In "Wilbur Wants to Kill Himself," a young man - who basically lives from one unsuccessful suicide attempt to another - is looked after and cared for by his brother who is suffering from terminal pancreatic cancer. Moreover, it turns out that the mentally ill brother has designs on the physically ill brother's wife.

It may be hard to believe from that synopsis, but "Wilbur Wants to Kill Himself" is actually a comedy.

Indeed, "Wilbur," filled as it is with quirky characters and offbeat humor, is reminiscent of other well known Scottish comedies such as "Local Hero" and "Gregory's Girl," albeit this new film is darker and grimmer in its subject matter and theme. For in addition to death and illness, "Wilbur" also deals with the less tragic topics of adultery and unrequited love. Like the best Scottish comedies, this film provides us with a slice-of-life tale filled with ordinary, likable people who may have their weaknesses and eccentricities but who also strike chords of familiarity deep within the viewer.

There are beautiful performances by Jamie Sives as Wilbur; Adrian Rawlins as his brother, Harbour; Shirley Henderson as Harbour's's wife, Alice (who is also in love with Wilbur); Lisa McKinlay as Mary, Alice's young daughter, and an assortment of other fine actors and actresses who populate the scene.

Although the script threatens to veer off into melodrama and soap opera from time to time, the truthfulness of the writing and the honesty of the acting keep the film real and believable for most of the duration. The quiet conversations amongst the various characters, in which feelings are often hinted at and implied rather than explicitly stated, help to elevate the film above its sometimes contrived and maudlin plot. The movie ends with an ironic twist that shows that one person's death can often lead to a renewal of life for someone else. It's a fitting finale to a film in which one of the themes is the inextricable nature of human relationships, for what happens to one person happens to them all. It's a film that not everyone will surely like, but it is a treat for those in search of something a little bit offbeat and a little bit different.


While Harbour's character is too virtuous to quite be believed, his generosity is matched by the director and screenwriter. This is an artfully-constructed film--the acting, the direction, the cinematography--but more than that, it is a touching one. I am struck and saddened by how judgmental many of the other commenters are--I'm not saying that one should simply turn off one's moral radar when watching a film. Yes, it's very, very wrong for Wilbur and Alice to sleep together--but the film _asks_ us to consider what sorts of desires drive people, desires both for love and death, and to suggest that they might actually love one another (as Wilbur and Alice love Harbour) while still betraying them. And instead of giving in to the melodrama of confrontation, etc. it lets the mix of guilt and understanding linger while still bowing to and honoring to a desire for life and intimate human contact. I'm sorry that many others were unable to allow themselves to entertain that possibility, if for understandable reasons. In any case, I would think that the scene where Alice reacts to the news of Harbour's cancer (when they get back into the bookshop) would have been more than the price of admission/rental--one of the most powerful scenes I've seen in a while.


And by God you'll wish he had. Well received within indie circuits this is invariably described as humorous and subtle with great characterisations. God knows where people get this view from. The script contains no subtlety or finesse, giving us the bare bones of what passes for key moments in the story, and features dialogue that makes you presume it was written in a foreign language and then translated using Google. Apparently a story of teaching those who have given up on life to reclaim it, it left us with a feeling that those who reclaimed didn't deserve it and should have been left to die in the opening scene.


So we start with the "hilarious" premise that the obnoxious smartarse Wilbur (he doesn't really get any better) is continually trying to kill himself. All too quickly we have to divorce ourselves from any semblance of reality. Why has Wilbur not been sectioned? Why does he have a brother called Harbour? (it clicked when I saw that nearly every name related to the production was Danish that it might have been laziness on the writer's part). Without spoiling the plot takes a dramatic turn which should have touched me but is just not handled well enough for me to care.

I have no axe to grind with the actors: Shirley Henderson and Adrian Rawlins manage to evince some empathy although Rawlins clearly struggles with the Glaswegian accent. Jamie Sives plays the very unsympathetic title character unsympathetically (incredible for a character who is supposed to be suicidal!). Julia Davis gives us a 2D purely comic tactless nurse that would work well in a sketch show but no a film of this nature.

The reassuring thing about a film like this is that it reminds me how good most of the films I see are.


This is one helluv a title, isn't it? Why would anyone want to see a movie with a seemingly death-impending title? I remember hearing about WILBUR on cable IFC's (Independent Film Channel) "At the Angelika" film previews. It's a film in English by writer-director Lone Scherfig from Denmark. I rather enjoy her previous film "Italian for Beginners" (2000) in Danish, Italian and English. (Might want to check out her mini-bio on IMDb - quite interesting to learn about a filmmaker's background.)

"WILBUR wants to kill himself" is a small quiet film that actually has much human pathos. The three 'and a half' main leads: Harbour, the older brother who's closely protective of Wilbur, is sensitively played by Adrian Rawlins; Wilbur, the younger brother, is lively played (sounds like an oxymoron considering what the title suggests his role is) by Jamie Sives; Alice, the young woman who came into their lives, is subtly played by Shirley Henderson, and the critical 'half' being her little daughter Mary, aptly played by Lisa McKinlay - the portrayals and interplay were flawless. Didn't realize Rawlins is so talented - he was "Dr. Richardson" in Lars Von Trier's "Breaking the Waves" (1996) with the tour de force pair of Emily Watson and Stellan Skarsgard. (Noticed from the ending credit roll that Lars Von Trier was one of the two script consultants on this film.)

The music by Joachim Holbek complements the daringly subdued theme and tone of this unusually titled film. Well, let's not be hung up on the title. Kudos to Scherfig for being so venturesome with the story and her script. Isn't life just so - uncertain, risky, not as one might expect all the time? Cheers to the full cast and crew for their willing participation and creative energy on this filmic journey. The film's a tear-jerker - wouldn't you know it - with dashes of bemused humor (little details and vignettes like at the Chinese restaurant, at the hospital ward, or by the river, and of course, in the bookstore and in the bedroom) - it's basically about where one's heart is. The plot creeps up on you - gradually the viewer is drawn into this three and a half-some world we see on screen, caring for the characters, worrying with them, sighing with them, smiling with them, and pulling for the best possible outcomes. We want them to somehow succeed - succeed in what? Now isn't day to day living about coping with whatever comes and listening to one's heart? Grand and unattainable philosophy? Not at all. It's also being attentive to the dear persons around us, in our lives, and give a little - don't wait. Wilbur just might learn to let go of himself, think less of himself, and surrender to loving life. That just might be what the title implied, perhaps? It may not be for everyone - see for yourself. "WILBUR wants to kill himself" deservedly worth your while.

About the talented Shirley Henderson from Scotland: I've enjoyed her performance as Shirley, the wife & mother and love interest, opposite Robert Carlyle and Rhys Ifans in w-d Shane Meadows' "Once Upon a Time in the Midlands" (2002) - almost a similar menage a trois situation but less assertive than her role in "WILBUR." She's also in director John Crowley's "Intermission" (2003, script by Mark O'Rowe) - taken on, among the stellar cast, the rather offbeat yet still demure role of Sally (the script itself is plucky and unyielding alright - then again, it's probably quite 'normal' in the setting described) - another amusingly enjoyable film from Ireland if you're so gamed.


Just watched this film for the first time this evening mainly because the brilliant Julia Davis was listed as being in the film. It took about 20 minutes for me to get into the general idea of the characters but after that I was lost in the world of the unfortunate situation the brothers had found themselves in.

An amazing film. A real weepy. Shirley Henderson played a blinder. Can't say I was surprised after seeing her in Dirty, Filthy Love but I never recognise her name as an actress. I will do from now on.

The only thing I wasn't sure about (ironically) was Julia Davis pretending to be Scottish. Her desperate character still comes across but the accent is a little dodgy to say the least.


I like the film, not because it is on love or it is funny, but because it tell a story of mutual dependence of the characters. Alice love all others in her family, though the feeling to everyone is different, but they are all deep and long lasting. the feelings are not thunder like, but like a spring rain. they just need each other, so Wilbur stop trying to kill himself and learn to take care of Alice and her daughter. but I don't know why it is described as a comedy, for it contains very few funny scenes, to some one, it is moving. so if it takes another genre, it would have different audience and they will have quite different opinion to the film.


*** CONTAINS SPOILERS *** This movie was great. Absolutely marvellous, in fact. I don't think I have ever been so infuriated with a movie character before as I was with Wilbur. What an utter b**tard! He is funny and almost lovable, but sponges unaffected on his brother's indulgence to the point where his selfishness, as the ultimate irony, drives Harbour into committing suicide. That makes me angry. What makes me even more angry, is that up until the very end I actually liked Wilbur.


I say: See this movie at least twice. First time I saw it was at the Philadelphia Film Festival. I laughed quite a bit... I thought Wilbur's subtle words of wisdom were rather funny. Second time I saw it was about a week later once the Ritz Theater's had picked it up. I sat there and saw the movie as being much more sad. I still found certain parts of it to be funny... but I saw it as a much darker film than I'd initially thought. The little nuances of the actors and actresses in the movie make it into an absolutely down-to-earth film; they just seem like normal people... a bit nutty, but totally believable... you'll think you knew them by the end.

I highly recommend seeing it if you get the chance... Make the effort. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll smile.

Added: And now I've got it on DVD. Diagnosis... wow. It's just so sad and real.


The quirky title and description in the theater as a black comedy were somewhat misleading. There is the occasional laugh, but I would not classify this as a comedy, even a black comedy, although there are elements of a black comedy within.

I will probably need to revisit this film sometime soon to see if it stands up, or even improves on a subsequent viewing. The acting is fairly good, and I think that the direction is not manipulative, which I appreciated. But, the characters were somewhat incomplete for me, and the writing good but not top-notch.

