence, don't watch this movie. Otherwise, go ahead.


Director Susan Lacey made this film for the Public Broadcasting Corporation's American Masters series. I saw it tonight at the Jacob Burns Film Center in the Westchester (N.Y.) County village of Pleasantville. The director engaged in a spirited conversation with the audience after this fine documentary was shown.

I've always been a fervent Judy Garland fan. She was one of the most talented actresses and singers ever produced in this country. I have seen all of her films, I own some on VHS or DVD, and I have a number of CDs of her singing. Her legendary Carnegie Hall concert is the highlight of my collection of this "take no prisoners" stage giant.

"Judy Garland - By Myself" is aptly titled. As a child she was more or less separated from any normal life by mogul Louis B. Mayer and made a contract slave to the studio system, in this case the property of MGM. I'm not stretching the analogy to indentured servitude at all. As shown here with stills, film clips and spoken narration she was put into an inhuman pressure cooker where every last bit of pressure was exerted and all possible profit was extracted by a heartless machine.

As a teenager scoring one success after another she was given pep pills to make her work harder and longer followed by sleeping pills so she could get some rest before the cycle repeated itself the next day. Any studio trying that with a kid today better have a legion of very good criminal defense lawyers.

As shown in this penetrating biography, Judy Garland was recognized for extraordinary ability almost from the get-go with, of course, "The Wizard of Oz" propelling her to world acclaim.

In the process she slowly began to lose her sense of self, succumbing to studio entreaties (and when that failed, threats did the job). She became involved in one doomed relationship with a man after another disappointing one, a lifetime pattern. Sickening and chilling is the account of how both Mayer AND Judy's mother virtually forced her to abort her first pregnancy because it was the "wrong" time for her to have a child.

There are many clips of her powerful acting and incredible singing in this almost two-hour film. While sympathetic to her travails, Ms. Lacey deserves credit for showing the price she paid, a price that ended in her death at age 47 from the very drugs she depended on for decades to get her through an up and down career.

Until the fatal end Judy Garland wasn't simply a survivor, she was a hugely talented and ambitious woman who, like water, carved out a new course when an earlier one was blocked. To her fans she seemed irrepressible and the film makes the point that the people who made up her audience were her principal motivator. She's quoted as saying she knew she always wanted to please audiences and fans. It's truly tragic that so many in show business who profited from her incomparable talent didn't have the decency to want to please her. And, probably, save her life.

A terrific addition to one of PBS's best series.

10/10


Watching the opening scenes of Susan Lacy's magnificent documentary in which a black and white sequence shows us Judy Garland singing "By Myself" shows a vulnerable woman giving her all to a song that expressed how, perhaps, she felt at that time of her brilliant, but short career.

Judy Garland had it all; she was a natural. From the start, she clearly demonstrates what a tremendous talent she had. In those early vaudeville film clips we watch a bubbly girl who could charm anyone who was lucky enough to be in the audience. She was destined for greatness, and yet, as we see in this sad account of her life, everything conspired against her.

When Ms. Garland arrived at MGM, she was put under contract and was given all the privileges. She was sadly given medication to make her sleep, as well as for waking her up. She was a commodity that the studio exploited as it saw fit. After all, she was making tremendous amounts of money for MGM. This, in the long turn, ruined her life because the drugs created a dependency she was never able to shake.

The film helps illustrates how everything conspired against Ms. Garland in some of the choices she made, as was the case with "A Star is Born". The film that had all the right elements going for it, proved to be one of the things that broke her spirit, at a time when she needed all she could to make it big, after having left MGM. George Cukor and Ms. Garland were made for one another, yet, Warner Brothers decided to chop the film, perhaps robbing her of an Oscar she deserved.

CBS didn't do better for her. Her variety show was an excellent program, but because of the time slot, it never got the ratings that were expected. The cancellation of the show was a mortal blow to her heart. Judy Garland's descent into the end of her life is one of the saddest things in the history of show business.

In a way, watching the opening number kept reminding us of another tragic singer, Edith Piaf. Both Judy Garland and Ms. Piaf, knew despair, and loneliness in their short lives.


