Comment #121

Time travel has always fascinated us. For generations people have wanted to know what it would be like to go ahead in time, and especially backward. In the Final Countdown, you and the characters are taken back in time not just to any place, but to the time of one of the most important days in America's history.

The U.S.S. Nimitz is a nuclear aircraft carrier in 1980 that is stationed in Pearl Harbor. It is pulled into a supernatural time warp that sends it to the same place, but 39 years earlier. That's right, Pearl Harbor in 1941, and the morning of December 6, in fact. When the crew of the Nimitz realizes where they are, they must decide if they want to change the fate of the people there on that morning as well as American history.

The cast overall is enjoyable to watch, but not perfect. Martin Sheen is great as Warren Lasky, a guest on the Nimitz on the day the time warp takes it away. Kirk Douglas is also worthy of recognition as Captain Matthew Yelland, the captain of the Nimitz. However, Charles Durning as Senator Samuel Chapman can get annoying, not because of Durning, but because his character complains almost the whole time he is on-screen. Also, it's kind of easy to notice that some of the crew members of the Nimitz are actual sailors, not actors by the way they deliver their lines.

The flying scenes and visual effects in the movie were a lot of fun, especially when Nimitz crewmembers encounter Pearl Harbor-era Japanese Zero scout planes. The score by Alan Howarth and John Scott was pretty good, and the sounds of the planes and ships were well-done as well.

The Final Countdown is a great movie, but not perfect. For anyone looking for a movie that gets your imagination and your adrenaline going, The Final Countdown is the right choice.

8/10


Definitely Nagesh Kukunoor's best effort to date.

Frankly i went in expecting another average fare from Nagesh, cos i havent liked his earlier films. I thought Hyderabad Blues was hugely hyped, not to mention shoddy. Rockford was a good idea gone horribly wrong and the only reason i sat through Bollywood calling was Om Puri (outstanding).

With this background i set out to catch 3 Deewarein. Actually the glowing reviews (which as an afterthought i think were completely justified)pushed me further towards the theatre. Not to mention Juhi Chawla who i have always believed is one of our most underrated actresses. And what an experience it was!

3 deewarein is a very good film. Why? Let me give you 2 reasons:

1. The script is near to brilliant. Though the narrative is slow paced, your interest never wanes. The story unfolds slow and leads to a mind-blowing climax. Least expected but a shocker of a climax. Like my buddy aptly described it - super wicked cool!

2. Performances, every actor is amazing. While its expected that Naseer will shine (he doesnt disappoint one bit!) its Jackie Shroff and Juhi Chawla who take you by surprise. Jackie is subdued and puts in a very restrained performance. Juhi Chawla is splendid. With minimal makeup and looking absolutely fresh, she puts in a career best effort here. Check her out in two scenes: The first when she gently threatens the hell out of her abusive husband and the other when she tells Ishaan (Naseer's character) that she may be in love with him. Kukunoor himself is a good actor, but he is a better director. Special mention to Bad man Gulshan Grover who puts in a good man performance here.

So if you are looking for a well directed film with a strong story and a couple of good performances, 3 deewarein is the one!


The first time i heard about the movie , my reaction was i have to see this one. coming from one of my favourite directors Nagesh Kukuonoor and performers like Naseereruddin Shah.

When i actually got down to see the movie , my feelings were mixed. The performances in the movie were just astounding , the direction was just superb ! but the only downer half way down the movie was i kept having deja vu of having watched the scenes in "Shawshank Redpemption" . The movie did not have the impact till it reached the climax scenes. It was then i realized that the movie was not at all what i expected it to be. And this my friends is a rare find in indian movies. I guess you all must agree with me on this particular point. After the climax was over all i could do was sit dumbfound. I was speechless. This movie that played before me was the best movie of this genre made by an indian in india. It was way better than shawshank redemption in many asepects. (although i am not her undermining the movie in any form , who can ever forget the narration by morgan freeman in that movie).

The direction needs applause by us all. The flashback type concept was great. The first scene when Chandrika (Juhi) meets the 3 convicts was unbelievable . (in the sense that this was actually directed by an indian director) . The contrast of the 3 characters that was potrayed by Nagesh in that scenario was overwhelming. The movie gives the viewer subtle hints throughtout which one realises once the climax scene was over. The best part of the movie was that each one of the dialogue was well built in to the plot of the movie. Starting from the "Aapko pehle kabhi dekha hai" to every other statment.

I think i do not need to comment on performance by Nasseeruddin Shah. He is just amazing. One of the best actors the Indian cinema has seen ever. He is complemented perfectly by Juhi, Nagesh , Gulshan and Jackie. The serious role of Jackie was just too good and he stood up to the role beautifully. Nagesh also played his character true to life.

In all , i would sign off by saying, that if you are one of the people who appreciate movies like shawshank redemption , fight club, memento then DO NOT MISS ON THIS ONE. I would rate the movie better than the afore mentioned 3 movies, and to be honest i loved them all. But if you are the kind who likes masala movies and do not want to appreciate the direction of the movie then this one is not for you.


An absolutely flawless screenplay which makes the acting look so simple. At least that is what you would think while you are watching the movie but then the acting is super.

To me the whole movie is like a work of art. When an artist begins his painting, you have no clue where he is going. He would begin with something and start to draw lines which don't make any sense and yet as they say "patience bears fruits", while you wait patiently, there emerges the unexpected master piece which you could not even imagine. And that is what exactly happened to me while watching the movie.

I am personally not a good critique myself but I could not hold myself from writing this.

Sadullah


This is a very different film from the usual bollywood love and action crap, it might take some influences from the Shawshank Redemption and other American prison films but overall it is a very original and fresh film. Naseeruddin Shah really shines and the ending is good. The film is basically about an amateur filmmaker (Juhi Chawla) that wants to make a documentary about 3 prisoners on death row. They are on death row for murder, accidental or premeditated. As the film progresses you learn more about each of the prisoners and how prison has affected their life. Overall it is a pretty damn enjoyable film, and it has NO SONGS


From the very first frames 3 Deewarein grips you and won't let go. This very well may be the best movie of its kind I have ever seen an *any* language. In fact, apart from the subtitles, you might just forget that you're watching an Indian film. Even the normal liberties that Bollywood normally takes with the concept of "suspension of disbelief" (and that Bolly fans have come to accept) are mostly absent from this movie. The characters are deep, intense and best of all completely credible. Others here have hailed 3 Deewarein as Juhi Chawla's comeback film, and she certainly shines in her role. But perhaps more surprising to me was Jackie Shroff's performance. Shroff's typical roles haven't impressed me one way or the other -- as especially good or bad -- in most other movies I've seen him in. But his portrayal of "Jaggu" here definitely made me sit up and take notice. And left me wondering how much of my former indifference was due to Jackie, and how much was due to the scripts he's been working from. Nasserudin Shah presents another complex and lovable character in "Ishaan". While not quite as endearing as the title role in "Shree 420", "Ishaan" certainly shares some qualities with that character.

The story might be best compared to a pointillist painting. In the beginning we see very narrow views from very close angles. It's only as the plot unfolds and we back away from the canvas that we see the actual picture. And the canvas itself is impressive and elegantly understated. The opening sequences -- shot in blue-toned monochrome -- introduce the story in very short order (the entire run time of the film is listed at 120 minutes, which by Bollywood standards almost qualifies as a "short subject") and there is nothing wasted during the exposition. And it's because of this that you are drawn in immediately and rooted for the duration.

I cannot bring myself to write anything that would hint at the ending of the story. To do that here would be to do you and the film a grave injustice. Let it suffice to say that the ending was not even *remotely * what I expected.

If you're only a fan of "Masti-Masala" fare, don't watch this movie. You will be disappointed. But if you can spare two hours to be engrossed by a story that is at times grim, and times heartwarming and most of all surprising you *need* to see this film. From casting to camera to script, this is an astonishing work.


The story is about three prisoners and their life in jail captured by a documentary directer Juhi Chawla. As per as acting is concern: Jackie Shroff is average,Nagesh Kukunoor and Gulshan Grover is good,Juhi Chowla is brilliant and above all Naseeruddin Shah is excellent as usual.The script of the film is well written and directed it in a good way. The story comes to end with an unpredictable twist and we can see that how a single incident connects three different peoples for ever just like three walls in a room. The ending doesn't destroys the movie, it makes much more better. I saw almost all the films but this is probably the best movie directed by Nagesh Kukunoor.


3 Walls: 7 out of 10: My first reaction was that Indian prisons are really nice. Honestly I went to a couple of sleep away camps in my youth and suffered more hardships than these prisoners. Sure the prison has sexual assault, loss of freedom and death but I am definitely sticking to my analogy.

This is my first real Bollywood film and since there are no musical numbers or dancing or romance I am under the impression that the film isn't typical. This is straight forward human drama with very good dialogue and a surprisingly twisted and adult story.

The film concerns three prisoners who are scheduled to hang. One is angry and proclaims his innocence, one refuses to accept guilt for his crime and the last is so racked with guilt he cannot wait for the noose to be drawn. Into their lives comes a female filmmaker with some baggage of her own.

The movie is about the four characters interactions and how justice is eventually done despite long odds and corruption. While you may have some Shawshank Redemption flashbacks during the film the movie really has its own story and feel. The acting is good across the board and the production values are excellent. This would be a well made film in any nation.


3 Deewarein is a mystery unfolding. What attracts this woman to probe into the lives of these three men? What lies within them? Whatever is apparent at the onset may not be so. It is easy to become wrapped up in their lives as you watch this film, with a growing concern for each of the convicts. The writer and director did a superb job of creating all these questions, making you wonder throughout what everyone's goal is. The acting is top notch, every single performer, major and minor, suits their role. Each personal life is examined, past and present. Supporting cast in the form of prisoners and guards are also extremely well developed and integrated into the story. Nothing happens without a reason, everything is intertwined. A well done gem of a film that breaks away from the standard Bollywood fare.