To me, the film was most interesting in the resonance of the main characters, especially that of Wilbur. Wilbur is, ostensibly, one of the more selfish characters you're likely to encounter, though I guess he has his allure to the opposite sex. It is interesting how this character just seems to grab the attention and love of all those around him, and he seems to just use and bring down everyone else. His brother, the epitome of selflessness, is not developed enough for my liking, and I could not get a true handle on Mary's character. Yet, the movie earns points for attempting to present three-dimensional characters who you care about. I rated it a "7" on this site, and thought about bunmping it to an "8".


Wilbur is a wonderful character, he is the type your mother warned you about, but in the end he becomes the man of your dreams.. He is dangerous to a fault, yet gentle. He is scared of life, and tries as hard as he thinks possible to kill himself, but due to his will to live, he cannot finish what he started... I reccommend this movie for everyone, I enjoyed it immensely.

I went to see the movie and found myself stunned by the cinematography and the actors are notebly good.


Lone Scherfig's previous movie, Italiensk for Begyndere, was very praised around Europe and not the least here in Denmark. It was a well directed dogma movie with excellent acting, but when it comes down to it the story was very vague, and I for one did not find that movie very interesting at all.

However, Wilbur Wants to Kill Himself is an excellent and beautiful film about the Scottish Wilbur (Jamie Sives) who makes use of every other moment to attempt suicide. It's done with a semi-humouristic twist which makes it not all too sad through the movie, but is still meant to be taken seriously. He moves into his brother's home in a used book store where the brother, Harbour(Adrian Rawlins), must watch over him to keep him alive. As Harbour discovers love in Alice, beautifully played by Shirley Henderson, they become four in the home as Alice and her 9-year-old daughter Mary moves in, and Wilbur discovers love in both of them as well as he gets to see death from a new and unexpected perspective.

It was a good choice to make this movie in English, rather than Danish, and the result is an excellent drama which will apply to most people even though they, like me, may not be much for that sort of movies. If you liked Breaking the Waves, Wilbur Wants to Kill Himself should apply to you as well.


WILBUR WANTS TO KILL HIMSELF begins with a light touch, ends with a hammer blow. Ah, I think, at last a film with the courage to laugh at death while looking it straight in the eye, to derive its humor from a wellspring of suffering, which, after all, is the best, truest form of humor. But the dead-pan gallows humor, elegantly understated, flat and utterly unadorned, subtle and evanescent, evaporates somewhere in the middle, as breezy absurdity succumbs to a grinding Hallmark-greeting-card, art-house sermon on the Meaning of Life, to What IT Is All About. The film too neatly summarizes itself when one of the characters says, "It's good when people who have no one find someone."

Wilbur indeed wants to kill himself, tries and tries again, so that you immediately understand from the onset that the point of the film will be his finding a reason not to. Fine, it's a conceit. The characters are fetching enough, and, lo and behold, intelligent things come out of their mouths. Wilbur (Jamie Sives), with a certain curl of his lip, conveys a hint of the insouciant rakish charm of Robert Downey Jr. The love interest (Shirley Henderson) combines a waif-like vulnerability with a gnomish sexuality. Her daughter (Lisa McKinlay) is adorable yet completely natural. Absurdist touches are provided by a chain-smoking psychiatrist (Mads Mikkelsen), whose utterly world-weary expression and flat tone of voice never change, and a casually addled nurse (Julia Davis), à la Lillie Tomlin. There are even a couple of memorable images, such as a gaggle of giggly birthday-party girls in frilly white seen from above amid the dusty earth tones of a used book store.

The trouble is with Harbour, Wilbur's brother (Adrian Rawlins), who's so self-effacing as to serve as a Sunday school sermon. Such concocted altruism will put a crimp into any free flight of imagination -- only the unself-conscious are funny. Although the movie momentarily loses momentum here and there, particularly when the psychiatrist and Harbour on separate occasions take time out to discuss the grim pathology of their family histories, it breathes its last somewhere in the middle when the focus shifts from Wilbur to Harbour. Without giving away the story, I can only say the symmetry is too neat, the plot too didactic and planned, the brothers too diametrically opposed, one rising, the other sinking, as if on a seesaw.


Impressing; what the title proposes, I mean. You can't really expect anything certain with a title like that when you haven't heard about the film or its theme before. The United Kingdom has some good cinema, made with all the effort by people that, with movies like this one, get the shot they wait during their whole lives.

Lone Scherfig, a Danish director and Anders Thomas Jensen, his writing partner, have accomplished an original fable about life; love, relationships, family and, wellDeath. The tagline proposes: "The life he wanted to end, was just about to begin", in reference to Wilbur (Jamie Sives), who, when we first meet him, has just tried to kill himself.

"It gets more and more humiliating every time I try to do it and I fail", Wilbur tells his older brother Harbour (Adrian Rawlins), as they get out of the hospital. Both of their parents died, but Wilbur suffered his mother's death. He felt it differently and his parents loved him, probably more than they loved his brother.

They are different persons. Harbour loves Wilbur and wants to take care of him. They have a bookshop and Wilbur doesn't care about t, but Harbour does. He maintains them both and tries to prevent Wilbur from achieving his only goal: end with his life.

One of the magical ideas the movie has is that it won't let that happen. With a beautifully constructed screenplay, the authors and creators put a woman in the brothers' lives; Alice (Shirley Henderson). Harbour meets her first, and tells his brother about her hair and her smile. Wilbur meets her, then, as she saves his life when he was trying toSoon, Harbour and Alice fall in love, and she moves in with them, alongside her daughter.

They all seem happy until Wilbur tries it again, so we can meet very realistic characters, as Dr. Horst (Mads Mikkelsen), a psychiatrist with a good heart that's only trying to help, and some women that like Wilbur. But Wilbur doesn't see women, at least not until his brother ends up in the hospital, and he "meets" Alice. We understand the flames of love they feel for each other because the film has made the characters sympathetic until this moment.

It's these three people story what turns around, and the performances. I'll try to catch Jamie Sives entire filmography. He is so natural and warm; with that innocent face and look that hides great acting qualities. Adrian Rawlins is very quiet but expressive at the same time, in the correct moments. He's just there as any normal people, without trying to call attentionJust waiting for the moment. The familiar face of Shirley Henderson is a big surprise. Shining in a role between to men, as the only girlYou got to have the presence.

It goes like this. For Harbour, it is happiness he never felt, and you can tell because of how he sounds when he says "I'm going home with my wife and daughter". He lives for them. For Alice is the place she couldn't have; a safe home and company she was missing probably.

And for Wilbur it is rediscovering a life he gave for done; it's feeling againIn the wrong circumstances and place, yes, but feeling; and the only thing life ask from us is that we thank her for being in the world, because there's nothing more beautiful than being alive. Well there's probably one thing, but that's life itself.


Wilbur wants to kill himself is a killer movie. From someone who experiences suicidal ideation and tendencies on a daily basis, but is not depressed or in fear of those concepts, I found the film truthful. It gave me a reason to live, if for nothing else to see the end of the movie, but then again, if I were dead, I doubt that I would care. And that's the point. Wilbur captures a lot of that angst, and confusion.

On the one hand he's someone the chicks dig (though I can't really see the 'it' thing that everyone talks about), and though he may know it, he also seems to realize the truest injustice in life: that we live in a world where we are alone and nothing matters and few others see that. Try as we might, it's difficult to find communion of any depth with any other person. Especially if you are a complex person in the least. Meaning, for instance, that if you have an interest in getting out of your small, middle America hometown, you are probably slightly more complex than most of your neighbors. You'll still have people to talk to, but your circle is dwindling.

Let's say that you not only want to leave that hometown, but you're gay, well, I don't even have to go into what happens in this case. Suffice it to say, you're more complex than most, even if as a gay man, or lesbian woman you are simple.

The thing is that being gay, and wanting to leave a hometown are relatively simple things compared to the person who has a deep, extra-ordinary, thought in their head about the quandary of life.

For the purposes of dissecting this film's meaning, this is a person who can (or maybe can't help doing so) look at life and see it as something that really seems to have no purpose.

If we have the ability to take that thought seriously, and investigate it for a very long time (dozens of years), without succumbing to the fear (or possibly in most cases, the reality) that it will lead to depression, or insanity, we will become more complex, because we will operate on a different level, and see things as they are. If we do this times ten, which would equate to us being very complex, we question life and its reasons more than just the standard "why are we here" rhetoric, we are likely never to find anyone who can relate to us, and worst of all, to whom we can relate without sensing our own dishonesty with our own self.

And though I don't know for certain, it seems to me that this is the point at which Wilbur may have arrived. He also may not have. However, this characterization captures the real-life feeling of being in that state of knowing the purposelessness, and realizing that there are no answers in 'real' life that will suffice any longer, ever again. Realizing that ice cream doesn't make kids happy, balloons don't make kids happy, cars don't make adults happy. All of that simply serves to distract (in the form of conditioned responses) from the fact that we are raised as if on a farm to be automatons. When a person is at that point, the people with whom they connect are indeed rare.

Everyone is familiar with the clichés about how many people there are for each person on the earth. For instance one says, "There's someone for everyone." Some people believe that. Some will say that for each person there are multiple possible partners, and for those people that's probably true. For some there are infinite partners. I guess in part it depends upon a person's underlying unconscious goals.

For those for whom there can only be connection based on something truly undefined, to my satisfaction, by media and the like, there may be only one other person anywhere, or not at all, to whom they can relate. So, why live in a world where the process is the same everyday: get up, go to a silly job that serves some other bastard and his family but that we must take seriously in some way, come home, eat things (mostly out of habit), sleep, awake and do it all again. To top it all off, never ever meet a person that can see you. Never ever meet a person that even wants to see you. Never meet a person that acknowledges and knows true beauty in the form in which you bring it to this world.

