This film is a great final chapter to the Dracula 2000 series. Jason Scott Lee is as good as ever as Uffizi, Jason London is cool as hell as Luke, Rutger Hauer proves that Buffy The Vampire Slayer was not his best and is great as Dracula (although I still would have loved to see Gerard Butler return from Dracula 2000). Diane Neal is sexy as hell as Elizabeth, but one wishes she was more willing to do nudity for the final orgy. Alexandra Westcourt was very good as Julie and has a super chemistry with Jason Scott Lee that makes him more human. Patrick Lussier's direction was as great as ever, I'd love to see his take on The Crow mythology :) The additional characters were also great in this film, the two vampires during the opening and the two procurers in particular were awesomely performed! All in all, it is a perfect ending to the series with lots of action, nudity, and gore to please many :)


This is one of those movies that tries really hard to be quirky and off the wall but misses the point that off the wall is hard to construct. That is the feeling of this movie a construction that tries to pile in as many bizarre narrative threads as possible, lsd, tornados and the FBI. The narrative is feather light and at times scenes are so tenuously linked that it is almost laughable.

The camera work and editing style try and fit the "off the wall" strategy but just end up becoming distracting. Th acting is poor all round with the better actors in the cast looking as if they are going through the motions. This has t.v. movie written all over it !


This low budget offering from disturbed filmmaker James Toback ("Black and White") features Adrian Grenier as a Harvard University basketball player in money trouble who is conned by his shaddy girlfriend (Sarah Michelle Gellar (playing a rif on her "Cruel Intentions" role) to throw a basketball game for money. Add in subplots about the mob, a couple of shaddy FBI agents (including a weird performance by Eric Stoltz), a teacher he has an affair with (Joey Lauren Adams) and a bizare drug trip segment and you have.. a typical Toback picture.. Still, the performances, especialy by relative newcommer Grenier are excellent and the story is weird enough to keep you fascinated.. Not for all tastes due to its subject matter but a good film. GRADE: B


This movie had so many chances to be comedic, dramatic and even interesting, but just failed on so many levels. In some instances the actors were so "acting" that it was just unbelievable. Nothing good here. Joey Lauren Adams is just good to listen to because she is a bit sexy. Hell it is so bad that I just saw the end and I can't remember how it ended... I had to make this comment at least 10 lines for it to be posted. Now, you have to know that I am just writing to get it posted. This is how bad this movie was. If you get stoned or do some LSD, it just might be your cup of tea. If you have the brain power to dissect the movie. Even then, don't expect too much.


I wouldn't say this movie is ordinary. There is something about it that makes it stick out of the crowd. Perhaps it is the exquisite camera work, perhaps the intensity and the tempo of it, or maybe merely the fact that the acting performance is excellent. It might be a bit intense at the start, but once you pass the threshold, you get sucked into the story. Anyway it is a good movie, and even if the story is not unique itself, the movie truly is. Watch it, it's worth the money renting.


So...Joey Lauren Adams is this professor in philosphy......With that voice????

It somehow didn't seem right to me. At least we've learned about the dangers of drugs. Before you can say LSD, you're entangled in a web of deceit, with both the FBI and the mafia on your tail. No use to get philosophical about it, just say no. As Buffy would say: 'cos it's Wrong!!!


I am a fan of the offbeat independent genre of filmmaking and I found this to be a rather interesting entry into it. I really like morality tales but I feel a bit ripped when the ending doesn't end with a crash and burn (much like Risky Business or The Graduate). What does save this movie is the first ninety percent of it. Here are my reasons (some spoilers contained within): (1) I loved the sharp dialogue in this movie. Some of the lines that I heard throughout the film I will probably remember for quite sometime. (2) Adrien Grenier's performance was excellent and the best in the film. Seeing him go through that acid trip was enough for me to recommend him for an acting award. The words "Oscar Clip" should have been blinking at the bottom of the screen. (3) Sarah Michelle Gellar was enticingly evil as Grenier's boyfriend. Even her alter-ego would probably want to stab a stake in her heart. (4) The acid trip sequence is about as messed up as any sequence I have ever seen in a movie. As I saw Eric Stoltz's face become visually distorted, I felt like I had dropped acid myself. (5) The philosophical value in this movie is about as heavy as gold. I love it when movies inject philosophy into the plot of a film because the film is then acknowledging that something is supposed to be learned by watching it and therefore it isn't stupid. Most mass-produced movies don't have this phenomenon. (6) The most surprising aspect of the movie goes to Al Franken. He is the last person that I would ever expect to do a cameo in the movie and I don't think his talent was wasted or misplaced. (7) This is the second movie I have ever seen by James Toback and I found his style of filmmaking to be an acquired taste (much like that of Paul Thomas Anderson). He did a splendid job directing this movie however. (8) I found the choppy cinematography to a blessing. If the cinematography hadn't matched the somewhat choppy story to begin with, it would have sank even farther in my mind. Eight reasons give a score of eight.

The downers I thought were (1) the choppy editing and (2) that sad excuse for a denouement and I believe they are interlocked. Granted the editing was rather sub-par I believe, it was needed to accomodate the screenplay. In order not to blow anything at all, they need to cut and paste it in that manner but the job was unfit anyway. I blame the denouement for that, if there had been a nice crash and burn at the end (much like Donnie Darko and The Dangerous Lives Of Altar Boys) the film wouldn't have been so choppy to begin with. All movies that are made to send a strong moral should have the character suffer a big loss in his or her life that they have to live with forever. Granted the ending does have some of that, it didn't really pay off in that manner and I felt a little cheated.

Overall, I found "Harvard Man" to be an engrossing and disturbing film that interlocks philosophy, drug use, and crime into almost nicely wrapped package. If the ending had paid off, it would have been almost flawless. Here ends my rant!


The movie has an unintentionally ridiculous plot involving tri-sexual FBI agents, mobsters, a hot blonde philosophy professor, high stakes gambling, a natural disaster, and a cameo appearance by Al Franken. Interspersed with these things are characters tripping on drugs or philosophizing as college freshmen do, at great length.

Leading man Adrian Grenier has gotten handsomer since he made this movie; he grew into his looks. He did a good job acting, especially considering how young he appears to be here and the oddness of the material.

I was expecting the movie to be more offensive because the director has a reputation for doing unspeakable things to females in life, and given his other movies. This movie just appears to be a drug-fueled, delusional, freshman fantasy, but not as enjoyable as that sounds.

The fact that this director was given several movies to direct after this, each more offensive than the next, is disturbing.

Notes for the sensitive: The movie opens with footage from a sex scene and there are several more throughout. Plenty of drug usage too.

Some people have commented on the oddness of the colors in the movie but I just saw it on Showtime and found those to be normal, except for the brown river water in Boston. Maybe the colors were corrected or maybe there are colors only some people can see, like dog whistles.


This is one of those rare movies that you can't wait to see a second time because you want to laugh at how bad it was. The acting in the first half of the movie is miserable. Adrian Grenier sounds like a robot through much of the movie. It's almost as though he's (poorly)reading a Teleprompter in many scenes. Joey Laurence Adams shows none of her Chasing Amy charm. Instead, she comes off as annoying and whiny. James Toback tries to play the "mad genius" role as director and has one stroke of brilliance in an amazing acid-trip scene that climaxes with an Al Franken cameo. It is hilarious and the highlight of the movie.

The rest of the movie is merely hilariously awful. The plot is virtually nonexistent. Sarah Michelle Geller seems embarrassed to be in the movie in certain parts, especially in the miserable scene at her father's house (her dad happens to be a Mafia boss--the main story line is a college basketball player throwing a game to his girlfriend's father, a mob boss. Brilliant and truly cutting edge!).

This movie is a must see for all the wrong reasons.


I found out about this film long before I was able to rent it and I know I'll own it soon. I read some great reviews at Movies.com on it and it seems like it is held in great respect by critics who know it was unfairly snubbed by the Academy and even Golden Globes because of a young, yet talented cast with a low budget-an independent film! Director James Toback originally wanted Leonardo Dicaprio to play the leading role, because of Titanic - he became 'too expensive' which was actually a good thing. The director then cast Adrien Grenier in place - thank god! The film has a realistic theme and comes somewhere between 'Traffic' and 'American Beauty'. Sarah Michelle Gellar was Toback's first choice to play Cindy Bandollini and despite her heavy schedule and limited time she could spend on making the film because of 'Buffy' I think she did really well. It must be difficult to really set herself in and give a good performance when she has such little time. Her character was quite enjoyable - she was the most entertaining person in the film. Without SMG this films would have been a complete flop. The film is an eye opener for teenagers -

they are set in a place that makes them feel like they are on a drug trip - the fact that taking LSD would never bring you down again is a frightening thought for teenagers playing with fire. The film's scenes are presented in a clever way - the effect of speeding up conversation is effective. It is a complicated film that will leave most people in the dark. After watching it for the 3rd time - it really does make out to be a great film! I recommend it!


After reading some negative reviews on imdb.com I want to comment on this movie as well. I really enjoyed this picture. It is so recognizable, identifiable, to follow the story of this Harvard student who struggles with his puberty and, like any normal kid, experiments with drugs and sex. Scary to see him get involved with the mafia. The movie is full with philosophical quotes and this is done in such a way that it gives the movie a bit of a creepy atmosphere. The voice of Joey L. Adams fits perfect in this overwhelming impression. The happy ending (the good guys win from the bad guys) is also what I like in typical American movies like this one. It was a great movie!


I thought this movie was very refreshing and original.

Adrian Grenier, Sarah Michelle Gellar and Joey Lauren Adams all gave convincing performances, especially Gellar whose performance I see as a real departure from her other roles.

This movie is definitely for the 17 + crowd as it contains blatant sex scenes and drug use but it's definitely worth seeing.

It has an original plot, innovative filming and hilarious dialogue in parts. Although containing scenes of drug use, the movie is not really about that.