A very interesting movie indeed! Screenplay, acting and direction are strong points. Some incidents are very disturbing. Nagesh Kukunoor is a better director than actor (he's not a bad actor though). The climax - ? I have to watch the movie again. I sure did not expect the climax, even though once it started unfolding, I started getting the whole thing. I'm not sure what I think of the climax.

MAJOR, MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD - PLEASE DO NOT READ AHEAD IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE

If Ishaan is the only one who knows what is going on right from the beginning of the movie, does it mean that Naseeruddin Shah and the director decided to deliberately deceive the audience by not portraying the role as they should have? "Aapko pehle kahin dekha hoon" is the lamest excuse. May be I did miss Ishaan's reactions when I watched the movie for the first time. So I don't know for sure if this is greatness or this is cheating that Kukunoor pulled the wool on my eyes, though I tend to think it's the latter.

In any case, the way Kukunoor used the inspiration from Shawshank Redemption is brilliant. Kudos!

*** END MAJOR SPOILERS

The movie clocks at just 2 hours. I wished Juhi's life could be fleshed out a little bit better. Shri Vallabh Vyas's role as her husband is woefully underused and underwritten. Pity.

On the other hand, the prison life as depicted in the movie deeply affected me - particularly the issue of prison homosexuality and AIDS. The conflict of the HIV+ rapist is eschewed to show him as a monster. The indirect effect is the negative impression of homosexuality that all gay men are predators. Even though one can objectively see that the hatred depicted for him is because he is a rapist who could get away with the heinous crime, it could very easily be projected on to homosexuals in general. A pretty damning condition of homosexuals in India. I wish Kukunoor had not muddled up different issues here.

Overall, a very interesting movie by Nagesh Kukunoor. Keep it up!


This is an excellent art film. This is by no means your typical Bollywood offering of songs, romance, action, and masti. This movie takes an in-depth look at the lives of prisoners and the corrupt political system. Juhi wonderfully plays the role of a documentary filmmaker and a woman standing up to her abusive husband. One would think that a movie on the lives and feelings of three prisoners seems pretty hopeless, but a good script and profound and mysterious dialogues complete this film. An interesting twist at the end adds to the story and Juhi's powerful role and performance.


I just happened to come across it on AZN cable, it caught my attention because it was going on for 1 minute without any singing or dancing behind trees.

There's not much to talk about the actors, I think they are all excellent and Juhi Chawla is simply beautiful in her role.

I'm was thinking about the ending which no one seem to mention about. I was thinking perhaps Chandrika and Ishaan cut a deal, his confession in exchange for the other 2 guys. I think the whole confession was made up. Chandrika wasn't the one that tripped Ishaan at the bank, Ishaan didn't push Naagya's wife, Jaggu's wife didn't have an affair with Ishaan. I think when Chandrika said '3 lives in exchange for 2', it is meant to be subtle hint that a deal was cut. This would be a brilliant ending, rather than the confession being the truth.


It's my old habit that whenever I post some comment I like to discuss the main characters character. According to me, if the actor portrays the character in question, he has done a very good job. Script, music, dialogues also count a lot on the success of the movie.

1) Nagya or Nagesh Babu: played by director himself. Personally I don't think he did a good job. He look too settled for the prison life. Also when he tried to talk English, we could easily see that he can speak better and he was only pretending to be good. 2) Jaggu dada: played by Jakie Shroff. His character was really good. His acting also matched his character. 3) Ishan: played by Nasseruddin Shah. Now, in this movie, his character is supposed to be of a playboy. A dude who can score with women easily. But from his built, looks and age, he doesn't look very strong down there!!!! One thing is sure that he talks very good. As mohan says `too much of a smooth talker'. If only they had chosen a dude who was younger... 4) Chandrika: Played by Juhi Chawla. Of all her movies, I think in this movie she perfectly portrayed her character. It was simply unbeatable performance. She plays the simple wife who can cook and 'once a while'. But also has a rebellious nature which we get to see during the later half of the movie. This change was good. In general any actor/actress who can change their character according the flow of the movie is considered great. 5) Chandrika Husband: His acting was also good. Though he doesn't have many scenes but in the few he has got, he has done a good job. He plays a husband who likes liquor and TV. And of course someone who can't get it up!!!!!!!!!! I liked the scene where after having intercourse with chandrika he says: `If only you were a little more attractive, I wouldn't have so much trouble'!!

6) mohan: Played by Gulshan Grover. Simple role. Played well by Grover.

6) Chief justice dude: This dude has got only 2 scenes, but powerful acting.

Overall a good movie to watch, but lot of adult scenes, and of some scenes /dialogues which are considered a taboo in hindi movies. Also, no songs!!!!!!!now very few bolly wood movies have no songs in it! Personally I think there should have been 2 songs which would lengthen the movie and we could've understood the characters better. I rate it 8/10


A really good effort. Great acting and great direction. the climax is somewhat far fetched but anyways the movie is good.

The movie has shades of Shawshank Redemption but its a good movie my its own. It is not a remake (frame to frame copy), as our bollywood directors usually do. Its a poetic descriptoin of the life in Jail, with inclusion of the troubles which come with prison.

People have very nicely put up good points of the movie on this site. I am gonna try and put up soem points I didnt like

One was over-use of English in the prison. Jacky shroff was in his usual over acting, overly stylized self. Many a times, he seemed out of the place. But yes, the poems were quite good.

Second, somehow most of the people in prison looked somewhat overly nice and sophisticated for being in a prison (I say it from what I have read and seen in movies)

**********MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD

Jacky Shroff's release wasnt very believable. He did stab his wife. So what if she was already dead? It might result in a lesser punishment but not total release.

my rating 8/10


It revolves around three convicts who are facing a death sentence, and a woman making a documentary on them.

Its a slow paced movie, but its unconventional story and some really nice devices used (like simultaneous scenes & incremental flashbacks) make it a very gripping movie.

Its a treat to watch and speculation persists throughout the movie - and the movie does have a few predictable and stereotyped aspects, but the way they all fit in makes you pardon them.

Though the plot has been very well woven, the characters somehow haven't been polished enough. Jackie is good, as a lawyer who is now a convict. He is an intellectual & sophisticated person. But his reasons for being the way he is aren't really highlighted well. Maybe some scenes were lost in editing. Naseeruddin is a take-life-as-it-comes carefree small-timer who finds himself behind bars quite too often. He has played his character very well, handled all the subtleties effectively. Juhi as the Movie Maker, comes out as a simple straight-forward unhappily married woman. Her character though has some quirky characteristics, which don't seem to blend in well. Her character could have been more atomic. Nagesh himself shines through as a very natural Unsophisticated Hyderabadi Accountant. His realistic dialogue delivery is a fresh break from the dramatic delivery one generally finds in Bollywood. His is an endearing character. Gulshan Grover is the capable jailor and has sunk into his role. But his role wasn't very demanding, so he hasn't really got a chance to showcase himself here. Overall, the interaction between the varied characters,the setting of a Andhra Pradesh Jail, and the beatifully narrated story, make it a must see.


3 deewarein is one of the best movies I have ever seen. I was so much surprised after watching this movie and my mind still can't let go of the wonderful movie. In bollywood we really do need more directors like Nagesh Kukunoor who have the guts to make different movies. The only minus point of this movie is Nagesh Kukunoor's acting. He is not a bad actor but not in this movie. He shouldn't have acted in this movie. Anyways all in all this movie rocks. My rating - 10/10


3 deewarein(3 walls)stands out as the best acted movie in Indian Cinema.Such fantastic movie & its so underrated.Way too underrated.Brilliant performances from all the star-cast.

Nasarudin Shah is a legend.I always expect these kind of performances from him & i always get such great returns seeing his movies.Juhi has made a great comeback after a very long time.Awesome performances too from Nagesh himself(the director) & Jackie Shroff.Gulshan Grover has too given a terrific performance.Such calmness in his acting in this movie that its so refreshing.

Nagesh has directed this very well.The script is also very good.This movie surpasses all Indian thrillers.Even you can say this movie is the Shawshank Redemption of Indian Cinema.

Epitome of performances with a great plot & a terrific surprising ending makes 3 Deewarein a class movie.


(spoilers..within)

My first of kukunoor and a great experience. The starting scenes are great..the dripping blood scene..and "Naseer in bank " scene....cinematography is great.

The storyline is good ..though a few things are adopted from "shawshank redemption"..movie has it's own identity.

A few scenes will leave u thrilled ...like the flashback scene in which Naseer noticed that Juhi was also in the court room....and the starting scenes b4 casting.

jackie, juhi are good...and Naseer, wat can i say??..Nagesh is ok types,,but a good director.

Nice work...a must see.........Bollywood is learning junta..cheer up!!!


I saw Teen Deewarein recently and was mesmerized by this film. At first I got the feeling that I had seen all of this before and I hate that. A little bit of analysis told me that I had seen all that in Bas Ek Pal which came out 3 years later. Nagesh Kukunoor's masterpiece inspired a lesser ripoff which still managed to keep me engaged.. but that is another topic. Back to Teen Deewarein..

Three men are on death row. Jaggu (Jackie Shroff) repeatedly stabbed his wife, Naagya (Nagesh Kukunoor) is accused of pushing his wife in front of a speeding car, and Ishaan Mirza (Naseeruddin Shah) is accused of shooting a pregnant bank teller during a botched bank robbery. They are all in the same jail being run as a benevolent dictatorship by the jailer Mohan Kumar (Gulshan Grover). A beautiful documentary film maker Chandrika (Juhi Chawla) walks into the jail and wants to document the lives of these prisoners on death row. She follows them around and tries to get their stories. Naagya repeatedly professes his innocence, claiming that he did not push his wife, Jaggu is waiting to die so he can be justly punished for killing his wife, Ishaan says he tripped over someone and the gun went off accidentally but he cannot find who he tripped over. Jail life is shown simply and effectively - the story treats the magical and sordid moments in a very matter of fact way. Chandrika's husband is a wife beater and abuser and we get that story without any melodrama. The circle does not seem complete though and you wait for something to happen. It does seem to happen when Chandrika helps Ishaan to escape from jail. The shocking revelations that follow do not complete the circle and also leave one important hole in the story for me. Hence the spoiler warning!!!! Why was it important to show who tripped Ishaan yet not show her having any remorse over the fact that he really did not fire the gun deliberately? Either we did not need to see this and could have been left with an enigma - was Ishaan pulling our leg all along or was he innocent, or we needed to see the circle completed fully which did not happen. This is one thing that prevents me from giving this film a rating of 10. Other than that - I love it, love it!