Why? Because they don't have the capacity, and you were never taught to look, you were only taught to take what is right in front of you. Wilbur might seem selfish, but I think that Wilbur might be sick of being judged based on some silly sexuality archetype that he carries because of habit, rather than real desire for it. Wilbur, like most of us, wants to be loved for who he is, by someone who does not judge him. I mean Wilbur's not sleeping around in this movie. So, obviously, he's looking for a connection that has more to do with something other than sex. There is a time when sex is just sex. There is a time when sex is procreative and therefore construed to be for love. Procreation does not always mean love.

Best of all, there is also a time when sex is communion with another. A communion that transcends our own incarnations in bodies. It communicates, in concert with another, the confusion, the narcissism, the energetic component, the mechanical component, all while "listening" to another tell a similar story. At that point it is, for lack of a better conceptualization, art bonding souls. And there is no better reason to live or to choose to not live, than to be in proximity to the truth available in that possibility.


I get suspicious when movies push lessons about life, as if movie realities can substitute for, rather than amplify, actual experience.

In this, you're seeing the Genesis story of Jacob and Esau...this includes the parents who 'played favorites', the 'elder brother serving the younger', and the behind the scenes double cross ("Is that why he is called Jacob, because he has deceived me these two times?"). When Sives fails to suicide, his description of the nothingness is the revocation of Jacob's dream of the glorious ladder to Heaven. He wrestles an angel (the water rescue), and thence receives his blessing.

So that's *what* it is -- can one launch a dark comedy off this platform?

I think this was a shameful missed opportunity to stick to just that -- notions of comedy. It is crushed by the self-important tone of the drama, and the utterly unimaginative camera work.

Also, there was a chance to augment this with borrowings from Kipling -- who knew how to be darkly self-effacing -- but all we get are the collections of dead writers (the bookstore).


This film was terrible. Really really bad.

i just read a comment saying that you'll be enriched. if anyone ever says this about a film like this it means that you have to watch a slow boring film which is absolute drivel.

Its about a Scottish guy - very unlikeable - in fact its not really about anything - its an absolute snooze.

If you think of yourself as a film critic you could analyze it and say oh yes its wonderful but this film was terrible. Its just pointless, not about anything - just some boring mean Scottish guy who attempts to kill himself. Great! I mean watch a good film not some arty crap.

And - enriched! I mean i cant remember much of this film because i saw it a while ago and its totally unmemorable but i think he meets a girl and decides to put off killing himself for a bit.

i don't know about you but that didn't make me jump up and say OK I'm gonna grab life by the balls , what an inspiring film! its just a boring load of crap. absolute drivel.

1 out of 10.


Naguib Mahfouz, the Egyptian novelist, whose "Midaq Alley" serves as the basis of this film, wrote about the characters that populate that narrow strip of an Egyptian city, and how in some ways, all of their lives are so inter-connected to one another.

Director Jorge Fons and the adapter, Vicente Lenero, transferred the action to Mexico City. They used the same format that Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu later used for his successful "Amores Perros" in 2000. It would be unfair to compare both films, yet, one can see certain parallels in the way the films unfold. Each narrative shows exact moments in which the lives of the people that part of town prove pivotal for the stories presented in the film.

There are four stories in the film. Each deals with what happened to that particular character while all have points in which they connect with the others. The film shows that when Mexican filmmakers want to tell interesting human stories, such as the ones depicted in the film, they don't have a thing to envy to the best types of cinema of the world. This is clearly a movie that will survive because of its universal themes.

Salma Hayek was making her second appearance in front of the cameras. She proved why she was an actress to be reckoned with. Her Alma shows a vulnerability, and freshness as she approaches the character. Ernesto Gomez Cruz, Maria Rojo, Bruno Bichir, Daniel Gimenez Cacho, Luis Felipe Tovar and the rest of the cast do excellent ensemble work under Mr. Fons direction.

The film will not disappoint the viewer.


This movie is an impressive and exciting story about the people,their feelings,love,desperation,anger and hope.Although the scenario is a little bit melodramatic , the film is a must indeed.It is quite different from the blockbusters with happy ends because it is real and outstanding.Several lives and fates are mixed in it.Every character has his own unique personality.They all have to take decisions for their lives and have to fight for happiness.The actors are very nice.The stunning Hayek makes a good performance .Gomes Krus is also convincing as a man who becomes gay after 30 years marriage.The supporting roles are also well-played.Don't think that this is some kind of soap opera- it is something deeper...


WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD:

I'm writing my first review ever so please understand.

This film deservedly won many awards. It is not a Hollywood glamour film by any means, but on the contrary, it is a deep film that shows how people live complex, rich, and tragic lives in a poor neighborhood of Mexico. The acting also is superb. Every character is believable and Salma Hayek stands out as the only known star. This is the best I've ever seen her and her acting in the final scene is very impressive.

The movie begins in the bar of Rutilio. A few middle age men are playing dominos and jokingly playfully yet also talking about their lives. Rutilio's son Chava, his friend Abel, and the bartender are in the background. The movie first focuses on the story of Rutilio, who allows his homosexual feelings to surface. Of course, he must face the consequences when his family finds out. One of the first great scenes of the movie is when, after abusing his wife a few days earlier, he's crying on her lap and looking for comfort and she's reluctant to console him. The movie also subtly introduces other characters during this first chapter.

After this scene, the movie returns to the same beginning scene and yet focuses on other characters: the men around the table, Abel, Rutilio, and the bartender. Through these characters' relationships with others, it introduces us to new characters, namely Alma, and Susana. The movie paints all of these characters very richly in many different colors. They all (except perhaps the two thieves and Jose Luis) live complex lives, are faced with difficult dilemmas, and are in many, complicated relationships. For example:

--Abel lives solely for the love of Alma and would enjoy just to be around her forever. Yet he realizes that without money, he cannot please her mother nor live happily with her. Additionally his best friend Chava asks him to leave to America with him. He decides to leave and work for the long term, using his picture of Alma as his motivation.

--Alma, on the other hand, is a young, naive girl. Her mother and her are poor and they live in a small apartment. She wants to escapes to a better world, just as anybody would. Thus when Jose Luis comes and offers her a world of mansions, money, and sex, she abandons her world and her wait for Abel; for she wants her immediate desires to be fulfilled. How would she know that she would become trapped in Jose Luis' vicious circle and become addicted to cocaine?

Yet this movie does not stop with these people. It reveals the inner lives of even more people in the neighborhood. At first, one only sees these people on the outside and only learn a little bit about them. They are playing dominos, walking around, or looking at tarot cards. Yet as the movie progresses, it goes inside their lives and shows how complex and human these people are. Even the shop owner, who at first just seems a one-dimensional lecher, actually wants to get remarried, and please Alma by taking her to the opera and the theater. Guicho, the bartender, who at first appears only as a thief and somebody who takes advantages of others, struggles to stop his impulse to steal and truly loves Susana.

Additionally, the film is full of excellent dialogue and has a well-written script. This film is not dark at all even with all the tragedy in these peoples' lives. It is fully of witty jokes, poetry (from the bookstore owner), and even a few comic characters. Manu, for example, always jokes and says, `Well, seriously. . .' Moreover, it is full of a few excellent, intense scenes that fully depict the emotion of the characters. I've already mentioned the one with Rutilio, but others include the ones in which Guicho kisses Susana's feet while she sobs, Alma crumples Abel's letter and holds it near to her face, and of course Alma's despair in the final scene.

In the end, the movie does not resolve any of the problems nor give us a fairy tale ending. But this movie shows real lives. The characters' problems and their relationships cannot be changed with the flick of a wand. Instead, it beautifully shows a certain time period in these characters' lives. They will continue to live and struggle to solve their problems. Alma might never escape Jose Luis's dominion and Chava will continue to be a womanizer and ignore his wife.

Perhaps this movie has no dominating themes. But it does depict how real people have faced real situations, and how they responded to them. It shows this though in a way only movies can do it with charming dialogue, intense actions, and actors that light up the screen by illustrating many different emotions. Not only does this movie shows how difficult life is in modern Mexico, but also how people respond to their own dilemmas in their lives. It is an excellent movie, one of the best I've seen recently, and perhaps of the 90s.


A film of surprising depth and frankness, this is no Mexican soap opera. The film is told in chapters, one about each major character. They all come from the same neighborhood and their lives intertwine. For the most part the stories wind up in disappointment, with few moments of sweetness, and some real tragedies. It's not quite a slice of life, but compares very favorably to the similar American film Short Cuts by Robert Altman. Without going into too much detail, it follows a late mid-life 'crisis' of a bar owner named Rutilio who finally allows his inner yearnings to surface, almost at the cost of his family. The second chapter follows Alma (Salma Hayek, the only recognizable name from the cast) as a lovely ghetto girl who is torn by the absence of her fiance who is in America and the desires, needs and temptations of being young, lovely, and inexperienced. The third chapter is about Susanna, the local landlord, middle-aged, homely, and never-been-loved and the trials she puts herself through after a fateful tarot-card reading predicting the imminent appearance of a man in her life. The last chapter, the Return, ties all the strings together as best they can be, because this is life and the strings simply don't tie together that well.

I didn't expect a Mexican film of this frankness - not just sex, but characters having real conversations, smoking grass, getting mixed up in an underworld with a sheen of decency and the expected rotten core - all rotating around the table in the neighborhood bar where the men play dominoes. These comments may not have convinced you to see this movie, but if you did see and liked Short Cuts then I highly recommend this film. And if Short Cuts is gobbledegook to you then I recommend both. Nine out of Ten.


