This movie is in one word great. The movie is set in a great atmosphere, and the two main characters acting is superb. It gives most people a chance to relate to one or the other sides of the troubles haunting their relationship. Several times along the movie i had a lump in my throat, and felt in contact with the main character. No scenes seem to be out of place, and the movie is by no means dragged to long. As mentioned, i could easily see elements of myself in the male character - and my girlfriend could relate to the actions - and reactions - of the female character. I have rarely left a movie-theater actually "moved" by a movie (often contemplating though), but this movie did it for me, leaving me thinking about my own relationship.

I would recommend this movie if you are looking for a good emotional movie - especially for couples - where my guess is that both of you will enjoy it.


Excellent little Danish film about a marriage on the verge to falling apart. Superb acting from Mads Mikkelsen, who shows that he's as home in a small setting, as in the latest Bond film.

Stine Stengade, who plays his wife, is for me a new experience, but her acting is very impressive, not least as the neglected partner in a long marriage.

The setting is a trip from Denmark to Prag to collect the corpse of Mads's father, who has lived away from his family in Prag, the last twenty, or so. Mads had waited year after year for a sign of life from his father, a visit, or just a letter, but nothing, till he is summoned to take care of his father's remains.

Unusually, for a mixed nationality cast, in this case of Czech and Danish actors and film crew, it seems to have to have worked perfect.

It could have been perfect, but a few twists in the story are not fully exploited, like did the wife have a lover, or not?! The SMSes on her mobile phone could have been a way for her to get him to react, couldn't it?! A happy ending hadn't spoiled the story, would it?


Hooray, my first review on IMDb. Well, it was a mighty fine movie, but the beginning really confused me. Not the story, which was pretty simple, but the movie language. Mainly in the beginning they were mixing up drama and comedy really badly which was annoying me, and later I got confused with the story lines. It was about Christoffer and his wife Maja, who had gone to Prague to take care of Christoffer's dead father. He never really knew his father, who had ran away when Christoffer was 12 years old. And while he's dealing with emotions about the death, he founds out that Maja has a lover outside the marriage. The story lines of the dead father and the adultery gets mixed up, making it hard to find out which was the main storyline. Mads Mikkelsen's acting was brilliant as usual, though it gets tiring to always see him in the same role. My rating is 8 because of the great intense scenes later in the movie, and because it just gets better and better.


Prag is not only a good feature with a tense atmosphere between two people who are breaking up. It is also a very well shot production (by DoP Jørgen Johansson) who has exploited the Digital Intermediate post production route to the hilt but in a very subtle way. Almost every shot has been treated with advanced secondary color corrections and windows. Red's and blue's are emphasized while most of the images remain slightly desaturated. The shooting format is s35 (3-perf.) flat stretched to 2:35 scope for the cinema release. The television version is 1:78 (16:9) retaining full height aspect ration. Enjoy this production hopefully digitally projected or on HD DVD.


One of the best Greek comedies ever, this film is a silent satire of the modern Greek reality; that of a forgotten political passion, eternal struggle for gaining and lack of self-criticism.

True to their identity, the heroes of this film, men, relatives, passionate, are a microcosm of a whole nation, which always complains, always falls in love and always tries to make the most out of every situation. Moral when it serves them, ideologists when they are allowed to be, are "always right", always victims and always do what they want in the end.

The dynamic confrontation of Panos and Antonis (played by an established artistic pair, with natural chemistry) takes this film away from the typical atmosphere of a Tsiolis work, making it more oral and approachable by the wider public. Yet, it functions perfectly as a representation of two typical characters of Greek life.

Argiris Bakirtzis, the standard protagonist of the directors latest and best films, functions here as a balance factor, that only displays any personality "between the lines" covering the final third of the national character pool. Now the representation of the modern Greek man is complete! Women are almost absent in this film although men always appear under their influence. A superficial influence that even in the form of a marriage or mad love, play a second role in the eyes of these modern men. Women don't need to talk much here. Maybe because men don't listen anyway.

Tsioli's direction is as always more optical than integral. What people say is of little importance anyway, since it only serves them as a mask of sound to cover what they really are, and you can always see it in their actions, that never lie. The characters here talk a lot more than in other of his films, mostly because they are by nature big mouths. But the story again really takes place in their movements. Movements sometimes picturesque and stylistic, that reaches the level of pantomime.