A bit about the acting.. Juhi chose the best role for her comeback. Shabana and Smita lovers take note. This lady will leave behind a legacy that will be hard to beat. We finally have a woman with the charisma and persona to carry a film on her shoulders. As soon as she arrives on the scene the movie zips and zings with magic. Naseeruddin Shah gives an awesome performance as the charming scoundrel Ishaan. This is one role where you see how mistaken film makers were if they thought he could not do the conventional leading man. He plays a man who can charm birds out of trees! Jackie Shroff is given a role he can bite into and he does a terrific job. Nagesh Kukunoor is amazing and Gulshan Grover CAN act!!

The recent BEP heavily borrows so many elements from Teen Deewarein - the wrongly accused man in jail, the abuse and sordidness in jail, the spousal abuse sideline, the abused spouse in jail trying to do some good etc. etc. After seeing Teen Deewarein I am even less impressed by Mr. Onir and his BEP. Juhi reprising the role she played in Teen Deewarein manages to salvage BEP somewhat.

Back to Teen Deewarein. There are no songs, no hoopla, just an intense movie viewing experience - one well worth the investment of 2 hours. A brilliant gem from Kukunoor!


I think I have to watch this movie again, because it's either pretty good or pretty average.

It all depends on whether in the end, when we see the three murders again, this is what actually happened (which would be awfully contrived and pretty bad) or whether it's another one of Ishaan's stories, made up to save himself and the other two prisoners (which would be a very interesting twist). There are clues to either interpretation, but it's not really clear which of the two is happening.

Up to the end it's a very good, taut movie with good acting and a perfect script; it's just that the ending, which I'm not sure about, either destroys it or makes it even better.


Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2 (1985) was the second film in the Freddy Krueger series. This time his main target is the son of a man who just but the Elm Street house. Freddy preys on this sexually confused kid and forces him to do his bidding and uses him to serve his twisted needs. Can poor Jesse over come the strong willpower of Freddy? Will he be able to discover his true self? Watch and find out, you'll be surprised! Strange stuff.

What I liked about this film was the filmmakers tried to do something different, and it almost killed the series. The plot and storyline was too complex and byzantine for you average horror film. Much of the film's hidden context and meaning would go over the heads of most horror film fans. If Sigmund Freud were alive today he would've had a field day trying to figure out this one. Sadly underrated and unfairly neglected..

Strongly recommended


The first of the Elm Street sequels is a bit different than the other films of the series, but it's not nearly as bad as some critics say.

Young man (whose family has moved into the Elm Street house) is terrorized by chuckling Freddy, who wants to use him to do his dirty work.

'Elm Street 2 is a fairly entertaining sequel directed by B movie maker Jack Sholder. The movie's possession theme is solidly played out with some tight direction. Sholder gives this movie some well-done moments of shock and dark humor. The opening sequence on the bus is a memorable thrill ride. The film boasts some bloody FX. Charles Bernstein's theme music is missed, but Bing Crosby's song 'Did You Ever See A Dream' makes for a nice touch. Many say that this movie has homosexual themes and granted star Mark Patton does spend much of the movie semi-naked, but the theme is a bit of a stretch.

Robert Englund makes a welcomed return as Freddy, while the rest of the cast does decent performances.

All around, a good sequel that hasn't really gotten critical justice.

Followed by the superior Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987).

*** out of ****


Plot = 5 years after the events of the first movie, a new teen and his family move into the same house where the events occurred and before long Jesse starts getting haunted by Freddy but this time Freddy wants something else other than blood.

I've rated this movie before and gave it a five and a pretty bad review but after viewing this movie a few more times I actually quite enjoyed it, OK it's not the best in the franchise, but it's still good and that's why I deleted my old review and started afresh. This sequel stands on its own, following its own rules without ignoring the original. This flick is basically a haunted house/possession flick with lots of weird stuff going on. Its not particularly scary but it is very spooky. The film also delivers in the gross out department, the scene where Freddy comes out of Jesse's chest is plain old fun times for the whole family. This sequel has many homosexual undertones. I mean the coach gets his ass whipped with a towel by Freddy (kinky bastard), Jesse ventures in a gay SNM bar, Jesse gets down with Lisa but then abruptly leaves her hanging to go sleep at Brady's house. This whole film could be a metaphor for a kid coming to grasp with his gay penchant. Jesse keeps on saying there's something inside of him that wants to come outmaybe Freddy equals his pansy side. Lots of people had problems with the gay stuff, I had a blastfunny shite. Ironically the actor that plays Jesse (Mark Patton) is gay in real lifego figure. Lisa's attraction and commitment to crazy Jesse did elude me, the guy is such a geek! But my main problem with the film is the anticlimactic ending. The ending feels rushed and his far from satisfying. The whole love conquer all shite was rubbish.

Mark Patton (Jesse) handles himself real well. He hits all the right emotional notes, too bad he screams like a girl and can't dress for shite. I thought gay men knew fashion. Kim Meyers (Lisa) is also very good Robert Rustler (Grady) has all the best lines and he's just way kool. The kind of guy I'd hang with. Clu Gulager (Ken) and Hope Lange (Cheryl) do good as the parents, they have wonderful chemistry and are very credible. Marshall Bell (Coach) is the scariest thing in the flick. Robert Englund (Freddy) has more screen time and gets to explore Freddy. Here Fred is more playful and has more lines. But fear not he's still scary, cruel and in the shadows.

All in all quite a good follow up.


The first Nightmare On Elm Street is one of my favorite horror movies.It had an original plot and was very entertaining.Now this is the first of the many sequels that followed it.Sure its not as good as the first and its the second worst one in the series(in my opinion).But its still an entertaining and good 1980's slasher flick.The cast is different from the first film and neither of the actors or actresses from this film return for any of the sequels.In this film, a family moves into the house that Nancy lived in during the first film.Freddy possesses the teenager who lives in the house and makes him do his killings for him.With the help of his girlfriend, he must stop Freddy.Though the sequels are known for their comedy, this film wasn't meant to be a comedy.Yet there are a few laugh out loud scenes in it.Nightmare On Elm Street 2 is an alright sequel that slasher film fans should enjoy.

Rated R for Extreme Graphic Violence, Profanity, Sexual Situations and Brief Nudity.


A Nightmare on Elm Street part 2 Freddy's revenge

May contain `spoilers'<br /><br />`Mommy, why can't Jesse wake up like everyone else ?'

Firstly I'd like to say that I believe this to be the most underrated film in the series. Aside from the first film this is the only other from the series that I still like. As has been mentioned by other people, I think Freddy developed too much of a personality after this film, dispatching victims with comedic one-liners and more stylised, effects based death sequences. In this film his remains pretty much as he was in the first. In fact, probably a little darker.

One of the main problems People seem to have with this film is the implied bisexuality of its main character. I personally think it gives the film an Unusual twist. To quote Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger) `Nightmare 2 is a very creepy, very kinky film. It reverses the first one - instead of having a teenage girl in jeopardy, we have a bisexual male, and this factor is exploited by Freddy. There's a lot of stuff implied with the S & M bar, stringing up the coach in the shower room bondage situation, and going to his boyfriends house for protection, the two of them take their clothes off as often as possible. All that adolescent mad teenage hormone stuff is explored, which of course Freddy is privy to'.

I like the nightmare sequences in this film. To me they have a quality that rings truer to real nightmares than that of the ones in the other sequels. When Jesse (Mark Patton) first spies Freddy lurking in the back yard and then the basement being a prime example. The school bus at the start is also a classic and another that springs to mind is when Jesse awakes in his room to find it's become so hot that things around it like a vinyl record have begun to melt.

The score is my personal favourite of the entire series. Christopher Young creates something very unusual using such bizarre sounds as whale calls to good effect. It is a complete departure from the cheesy synth score of the original and because it lacks that familiar piano motif that's heard in all the films, sets it apart much like the film itself.

There's also some nice camera work in there to, the shot that follows Jesse as he arrives at school the morning after the murder of the coach is good. Though my favourite has to be the shot that takes us up from the basement (albeit rather poorly cut as you go through the basement door) swerving up the stairs and into Jesse's little sisters room. Freddy's face is never fully visible unlike in the other sequels. Which I always thought was the way it should be kept. We only ever really see his face in a neat shot behind the flames of the broken Barbeque during the pool party scene.

The acting from all concerned is solid, Patton and Meryl Streep look-a-like Kim Myers (Lisa) the two leads being particularly good.

The film does have plenty of flaws, certain effects shots are very badly rendered. Witness the budgie exploding for a prime example and the awful creatures in the boiler room towards the end of the film for others. There's a lot of plot holes and the ending is decidedly weak but over all I really like the film. A lot of people say it's the worst of the series but in my opinion if you prefer number's 5 or 6 to this you are missing the point. I'll go out on a limb and say it's my personal favourite.

7 ½ / 10


What they are missing are the campy little details that are hinted through-out the saga. Everything from the stretching tongue to the the exploding bird. You can't deny the fun watching Jesse Walsh shrieking like a scared little schoolgirl when he finds Freddy's glove on his hand. All this and after Jesse's girlfriend comes up to his room and says, "I thought I'd help you unpack." In her sexy voice, moving him toward the bed, they ACTUALLY start unpacking! None of the gags in Freddy's Dead is THAT funny!!!