You have to check this out when you get the chance... 7/10


I grabbed this movie off the shelf at Blockbuster as I'm a fan of SMG's Buffy character. The other actors listed impressed me as did the blurb that it got a thumbs up from E&R. It opens with sex and gets better from there. That of itself is impressive. The sex is necessary for the story to establish the link with the characters, and it's a mighty link. This definitely isn't a porn movie yet the sex is almost like the fifth character in the movie. SMG's Cindy seems deep until you get to the end of the movie, but I'm wondering now if that was the plan. She did a great job with her character, as did the other players. And just when you think the movie will have a pat ending, a question mark enters the scene in a way you wouldn't expect. You don't hate anyone in this movie. There's no suspension of belief. It's all plausible. DEFINITELY get this movie if you can. It's a good... no, make that it's a GREAT rental! Would be a good one for a DVD library for the thinking person to peruse occasionally too. Not for the non-thinking person and DEFINITELY not for anyone under 18.


What can I say? Harvard Man, is brilliant. Sarah Michelle Gellar spices up the movie with her performance and Rebecca Gayheart? What can I say about Rebecca Gayheart? Fantastic. It's great to see Rebecca Gayheart in another brilliant movie. Harvard Man is a mix of Mafia and Basketball. A great movie and a must-see. I would give it 10/10


Sometimes it's hard to understand why the best films, that try to be a little independent, don't get seen. Last night I viewed Harvard Man at a one-time showing that brought the w/d, James Toback, to Kansas City to comment on his film and career. The man is amazing. A self-described "addictive personality" who's gone tortuously from Harvard to Hollywood, he's been called "the closest thing to an auteur that America has produced." Toback's latest film tosses a young, talented cast into a twister of jump-cuts, psychadelics, crime and punishment that leaves one either gasping for breath or begging for more.

Adrian Grenier plays a philandering philosophy major at Harvard who, through one of his girlfriends, throws a basketball game for big money and winds up in a heap of trouble. Grenier's character is more than eye-catching. We have a sincere guy who's on the ultimate heroic journey: the search for self. His means are bumbling, as are most's, but what he gains along the way is the stuff of the true individual.

The film was shot almost exclusively with a Steadicam, which lead Toback to screw with the linear storyline of the film for editorial as well as narrative purposes. [This was the] "first time I thought editing could be a fun part of the whole process," he remarked after the screening, and it shows. The story is narrative in the traditional sense, but the incessant jumping past slow points to expedite the action, or forward and back in time as interrelated moments are told simultaneously, keep the pacing break-neck.

This is a film even teeny-boppers will "get," at least on the surface. Its philosophy is as deep as Linklater's Waking Life, spliced with the action of Peckinpah's The Getaway. It's full of sex, drugs, hip-hop and classical music (Grenier has both playing while he and Gellar get it on in the film's opening scene). It shows a dangerous irreverence to authority figures (Grenier screws his prof and later jumps out of an FBI window). But hell, that's what authority is there for, to set up the limits that the hero must overcome. If you haven't figured that out yet, see this film and maybe you'll begin to understand.


This movie rings false from beginning to end. There is not one character in the film who resembles a human being. As such, it's impossible to care about what happens. Many of the scenes simply do not make any sense. (A scene in which Ray Allan pulls a gun is both idiotic and offensive.) The classroom scenes are unintentional parodies of philosophy; the idea of a philosophy professor walking around campus arm-in-arm with one her undergraduates is absurd. The acting is bad; and not even bad in a unified way. Each actor is allowed to flounder in his or her own way. After the screening I saw, Toback answered questions. He said that he's bored at most movies, and always wants things to speed up. Perhaps his problem is that he lacks an ear for subtlety. The scenes are (mercifully) short; but they achieve this by taking the most direct (and least interesting) route to conveying information or message.


I was very impressed with HARVARD MAN. At first, it looks like a basic college movie, with basketball, girlfriends and relationships front and center. It soon comes unglued, screwing with chronology, and deploying some of the most jarring, disconcerting jumpcuts I've seen since Godard. Toback manages to cut against any intuitive rhythm, just a millisecond before you'd expect him to. This provokes intense anxiety, which mirrors what the characters are going through. I won't give away any spoilers here, except to say, the situation (and the film form) only get more (in)tense as the film develops. This is a film which only nominally participates in genre conventions, only to knock the stuffing out of them. Extra points for seriously whacked-out, purposefully inappropriate casting. You haven't lived until you've heard Joey Lauren Adams (she whose voice makes Jennifer Tilly sound like freakin' James Earl Jones) delivering a lecture on Wittgenstein. Good job, Mr. Toback.


I saw the Harvard Man in France, so by the time it reaches the U.S., the movie may be completely dismantled and reworked. But I doubt that such repairs could rescue the film from the wreckage I saw. The plot is uninteresting -- not to mention far-fetched -- teaming poorly developed characters against one another in a want-to-be teenage-comedy-thriller-mystery music video. The acting is stilted and achingly forced... which is what we've come to expect from the average Eric Stoltz, Sarah Michelle Gellar, and Adrian Grenier. Director James Toback does try to make the movie visually interesting, but its excesses result in overstimulation that is hyperactive and annoying.


fast-paced. Hot young (and older) stars. Pretty good acting. The story is weak though...not much original. The drug bit has been used so many times (and overdone here) that its not funny. about the pacing, I saw an early screening, and I recommend recutting the last scene. The shot with the kid and the eyes is good, but the reunion with Joey Lauren Adams is overlong.


I'm not going to get into all the bad critiques I've read on this film. Personally I knew very little about it before I bought it today and watched it, and I was pleasantly surprised. The trailer, like a lot of trailers, it seems, tells you very little about the movie and if anything is completely misleading. The film starts out introducing us to the 3 major players of this film, Allen(Grenier), a Harvard basketball player and philosophy major who is looking for the ultimate form of consciousness through drug experimentation, his sort-of girlfriend Cindy(gellar), the calculating and very smart but-maybe-in-just-a-little-over-her-head daughter of a mob boss, and his philosophy professor and lover Chesney(JLA). Allen's life changes when his parents home in Kansas, is hit by a tornado and, in what has to be the very definition of the phrase "Deus ex machina", they do not have tornado insurance. In Kansas. For real. However weak this pitiful plot device is, and believe me I almost shut this movie off right then and there, it does get the real plot going, which turns out to be fantastic. Allen, seeking to ease his parents' financial woes, take the advice of his philosophy professor to ask his girlfriend's father for money. Initially he is turned down, but Cindy informs him that all he needs to do is shave a few points off of an upcoming game and the money is his. After staying up all night debating the issue with himself, Allen receives a morning visit from a chemistry major friend who brings with her the original formula for LSD stuffed into sugar cubes, the way they were done in the 60's experiments. These events shape the rest of the film, taking us through a wild and extremely vivid acid trip that sees Cindy and Allen both being pursued by 2 federal agents who are apparently a couple working undercover on Cindy's dad, and who, coincidentally, are sexually involved with Chesney. All of these relationships work in rather manipulative ways, except for seemingly the relationship between student and professor, which seems genuine. The ending, while it may anger some, leaves a bit up to interpretation, unless of course you do about 3 minutes of research on LSD and Thorazine. Each cast member plays their part very well, especially the 2 female leads, the directing is not without its flaws but overall is very unique and very well done. This movie might have made a few more dollars and gotten some better reviews had they spent more time utilizing focus groups and marketing executives, but thankfully for those who are lucky enough to see this film and intelligent enough to enjoy it, they did not.


This is one of those movies that you have to sit and think about for awhile. Initially when I accidentally started watching it, I thought it was the worst thing I had ever seen, what with the poor editing job. (I think that may have been done for effect.)The sequencing was bizarre as well. It was also one of those movies that you either love or hate. I hated it initially, then right at the end, I realized that I actually enjoyed it. I threw aside the petty details, such as the huge winter mistake, and several other minor details, and ended up enjoying it. I think that the whole movie acted as a perception altering experience, slowly unraveling the plot until the end, tying everything together. That is just my opinion. So, if you look into the movie, you may think it's better than the first glance. Also, look for the Al Franken cameo!


Basketball is a winter sport, right? Hmmmm. Based upon this movie, it's interesting that, in Cambridge, MASSACHUSETTS the weather during basketball season allows for sleeveless clothing outdoors, leaves on the trees and no snow or ice on the ground. Trust me, I live in the Boston area - even a freak warm spell during the months of b'ball season would not look like this.

So - aside from the fact that this is just a very bad movie - they didn't even try for authenticity. Especially when so much of the movie's backdrop is the Harvard campus and Cambridge. No wonder I had never heard of this movie until it was broadcast on TV and nothing else was on to watch!

Well, I'm sure I can find something else . . . gotta go find the remote!


I have owned this movie for quite some time, mainly because SMG is in it and I'm a big fan of BTVS, but I had never gotten around to watching it until last night. I have to say, I was pretty disappointed. I mean, I'm supposed to feel sorry for this guy? He's shamelessly sleeping with two women at the same time, and getting tripped out on LSD. What do I care if he gets out of his mess? He's not a good guy, in spite of the fact that the movie half-heartedly attempts to make him seem so, since he is trying to get money together for his parents to replace their home, which got blown away by a tornado. Here's a quick summary: This guy is going to Harvard, and plays basketball for them. He is sleeping with SMG's character, whose father is a big time mobster. He is also sleeping with Joey Lauren Adams' character, who happens to be one of his teachers. His parent's home gets blown away by a tornado. He wants to help them replace it, so he asks SMG to ask her father for the money. She says he can have the money if he promises to fix a basketball game that has been bet on, so even more money can be won. The FBI gets wind of this, and try to cause a lot of trouble for SMG and her father. They attempt to get this guy to turn them in. The FBI team (a boy and a girl who his other girlfriend happens to be having regular threesomes with) let his other girlfriend know what's going on, and she tries to get him out of it. While all this chaos is going on, this guy is totally tripped out on LSD, hearing voices, hallucinating, etc. Pretty ridiculous. So, basically, my main problem with this movie was that I didn't like any of these characters. None of them seemed like good people, like anyone that I would care much one way or the other what happened to them. No sympathy for anyone. So, I was actually sitting through the whole movie, hoping it would be over soon because I was tired of watching it. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. The only good point: I thought Sarah Michelle Gellar did a good job with her part. She was very believable. I didn't think of her as Buffy once during this movie.


