***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** OK, first of all, i didn't actually catch this during the mtv movie awards, i found it during a random downloading session. and all i have to say is, very well done, i was pleasantly surprised that somebody would actually do something like this. jack black is amazing as the elf with the pierced genitalia, an amazingly rude but not crude plot line. and im assuming SMG was supposed to be Arwen? well whoever she was supposed to be, she was good, comical at most points, and especially at the end when she ripped the ring from jack's privates. Sheer brilliance.


This little short movie from the MTV Awards is a parody on 'The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers', especially the scene with the council of Elrond. Jack Black is Sam and Sarah Michelle Gellar is Arwen. The parts involving other actors like Ian McKellen, Elijah Wood and Hugo Weaving are parts taken from the real movie. I like most of the movies MTV makes and this one is pretty funny. If you can get it it is worth the 3 minutes it takes.


This short parody of the Council of Elrond scene, included as an "easter egg" on the "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" Extended Edition DVD, is really not worth your time. I urge you to make better use of your time than to watch this crude, unfunny, MTV-made parody, especially when there are so many great things to explore on the Extended Edition DVD. After I finished watching it, I wondered, "This is it? This is what they give us as an easter egg on the extended version DVD of one of the best movies in recent memory? Does Peter Jackson really think that this is good enough to put on the otherwise excellent DVD of a truly spectacular film?" As another reviewer said, it's like a train wreck, you want to look away and stop watching but you can't because it's so bad. Good parodies can be incredibly funny, but this, however, is not one of them.


I like a good parody as much as anyone, but this was baaaaad. I love The Lord of the Rings and I'd love to see a funny parody of it, but this wasn't it. This was mostly junior high level humor. And I *never* wanted to see Jack Black's bare butt. Aragorn (love that guy) kneeling in front of him was *almost* funny. Almost. I would, however, pay to see Sarah Michelle Gellar bite off his "little hobbit" for real. >:)


CONTAIN SPOILERS

"Lord of the Piercing"is so bad,but so bad that I need to write this comment!

I was watching the 2002 MTV Movie Awards and this spoof appeared.I've read about it,so I thought it would be funny.But in no way it's funny!

The Spider-Man version also featured in MMA was cruel,but you could laugh.This one is 3 times more cruel,and completely unfunny.The writers should be thinking:"Oh,let's parody Lord of the Rings,with the worst kind of comedy and make people laugh".It didn't work with me.

I can't believe that some people(including Peter Jackson and Elijah Wood)actually liked it!

LOTR:The Fellowship of the Ring didn't deserve this,and Tolkien must be shaking at his tomb.

Grade:-1/10


This was one of the most vulgar and disgusting things I've ever seen in my life. And you straights think we gays are the freaks? You guys really need to look in the mirror. When something like this is played at an international awards ceremony and everyone laughs, you know we're near the end of the world. It's sick that everyone gets off on the genital mutilation of men. I guess since everyone is so use to mutilating the genitals of new born baby boys it comes as no shock. I'd like to see how everyone would have reacted if it was Sarah Michelle Gellar, instead of Jack Black, that had a ring ripped out of her genitals on national television. Yeah, a laugh riot. Thank God I'm Gay. You straights can do all that nasty stuff to each other, and take pleasure in each other in this sick way, all you want. Just don't EVER criticize gays as being the sick ones.

YUK!!!


This film is an attempt to revive the once-thriving Cambodian movie-making industry that was decimated by the Khmer Rouge government. Co-produced with Thailand, THE SNAKE KING'S CHILD is based on a folk tale about the child of a peasant woman and a snake god.

For westerners, the film's main attractions are visual. The cinematography is often striking, with atmospheric use of colour and shadow. All the characters wear eye-catching costumes. Actual Cambodian locations were used for many of the beautiful settings. Most memorable of all is Pich Chan Barmey's fabulous snake-hair effect, which easily outstrips any of the unconvincing attempts in western movies to portray gorgons.

Whether THE SNAKE KING'S CHILD will succeed in resurrecting Cambodian movie-making remains to be seen, but it certainly constitutes a promising start.

A letterboxed DVD, with rather eccentric English subtitles, has been released by Hong Kong's Winson Entertainment.


The poster / DVD cover of this Thai / Cambodian co-production looks quite cool, however, the actual movie fails to deliver. We get lots of glimpses of the hair made of snakes (the image on the cover), but that's about all that's fascinating about this film. It lacks suspense, it lacks action, well it actually lacks everything. Some nice visuals don't make up for those lacks.

I haven't seen that many Thai movies (yet) but those I have seen (among them the brilliant "Tears of the Black Tiger", the impressive "Nang Nak", the sensual "Jan Dara" and the entertaining "303 Fear Faith Revenge") made me curious for more. "Snaker" is the first disappointment in the territory. It's not completely bad, it's just not doing anything for me.

Rating: 4/10 (and I'm being rather generous)


I found this movie somewhat by mistake and am glad that I did. While it may not be the best movie ever made, but may will be one of the most important films of the decade. The film is one of the first full features made in Cambodia since the 1970's when the Khmer Rougue Regime took over. In 1975 films and other cultural activities were ordered to cease, and subsequently many actors, writers, and directors were executed. Eventually the Khmer Rougue fell, and Cambodia started to rebuild there film industry. What make this movie even more remarkable is the fact that it was made without any many of the essentials one needs to make a film, or even movie theatres in which to show it. Not to mention the complete lack of acess to such things as "digital effects" that Hollywood is all to reliant on these days. Yet some how they were ale to pull it off. The movie features some beautifully shot scenery, and may be worth the price of admission for the Ankor Wat(sp?) scene alone. Although there are some problems with the visual aspects of the movie, remember the resources the filmakers were dealing with, the color is very good. Pich Chanboramey does an excellant job as Soraya (the lead), as well as the other actors in the film. This film is a must see, and is hopefully a indication of a new renaissance of Cambodian film making. In case you were wondering why that Snake hair looks so real? Well.........it's really live snakes glued and tied to a headset


This is one of my favorite horror movies of the year. On of the first movies to be filmed entirely in Cambodia and in Vietnamese in many years. THe Snake Hair that the heroine wears looks so real..............know why? Because it is really is real live snakes. The director had trouble finding something that looked realistic enough with the budget they had so opted to glue/tape/tie real snakes to a head piece. Lets hope PETA doesn't find out about it. Nonetheless memorable, with excellent camera work.


'Rentaghost' was a children's comedy series by Bob Block, who also wrote the equally bizarre 'Pardon My Genie' and 'Robert's Robots'. It concerned an employment agency, run and staffed by three ghosts - trendy Fred Mumford, Victorian Hubert Davenport and jester Timothy Claypole. All used to 'teleport' by pinching their noses! Their landlord, and frequent victim, was Mr.Meaker. Each week, the Rentaghost gang would try their hand at something new - a taxi service, furniture removals, or entertaining hospital patients - usually with disastrous results. Mr.Claypole was always misinterpreting instructions - once, when asked to help Fred's parents move house - he did exactly that. Another story had Mr.Meaker turn into a budgie, and in yet another, his wife became a cocker spaniel. Whenever the doorbell rang, she barked! Fred's parents didn't know their son was dead - he was killed whilst working abroad - hence on home visits, he had to throw Mother's dinners away ( ghosts don't eat ). All very silly, but done with great panache. And it had one of the greatest theme tunes ever!


Dismissed by some narrow-minded or hyper-sensitive critics as a cliche'-ridden sitcom, full of the usual 90s yuppy stereotypes, J'EN SUIS is really a well-made, funny urban comedy. If the themes stated can be freshly presented and funny, why can't this be a great film? It is. Nobody should be offended. The film in my opinion just wants to make you laugh. It never insults any minority group, and it succeeds exceedingly. Throw in Quebec's best two young actors (Roy Dupuis and Patrick Huard), the sexy French star Arielle Dombasle, and a glossy cinematic vision of Montreal, and J'EN SUIS becomes even more enjoyable. The blend of Canadian and French actors produce a blend of French understandable by all Francophones (unlike many modern films which use variations not understood by those on the other side of the Atlantic), and humor accessible to all, free of regionalisms or cultural slants. Don't miss this beautifully photographed, funny film, now available in video with English subtitles.


I loved this movie, as will any fan of Roy Dupuis, best known for his role of 'Michael' in the TV series "La Femme Nikita." Sure, it's over the top at times, but it's supposed to be; it's a farce. I had a great time watching Roy's character, Dominique Samson, trying to avoid being caught in his own web of innuendos and half-truths he has spun and keeps spinning in order to keep his job. The confrontation with his wife when she learns of his "alternate lifestyle" is priceless. Patrick Huard, who plays Dominique's friend, business partner, and "lover," is terrific. His presence is supposed to help Dominique from being hit on or picked up by other men, but he does everything he can to exacerbate Dominique's predicament. Roy Dupuis gets in some great throw-away lines. Although we don't often get to see him in comedies, he does an excellent job in this movie. The single off-note is Dominique's mother, who is thrilled to learn that her son is in touch with his feminine side, read "gay." The subplot reinforces the main storyline, but it's a little too much to be believable. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who is in the mood for a good laugh


Due to his business taking a nosedive and his debts rising out of control, pretentious Montreal architect Dominique suddenly finds himself in need of a job and is desperate to hide his predicament from his young wife and family - but what do you do if being gay is a requirement when your perfect job comes along?

(Slight spoilers follow)

This hilarious satire pokes fun at bothstraight and gay attitudes and communities using outrageously funny stereotypes & clichés. The film follows Dominique in his ever more complicated attempts to keep his double life secret from both his family and employers - very very funny, even if you're only following the English subtitles.

The delectable Roy Dupuis plays Dominique through his journey of self-discovery, (from shallow to insightful,)with much aplomb. Patrick Huard makes a wonderfully funny & understated performance playing Dominique's long suffering best friend 'Pierre', and Albert Millaire & Normand Lévesque are fun to watch as the squabbling antique-dealer queens.