Written by a Nobel Prize winner (Naguib Mahfouz for his life work, including this story). Midaq Alley is a remake of the 1963 movie listed on IMDb as: Zouqâq al-Midaqq (1963)...aka Alley of the Pestle (1963) (International: English title) Which was itself an excellent movie.

VERY MINOR SPOILERS GOING FORWARD:

The characters in both movie stick closely to the story, the Mexican version benefits from freedom of expression in many shots while the Egyptian version had to hint behaviours (homosexuality for example) to avoid censors scissors.

It amazes me how a story about characters in Cairo in the 40's could fit so closely in Mexico city half a world away.... tells you something about the similarities in human nature and behaviours...

Very minor details had to be changed to suite historical facts. As an example, when the two boys run away to collaborate with the occupying British forces in the Egyptian film, they try to cross the border illegally to the US in the Mexican version. Both give the same effect as socially unacceptable behaviours within their perspective societies.

All actors put convincing performances and beautiful Salma Hayek dazzles as usual.


This film was not made for Americans, or even with the thought of marketing outside the USA. Just like Hollywood remakes will redo a story for the US, this took a story written for Cairo and transplanted it to Mexico City without a trace of the original setting. It is framed and acted much like a stage play, and the focus is on the people. It's painful to watch at times, because the story grinds your nose against stories of people who are getting through some unpleasant times in some unpleasant ways and the pace does not let you escape - it is clear they want you to endure something of what the characters are going through. The acting is generally good, there are convincing portraits of a half dozen main characters and the supports aren't bad. Yep, the overall ending is predictable, but not unbelievable and a few of the side stories might surprise you along the way.

I watched the DVD version. It has no extras or options. You get dialog in Spanish, English subtitles, in 4:3 format - no choices. Sound is stereo, color is ok and picture is competent.


This story demonstrates the intertwined and tragic minutia of common folks told in a dramatic and realistic format. The ensemble cast members are at ease with one another as they display acts of beauty and brutality. The theme of love unfolds from the neophyte, to the jaded, to the unabashed. The actors appear natural and believable (unlike some Latin "novelas"), developing their characters in a seamless and effortless fashion. The devotion to cultural stereotypes only lends credibility to the story's environment and development. The attention to detail (Susanita's teeth for example); make the characters as believable and endearing as any in recent memory. This movie is a brilliant look at human tragedy. Watching it with someone you love only makes it more moving and poignant. Excellent!!!


Midaq Alley is the best foreign movie of 1995. The movie take place in Mexico's Downtown in a street named: " Midaq Alley". Basically the film show us the stories of three people from that neighborhood.

Mr Ru whom after 30 tears of marriage is feeling homosexual falling in love with a young guy the same age as his son, making his wife's life miserable.

Susanita and old lady whom never been married and doesn't know what is love, finally she falls for someone not very honest. The other one is Alma , played for Salma Hayek a young, beautiful virgin girl whom is interested in everything about sex and drugs. I highly recommend this movie to everyone. It's worth the money!!


This movie show the true of millions of humans in the world. It is a large movie but it is very interesting. You will not be tired of watching. The hard life of the poor people from Latin America is showed like it is.

This a different and good movie. If you live comfortably and you do not know the bad side of the poverty, you must see this selection, do it.


This is a very interesting film. The three stories in the film are connected in some way, and yet not completely connected. The first story explores the issue of homosexuality, which I think is a brave idea in a country that is quite religious. The film is beautifully shot, and the locations seem realistic and reflect the daily life of the people.


As Quintin Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" shows, a story can be told in severals points of view. Each person in the story sees it in a particular way and acts accordingly. Salma Hayek looks great and proves to be more than a pretty face. You can't say what makes this movie so great. Maybe the story, maybe the actors, maybe the director, maybe all of above. Any attempt to summarize this picture is useless. You must watch it.


The movie Midaq Alley follows different characters to show everyday life for a small community in Mexico while the viewer sees the same story from a different perspective. I think the same scene placed at the beginning of each synopsis that shows some older men playing dominoes in Don Ru's cantina is symbolic because it is representative of an ordinary day and also shows how people in the community gather together and share stories and get to know one another. I feel that it represents the culture in Mexico and emphasizes how everyone looks out for one another, like how Ubaldo looks out for Eusebia's sadness and how Dona Cata looks out for Susanita's feelings, and also how Abel looks out for Chava's well being. By making this scene the establishing shot for each time the viewer sees a different point of view begin, the director is trying to portray how significant gathering for a game of Dominos in the cantina is in the daily lives of those in Midaq Alley. There are also some street scenes where it seems everyone knows one another. I wonder if it is a custom to be so close to neighbors and care for them like family, or if it has to do with the small size of their community. I was not really surprised that the ending was not extremely dramatic. I think it was very fitting to leave things the way they were because the movie was a portrayal of everyday life. I feel that the scenes of the men playing Dominos at Don Ru's cantina are the most important scenes of the film because it tells the viewer that although the characters presented have complex lives, the actions they take to reach their individual happiness are mundane when you take a look at the bigger picture, especially when you realize the men playing dominoes are older and have gone through many life experiences, perhaps they are trying to tell us to relax and not take life so seriously.


Although the film looks and sounds similar to a soap opera, the story line digs deep into the pockets of poverty and reveals life inside Midaq Alley through the perspective of three characters; Don Ru, Alma, and Susanita. Gender issues revolving around sexuality and the machismo are shown through Don Ru. In the beginning of the film, we see Don Ru scold his son, Chava, for seeming "too gay" with his friend Abel because Chava is spending too much time with Abel when he was supposed to be working at his father's bar. As the film progresses, Don Ru becomes intimate with a young sales boy while his machismo shifts to envelope his anger and resentment towards his wife and disapproving poet friend. Don Ru does not represent financial poverty but the lack of true sexual and self identity.

Gender roles are made apparent through men's domino games at Don Ru's bar where women are portrayed as dull, boring, and bothersome. Alma is the gaze of men in the film because she is young and vibrant, however, that is all she is allowed to be; an object of men's desire. Being raised in poverty, she is drawn to money and a better life but this path takes her to prostitution, drugs, and the loss of her true love.

Susanita represents poverty on many levels; class status, gender, and physical traits which prohibit her from finding a companion or being taken seriously by her society. Although Susanita is not wealthy, she does have the means to help characters along the way, including herself. When she conforms to societal physical standards and gets major dental work, she is finally able to obtain a companion and establish herself in the community, which of course eventually takes a dark turn.

Midaq Alley is a dark comedy that intertwines the life of numerous characters; all connected to each other in some way, showing many levels of poverty and the loss of hope with a splash of bad luck in poor towns like Midaq Alley.


She quickly went on to fame in Desperado and From Dusk Til Dawn, but this, Salma Hayek's second film role, shows her acting talent.

In the first of four tales, she is just window dressing. An object of desire for a young boy (Bruno Bichir). While she is sitting, Don Ru (Ernesto Gómez Cruz) is yelling at his son (Juan Manuel Bernal) for acting like "a queer" while he himself pursues Jimmy (Esteban Soberanes); and Susanita (Margarita Sanz) is getting her fortune told by Almita's (Hayek) mother, Catalina (María Rojo).

After Don Ru's son runs away thinking he has done something awful, and he buries his head in his wife's lap moaning. the story starts all over with an emphasis on Almita. She, tragically, ends up with Jose Luis (Daniel Giménez Cacho) and disappears.

Susanita is growing older and desperate to find a man. She fancies Don Ru's son, but ends up with Guicho (Luis Felipe Tovar).

So, does the prodigal son return? Does Almicita come home? How are things to end? The story is first rate and it has you on the edge of you seat wondering how it all ties together.


I thought the film was very good. I like the symmetry of it in it's treatment of the sexes and in its layout. Many, many parallels run through all the relationships. The one big problem with it is that one of the major parallels,the Don's development of "platonic love" and the "fall" of the heroine are not really justified in my eyes, more development would have been nice but as it is it is a very long movie(although the length seemed appropriate). Why does she do what she does except to advance the plot? That is she neither a man that age changes as such without some prior history nor a girl presented as she is at first presented does what she then does. Those that do what she does have a much darker past then we are lead to believe.


While this movie isn't spectacular, it is a well told story that becomes increasingly intriguing as it unfolds. I initially identified with the Mexican culture portrayed, but foolishly so--the novel (Midaq Alley) is based in Cairo and written by an Egyptian author. The story is that of a neighbourhood, its residents, and how they progress. It is a depressing story of sorts, told from the perspective of the different characters. At first the characters don't seem to have the depth needed to sustain the movie, but as we watch we learn more about each and the decisions they make to "better" their circumstances and the repercussions of those decisions. This is perhaps the best role I have seen Salma Hayek portray. She is, for once, cast in a role that has more depth. For those who like movies, this story is worth the time spent.


This movie shows us how difficult life can be in our poor Latin America (and in my country México). The story is told in an excellent way by Jorge Fons, giving us different points of view at the same time. I know that not many people is interested in movies from any other country than the USA, but this one is really worth seeing. Ernesto Gomez Cruz deserves a mention apart for his work as "Don Ru", he proves us once again what a good actor he is.


A slow movie with no psychological depth. There are a few story lines and none of them really relate, except that they all take place in a small neighborhood of Mexico City. The acting is telenovela quality and so is the plot. None of the actors motivations are evenly remotely hinted at. Why is (Alma) Hayek intrigued by the pimp? Why does she go back to him after saying she won't? What's wrong with Abel that he's madly obsessed with her? How has Susanah managed to be single her whole life? How has Rutilio managed to be gay and be a married man for so long? Can we have some character development? What is the Rutilio's son's explanation for going into a murderous rage? An uninspiring bore that not even the beauty of Hayek can save.