Reading all the negative comments I wasn't gonna watch the film but with SMG in it I just had to. I was pretty surprised to say the least. It is a good film. It explores philosphical debates about the self, I, the void in your mind etc. the end message is excellent to all those who examine every second they exist: dont look inward at yourself; look outward at the world and enjoy its splender. The scene when Alan got real high on 3 hits of LSD was very funny. I just don't see what's so bad about this film. Its worth at least 6/10.


I can't stand movies that have no realism. The main character would never make it into Harvard, he's not smart enough... not to mention he never went to class or studied. And if you want to talk about the basketball quality, I've seen horrible high school team that are way better than the losers they had in this movie. Is it really that hard to grab some guys who can actually play to shoot these scenes?


I love Sarah Michelle Gellar, she is capable of fantastic acting as made clear in the Buffy series. She has, unfortunately, been given no opportunities to show her considerable talent in film. While Cruel Intentions is a bad movie, Harvard Man is one of the worst - if not the worst - movie I have ever forced myself to sit through. The writing is practically non-existent. There are many scenes of back and forth dialogue with little purpose but to fill time. There are several simultaneous plots (gambling, drug addiction, sexual cheating, dealing with the mob), none of them interesting in their execution. There is no coherence - each plot thread seems forced in to fill time and is not interwoven with a big theme. One soon gets the feeling that the movie was started with little passion from the director, then finished in a hurry to meet a deadline. Harvard Man is transparently what it is: a quickly-made attempt to capitalize on Gellar's fame. To watch it is to wait for its end, amazed that such a thing actually made it as a major motion picture. I CAN'T believe the average rating here is close to 5. Anyone who says this movie is anything but awful is either mentally deficient or has an agenda. The only reason to watch this movie is to gawk at its atrociousness.


I was convinced in 2001 that the worst film that I ever had the displeasure of watching was 13 Ghosts. Now I'm afraid to admit that I may have very well come across another movie that just might be even worse. I can't even put into words how ridiculous this is so I'm not gonna waste any of my time doing so. This has to be seen in order to understand how awful it is. I believe this would be the shortest review I've ever given and I've never been so sure of myself quite like this before.


I didn't know what I was getting myself into when I put this movie in my DVD player. From the very beginning I was drawn in, as much as one can be when someone is fornicating with Sarah Michelle Gellar while playing music from multiple boom boxes and smoking a blunt. I found the character development intriguing & the casting was superb. I like the choice of protagonist, a lesser-known actor surrounded by more recognizable peers, similar to Donnie Darko. The cinematography was interesting, and the portrayal of the effects of LSD were as accurate as I've ever seen on film, sans Fear & Loathing. The subject matter encompasses vices of many flavors. Never before have I seen promiscuity, gambling, deceit, drug use, and gun play so eloquently infused with the likes of philosophical banter. This movie greatly appealed to my sense of intellect as I often found myself caught in sheer amazement that a film like this had been produced and slipped under my radar for so long. It deals with real life scenarios and subject matter often too taboo to be portrayed ever so causally, a refreshing look at a facet rarely seen. It's abstract intellectualism combined with sex and drug use surely won't appeal to conservative film watchers. This is definitely a film for a niche audience and I applaud James Toback for this peek into real life.


I'd give it a zero if I could. Thank goodness I didn't rent this (saw it on TV). The bloatedly egotistical writer/director, who's way too in love with his Harvard degree, wasted a decent idea by creating one-dimensional characters and then casting with second-rate actors -- none of whom is a complex-enough/bright-enough person or skilled-enough actor to convince viewers that they're Harvard students or instructors -- who turned in one-dimensional performances. I can only imagine that he was jumping on the youth bandwagon and thus cast some of the names of the moment, but he would have done better had he gone with unknowns who are actually gifted. Utter waste of time; do not watch this.


Meh, this is an okay time filler that won't stick in your mind for too long. It's the typical American comedy that uses black humor to criticize some aspects of America's politics and culture/society.

On the positive side, it's not a typical teen comedy with "toilet humor" or campy situations; it has some decent dialogs and interesting ideas towards drug addiction and mafias.

The plot surrounds a sports guy who is obviously the most popular thing in college. He has a sexy hot and kinky girlfriend who happens to be the daughter of a powerful Italian mob man. You know the rest... drugs, basketball, mafia, FBI, a sexy and smart teacher, etc.

This movie is not a mess but not a masterpiece. I still recommend it for those who are into teen movies with an edge.


This is a highly entertaining and accurate look at the world Dr H discovered. His "problem child" is indeed a means by which to expand your consciousness. It is highly disappointing to see a writer and production team cop out on a plot line and re-"direct" (uhum) to follow the assumptions and perceptions of the ignorant masses. The negative end-image of this plot line delivers a message of hazard and caution in this world of psychedelics. The case in point is that judgement should be reserved for those who have tread the path...and those who have tread the path do so willingly, consciously, happily and with a greater understanding of themselves and the relativity of things. Is it possible for us all to be so fortunate as to discover our very own truth through a simple mind-body experiment. The experience is not reality...granted. The revelations brought on by engagement with a world within this world is what provides us with the perspective to finally see. i.e. How can you walk a mile in someone else's shoes without unavoidably still wearing your own socks (perceptions). The answer implied is: strip away your own sense of reality, your own consciousness and you will have successfully placed yourself out of your box. QED - time to expand your minds


This is for when you're feeling like you need some company, but you don't feel like venturing past your doorstep. It's a good example of "slice of life" cinema, taking us through the dirty, drug-addled day-to-day life of a punk commune in 1978 Melbourne. The late Michael Hutchence was the best choice to play Sam; though the film is a true story, it seems as if the role were written for Hutchence. Several of the parts were cast with non-actors, people that director Richard Lowenstein found in public, and that only adds to the gritty realism of the film. It's almost enough to make me wish I had been there. The strong performances by Nique Needles (as Tim, a friend and bandmate of Sam's) and Saskia Post (as Sam's girlfriend) are icing on the cake. As a bonus, you won't find a much better soundtrack - Iggy Pop, The Boys Next Door (later the Birthday Party), Brian Eno, Gang of Four, Dogs In Space (Hutchence and other actors/musicians from the film) and Melbourne locals of the day.


This is one of my favorite movies, but for personal - not cinematic - reasons.

During high school I lived without parents, and frequently my house resembled the house in the pic. It was filled with teens and early twenty-somethings who were trying to either get the hang of standing alone as adults or ignoring the fact that they'd passed childhood up altogether.

Most people may not realize that the movie gives a fairly accurate description of that (sur)reality. It may seem shallow or pretentious, and it may lack in "deep" plot twists and turns. The thing is, at that age, and in that type of life you live without worrying about the next day because it's just too big a concern to deal with. Most will never live, or think/feel this way.

On the cinematic side: the movie is not for someone sitting down to "view a good book." It's more a chance to turn off higher functions and experience another side of the world (not just Australia, but the time period and lifestyle). It's also important to note that this is not a Hollywood "teen" or "young adult" comedy - it's a drama with a lot of nonsense included, because that's what life is like.

It really is a shame that the movie isn't more widely available. I still own it from the original release, and only one of the rental stores (family owned) in my area has a copy. I'm sure it would more than meet the price to release to DVD. (I'm certain that a double disk including the original soundtrack would actually sell quite well!)

If you find it, watch it.


This movie was made when I was two. I reckon i would have liked it then as well. the lead character, Sam, barely says two words the whole movie and walks about a meter, otherwise crawling like an animal. I thought it was so cool, and I really felt like I was breathing the air of 1987 as well. Being in a band in Sydney at the moment feels really commercial and this movie inspired my friends and I to tap into that trashy rock lifestyle once again. I think that this is a good indication of the movies artistic integrity- it is thought provoking and interesting. Just remember to accept it for what it is though. There are twists in the plot but this is not it's strength. The real art in the telling of this story is the cinematography and priceless characters. There is also a bit of insight in this film. You feel as if you have survived the episode and are wiser for it.


An interesting look at a house of drughead punks/homeless types in late 1970s/early 80s Australia (someone said Melbourne eh? That'd figure...certainly wasn't Brisbane! :-) ) Kinda like the Sid and Nancy of Oz, including the bittersweet ending. Although it's been years since I saw this film, and it's not available anywhere in the States (although I did see a copy in a Sydney video rental place...anyone wanna sell me one?) I distinctly recall Michael Hutchence's gloomy smackhead character experiencing THE most realistic acid trip at a party I've ever seen on film (and trust me, that's sayin something). Pretty plot less, yes, but worth it just for that scene.


I was obsessed with this movie when it came out. Firstly, I was the age of the characters and into that scene, that music, etc. Secondly, being from Melbourne, it was all very real. Also, Sam Sejavka, who the film is based on, came to my school in the mid-eighties and used some of my friends in a video-clip for his band, Beargarden. My sister's best friend, Deanna, played 'the girl' in the movie.

So we went and saw the movie underaged and followed it with that cult-like devotion, for a while it seemed every afflicted night would end with us trying to or finding the house, etc etc. There was so much to the movie we could identify with. Much later I went and saw 3 or 4 plays that Sejavka had written or directed. On the whole they were brilliant, particularly 'In Angel Gear', and most had the same feel of Dogs In Space. Saskia Post was in one of them.

This is probably no use to those who haven't seen it. But in concurrence with most who have written - it was so, so real.


Do not be fooled by all of the naysayers out there.....this is one hell of a movie....especially if you are a fan of Michael Hutchence(inxs).

I own this movie on VHS and have been waiting a long time for a much deserved DVD release..the acting is superb and you really feel as though you are spending time with old friends every time you watch this masterpiece. Definitely one of the best Australian movies ever made.