I honestly liked Nightmare On Elm Street 2, i think it was the appropriate sequel to the first one.It had that 80's aspect that for me somehow made it more enjoyable.It was so simple in a way because they were not trying to yet make Freddy Krueger a Dream Master, or a Psycho Dream dude who was psychologically ill and all this is just making the series into a confusing wreck.Here we have a simple plot that tries to explain some stuff, but not to much.I like all the references to the first one, i basically look for that in all sequels, i guess it makes me feel cool to say,"Oh i saw that happen, i actually saw what happened".Ill admit at times it was cheesy, and there were some really unnecessary parts to it, but i liked the film.Overall you might be one of many who hates this movie, but give it a chance if your a fan of the first one or a Freddy fan than you will give this film its props for that. 7.9 out of 10 stars


The first sequel of a film like this A Nightmare on Elm Street is probably the most difficult task, especially if you change directors. It has to be in the line of the first film and yet change a few things to make it nothing but a repeat. The character of Freddy Krueger is kept with his three distinctive elements : the right hand four finger claws, the hat and the black and red striped pullover, plus of course his ugly mug. But then we move. First the main character is a boy something like a junior or senior in high school, so not really a boy anymore. But yet the boyish side is emphasized by a hairless body, shiny and pure skin, a skin that is widely shown and slowly brushed up and down by the camera. And that's the change. The camera really centers on his body, his skin, his flesh even, except of course his front sexual parts per se. Then it uses gym scenes and even locker room and shower scenes, but once again with restraint. Very little nudity and when there is some backside scenes it is in a very traumatic situation : the gay sports teacher who is tortured and whipped in the nude of course, tied up to the showers, while the boy in the nude too is shown slightly in some darkness and flittingly. Many scenes of the boy in bed only wearing his underwear, never really ambiguous but always sexy even if once again flittingly. Then some more elements are added : his friendship with another boy who is the rather of the macho type but who does not seem afraid of a masculine friendship. Both are victimized by the gay sports teacher on the football field a couple of times and in the end the boy, Jesse, will come to ask for help from his friend, Grady, and the first reaction will be nearly openly gay even if denied in some side remark, and Freddy will kill Grady through, from inside the body of Jesse : if that is not a repressed homosexual desire, what is ? And before Jesse had gone to a leather bar and had been literally kidnapped by the gay sports teacher and it is then later in the showers that Freddy again will kill this openly gay character from within the body of Jesse. If one case is a coincidence, two are not and that is the main change of this film from a girl-centered vision of fear to a boy-centered vision. In fact we must understand that Freddy is the real character questioned here. He is an old pedophile and after having recaptured some existence through the dream of a girl in the first film, and having thus gotten a couple of boys in his bag through the desire of the girl for these boys, now he moves directly to the main target of his desire : he wants to possess a boy from inside, he is a gay pedophile and Jesse, to defend his sanity in this invasion, will have to react against this gayness that is imposed onto him and kill the boys and men Freddy desires. But this can also be nothing but a tactic from Freddy to push Jesse into killing, to titillate him where it tickles and where Jesse does not really want to be tickled, though when Freddy forces Jesse away from his girlfriend at the very moment when he was getting excited enough to let himself slip into some sex can be seen as the revulsion of Freddy for that type of sex or as the fear of Jesse in front of that type of sex, which would lead to believing that Freddy managed to get back into existence through the homosexual desire of Jesse and at the same time his resistance to this sexual appeal. But that is a real change in that kind of horror films : to take a point of view that focuses onto a boy, his desires, his fears, and his anxiety, all of it emphasized by a castrating authoritarian father and a loving, maybe too much, mother. We must keep in mind that this is a common situation for many boys when they turn sixteen or seventeen. In no way is this sequel lower and less intense than the first episode. Note finally the use of an old abandoned factory to give some density to Freddy's old personality and past, but also to open another chapter in that exploration of fear : the fear we can feel in front of and inside those old factories that seem in many ways haunted. That is a dimension Stephen King has used over and over again in so many of his books and films. Nothing really new but something definitely effective, at least by reminding the audience of other frightening scenes in other films. Then the evaluation of that reference is a question of date to know who used it first and who is a copycat or an imitator, who can anyway also be a developer.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University of Paris Dauphine & University of Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne


You can't deny that Wes Craven's original "Nightmare on Elm Street" was horror of great significance and, although dreadfully overrated, it was a pretty clever and spooky film that introduced the legendary icon of Freddy Krueger. It was obvious right from the start that none of the several sequels would ever live up to the original and this first attempt immediately confirms so. Despite a dazzling intro, showing a school bus racing through a nightmarish wasteland with Freddy at the wheel, this is a very tame and soft teenage-horror flick, completely lacking coherence and logic. The story supposedly takes place 5 years after the initial Elm Street events and the house where Nancy lived has been sold to the Walsh family. The adolescent son Jesse begins to suffer from nightmares in which Freddy Krueger orders him to kill in his shape. The screenplay is a series of stupidities and continuity errors but the whole things basically is an excuse to show fairly impressive visual effects, so who cares about the story anyways? Jesse's transformations into Freddy Krueger are well staged and the murders he commits are decently gore. Several sequences and scenery don't make the slightest bit of sense (exploding parakeets, guard dogs with children's faces) and the suspense-elements of the original have vanished entirely. The acting is considerably good, even though the hero screams like a little girl and the heroine looks like Meryl Streep's younger sister. At least in this first sequel, Robert Englund doesn't constantly fire off unfunny and embarrassing one-liners.


It was a Friday night and I had nothing to do when i saw that A Nightmare On Elm Street 2 :Freddy's Revenge was going to be on. I enjoyed the original so much that i thought i would enjoy this movie greatly as well...but i was very disappointed. The Acting was awful. and the script was terrible. This film was not scary at all. The final scenes where Freddy is destroyed by Lisa's Love for Jesse was pathetic and definitely not how ANOES movie should end. This movie was just terrible all around with the only good thing being Freddy Krueger- who only makes a few appearances. I give this movie a 3 out of 10

Don't waste your time watching this unless you are a huge fan of the nightmare series. Even then you will be disappointed.


The movie takes place five years after the events of the first film. None of the cast from the first film return. The Welch's have moved into the house that Nancy once lived. I didn't like Nightmare 2 has much.. The movie is about Freddy trying to take over the body of Jesse. The movie has great special effects by Kevin Yagher. Robert plays the bus driver in the beginning of the film. The film picks up during the last half of the film. Nancy is only mentioned in a diary that she left in the house that is found by Lisa and by Jesse's best friend Ron. This chapter in the series is for die hard nightmare fans only. I thought the third one was better and it brought back the Nancy character back and the dad back. So I would skip part 2 all together.


I don't even know where to begin. This movie is just so excruciatingly bad that it's painful for the eyes to look at. And what's worst is the fact that it's a "sequel" to the absolutely brilliant original. The film's about (as if we care!) a young boy named Jesse (that's a manly name, isn't it?) who starts to have nightmares about Freddy Krueger after moving into Nancy's old place. When Jesse finds out about Freddy, he and his girlfriend start investigating... I really want to tell you the ending, so I can save you from this tragedy of a film, but I'll keep my mouth shut. However, if you really want to know, send me an e-mail to phil7225@googlemail.com and I'll send you one back with the ending. But, trust me, you'll wish you never knew...


Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge is the sequel to the horror classic Nightmare on Elm Street. This movie shows Freddy's plan to get back to the real world: to possess a teenager that has a girlfriend who looks just like Meryl Streep. I got to watch this yesterday (well, today) at 4:00 A.M. Even at that time, I wasn't scared. This movie does not scare you- it only has an awful amount of gory/disgusting images. Anyways, it is somehow a good movie. Robert Englund is menacing as Freddy Krueger, which makes it up for the weak performance of the leading actor (which I forgot the name). The scene in the party is really good, with Freddy producing a bloodbath with all the scared "little kids". Another great example of non-scary horror movie that kinda works. My next target is the first movie, which I still haven't seen. Well, off to the video store! FINAL GRADE: 7.3/10


An excellent sequel, that's very underrated, and lots of fun!. I liked how they tried to go for something different (it's quite bizarre at times) and it had a lot of gay undertones, but i found it very amusing, and all the characters were great, and did there jobs very well!, plus the score was excellent! and the 2 main leads were great!. A Lot of people think this is the worst of the series, i would have to say no, in fact it's one of the best of the series, it's at times creepy, hilarious and overall just a lot of fun, the pool party is especially fun times!. Freddy is not quite the One Liner comedian yet (although he is funny), he cracks a few jokes here and there, but mostly he still lurks in this shadows, he's still creepy, and we still take him quite seriously, he still means business! and has a wicked and creepy laugh. The Opening is great, as is the ending, plus if you look closely, you will see that's Robert Englund driving the bus , in the opening. The Direction is very good!. Jack Sholder does an excellent job here, with great lighting, great camera angles. good zoom in's, created a creepy atmosphere, great use of color, and overall he did a great job!. There is actually a fair amount of blood and gore here. We get Freddy's gory face throughout the flick, Freddy's revealed brain, gory dead bird, back ripped open with claws, Freddy comes out of Jesse's body (very neat, and very gory), gory slashings, gory claw stabbing, gory wound, melting face, and quite a bit of blood! Decent. The Acting is very good!. Mark Patton does a great job here, he hit all the right emotional notes, was vulnerable, likable and had very good chemistry with Kim Meyers!. Kim Meyers is also very good here, she is very likable, very beautiful, and felt for her in some scenes. Rober Rustler is Excellent here!, he was my favorite character here, he is hilarious very likable, and overall just seemed like a fun guy!. Robert Englund is GREAT here, he is creepy, funny and was a lot of fun to watch, plus he really liked to mess with people's minds, and he had a lot of great Quotes!(Englund Rules!). Clu Gulager and Hope Lange are both great as Jesse's parents and both had pretty good chemistry. Marhsall Bell is very good as the unlikable gym teacher. Christie Clark is decent as the daughter. Overall i HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend the sequel and it's sadly very underrated. **** out of 5


Another fairly predictable "Nightmare on Elm Street" story finds young Jesse Walsh trying to fight off a very rude intrusion by Freddy Krueger. David Chaskin has taken Wes Craven's original characters to create this new tale for director Jack Sholder.

This film is viewable thanks to a good performance by Mark Patton in the role of Jesse Walsh. Kim Myers also starred. Over all, the content is still trashy and the level of entertainment is still average. "Elm Street Two" is one of the shortest films I have seen in a while. Running time is only eighty minutes. However, I guess we should be grateful for small mercies.