Altogether, a gem of a Frech-Canadian Film. This is pure satire at it's best - and the final message is great - love overcomes all difficulties, no matter who or what you are. As long as you're not narrow-minded or easily offended by the saucy humour, this is not a film to miss!


Very cute and very funny film, in French with English subtitles, though I doubt any of the females will be reading them, since the "visuals" in this movie are not to be missed. As he always is, Roy Dupuis is beautiful and charismatic, and Patrick Huard is just hysterical. This movie is just fun to watch on a gloomy day.


« J'en suis » is without a doubt one the crappiest movies ever been made in Quebec (and, believe me, i've seen a lot of bad movies in my life). Even without mentioning the fact that it's full of the worst cliches on gays as well as on artists or on anything else it despicts, the plot is lousy, the situations are ridiculous (not in an intended way) and the dialogs are simply atrocious. Avoid losing two hours of your short lives on this deliberately low aiming piece of junk; go take a walk instead, you'll feel healthier and, above all, smarter...


Lightweight romantic comedy, but Sir Ralph Richardson's last film and the only movie featuring BOTH Sir John Gielgud and Sir Ralph Richardson. Plus, Susan Brooks is adorable as the girl. I'm usually unaffected by romantic comedy, but I really enjoyed this film when I caught it late night many years ago on a cable channel. An American college student is invited to his rich English roommate's wedding and of course falls in love with the prospective bride. Cleverly written and well-acted. Amazingly, this movie doesn't appear in any of the film reference books, I've seen and it is doubtless not available on home video...


Invitation To The Wedding is the last film of Sir Ralph Richardson who plays a somewhat dotty old bishop who accidentally marries his grand niece to a visiting American who was just standing in for the groom at a wedding rehearsal. It was released two years after Richardson had died and it also features that other classical acting knight, Sir John Gielgud as well.

It was a family joke that Richardson had married a butler to a member of the royal Danish house under similar circumstances. And here the old boy does it again. But apparently Richardson had a sense about these things. Because it turns out that visiting American Paul Nicholas is really falling for bride Susan Brooks and he's got a week to make his case before the real groom Jeremy Clyde returns.

They must do things differently in the United Kingdom because I thought they would have had to have a license first. But that aside the young lovers, allegedly of college age and slightly over are all well into their thirties and even forties. They simply just didn't convince me as young people in love.

John Gielgud was in the film as an Eighties era reverend bring the United Kingdom some of the Billy Graham school of evangelism. I'm not sure what his purpose in the film was other than to be with a valued colleague and friend for a last time. His role was entirely superfluous.

However as a last look at thespian giant Ralph Richardson does deliver a great performance. To bad it had to be in such an ordinary film.


I have to admit that I haven't seen this film in a while, but I loved it as a teenager. It is very eighties, very sickly sweet, but Paul Nicholas is absolutely gorgeous in it! Not much plot, but some lovely camera work with cracking scenery. Don't watch this with anyone who isn't a true romantic through and through. Have just bought it on DVD from Amazon as I really want to see it again.

The basic plot is: girl is getting married, boy sees girl and falls in love-at-first-sight. Boy spends the run up to the wedding trying to win the heart of the girl, even though she thinks he's an idiot. You can probably guess at the ending. Lots of beautiful countryside, a gorgeous manor house and fabulous horses. The comedy is a bit funny-by-numbers, but it made me laugh anyway. If you fancy a feel-good movie, something to curl up to with a hot chocolate, this is worth the time. Be warned though, I can imagine it has probably dated quite badly.

All in all, a nice way to waste an hour or two.


I first saw this movie when I had a trial subscription to Showtime, and a brand new VCR, and I recorded it in VHS. I really enjoyed it, and have watched it many times since (until the VHS tape gave up the ghost). It IS a feel-good, ridiculously romantic comedy, very much enhanced by the bit performances of Gielgud and Richardson, especially his interactions with his pet rat that runs free inside the family chapel ("Ratty Old Fellow"). The lawyers' scenes make the movie worth watching as well. And the girl is ethereal. Acting ability be hanged. This movie, among several others, kept me sane while attempting to cope with my divorce several years ago. If Sleepless In Seattle moved you, give this one a try.


This movie, simply put, is Charles Bronson at his absolute best, and proves that he does indeed have the ability to handle drama/suspense. He delivers an extremely convincing performance which is, arguably, his very best. It is too bad that this movie is as obscure as it is, because if it had been produced state-side and been more mainstream, he might have enjoyed a much more critically-acclaimed career, deserving of a lifetime achievement Academy Award. However, this is not the case and die-hard Bronson fans get to enjoy this little gem while the rest of the world misses out because they were too busy shunning the unfairly typecast Bronson.


The film 'Rider On The Rain' (or, French title 'Le Passager De La Pluie') is simply a gem. But, do not buy the awful DVD from Orbit Media, released April 3rd 2006. There is hardly any colour and the print is atrocious! I have complained to Orbit and they said they are checking copies, but it is simply a case of poor quality in the Way the DVD has been made from the master. This is the worst DVD release I have ever seen. The picture is not clear enough either. I can't believe this mess. The only place you can get this film is France, but it's all in french (with Charles Bronson dubbed in French). However, the French DVD is by STUDIO CANAL and the print is breathtaking! Be warned.


I finally tracked down a copy of this rare gem on VHS here in T.O. and what can I say, this is an underrated and unique piece of fimmaking. I don't believe there's been anything like it before or since. The best use of Bronson's action hero persona since "Once Upon a Time in the West". It really is a shame that in the thirty plus years of Bronson's film career that he never found anything approaching this quality. Intelligently written and beautifully filmed, the movie resembles something of a photographed play with the lovely Marlene Jobert and Charlie squaring off in an unusual cat and mouse tale almost entirely consisting of their two characters during its' running time. I am officially begging either Anchor Bay or Blue Underground or whoever to produce a widescreen DVD of this little known film treasure.


A lonely passenger of a bus arrives in a rainy day in a remote place in Marseille; he stalks, follows and rapes the gorgeous Mélancolie 'Mellie' Mau (Marlène Jobert), who is married with a jealous husband that is a navigator of Air France and is coming back home. Mellie shoots and kills the masked rapist, but she does not call the police; she prefers to dump his body in the sea and destroy the evidences of his identity. Sooner, the mysterious Harry Dobbs (Charles Bronson) arrives in the location and meets Mellie. Harry seems to know what she has done, scaring Mellie and forcing her to tell the truth.

The cult "Le Passager de la Pluie" is one of those unforgettable thrillers of my adolescence, with intelligent and witty dialogs in the duel between Mellie and the smart Harry Dobbs and one of the most beautiful music scores of the cinema history. In this movie, Charles Bronson certainly has the best performance of his successful career, and Marlène Jobert is impressively beautiful performing a very clever character. Unfortunately this film has not been released on DVD in Brazil, but at least the rare VHS has a good quality of image. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Passageiro da Chuva" ("The Passenger of the Rain")


I saw this movie two or three times in the theater in 1971, when I was ten years old. My brother was obsessed by the movie and he used to take me. Now, after 38 years I saw it again on DVD, and it evoked some memories! I had still remembered since then some of the memorable scenes, like opening the fist of the rapist's body to find the button, and Charles Bronson giving Marlene Jobert the button. It is a great movie. One of the few earliest thriller/romance of its type (post-Hitchcock) to come out. The chemistry between Charles Bronson and Marlene Jobert is great, and I liked the walnut-throwing metaphor. It is a classic!


Upon watching this movie I really had only the Death Wish films to rate Bronson by but after watching the "Rider on the Rain" I can understand why he was an acclaimed actor. His role in this movie was superbly amazing as the 'I know what you've been up to undercover', his acting is unbelievable and I up until this movie had never seen him act so well and have so much dialogue. Granted I'am very unfamiliar with foreign films (to me they can be confusing at times, maybe that's just a concentration problem on my behalf?) and acting back in 1970 was a whole lot different than today, but nonetheless this movie is worth having on your shelf. It always takes me a few viewings to fully grasp the concept of most films but already by watching it this first time I'am really convinced that this could be his best outing (with the exception of the first Death Wish and Cold Sweat). I still have yet to see more Bronson classics but I'm just getting started and this one definitely 'wowed' me. I would recommend this movie to anyone who is a Bronson fan, must see stuff. 9 out of 10 stars.


I bought a VHS copy of Rider on the Rain in the early 90s when a video store was going out of business. And i had seen it on a NY TV station a few times in the 70s. I hope and pray to the DVD gods that this gets a nice release before too long. The dreamy feel to the entire proceedings is wonderful. Somehow this film is creepy, suspenseful and sweet all at the same time. Bronson and Jobert have such chemistry that i wish they would have done more. This is one of Bronson's 3 or 4 best performances and perhaps no other film tapped into his unique screen presence more than this one. It seems the European's always did understand his appeal more than we Americans. A classic suspense film which, in the end, is more about people, love and maturity than it is about suspense. "Did the bus stop?" "Yes, and a man got off." "The hell he did. Nobody ever rides here on the bus." "Then he must...have ridden in... on the rain."


Yes, folks, I'm sick of reading the comments "more violence from Bronson". This in my opinion is a minor masterpiece of a film. It creates an atmosphere; that of '60s Europa. Those who can't get into this film can't get into the '60s. I can see how Jim Morrison based Riders on the Storm on this. Marlene Jobert is great as the naive woman who stumbles into Bronsonian intrigue. The film itself directed by Clement is a success in expressing artistic vision in the guise of a "typical Bronson film". The comedic interplay between Bronson and Jobert make the film. It's basically an esoteric love story with that '60s feel that only us Jim Morrisons can appreciate.

Aside from this film I think Bronson is a great, cool, and at times brilliant actor. His great underrated films include: Death Wish (I hate every Death Wish sequel), Evil that Men Do, Mechanic, Once upon a Time in the West, and all his '60s and '70s stuff. His '80s stuff is the throwaway stuff.