Still, the comedy works really well, making it by far the funniest film of the director and one of the funniest Greek comedies ever. Yet, again a difficult one, for a non-Greek to appreciate, with all these inside jokes.


"As Perimenoun Oi Gynaikes" ("Let The Women Wait" is the exact translation in English) is a movie every Greek man should watch, according to my opinion. The 3 protagonists are married to 3 sisters in the movie, so that has made these guys relatives. Of course the sisters never appear on the film, their names are only referred by their husbands, while they try to make their way to Thasos (a magnificent island at the north of Aegean Sea) to find their wives and children for their summer vacation. The movie goes over almost every topic a man talks about in his normal life: Women, politics, football, easy-money... And all of this talking is being done with an incredible smart sense of humor. Almost every cue being spoken by the actors is hilarious, these actors are many years together, not only as partners, but also as friends, and are some of my favorite Greek comedians. In contrast to more Greek comedies, this one does not go all the time about sex. It talks about women, but in its very own delicate way. Everyone of the 3 protagonists is unique and different from the others, while the same time they are identical. Panos (Yannis Zouganelis) plays great the love-in-first-sight victim, while he cannot betray, not his wife nor his family, but PAOK, his really beloved football club, the greatest one in North Greece. Antonis (Sakis Boulas)is a high-ranked member of PASOK, the political party which governed Greece almost 20 years and Michalis (Argiris Bakirtzis) is somewhere in the middle, trying to balance things, trying to bring a state of equilibrium, which is an utopia of course. Personally I found this film almost genius, a real mirror image of the Greek society and people. I could not comment it to a non-Greek, but as I said in the beginning EVERY Greek man should watch this film...


Great satire of the modern greek -tsifteteli, souvlaki, xavale- society given with a great political sense and fair doses of clever humour. The dialogues are inflammable and the interpretations are excellent. ( both Zouganelis and Boulas in the leading roles are very much worth being noticed)


This movie is my favorite one.I have watched it more than 10 times, I literally know all the lines.Every time a friend was visiting me and haven't watched the movie,I was suggesting this one and every single time the result was dying laughters. The actors are fantastic,Zouganelis is by far the leading one. In my opinion this picture truly gives a realistic picture of north Greece. This movie was also the subject in one of my academical projects,in a Greek university for a computer science department. I had to analyze the content of the movie, and describe the hidden messages deriving from this wonderful picture


In a mysterious forest in Thailand, many suicidal youths disappear and rescue teams can not find the way out even with compass. The ambitious reporter May (Rain Li) is making sensationalist journalism exploring the deaths in the forest. Her boyfriend and botanist Shun Shu-hoi (Ekin Cheng) is developing a means of communication with plants. Meanwhile, Detective C. C. Ha (Qi Shu) is investigating the rape and death of a woman and the main suspect is Patrick Wong (Tsun-wai Chou). Detective Ha contacts Shu- hoi requesting his support trying to communicate with the trees around the area where the woman was murdered. They resolve the case and Shu-hoi becomes famous; when May vanishes in the forest, Shu-hoi and Detective Ha seek her out.

"Sum Yuen" is a deceptive and boring movie of Danny Pang. The terrible and laughable story is so ridiculous and absurd that does not deserve any comment. My advice: do not spend your time and money watching this awful flick. My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): "Natureza do Mal" ("Nature of the Evil")


It's no secret that the Pang Bothers aren't big on script talent, but good lord, this was embarrassing.

A rape/murder takes place in a forest that is infamous as a mecca for suicide. A botanist is researching the ability of plants to communicate with people. His girlfriend is a tabloid TV reporter sensationalizing the ghostly aspects of the forest. A detective, investigating the rape/murder case, believes that plants can act as witnesses so she gets the botanist to bring his equipment to the forest and sets up a re-enactment of the crime where the plants will act as lie detectors.

I'm not kidding.

I'm not necessarily against inadequate stories but the hilarity of this one seemed to infiltrate everything else to the point that it became impossible to take it seriously. The actors didn't seem dedicated to their characters, nothing appeared genuine here. I love the Pangs and think they often make engrossing films, even despite the stories, but this one was just too in-your-face dumb.