This film is just one banal art-house cliche after another. Through its gruelling 2.5 hours, there is not a single original or challenging idea. It's formulaic approach suggests it was made to appeal to the middle-aged NPR/PBS crowd (Rashomon-like multiple viewpoints, struggles to come to terms with one's sexuality, exploring the fabric of a generic working class community). For the right-brained among us, there is little here to appeal to the intellect. For the left-brained, the clumsy writing and hammy acting brings you little more drama than you would find in a Lifetime movie of the week. There are so many good films available on video - ones that can truly move and touch us all. Don't waste an evening on this.


It was very disappointing to see Roma participate in such a poor excuse for a movie. It appeared to me that she was trying to break away from being typecast, but I really wish that she had done it with better material.

The seeming moral of this movie is that you can take a couple that is drifting hopelessly apart, strand them on a deserted island for a couple of days, and then they can live happily ever after. What a great concept! With enough deserted islands, who needs Dr. Laura?

One thing that continually went through my mind was why she tried so hard to save this marriage? Her husband was a selfish loser, and a philanderer wannabe, giving the rest of us men a bad reputation. I was rooting for her to dump him the whole time. The worst part of this movie was the fact that he never repented or reformed.

On the plus side, there were several good laughs, it was for the most part quite wholesome, everyone does eventually live happily ever after, and the beautiful Roma put in a good performance as always. It can definitely be categorized as light, humorous, family entertainment.


SECOND HONEYMOON (2001) (TV) is extremely similar to BORROWED HEARTS (1997) (TV). Both have Roma Downey as the leading lady. Both have a mysterious Mexican man (Antonio in SECOND, Javier Del Campo in BORROWED), who is much more than he seems, playing the busy matchmaker. Both try to tell a heartwarming light comic/romantic "mature boy gets mature girl" tale.

There are some differences. BORROWED HEARTS takes place in the cold north during winter/Christmas. SECOND HONEYMOON takes place in the warm tropics affording some eye candy scenes with a daytime bikini beach dance teacher and one at night showing a very curvy Congo dance party.

SECOND HONEYMOON, unfortunately, tones down the charm, and plays up the conflict and comedy. Too bad. Tim Matheson and Roma Downey might have caught fire given enough music and romance. BORROWED HEARTS is a much more solid production. If in the mood for cute light romance, BORROWED HEARTS is the better of the two.


I loved this short. Not only for the light hearted plot but also for the music. Best of all is the location at which it was made, the now razed Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. So sad a national landmark is gone. So much history involving both celebrities of a bygone Hollywood era, but also political significance since it was in the Ballroom kitchen that Robert Kennedy was assassinated.

This short but sweet clip gave a glimpse at the Coconut Grove nightclub and the Ambassadors outdoor grounds as it was in it's heyday. What a treat it was for me to watch it and for 19 minutes, in some small way, feel like I was there. Cool clip.


I have known of the story of the Indigo Children for quite some time now, and I have run across cases that seem genuine as well as cases that seem fraudulent. This movie is the latter. Riding the success of the far better "What the Bleep do We Know?" "Indigo" jumps on the new-age bandwagon by making a film, essentially, about super-children. This is not the purpose of the idea of Indigo Children.

The Indigo Children are a new wave of children enjoying a maturity and a sensitivity unusual even in most adults. These children are great teachers, and they bring a childlike innocence back to the idea of wisdom. It is refreshing to see wisdom untainted by a jaded adult perspective in these children.

"Indigo," however, with its ludicrous plot and its poor acting, never substantiates any of its information. It merely tells us the story of a super-child who has control over everything. Ironically, the idea of control over anything is contrary to the very idea of wisdom. The filmmakers will tell you, before the film, that it was not dumbed down. I equate this with Nixon telling us he wasn't a crook. The film is completely dumbed down.

I love the story of the Indigo Children, and I cannot do anything but hope that most of the cases are true, because, if they are, these children represent a new wave of society that is very promising. "Indigo," however, represents one of the worst and most misrepresentative films I have ever seen. I was expecting a semi-documentary, looking at real cases of Indigo Children and the parents and guardians who have lived with them. Alas, this was not the case. I actually almost walked out, and I have never walked out or even considered walking out on a film before. I hope, for all of our sakes and for the reputation of Indigo Children, most people will give this one a pass.


We held the screening of this film as an event to honour these amazing kids that are around now. The film did an excellent job of introducing the concept into a wider audience than the regular spiritually minded people who would probably have known about this stuff. Some of the scenery was stunning and the story line spoke to every father, mother, daughter,son who has been part of a family system wrecked by emotional unavailability of the members. The influence which Grace had in helping heal these rifts was very real. I am a father of 6 children who also abandoned my older children due to obsessive work and alcohol addiction before I eventually 'woke up'. Then my wife and I were blessed with one of these Indigo's (our little son David) and a 'Crystal' (our daughter Rachel). I now realise that their energies were partly responsible for bringing my wife and I to awakening and now the whole family has healed. After the movie our 25 year old son, who has recently left the Army, gave me a giant hug for the first time in his adult life and said, 'Dad, I didn't know what all this stuff was about that you got into when you changed your life around until this movie and event has shown me and I am very proud of you'. That real life situation shows the power of this movie for those who are ready to receive its blessings. Well done to all the team at The Beloved Community for putting it all together!.


I'd never heard of indigo children until a month ago, and just happened to see this movie while browsing at the video store. I thought it might help me learn a little more about this phenomenon.

Five minutes into the movie, I was sure it must have been a made-for-TV movie. Ten minutes into the movie, I was sure it was a really bad made-for-TV movie. Fifteen minutes into the movie, I was tempted to turn it off.

Technically speaking, the soundtrack was nothing but irritating. There was sappy violin music playing louder than the dialog. Add to that the fact that the grandfather whispered most of his lines, and you have a recipe for real irritation. My finger was worn out by the movie's end, having to continually raise and lower the volume.

The script was unoriginal and predictable, reminding me of a story a 6th grader might write. The movie taught me only one thing about indigo children, and that is the origin of the term (indigo for their "aura"). Beyond that, I'm supposed to believe there are a bunch of Jesus-like children in the world, healing the sick and seeing the future? If that's so, why has there been no media about these miracles? Better they should have interviewed some 'real' indigo children and their families, so we'd get a true sense of them and what they think and can do.

This movie was a big disappointment.


I was disappointed in this film as the film did not live up to its intro. A great premise was marred by bad acting and uneven production values. Make no mistake, the premise for this film is compelling. While the film makes a fairly good case, the idea and need to further study and discuss the subject matter of indigo children (thanks to the intro) the film just doesn't deliver! It certainly seems that the producers are trying to feed off of their first born in this genre, "What the Bleep Do We Know..., Like Bleep it promises existentialist views of rather unexplained events and experiences in our life with a spin that was thought provoking and entertaining. A better film could have done that. Come on guys - don't kill a great start!


I visited the showing of Indigo in Amsterdam and I invited six friends to join me. Stimulated by the emails, the announcements from the Spiritual Cinema Circle and a trailer-DVD that was sent to me, I had high expectations. That was my first mistake and it reminded me not to expect anything in life. I agree with most of the negative comments about the movie and I am not going to repeat them. I would like to add the following:

1. The indigo child was turned into a super child by combining several rare but proved traits in one character. That made her as unrealistic as Raymond Rabbit (Dustin Hoffman) in Rain Man. The negative effect of this mistake is that viewers can no longer identify themselves with indigo children. They would think "they are definitely not me" rather than attempting to discover aspects of indigo children in themselves.

2. All interesting story lines came to a happy end when Ray (Neale Donald Walsch) prevented the indigo child Grace from being kidnapped by her father. Helas, that already happened after 10 minutes! The rest of the time was killed by driving to a safe place and smart answers of the super child.

3. In one of the last scenes a police agent showed up who appears to have stolen the money. Was that a coincidence too stupid to be true, the work of the super child or a failed attempt to correct a mistake in the script?

I don't mind the bad casting and acting. After all this is a low budget movie. But if you take that out, it is still a bad movie, technically and spiritually. Therefore I don't think it serves the producers to continue the one-sided promotion of the movie on their website and in their press releases. If they are lucky, this might only help them financially in the short term. But it will definitely ruin their reputation in the long term, which would be a pity for the spiritual community and the society as a whole.

The good things I see in this movie are the raising of awareness for indigo children and the learning experience.

Hopefully, the stakeholders are more critical privately than they demonstrate publicly. Only then their new project, a film about Neale Donald Walsch, can become successful.

But I could be wrong. Let's see.


This movie has all the intellectual intensity of an Afterschool Special. Poor acting, poor characterization, poor dialog, too much overbearing music, too long. I am sympathetic to the message, but please, treating your audience like idiots with melodramatic drivel is a poor way to get that message across. I did not care about the characters, there was way too much driving-in-the-car filler, I could not believe that such a beautiful, stable woman would love the Walsch character, I did not know or care about either of his children. The only good parts were the ones Grace was in, but we had to wait a long time before she appeared. I feel badly that Twyman uses fictionalizes this very real and blessed condition--by doing so he makes it much less believable. Don't think that kids will like it because it's about Indigo children. Don't waste their time or yours. We need more movies on topics like these, but if films like this become the standard, all of humanity is in trouble!


I love movies that inspire me. And this one did. I love how INDIGO was distributed - with the exception of the 100 AMC theaters that showed the film on one day at one time, INDIGO was only shown when a community requested it and agreed to have at least 50 people come. To me, that's amazing. When was the last time you saw a new film with a whole community of people?

I love, too, that the spiritual content was not watered down or shied away from. I had fun watching Meghan, the girl who played Grace. I would have loved to see even more of the inner workings of her character, of what it was like to be her.

This film had a $500,000 budget. For a small independent film to work on that kind of budget and produce what it did - it's just amazing. I'm impressed, inspired, and looking forward to seeing many more spiritual films like INDIGO.