Tuesday, September 17, 1991 - Video


I have been watching this film series for many years now. The first of the "Freddy" films I actually saw was part 3, which is still the best in my opinion. A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge is truly a lime in the series, as far as fans of the series go. That doesn't mean it is a bad horror movie. Actually, after watching this one for many years I have come to rather enjoy it. You might want to put this movie into the category with other horror sequels like Halloween 3 because they go against the traditional sequels. Actually, if you take Freddy out of this movie and replace him with just another dead serial killer this movie would hold its own as an original horror film. This movie also has very little trademarks of the series in it. For one, the infamous Freddy music is completely gone from this movie. Instead, we have quite a nice atmospheric, if not very dark soundtrack from Christopher Young. Also, the Freddy glove is in this movie, but if you look closely at times Freddy isn't wearing the glove. Instead, the blades are protruding through his fingers.

Also, you get quite a bit of bizarre things in this movie that seem inspired from many other horror films. We have a killer bird, many haunted house type scenes including objects moving on their, things blowing up. We have dogs with human faces on them, a perverted gym teacher and last but not least Freddy possession scenes. Throw all of this together and you get quiet a strange flick.

Another thing that I liked about this movie were the special effects. The effects in this movie must have opened a few peoples eyes back when it came out because they are truly disturbing. Look for the scene where Freddy is clawing his way out of our leads body.

I guess the only thing I didn't like about this movie was the lead character of Jessy. I found him to be obnoxious and kind of a wimp. At least in the first movie Nancy was all down for trying to do something about Freddy killing everyone around her. Jessy would rather act like a baby at times.

All around, I liked this film and I think it needs to be looked at again by some people. I know I certainly don't look at it as a true sequel to the original, part 3 is the true sequel. But, I think this movie is still a lot of fun and recognition is definitely due. 7/10


Today i received my Nightmare on Elm Street collection and having seen part one it was straight on with number two "Freddy's Revenge" which i found way, way off the mark from the original.

The story is set five years after the events of part one and now the Walsh family have moved into the house from part one and the son of the family Jesse begins to have the nightmares that Nancy from the previous installment was having. Its only too long before Freddy begins yet another reign of terror.

The film gets off to a quick start with a nightmare which really takes you by surprise and is set up nicely and all i'll say is it goes down faster than the Titanic. Throughout the film you feel that it is just a mixture of plot lines just thrown together in the editing room without a thought to a normal narrative such as the first film.

The film is hard to follow and strays heavily from the first film which is not the way a sequel should go but then again we are talking about the horror genre here. Freddy gets little to no screen time in the film which is really a bad thing considering most people watch these film for Freddy so i couldn't understand the logic in this but never the less they did it! The acting is poor and you really feel that Mark Patton was badly miscast in some way or another and i really never bought his whole descent in to Freddy's clutches which i did in the first film. Of course Robert Englund is superb (when he gets chance) as Freddy Kruger and really shows an evil side towards the end. The other actors really aren't worth a mention because of the total lack of respect for their characters shown by the director and writer of the film.

Speaking of which Jack Sholder should be appalled by his work here, there is no real direction and when there is it really is all over the place and very bad and shows in no way the brilliance of what Wes Craven brought to the original. The writing too is just mind boggling in terms of how the guy even managed to get his trash on the screen in the first place, the dialogue is cheap and cheesy which is what we expect in the horror genre but just not to this bad extent.

All in all this film will certainly go down as one of the worst horror sequels ever as far as i'm concerned but i did give this a four out of ten so there must be something worth watching.... well yes there is and i think its the fact that this is a nightmare on elm street film and for that reason you want to like it a lot but it just wasn't worth the bother and should be ignored from the franchise to be totally fair.

As far as horror sequels go this is one of the worst i have witnessed in a long time and is in great distance from the original and that is a shame! **** out of **********


This sequel is throbbing with cheap and cheesy scenes. Not to mention Jesse's homosexuality placed throughout the movie. Even if it was unintentional (according to director Jack Sholder) I didn't 'intend' to see horror movie classic monster, Freddy Krueger star in such a disgraceful flick to the series, or see one of the characters that Jesse kills nude. The first movie was INCREDIBLE, probably the best in the series because it didn't need special effects or anything high-tech it just was naturally frightening. In the second film they attempt to use special effects and fail, in the third film they use special effects to their fullest extent and create a very good movie also scary in some scenes. The second will be nothing more than a comedy to me.

I would just skip this movie, if I must go into more detail why you should, I'll gladly tell you. 1.Nancy is absent through the whole movie. 2. The movie gets off on a bad start (Jesse is a creep riding on a school bus with two other girls, the school bus driver misses the stop, rides off into a sort of desert and stays there. Gradually, land falls off beneath them until the school bus is remaining on a single piece of land. Freddy reveals himself and fights them as they try to balance themselves. Jesse wakes up screaming and sweating, you can see what a crappy job they did on the whole scene.),middle(just about everything)and end(They are back on the bus going to school and Jesse gets worried, he screams "Stop you're going too fast!" his friend reassures him in the worst acting ever. She says "Its OK Jesse everything is going to be alright" at least I think thats what she says. Then there is a skip and Freddy's glove has magically came out of her chest and she starts screaming.) 3. This movie has left this reviewer and HUGE Nightmare on Elm Street fan for a loss of words because they aren't enough cuss words in the English language. In conclusion, if you are looking for a good Freddy, don't look here.


I don't see how anyone could give this less than a 7. Its not as good as the first but most movies aren't. The acting is decent and the plot is good, but where this shines is the fact that its so unpredictable and the idea that freddy is inside jessie confused me at first but then grew on me and i became to feel sorry for the poor kid. The coach gets what he deserves and there are a few funny moments as well. There's less suspense than the first one, its almost non existent but still this is a godd movie, if you wanna see a bad movie watch Mortal Kombat Annihilation, that was bad! The thing with the bird was bizarre and completely off the wall and i also kinda get sick of everything bursting into flames all the time but the party scene and the ending, how we see the bus at the beginning drive off onto the desert and the ground opens up and hell swallows them was implemented well again at the end of the film (granted we just see them drive into the desert but still..) Also Lisa was hot! So there ya have it You get Freddy : ) A Hot girl! Violence! A Weird Plot! And thats what makes this awesome. Cant wait to watch the third one on Monday!


A Nightmare On Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge begins with the Walsh Family, who has just moved into the old Thompson house, where Freddy Kruger did his dirty deeds in the first film. Freddy Kruger is still very much alive, and not only is he still haunting people's dreams, but now he is trying to get into the real world through the body of Jessie Walsh, a teenage boy who can't figure out if he is really being attacked by Freddy or if he is just flat out losing his mind.

This is a very good movie that has some great qualities to it. The lighting is extremely creepy and amazing, even more so than in the original A Nightmare On Elm Street. There are several great nods to the original, in particular one where Jesse finds Nancy Thompson's diary and reads bits from it about Freddy Kruger. And, like always, Englund does a wonderful job at playing the frightening dream-slasher.

However, there are also some major flaws in this movie as well. The first flaw, and it is a big one, is the main character. The character Jesse acts so incredibly girly and homosexual that it is distracting and annoying. The characters are poorly developed, making it hard to feel sorry for them when they are attacked by Freddy. This movie breaks a lot of the rules of the first film, to the point where it would be hard to watch them back-to-back.

In the long run, this is a very scary movie, and one of the best sequels. Definitely worth watching, just don't expect it to be near as good as the first Nightmare movie.


A quickie flick to cash in on the success of the original, Freddy's Revenge suffers from lack of originality and purpose. The only reason's to watch this movie are for some carnage and because of Robert Englund's gleeful performance. If there is one constant that has always been strong in this series, it has been Robert Englund. The rest of the cast is basic horror movie fodder. There is a very creepy dream sequence at the beginning that plays into the fear of where that yellow bus really takes you and a real fun pool party, nightmare style. There could have been a really good movie about how a person transforms in high school. There is a start in this movie, but then all that happens is killing of the brain cell kind.


This second installment stands on its own as a good movie but is not qualified as a sequel to the Nightmare series, in that many of the rules set by Craven in the 1st part have been broken in this one. For example, hmmm... I thought Freddy only has power in the dream world, but since when he's able to possess human body in the real world? Come on, this is not an Exorcist movie!!!

The fright & gore are good. The helplessness as well as loneliness of the lead character (Jesse) really help augment the horror atmosphere of the film in that, to me, the less main characters there are in this type of movie, the more horrifying the film will be (just like part 1)!


I purchased this film, and it did not seem like the typical Elmstreet flick, with freddy humor. This was an all out horror film, with good special effects, realistic gore and it was delightful. The only thing wrong with it is that parts of it can seem a little lame at times.


I love the original Nightmare on Elm Street like everyone else does but I also liked 'Freddy's Revenge' just as much. Many critics give it a horrible rating for it straying too far from the original ideas of Craven and Co. But wait a second.... Freddy is attempting this time to take over a young teenagers body and therefore become 'human' and no longer just a figment of perception, so far the idea is captivating to me. I think what did it for me in this movie was the fact that before this movie, Freddy could only come to you in your dreams and that was it. Freddy doesn't really have much breathing room as far as his capabilities go at this point but now (Part 2) he can get into a body and become real! Just the thought of this madman coming into the real world and wreaking havoc is scary enough for anyone that could realistically perceive this. Yes there were some 'pseudo-gay' references in some scenes which could have been handled differently (director Jack Sholder to this date still denies any intentional use of homo-erotic references). And when we were all teenagers we all had those teenage-sexual confused period/phases in our lives and maybe these references in the movie were only done to better capture whats going on in the mind of the life of a male teenager in Springwood, Ohio in 1985. I may be wrong but all in all I thought this movie was very good , and regardless of what other critics think..I will proudly give this movie eight out of ten stars.