Having watched this for the third time, it kills me to think what Jusy Garland went through to amuse and entertain us. Judy got the applause and the studios got the money and the public was entertained, but at what price? Would Judy have been better off being a waitress in St. Paul Minnesota married to the corner pharmacist? Would she have traded the stage for a normal life free of the pills and drugs that fueled her and ultimately led her to an early death? You keep asking yourself, was she ever really happy? Watch the pictures of her with her babies and it sure seems she would have been very happy just being a mom.

I love bio documentaries such as these because you see more than just what is on the screen or read in People magazine. This is a pretty good doc though some things are left out or underplayed (her father and husbands sexual orientation) but you can always read a Garland biography for those details; books don't give you the film clips the show does.

Louis B. Mayer gets the bad guy treatment. But would MGM have been as successful as it was without Mayer making the decisions he did? Would the movies we all love have been as good as they were without him? Yes, Mayer did not always have the best interests of the talent in mind, but again,is this the price of success?

Sonmeone like Bette Davis was strong enough to fight the studio system and win, but Judy, being younger and dominated by her mother and Mayer, never was strong enough to stand up for what was best for Judy. But like Bette, she never seemed to know how to pick a husband. If anyone needed the safety net of a good marriage, it was Garland.

The saddest part for me was when she got fired from Annie Get Your Gun. The studio was pushing her so hard that she eventually cracked. MGM bled her dry and then blamed her for not being a bottomless tank of gas.

Isabel Keating does a great job impersonating Garland, reading from Garland's own writings. Since Garland never got to publish her autobiography, this is the closest we get.

For anyone that questions what Judy had, this is a good primer. The great nature vs. nurture debate gets a big vote for nature since Judy caught lightning in a bottle with her talent but her sisters never were close to her level.

When she dies at the age of 47 (47 for goodness sake) she left behind a legacy of entertainment that is unmatched by anyone over such a relatively short time. But if her goal was always to entertain us, are we partly responsible for her early death? Would we give up her movies and songs if it meant she would have lived a normal and long life? Rest In Peace, Judy.


Done with great care, Judy Garland: By Myself (2004) underscores the fact that her legacy is on film. Some really wonderful musical moments are included in this film. The narrations were well done. As I watched performance after performance, I realized no one could tell Judy's story like Judy -- her songs tell it all! This film also touched on one of Judy Garland's greatest joys: motherhood. Some of my favorite moments in this film was the scenes with her children, they were so touching. Also, the unsuccessful string of marital relationships were alluded to, but, not elaborated on (perhaps that was a touch of discretion on the part of the film makers).

I saw the Wizard of Oz (1939) on TV when I was a kid. I continued to watch her movies on TV down through the years, growing to appreciate her performances more and more. I loved it when Judy Garland paired up with Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire. Watching these show biz heavy weights on film together, it was magic! And, viewing her later performances, one could see the fire still in her eyes, she was such a fighter! This film gives an apt representation of Judy Garland's career; her ups and her downs, her victories and defeats. It even touches on how the industry ravished Judy Garland's genius to their own selfish ends. Despite being at the mercy of the entertainment system and a stage mom who allowed the abuse to go on (over work, drug abuse & etc), Judy Garland was able to give timeless performance after performance.

I do not think that you can do justice to her life's work in two hours, but, this film does her life's work some justice.


The life and career (the high-highs and low downs) of versatile, charismatic actress-singer-dancer Judy Garland is profiled in this informative, well-researched and produced segment for "American Masters". While eventually not quite the thorough examination of the iconic performer one might have hoped for, this comes as close to revealing the real Judy as any other film biography to date. Using old photographs--and Isabel Keating's uncanny readings of Judy's unfinished memoirs--we get a good sense of what Garland thought of herself, and why she became addicted to those pep pills and weight loss techniques from her youthful years at M-G-M. With focused narration and voice-tapes from others in Judy's life, director Susan Lacy is able to put into perspective the ill-fated early marriages, the on-set troubles, and the succession of comebacks. Still, once Lacy makes headway into Garland's fascinating movie career, she has a tendency to then double-back and give us more of the old stuff. We are to understand that the Garland-Gene Kelly musical "The Pirate" was a box-office flop, but are then told a moment later that Garland was nothing short of movie-gold. Her later marriages are ignored, as is the birth of her son Joey, but we are shown a plethora of lost or unused footage, lots of song numbers from Judy's unjustly-neglected television show for CBS, and moving newsreel footage of Garland's funeral procession in front of thousands. For fans, it's a must-see.