...and I don't mean nuclear!! This movie is proof that the Chinese are not the greatest filmmakers by a long shot. A slow convoluted plot--something about trees that have consciousness, are witness to a rape and murder. Man, I didn't know whether to laugh or just curse out RedBox once again for duping me. Doesn't anyone at RedBox actually watch the movies first? What I wound up doing, was conducting my own experiment-- by peeing on a bush, while making abusive comments. Nothing happened for a day or two, then suddenly I got a horrific rash on my johnson. Do plants actually react to trauma? Not sure if the rash was coincidental or not. You be the judge. This movie was deserves to be buried in a forest, somewhere in the remote mountains of Canton.


Go Toward the Light is one of the most powerful movies I know. It circles around one major theme, and it gains all its strength and emotional power from the tragedy it elaborates on.

Go Toward the Light is the true story of Claire and Greg Madison (Linda Hamilton and Richard Thomas) and their struggle with the knowledge that their oldest son, Ben, has contracted AIDS. This hits the family with almost destructive brutality. According to the doctors, Ben has less than a year to live. As painful as it is, Claire and Greg have to accept Ben's unalterable fate. They have to put aside their own overwhelming grief and fears and prepare Ben to face his approaching death with the same love and courage with which they had been preparing him for life.

It is pretty obvious from the premise itself that this movie is emotionally very affecting. The entire movie deals with nothing but Ben's approaching death. At the very beginning the audience is introduced to the family. All three boys of the Madisons are hemophiliacs. This alone is a challenge, but Claire and Greg have always tried very hard to raise their boys as normally as possible. When Ben is diagnosed with AIDS, the emotional impact on the parents is vast, almost destructive. The main part of the movie deals with Ben himself, how his physical condition increasingly deteriorates, how he gradually loses all his vitality and strength, and how he emotionally deals with the knowledge of being destined to die in a few months.

There is nothing more painful than witnessing a child's death. This alone is tremendously depressing. Just because it is not right. It is simply not right. It must have been a very challenging task for Joshua Harris to play Ben. A kid his age does not reflect a lot about death and pain. A kid his age is supposed to live a happy, adventurous and vivid life. When you stop and think about what Ben will never experience, how much he will never do and see, you feel so sorry for him and his family. The movie drags you into the inner circle of the family and makes the emotional suffering and the pervading grief so authentic and painful that I had the feeling of icy fingers embracing my heart.

Linda Hamilton and Richard Thomas do justice to the movie's theme and the emotional challenge for them as Ben's parents. We occasionally get to hear Claire's thoughts, which belong to the saddest but also the wisest inner monologues I have ever heard. This inside look into her mind adds substantial depth to the movie and makes it even more convincing. Greg, Ben's father, deals with the whole tragedy on a different level; he denies it much longer than Claire. In the end he feels like dying himself and gets panic attacks, as the emotional pressure intensifies.

The movie's heart and soul though is Joshua Harris' portrayal of Ben. As I have already indicated, this role is very demanding for such a young actor. It is awful to watch him physically deteriorate. Every shot, every camera glimpse, every minute he gets more fragile and pale. He is handling his character with so much genuine commitment that his struggle becomes even more painful and so authentic that you feel for him every single time you see his handsome face, his weary eyes and his emaciated body. When he asks his mom if he would die, his facial expressions are subtle but outstandingly genuine, as is his entire performance.

This movie is the saddest I have ever seen in my life so far. It centers around this single tragedy. Its transformation is thoroughly convincing. The effects on the family, on Claire and Greg, on Ben's brothers and on his grandparents are implemented with masterly sensitivity and smashing subtlety. It focuses around death and how a young couple has to face the ultimate test of their love and strength. Seeing your boy die and holding him in your hands when he goes towards the light  being with him when he leaves this world as you were with him when he made his first breath  this is the most painful experience for any parent. Because it is not right. This landmark drama, like none before, based on a real family's experience, brings this emotionally challenging issue to the fore  with dear compassion and remarkable wisdom that will leave you emotionally scarred.


The first time I watched this film, I must have been about nine or ten and even at that age, I sobbed my heart out. To this day, it remains the saddest film I've ever seen.

The film revolves around eight-year-old Ben Madison, a haemophiliac who contracted AIDS from an infected blood transfusion. As Ben bravely copes with all that his devastating illness forces upon him, his parents are fighting two battles. They have to struggle to accept the fact their young son was terminally ill yet remain strong enough to prepare him for his own death but they are also fighting the ignorance of how AIDS was perceived in the Eighties.