**WARNING HUGE SPOILERS THROUGH WHOLE PAGE DO NOT READ IF YOU Haven"T SEEN.**I don't know where to begin with this horrid harpy of a sequel that started a trend for the horror movie genre.How about the very idea of this film freddy is defeated in the first but in this time frame, new line was desperate for money and it shows.they thought why not make a sequel to the awesome movie we put out in 84.WE can make a completely illogical plot, stupid characters,the worst sequel in the franchise,bad acting from all the actors other then Robert Englund.This movie is probably best known for having the highest body count in the series.Usually that is a good thing in the original the deaths were unique and stylise.In this one they are just unoriginal in the first freddy would like write a cool message in you in this one you just get stabbed, or even worse that very brokeback scene with freddy in the shower whipping some dude.The plot sucks freddies trying to get reborn into the world by a whinny little kid, and only his neighbours love can save him?And it's got all kinds of bad special effects Wes Craven was probably ashamed of like that exploding bird,weird dog face things,the freddy coming through the kid seen,a better villain for this movie would have been that stupid school bus.It's got an unclimactic show off in the boiler room which set up part 3 which is a great movie.In conclusion if you buy the box set throw this out and part 5,6, and with 4 I don't care .Just stick with 1 3 and 7.


After a promising opening sequence, director Jack Sholder completely fumbles the ball and ultimately delivers a shoddy, incomprehensible mess that besmirches the good name of Wes Craven's original masterpiece. David Chaskin's poorly devised script completely ignores the rules laid down by Craven in A Nightmare On Elm Street, allowing Freddy to possess the body of teen Jesse Walsh (Mark Patton) in order to wreak havoc in the real world.

With numerous unintentionally funny scenes (check out the exploding parakeet, the 'tidying the room' scene, and the attack on Coach Schneider by sporting equipment!) and plenty of homo-erotic moments (male bonding, S&M leather bars and the coach being whipped on his bare butt with a towel), I really don't think this is what fans expected from a sequel.

Although the film may be enjoyed if one views it as camp trash, it is easy to see why this film is one of the most universally reviled horror sequels of all time; with its tedious pacing, lack of decent gore or scares, and a total cop-out ending that sees Krueger defeated by 'love', Freddy's Revenge is very disappointing.

Fortunately, the franchise improved big time with the release of part 3, Dream Warriors, but part 2 will always be there to remind makers how not to make a Freddy Krueger movie.


As much as I could complain about the first film though I would have to say that at least it wasn't Freddy's Revenge, quite possibly the worst sequel in history. First of all revenge against who? I was under the impression that Freddy was out for revenge in the first film, and was just plain murderizing people for no reason in this one. Anyway all that aside and I have to say that the film transcends dumbness, Freddy wants to possess a boys body so that he can kill kids who are awake, a good idea,. He completely exits the dream world and becomes another mundane movie villain is not such a good idea, and the scene where he comes ripping out of said characters stomach is just about the worst mistake in the history of bad mistakes. What about the visuals though, any creepy dream scenes, or fancy killings? Nope, here we have a gay Nazi coach being S&M whipped with skipping ropes, dogs with human faces, and the absolute horror of horrors in an insane budgie. Clearly time for a change of underpants then, because you know you really should be changing them every day.

The writing takes the poor script in the original and asks a trained chimpanzee to try and improve on it, which most fans generally admit was a bad mistake. Freddy is no longer creepy, his dream world makes just one noticeable appearance, his real world powers make no sense, and his choice of killing methods lack even a hint of imagination. What's more the choice of actors is beyond lame, with lead actor Mark Patton being one of the most irritating dopey little twits I've ever seen. Jack Sholder's direction lacks so much as a hint of style, and the film is just generally lacks anything to really make me want to discuss it in depth. The only things positive in the film are that once again Englund is superb as Freddy and that Meryle Streep lookalike Kim Myers was a total babe, which is odd considering I find Streep to be ugly as hell. Overall this one is definitely a 0/5 contender. I'm certainly not a major fan of the original, but you know what, I still hate this film as one of the worst ever made.


Well, the title says it all. Guess who is back in town to terrorize the young, coming of age youth living on or near the vicinity of Elm Street? If you said Freddy Kruger, you'd be right! Nothing unexpected here except as sequels go, this one is really pretty weak. A new family move into "the house" where a girl had previously gone mad. The teenage boy, played with little conviction by Mark Patton, starts to see visions of Freddy who wants to recruit him to kill. We see lots of the same images as in the first one, but what we don't see is any of the sense of style, menace, or suspense that was used in the original. Why? This film was directed by Jack Sholder - not a household name nor a very competent director at this stage in his career. Wes Craven did not make the sequel and it shows. The death scenes are not very graphic or even scary. There is a bizarre wrap-a-round story about Freddy driving a bus, a huge party at a house with loads of stupid teen stereotypes, and a sadistic coach that spends his nights at a gay bar wearing leather. OK, I guess. Kim Myers plays the female love interest, and she is very easy on the eyes if nothing else. None of the actors - including Robert Englund - stand out. Clu Gulager and Hope Lange(my, how the mighty have fallen) appear as the parents of Patton. Englund doesn't have a lot of meat in this role. Some of his lines seem very strained. Although populated with ridiculous scenes a plenty, two stand out for me. First, the coach is in a locker room where all kinds of physical equipment start moving all over the place. It's a real hoot - not even close to being scary. The zenith; however, of ridiculous scenes is when Patton and family, after having just covered up what appear to be two lovebirds, see the cage rock back and forth and the birds spontaneously combust. It looked like an interactive game of asteroids! The most amazing thing about this film is that it did not kill this series. Had it been able to do that, then I could say something nice about it!


I don't know why Wes Craven, didn't Direct this, but without Freddy's creator, it simply insults the original with its attempts to break the boundary's set out by Wes Craven in the first movie. Freddy now seems to be able to interfere with others through the power of dreams, not the just the person that has the dreams, and it comes across as contrived and tacky.

Freddy is still a good character, although more laughable than Scary in this outing, he was humorous in the first movie, but not at the expense of the Horror.

Don't let this movie be your guide, The original Nightmare wipes the floor with this second rate follow up.

4/10


When they rereleased all the Nightmare on Elm Street movies again, I was glad to get my hands on number's two, three, and four in the series. No sooner did I watch them, did I wonder what the heck I was thinking when I was a kid? Number two is the worst.

I think I used to like the idea of Freddy possessing some weirdo kid. But geez, that might've been a fine tale to tell if the actors weren't such giant nerds, especially the lead, Jesse Walsh, played by Mark Patton in what has to be the most forced bit of acting I'd ever seen. And that really spoiled everything from the start, especially as he takes loud gasps between dramatic dialogue. Save maybe Robert Russler who plays Ron Grady, this movie just isn't worth the time. It is indeed the worst of the series (and there were quite a few bad ones).

The story is that Mark Patton and his family move into the house where a girl was murdered. Mark, and his annoying girlfriend Lisa Webber (Kim Meyers), know this because they find her diary hidden somewhere in his room. But what's this? Living in the house and reading the diary unlocks the story of Freddy "Mr. Invincibility" Krueger. And soon, Mark starts to become Freddy as the guy has possessed his body, and forces Mark to carry out his dirty deeds. Like Freddy used to say, "You are all my children now." Too bad Mark is such a little girl when it comes to misbehaving. There's no point in going on, the movie is just stupid.

Actually, if you're looking to watch the series, I'd recommend Nightmare on Elm Street 3: probably the best in the series, and the one with arguably the best special effects.


This films opening scene takes place with a young girl cheerleader entering the mens locker room which turns out to be a porno film being produced. The story gets very complicated with murder and romance and the web of mystery keeps you spellbound through out the entire picture. Barbara Hershey(Thelma T.K. Knudsen),"Lantana",'01, is a lawyer who falls in love with a married man and gets deeply involved with his family and finds out that her best friend is married to him. There is a fight and the ice cubes seem to fly all over the place, besides blood in the mens bathroom which becomes a complete mess. There is even a fight in an elevator shaft and Sam Shepard (Detective Beutel),"Blind Horizon,",'04, comes to Thelma's assistance. Beutel is madly in love with Thelma but suspects her of not telling the truth about what is going on and feels she is becoming a number one suspect. This is a very enjoyable film worth viewing.


Police try to solve the murder of a businessman. Unknown to them, the man's attorney is implicated and, of course, she wants to keep her involvement secret. This leads to the wrong person being charged, causing the lawyer to go looking for the real culprit. Good mystery with lots of action and tense drama.


In this Columbo episode, it features Honor Blackman (who denied a C.B.E.) and Richard Baseheart as an aging acting couple. The wife, Lilian Stanhope, played deliciously by Honor seduces a powerful older British gentleman to produce Macbeth for them to star in so they are not washed up like most actors and actresses in their predicament. Anyway, the plot is more like Macbeth and the film could be useful in an English class if you're teaching Shakespeare's Macbeth. Anyway, I have always enjoyed watching it from beginning to end. Let's not forget Wilfred Hyde-White who should have been knighted in the episode. Anyway, Columbo is a guest in their country and he becomes wrapped up in the investigation. While others have assumed it's just a robbery gone awry, Columbo always comes through. It's fun watching this delectable group of characters and props like an umbrella. It's great to see London location. I believe apart from the Mexican cruise that London was the only other place that Columbo got to travel too.


I've watched this a couple of times now and it gets worse the more you analyse. Compare it to the episode in Mexico where as a "fish out of water" Columbo has to help the local police. That episode is tightly scripted with a believable Mexican policeman and reason for Columbo to help out. Here we have lazy scriptwriting (exchnage visit) and cartoon English policemen going to their "clubs". Laughable! The theatre setting and "luvie" murderers have possibilities but marred by Basehart's Canadian drawl. The pub scene with "cockneys" is just ludicrous. The difference between the location shoot and the Californian and studio scenes is glaring and off putting.