(A reformatted copy of this is being E-mailed to my Congressional representative as we speak; watch this biographical documentary--my Exhibit A--again, and I'm sure you'll want to contact YOUR Congress person, Prime Minister, head sheikh, etc., as well.) I just finished reading a message board thread titled "Traci . . ." for the Afterdark Horrorfest cheapie CRAZY EIGHTS, discussing whether one-time (or 200-time, depending on who's counting) child porn star Traci Lords--who appeared in CRAZY EIGHTS long after she reached "legal age"--was exploited by the porn industry (or vice versa). Watching JUDY GARLAND the same week as CRAZY EIGHTS, I cannot help being struck by the parallels between Lords' infamous early work (none of which I've seen) and Garland's--especially the WIZARD OF OZ, my all-time favorite movie.

Since Judy's beloved dad died days after her mom signed her life away to MGM, Judy viewed studio head Louie B. Mayer as her surrogate father. How did "dear old dad" respond to this "in loco parentis" role? By constantly calling Judy "my little hunchback," surrounding her with "real beauties" on every set (including Billie Burke as Glinda the Good Witch of the North in OZ), whose role in her films (from her Andy Hardy work with Mickey Rooney through OZ to EASTER PARADE, etc.) was to make her a miserable wreck till the final frames. Meanwhile, behind the scenes she was made to submit to a daily regimen of uppers and downers to keep awake for double shifts, and each time she went to detox she had to PAY HER OWN WAY, and as soon as she came back to the studio "clean," her bosses said, "Judy, you fat little pig, you're topping the scales at 105 pounds--pop some diet pills right this instant!" Even as she merged into "adulthood," she retained the psyche of the emotionally crippled perpetual child MGM had made her, down to allowing studio flacks to arrange for the abortion of what would have been her first-born.

Since this child abuse started when Judy was in her early teens, and since the U.S. government ALWAYS has applied censorship and kiddie porn laws RETROACTIVELY, the availability of Louie's exploitation films all over the internet (and even in the local "Family Video" store) makes a mockery of the American penal code. Do you think the Italian government would leave the Sistine Chapel standing if it were documented that Michaelangelo had painted with the blood of murdered virgins? Would Egypt tolerate the Pyramids if evidence proved they were made entirely from the teeth of slaughtered Jewish slaves? This JUDY GARLAND testimony proves that all of her MGM work is indelibly tainted with sadistic exploitation just as reprehensible as the foregoing hypothetical examples. Yet the heirs to MGM's copyrights still reap millions annually from little Frances Ethel Gumm's blood, sweat, and tears. It's long past time to stop this madness. Please join me in helping to stamp out this torture porn--NOW!


A dogged police inspector searches Hollywood for THE SLIPPERY PEARLS purloined from Norma Shearer.

Several of Tinseltown's brightest talents donated their time to this fund-raiser for the National Variety Artists Tuberculosis Sanitarium located at Savanac Lake, New York. Funds would be solicited from theater patrons after viewing this 20 minute short, which was ironically sponsored by Chesterfield Cigarettes. Distributed by Paramount Studios, some of the stars are embarrassingly bad in their tiny roles. The comedy team of Wheeler & Woolsey come off by far the best, although one wishes one could see more of Maurice Chevalier, Laurel & Hardy and the Our Gang kids.

This little film is sometimes shown under its alternate title of THE STOLEN JOOLS (1931).

The closing credits obligingly give a cast list, particularly helpful in identifying the celebrities of yesteryear who've faded into obscurity:

At The Police Station: Wallace Beery, Buster Keaton, Jack Hill, J. Farrell MacDonald, Edward G. Robinson & George E. Stone.

The Law: Eddie Kane, Stan Laurel & Oliver Hardy.

At The Victim's House: Our Gang's Allen 'Farina' Hoskins, Matthew 'Stymie' Beard, Norman 'Chubby' Chaney, Mary Ann Jackson, Shirley Jean Rickert, Dorothy 'Echo' DeBorba, Bobby 'Wheezer' Hutchins & Pete the Pup. Also Polly Moran, Norma Shearer & Hedda Hopper.

Tête-à-Tête: Joan Crawford & William Haines.

On The Porch Swing: Dorothy Lee.

At Breakfast: Edmund Lowe, Victor McLaglen & El Brendel.