This movie has it all, sex, drugs, rock n' roll, and laughs upon laughs upon laughs. I cannot emphasize enough that everyone who loves comedy/drama involving young hip 20 something outcasts should run out and rent/buy this film.Trust me. 10/10 *****


At various points during this film, I noted the time, and thought "Well, I'm still waiting for something to happen". And I kept waiting, watching what appeared to be a film with no structure, direction or progress as far as its characters or "plot" were concerned. Like an idiot, I just didn't realise until the end.

Someone who has not lived like this, or known people who have, could easily dismiss this as a directionless mess, a string of scenes with no real purpose, and characters who don't learn or evolve. But that's the point Lowenstein is making, he has deliberately structured this film in a way that mirrors the lives the characters led: directionless and stagnant, not planning or thinking of a future, but just staggering from one party, gig or shag to the next. Not living at all, just existing.

Only when something drastic happens beyond their control are they forced to re-evaluate where they are and change their lives. The existence they led ends, and quite rightly the film ends also.

It's a clever piece of film-making, and the more I think about it the more impressed I am.


I have watched this film twice and would probably watch it again if it was on the tele or my friend had it on video. I definitely say that you should watch it once especially if you like punk and noisy new wave music ,which I do, because there is lots of it in this film. There is also a great bit when a girl explains sex to someone in a very frank way. It's more a film about growing up and friendship than about sex and punk music but it is quite gritty and real feeling which is good because it is like watching real life only much more exciting. There is also some drugs use in it and several lovely babes but it is really more of a serious film than a babefest and would appeal to women as well.


This is one of my absolute favorite movies. It has an incomparable depth, and each layer of dialogue is intense and perfect in its own right. It is perhaps one of the most "real" movies I have seen.


I witnessed this atrocity sometime in the late 1980's and It Remains to this day to be the worst film I ever seen, Running a Close Second is the film Sky Captain and The World of Tomorrow, Both Stinkers..

And this surprises me that Richard Lowenstein Directed, he If I am not mistaken did some fine videos for the band, Guess Michael owed him a favor and hence, Dogs.....

But... Michael K Hutchence remains to this day one of the most prolific and sincere front-men of our time.

Love The Man, Hated The Film..

See Ya


The name of the game in Ghost Game is that 11 people on a reality TV show must all live in a hunted location. The last one to stay with out running away wins. This year's location is an abandon war museum ware a horrific massacre took place during a time of conflick. What they don't know is that in this game they might be gambling with there lives.

Ghost Game has a few moments that might make you jump but over all this is just another quickly made d-rated horror movie with all the same clichés. We have a group of young people in there twenty's, we put them in a creepy location that always dark and by the end they all die off in horrible ways. What I just describe is what most d-rated horror flicks in the U.S are like. This one the same only now it's from Asia.

All the characters are not interesting. Our lead character is the girl who won last years show. She a stereo typical star for a horror movie. A young hot girl who over all is nice and innocent. At the end it's even reviled the only reason why she on the show is to get money to help her sick mom. The other charters just come off to me as stereo types you find in a class room. We have the nerds, the super hot snobby girl, and the prankster who has a crush on the snobby girl.

The story is confusing. At first I thought I could follow it until it neared the end. All 11 players are to stay in what used to be a military base ware the commanding officer ruthlessly slaughter prisoners. When facing his own down fall he shoots him self in the head. Years go by and a strange death is caught on camera showing three guards just falling dead from shock. This gets the attention of the producers' of the show Ghost Game. So our 11 heroes must play a survivor rip off but our lead finds her self stallked by a Ghost of one of the victims. This slowly leads to strange events happening all around the others. That's until it lead us to the big unspeakable horror that lead me scratching my head at a pure lost. The final Climax takes a couple times to watch in order to get what happen. Even after getting it still leads to one vary stereo typical ending for a stereo typical horror movie.

The ghost in Ghost Game are okay in some scenes but in other (especially near the end) I did not find them that scary at all. In fact I found the final ghost to be humors looking because the actor was just trying to hard to look scary.

Its not the worst horror movie I have ever seen. Near the beginning there a few creepy scenes and I will admit there were some good moments that I enjoyed but that not enough to save it.

I supposed this is good when you literally have nothing ells to do. There is some, but not much entertainment value in it. I for one however will guarantee you that once you see this movie you will forget about it in a week or even less. So I would not even recommend renting it. Its one of those movie you wait to come on TV (and if there really nothing ells good on) to watch out of pure boredom.

That why I give Ghost Game a 4 out of 10


+ three points for production values bigbrother with ghosts, kinda bad plot especially as the actors were basic teens... this movie could have been from dimension films... i didn't get scared... the ideas were that used. the use of bass, and mtv-style editing. sounds we're similar to everything you have seen before.

nothing new... except that it's not made in California =D.

the ghosts maybe scare kids, but to me a grown man whose seen a lot of crap, this movie made no impact.

dull, boring, nothing new. another teen movie, with bass sounds with every scare =D


The movie itself is a failure, big time. Scare elements left me yawning (literally). The story has no real ending, and makes little sense. However, I do like the premise where the movie is based on, and the directing made the movie looks very much like a reality show. I find myself asking the same questions as I would while watching a reality show. The sound is nothing to shout about, but the sight is quite awesome. Set design was incredibly detailed and realistic. Lighting was especially good. However, costume design and make-up leaves a lot to be desired. Acting was incredibly lame. A good watch to waste your time, but I have better things to do and scarier movies to watch. Try Shutter if you can get your hands on it. One of the best Thai scary movie ever. In fact, with Shutter and Dorm, I'll say that Thai movies are beginning to play better than most Hollywood cash cows, but then Ghost Game came along and destroyed my conviction.


As many others have pointed out, this lacks what is accepted to be trademarks of Westwood's popular Command & Conquer franchise... the building system, video sequences and a solid story. However, that aside, this isn't a bad game. Rather than following in the footsteps of every RTS game that preceded it within the series, this takes a gamble, wanders of the beaten path. The results of this are hit-and-miss. Features that were missed earlier(such as a "move *and* attack" command... *finally*!) are implemented, game-play is changed around some... however, there are shortcomings and bugs, if not very many of the latter. The new interface is essentially that of other RTS titles(don't get me wrong, the engine is all-new), and this, unfortunately, puts some focus on aspects of these games that others(with this other interface) did better which still haven't been attended to, basically all falling into the category of overview... compared to the excellent overview of StarCraft and the Age of Empires games... titles released several years before this. The graphics are one of the best things about the game... and clearly, the developers realized this: they put footage of it all over the game. Every video sequence is presented in it, it's in the(surprisingly effective) intro, heck, it's even the background in the main menu. The effects are considerably more realistic-looking than in earlier efforts, with smoke, fire, the works. The game does require a bit of power to run well, but the graphics are worth it. The zoom feature was perhaps not the greatest addition, even if it is cool enough that you can get a close-up view... it shows too well where corners were cut in creating the graphics. The game-play is often very exciting and intense, and definitely entertaining. The difficulty is perhaps slightly uneven, but good. The three sides are remarkable in how even they are(though it should be noted that the way they are set up is essentially an idea from earlier RTS titles, including StarCraft), and all have some interesting stuff to play around with, as well as an arsenal that makes them formidable foes, and satisfying to play as. GLA, or Global Liberation Army("one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"), commonly referred to as the terrorists, are the fastest, cheapest, weakest and least technologically advanced. They draw their strength from numbers and celerity. USA(which, incidentally, is also the only "clean" one, no chemical/biological warfare) is the strongest, technologically superior, but also most expensive. China is a "happy medium". Any RTS player will find a side to prefer. There are quite a few units available to all three sides, in spite of further increase in efficiency... engineers are removed, it's now the sides' main infantry unit that can take over buildings, and it's no longer instantaneous, to give a quick example. There are buildings and characteristics that are unique to their respective sides... the GLA, being sneaky and tricky, have tunnel networks, the Chinese, being morally ambiguous, have hackers to acquire further funds(all three sides have an alternate method of continually achieving supplies, so even if you fight long enough to use up all the natural resources, you can still gain more), and the US, having clear air superiority, can call in air-strikes, paratroopers and a nasty drop called The Fuel Air Bomb. All three have abilities and a special unit(which is cloaked, but can be detected, when using abilities or if the enemy has a unit that uncloaks their enemies) that fit their profile... GLA has a sniper, who(in addition to sniping infantry) can kill the driver of any enemy vehicle, the Chinese have an unarmed agent who, using her lap-top, can steal from the enemies and disable their vehicles one at a time, and the US have a battle-hardened colonel, equipped with a knife, explosives and a machine-gun(essentially a Commando/Tanya, but oh well, those *are* pretty rockin'). The special abilities(as well as some units) are accessed by earning higher ranks, granting you points to "buy" them. Successful battle raises your rank, so the better you do, the better you get, the more you'll have access to. Multi-player is quite good, and the setup is very user-friendly. Single player is divided into three campaigns, one per side. There are 21 levels in total, which, sadly, means only 7 per side. Conquer the entire world in just seven missions? The briefings are entirely audio-based, but the voice-work is pretty good. Sound in general is another area where the game does well. All the effects and unit responses/comments sound right. The music is a dramatic score, which works well. The level design is good, but for only having seven missions per side, few of them are terribly memorable(though there are some interesting scenarios, such as providing cover-fire for retreating US troops, and all three sides get a reasonably satisfying finale). The air-borne combat is made more open, particularly when playing as the US, which has access to three different types of planes, a transport helicopter and an attack chopper(and that's in addition to the special abilities). This introduces some interesting stuff that works really well; repelling from a helicopter, having one unit per side which can effectively empty a building garrisoned by enemy units, a limitless source of funds for each side, allowing units to upgrade/expand and allowing more different infantry units to garrison inside bunkers/buildings. Obviously, this has some potentially politically and morally provocative material, and I won't claim that I got through the GLA campaign without feelings of unease... but that debate should be had in the appropriate forum. This is, after all, a review. All in all... it's a pretty good game, and holds new things for RTS games, but the bugs and the features that just ought to be there are a tad obvious. I recommend this to any fan of RTS titles who is interested in the concept and the promise of better graphics, but faithful fans of C&C may want to be sure before they try it. 7/10


this game is the worst of the command and conquer series

they have removed certain featuers of the game that makes it command and conquer.

there is no longer a toolbar, so in the result of that there is workers/buldozers.

it has nothing to do with the tiberian series or the red alert series. I think the gameplay is awful, the graphics isn't good either, it looks to much of an animation rather than a realistic game. take my advice if you are a command and conquer fan, don't get this game.