Indigo is a wonderful movie, that appeals to all ages as essentially it is a movie about "remembering" the wonderful love within each of us and the psychic abilities we all have, when we remember how to use our psychic muscle.

Indigo young people and children been on earth since Atlantis and up until the 1970's ! its all about DNA .. they have been being born in huge numbers since 1975 and are here to herald in a new age of light, love & communication on earth.

I hosted the movie in New Zealand and had totally amazing reviews! I am still receiving emails and phone calls a week later. I have seen the movie twice and look forward to seeing it again soon.

Namaste, Jo Brothers


My girlfriend rented this movie because our friends hosted official screenings while we were out of the country, and we were somewhat curious. Basically, it's horrible. Terrible acting, hilariously bad soap opera writing, and nails on the chalkboard pacing are the least of its problems. After wasting a small portion of my precious life watching this, with it's inserted "spiritual" moments bookended by standard Hollywood movie clichés, we watched the introduction and closing comments from the trio who created it.

They smugly proclaim this movie to be the next "What the Bleep", and tell how all kids should watch this. First of all, it's an insult to characterize this as the next "WTB", this is the most amateur hour, half baked and overcooked drama I've seen in ages. Second, kids don't really need to see more bad cop, angry adults, drug deal gone awry garbage, not even for illustration purposes. "WTB" had none of this stuff - Indigo has precious little to do with our day to day lives as people on our paths of self discovery. We don't need to feed ourselves or our children this negative imagery to contrast something "positive" - that's what Hollywood does day in and day out.

Second, the zero humility trio positively drool over "Indigo" children, and the director even infers that his child is an Indigo child, with her wise "Whatever!" comebacks. They don't realize that all they are doing is letting children be themselves, without jamming cultural mores down their throats, and POOF!, you've got an Indigo child. I was a pretty freaky kid myself, I think most of us are, some probably more than others - so what.

It's all a big spiritual pat on the back for the "creators" of this moneymaking venture, and watching them stroke their own egos for an introduction, is more fun than sitting through the "film" (it's shot on HD) itself. Their fatuous praise is voluminous enough to make up for the lack of it here on IMDb.

BTW, I've been in the film business as a boom operator for 12 years, have seen tons of good and bad acting and writing, and this film takes the cake. I was torn between laughing and screaming at the screen, especially when the creators talked about how wonderful their film is, instead of letting it stand on its own merits, which are all but absent. Their assumption that they could make a POS about spirituality and sell it with a slick underground marketing campaign was correct. Crap isn't just mainstream, it's spiritual too!

And Hollywood HAS made interesting spiritual films, like "Contact", "I Heart Huckabees", "Donnie Darko", "The Sixth Sense", "Phenomenon", "Waking Life", and "Powder'. Even the lousy "Revenge of the Sith" has more spiritual common sense than this film.


The Indigo movie was not well done. There were artistic problems with the movie and it did not live up to the hype. That said I would prefer watching INDIGO with a community of spiritual seekers than to go to 95% of Hollywood films. Hollywood's hold on the movie going audience is more of a problem to me than Indigo. I agree that Indgio was not comparable with What the bleep do we know. But I think the director's have the right idea. Indigo children is a fascinating subject and the movie did not do it justice. I do think that Donald Neale Walsch's acting was good and some of the scenery in the movie was very beautiful. I think that we should strive for excellence in what we do and I wish that the director's and producers could have worked harder to make a more artistic film. I still am glad I went and would rather watch a movie like Indigo that is about redemption than the exploitation that we are exposed to daily in the media and especially Hollywood movies. I liked seeing ordinary people portrayed on screen instead of women that all look like the mainstream idea of beauty. There was a lot of beauty in the film that was not hard to find. I encourage the producers and directors of Indigo to try again make a better film but I feel my money was well spent by going to see Indigo I have spent much money on typical Hollywood films and felt ripped off but I was not at all ripped of financially by Indigo. I would gladly give more that ten bucks to people who really want to raise the level of healing and spirituality in this time of violence and war that we are constantly exposed to. I took my 12 year old daughter and she was interested in the film but did not seem to feel enlightened by it. She thought the actress who portrayed Grace was Slick. I would give Indgio an A for effort and a D for artistry.


This is a very clever marketing scheme to give parents the opportunity to claim their children's inability to fit in is evidence of their being at a higher level of human evolution. No more ADD/ADHD! Instead they're...indigo. While it's necessary to accept people who are different and recognize what special skills they may have, it does them a disservice to ascribe to them mystical powers that aren't identified by any scientist. It only serves to isolate them further, by making them into freaks, even if they're "superior" freaks. People with ADD/ADHD apparently make good executives, because they're impatient when other people start discussing things, and they'd rather make their own decisions, which they have sufficient confidence to feel are correct. We should be fostering these abilities, not encouraging use of their "net" or their "healing touch," unless studies can demonstrate that such things exist. I am also curious as to how this phenomenon of "indigo children" can be so widespread but have escaped the attention of the mainstream media and psychological journals. Not only haven't the journals published articles on indigos, which could simply be the result of a "bias" among scientists, but there haven't even been editorials or letters, or, if there are, they aren't appearing in PsycInfo, which appears to be the most prominent psychological database. In the mainstream news media, the only articles have been about the film and the book. Other than that, there have been no comments on it, which suggests to me that Tappe developed this concept out of thin air, and plenty of people were gullible enough to buy it.

Even ignoring the fact that this film tried to preach a non-existent message, it wasn't even a very good show. The acting was what you'd expect for such a script, but the plot was terrible and existed only to showcase the girl's "special gifts." This film is only recommended if you believe that what science hasn't disproven must be real.


Yes, Indigo is a movie that falls short in terms of being a polished film experience, but it was never touted as being a top notch Matrix-like super deal. If you zero in on that, you miss the point. To salvage the mess this planet is in, we need to pay attention to each other, thru the drug deals gone wrong, thru misguided money grubbing values, thru all the life experiences that bring us down to the ultimate reason we are on this planet--> to love and support each other through our hearts--that is what this film is about. Our children know this. It is high time we as adults begin to see it, feel it and LIVE it. Yes, maybe you see this as a syrupy sweet pap view of the world, but guess what? This planet needs more of these messages until we get it. As for the commercialism for the Spiritual Cinema, again, we need a place where people can create films that laud the values of Love and Acceptance and Compassion. My fervent hope is that each and every one of the people who took part in this community event took away just even a hint of what we can be to each other if we just put aside all our bravado of what this world should be and get down to what it needs to be--> a circle of LOVE. Happy Valentines Day to you all.


Having no real previous exposure to the idea of "Indigo Children," I agreed to catch a screening of this movie written by two 'spiritual gurus' of our times, Neal Donald Walsh (Conversations with God) and James Twyman.

The screening was held at a local Unity church, which is an organization branched from the New Thought movement. I had never been to a Unity church, so this was also a new experience for me.

The basic plot centers around a little girl with special powers and her chemistry with her cynical grandfather. Through allegory, we are presented the recycled messianic ideology of "Indigo Children." Basically, these children have psi abilities, and they are able to heal with their hands. They communicate with each other via a psychic energy grid, they can see dead people, and they have 'indigo' auras. What I can piece together of the general theory behind IC is that Mother Nature has taken an extreme leap of evolution to create 'superkids' capable of saving us from ourselves. At least that is my impression via this film.

It all seems a bit airy-fairy to me, but first to the technical/artistic notes.

The film suffers from lack of artistic depth. Regardless of who is directing (Stephen Simon, who produced the brilliant and somewhat depressing film Somewhere in Time), it feels like a made-for-Lifetime-TV movie, but worse. The acting - by nearly everyone involved - is cardboard dry and occasionally eye-rollingly dorky. No character has any real conviction, though the little girl sure is cute (and for a child actress, fairly talented). Like a high-school play, everyone is simply going through the motions and playing out their lines. I wasn't expecting Werner Herzog or even Stephen Soderburg, but one expects more than basic home computer editing for a $10 price tag (and no Popcorn!). It also didn't help that it wasn't presented in the correct aspect ratio, so everybody was 'long' throughout the film (this was the Church's fault, not the film's, but it was still irritating).

I looked up "Indigo Children" and the protagonist plays the part well enough, with some miraculous 'psi' enhancements. It's a charming little attraction, this indigo meme. But I just don't buy it. The idea that certain children have special abilities that nobody else has makes for great comic book and pulp SF reading, but when it's used to peddle a corny, new age ideology, it wears a bit thin. Sure, I believe in the possibility of psi abilities, of spiritual evolution and unexplained phenomena, but I simply cannot believe that Mother Nature would speed up evolution to the degree that our children become our super-saviors. It sounds nice, but it's a cop out for not wanting to feel guilty or responsible ourselves.

Anyone's entitled to their beliefs, of course. While somewhat more convincing than the 'charged water' karma-busting computer treatments that were peddled via the New Thought circuit a few years ago (SANCTUARY), the candy-coated sweetness of this subtly fascist approach to spirituality makes it all the more important to stop this meme and get on to something with some real depth and intelligence.

zzzzzzzz.


I'm glad I did not buy or rent this movie, I picked it up at the library where you don't really have to buy stuff at expect fines. I seen this movie at the Library like 2 or 3 years ago and didn't really want to pick it up, then I picked it up this year because I read the entire description that meant like Indigo children have powers and I just thought that it will make it a wonderful and inspirational movie, but when I first turned it on, I felt like I fell asleep in a nightmare of demon spirits until when I got to the part where they were in the house and a little girl was in the car. If I bought this movie, I would've thrown it away feeling so sorry that I bought it, avoid this at cost and look for better inspirational movie like Matilda even though it might be a little overrated and silly but still worth watching. But for this movie, 0.0 it is probably the most least favorite movie I ever seen, no likeness at all.