In The Hotel: Charles Murray, George Sidney, Winnie Lightner, Fifi D'Orsay, Warner Baxter (as the Cisco Kid) & Irene Dunne.

At Lunch: Bert Wheeler & Robert Woolsey.

In The Movie Studio: Richard Dix, Lowell Sherman & Claudia Dell.

The Newsmen: Eugene Palette, Stuart Erwin, 'Skeets' Gallagher, Gary Cooper, Wynne Gibson & 'Buddy' Rogers.

The Detective: Maurice Chevalier.

Under The Tree: Douglas Fairbanks Jr. & Loretta Young.

At The Car: Richard Barthelmess.

At The Gate: Charles Butterworth.

Couples At Home: Bebe Daniels & Ben Lyon, Frank Fay & Barbara Stanwyck.

In A Movie Scene: Jack Oakie & Fay Wray.

In A Beard: Joe E. Brown (unbilled).

In The Projection Room: George 'Gabby' Hayes & Little Billy Rhodes.

Solving The Mystery: Mitzi Green.

An interesting comparison with THE SLIPPERY PEARLS is MGM's THE Christmas PARTY, released the same year and with some of the same cast (Norma Shearer, Polly Moran, Wallace Beery). In half the time and with much better production values, it presents a rapid succession of some of MGM's biggest stars playing themselves in a Christmas greeting to their fans.


Perhaps the best way to describe this short film is to label it "a star-studded 20 minutes." As a movie, it is reminiscent of the early 10-minute silent reels with goofy plots, only way less developed. Each scene is quickly abandoned in an effort to show as many well-known actors as possible. The story merely serves as an excuse to show off Hollywood's biggest stars, ranging from Joan Crawford to Laurel & Hardy. So have fun with it, and just be sure to pay attention or you'll miss a star!

THE CAST (in order of appearance): Wallace Beery, Buster Keaton, Jack Hill, J. Farrell MacDonald, Edward G. Robinson, George E. Stone, Eddie Kane, Stan Laurel, Oliver Hardy, Allen 'Farina' Hoskins, Matthew 'Stymie' Beard, Norman 'Chubby' Chaney, Mary Ann Jackson, Shirley Jean Rickert, Dorothy 'Echo' DeBorba, Bobby 'Wheezer' Hutchins, Pete the Pup, Polly Moran, Norma Shearer, Hedda Hopper, Joan Crawford, William Haines, Dorothy Lee, Edmund Lowe, Victor McLaglen, El Brendel, Charles Murray, George Sidney, Winnie Lightner, Fifi D'Orsay, Warner Baxter, Irene Dunne, Bert Wheeler, Robert Woolsey, Richard Dix, Lowell Sherman, Claudia Dell, Eugene Palette, Stuart Erwin, 'Skeets' Gallagher, Gary Cooper, Wynne Gibson, 'Buddy' Rogers, Maurice Chevalier, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Loretta Young, Richard Barthelmess, Charles Butterworth, Bebe Daniels, Ben Lyon, Frank Fay, Barbara Stanwyck, Jack Oakie, Fay Wray, Joe E. Brown, George 'Gabby' Hayes, Little Billy Rhodes, Mitzi Green.


Just saw this, on a VHS collection titled Hollywood Comedy Classics. It was fun, to spot all the famous stars, and with it being just past the end of the silent era, lots of well known silent stars were there. Buster Keaton, Stan Luarel, Oliver Hardy and Harold Lloyd were easy to spot. Also saw Wallace Beery, Barbara Stanwyck, and Joan Crawford. Also noticed Joe E. Brown, not because I knew him by sight, but his voice I knew from the movie "Some Like It Hot". He played the character of Osgood Fielding III, the older wealthy gentleman that was pursuing Jack Lemmon when he was in drag! The plot device is just something to hand the movie on, but it is well worth your time. If you are good at spotting Hollywood stars, keep your eyes open for this one!