THe only good thing I could say about generals is that it is in 3D


The greatest shortcoming of this series is perhaps the lack of an in-depth story and associated cinematics that were in the past, part and parcel of all Command and Conquer games. The interface is also annoying and very slow. The load times are pathetic even on faster computers. But the game itself is excellent and includes not two, but 3 sides. The levels are however, a tad repetitive and not very creative. There are plenty of units and associated gib effects to make up for that though. The America and China campaigns are too easy on normal skill and only during multiplayer is there a real challenge that will force you to think more strategically. I think this game could have been much better if Westwood had more time on their hands.


An absolutely wonderful Carne/Prevert jeu d'esprit that owes more to the modernist whimsy of a Rene Clair than the claustrophobic pessimism of their later works. Although acclaimed as the greatest exponents of poetic realism, films like QUAI DES BRUMES and LE JOUR SE LEVE can be seen today as flagrantly artificial, most especially in the sets and almost classical plots. Here, they let the artifice run riot, allowing plots run into strange digressions or non-sequiters. The sense of freedom absent from their more famous works is invigorating.

Set in Edwardian England, Archibald Soper is a lecherous, hypocritical, poker-faced bishop who holds sparsely attended public meetings denouncing the evils of detective fiction, apparently an English 'craze' of the time. His cousin, Irwin Molyneaux, is a timid gardener married to a splendidly imperious snob, Margaret. He writes, unknown to his family, hugely successful detective novels under the pseudonym Felix Chapel, with plots pilfered from his maid's hyperactive milkman admirer, Billy.

One day, Soper forces himself on the Molyneaux for dinner, but Margaret has exasperated her cooking staff too far, and they have vamoosed. Aghast at the potential humiliation of having no servants, she pretends to be visiting friends and cooks the meal herself. However, Irwin's ineptness at deceit leads Soper to report a murder to Scotland Yard.

The film's starting point is the English fondness for detective fiction, and much of the film's humour, its sense of the absurd, its command of farce, its playing with appearance and class, gives the film an English comic eccentricity, rarely found in the French cinema. DROLE, however, is the complete opposite of the typical English detective novel, which offers an opening chaos and enigma, with the social disruption of a crime and a series of wildly disparate clues and leads, but achieves order and social restoration through the figure of the detective who can see, interpret and control everything.

In DROLE, following Chesterton, say, rather than Conan Doyle, events start in relative order - characters are firmly set in their social positions. But as the plot proceeds, as characters are revealed to be leading double lives, as the profusion of secondary characters complicates rather than explicates the story, as events become more preposterous and unlikely, the social divisions represented by clear-cut spaces are blurred, and the film

escalates into chaos represented by the mob, that great terror of the English, spilling into the narrative, destroying the respectable middle-class home, flouting and mocking the law, making its own judgements. The resolution, such as it is, is a complete lie, because there is no crime, and yet it is brilliantly subversive because it completely disrupts the duplicitous order at the beginning, it alienates people living convenient compartmentalised lives from themselves, forcing them to confront, if only for a moment, their true desires, which contradict their public faces,

DROLE is ridiculously funny, and Prevert's arch theatricality has never been used to greater effect. Another plus is one of the most remarkable casts ever assembled - Michel Simon is immensely touching as the bemused gardener forced to abandon the comforts of his mimosa for the chaos of life on the run (private property being the conservative definition of self); Francoise Rosay is incomparable as the grande dame, besotted by social propriety, yet seething with untapped lust; the young Jean-Louis Barrault is a little callow compared to his seasoned elders, but endearingly impudent - the scene in the greenhouse pond with Rosay is a mock-classical treasure.

Standing out, though, is possibly the greatest French actor of the 1930s, Louis Jouvet, the funniest straight man in the film, keeping his gloriously calm poker-face through all kinds of humiliations and revelations, including the donning of an elaborate kilt to find an incriminating picture from an 'actress'. Best of all is Carne's style, completely unrestrained, unafraid to go for 'gag'-like effects (the mugging of dandies for buttonholes is particularly piquant), beavering through fairy-tale sets that do for London what TOP HAT did for Venice, completely at ease with the farce, yet still pulling off evocative shots that reveal the emotional reality behind the nonsense.


I haven't read the other user comments but whoever did the summary for this film possibly hasn't seen it! It has absolutely nothing to do with a serial killer of women (the killer in question kills butchers because they kill animals) and Soper accuses his cousin Molyneux of having poisoned his (Molyneux's) wife. The whole thing is an absurdist's delight -- a French film set in a London that never was.


In the Victorian London, the botanist Irwin Molyneux (Michel Simon) and his wife Margaret Molyneux (Françoise Rosay) are bankrupted but still keeping the appearance due to the successful crime novels written by Irwin under the pseudonym of Felix Chapel. Their cook has just left the family, when Irwin's snoopy and hypocrite cousin Archibald Soper (Louis Jouvet) that is in campaign against the police stories of Felix Chapel invites himself to have dinner in Irwin's house. Margaret decides to keep the farce of their social position secretly cooking the dinner, while the clumsy Irwin justifies her absence telling the bishop Soper that she had just traveled to the country to meet some friends. However Soper suspects of Irwin and calls the Scotland Yard, assuming that his cousin had poisoned his wife. Irwin and Margaret decide to hide the truth to avoid an exposition of their financial situation, moving to a low-budget hotel in the Chinese neighborhood, getting into trouble.

"Drôle de Drame ou L'Étrange Aventure de Docteur Molyneux" is a hilarious theatrical comedy of farce and mistakes. Most of the characters are hypocrite, greedy, lazy or simply incompetent and the situations they get involved are silly, naive but very funny. In spite of having irrelevant flaws in the plot, this film is a great entertainment. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Família Exótica" ("Exotic Family")


Spoofs are generally not popular with the masses (except when Crosby/Hope or Abbott/Costello or Woody Allen are doing the spoofing) so it's no surprise to discover there exist few box-office viable spoofs of film noir. (I know people will claim Alexander Mackendrick's 1955 The Ladykillers, but this is actually a marvelous spoof of crime caper movies. Otto Heller's photographic style not only shines brightly into every nook and cranny, but the story always goes for the belly laugh rather than the jugular vein). A notable exception is the Marcel Carné 1937 Drole de Drame, in which one of the finest casts ever assembled  Jouvet, Simon, Rosay, Barrault, Aumont, and the lovely Nadine Vogel (who made only four movies, of which this is her debut) wrestle with a delightfully ridiculous plot that manages to get wilder and wilder as it progresses from pugnacious snobbery through blatant hypocrisy to the most ridiculous cop shop misinvestigation ever presented on a big-budget theatre screen. Schuftann's atmospheric, noir photography and Trauner's nightmarishly sprawling sets rival any similar creations from Berlin or Hollywood. The movie is chock full of bizarre touches, but the one that tickled me best was the sleeping journo, most amusingly played by Henri Guisol (who enjoyed quite a career in French who-dun-its and noir).


If you think French farce is something you'll gladly pass by, consider Drole de Drame. Among other things, the film includes a vegetarian serial killer who disembowels butchers, a bishop of the Church of England who'd have God praying for forgiveness within 30 seconds, a professor of botany whose two loves are mimosas and carnivorous plants, as well as an imposing wife, a delectable maid and a milkman who delivers endless bottles of milk. "A Droll Drama, or the Strange Adventures of Professor Molyneux" takes place in Edwardian England, and may be best described for American viewers as a combination of Preston Sturges, French sophistication, the Marx Brothers, slapstick comedy and social pretensions. The film was written by Jacques Prevert and directed by Marcel Carne, who later collaborated on two classics of cinema (not just French cinema), Quais des Brunes and Children of Paradise.

Professor Irwin Molyneux (Michel Simon) is a bumbling, meek, henpecked man who loves his mimosas. His wife is the formidable Margaret Molyneux (Francoise Rosay), who is fully aware of their social status. The professor's dear cousin is Archibald Soper, the Bishop of Bedford, a man full of sanctimonious certitude who rails against "the cult of tawdry literature," namely, detective stories. "Detective Novel Readers are Future Murderers" says one banner where the bishop is preaching. The worst example of all is Felix Chapel, author of the hugely popular "The Perfect Crime." As we shortly find out, Professor Molyneux is actually the fictitious Felix Chapel, and no one knows this except his wife and Eva, their maid. Molyneux and his cousin heartily dislike each other and Margaret Molyneux can't stand the bishop. When Soper invites himself to dinner one evening (the cook already has left in a huff), Margaret agrees to cook the bishop's favorite, duck in orange sauce (the bishop takes two helpings), but refuses to make an appearance. The suspicious bishop, naturally enough, believes that Professor Molyneux has murdered his wife. When Professor Molyneux makes up some story about his wife having measles and has gone to visit friends, or is it that the friends have measles, the Bishop looks at the knife in his hand and says, "Bizarre, bizarre." "What is the matter," Molyneux asks. "With what?" "Your knife." "In what way?" Soper asks. "You looked at your knife and said 'Bizarre, bizarre,' so I thought... " "I said 'Bizarre bizarre'? How bizarre. Why would I have said, 'Bizarre, bizarre'?" "I assure you, my dear cousin," Molyneux says, "that you said 'Bizarre bizarre'." "Did I say 'Bizarre'? How bizarre..." The bishop decides to stay overnight, and later he calls Scotland Yard...