I really love this movie... Yes, there are parts that are stupid, like when Bronson forces the french babe to drink alcohol.. What kind of technique is that?? And I didn't understand the walnut thing... I think Bronson must have been cracking them before he threw them... I heard he was one strong dude... I was only 14 the first time I watched it so one of my favorite parts was watching the french babe in her see through top... But the movie has stood up to time and it is as good or better, everytime I rewatch it... Since I live in the U.S. ,it is like taking a 1-1/2 hour trip to France, or at least what I would imagine France would be like, since I was never there... Great film, go see it... It is much better than most of the garbage films that are in the video stores today...


A young woman who watches a stranger get off a bus in the pouring rain, soon finds out she's being stalked by that exact man. When at home, the man breaks into her house (as her husband is away) and rapes her. Later on after the ordeal the man still happens to be the house, but she grabs a shotgun and shoots him. Where she would dump the body into the ocean. Then suddenly another man appears on the scene named Harry Dobbs, who goes out of the way to try to convince the young woman she committed a murder without giving too much away.

This tightly handled low-budget French / Italian co-production is an improbable, but an oddly bold and stimulating teaser that seems straight forward at first, then suddenly it leads you down many knotty paths (with Hitchcock shades) before breaking out the truth of the matter. It's a real curiously acute piece (adapted from a novel) by director Rene Clement, who gets interestingly respectable performances out of very fitting Charles Bronson (whose character is a hard one to figure out) and Marlene Jobert adding some innocent starch to her role. The film / story really do draw from these two performances in dissecting the character's formal makeup and inner workings in how they play a big part to the scheme of things. It's hard to tell the lingering intentions behind the bigger picture, as it becomes exhaustingly confounding in its investigative details and suggestive developments. The productively sharp script is thoroughly meticulous in disguising the truth; as barriers are broken to only go on to create new scenarios and leads.

Stark, moody atmospherics lend well to Clement's leeringly grounded, subdued style where it really breathes of a quiet intensity to its continuously building psychological framework and dour visuals within its slow-going nature. The gloomy opening stages really do build upon a creepy ambiance, which pulls you in and the score is sparsely used, but has a dramatic sting. The performances outside the central turns are finely tailored with the likes of Annie Cordy, Ellen Bahl, Jean Gaven, Steve Eckardt and Jill Ireland in one her first roles starring alongside Bronson.


Besides its dialogue being simply stunning in piling up repartee after absurdist repartee,the very plot of the film feels more as a joke at the expenses of structuralist critique than a structuralist text per se.

In short, it is multi-layered entertainment at its best, with a strong central characterization (Jobert) and great European locations.


I'm 18 and a huge fan of Bronson, and alot of you probably know because of the reviews i write all the time on Bronson film. And this is a change of pace for Bronson, tough but acting. Well i think he acts great all the time personally. But critics didn't like him very much, but did that stop him been the biggest star in the world?, i don't think so. He was one of the biggest stars back in early 70's to the till late 80's. I mean all the big films he's done, not bad for a kid from the dumps of pennsylvania. I have the dvd of Violent city and he say's in it about been thrown in Jail for going on a train and having he's head shaven, he had a bad life and look what he did with it has he got older. Made himself a big, and i mean big, big star.

Well in this film Bronson plays a cop who's trying to stop a serial killer who rapes woman, he rapes a woman on day and she kills him. And then Bronson comes to her saying he know what she did, he threatens her till she gives him the money the man had. But she didn't kill the man he's saying she killed. I can't say anymore because it'll spoil it.

It's very smart for it's time and i recommend it to anyone who loves film made in france and anyone who don't because it's Bronson performance that win you over.

Watch it, it's worth it.

10/10


This is an art film! It is weird, but take it for its beauty and its amazing animation, rather than a film to make a point. Foriegness is beautiful!

Enjoy this film for its richness of animation, its color choice, its music. Every aspect of this film blows me away. It is like you are in a different place. And that is the beauty of this film. You get to feel as foreign as the young lady in the film. There is wonder in all that is new and there is a beauty in what is foreign.

Also there is a bit of humor in this film. its humor is in the mockery of British life, the rain. The words she learns are part of this mockery.

watch this film.


This film was included in THE ANIMATION SHOW VOLUME THREE--a compilation of short films arranged by Don Hertzfeldt and Mike Judge. Overall, this is a very impressive DVD--and much of it is due to CITY PARADISE.

The plot of CITY PARADISE is pretty much indescribable, as it's very surreal and will make your head explode if you think too much. The animation style is pretty exciting--with a combination of live action and animation. In many scenes, the faces are digitized human faces applied to spider-like drawings--though many of the minor characters are simply animated. The backgrounds, like the people, are also a combination of digital images and animation.

The story, from what I am able to describe, is about a Japanese woman who comes to London. However, once there it just gets weirder and weirder but you also find yourself transfixed because of the unusual story and animation. More an artistic work than a cartoon.


So there I was, enjoying this weird and weirdly detailed movie with weird animation and a weird mix of styles (including real faces photographed for the expressions), and the credits start rolling when I think, "Wait a minute, is this music Joanna Newsom?" Not long afterwards, I discovered, "It is, it is Joanna Newsom!" Well, music isn't what makes a movie, even a short animation like this one, but anyone who knows who Joanna Newsom is (and many should considering the critical acclaim her album "Ys" received last year) will immediately understand the mood and tone of this short, which is about a Japanese in New York trying to learn and adapt to a new environment.

It's not the story that's the point, or the relative clarity in the moments (in Newsom's work, the lyrics, in this movie, moments like when the heroine tries to learn music), it's the saturated tone of it all. "City Paradise" is more than an animation, it's a fever dream. It's at times mythical, poignant, and yet disturbingly absurd.

Not that it needs Newsom's music to make it so. The animation alone is like suffering a bad acid trip. But when things like this come together so well and involve so many different styles and talents, it stands out as a beacon for deranged creativity, the chance that one person's unique taste will find other muses to create new expression.

--PolarisDiB


I found Sally Prager's portrayal of Claudia delightful. The character is intelligent, curious, full of wonder, and caring toward her younger brother. Her independence and courage are admirable. I sympathized completely with "Mrs. Frankweiler's" attraction to this spunky young girl. Ingrid Bergman's appearance toward the end of this movie elevates the film to a new level; as ever, her acting is superb.


I agree with the previous poster that this movie is not very believable. The problem is that I get the feeling this person doesn't realize the intended audience and never read the book. While not a faithful adaptation of the children's book, it did a fantastic job of capturing my imagination as a young child and creating new wonderful adventures in my mind. There isn't a museum or gallery that I attend without thinking about Claudia and wanting to hide out and create a wonderful adventure for myself. Yes almost 30 years after I read the book and saw the movie, I still have fond memories that are obviously lasting a lifetime. A job well done. (on the flip side, avoid the 1995 made for TV version).


I have to disagree with the posters who didn't like the film because it "isn't believable". My question to them is... Who would believe that a pregnant woman could live in a Wal-Mart or that a movie ticket can bring an action star out of the silver screen. It's a delightful little movie that I would watch over and over and over again either by myself or with the kids. It says something about the perseverance of and dedication of siblings, I only hope that my own children feel like that about their siblings... I haven't read the book yet, but am going to now that I know there is one. I have to be honest here... I was a preteen when I first saw this movie and I can remember going into my mother's medicine cabinet and taking some of her Alka Seltzer just to try it with chocolate sauce... After growing and having kids of my own... I STILL have one every once in a while! Still trying to find this move on DVD or VHS so we can have a copy here at home.


That's about it - imagine running away from home, living in a tree-house and having great adventures. This film was fantastic fun. It may not be highbrow art, but it is a fun film for the kids!

The other guy who commented on this film was obviously looking for something more adult and intelligent. I found that this film was well meaning and had good moral standing.

It is a film to take you on a journey and allow you to see things that you otherwise would not. A good exploration of posh kids meeting with street kids, alien experiences like living alone and being self-sufficient.

Very entertaining for a young mind hungry for stimulation.

It is about friendships and trust, independence and coming of age. Fighting your own battles and finding yourself.

I really liked this film when I saw it the first time in the 80's on television. I think I would enjoy it again, although I doubt I would watch it unless I chanced upon on television one night. I would consider watching it if I have kids, I would like them to see it.


I have never seen a film so unique and different!!!

'?' movie is the most original & humorous film I have seen since 'Team America'! The movie is able to link reality with fiction, like nothing I have ever experienced before, and it does it all with twisted, edgy, provocative humor.

Its real-life, hidden camera scenes are amazing! At first you have no idea that this is real, non-scripted footage, but at the end of the film, the producers prove it to you. I have no idea how they were able to pull this stuff off, but damn its funny and impressive! And the 3 main characters of the film, West the psychopath, Art the retarded & Nancy the Lovedoll, develop so well as the film progresses, while engaging in some of the most captivating dialog / interaction of any movie I have ever seen.

If anyone wants to see something absolutely funny & completely unique, you should definitely go see this film or buy it somewhere online, like amazon.com. I have even heard that there were 2 different versions of '?' movie made, 1 Color and 1 B&W, but I'm not exactly sure? I would love to see it again in B&W, if this version actually exists.

Arod


I own 'Wedding Crashers', '40 Year Old Virgin' and the 'Aristocrats', all of which I think are funnier than watching clowns box blindfolded in a vat of hydrochloric acid, but I must say, '?' definitely falls within this riotous collection of humor.

Though not loaded with "current" household names, '?' is as funny, off-the-wall and entertaining as its bigger budget counterparts listed above.

I can't get over the reality scenes, the adoring personalities of the film; 'Nancy' the blowup doll; 'Art' the retard; 'West' the twisted f**ck, and the overall feel + story which makes you laugh till you urinate yourself, and then cry like a kid getting his teeth pulled.