When I first watched this show, I was little disappointed but after watching it again. I could see this is a fine show about two real life actors like Dame Judi Dench and Michael Williams (who did receive a papal knighthood) playing two odd characters like a linguist and a landscaper. Judi plays Laura, the intellectual linguist, and Michael plays Mike, the quiet shy landscaper. At first, this is an unlikely pairing but you know if you know anything about the great Dame Judi Dench (even though she prefer you call her just Judi, no Dame Judi or Ms. Dench). This is their romance. While Dame Judi receives a lot of attention, Michael is the wind beneath her wings. I paid a lot more attention to his role in this show. I can see why she fell in love with him. When Judi asked about her longtime marriage to Michael, she responded that "they just enjoyed being in the same room together." Now that is a sign of a fine romance and an excellent relationship. Michael never did receive the fame or accolades as his wife but I know he was proud of her even now as she earns one of Britain's top honor, Companion of Honor, only 65 living people at a time can receive this honor. When Dame Judi earned her O.B.E. (Officer of the British Empire) in 1970, Michael was not there in her life. When she became Dame Judi, Mike and her daughter, Finty was there at the palace. Now, she has her grandson, Sam, and Finty for this special occasion. I will say the writing of this show could be better. The humor is much dryer than normal, it is very cerebral and intellectual. Susan Penhaligon and Richard Warwick are just fine as Laura's sister Helen and brother-in-law Phil. It really is the story of Mike and Judi's great relationship. I bet you that Judi loved doing this show with Mike. It gave them a chance for both of them to shine.


Few series have more ably depicted the complicated communication between two people from different backgrounds who are trying to forge a relationship. Mike and Laura start out associating by accident and then by design. Laura is prickly and easily offended. Mike is well-intentioned but inarticulate. Laura is an intellectual with strong family ties (especially to her long-suffering sister). Mike is a landscaper with no family to speak of. They both feel like outsiders looking in most of the time. This series details their mutual yearnings and blunderings in a warm and humorous manner. By the end, I wanted terribly for these two awkward people to get together. A sign of a successful series.

Good acting, good writing, and good supporting characters. Highly recommended.


It's intriguing to me that many of the really good programmes were made in the 70s and 80s. This is a comfortable and funny situation comedy which grows on one like the rambling roses that the landscape gardener would add to his plans. One starts watching, thinking will it be worth it, I haven't seen it for years, and then click! suddenly it reveals its comedy wickedly and hooks you right in there. I can't see any fault in Judi Dench in Comedy - she manages Shakespeare's comedies OK.

If you don't need guns and gossip, this is for you.

Footnote, I had no idea they were supposed to be 37 and 43. I agree, why pretend to be younger? It works very well with ignorance.


I watched this series on TV as a teenager, and loved it. I saw it on sale, bought the first series, watched it, and loved it. I bought the rest, worked my way through it in a few days, and loved it. And I will watch it again.

The the main character's insecurity keep me wanting to know if they will make it, the well-timed one-liners make me laugh, and the mistakes made by the characters make me feel for them. The script is as good as the acting (which, though a bit theatrical, is superb). What the actors don't actually say, we understand from their body language.

As a teenager I fell in love with this story and with Mike, the shy little guy who tries to stand up for himself, and who maybe could be a match for dramatic Laura. Again I feel myself wishing to be in Laura's shoes - but then again maybe not...

If you are thinking about buying this series, stop thinking and do it! If you are an actor: you probably have a lot to learn from Williams/Dench.


This is one of those TV series you remember fondly from earlier days, due to its two stars and the gentle humour which honestly reflects the actions of two awkward people, each looking for companionship and never expecting to find it. Mike and Laura are made for each other in the eyes of their friends; it really is that obvious, but not to themselves, of course.

Viewers of 'As Time Goes By' may find the show less fun. Perhaps that's due to the late 70s and early 80s being a strange period, especially for those of us who managed to survive it without any scars! I've seen ATGB from beginning to end a number of times and am sure it was partly done as Judi's tribute to Michael. He's one of my three favourite actors, right up there with James Bolam and Alun Armstrong.

Some people have commented on the shortness of the series, but it was and still is common practice in England to produce seasons of less than 10 episodes per year, in order to maintain quality control over the content.