The problem is Falk is not on camera enough to lift it, and a wealth of British character actors are wasted with not enough nuance in the script, and no interesting villain like Patrick MacGoohan, Jack Cassidy or Robert Culp to mask the story shortfalls with screen presence. The murder and denouement is just lame and it is surprising this episode came so early since it bears all the hallmarks of the type of episode you get when the series is going down the drain and a desperate attempt is made to liven the pattern up with a new location. Columbo has done far better than this, but I must admit that compared to more standard TV fare a bad Columbo is still better than a lot of other things you can pass the time with because Peter Falk is in it.


Columbo shows up in London without his suitcase as even when this was filmed, they lost them. He says it is his wife's case but why he came to London without his wife when I am sure Scotland Yard would have paid for both of them? This is a nice tourist episode as a lot of Londons sights are shown. The cast is great as almost the entire cast became well known to American audiences after this was made. Honor Blackman is a bonus as she is a great performer and she was already known as Pussy Galore before this.

The plot on this one is a little weak in that the murder is an accident and Columbo has to result to trickery to trip up the murder solution rather than using his usual proved police methods of homicide investigation. Then again, as this episode was done more for the famous cast and London scenery, I didn't really mind.


It's sort of funny how all the Columbo movies with a late Columbo appearance are also among the worst of the series. This movie also further more has some serious pacing problems. It often takes far too long for something to happen For instance the murder investigation doesn't start off until 25 minutes well into the movie. The movie could had also used some more interaction between the Lieutenant and the two suspects.

The movie has a fine cast with some good actors in it. Like often, they are mostly actors who were great in the past. Honor Blackman is one of those (Pussy Galore from "Goldfinger") and so is John Williams, who plays the victim in this movie, who is best known for his roles in a couple of Hitchcock movies. Sort of ironic that Richard Basehart, who has never been really known as the greatest actor, plays a Shakespearean actor in this move. Baseheart is still perhaps best known as the opening narrator of the '80's hit-series "Knight Rider", starring the immortal David Hasselhoff.

It's a nice change that this Colubmo movie is set at a complete different place this time but you can also actually wonder if it really adds anything that this Columbo movie is set in London, instead of the US. It's sort of funny though how Columbo behaves all the more clumsy in this foreign strange world for him. But just leave England to the English detective series/movies, me says. It's a complete different atmosphere, that doesn't really seem suiting for a Columbo movie, even though most of this movie got filmed back in California.

Of course the movie is also filled with the usual British stereotypical elements, which perhaps also makes this a sort of a tiresome and also unoriginal movie to watch. It's also part of the reason why the comical relief in this movie feels sort of weak and simple.

A rare miss in the successful long running series of Columbo movies.

4/10


Unless designed to poke fun at Hollywood stereotypes of the UK, this "Daggers" episode is, apart from Falk's usual charisma and convincing ham acting from Blackman, an unmitigated disaster. As a Brit, I find it tiring, even insulting, to see and hear notions of the UK, England in particular, reduced to the level of Dick van Dyke's pseudo-cockney, with the action running in upper-class environments that may have flourished before P G Wodehouse moved to the USA in the 1920s or in Agatha Christie's 1930s heyday, but which had virtually disappeared by the 1950s, not to mention the 1970s. Even Dick de Benedictis, famous for effective TV underscoring (e.g. Perry Mason Returns), descends to producing pastiches of time warped Georgian classicalness, as if the Hollywood view of Britain were incapable of advancing beyond the time of George Washington. "Daggers" is an embarrassing exception to an otherwise remarkable run of Columbo productions.


Un credited Jenny Lee-Wright http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0496751/ I think plays a bar maid in the pub.

Did Columbo actually plant some evidence?

Honor Blackman looked gorgeous in this one. The American actor Richard Basehart did a fairly unconvincing English accent. They both acted the 'overacting' thespian lovely clichés quite well. The streets of London looked grey and boring. An American who seems to get up the nose of a British Policeman - why didn't he get arrested? I really didn't know that a white china cup could kill anybody. She must of had a killer throwing arm.

But, didn't Columbo plant some evidence though?


TNA is freaking awesome! AJ Styles, Chris Sabin, Christian Cage, Samoa Joe, and many more. And now Kurt Angle. WWE is not nearly as cool as it used to be. Except for Raw, it's still OK but Smackdown and ECW are kinda lame. ECW is not extreme at all anymore and the ECW originals are just the whipping boys for the new comers. There might be 10 to 15 wrestlers tops in WWE that are cool but the whole TNA roster is cool. Except for Shark Boy. I hate that guy. And WWE has a horrible tag team division and TNA has the best tag team division in the world. TNA does a lot cooler moves that WWE won't do. If AJ went to WWE he couldn't do any of his moves. TNA is just all around better and Bound for Glory was better than all of the WWE PPVs I've seen all year. TNA! TNA! TNA!


I suspect that this movie will barely manage to entertain children. I laughed - out-loud - a handful of times. Unfortunately, the rest of the time I kept noticing missed opportunities. The characters of Ivy, Butch, Scott, and Prof. Brody are severely underwritten. These are characters that we're supposed to care about but I knew so little about them that when they were in danger, was so uninvolved I pondered the mechanics of the set, of the plot, of the actors' careers, etc. The script would have benefitted from even one more revision to add just a few details here and there. It wouldn't have been a great film then, but that would have been enough for a much better movie.

Sean Hayes stands out as Mr. Tinkles. He does a such a good job of being funny and evil, I wondered how much of his lines were improvised. (Given how lazily the rest of the dialogue was written, his lines were much appreciated.)


This film was tailor made for the Ailurophobe: if you believe that cats have a hidden agenda and possibly even a secret plan to take over the world then you really cannot miss this movie.

One of the worst insults hurled at one of the main characters is `Dog lover.'

There are quite a few chuckles and some real laugh-out-loud jokes but primarily this is one sight gag after another.

Sean Hayes (Will and Grace, Billy's Hollywood Screen Kiss) is great as the nefarious `Mr. Tinkles,' the leader of the underground cat society, whose biggest threat is the maid of the house in which he resides.

Susan Sarandon and Jon Lovitz turned in their usual great performances as the voices of Ivy' and Calico,' respectively.

Jeff Goldblum makes a great nerd. Compare him to his sexy persona in `Earth Girls Are Easy' and many of his other films and you can see what a multi-dimensional actor he really is.

The sound track by John Debney is perfect  shades of John Williams without being overbearing or detracting from the action on the screen.

While this is primarily a kid's movie there are some adult jokes: the word play on the substance being manufactured by Mr. Tinkles owner, as an example.

This is good summer escapist fare  especially if the theater is air-conditioned and you are not looking for great art. It is entertaining, mindless and a lot of fun.


I liked it as well as my wife and our 4yr. old son. Not sure why the PG rating, no language that I recall. Some visuals of poopie.Maybe a tad bit violent, but no blood or guts, no one gets killed. Overall it's a cute movie,and made me laugh out loud a number of times.


I'm an avid dog lover which is one reason I had to see this movie. Watching characters and personalities evolve out of dog breeds and statuses is a very funny comedy bit; a Mexican dog will speak with a Spanish accent and so on. The relationship of dogs and cats to humanity in this movie is quite strained; I think Disney's Homeward Bound and the Doctor Dolittle movies with Eddie Murphy hit it a lot closer. Another thing quite strained is the concept that dogs and cats could create such an elaborate hidden society with their own rules and technology-level is quite ridiculous. Once you get past the inane concept, you have a very funny, live-action cartoon for the whole family including the family pet. I'm sure you're never look at your cat or dog the same way again.


Oh come on! Why did they make this film. The beginning is so nauseating and bloated with kiddie crap that this film must never be called a FAMILY film! If you're gonna take your kid to a FAMILY movie, than go see Shrek (Which actually has clever dialogue) This piece of trash is almost not worth reviewing! 1/2* out of ****.


A free afternoon, a few bucks to go see a movie, some good friends by my side, and I made the regretful mistake of going to see "Cats & Dogs." As you have probably devised, I did not like the film...at all. I found it overly childish, and frankly unbearable. Juvenile humor is occasionally acceptable for adult viewers, but not in this case. "Cats & Dogs" is really a "must not see" for everyone. I gave it a well-thought-out 2 out of 10.


Cats and Dogs will do wonders for the return of quality family films. It was funny, intriguing, and a pleasure to watch. Even pet owners without kids will laugh at the antics of these crazy animals! It does make you wonder what happens when you leave for the day, though.


I've been excited about _Cats and Dogs_ since I caught the hilarious trailer months ago. Having now wasted a glorious Saturday afternoon (during Calgary Stampede week no less, when I could have been doing something REALLY enjoyable), I feel immensely cheated. The trailer reveals that the film has some good lines and that it entails an intriguing and pregnant premise. What the trailer doesn't show is the almost non-stop dreck that litters and ruins the rest of the film. I am talking about an unnecessary, distracting, obligatory and unconvincing sentimentality to the whole thing. Three cliched aspects are especially annoying:

1. The dad (Jeff Goldblum, absolutely sleepwalking) is a scientist who, despite the fact that he works at home, is apparently neglectful of his so. We know this because of his inattention to junior's soccer tryouts. This "tension" lends to some appalling "resolution" (sorry for the slight spoiler but if you can't see this coming you lack a pulse) that has nothing at all to do with cats or dogs and is not remotely humourous.

2. Lou the beagle has not only to help save the world from the cats- he also has to earn the love of junior, who (in an unspeakably stupid and unbelievable scene) rejects the dog initially- as if ANY little kid would reject a darling beagle puppy, but the "plot" requires this kind of stuptidity. Why can't the movie focus on the battle at hand instead of attempting this sentimentality, complete with soaring violins? ICK!

3. For no fathomable reason whatsoever, a "stray" voiced by poor Susan Sarandon shows up as the love interest for the grizzled head dog, Lou's mentor. Ah. So the general has a romantic past- WHAT was the POINT of that??

I would add that there were some annoyances typical of a lot of "family" films that most viewers apparently accept uncritically but that set my teeth on edge:

1. The quirky scientist, with no apparent means of financial support and his realtor wife live in a house that is easily worth a million dollars, on a massive lot with impeccably maintained gardens. Doesn't this depiction of social class bother anybody but me?