'Go Toward the Light' has many emotive scenes: notably, Ben's funeral where his mother recounts how her son's life may have been short but he had made his mark on the world, when Ben's father explains to his three young sons about what happens to the soul after death, and the final scene where Ben dies in his parents' arms. What makes this film unique is that it's not all depressing and, by depicting happier scenes, we feel closer to Ben and his family. We shared their joy when Ben is able to come home for his new brother's birth and when the Madisons' newborn son was haemophiliac-free. We get a sense of how close the family is by the large role the grandparents play in Ben's life (his grandfather poignantly made Ben's coffin) and the love Ben feels for his family, especially his brothers (one bittersweet moment is when his younger brother says he was visited by a ghostly Ben in the hours before Ben's death).

For a TV film, not only was the script excellent but so were the actors. Young Joshua Harris must have been a talented child actor in his time given his affecting performance as Ben while Linda Hamilton and Richard Thomas were perfect as the parents, depicting their grief, strength and love for their son and his plight.

I highly recommend this to not only people seeking a good gut-wrenching drama (as there is nothing more gut-wrenching than watching this film and knowing this was a true story that happened to a real little boy and his family) but also for older children and teenagers seeking a more meaningful view of AIDS and its consequences.


This is far and away one of the most beautiful movies I have ever seen without question. Linda Hamilton gives one of the most touching and poignant performances of her career; in fact, the entire cast is outstanding!!!! I recently ordered the DVD, and received it yesterday, Nov. 30th, and have already watched it several times; it is a movie I could never tire of. It should serve as an anthem for all parents of seriously ill children no matter the nature of the illness, and a guideline of how to cope and accept. Bravo to all who were a part of it!!!!! This movie is truly a gift!!!!! This is a must see movie for all parents; no, for all families, because it has such a precious and loving message to share with the audience. I first became acquainted with this movie on Movie Plex on True Story Saturday several years ago, and it has stayed with me ever since. I LOVE IT!!!!


It's been more that 7 months since I've watched it for the first time and posted a comment in IMDb. Today I've had the oppotunity to watch "Go Toward The Light" again and the feeling it brought me weren't much different than the first time. Death is always something hard to deal with, and the way this movie shows it, we notice the way a fearful fact can interact with all the happiness and joy in our lives... It makes you feel like you're dying too... very sad, compeling, amazing...


Watch this move and don't compare it somehow to "The Cure", by Peter Horton is impossible, once the backbones are too seemed.

But this one is from 1988, and the story of a family with a little boy with AIDS can really touch your heart. A boy that got his death sentence and is aware of that, and two parents that can deal with that. Two parent that have been there in the boy's first steps and first words now have to be there in his first and only death.

The suffering and the living of this family "are" the story, and the lesson we can take from them are wide and simple at the same time.

A must see...


Children dying ... Hollywood has produced tearjerkers, depressing and uplifting versions of the story, naive ones, and this movie contains a bit of all of that. But I'm not saying this in a negative way ... the movie tries to do its best to tell the story in 90 minutes, and there will be few who don't feel coming up a tear or two while watching. It's definitely a "Hollywood TV movie", and it does have the look and feel of one. It's also a movie from the 80's, and that starts showing. But the message remains a powerful one : kids die too, and saying goodbye is painful. Aids can kill, and still scares people away. Force can be found in the medical world, in religion, and most importantly in one's own family.


I saw this movie many times as a child, my mom had recorded it on TV. It is about a family with 3 children, all boys with hemophilia. The oldest gets AIDS from the medicine he takes to help his blood clot. Back before 1985, the medicine was derived from pooled human blood, unscreened for diseases like HIV or HepC. Imagine my surprise to deliver my first child in 2002 and find him diagnosed with hemophilia, which wasn't inherited from my parents. This movie was all the information I had about hemophilia and it was so sad. Luckily, my son's life is nothing like that of the Ben in the movie. Yet, it is a good reminder of the pain the hemophilia community endured because of poor medical treatment. I'd like to find a way to get a copy of this movie.


I saw this movie back in high school at age 16 and there was not a dry eye in the classroom at the end of the movie when Ben died of AIDS complications, and if I remember correctly, it was a true story. The most touching scene to me was when their fourth child was born and Ben, who was the oldest of the four boys, including the newborn, got to see him before he died. The found out that their newest son did not have hemophilia, where the blood does not clot if someone with this gets a cut. He can bleed to death if it is not treated with platelet transfusions. Ben and the other two sons did have hemophilia, and it was from a platelet transfusion that Ben got AIDS.