Visitor Q is hard to deal with, but I think I'd call this a masterpiece. This is an update of Pier Paolo Pasolini's Teorema. It's often compared to Pasolini's Salò because of its shocking content, but, plot-wise, it's virtually a remake of the 1968 film, brilliantly updated and moved to modern Japan. Teorema is not Pasolini's best film, but I do consider it a great one. It is a very simple allegory. Miike expands the concept even further. A family is falling apart, and a stranger whom nobody seems to know moves into their home and starts knocking some sense into them (sometimes literally). There are some truly disturbing things in Visitor Q that few people of sound mind and body will want to sit through. Fortunately, I am not of sound mind or body. If you can take it, the film can be extremely funny, as well. And I think it actually captures something truthful not only about the decay of Japanese culture, but also the rest of the world. It just does this in the most extreme way possible. Most will probably judge that it goes too far. I thought it was amazing.


among all the scenes -- of which there are many many memorable ones believe me -- the one which has the key to the movie is when the father is frantically taping the attack on his house and speaking at the same time and among a frenzy of "reporter-talk" he says,

"what are we supposed to feel?"

the key to the movie is, you are never allowed to know what you are supposed to feel. these days, whether you know this or not, we are frequently "told" what to feel. Takashi Miike takes this fact around, pulls the carpet from under all of us. he builds his film around the phenomenon of TV/media, emotion-building, exposing, exploiting. yet keeps this tension through the movie and does not allow us for a moment to settle in our armchairs, does not for one moment let us get into that comfy zone of being told what to feel.

and hence watching this movie becomes this eerie, stressful process as noted by everyone else. am i disgusted, indignant, amused, sympathetic, angry, confused? you are never told. you have to go through it on your own. and that is the point.


What is amazing with Miike Takashi's cinema is its ability to surprise you. This film is no exception.

Wery aware of its medium (a DV camera) Miike uses this cheap look to touch the viewer more deeply. The credibility comes from this disturbing proximity of the image (It looks like your holiday film). Recurrent use of subjective perspective, emphasis this. But, instead of falling into a dogma-like movie, Miike pushes the plot to its most unacceptable extremities, sometimes flirting with the fantastic genre.

Miike plays with multi point of views, particularly during the opening scene, in which the girl takes photographs of her father before they sleep together. Desorienting the spectator.

What astonished me when I saw that movie, is the amount of humor (noir)that grows up during the film. Here, shocking situations (necrophilia, humiliations...) become really funny. And from an awful family relationship, the plot evolves to an objectively even worst situation, but subjectively a much better situation for the characters.

Miike plays here with conventional Hollywood vision about family and gives a much cynical and humorist meaning to unity! A really enjoyable film I would advise to open minded mature people.


"Visitor Q" is an extraordinary motion picture. At first I was worried by the use of video as it normally seems cheap and crappy but then I noticed the angles that the director was employing and his abundant technique. A framed picture is a protagonist in one scene.

I had to avert my eyes at points. I have never liked needles. MIIKE seems to love them. The use of the hypodermic syringe was used brilliantly in his Motion Picture "Audition". A classic of modern Cinema in my opinion. The creativity in Visitor Q is boundless, slightly sick, I grant you, yet assured and beautifully acted. This is a strong film. The ideas are warped and execution is masterful.

TAKASHI MIIKE is a very talented filmmaker. He bears his soul with a project like "Visitor Q" and that is rare and brave. I mentioned acting earlier and find myself asking, "How far did these actors go?"

History has shown that the first actors were prostitutes. I sometimes wonder at the actors that walk the red carpet and ask, "What has changed?" Actors will do anything a director asks. This cast must have had great faith in their Director and great trust. The acting is faultless. At one point I did make the comparison with another great film "Man Bites Dog" because I found my self-laughing at situations so real and horrifying. That feeling is strange and I'm not sure I like it.

I cannot criticize this film in anyway. I still feel that the over use of video in Motion Pictures can be cheap and nasty lookin' but "Visitor Q" proves me wrong. Imagination overcomes any limitation.


Title: Visitor Q

Director: Takashi Miike

Review:

Jeez, I don't know where the heck to begin with this one. Well I guess it could be talking about Miike and how he is known for his ultra violent yakuza films or his love for shocking the heck out of his audience. But I could also talk about how he doesn't just shock for the sake of shocking. There's some context and a message that accompanies the shocking imagery. Such was the case with Visitor Q a very strange journey, but ultimately a very shocking, entertaining and thought provoking one.

The story is about this incredibly dysfunctional family in which everyone is living in their own little world. There's no unity...no love. Heck, when the movie starts out you think they are all different stories, then, slowly you start to realize that this people are all related and living in the same house hold. The mothers a heroin addict, the kid gets beat up at school by bullies, so he takes it out on his mother by violently hitting her, the fathers a failed reporter who is trying to come to grips with his premature ejaculation problem and the daughter, well shes a whore (literally!). So as you can see, this family is all over the place. In comes a strange visitor who suddenly starts to live with them, observing them from afar. Not talking much, just observing at the insanity of the everyday lives of this four crazy people.