...and causes more mistaken identities, more coincidences and more conflicting motives than you can shake your head head. Not the least is that the butcher butcherer, William Kramps, blames his obsession all on Felix Chapel, and is determined to do to Chapel what he does to butchers. Mixed in with all the ridiculous situations is an underlying look at the pretensions of maintaining social status. The movie may be a terrifically engaging piece of nonsense, but there is enough middle class social satire to give the film a real edge.

Farce may depend on straight-faced situations and clever dialogue, but farce lives or dies on the skill of the actors. Drole de Drame is remarkable in the cast of extraordinary actors Carne put together. Michel Simon, big and shambling, is one of the slyest of actors, and one of the most nearly impossible to upstage. One of his great roles is as Boudu in Renoir's Boudu Saved from Drowning. Louis Jouvet, dressed in black, tall and lean with squinting, suspicious eyes, is immensely amusing. He hated films and only took on roles to pay for his life on stage. He and Simon detested each other as much as the characters they play do. Francoise Rosay as Margaret Molyneux moves through the film with complete assurance in her social status, yet she is so easily flattered into coy behavior. And Jean-Louis Barrault, that great actor who made his film reputation as the sensitive mime in Children of Paradise, is a revelation as William Kramps. He's a mad killer with the comedy timing of Bob Hope. "Life is so strange," he says to a nervous Molyneux, who is pretending to be a real-life Chapel. "Some people I see only once. I look at them. They're alive. And when I leave, they're dead." Kramps may be the only person in the film who is not concerned with social position.


Boy do I love French movies from the mid-late 1930s. They were typified by wonderful cinematography, excellent sets and magical stories. Artistically, many of them are at least as good as anything Hollywood had to offer.

A fantastic example of my appreciation of this older style is this movie, Drôle de Drame. Like such great 30s French films as The Baker's Wife, the film abounds with WONDERFUL and very colorful supporting characters. Are they altogether realistic, NOT IN THE LEAST--but they are wonderful, nevertheless. They remind me a lot of the odd characters you might find in films by Frank Capra or Preston Sturgis. The silliness of the film also reminds me of films like Arsenic and Old Lace or Bringing Up Baby--and this a a STRONG complement indeed! In addition, this film is a delight on the eyes--with BETTER than Hollywood camera and set design--it just looks marvelous! So, despite all these positives why does it only get a 9?! Well, the plot is really cute but full of holes. In other words, the fundamental plot element leading to all the hilarity just isn't logical. BUT, WHO CARES?! It's so cute, well-made and the ride is so much fun, I really didn't care and I strongly recommend this film to anyone.

I would try to discuss the plot, but considering how weird and convoluted it is, I think it best not to even try.

FYI--for parents, there is a brief nude scene involving a charming serial killer swimming naked in a goldfish pond (!). You get to see this guy's tush--so, if you do NOT want the kiddies seeing this, either speed the DVD up when Mrs. Molyneux enters the greenhouse or try another film. It is VERY brief, though.


I know, Marcel Carné is a genius of a filmmaker, the actors in the film are the cream-de-la-cream of French cinema of the 30s an onward, BUT - this film here lacks so much of a coherent storyline that I dropped out about 3/4 of the way.

In my humble opinion, a film first and foremost should be intelligent in what it tries to tell. Film-making is storytelling. Art-pour-l'art is a pretentious pose. Hiding a week storyline behind "artful" filming is a shame.

The great Marcel Carné obviously made better films than this one. Quai de Brumes, made just one year later (in 1938) is a stand-out example and small wonder it is unforgettable even today. Nobody can ever forget Jean Gabin's both subdued and passionate acting.

Here, in Drole de Drame, we have great actors going wild until everything gets absolutely out of control. The classic screwball comedy of a type never seen before in French cinema (and, possibly, never after). The whole is overdone, unfortunately. This makes you cringe and lose interest.


Well this was just a great... movie. Sure it's only 20 some minutes long but it's not like anyone had to pay full admission price for this one. It's great. Just 100% Pokémon. None of those humans to get in the way... well no faces at least.


I was 10, hiding under the dining table, while my parents thought I was asleep, I was watching Oh! Calcutta on the Dutch tv. It was an eyeopener for me, and though it caused a lot of upheaval in the media the next day, it showed that times where changing and that people no longer let there lives be ruled by others but made choices for themselves. In some ways, Oh! Calcutta was just fun. And the music was definately good. It is only a few years ago that it was first shown in Israel...a sign that in some countries of the world you are not as free as in others. Where gay marriage is normal in Holland, and gays are put to prison or to death in some other countries, sexual freedom is also not the same everywhere. Oh! Calcutta was a clear sign of the times, and still is a pleasure to watch.


This move is a mostly funny mostly naked satire of sexuality of the times, circa 1970, that still holds up today.The bodies are perfect and most of the gags are right on the money.It was written by some of the best writers of this century and the acting is superb.The dance numbers are some of the most innovative ever choreographed and the people are naked--isn't that what your always wanted to see in a modern dance routine anyway!Be sure to check out the "Sex Clinic" sketch, it will leave you in stitches!


I saw the original stage version of Oh! Calcutta! when they performed in San Francisco in the early 1970s. We didn't know what to expect and were a little hesitant about going to a play that was often raided!

We paid a princely sum for our tickets - $35 and that wasn't for the first row! Our seats were second row-center and those rows were very narrow! You can imagine our surprise at being so close to the action! As soon as the production began, several people in the front row stood up and left the theater, which only made our seats that much better!

It was a great play! We loved it and laughed through most of it. The only tense part of the play was when we heard the sirens of emergency vehicles in the street outside of the theater! For a moment, we thought it was one of the raids! We held our ground and remained seated and were the richer for it!

See the movie and see a part of our sexual history! I know I will!


With the Broadway revival of Hair making waves,is the possibility of a revival of Oh! Calcutta! out of the question? This play opened hot on the heels of Hair in 1970 to an eager audience,clamoring for more on- stage nudity (and more they got). Like Hair, Oh! Calcutta! doesn't have so much of a standard plot,but a series of comic blackouts/sketches,dealing with sexual issues of the era. The individual stories were submitted by the likes of John Lennon,Kenneth Tynan,and others. Several sketches contain either partial,or full frontal nudity (both male & female),but not always. The musical score was composed by a ensemble that called itself 'The Open Window',that included Peter Schekele (of P.D.Q.Bach fame). This filmed play was shot on video tape during a live performance,and transferred to film, giving it a different visual texture, than if it had been shot on standard 35mm film stock. The cast of Oh! Calcutta! are made up of relative unknowns (at least for that time),but one cast member is Bill Macy,who would become famous for being a regular in the television series,'Maude' some years later. The show also includes a few song and dance numbers that actually don't seem just slotted in for the sake of padding the show/film out (including one nude ballet sequence that really works). Let the kids spend the night at Grandmother & Grandfather's house,unplug the phone,pour a drink (or two),pop this in your DVD (or VHS video)player & enjoy! Originally given an 'X' rating by the MPAA, this film contains wall to wall nudity,strong pervasive sexual content,and naughty language.


This is a film occupied with moments. Wonderful moments. It is not so much concerned with mechanics of plot but for me, it never got dull. Wes Anderson has matured in subtle ways and this film is a well crafted blend of the personal and the pageantry - Powell and Pressburger and Cassavetes. "The Rules of the Game" and "Husbands." "The Last Detail" and "The River."

The "spiritual journey" is used as pretext. Some people really don't like this. There is so much humor in watching three brothers stoned on Indian pharmaceuticals, trying to pray and getting sidetracked by arguments over stolen belts and confided secrets. They are flawed. People are flawed. Audiences tend to like their characters so likable that they are bland stereotypes. People can be privileged and disaffected AND still be beautiful and intriguing.

In the end, this movie is a fun ride. A stroll through various imaginative carts, occupied by compartments of colorful characters and incidents. Wes is further interweaving his "dollhouse" aesthetic with the real world. He is not so hung up on inventing every little thing and I could tell he was finding faces and peripheral details just as they were, waiting for him in India.

Nine bucks well spent for me. This guy's taking chances - some don't work. He's trying to push the medium forward in terms of tone. Some parts of his movies are difficult. Some people will get left behind. But for me, someone whose watched his films grow in scope and daring, I think he's an American treasure who may never arrive at the perfect film, but he'll continue to integrate cinema's history in new and exciting ways.


The Darjeeling Limited is unlike the average comedy. While not being truly laugh out loud funny, the film is clever, well written, with memorable characters and one liners that grow wittier over time. The only type of movie it can be compared to are other films by Wes Anderson, the director of Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, and the love it or hate film, The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou. All of his movies are extremely stylized, with slow motion sequences, wide lenses that slightly distort the frame, and privileged, depressed characters with family issues all thrown together in a slightly artificial, timeless, carefully detailed environment. While with The Life Aquatic he may have tried to do too much, The Darjeeling Limited shows Anderson finally perfected his style. He knows when to throw inside jokes to his most loyal of fans, while keeping his stories fresh and personal, without acknowledging the critics who blame Anderson for repeating himself.

The film is absolutely engaging from the very start with a hilarious, memorable cameo by Bill Murray, trying to catch the Darjeeling Limited train in slow motion, yet is outrun by Adrien Brody's Peter to the tune of The Kinks' This Time Tomorrow, one of the three Kinks songs in the film (all are accompanied by slow motion sequences). Brody, Jason Schwartzman, and Owen Wilson play the three Whitman brothers, Peter, Jack, and Francis. Wilson's character has organized a spiritual journey through India with his brothers who have not spoken to one other since their father's funeral a year ago. Performance-wise, the standout is Wilson, in what might be his best role yet. Owen Wilson seems to play himself in all of his other movies, with Wes Anderson being the only writer/director to truly know how to use his talents. The characters begin to realize that one cannot force a spiritual journey, no matter how many temples visited and organized rituals performed for brotherly bonding as printed on a laminated itinerary. The bender that results is a ridiculously entertaining blend of comedy and drama successfully aided by Anderson's great choice of music and colorful, dynamic cinematography.