This is a very sad movie about a family dealing with a vicious killer. It is even sadder when the victim is a child. Ben struggles with this disease along with struggling to maintain his human dignity. Ben finally comes to grips with condition. It is hard to see his body deteriorate. This is sad documentation of the tragedy of AIDS. This cruel killer does not care who its victim is or how old. This is a good film that shows the strength of the human spirit during such extreme tragedy.

Spoiler. alert:

One high point was is 9th birthday when Ben was surrounded by friends and family who loved him

The saddest part ,in which I will never forget, was when Ben was in his mother's lap and his body violently jolted forward struggling to maintain life at the precise moment his heart stopped beating. Ben took in one last gasping breath and died in his mother's arms. As she held the lifeless body of her son she told him that she loved him.


If you like sad stories about the children, this one is the best. I watched this movie 5 times and every time I cried. If you know where I can buy this movie , please contact me.


superb performance by young Ben. Excellent also by parents especially Greg, Richard Thomas.


I was one of maybe six people who've ever seen this thing. I sat through it mostly out of respect for Blank's prior film 'Sex, Drugs and Democracy', which was interesting. This was not. The Zappa kids looked embarrassed to be there, Thicke looked lost and the script... um, was there a script?

I did like the idea of a TV station takeover ('Tapeheads' did this better), but the idea is wasted here.

Skip this - rent SD&D instead if you can find it.


This is one of the worst films i've had the misfortune of seeing in the theater. It was showing at the CMJ convention in New York back when it first came out, and that was quite possibly the films only stint in theaters. The acting is poor, the story is far worse, and we walked out when we'd reached our breaking point. Luckily since we had passes for the convention, it was free, but even then i felt ripped off. As for a plot summary, imagine a completely cliched, pandering, and trite attempt at "anarchy"; spearheaded by lots of cheesy intimations to "the man" and rampant overuse of the term "fascists". A complete crapfest.


At the beginning of the "comedy," director Jonathan Blank tells us Anarchy TV was based on a "true story" of a group of anarchist who took over a public access station. When their propaganda fell on deaf ears they went to the extremes, included getting naked on television to get noticed. What follows is an absolutely dreadful film.

I have often complained that some hollywood studios, directors, producers, and even actors will throw way too much money to try to make a wacky or embarrassing political statement with a bad movie. Anarchy TV proves that one can make a wacky or embarrassing politcal statement on a smaller budget.

The film starts off with some funny occurances with a public access station where "Anarchy TV" is run by a bunch of rich white kids. A few great scenes involve another television show called "Eat Me!" (two teenage punx tell obnoxious callers where to go) and a brief appearance by George Wendt (Norm from "Cheers") as a goofy, aging, hippie leader.

From there, this movie goes into the toliet of self-righteousnous and conspiracy mongering. In Blank's version of events, the station is purchased by an "evil" Chirstian business man who happens to be the father of one of the kids as disapproves with Anarchy TV. The show's cast takes over station where a large conspiracy is uncovered about the religious right involving profits, racism, and murder. The message falls on the deaf ears of the public until members of the cast get naked. Then, like the calvary of old Western flicks, liberally-minded groups from the Pro-Choice movement to NORML appear to save the day by picketing the studio.

At the beginning, I thought this would be a harmless parody of public access television or grass roots politics. Being that this was to be an "independent" production (as in "independent from Hollywood") I thought it may also stay away from the radical leftist view of Hollywood and look at every thing from a new edge or original angle.

This film does not attempt any of that. It comes off as a sanitizingly politically correct Scooby Doo episode with the conservative Christian villain being shown up by a bunch of meddling, if not self-righteous, conspiracy mongering, naked rich white kids. Where is the originally or edge in that?

Although this is set up as a independent or low budget movie, this should not be an excuse for the silly performances in this movie. Alan Thicke plays the villian to cartoonish proportions as do the Zappa kids. In particular, Moon Unit Zappa's performance is soooooo superheroishly cheesy, she makes Wendy, Super Marvin and Wonderdog look like members of the Royal Shakespeare Society. And no, the Zappas do not get naked in this film. That honor is left to Jessica Hecht and Jonathan Penner. Both Penner, Hecht and the rest of the casts could have been protrayed by those cheap marionettes that can be purchased from street venders in Tiujuana, Mexico (except for the nude scenes).