2. Susan Sarandon's "stray" is clearly a pure-bred- a saluki I think. Oh the idle rich- how dare they abandon a $3000 dog? Do Hollywood writers- who clearly themselves come overwhelmingly from the privileged classes- have any idea how real people live, especially how their purported characters might live?

I have to add as a Canadian (one who recently immigrated here from the US) that I can never live down, or understand, the need for films like this one, shot in Victoria, BC has to be set in America- one of the first scenes shows a USPS letter box and one Russian cat maligns "these American" security systems. NOTHING in the movie hinges on American-ness in any way, so why not just set the damn thing in BC? So producers of these films believe that Americans would refuse to see a movie set where it is actually filmed?


I first saw this movie on the Lifetime Television network after hearing some good reviews and seeing previews. The plot follows Gracie(Kristen Bell), a 17 year old girl who deals with trying to keep her brothers from being taken away from her and put into foster homes due to her drug-addicted and often absent mother Rowena(Anne Heche). With stunning performances from both Bell and Heche as the daughter and mother duo the film has real edge. With the supporting cast including Diane Ladd, this television movie surpasses the stereotypes of a typical movie-of-the-week. I strongly recommend this movie to anyone who wants to be inspired by a true story set to the screen.


Gracie (Kristen Bell) is not your average 16-year-old girl. For as long as Gracie can remember, she has been raising her four siblings, each of whom has a different, absent father. Gracie's mother (Anne Heche) seems to be on the fast track to self-destruction, while Gracie's well-meaning grandma (Diane Ladd) is too old and frail to provide a stable home. When the children's lives are about to be pulled apart, Gracie will have to do the impossible and make great sacrifices to keep her siblings together.

Kristen Bell's performance is the main reason to invest two hours watching "GRACIE'S CHOICE." Bell is in most every single scene of the film and she plays her dysfunctional part with all-American charm. Bell appears poised for great success in Hollywood.

Produced by the LIFETIME CHANNEL, "GRACIE'S CHOICE" is a watchable made-for-TV drama inspired by actual events. Keep your ears peeled for the original song "I Belong" performed by Cherie exclusive to this film.


I'm not usually one for daytime movies or the type to watch the Hallmark Channel (in the UK) but while channel hopping, I saw a trailer for this movie. What captured me was the fact that it was based on a true story, particularly based on a Readers Digest article (which I would love to read).

I made a point to watch this movie and I'm very glad that I did! From the very beginning as a viewer I could see a glimpse of the type of life-style that the family led. I instantly empathised (if that's the correct word) with the lead character of Gracie, played extremely well by Kirsten Bell! I don't want to give too much away, but this is a truly remarkable, heroic and self-sacrificing movie about a young girl who bares the weight of her family out of pure love. I am amazed how such a gem of a movie was made specifically for TV.

Wonderful! 10*


It's not because you claim you love your children, you actually love them. This is the premise for Gracie's Choice. How the person that gave birth to you betrays you, makes your life miserable, this is what this movie is about, and how to overcome all that. This movie is based on facts. Meet Gracie, a 17 year old girl (played by the adorable Kristen Bell) who sacrifices her own life to make sure her brothers are safe and sound. Her drug addict mother (played by the wonderful Anne Heche) changes boyfriends like underwear, and makes her children put up with it by dishing them fairy tale stories about horses and tasty meals. All and all, the mother is just a ghostly projection, a tantalizing dream, an empty promise. She doesn't love her kids, although she doesn't realize this herself.But the movie reveals this in a dramatic way. The mother yells Gracie can go to hell. Gracie responds fittingly: "I was born in hell." Gracie's hell is her mum messing things up, her redemption is her will to take care of her family, despite her own ambitions. In a way Gracie is too good for this world. She sacrifices herself for her little (half)brothers. The casting of Kristen Bell for the role of role model Gracie Thompson was an excellent choice.

The first time I saw Kristen Bell was in the Emmy winning TV-show The Shield. In this movie, Bells character ís The Shield.


Every now an again Lifetime has a movie which is not just a "tearjerker" or "chickflick" but a good story. "Gracie's Choice" was a very well written, acted and as a result a very compelling film. It was very moving and the viewer cannot help but wonder what will become of this family. Being a film on Lifetime will probably keep this film from finding all the audience who would appreciate it. But anyone interested should look for this movie on DVD because it was quite good. Kristen Bell,the actress who portrayed Gracie was excellent and will surely have a successful career. Keep your eyes out for her, her TV show Veronica Mars is quite good. Anne Heche was excellent as the drug-addicted mother. The viewer really begins to care about this family and hopes that they will stay together. Of course being a true story, "Gracie's Choice" is meant to inspire, and it does.


May contain spoilers. Grace's Choice is one of the most inspiring movies I've seen. A true story of a teenager who takes on the responsibility of raising her 3 brothers due to their drunken mother's absence. She changes her life and gives up a lot to care for her brothers, keep them together and create a stable, loving home.In the process, through very hard times she manages to work full-time and finish school. I recommend this movie to everyone, it is well worth your time, it shows people anything is possible if you put your heart in it. It is a little bit of a chick flick, but very much worth watching. I give this movie 10/10.


Insipring great movie. Don't be fooled because its from lifetime. Great movie. This coming from a straight 24 year old male. This movie is about one woman's life story and the ups and downs of a life without the best of starts. A girl raised with all the wrong cards rises above it all and makes her own hand of cards for the game of life. This is one story that brings tears (not for me), joy, and inspiration. This movie is really sad in the fact that this is a true story. However, it helps me to know that in real life someone was faced this awful situation and still overcame it with hard work and determination. This movie is from everyone except for small children who can't handle some of the themes of family violence and drugs.


Outstanding film dealing with a 16 year old who tries to bring stability to a totally dysfunctional family.

There is a truly outstanding performance by Anne Heche as the dysfunctional mother who neglects her children to lead a most disgusting life in pursuit of a good time. Heche is ably supported by Diane Ladd, a religious woman who can quote the bible but could not control her rebellious daughter.

The film deals with how a sharp 16 year old has to learn to play the system to keep her brothers together. Bright, perceptive and unfortunately victimized by a sick mother, Kristen Bell gives a splendid performance.

I enjoyed the part where she meets a black young man who becomes her boyfriend. Nothing is made of the inter-racial relationship nor the fact that the young man has a black father and white mother.

This film shows that a court system can work to the advantage of its victims.


I watched "Down with Love" first and that was a really good movie. I recommend watching it. Stars Renee' Zelwinger. After that went of...I kept the channel on and watched "Grace's Choice". Boy am I glad I did. Kristen Bell does an excellent job in this movie. Kept my interest thru the whole thing. Everyone in this movie does a great job in their respective parts. Its about a teen that has to do the right and impossible thing to keep her siblings together because of their irresponsible mother. I plan on finding the book or article this movie was about and reading it. Does anyone know where I can find it? My email is ronsbrat525@aol.com I recommend this movie to everyone. It is well worth watching!!!!!!


Gracie's Choice is about Gracie Thompson. She is a 17-year-old girl who at a very young age becomes a surrogate mother for her half brothers and half sister. To make matters even more complicated all her siblings have different surnames and nobody knows who their real father is. They live an itinerant life style with their mother. The mother Rowena is heavily involved with drugs and boasts two dependency problems. Her different boyfriends they move from town to town, from school to school and in their mother's case man to man. It is only when they move back to their mother's hometown and the introduction of their Christian grand mother that their unorthodox family situation begins to deteriorate. Their grand mother is a lovely woman whose Christian beliefs bring relief to her in times of trouble. She is totally unlike her daughter in every way but becomes an easy target for the desperate Rowena as she free loads on her. Gracie's attitude towards her mother changes during this period. Sexual advances that her mother's current druggie boyfriend is making towards her bring it on. A situation that makes her mother turns a blind eye towards because she feels that this man is the one for her. Of course this excuse and behavior is something that Gracie has heard seen time and time again. With the arrest of her mother and her subsequent incarceration we see Gracie comfortably take the reigns of her family, with the stability provided by them staying at their grandmothers Gracie without any hesitation or arguments decides to fight for her right to adopt her brothers and protect them from the every present threat of their real mothers return.

As far as these TV Movies go this is in my opinion definitely one of the better ones. Bearing in mind that it is based on a true story and many of the events filmed are invariably dramatized to appeal to the audience. What I really hate about these movies is the fairy tale tone that is applied to the overall presentation. Principle character is involved with some nasty people, a moment of clarity dawns on the principle character, a fight for their right to survive ensues, and the principle character wins. They all live happily ever after. I am sure the people who this was based on are now happy but that did not happen over the stroke of the judge's gavel like it did in this film. The story is very strong and credible up until the end and after seeing it I felt somewhat cheated.

The one aspect of this film I really did enjoy however was the performances of the leading actors. Anne Heche as Rowena is very strong and consistent but typical of the over dramatization that happens in the adaptations of true stories. Diane Ladd as the grand mother is also very strong but Kristin Bell who plays the lead character Gracie out shines both of these experienced actresses. I really disliked her as an actress before I saw this and I thought she was only capable of repeating her Veronica Mars persona (a show I utterly despise). But as Gracie Thompson she plays her trademark persona of being an independent young woman but she ingenuously gels the emotions of confusion, loneliness, fear, love, warmth and intelligence. This marks her out as being a mature actress for her age group. She really made me sit up and take notice and in this day in age where pretty so called actresses are a dime a dozen she not only walks the walk, but talks the talk.

Gracie's Choice will not be for everybody's taste but it is well worth the watch for the inspiring story alone. 8 out of 10.


This movie, "Gracie's Choice," is perhaps too close to home for me. This movie inspires me to do what she has done. The only difference is, I am not wanting to adopt my siblings, I am wanting to adopt my son. Previously, the courts were not in favor of me, despite my efforts. And, I had lost hope of ever adopting my son from his mother. But, now, I hope to. I had always been concerned about my upbringing/childhood, but perhaps I will be able to overcome it and make some progress with my family. Allow me to share one of my quotes that I find inspirational: "It is within you. When it is time, it will happen." Norman from Omaha, NE.