Extremely recommended viewing (other than Anderson's previous efforts) before watching this amazing film is Hotel Chevalier, a 13 minute short film directed by Anderson and starring Jason Schwartzman, available for free download online through Itunes. In the film, Schwartzman plays the same character that he plays in The Darjeeling Limited. Also starring is Natalie Portman as Jack's ex-girlfriend, who makes a brief cameo in the feature film as well. The short film helps establish Schwartzman's character, and provides clues on certain details of The Darjeeling Limited. Also, a couple of funny moments in the feature wouldn't make much sense without seeing the short. The emotional, yet blissful experience that is The Darjeeling Limited is Wes Anderson's best film thus far, defeating Rushmore for that top spot.


The Darjeeling Limited is a metaphor-laden ride in which the characters all have baggage, both literal and figurative, that they cannot seem to shed because they have yet to understand that they would be less encumbered without it.

I am a fan of Wes Anderson, even though his movies generally leave me with a feeling of numbness on first viewing, and a sense of uncertainty as to whether or not I thought the film was any good from a plot and character standpoint. I find myself remembering scenes and images and in the days and weeks that follow; I enjoy revisiting my memories of it and pondering the quirks of characters, the mind of the characters, and the intent of the director. There aren't any big emotional payoffs or any neat plot twists. Dialogue that seems nonsensical, trivial, or awkward turns out to be easily related to overarching themes as the movie unfolds and rewinds in my mind's eye. Or maybe it's all just a big, steaming pile of pretentious nonsense, too twee and too precious for its own good. I can't decide. I can never decide. I remain baffled and frustrated, but something about them keeps me coming back.

"I have GOT to get off this train," said the stewardess, Rita. The train is the biggest metaphor, bigger even than the pile of Louis Vuitton luggage the three brothers, played by Adrien Brody, Owen Wilson, and Jason Schwartzman, drag all over India in a quest for spiritual enlightenment and a return to being brothers "they way they used to be". One suspects that they never were the way they used to be.

Peter cannot let go of his father, who died in an accident he witnessed, and who he was not able to save. He carries around certain personal objects that do not fit him, or are outdated, like talismans. Meanwhile, he is terrified of becoming a father himself. Francis, survivor of a motorcycle accident that has left him wrapped in bandages, wants the brothers to become close, but constantly annoys both of them with his fussy, overbearing, control-freak ways. Jack pines for a girlfriend he can't leave, or who won't leave him, and of whom his two brothers disapprove. Meanwhile, he has casual sex with Rita with no more real forethought than he applies to slugging down narcotic cough syrup and pills of unknown provenance, just to make his surroundings more interesting and to take his mind off his ex-girlfriend.

But the brothers' most profound source of unhappiness is that their own family has failed to live up to their image of what a family should be. This longing for an idealized family and parents is a major theme in Anderson's movies. They resent their runaway mother, who did not show up for their father's funeral, they squabble over who should have possession of their father's belongings.

It is a bereaved Indian father who gives Peter the absolution he craves, not his brothers or his mother. Francis finally removes his bandages and lets his younger brothers see his wounds, both emotional and physical. Jack is the only one who seems largely unchangedis this because the actor was a co-writer? It must be very hard to write for yourself.

All this makes it seem a serious movie, which it is not. There are two good hearty laughs to be found in it and many wry smiles. The brothers are exasperating and shallow, at times even petty, and yet you find yourself liking them all the same. I found these characters to be intriguing. Peter seems the most outwardly normal, but he has the strangest quirks. Francis is oddly sexless, almost monastic. One suspects he may very well end up living much as his mother does. I kept waiting for him to make some comment about his scarring and how it might affect his romantic life, but he never did. Jack is highly sexed, yet seems uncomfortable in his body, hiding behind his little porn star moustache. He yearns to be mysterious and exotic, or a romantic expatriate artiste, but when he attempts to act as such, it just comes off awkward and forced.

Owen Wilson is an actor I've never had a whole lot of use for, but I must admit that he was very good in this movie. He brought a sweetness to a character who could have been simply annoying. Adrien Brody was fine as Peter. His character had to display the most emotional range, and was also the most physical, with some episodes of good slapstick. Anderson clearly understood Brody's strengths and made them work. He and Wilson were effective in scenes together and had the chemistry of real brothers. I was less impressed with Jason Schwartzman. I have liked him a lot better in other movies. I felt he was overshadowed in this film whenever he had to go up against Brody and Wilson, despite being given the funniest lines. He did well in his scenes with Rita.

Wes Anderson's movies have been criticized for being too white, too rich (his main characters usually don't have money worries, Max Fischer aside), and for having a void in the center. I think setting this movie in India with all its beauty and diversity and having some of the strong supporting characters be Indian helped with the whiteness factor. But to criticize movies like this for having a void in the center kind of misses the point. His movies are about the voidthe one that exists between people who yearn for that sense of connection. And the best way to bridge it is to stop taking yourself so damn seriously.


This is such a DAMN GOOD MOVIE.

It's this bright, expansive, random, happy, sad, funny, stupid, and wise trip that these 3 brothers take, and I'm not here to give you the play by play. Watch the thing, and you'll see how it's not something that adds up to the sum of its what-not. It's just Not One of Those kinds of movies.

Instead, it's one of those that has to be seen to be believed, and is worlds-better experienced than recounted. It's a Trip. Through the spaces between people, as well as within India.

And Yes, it has much in common with the rest of director Wes Anderson's stuff, visually and thematically and tonally, in the best ways, if you ask me. I think he was really hittin' his stuff on all cylinders in this one.

Just So Much that's implied rather than stated. So Much in the way that people and relationships can be both lamented And celebrated. He just brings So Much to the screen, but always leaves that space that demands the audience step up and meet him on the platform, with our own individual "baggage" we've brought along. It's Great.

And maybe it was the way it was shot and cut and directed and acted, all very subtly, vividly, kinetically...

Maybe it was the way the characters felt really REAL, fascinating and absurd and pathetic and majestic, all at the same time.

Maybe it was because India is so bright and beautiful and exotic, to the tourist's and movie-goer's eyes.

Maybe it was just random enough and specifically-rendered enough to really hit me RIGHT THERE, but IT DID.

I enjoyed this more than any movie I've seen in a long time.

Real Art made with Real Heart.

So Sad and Funny and Just Damn Beautiful.


When deciding whether or not to see this film, the question is very simple: Do you like Wes Anderson's previous work? If you answered yes to this question, you will adore The Darjeeling Limited. If you answered no, you'd better spend your money elsewhere. I personally, fall very deeply into the former category. I've always been a huge Anderson fan and adore all four of his previous efforts, and this certainly ranks among his best (top three, easily). This is a much more guided, inspirational and personal work from the man. While his other features have been more minimalistic and set between a certain group of characters, Darjeeling takes on a much larger world.

The story is about three estranged brothers, Francis (Owen Wilson), Peter (Adrien Brody) and Jack (Jason Schwartzman). About one year ago their father died and they went their different ways. Of course, nothing can start off too happy in a Wes Anderson world. Francis attempted suicide (the irony is painful), Peter is having a baby with his wife Alice who he always thought he would divorce and Jack is trying to get over a rough break up (some inside jokes for those who have seen Hotel Chevalier are included). Francis decides to reunite these brothers on a spiritual journey across India, via train, and everything happens to go horribly wrong.

The chaos that ensues is quirky, hilarious and utterly perfect for fans of Anderson like myself. The performances from the three leads are brilliant, particularly Adrien Brody whom I thought was going to be out of his Oscar-winning element but actually fit in so well that I preferred him to the rest of the cast. There is a huge turn into a more somber mood about halfway through that brings up memories of Luke Wilson's big scene in The Royal Tenenbaums (nobody tries to commit suicide, mind you) and the film picks up on the dramatic sentiment before jolting right back into the uniquely brilliant world that always keeps my sides in stitches. The man's genius is as strong as ever. This may be his best film and it's certainly his most poignant.


Given the trademark quirkiness yet insight into many profound truths of human behaviour one would expect from director Wes Anderson, it should come as no surprise that his latest film, The Darjeeling Limited, demonstrates the majority of these traits with particular flair and distinction, arguably Anderson's strongest work to date.

The typically disjointed plot details three brothers (Owen Wilson, Adrien Brody and Jason Schwartzman) who, in an attempt to bridge the gap between them, embark on a "spiritual journey" across India by train. Of course, considering Anderson's tendency towards offbeat comedic situations, and a series of problems involving Indian cough syrup, a poisonous cobra and pepper spray, the journey does not, of course, go as planned, and the brothers are forced to cope with their increasingly difficult situation and each other in turn.

Do not mistake the film for the conventional road trip buddy comedy it may appear to be - Anderson is far too eclectic and clever to subscribe to such traditional fare, and his film is instead a far more emotional effort. With a particular knack for intricate character and storyline development, Anderson's script carefully doles out tidbits of character history throughout, painting a gradual and remarkably detailed portrait of the central characters as the film progresses. Though the film may drag or feel as if it falls slightly short of its true potential at times, on the whole it is far to easy to be swept up by the film to dwell on such minor concerns.

The gorgeous Indian scenery is captured with particular affection by Anderson's jarring cinematography and sharp eye for intriguing colour schemes. The film's wonderfully fitting soundtrack perfectly compliments the sublime visuals, making for one of the most aesthetically pleasing films in recent memory.

The central three actors are the real draw of the film, and all three boast excellent chemistry throughout. Owen Wilson, as usual, is effortlessly funny as spiritually obsessive control freak Francis, but also brings a tragic undercurrent to his character, made more poignant due to recent real life events out of character. A superb Adrien Brody steals the show as the emotionally unstable soon to be father Pete, demonstrating both previously unseen comedic abilities, and genuinely affecting emotional clout. As bitter writer Jack, Jason Schwartzman proves proficient at raising many a laugh, but despite his strong performance is easily overshone by his two co-stars during the film's dramatic moments. Watch also for amusing cameos from Bill Murray and Natalie Portman (featured more significantly in the film's 13 minute prequel found online at www.hotelchevalier.com), and a somewhat forced supporting role from Angelica Huston near the end.