After watching this film, I wonder why Blank made this bad peice of fiction instead of making a charmingly disjointed documentary on the true story from which Anarchy TV is based.

With each passing minute of Anarchy TV, I wondered where the real anarchists were, who they were, and what REALLY motivated them to do what they did. More importantly, were the real people ever contacted by Blank, and if they were, was their political view of the world different from Blank's politically correct vision of a film?

If Blank's aim was to villify or praise the anarchists and their assault on the airways, why not go to the real source instead of ruining the careers of so many actors. Why not give me the real story, with real people and real political motives instead of wasting 90 minutes of my life?


There are movies that are so bad they're good, and then there are movies that are so bad they're crap. This would be one of the latter. Utterly devoid of a single redeeming quality (unless you count non-celebrity nudity), Anarchy TV is the unfunniest comedy ever made. And considering that cable access TV is such a haven for oddballs that this thing should write itself, that's almost something of an achievement. This atrocity aims for the broadest targets imaginable (Are ya ready? How abouttelevangelism!) in the most unimaginative way possible (the Fundamentalist Christian TV network is called Christian Unity Network Television; one scan of those initials will give you a taste of the level of comedy genius at work here). It is populated mainly by unknowns, or has-beens (and even they seem like they're slumming). In a characteristically brilliant scene, an assassination attempt on a main character, broadcast on the station, infuriates the viewing public so much they, in a show of solidarity, smash their TVs. Right on.


Okay, could this be dumber? This is like a R rated version of a Disney film. We have to save the TV station Johnny. I like the concept, but it never got off the ground in this film. The acting is beyond bad, the script, well, if I wrote it, I wouldn't admit it. And I tried, but couldn't count how many stupid stereotypes were in this film. And these people keep saying "ANARCHY!" and then preach the 1st amendment. Anarchy is a state of lawlessness and zero government. Therefore, no 1st amendment. To preach both is to be a contradiction or hypocrite. I knew the ending of these film about 10 minutes into it. And how do these kids running "Anarchy TV" get any money? None of them seem to have a job. Taking it's a public access station. The parodies they tried would have been good, only they weren't funny. So, if you enjoy bad acting, bad script, stupid stereotypes and zero original thoughts in your movies, than this film is for you. 3 out of 10.


Night of the Big Heat may not rank among the best sci-fi efforts by critics, but for this fan, it really does deliver the goods. Locals on the Island of Fera find themselves in the midst of a searing heat wave while the rest of the mainland of the UK is in the middle of a normal cold snap in November. As bodies begin to pile up, found burnt to a crisp, a scientist struggles to convince the locals that they may be the victims of an invasion from space.

A great cast that includes, Patrick Allen, Jane Merrow, Sarah Lawson and in guest roles, Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. Directed by the great, Terence Fisher, this is another triumph in Fisher's library of films and to this viewer, ranks right up there with his Hammer horror films as well as the underrated, Island of Terror.

Certainly not as bad as some would have you believe and probably not as good as I think it is, it is definitely worth a look for fans of 60s British sci-fi films.


Okay, so the monsters look like badly fried eggs, and the scientific explanation of their arrival is pretty laughable, but still, you just can't beat the rural-island-in-peril formula! The acting in this is pretty good, and the characters seem to have a great deal of depth (cf Peter Cushing's role.). It's a pity that the British film industry gave up on a cult and, in my opinion, enjoyable series of horror flicks. "Island Of Terror" being another example of this genre...