The thing about this movie is that, yes it is very shocking with the images. In fact, I don't think you will ever see a movie as crazy as this one. I'm sure of it. Not even in your wildest craziest horniest dreams will you see the crazy things that you will see on Visitor Q. But you see, the film is not only about the shock value, for Miike makes sure that there is substance to the story, because it really touches upon some important social themes. It talks about the importance of family and love, about the role of the father as protector of the house hold, about the need of motherly love and about bullies getting whats coming to them. I think that many of the themes explored on this film are very relevant for the Japanese culture and I'm sure Miike is just venting all those frustrations out through this artistic outlet, but Ill be damned if all this social commentary isn't relevant to any other culture.

Then there's the Visitor Q. He is just someone who starts to co exist with the family and I saw him as maybe God coming down to earth and seeing this family quietly acting as only an observer, seeing what he has created and what his creation has turned into. He is almost emotionless...though he will let the family members know when they are doing something wrong by banging it into their head. Literally! Anyhows, I'm sure many people will have their own interpretation as to who the visitor is and what he represents...so Ill leave that up to you.

All in all I thought this movie was hugely entertaining, just because of the fact that I couldn't believe some of the things that were happening on the screen as I watched. Some of the things are so amusing that you cant help but laugh. At the same time, just like when you watch a film by Lynch or Cronenberg...you know there's some deep commentary on the human condition in there somewhere. So you watch...watch and interpret. Watch and try and figure it out. Amazed and shocked as you learn.

Is it a horror movie? I don't know, Its as much a horror movie as some might consider Mullholand Drive or Lost Highway a horror movie. It goes deep into those dark regions of the human mind. The insanity and crazyness of the situations can get horrifying if you look at it from that perspective. It does have some gore and blood, but Id say its more a horror movie because of the places that it takes us on a psychological level.

Though I must go down in saying that this film is certainly not for everyone. It certainly isn't for anyone who likes their movies safe and Hollywood like. Its not for those who love happy endings and that warm feeling inside. Its more for those unconventional people who like to dive deep into to the dark regions of the human psyche and are brave enough to see what they find.

Rating: 4 1/2 out of 5


This was the fourth Miike film I've seen (Audition, Ichi, Gozu...well 5th if you count his short from Three Extremes) and I think this was by far the most bizarre and disturbing. I'm not squeamish or easily affected by movies so it didn't really disturb me but I can see where it would be disturbing to the average viewer. Miike did manage to hit upon almost every taboo in the books. I'll admit that I did feel somewhat dirty because I got turned on by the opening scene...but hey, it's a just a movie.

Overall I think it was a unique take on the reality TV craze and voyeourism in general. While I didn't like it as much as his other movies that I've seen it's definitely worth checking out.


Takashi Miike has got to be one of my favorite film makers these days, I'm out searching for his stuff left and right. Visitor Q is probably the weirdest of his weird movies that I've seen yet, maybe more so because it's missing any of the supernatural elements present in most of his other films. I guess the closest thing that I could compare this to is "Happiness" by Todd Solondz, but parts of this drag that through the mud and make it seem somewhat wholesome in comparison. Almost. This takes dysfunctional family behavior out to the "n-th" degree, and yet I didn't find it that hard to watch. We have incest, parental abuse, heroin addiction, prostitution (runs in the family) and just good old fashioned insanity. Miike apparently has some thing for mother's milk, too, if you've seen Gozu then you know what I mean. Dad is a failed TV reporter, whose downfall had something to do with a televised interview with some young punks that inserted a microphone where he didn't want it. Mom is a mess, the young son beats her & she turns tricks to support her drug addiction. The young son is bullied and takes things on on mom, apparently. And the oldest daughter, who is no longer living at home, well, you'll see. Along comes a mysterious visitor who becomes a house guest after hitting dad on the head with a rock (twice). His purpose is somewhat unclear but he somehow brings the family closer together, not that any of what they're doing is particularly Ozzie & Harriet but they're still doing things as a family again. Heartwarming. Yeah, right. Anyway this is a disturbing watch and I enjoyed every minute of it. Highly recommended, if you enjoy the current wave of strange Japanese films.