Like the rest of Anderson's other work, audiences will likely either love it or hate it. This is not a typical belly laugh evoking comedy à-la-Superbad - the humour present is more sly and chuckle worthy, and prides itself more on precisely crafted characters and situations than sight gags and one liners. Those willing to appreciate the film for what it is will enjoy an intelligent and touching spiritual meditation on family, and life in general. The joy is in the journey, and a journey as quirky and sentimental as this is one easily worth taking - for those willing to put forth the effort to overcome mainstream expectations, the film will not disappoint.

-8/10


Owen Wilson, Adrien Brody, Jason Schwartzmann as three brothers who haven't spoken for years, on a train. In India. By Wes Anderson.

It's a good idea, isn't it? No...it's a great idea. Three good actors in three-well written roles in an open, exciting and unpredictable environment, while they're also stuck with each other in a cramped an uncomfortable train carriage. With more than a little baggage...

However, despite the bright, new and fantastically shot environment and the well-cast new member of the Anderson family, The Darjeeling Limited is what has become a typical Wes Anderson film. Despite its relocation from the suburbs, or more recently, the deep blue sea, it's still a film about a dysfunctional family and their endeavours to become...slightly more functional. The comedy is derived from sibling tension and the conflicts of the past, and even the music, that typical Anderson blend of quirky yet affecting relatively unknown tracks which is very good and works in all the right ways, feels comfortable and expected despite its "newness".

I seem to be griping because Anderson's fifth movie is as good as the others. And in a way, I am. The Darjeeling Limited is the work of a director who has found his groove (or in this case, his track) and doesn't show signs of trying to get out of it. As a result, not much of it really feels surprising. It's just as well he's good at what he does then, isn't it? It's the way Anderson handles the family drama that sets Darjeeling apart. While it's funny in all those idiosyncratic ways, making light of familial relations and awkward interactions, Anderson's warm, tender approach draws you into the lives of these characters. And, because of their respective flaws and quirks, they become more than characters; you can see them as people.

Anderson's movies have always had genuine heart buried not too far below the layer of offbeat style, so despite its familiarity, Darjeeling is arguably in this respect his best work. You can see a part of yourself in each of the Whitman brothers, and in cinema there is no substitute for that.


If you have ever traveled India as a Westerner, considering yourself to be aware of cultural ignorance and stigmata and have discovered that world full of variations, full of true spiritually in every aspect of life (living, death, beauty, ugliness, dirt, colors, poverty and richness), this film will touch you in the most embarrassing way.

I have never seen any Wes Anderson film before, in fact I hoped to see a film which makes a clever and funny statement about civilization torn lifestyle .

But all I saw was a shallow college movie, taking place in an India which does not exist like this, depicted in a very insulting and tactless way.

The plot was hardly fathomable. An upper-class family fell apart some years ago or something... and tries a reunion somewhere on a trip from Radjasthan to Tibet? The three main character's adventures seamed, apart from their stupidity, straight out of a puberty driven boy's daydreams, including conquering princess-like Indian girl servants , rescuing kids of a village from a bridge destroyed by the power of nature, encounters with poisonous snakes and tigers, romantic dates on a Paris rooftop etc.

All boring, I hardly laughed once. A film which deepens stereotypes and which is a loss to everybody who is expecting a somehow intelligent or funny film!


I went to The Darjeeling Limited with reasonably high expectations having enjoyed Anderson's earlier films and given that my family were originally from Gujerat (not far from the film's locations in Rajasthan). However, I found it to be largely crass, laboured and insensitive. It's the kind of film that Americans who have never been to India might enjoy, but for anyone who loves and knows the country it's quite another matter.

It's hard to warm to any of the characters - they are a series of quirks rather than real people (eg Jason Schwartzman doesn't wear shoes, for some unfathomable reason). In particular, it's not so great to watch bland, unlikeable Americans going to India to 'find' themselves when the film is so uninterested itself in India. Here it is nothing more than a colourful backdrop. Anderson clearly cares for it so little that a scene supposedly taking place in the foothills of the Himalayas was clearly shot in Rajasthan. For those of you who haven't been, the foothills are about as dissimilar from Rajasthan as Montana is from New York. They are a world apart.

The film is laden down with some of the worst metaphors that I have seen in a supposedly 'intelligent' film. When the three brothers finally discover the real meaning of life, they literally abandon their baggage - they dump it on the station platform! It's a long time since I've seen something as laboured as this.

This film is cultural appropriation of the worst sort.


We were so excited to see this movie--we loved the Royal Tenenbaums, we love & travel to India often, we love all the actors BUT we could barely get through it. It was boring, pointless, not funny and was almost insulting in it's completely false representation of Indian trains and the people who work on them. You would NEVER EVER find a women waiting on men on a train, wearing a short revealing dress. I'll never say never, but I doubt that even a prostitute would have sex with some white guy on an Indian train. Maybe it was supposed to be a cartoon with all the garish painted interiors and bogus events (a train getting lost?). I could have tolerated that if there was just anything to hang on to in the story. It was the worst movie I've seen in many years! Worse than Ishtar!


This movie is really a stinker. Everything is good about it except the characters and the writing. It has high production values, the acting is very good, but the characters are shallow, narcissistic and nothing more than sum of their hangups. It's like some teenage film school freshman was given unlimited resources to try to create the most quirky characters ever, without a story to hang it on. Perhaps it's how a spoiled, rich teenager would imagine adults to be, selfish, whiny, demanding and spiritually hollow.

The three brothers are riding a train in India in hopes of finding and visiting their mother who failed to show up at their father's funeral. We are treated to a relentless display of the brothers' bizarre and exhibitionistic behavior as the train trundles through the Indian countryside. They behave like chronically depressed 4 year olds. Maybe the filmmaker thought he was getting at contemporary angst, maybe he just thought he was creating amusing madcap clowns in the spirit of "A Hard Day's Night." But these clowns aren't young, their antics don't amuse, they grate. We come to hate them as much as they hate each other. We don't care whether they find their mother or not. The older brother's head is always swathed in bandages, the result of a motorcycle crash which may have been an attempted suicide. He orders the other brothers around and they seem unable to stand up to him. One brother reads a couple of paragraphs from a story he's writing. The story is as shallow and pretentious as this movie and these characters.

Here's the spoiler: they do meet up with the mother (Angelica Houston) who's the biggest narcissist of all. Dressed in white robes and made up with black eyeliner, she holds forth in some sort of Christian mission in the foothills of the Himalayas. Well, you might have known it...these losers were nurtured by this pompous and vain woman. No wonder. In the end the brothers are running to catch the train to go home, as they run they drop their baggage. That's symbolism; get it? They're shedding their baggage, right? But these characters are so light you can't imagine them having any hardly weight at all, even with their baggage. Without the theatrically contrived baggage they wouldn't have any material existence whatsoever.

For the last hour of this film every scene looked like it was going to be the last. The camera focuses on the bewildered faces of the brothers, the music swells, the camera pulls away. At last! you think. It's finally over. But no, there's another scene, and another, and another. At one point they witness a young boy drowning in a canal. They try to rescue him, but can't. They take his body home to his village. There is a funeral. The scene is empty; it's like it happens in dream. The brothers appear unaffected. It is impossible to care about them. I've almost forgotten about this movie and I only saw it 2 days ago. Please, save yourself the boredom.


After their very wealthy father of the Whitman family dies three very wealthy brothers set off to India to find their wealthy self-indulgent mother who is undergoing some mental catharsis guilt trip by acting as a nun in a Quasi Christian temple in India. On this journey through India, these three brothers attempt to also attain some spirituality by undergoing ridiculous made up spiritual rituals. The film actually begins with this meaningless episode of Jack Whitman, played by Jason Schwartzman, staying in an upmarket French hotel and having a reunion with his girlfriend played by Natalie Portman. There is a very gratuitous naked scene of Natalie Portman (More for the benefit of the Coppola family she obliges) and that just about ends her contribution to the film except for two seconds at the end. Bill Murray and Angelica Huston also make cameo appearances. The contrast between the three brothers and the absolute poverty of India is brushed over by some stupid interaction in the saving of a child's life and the funeral of one that tragically dies. There is a simplistic attempt at symbolism in the act of unloading luggage.

This very cheap self-indulgent film was a further extravagant means of introducing another member of the Coppola family into the film business in the Family Nepotism tradition.

This film was written and produced by Roman Coppola and his cousin Jason Schwartzman along with Wes Anderson, who directs the film (he directed the Royal Tenenbaums). Owen Wilson and Adrian Brody play the other two brothers. The film is stupid and tells us nothing about the human condition other than extremely rich trendy men can make short films at the drop of a feather.


I have enjoyed Anderson's earlier efforts. Bottle Rocket (very funny), Rushmore (a sheer delight), Royal Tenembaums (not bad) and Life Aquatic (good fun). However, i found this to be largely crass, pointless and amazingly obvious. This is the kind of film that annoying young whipper snappers who wear skinny jeans, brandish ipods and have free access to their parent's bank accounts, who happen to feel the need to go to Thailand or India in order to discover themselves in the most clichéd possible way, will enjoy.

I found it hard to empathise with any of the characters - they are merely a series of quirky quirks who live through moments, admittedly played well by Wilson, Schwartzman and Brody, but even good performances cannot save this dross. India itself is only used as a colourful backdrop and there are only so many slow mo soundtrack scenes one person can bear.

The film is a mish mash of some of the worst metaphors that I have seen in any film, EVER. When the three brothers finally discover themselves, they literally throw their 'baggage' away as they run for the leaving train (in slow mo whilst some music is playing, i might add, aarrrrgh!). I can't remember the last time I've seen something as laboured as this trying to pass itself of as something interesting and multi layered.

If i had a De Lorean, i'd hit 88mph, go back to the point when i first decided that i wanted to watch this atrocity and say to myself "don't do it, trust me, i'm you from the future and i've seen it".

A complete waste of time. You have been warned.