I only recently came across this phenomenon called the "Indigo child" when a former school principal, upon listening to some of the tales of my firstborn, suggested that she was most likely an "Indigo child." Knowing little of this so-called Indigo phenomenon, I searched on lineand came upon this movie, which I decided to finally watch for the sake of continuing my inquiry.

All I can truly say from a purely intuitive viewpoint (and the nausea I felt when watching the movie) is that this is the most exploitive film I have ever seen produced, written and directed  worse yet than Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" (perhaps as insidious). Its content was as exploitive as the New Age "colonialism," which has exploited ancient belief systems from indigenous peoples around the world and Eastern philosophies to create multi-billion dollar industries  from yoga to Taoism.

The film itself is probably the worst produced, written, directed and actedcomparable to Kevin Costner's Waterworld and The Postman (two truly awful movies)

More to the pointas a parent of a "gifted" child (now a young adult)all I can truly attest to is that too many parents and adults seeking "spiritual" rest (freedom from the contradictions and paradoxes of life)are exploiting their Judeo-Christian background (whether they are religious or otherwise)as a means to explain, control, find cause to and otherwise "deal" with existence. Using their children as foils to their own self-aggrandizement is ludicrous!

In all honesty, spiritual cinema is a farce. If you look carefully at the history of cinema, its history shows the art of cinema (as are all artistic works) as an ongoing form of inquiry into the nature of human beings. Cinema, from one end of the spectrum to the other, is an outward manifestation of the anthropomorphic view of our existence. All cinema forms, have sought to understand the human condition through the lens of the camera (the third eye? the 6th Chakra...also known as the Indigo aura? nudge, nudge, wink, wink)  even the worst of films have glimpsed into our complex natures and relationship with metaphysical awareness.

It is as arrogant to suggest that spiritual cinema is finally showing "us" as we truly are, as it is to suggest that Indigo children are rising up in numbers as "warriors" to save humanity from its downfall. Or that the arrogance of children feeling "entitled" in a generation of exhaustive individualism, capitalism and technological innovations is a "sign" of Indigo forthrightness. Let's face it...this generation is "smarter" because technological tools have changed the way they (we) think..(including cinema)... In short, this movie is propaganda for the spiritually and cognitively inept

Finally, bravo to commentator and boom operator kstrain1, with whom I agree wholeheartedly in saying, "And Hollywood HAS made interesting spiritual films, like "Contact", "I Heart Huckabees", "Donnie Darko", "The Sixth Sense", "Phenomenon", "Waking Life", and "Powder'. Even the lousy "Revenge of the Sith" has more spiritual common sense than this film."


Having appreciated "What the Bleep Do We Know," I had high hopes for this movie. I was sorely disappointed.

The acting was so atrocious that when a friend came over, we had to show part of it to her just so we could showcase the idiocy of this film. We laughed and laughed... The acting is so hideous that it could become a great teaching tool (of How-NOT-To) for film/acting courses. The Dialogue was almost as pathetic as the acting, which is pretty bad!

Oh, I forgot, there was one redeeming feature - the scenery was nice. Not quite enough to hold the movie together......

Others I know who have seen it said they would be scarred for life. Hmm...


To the people who hate this movie because it presents an unrealistic idea - please. Grow up. It's a movie. Do you hate Dragonball Z because it presents an unrealistic idea of aliens that are human-like in appearance and speak English? Your critiques are pitiful on their face.

With that being said, "Indigo" is an entertaining movie with a good script that could have done with a bit more coherence. The direction felt somewhat like the movie was done for fun and not as a piece of art, which is both a good and a bad thing. The acting, while amateurish, actually works for the story that the movie presents. The scenario of the road trip is a comfortable one for movie watchers, and it works here. I think what I liked the best about the movie, though, is that it leads you to believe that it's going to end in a violent way and ends up not doing so. That disappoints a lot of people, but I think it was a perfect way to end the movie. And whether or not you believe in the whole "indigo child" thing, this movie is worth watching. I hope future projects from these filmmakers have tighter writing, though.


"INDIGO" Movie review Indigo the movie resonates with an underlying feeling of that which has been conceived in the utmost and purest of intentions. The fruition of this pure intention translates into an extremely creative and awe inspiring endeavor that this reviewer hopes to be just the first of many more to come. The team of Director Stephen Simon (Prod. "What Dreams May Come") coupled with Executive Prod. /Screenplay writer James Twyman (author "Portrait of a Master") and the endearing and talented Co writer/Star Neale Donald Walsh (Best-selling author "Conversations with God") is a winning combination and a literal dream team at it's finest. One can not help but feel the care and love that went into this work as it translates brilliantly through the screen for audiences of all genres. Simon, Twyman and Walsh successfully deliver a priceless message of hope that the children of our future hold the Indigo children. While viewing Indigo, this reviewer could literally feel waves of inspirational subtle energy radiating through the screen permeating an aura into the theater that at times could be described as no less than breathtaking.

As for the acting, I was equally impressed with the performances of the male lead Neale Donald Walsh and his co-stars. Walsh brought the character of Ray to life in an astoundingly multidimensional performance. Thereby setting the bar for the rest of the cast who proved to be equally brilliant in their well defined characters. Of course, when good actors have a well developed script to work with, and an inspired director, it's practically axiomatic that the movie will be a true winner. With brilliantly executed editing that powerfully segued the characters back and forth into key points in the past and how they relate to conscious choices that affect their collective future, a tapestry of love was woven tighter and closer until one is so involved in this movie that you realize you are laughing, crying, and feeling an empathy and compassion for even the least redemptive of the characters! This enlightening story magically and expertly relays an underlying theme that we all have the ability to see with the eyes of Divinity while intuitively being led to make conscious decisions for the highest good based on good character and values -such as dignity integrity, and unconditional love. After opening to more than 700 theaters and churches worldwide, I pray that everyone who saw this movie will call their local independent theater and request future showings so it might reach into the fabric of our society and thereby bringing Spiritual Cinema to the for front. The power of the media is so huge, and it is such a refreshing change to enjoy a movie that is interesting, well made and inspiring on so many levels all at the same time. May you leave this experience with a singing heart, a fuller Spirit and a tenant of hope. And at the very least, may this movie remind us to stop and honor with gratitude those precious children within our care; as they truly hold Divinity within their spirits and the future of this world at the tip of their fingertips. Either way, after partaking in the magical mystical movie Indigo you will never again look at the world the same! By: Dr. Maryel McKinley syndicated multimedia reviewer - Optimystic Media International


Indigo was delightful. It provided a wonderful story line about family values and families working together in times of trouble. It was captured in a gorgeous setting, and it educated me about these gifted Indigo children and the difficulties they face.

It seems that the emphasis and lessons of the movie was learning how to accept one another as they are and offering love and support in an unconditional manner.

In summary, I have recommended this film to my friends as a good one to take all the family, and I would like to see more films of this nature in the theaters as I might go more often.

Roberta


Much better than I expected, especially for the paltry $500K it was suppose to cost.

Compared to other movies without big dollars or big names, it was much better than those were.

But the content was what I really enjoyed. I loved how they treated the subject. Neale Donald Walsch was surprisingly very good as the lead actor!

The direction kept the movie fast paced and all of the plot elements were covered by the end. some of my friends wanted it to go on.

I would have liked to have a bit more background on the Indigo children too.


This was a great movie! Honestly, I didn't expect anything amazing when I went to see the film. After all, it was created by a couple of newbies to film, so I was expecting to see a marginal film and to say things like, "Oh, what a beautiful baby!" to the new mother. But I was impressed, instead.

First, I thought the acting was genuine (I was surprised by how well Neale Donald Walsch pulled off his lead role). The cinematography was beautiful and the story was moving. What more can you want?

In addition to being an all-around good movie, the message was powerful but subtle. In fact, days later it was still sinking in and affecting me. I think it was a great introduction to the concept of the Indigo children, for those folks who've never heard of them. And for those who have, I think it was great to see a movie about them!

With regards to all the negative reviews, picking on the technical aspects of the film, I say, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, critique those who can." Lighten up! Stop being so negative! Did you learn nothing from this movie?


What is special about this movie, is that it has melded the darker aspects of daily life with the light that indigo children can bring into it. Meghan, the ten-year old, displayed the confidence that the children can inspire in grown-ups. She was an inspired choice.

The indigo child seated next to me- who is a little out-of-sorts with her environment- was delighted by the film! I could see many moments of recognition. 7 out of 8 kids I took to the film, rated it 10/10; and one rated it 9 1/2. "It was the best part of my birthday," commented one.

Parents of indigos liked the movie as well. Yes, it is a starting point; and no- it does not tell the full depth of indigo children. It may make some indigos question themselves if they have not healed as the girl did, in the movie.

But in summary, the film achieved for our group of ten that saw it, what it set out to do: entertain, introduce, and manifest the light of indigo.

The interview with the film-makers- it could be shortened. Doesn't do much for the film.


If you have not guessed it yet the film producers have a religious type cult following. Their marketing was to push their followers to churches and other small venues to see the film for its ONE weekend showing. The film was so bad that it was not shown again publicly and did not make the leap to movie theaters. They have posted Hyper glowing reviews on various net venues in order to dupe more people into renting or buying the DVD. I wish they were honest about the film's shortcomings rather than promoting it with reviews from raving cult members.

Is this movie worth seeing? NO........it was HUGE disappointment. A lot of the acting was bad, the tech. quality was bad, and the story was insignificant! It had no real point, no real focus! We paid $20 to see it, and we felt duped! A bunch of Unity people got together after the movie to have pot luck and talk about the movie, and no one would say anything.....just two people brought up a couple of "lines" that they thought were good and then silence! We moved on to another topic! Everyone I talked to personally, felt the same way!