'?' is a must see/own film, which falls into the realm of cult-classic!


When I saw this film, I could not stop laughing! It is so so funny, I had to pause it sometimes because of laughing so very hard, before moving forward.

The Hispanic porno salesman is one of the best characters I have seen in any movie, and I have never seen a sex doll be a major important character before. And the real scenes in the film are much better than Jackass or Punk stuff, because it so real and not just a fake joke on someone. It is so amazing and crazy.

I think that everyone who wants to see a film that is really funny, different and will make you laugh and think a lot, they should see ? Movie.

muy bueno!!!!


I got to see ? Movie at a special sneak preview not too long ago, and I was absolutely blown away about how funny, edgy and flat-out different this film is from anything I have ever seen before.

The real-life scenes, which were "true" hidden camera shots, were amazing and brilliantly sculpted into the storyline of the film. Ironically, these scenes were not only unique, but seemed to actually validate the points that this controversial, in-your-face movie makes.

For those of you who want to experience something completely one-of-a-kind, edgy, and down-right hilarious, I would recommend you buy, rent, go see, whatever, this film as soon as you get a chance.


After viewing ?, upon my travels to the US a fort-night ago, I have developed a whole new sense for comedy.

At first, I was taken back by the film's unyielding, in-your-face, wicked humor and plots, however, upon completing this remarkable piece of cinema, I was able to digest and grip what the main characters' (West, Art, 'Nancy' - boy is she a hoot -) social positions in our/their world must be like. The pain, the disillusionment of being an outcast or mentally disabled, while lost in a cruel vortex of reality.

? movie is gripping, perverse, and brilliant. Hilarious, off-the-wall, while oddly majestic. The hidden, real-life camera scenes are exquisitely juxtaposed to its fictional storyline, and will perplex; awe extensively.

This new American comedy is what Monty Python and Peter Sellers were to us, altering the view of what humor can and will be. Fantastic!


Even if this film had been a noble failure it would have been a notable moment in cinema history. The fact that it is a set in stone masterpiece means that its impact is redoubled. As the multi-layered narrative weaves it way from one uncomfortable moment to the next, via hidden camera scenes too, one 'Question' keeps repeating in your mind; how the hell did this ever get made? Forget that though, and just enjoy the fact that it did, because moments of sunshine are often all too rare, a fact emphasized throughout this film. "?" might be a different beast altogether, but it's certainly an American beauty; I challenge you not to be uplifted by as satisfying an ending as I can remember.


It is rare that a director so succinctly and unflinchingly manages to commit his ideas to the screen with such conviction. For that alone, Tom Kennedy and Alez Harz deserve much praise. It is a remarkable achievement. What makes "?" a distinctly unnerving viewing experience are those very ideas and perceptions of human existence. This film holds true for people of all ages and from all strata's of society. "?" opts for a deadpan humor, coaxing us to laugh at these pathetic people not out of affection or understanding, but rather simply as a response to life as they see it. On a first time viewing the sheer despondency of these characters seems to overwhelm the humor, but watching the film again, the humor seemed far more blatant. Obviously this is not a movie for everyone, since this bleak view on human life is clearly not shared by all. But still, this is a work which is undeniably a masterpiece of sorts.


This is one of the best movies I've ever seen, but I would hesitate to recommend it to people whom I don't know pretty well. It explores aspects of life and living (and suffering) that most films avoid or actively deny. And it does so brilliantly. The characters are vividly real, and there is such a strong sense of situations unfolding in real time that it's truly mesmerizing. I felt like a fly on the wall, eavesdropping on conversations I could never hear otherwise. I think many people would absolutely hate this movie, partly because it doesn't pass judgement on behaviors that are repulsive to the bulk of humanity, and partly because it exposes us to them at all. There are only a handful of films that have a distinct polarizing affect on the audience--A Clockwork Orange, The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover, and I would even lump in Blue Velvet--these are movies you either get, or you don't. And if you don't get it, watch it again. Open minded viewers need only apply, and that's certainly the case with "?." I remember leaving my living room absolutely shocked, and not just because of the events on screen. I was shocked that I found the movie so intelligent and oddly entertaining. The actors surely must have felt that, after reading the screenplay.


How to explain "?" is almost an oxymoron in its own right, just by the name itself.

On its surface the comedy and plots are in your face, crass and direct. But, underneath its loud bark is an even more impactful bite. The humor is deep and serves to address important, yet rarely talked about issues in the world today.

"?" is a film that needs to be digested two or three times if one is to capture all its neunces, subplots and overt comical jabs at society.

If you have a strong stomach, and a love for twisted humor, you should own this film, otherwise, go buy another copy of Harry Potter or the Toy Story.


Question Mark was extremely disturbing, depressing, and dark. it was also bitingly funny. How i loved it! every character was very dysfunctional.. but in a way that was so real that it brought me back to my own traumatic past experiences.. it took me places in my head that i don't often go and sometimes avoid going.. and for that i thank it muchly.

it shows family & lovers that don't even know each other. they don't share their deep secrets and for the most part don't even try. they claim to love the shells around them while holding fast to their own. they're completely alienated & disconnected. most of the time they aren't even conscious of it because it's so routine for how they live.

there were so many interesting themes... characters who desired something deeply, then regretted it once it was theirs... pathetic self-defeating behaviors... sex and the pursuit of it... trying to be 'real' vs. living behind a facade...

i also *loved* the music...Hideous Input, I think did most the songs? i can't say enough about it.. oh, so good! but definitely not for the faint-hearted..


There's a lot more to add to this movie, than just saying that it's one of the funniest things I've ever seen! It's offensive and abuses the human ears, but that's ironically part of its charm. The outstanding use of vulgar humor is projected to the point of numbing morality for the near 2 hours spent watching it. But, if you look beneath the language and edgy material, this movie is SO DEEP!

Like other really good comedians, the Directors of '?' are able to tell you the depressing truth while making you laugh so hard you can hardly breathe. Beyond the comic genius and well delivered jokes, the political and social satire is brilliant, and the plot in no way suffers for all the other antics of the film. The seemingly simple, but actually complex story line shows how well-written and thought out the film was. I loved all the subtleties and symbolism, while the main characters, Art, West & Nancy make for quite a fascinating dynamic trio.

If you're not easily offended or disgusted, you should definitely give this film a look.


This film is wow. Just wow! I don't know how to describe ?, but its like nothing I've ever seen in Canada or during my vacations to the US.

Its funny as hell, but outrageous. It might disgust you. It might shock you. Or it might make you think a lot. It made me do all three.

This is no date movie that's for sure and not one for your grandparents or younger sister.

I was captivated by the live scenes. They seemed a little different at first, but then they seemed just right by making their points to the story. I loved these twists to the film. Definitely unique and one of a kind.

Anyone who wants to laugh at something different has to see ?. Buy, rent or borrow it as soon as you get a chance, but beware!


This movie was so funny I was laughing from the beginning to end, but I almost felt bad at times for chuckling hysterically at such edgy subject matter. Should I feel guilty for saying this is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen? Am I going to hell for that? But how can you not laugh at a retard erotically bathing a blow-up doll or the tragic death of a bum during an episode of roadrage? Why do so many people have trouble laughing at such things? Maybe they should have a drink with West and spend a night in a motel with him, Nancy and Art.

The only critique I have about the film's story is that it is not the easiest to understand or get at times. It isn't entirely mindless like you would expect given the plot and subject matter, like Jackass, Wedding Crashers or Anchorman are. Maybe that is what the directors Harz and Kennedy were trying to do, make you think a bit? I surely did.

Watch '?' with a strong stomach and an open mind and prepare to laugh!! 9 out of 10.


Very controversial, "?" may meet with many objections from parents groups, activists and the MPAA for its graphic content. Ranging from pedophilia, rape, masturbation, deep depression, to the spiting of the mentally handicapped, amongst other subjects. Completely off the wall real! "?" deals with the material raw, because that's how it shows it.

It's honest and it's brutal, and the Directors want the audience to understand the picture, but not without thinking about it or watching it numerous times.

Absolutely the most disturbing film that has been released this year, "?" pulls all the punches, and it's material, while uncompromising, is brilliant. There's nothing more engrossing than watching West & Art suffer breakdowns, after being pushed to the brink, or witnessing the demise of a seemingly innocent blow-up doll, after winning over our hearts and minds.


This is a straight, nonsensical comedy starring 2, or should 3 (Nancy) actors I have never witnessed before. On the same vein as "Dumb and Dumber" and "There's something about Mary" (the Farrelly brothers), I found this movie to be a humorous "Fight Club". In fact, I liked a lot more how the conflict of multiple personalities is handled on this movie; the ending, actually, made a bit more sense (though it would be a toss-up to say this film is better than Fight Club).

The film-making tandem of Tom Kennedy & Alex Harz, seem to have the potential to be the next Farrelly brothers or Trey Parker and Matt Stone: aiming for the limit of what audiences might stand in front of a screen. Be sure to watch this film with your best friends, and get ready to laugh yourself silly over this one. It's a good one!


I have to admit that the first time I saw this film (the color version) I wasn't too enthused with it, probably because it was 3am on a Sunday morning. But after I saw it a second time (the full Black and White version), I fell in love with it and I now own it on DVD and have seen it quite a few more times.

I found this movie to be very interesting and also very saddening. Though it is characterized as a piece of fictitious work, "?" is brutal honesty in its rawest form. While many will knock this film because of its pornographic nature or constant attacks on society, I was able to see the deep, hard points the story brings out about the world we live in today. Those who criticize swearing in movies and the other things meant to be rude and crude, will not like "?", but these elements were downright funny to me and fans of the dark comedy genre should definitely own this film!

I do really like this film, and it made me laugh over and over again.


? is a film that speaks volumes about society as a whole.