Visitor Q is another excellent experiment by Takashi Miike to see if he can get his crew to quit, his audience to leave the theatre, and people to be offended to the point of non-completion of the movie. However, it was completed, just like the dozens of other Miike movies, and just like Ichi the Killer, Gozu, Audition, and other thrillers, the overall extremes of the movie are bounded together by a relentless imagination and a whimsical logic. This movie, like Audition, is billed often as a horror movie, but like Dead or Alive, what seems to be going in one direction actually becomes something completely different by the time the movie ends.

There is literally a line where the scenes of this movie get so extreme that they cease to be horrifying and instead become hilarious. Another example of Miike's skill is that he knows exactly where that line is, and at that point the direction lets the movie become more comedic as well. There is no better perverse pleasure than watching a married couple smiling and connecting after years of dysfunction as they hack apart a corpse together... especially following everything that's happened previously, which includes but is not limited to necrophilia, coprophilia, copious milk spraying, and random violence. You know, usual Miike fair.

This movie has its significance, as well. Miike has definitely tapped into the Japanese anxiety over traditionalism versus modernism, a conflict that can be found through almost the entire history of Japanese cinema (for a good discussion of this, see Donald Richie's "One Hundred Years of Japanese Film"). Miike's feelings are, like the best of Japanese filmmakers, ambivalent and assimilated. A stated theme of the movie in dialog is that Japan is falling apart because the traditional family is falling apart... yet that family comes back together through some of the most perverse acts ever recorded and distributed (besides Italian Giallo films, but this is better).

I have seen something like a dozen Miike films by now--the man produces them faster than I can watch them. It's a very rare filmmaker that continues to impress through so many movies. As long as he keeps it up, I'm going to keep watching them... and as long as he maintains his abject sensibilities, his lack of self-censorship, and his constant explorations of extremes, he'll continue to make classics.

--PolarisDiB


(BIG SPOILERS) I've seen one other Takashi Miike film, and that was the very disturbing and brutal 'Audition', which was an examination of the Japanese ideals of femininity! In 'Visitor Q'- which I think means 'Visitor Question'- he examines, in a very disturbingly gross way, the family unit. Miike's surreal vision of a dysfunctional family almost tries to be Lynchian in terms of confusion and film-making, but ultimately lacks the style and intrigue. We, the audience, are introduced to a bizarre array of scenarios from the opening scene with the father figure (Kenichi Endo- who was actually quite good) paying for sex with his displaced daughter (Fujiko). Then, as the father returns home, he is struck on the head by "the visitor" (Kazushi Watanabe) wielding a fairly sizeable rock, and for some reason, they both end up back at the family home. The mother (Shungiku Uchida) is beaten and bullied by her son (Jun Muto) who is also beaten and bullied by his school peers. When the visitor enters the home, he somewhat menacingly establishes himself as part of the unit. Eventually, the family begin to improve their relationship, with assistance from the visitor, through milking breasts, murder and retaining a sense of family pride.

And there are other crazy scenes that somehow bring the family closer together. It's has uncomfortable humour, but is equally frustratingly silly, and over-the-top in its weirdness. There is a necrophiliac scene that is utterly disgusting, but ends up being ridiculously funny as the scene progresses. Partly because of the situation itself, and partly because you can't believe the filmmakers and the actors are actually doing this! The style of the film is poor to say the least, and the plot is stupid and unbelievably weak. The characters themselves are all over the place, and while I understand this is not meant to be realistic, there is hardly any interest in these confronting characters and situations as all of them border on the absurd! The camera-work is sloppy, and doesn't have that cinematic feel that Lynch's work entails. It's hard to take this film seriously on a surrealist level, or on an interpretation of examining the family unit in Japan. It just seems that Miike was out to shock, and the film seems self-aware that it's "trying" to be shocking, and it becomes almost comical to be taken seriously. All in all, I would say that this film is a bizarrely dark comedy, but it looks and feels amateurish, and seems to unnecessarily want to shock. Miike's previous film, Audition, was finely balanced between disgusting horror, character development and technique- which established more intrigue in the way the film was crafted to allow the viewer to become engrossed with the plot. 'Visitor Q' is a step down as it tries too hard to be outlandishly bizarre and intentionally confronting, without really having much to say in the process!

** out of *****!