They are going to have a very hard time getting people to buy into another movie, I feel bad for Tywman, but he should have done a better job, it was a "B" movie at best and not a very good B movie at that! Sorry to disappoint you, I didn't want to say anything, but I did not want you to waste money on it. :(


This felt like watching a Lifetime Original. Only I had to pay for this sanctimonious tripe. I'm all in favor of truly inspirational, uplifting drama, but for the love of god, give me some substance. Overly broad acting, self importance, and unbelievable characters make up the bulk of this meaningless drivel. And what's with getting it to play simultaneously at different theaters? And why did it have to play in the middle of the day? It was a beautiful day. I could have been at the beach, but no, I was inside, giving my time, and, let's face it, my money, to this waste of celluloid. The music was awful and cheesy. I've seen lower budget films do a better job at cinematography. The clouds were pretty, I suppose. I kept expecting Michael Landon to be flying through them. Tragically, he is not around to elevate this to watch ability. Very unfullfilling.


So, what did you think of "Indigo"? Personally, I think it was one heck of a marketing achievement. Imagine, a film that would otherwise go straight to video and sit on Blockbuster's shelf, selling millions of tickets and being shown in thousands of theaters, churches, etc .... all on one night. And, no worries about bad word-of-mouth killing sales. Also, what about that shameless preshow commerical for the "Spiritual Cinema Circle"? I noticed the flyer in the lobby for the SCC didn't mention price.... only if you hurry and sign-up now, you get a free book worth $15. Wow! I want their Marketing Director for a buddy.

Next to "Indigo," most student films I've seen ain't half bad. Certainly, the script, cinematography and acting wasn't much better... if any. In the interviews in the beginning, they said they "didn't water the story down so it would be acceptable for a wide audience." Right! That's why the script was about a drug deal that went bad... with an Indigo kid thrown in. I didn't connect with or feel anything for the characters. And, I certainly didn't come away with a better understanding of Indigo kids or feeling spiritually up-lifted... or any of the things the Producer, Stephen Simon, said the film was going to do. That's perhaps their biggest mistake... creating an expectation they didn't deliver on.

Also, if Stephen had used the adjective "extraordinary" one more time (I counted at least 6 times) to describe the film, I would have puked on the spot. Even the interviews were shot badly... bad lighting and composition, distracting background, etc. And, weren't they were all just too "cute" the way they touched each other? How about that bit after the film? Did everyone join hands and pray at your showing? It didn't happen at the showing I went to Saturday night.... and it was at a Unity Church, where they do that all the time. Somehow, I can't imagine people joining hands at the AMC Theater in Los Angeles?

The subject is definitely material for a good movie.... but Indigo ain't it. However, Inidgo does prove or confirm a number of things: 1) lame dialog and script - authors do not necessarily make good screen writers; 2) terrible acting - acting and directing should be left to professionals; 3) where there's a marketing strategy, there's hope.... for all filmmakers.

Let's face it, we've been had by a marketing phenomena... and it's just started. Think about it. What if only 100,000 people become part of the "extraordinary" spiritual movement, and sign up for the Spiritual Cinema Circle at $29 per month? That's $2,900,000 coming in each month!!

It's the "Blair Witch" phenomenon for 2005... where selling the sizzle is what counts. As a filmmaker, I hated the movie, but love their marketing savy. I will be submitting my most recent documentary to them. So, sign-up now for the Spiritual Cinema Circle and watch for my film on an upcoming offering.


I have seen the movie and read reviews that were posted about the movie Indigo.I never even heard about the movie until a week or so before the showing.I personally know one of these children,most of the time he is just a normal little boy like any other child,he doesn't do a lot of the things that Gracie does,but I believe that her character was just a mix of their gifts to show what they can do.The main point of the movie that I feel is the most important is that they are here to bring out the truth,they can see behind what adults and others tell them.You will not pull the wool over their eyes,they CAN see right through you and read what is in your heart,your pain from the past wrongs in your life.And also the good things about you.They can and will heal the planet.The other thing I feel about them is that through the real truth, they will bring peace wherever they go.They came here with their switches turned on,in the past people have had to go through a life changing experience to be enlightened.Near death experience comes to mind.I pray that I meet more Indigo's,If you meet one you will never forget it,he sometimes looks at you suddenly from a break at playing and tells you something about what has been troubling you for some time,then he has that all knowing smile and off they go playing again. I pray that you you all will experience the knowing that they have.Please forgive me if my spelling is not that good,I don't do this normally.Get ready for the truth,it is here.


I just wanted to let some of the negative posting people about the movie Indigo on here know that the movie was mostly made for the Indigo children, not necessarily for the rest of us. These children have sent many emails and letters to the three people responsible for this movie thanking them and expressing their utmost gratitude to them for bringing such a movie to the populous. Most of these children are misunderstood and they need proper attention and handling. Also, if you go to the indigothemovie website, you will find actual letters from these children that show this is a legitimate race of entities incarnating in mass numbers on this planet to help raise Earth's vibration and individuals as well. Namaste, gariadea


INDIGO is a wonderfully inspiring film that captures the heart as much as the imagination. I came expecting to receive a message, but soon found that what I was sharing with others in the theater was a transformative experience. What is most real about INDIGO is its raw spiritual presence, a missing ingredient that the millions of dollars spent on cinemagraphic "realism" in most other films never seems to deliver. Perfect strangers were hugging each other after this film! It is a wake up call - a prophetic challenge to Hollywood's "conventional wisdom" with layers of meaning that keep unfolding long after one has left the theater.


I found this movie to be a great introduction to the Indigo Chilren. The key being an introduction, there are many other resources available for more detailed information about the Indigo Children. Filmed on a small budget of donations (approximately $500,000), everyone involved did a wonderful job. Actually going to a movie theater and seeing a movie, (with popcorn for breakfast), that was Spiritually based in theme was a genuine pleasure. I could easily look for "something wrong" about the movie, yet I choose to SEE otherwise. Thats my choice. My guests and I are already looking forward to the next film. We all totally enjoyed the movie.


I have been watching the Indigo project from go. From when it was just a pipe dream. I'm glad it got made and that I finally got to see the movie. The movie Indigo is about the Indigo children, of which I am one. I may not be as in-tune as the girl in the movie, but the movie touched me very deeply. It has the potential to help millions of children like me who were misdiagnosed as ADD/ADHD and their parents and friends. Indigo children are special children who have come to help the planet evolve. There is a book called the Indigo Children by Lee Caroll & Jan Tober,which also should help indigo children and their parents. There are also other books out there on Indigo and Crystal Children. Thank you James Twyman for making this movie and to all who were involved with it.


It's like reading a book of short stories from Agatha Christie, Sherlock Holmes, or anyone like them. 6 stories bring to you the unimaginable, the unbelievable, something between fantasy and thriller. We learn about the consequences of bad choices we make in life and they are funny at times, and shocking as well. An earlier comment mentioned that the stories are weird, but that doesn't matter, it makes the movie well worth watching!!! The only minus in it all, is the reason we get for what is happening to our 7 friends who tell us their stories. That is indeed quite weird, but maybe YOU and I didn't even notice.....someone is missing at the end of the movie.......


The movie basically consists of a couple of teens telling each other stories with a story running in the background. I have heard people say the stories where weird,unbelievable and unrealistic. But that is exactly what they were supposed to be! I liked each of them except the last story with Aftaab Shivdasani (he sucks!)!

If you like to read bizzare and dark short stories , you will enjoy the movie.

For once, stars are just characters, and not the USP of the movie.


Darna Mana Hai turned out to be a movie you can watch once. It is a ghost movie having 6 stories in one story. 7 youngsters are travelling in a car through an empty road late at night. Suddenly the car has a puncture and leads to 6 of them spotting a lantern in the forest and a cozy place where sone one apparently resides( it is a an open courtyard basically). So they light a fire and start saying ghost stories. The first of the 6 stories was pretty horrific featuring Antramali. One by one the youngsters go to the car and are murdered mysteriously. The second and third horror stories were more of comedies and the movie got less horrific after the initial 20 minutes. There are big bollywood stars featuring in the stories like Vivek Oberoi, Nana Patekar, Shipa Shetty, Saif Khan and many others as well. I was startled atleast 4 times in the movie and scared my friend in the process too. It was a movie which was not as good as I had expected it to be. Yet it is interesting and atleast it is innovative which is what I like about movies.


Darna Mana Hai released in 2003.And yes, for me it was the film of the year.

Some say its a copy of twilight zone...i saw one film on twilight zone,found no evidence that suggested that this film is a copy.

Darna Mana Hai is not your usual commercial Hindi film.The first thing that you need to keep in mind when u watch D.M.H.is it is not a horror film.It is bizarre,it is different and yes it is wonderful.

D.M.H doesn't scare you though the film has its moments.The film tells the story of 6 college kids whose car breaks down in the middle of a lonely road at night.They finally find a place to stay,and instead of playing some stupid game,they decide to tell each other ghost stories.That is when D.M.H actually picks up I wont get into the details of the story.Every story is interesting.They are scary ,they r weird,there is dark humor.

The performances are brilliant.Boman ,Saif ,Raghuvir ,Revathi,Vivek,Nana,Aftab..all come up with great performances.

The camera work and BGM is awesome.I have always felt Ram Gopal Varma and Mani Ratnam are the two best exponents of camera in Indian film industry.

As expected ,the film did not do wonders at the box office neither it got any awards.But D.M.H clearly proved that Indian cinema is coming off age.

D.M.H is one of the best films to come out of the RGV factory.I wish he would come with more and more movies like this !!!!!