Through aggressive, pungent humor, the movie hits home on what life as an outcast could be like in today's materialistic, capital driven world. West, going nowhere fast, Art unfortunately, nowhere ever, and Nancy, though being a symbol of true unbridled love, her synthetic limitations and tragic circumstances leads her down the same dead-end road as her male co-stars.

? definitely tests the outer boundaries of humor, but uses this so cleverly to attack some very critical issues facing our society today.

I felt, really felt emotion while watching this film! Disgust, hate, happiness, sad, pain, intrigue, and most of all, I laughed, when I probably shouldn't have.

Thanks Mr. Harz & Mr. Kennedy for this experience!


I read positive reviews of this movie before heading to a Boulder video store and grabbing it off the shelf. I was extremely happy I did so as I haven't laughed this hard in quite some time! I was literally in stitches about 1/3rd of the way into the movie. I really can't remember the last time I laughed so hard while watching a film!

Question Mark is also one of most interesting and original movies I've ever seen. The first thing you'll notice are the unique dialogues between West, Art and the other major characters of the film, but especially between West & Art (the main 2 characters). This movie is truly memorable. I highly recommend it to anyone looking for something beyond the usual Hollywood crap, although the language may turn some people off. It's a refreshing blend of genres, something like Dark Comedy, Drama, mixed with a little Action. Highly quotable, hilarious, and very entertaining. It was a blast!!


If you are easily offended or you plan on watching this with the granny at Christmas, I recommend you don't! The subject matter in this film is as difficult as you can imagine. But if you are a real film buff that loves acting and content of the finest order, then I suggest that you watch this as soon as possible.

? is unlike any movie I have ever seen. The dialogue is fantastic and keeps you gripped throughout, but you cant help feeling that you are snooping on the private lives of 2 people that are as mixed up as you can possibly get. Some of the conversations between West and Art feel a bit hard to believe, but somehow that makes the film quirky and highly watchable.

This is one of the greatest films ever for people who like weird random comedy, and I repeat, for those who aren't easily offended. It is a uniquely American celebration of in your face humor. A film not to be missed. 9 out of 10.


Very possibly one of the funniest movies in the world, but probably not Oscar material, since Borat, Monty Python, Eddie Murphy, and the like will never sniff site of such honors.

Trey Parker and Matt Stone are hilarious and before you see this film I suggest you see "South Park" and maybe even Borat, two of the funniest movies ever created. Now you're mindset will be ready for "?". Buy the 2 DVD and CD set on Amazon if you can, but rent it if you must. You will laugh every time you see it. "Pure" stroke of genius.

If you don't think its funny then you have no soul, don't like off-the-wall humor, or are incapable of laughing because of too much botox. Not perfect, but awesome, even for you ladies out there who don't like weird and different films.


'?' : Is a raunchy, daring, slap your face off take on America today. It appears to have been made by super-intelligent pre-pubescent boys, and I mean that as a compliment.

Everyone in the American societal web seems to be lampooned and held up to ridicule, some definitely more than others.

The entwined undertones of the movie kept me from fully enjoying it during the first pass through, because of having to think a bit too much to decipher the true nature and purpose of the lead actors' (West + Art) dialogue and conduct. Thus I watched it 2 ½ more times, which finally brought me full comic release. I don't know if I am just dumb, miss the American-specific subtleties, or if the Director/Writers intended to make the film a thinkers-man comedy, deep and dark? I would like to say the later, but you can judge for yourselves. Viewers would be well advised to leave any sensitivity at home, you won't need it. The masturbation/rape scene is pure brilliance (never knew a "fork" could have so many uses??) and the church diatribe is one I will never forget. Memorable scenes abound throughout '?', but be prepared to think, awe and feel guilty for laughing.

Overall, a very so-wrong, yet it's so-right way to spend a few hours.


Although I wasn't originally interested to see "?", I was convinced by my friends and the reviews hailing it as a comedic magnum opus that I should watch this film or films (I heard there are actually 2 versions of the film?), which supposedly challenges political correctness and taboo sensitivities, while exposing the dark underbelly of our society.

Anyway, this film does do that for sure, and is a perfect blend of scripted story with the main characters (West & Art) unscripted encounters with innocent subjects, ala Borat, which are in many ways the funniest parts of this offensive movie. It is a great inner journey film, imagine "Rain Man" meets "Borat", "Jackass", "Life Aquatic" and something from Tarantino or Lynch, if one can envision that??? A fan of any of these may definitely be pleased, but unsuspecting viewers may watch this movie with their jaws wide open!


This ground breaking movie, much like the ground breaking sounds of NIN, '?' has been discussed, praised, shunned, ripped and probably copied since, that you can easily lose sight of the fact that what you have here is a genius-ly original film, and when experienced over and over again, STILL never fails to amuse.

This movie is one of the few I would describe as genuinely "unique" and "stellar". I honestly cannot fault many things about it, except a bit too long??? The brilliant dialogue, the fantastic group of actors, who range from everywhere (in age and ethnicity, even to inanimate objects), are all uniformly excellent, and the soundtrack is the coolest of any independent film (which rarely ever have one), I have ever heard. The band Hideous Input is awesome!

In short, this is an indie classic, and required viewing for all black comedy buffs, especially demented nuts like myself. '?' is as good as any comedy you care to name, believe it. Not perfect, but 8/10.


If you really like bizarre, different style stuff, you'll enjoy this film. It has laughs all the way through, with only a few breaks to give everyone watching a chance to redeem themselves and cool off from the humor. To be honest, I think its unwanted silence to cater to character/story buildup, which may or may not really be needed. The film is in your face, strange, hard to categorize.

While the story line is nothing Oscar worthy, the dialog and acting keep this film moving at a brisk pace. Tom Kennedy, plays an everyman who hates his life, job, and girlfriend but has no idea what to do about it, a Falling Down of sorts, with a Johnny Knoxville twist. His sidekick(s), Art, played by Alex Harz, brings some comical Rain Man or even Sling Blade behavior into the mix, while the blowup doll, Nancy, takes on the weird role of Dr. Ruth combined with Jonbenet Ramsey and the good old wholesome girl next door. Weird, definitely unique! The supporting cast represents an eclectic and entertaining blend of character actors spanning all race and age brackets.

Its not the best movie ever, but easily one of the most different, unique flicks I've ever seen. Rating: 4/5


For a lot of film fanatics "?" may be the modern-day equivalent of Pulp Fiction vs. Monty Python, and a contemporary indie masterpiece. Whether or not this sort of praise is warranted, "?" is still an all-around well-made film with pitch perfect casting, exceedingly memorable and quotable dialogue, and the sort of high quality not generally seen in a directors' duo debut.

The film tells an interlocking tale that takes place in the underbelly of our culture. Its stylistic approach turns an ordinarily low-life, underachieving college grad, a charming mentally disabled teddy bear type, and what would normally be a repulsive sex toy for many, into a highly engaging, pseudo-intellectual dark comedy experience.

Beyond the obvious portrayals of unflinching darkly comedic behavior, rapid-fire pop cultural and profanity-laced dialogue, there's an amazing depth to its plot/story. "?" is a one of a kind wild ride for the comedic senses and dark emotions, and truly an important piece of indie cinema.


I missed the first advance screening of this film, so I was sure to be one of the first in line for the second one! Anyway, '?' ("Question Mark") perfectly blends a scripted story with completely unscripted encounters to make a film that is definitely the funniest, most offensive movie in the last several years, with the exception of Borat of course. I'm not actually sure how many scenes were entirely real vs. scripted, but I'm guessing about 4  6. Please correct me if I'm wrong if you wish.

Eitherway, it's a great journey movie that reminds me of "Sling Blade" mixed with "Up in Smoke", "Jackass", "I'm Gonna Get You Sucka" and "Pulp Fiction", if that's even comparably possible; and this all coming from a woman who loves offensive, crass humor. Fans of dark, peculiar comedy will definitely be pleased, and unsuspecting viewers will watch this movie with their jaws wide open.

I recommend '?' for anyone who wants a complete change of pace when looking for a comedy. Well, those are my comments for whatever they're worth.


This movie has a realistic, thanks to the way its acted, aura about it, though is it supposed to be an in your face, over the top comedy. However the movie definitely shocks the audience with its humor and doesn't fall flat in that department either. Some of the strange things that are happening in this movie most probably happened to everyone once in some degree in their lifetime, so in some weird way, everyone should be able to relate to the characters and events that are occurring, rather than just being shocked by them.

But the makers obviously tried to create shock and awe for the audience with its controversy, that's for sure. It is as good as Clerks, not quite as Pulp Fiction, but about the same as Borat. Throw in Billy Bob Thornton with Johnny Knoxville and some Jim Carrey mixed with an angry Edward Norton and you get the feel of what "?" is all about.

In short, it works well as an off the wall comedy, but works even better as a disenfranchised, controversial statement on modern western life.

I 'enjoyed' watching this movie and thought it was really good for what it is.

8/10


Viewing this film makes you question, no pun intended, yourself on whether or not you want to continue watching it. Not because it sucks, not because its boring, but because you have to question on whether or not the deep, crass, in-your-face approach to its storyline falls within your humor and cinematic appeal.

At first I was disgusted, but then when I started to get to know Art (poor big, rich teddy bear character), I couldn't help following his plight and unbalanced relationship which develops with his co-star (West - twisted, disenfranchised, sociopath) until the film presented a resolute conclusion.

The story progresses with these elements flaming into a feverish pitch until reaching a climatic ending, while the whole time holding on to its roots of truly twisted humor.

Why not?!  7 out of 10


The directors have broken some boundaries with this film. Not only is "?" one of the funniest, pseudo-realistic depictions of our nation's outcasts, but it also brings out a bizarre fear of not dealing with this element of our population closer to home.

Parts of this film are not fictitious works, rather raw, honest cinema, but to those who haven't seen it, I won't give any of this away.

While many will knock this film because of the pornographic nature, I saw past that and witnessed the birth of a twisted and compelling storyline. I never once saw this as a shock film or disgusting; I saw honesty, truth, and a truckload of humor behind every scene. This is the modern world, and there are new forms of entertainment for us to adapt to and be entertained by.

"?" is a film that may not leave a very good taste in some peoples' mouths, but then again it isn't supposed to. It is better, more honest and a whole hell of a lot funnier than any reality program out there, and it may even freak the daylights out of you.


The most striking independent feature seen by this reviewer since Reflections Of Evil, the interrogatively titled ? shares some themes in common with that earlier film. An angry suspicion, or rejection, of the American dream for instance. Particularly that of consumerism, social responsibility and the way to personal happiness, not to mention its similar concern with aspects of mental health and a fierce, deadpan humour. But Packard's magnum opus was a scream of impotent rage from just one disillusioned individual. In this film from actor-directors Alex Harz and Tom Kennedy, while it also features a central character with an anger management problem (West, played by Kennedy), the charmed circle is extended to include a companion: Arthur (Harz), an amiable 'retard', as well as in turn his inanimate, if beloved companion, the inflatable sex doll Nancy. As West takes Arthur under his wing for a few days we are in for a memorable stay.

Citing David Lynch, Stanley Kubrick, Monty Python, the Coen brothers and fellow Colorado filmmakers Matt Stone and Trey Parker as influences, co-director Herz says the main intention of his film was to provide something unique, all the while evoking emotions. Others with less sympathy for the results have seen them as just "the Farrelly brothers with a mean streak". To this viewer at least there's no doubting the memorability of the disreputable and distinctly un-PC activities of his outsider-heroes, shown as they are without judgement or sentimentality. The humour may be shocking for some, especially with the heavy sexual dimension, but never cruel, and together Arthur and West are an unforgettable experience. Their impact is increased by the inclusion of four scenes shot with unsuspecting members of the public as the peculiar duo sit in a diner or play out in a park. As they interact quite naturally with others, it dawns on the viewer that perhaps these two oddballs are not so peculiar after all, and that they'd perhaps fit in very easily with the eccentricities of society at large. The effect of such moments is to make their fictional moments together almost natural, as if the peculiarities suggested by blaring polka music, alien masks, the affection for sex dolls and barely suppressed rage of the unemployable exist behind every lace curtain on the block.

When playing the endearingly loopy Arthur, Harz has perhaps the most demanding role in the film. To be fair, he's no Rain Man. In fact, we're always aware of his performance as 'performance', with none of the all-round convincingness of mental handicap that one finds, for instance, in W. Earl Brown's cousin Warren in There's Something About Mary (1998). As the credits role at the end of ? we see Harz reassuringly back to 'normal' in the outtakes. Never the less Arthur is a watchable, warm creation, one's tempted almost to say endearing, while his peculiar peccadilloes, sexual or otherwise, ultimately add to rather than detract from our sense of his humanity. At the centre of one of the most controversial moments of the film, that of the date rape, despite his porno enthusiasms, Arthur remains essentially an innocent. To a certain extent he even helps temper West's frequent misogyny. (Unlike his co-director, Harz's career has blossomed somewhat since making ?, appearing in no less than four projects in 2008).

In similar fashion to Eastwood's A Perfect World (1993), ? also begins on an enigmatic shot which presages the final tragedy. So it's a film told in flashback, even though it's not a process we're aware of until towards the end. Meanwhile there are other flashbacks too, notably those which reveal the central characters having both been victims of childhood sexual abuse - a process though which presumably has left West with a sense of injustice that's his wellspring of rage against the world. The drug rape of Patsy is his idea, although it's promoted less for his own advantage than a wish to see his new friend reach an overdue fulfilment. West's history is also the reason, we suspect, why he takes the exploited Arthur so readily under his wing, and it leads to one notable fantasy sequence where West instructs a line of bikers just how to put the world to rights.

Perhaps it's a world to which such fantasy, emotional disengagement through mental handicap, or alienation through rage is the only sensible answer for, as the film shows, it can all end in tragedy. Ultimately, Arthur, Nancy and West only have three days together. The end of this time is signified by the mistreatment and 'death' of the doll and then West's hit and run accident, in which he runs over a derelict. Just like the aliens on Arthur's wall (the blank, abductor faces of which recall that of Nancy's permanently open-mouthed latex charms) Arthur and West are, in their way, also strange beings in a hostile world. If by the end West's rage has been transformed into something approaching acceptance of the way things necessarily are, they remain according to the final shot, like a pair of strange sheep penned in amidst the greater, unthinking herd of mankind.

? comes in colour and black and white version, both included as part of the same boxset, with the film's 'real life' scenes made distinct within each version by colour or lack of it. Even more generously, the set includes a full soundtrack album, although this lacks the Mozart that so memorably underscores some of Arthur and West's escapades. Such generosity makes up for the lack of a commentary track. The picture quality is excellent, by the look of it being shot on HD video.


While this film is not as sleazy as SLAVES IN BONDAGE or GAMBLING WITH SOULS, two earlier films that featured star Wheeler Oakman as a pimp, ESCORT GIRL is slickly made and well-acted by a wonderful cast, and while it doesn't "show anything", it does have a seedy, dirty feel to it, even though it's not unlike a studio-bound, low-budget Grand National crime drama. Oakman, great as the heavy in so many westerns, gets a meaty role as the co-owner of a sleazy escort service, co-run with Oscar nominee and major star of the silent era Betty Compson. Compson's daughter, who has been attending fancy boarding schools in other states, does not know what business her Mom is REALLY in, and suddenly appears out of nowhere. When Compson and Oakman learn that the daughter's boyfriend (Robert Kellard, featured in some classic serials, and playing the title character in the 1947 Columbia serial TEX GRANGER) works for the District Attorney's office, things start to get complicated. It's a joy to watch two pros like Compson and Oakman work--Compson's monologues about motherhood and the dirtiness of the escort business are delivered as if they were great literature. Also, this film LOOKS great. The VHS transfer looks as if it were shot yesterday. There's an incredible plot complication about two-thirds of the way through the movie that I won't mention, but is amazing, and the drunken "confession" after it is classic. In addition, the great screen drunk Arthur Housman stumbles through one scene, and Rick Vallin is priceless as a gigolo who is stuck with an elderly but rich lady as his date, night after night. It's a running gag throughout the film, and Vallin plays it to the hilt. I've probably watched this film a dozen times over the years. It's not as sleazy as other exploitation films, nor is it weird like a Dwain Esper film--it's VERY competently made. It just has a strange appeal to me. Perhaps it will have a similar effect on you? Fans of Wheeler Oakman or Betty Compson will not want to miss it.


The only other reviewer at the time of my posting states that the quality of his VHS transfer was excellent, while my 'remastered' DVD print is about as second rate as they come. A lot of jump cuts and missed dialog however doesn't hurt the flow of the story all that much, but even so, what you're left with it are some of the most over the top melodramatic performances you'll find coming out of the era. All in service to the melodramatic nature of the story, as an undercover investigator attempts to expose the ring leaders of an escort bureau. Drake Hamilton's (Robert Kellard) mission becomes complicated when his fiancée is set up to make a call on him as a 'date' from the escort service, but the arrangement is so awkward you'll wonder why June (Margaret Marquis) just didn't explain the whole story when she got to his room.

I'm always amazed at the way times have progressed when it comes to how expensive things are today. The fee for an escort back then - ten dollars plus expenses while on the date!!! That didn't include any business the gals did on the side, I guess that's where entrepreneurial ability came in.

There are some genuinely laughable scenes here, not all of which were meant to be I'm sure. One which had a lush (Arthur Houseman) walking into a fern a couple of times, making this viewer wonder which of the two was more potted. And gee, I wonder how many drinks it would take to make a high roller like Snuggles (Isabel La Mal) look good. But the scene that will have you sit up and take notice is the dancing stripper, didn't she have a nice pair of ... legs?

The grand finale really goes for the gusto, and I for one actually wondered how investigator Hamilton was going to explain the whole thing to the authorities. Now that would have made for a great sequel!


As proprietor of a Hollywood "Escort Bureau", Betty Compson (as Ruth Ashley) procures young men and women for paying customers. The kind-hearted madam has kept her business a secret from fetching young daughter Margaret Marquis (as June Ashley), who spends her time in finishing school. But, things get complicated when innocent Ms. Marquis goes home to live with Mother Compson.

Marquis' good-looking fiancé Robert Kellard (as Drake Hamilton) also arrives. Soon, authorities move in on the racket run by Ms. Compson and partner Wheeler Oakman (as Gregory Stone). Fiancé Kellard goes undercover as a male escort, to investigate the area's illegal trade. Guy Kingsford (as Breeze Nolan) is the ringleader.

"Escort Girl" is a chance to see former silent screen great Betty Compson in a later years role. And, a generous scene features women in various stages of undress. Sporting a figure you won't forget, the dancer in pasties is a titillating highlight. Handsome gigolos Kellard and Rick Vallin are kept fully dressed.

**** Escort Girl (1941) Eddie Kaye ~ Betty Compson, Robert Kellard, Margaret Marquis


Okay, no Oscar bait here. The only question is whether this exploitation flick is bad enough to be good. In my book, there're not enough campy moments to qualify for Ed Wood territory. The trouble is middle-age actors Compson and Oakman are simply too accomplished and get too much screen time to bring down the material to subterranean levels. The young couple qualify with some truly sappy moments and bad acting, but unfortunately those are overcome by their two elders. For the voyeur crowd, which includes myself, the girls' underwear conflabs are more like sorority get-togethers than a bunch of hookers exchanging tricks of the trade. Too bad. Ahhnevertheless, there is that one brief shining moment when this really shapely little number comes out of nowhere to peel down to pasties and fringed g-string that makes the whole 70 minutes worthwhile. I love the bad lighting that made the scene look like an out-take from a stag film. I suppose the producers figured they needed to deliver more than chatty escorts and naughty innuendo to the balcony crowd. Anyway, I'm sorry to say that this cheapie just isn't distinguished enough to enter that rarefied circle of demonic druggies, promiscuous teens, and wayward women, otherwise known as 30's camp classics.


The very first episode of the original Trek series to air, though this was the 6th one filmed. The execs wanted to start things with a 'monster-of-the-week' mentality, but though the creature in this one is responsible for a number of crew deaths, it's more to be pitied than reviled by the end of the episode. It possesses startling chameleon powers, coupled with hypnotism & telepathic ability, enabling it to fool all the cast members during the story as it imitates several of them. Unfortunately, it craves salt, which it needs to survive, and human bodies fill the need very well. This is an example of sheer incompatibility between two races, which an angry Captain Kirk instinctively realizes in the 3rd act - he knows it's either his crew or the creature - there can be no half measures. We learn how intensely Kirk feels when he loses a crewman - check out the first killing here - and he has to go thru it a few more times in this episode.

The Enterprise is on a routine check-up of 2 archaeologists on a planet with the ruins of an extinct civilization - but not all the inhabitants are extinct, as it turns out; there's one left. The storyline contains mystery and a chilling revelation. But, much of this episode emphasizes the routine: we never find out anything more about the dead civilization - it's probably one of many the Federation finds and explores; ship's and crew's routines are viewed during the creature's stalking, notably Yeoman Rand and Sulu; there's a casual banter between Kirk & McCoy which we all came to appreciate and look forward to in the next 3 years. Overall, this episode shows that future life, while with obvious differences in technology, will be largely the same for us humans. If there's a theme in this episode, it has to do with the inevitable extinction of a species, such as the American Buffalo, as if it's a rule of the universe. We can express sorrow for such a loss as part of the human equation, but, in the end, there's nothing we can do about it.

However, the reason this episode probably gained some loyal followers of the Trek franchise right of the bat was probably not the monster. No, it must have been that easy interplay among the crew, especially the central trio - yes, including Spock, who right away starts insisting in this episode how he's immune to emotion but obviously enjoys a friendship with Kirk (Uhura even spells this out). And the human equation is delineated in McCoy's story in this one: he's reunited with his old girlfriend, so he's charmingly nervous as all hell, but in quick order, finds out she's been dead and her imitator must be killed, even though she's the last of her kind. Not only is this a personal tragedy for him, but he's also responsible for sealing the coffin on an entire species. The anguished look on his face towards the end is what makes this a memorable entry in the Trek mythos.


I'm not a writer and probably wouldn't know the difference between a great or not-so-great story, but as one of the many baby boomers who has seen every episode of Star Trek - The Original Series, I feel "The Man Trap" is one of the best written. There were so many little sub- scenes that were out of character with most of the episodes that followed. For example, when Yeoman Rand brings lunch to Mr. Sulu, or when Capt. Kirk is eating a snack while on the bridge conducting a search, or when Uhuru is trying to make small-talk with Mr. Spock while he's at the helm. This was all great for character development, but I really missed this type of "not part of the plot" interplay in the episodes that followed. Also, the message of the right to survive vs. extinction was nicely done. I've made it a point to check-out some of George Clayton Johnson's other work . . . his Twilight Zone episodes in particular.


Predating the same mistake they made with Seinfeld's second season (specifically, the last four episodes) by 25 years, NBC aired the first episodes of Star Trek out of order (the approved pilot, Where No Man Has Gone Before, was broadcast as Episode 3). Not that it's a major problem: for one thing, the original Trek is famous for not having any significant narrative continuity between episodes (something that changed with the spin-offs); secondly, The Man Trap is just as good an example of what really makes Star Trek a riot to watch - the interaction between the characters.

Starting, like any other episode, with the "Captain's log, star date whatever" narration by Captain James Kirk (William Shatner), The Man Trap takes place on a deserted planet where a scientist (Alfred Ryder) and his wife (Jeanne Bal) are studying the remains of an ancient society. The starship USS Enterprise is orbiting around the planet so that Kirk can give the two new food supplies and the ship's physician, Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy (DeForest Kelley), can check on their medical condition. This proves to be a bit awkward, since he and the woman were romantically involved once. Greater problems lie ahead, though, as Enterprise crew members are found dead. The cause is salt deprivation, and the strange marks on their necks suggest someone or something is doing this deliberately. Now it's up to Kirk, McCoy and Mr. Spock (Leonard Nimoy), the Enterprise's half-human, half-Vulcanian scientist, to find out what's going on and how to stop it.

As is the case with most Star Trek episodes, the plot is quite simple: new planet, weird event, people in danger, Kirk and his pals saving the day. It's essentially the blueprint for the monster-of-the-week stories of The X-Files, not to mention the reason NBC agreed to give the show a chance (the original pilot, The Cage, was rejected because it was considered "too cerebral"). The apparent simplicity is used as a tool to conceal deeper issues in later installments, but here it's exactly what it looks like: a very basic script that allows any viewer to access the classic Star Trek universe without worrying about any complicated, underlying "mythology" (an element that has been mandatory in successful genre shows made after 1990). In that sense, the first Trek series is the science-fiction equivalent of Seinfeld: watch a random episode, and you'll enjoy it just as much as if you were viewing them in the correct order (the feature films changed that a little, but it's another story).

But if the stories are that simple, why bother? The answer is equally basic, but not less relevant for that: the leading trio of Kirk, Spock and McCoy (even though they weren't acknowledged in that way until the start of Season 2: up to that point, only Shatner and Nimoy are credited in the title sequence; everyone else is listed in the closing credits). The elementary combination of a curious, optimistic leader, a less cheerful doctor and a purely rational, (mostly) emotionless half-alien is the kind of narrative decision that, if played well, can make the fortune of any good story. Granted, this episode doesn't contain many of the typical elements (especially the more alien traits of Spock's personality), but the seeds of all the great things to come (the chess games, the arguments, the incessant exchanges of dry wit between Bones and Spock) are clearly visible here.

In short, this may not be the proper first episode of the series, but given the standalone nature of the original Trek scripts, it works pretty well as an introduction to Gene Roddenberry's seminal TV universe, a place "where no man had gone before". It's the beginning of a small-screen legend, therefore a must-see.


I have seen this movie several times since owning it and I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in history, golf, Ben Hogan, or generally being entertained.

Upon creating any movie about a real person, Hollywood may choose to cast a light in a certain manner and in the vein of entertainment, what is the harm? Some may indicate that Mr. Hogan was not as cheerful and compassionate as Glenn Ford's version but that is simply opinion. The bottom line is that Follow the Sun is very well made and acted and if you are a fan of Ben Hogan, you will love it as I do.

I am looking forward to a DVD release.


How can you make an entire movie about Ben Hogan and capture nothing of his spirit? Nothing of his essence? Somehow, the makers of this awful "tribute" movie managed to do just that. Okay, Ford is a poor physical match for Hogan. He is tight-lipped enough, but that's about it. But the philosophies espoused by Ford in the film, and his white-bread demeanor and points of reference are totally alien to Hogan's own background or his life essence. The complex relationship between Hogan and his unhappy wife is also misrepresented badly. Throw in Dennis O'Keefe and the homogenization of one of the greatest comeback stories in sports is a complete whitewash. If you wish to learn anything about Ben Hogan and what made him tick, avoid Follow The Sun.


Being a golfer and a fan of the sport for many years, I was very interested in seeing this, which I did when the VHS first came out. Later, I saw it again because of the same reason plus I usually find Glenn Ford's films entertaining.

Well, the story moves well, it didn't bore me, but I did have problems with the accuracy of it and the general theme of the film, telling us that Hogan really was a nice guy who cared lot about what the public thought. From every account I have read, and from a couple of people who met him or knew him, that was not true. The fact is that he was a mean SOB and remained that way most of his life. This movie looks like it was made by his press agent. It's ridiculous and ruins what otherwise is an inspiring story.

No one can deny Hogan's achievements on the links and his incredible desire to win against all odds. The fact he could come back and play after a near-fatal auto accident was amazing....but I would not watch this again because it was too subjective and just not the truth.


I gave this movie a 10 rating, not because it was that good of a film (it wasn't), but because to me it brings back memories of my teenage years. I saw this movie when it was released in 1951. I was 15 at the time and interested in nothing but golf. I watched the movie three times. I would have watched it over and over had it not been removed from the local theater. Even at that young age, I was a student of the game. I was intimately familiar with Ben Hogan, Sam Snead, and all the other great names in golf at that time. I had even seen most of them play in person in tournaments. I even fantasized about becoming a golf pro. I played golf whenever I could. Unfortunately, in the 40's and 50's, money was tight. And parents didn't pay a lot of attention to their children's career goals, especially if they involved becoming a sport's figure. My dreams were dashed early. Thank goodness, I can still watch FOLLOW THE SUN and relive my teenage fantasies.


I must declare my admiration for Hogan before teeing off with this review. One of the greats of the fairway, an inspiration, a role model. As played by Glen Ford, however, terribly lacking in character. How the filmmakers managed to make Hogan so uninteresting is a testament to their overly precious approach to the material. The film plays very episodically and didn't hold my attention. I got up to crack two beers open while it was playing and didn't fee the need to pause the disk. Not a bad film, but just not very engaging. Not Ford's fault, really, but blame can be placed at the feet of the writer. The wife complained that there was too much driving. car driving. Not fairway driving.


Cheap-cheap-cheap comic feature. An extremely bad, agonizingly unfunny comedy concerning urban family man Charles Grodin taking the wife and kids on vacation to an island resort, and not getting what he expected. Grainy, grimy mess is a most uncomfortable viewing experience. The movie actually manages to look worse than your average TV feature, with the limp writing at a sophomoric level and a direction that seems non-existent. Grodin, in desperation-mode, is obviously being wasted, but supporting performers Jon Lovitz, Mario Van Peebles and Phil Hartman don't even seem to take notice.

A real dog; NO STARS from ****


How can there be screenwriters when this film doesn't even have a real plot? Charles Grodin plays George, a guy who sells chairs for a living. He tells his best client that he is fat and the client takes his business elsewhere. The owner of the business is furious and George decides it's a good time to go on vacation. He takes his family to some fleabag "resort" that he knows nothing about. Let the laughs begin! Heh.

All of the employees at the resort are strange and/or gay. The employees that Phil Hartman and Mario Van Peebles play are both homosexuals for the sole purpose of having Grodin's character show his disdain for them. Throw in Jon Lovitz and Megan Mullally and you would think that the supporting cast alone would at least make this watchable. You would be so, SO wrong to assume that though.

Well, I guess I can wrap this up already since there isn't much to discuss in terms of the "plot". George and his wife smoke some pot, his wife also takes some hallucinogenic mushrooms, a few women take their tops off and everything culminates in a massive shootout with some rebel guerrillas...or something. Did I mention that this takes place around Christmas? Sorry, it's easy to forget since it is specifically pointed out at the beginning of the film and then virtually ignored for the rest of the story. My advice to you is to ignore this entire film. 1/10


I can see why people hate this, but really there's a lot of good lines in there. It's an absurd movie but maybe you have to have seen it 20 times when you were 19 (and entertainment choices were more limited than they are now) to really appreciate it. Anyway, I love it. Phil Hartman is great. I will admit to being a Grodin fan and maybe that is necessary too. I love the Club Sand Song. The catch phrases, "What!" "Brainwash" "Manwhaaaaay-lo" "we're gonna teach you" But it's full of SNL-style, catch-phrase heavy humor, sketch-oriented type stuff, and you shouldn't miss Megan Mulally as 17 yr old Jessica. It was all something back in '86.


All of the dialog was dubbed by Hartman and Markowitz in a marathon 24-hour looping session. Because of budgetary restrictions, they shot the entire film without sound and the two comics dubbed everything later. No, this is probably not in the stack of films Grodin plays in his DVD as he gets nostalgic.

While that trivia doesn't make the film a totally enjoyable experience, it's a better rental than "Riding the Bus with My Sister". Markowitz has some new films in production that look outstanding. He has directed his energies toward writing and producing, and is a brilliant force in the business.


In "Last Resort," Charles Grodin is in the angst-ridden top form that made his turn in "Midnight Run" so wonderful. The film stars Grodin as a burned out Chicago furniture salesman named George Lollar, who, needing to get away from it all, books his family for a week at "Club Sand," a tropical resort.

Club Sand however, is nothing like the brochures, and everything from rude help, horrible accommodations, terrible food (when it can be found), over-sexed guests and even a burgeoning rebellion on the resort island conspire to make the Lollars' vacation anything but an escape. George ends up abused on just about every level, and Grodin's portrayal is spot-on hysterical.

"Last Resort" also features Phil Hartman, Jon Lovitz, John Ashton ("Beverly Hills Cop" and "Midnight Run"), Megan Mullally ("Will and Grace") and Mario van Peebles, and picking them out in these early roles is an added bonus.

Some reviewers have complained that the film is filled with stereotypes and is at times, raunchy. The answer is yes on both counts; but the clichéd characters are lovingly over-the-top, the blue humor is never gratuitous, and the whole thing just works. "Last Resort" is a buried treasure for fans of oddball comedy, and worth the 80 minutes you'll spend watching it.


This film is an absolutely brilliant idea executed to perfection. The actors are superbly convincing from beginning to end. I first saw it under the belief that it was supposed to be an actual incident - and this is how the film was intended to be seen. It was years later that I realised it was a film not an actual record of events. Perhaps it is because of this that I found the film so convincing, but it is well worth watching even though you have seen that it is not a record of an actual alien abduction. However, the impact of the film will be lost on you. This does not diminish the skill of the film at all and I congratulate all concerned on conceiving the film and in carrying it off so convincingly.


Well, I'm actually sitting here, now in 2006, actually scared more than half to death , I'm on my own, the film finished about 10 minutes ago its 1.10am, and Wow...am I scared! Apart from still shaking ( I don't like horror films at the best of times ), it was a really really good film, the screenplay and acting of all the characters was too perfection ( apart from the Black guy, his performance let things down I think ) The imagination and initiative of the scrip to make it seem like it was not plotted was one to be reckoned with, a truly amazing, spine-shivering film. I still have tingles going round my body..I doubt I will sleep tonight!


I went into the cinema with expectations of a Mugahal-e-Azam kind of movie. It turned out to be equivalent of "Ram Gopal Varma Ki Aag" instead.

The script is mediocre. Plot is shallow.

Message to be conveyed is not clear. The pace of the narration is uneven.

In short if you have time and money to be spent on nothing better, go and watch it.

Otherwise stay away.

The editing, screenplay, music and direction leave a lot on the table.

Performances are mediocre at best.

It is full of historical inaccuracies.


Lets see it starts out with this whole "Troy-ish" Battle directly lifted out n copied or even remade to an extent..

then we go into the actual movie.. the essence of the movie was totally lost in my sense, The director lost me at least because of the length of the movie.. maybe he wanted to convey something great through his research but frankly what he did was nothing more than inflict pain... that was something i was hoping to forget by watching the movie...

Hrithik Roshan continues to amaze me till date with his varied acting talents n Mrs Aishwarya Rai.. lets just say that i don't very much care for what she does... 99% of it is crap anyway ....

But this is my opinion go watch the movie and make up your own


Yes honestly, i still feel that SWADES is Ashutosh's best film, Jodha Akbar does not had the soul to hold the movie till the end. the script was not as good as of Swades and Lagaan. Swades hold u till the end of the movie and Lagaan does because Cricket in Lagan was the main lifeline of the movie along-with script

Hrithik, Aishwarya acted brilliantly along-with the entire cast

Technically it is one of the best which came out of India Cinematography, definitely deserve a special mention along-with Choreography

rating 7/10


The movie is based on the time during the mughal dynasty. Jallaludin Mohammed Akbar is one of the most powerful rulers. He was crowned at a very young age. Years later he married a Rajput princess Jodhaa (Aiswarya Rai) who happens to be in a different religion. They try to be good and comfortable with each other that's when more problems arise from the enemies.

Jodhaa Akbar has a good storyline but has unnecessary dragging. The movie lasts for about three and half hours in that manner. And it was completely unnecessary. Like Hrithik Roshan takes about five minutes to go from one room to another. And during the wedding scene Aiswarya Rai is sitting there and the camera pans in taking about five minutes. Only in the second half the film becomes more lively.

Songs are excellent like jashn e bahara, khwaja mere khwaja.They had that touch of the old days including the lyrics. A.R Rahman did well in both song's music direction as well as the background score. The performance were very good from all the actors. Overall Jodhaa Akbar is a good movie. It is not an entertainer. Fans of Hrithik Roshan and Aiswarya Rai will like this film. 8/10


Jodhaa Akbar is three hours and twenty minutes of truly glorious film-making. It's almost impossible to fault the production design. Director Ashukosh Gowariker's ambition is breathtaking - and, more often than not, he achieves it. You won't see more beautiful costumes or sets, hear more rousing music, or watch more imaginative choreography (dance and fighting alike) in any film from any country in the world.

In particular, the various fights and battles put Hollywood to shame. Where Western epics of recent years have overdone cheap visual effects to reduce costs, and eliminated blood and gore to keep ratings low, Jodhaa Akbar doesn't pull its punches for a moment. When Akbar fights, he really fights. Steel connects with steel, flesh with flesh; horses and elephants stampede; armies charge; blood splatters all over the place. Gowariker and his team have an amazing knack of filming violence that is simultaneously elegant and visceral. Famous Hollywood battles of recent years - the likes of Lord of the Rings and Troy - look limp and embarrassing by comparison.

Furthermore, there are some commendable performances here, especially from the supporting cast. Sonu Sood and Ila Arun are particularly wonderful, as is Nikitin Dheer in a remarkably compelling debut performance as Sharifuddin Hussein. I have to admit that I hadn't really thought much of either Hrithik Roshan or Aishwarya Rai Bachchan as actors, but I was mistaken. Both of them, especially Hrithik, pull off extremely well-pitched and charismatic performances under Gowariker's expert direction. Also, of course, it's hard not to notice that they make one of the most gorgeous screen couples of all time.

I have only three criticisms, and only two of them are serious.

1. Gowariker has a weakness for cheesy visual moments. There are a couple of points in the film where glowing light is supposed to add to the emotional effect. Unfortunately, these have been cheaply done and don't really work. Gowariker also tends to use various hammy cross-fades. The end result is that the otherwise purely brilliant visuals are undermined by the occasional dated, jarring fade or effect. These things remind me of a low-budget 1970s TV cop show and aren't suitable for a major film like this.

2. The romance between Jodhaa and Akbar follows a fairly standard pattern of hate-each-other, like-each-other, misunderstanding, resolution. The pattern is fine, but the effect would have been much more striking if Gowariker had taken a few risks. He's not prepared to push the characters to real extremes, and so we end up with 3.3 hours of a love affair which meanders along on a fairly even and predictable keel. The misunderstanding stage is cleared up too quickly and relatively painlessly. It's a pity: Hrithik and Aishwarya are both giving the performances of their careers. Though they're very watchable, you get the feeling that even more drama could have been wrung out of their relationship.

3. This isn't a very serious criticism, but... I don't think they had invented deep-pile fluffy white towels in the 16th century. So when Sharifuddin got out of his bath and wrapped himself in one, it was impossible not to giggle. I was expecting him to get out a hairdryer and an electric razor next.

Still, despite a few minor faults, Jodhaa Akbar is a remarkable, dramatic and brilliant film, with a rare beauty and powerful sense of ambition. It's also extremely enjoyable. I'll definitely be going to see it again. Should any Hollywood epic directors see it, I expect they'll be shuffling their feet and blushing at how decisively Bollywood has surpassed their efforts. Akbar zindabad!