This was only one of three films that Planet Film Productions made and I have always thought it was an eerie and effective film. It's definitely low budget but I'm not sure a bigger budget would have helped this film. Story takes place on an island off of England and the temperature has been rising steadily for the last few days. A writer named Jeff Callum (Patrick Allen) and his wife Frankie (Sarah Lawson) own and run the local Inn and pub and one of the tenants renting a room upstairs is a mysterious and unsociable man named Godfrey Hanson (Christopher Lee). Along with Dr. Vernon Stone (Peter Cushing), Jeff and Frankie sit around the pub trying to figure out why its so hot on the island but not on the mainland. Jeff has requested the help of a secretary to help him on his new novel and a woman named Angela Roberts (Jane Merrow) has come for the job. Unknown to Frankie, Angela and Jeff know each other and had an affair some time earlier. Angela keeps prancing about in a two piece bathing suit and putting the moves on Jeff who only replies with kissing when Frankie is not looking. Then one day a local sheep farmer stumbles into the Inn and mumbles something about his sheep being dead. Hanson is very interested and goes to check it out. He finds the sheep dead and takes samples. When he gets back he learns that Frankie has seen something come down out of the sky and land behind the hill. Jeff demands that Hanson tell him who he is and what he is doing. Hanson tells him that he is a scientist sent to check out what things have been coming from the sky and the reason for the heat. He tells Jeff that they are aliens from a hot planet and they generate heat which is why it is so hot. Meanwhile, the temperature keeps rising and all the bottles at the pub start to explode. They all figure that within a few hours the heat will be unbearable, if the aliens don't get them first. The aliens make this loud whirring sound and they consume energy like batteries and generators and can burn humans up completely. This film was directed by Terence Fisher who specialized in science fiction and horror. He became the premier horror film director in England and he knew exactly what to do with a limited budget. Fisher knew how to create great atmosphere and this film has plenty of it. If you notice in certain scenes when the actors are outside you can actually see their breath! Obviously it wasn't hot like the story of the film wanted you to believe. Fisher had his actors smear glycerine on themselves to help create that sweaty effect and then they had to wear damp shirts. I couldn't help but notice that Cushing's character keeps his suit and jacket on even though it suppose to be about 100 degrees! Its okay, Peter! Take off your jacket! And how about Patrick Allen's response when his wife asks him about Angela. "She was a slut and I wanted her"!! I'm sure she felt relieved to know that its not real love. For you trivia buffs out there, Patrick Allen and Sarah Lawson are married in real life. Along with the great atmosphere I liked the deliberate pace that the film set and it was in no hurry to allow viewers to see what the aliens look like. Yeah okay, they look like fried eggs but I always thought they looked liked that rock creature "Ahorta" from that Star Trek episode. Another thing I noticed was that this was one of the few Cushing/Lee films where both of them don't make it through the end. Fisher also directed "Island of Terror" which this is reminiscent of. It would make a good double bill on a rainy night. I think true lovers of older science fiction and horror can appreciate this film more than casual viewers. I've always found it to be an enjoyable film and I hope it comes out on DVD soon!


I taped Night Of The Big Heat when BBC1 screened it during the early hours a few years ago.

The Northern island of Fara is experiencing very warm temperatures even though it is the middle of Winter while the rest of the UK is seeing the usual Winter weather. At the same time, people are being killed in mysterious circumstances, all being burned to death. It turns out these killings and heat are caused by aliens...

This movie is shot well in colour and is atmospheric and creepy throughout.

The excellent cast include horror regulars Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing and are joined by Patrick Allen (When Dinosaurs Ruled The Earth), Kenneth Cope (Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased)), Jane Merrow, Sarah Lawson and Percy Herbert.

Hight Of The Big Heat is certainly worth checking out. Excellent.

Rating: 4 stars out of 5.


A charming small scale British sci fi thriller from 1967, 'Night of the Big Heat' benefits from some good performances, solid direction, excellent set design, good editing and a plot which, whilst talky, does not lapse into boredom. In the depths of winter, while the mainland is freezing in sub zero temperatures, the island of Fara is experiencing a highly localised and inexplicable heat wave. A visiting scientist, Hanson (Christopher Lee) deduces that a bizarre alien species, possibly the vanguard of an oncoming invasion, is responsible for the weather anomaly as part of an effort to alter Earth's climate to suit their own needs. A group of increasingly isolated islanders prepare to face their foe and attempt to warn the mainland of the growing threat. Of course, much has been said of how a reasonably well made film was let down in the closing stages by the hugely inferior and disappointing aliens. Clearly, whatever slice of an already limited budget was apportioned to the special effects department was grossly inadequate. Consequently we are subjected to the spectacle of a couple of very slow moving, sub William Hartnell era Doctor Who, fried  egg looking blobs that somehow radiate intense heat and noise. Personally, I think the strengths of the film are enough to salvage it from complete ruin, but I can certainly understand how let down people must have felt by the lack lustre pay off. One question that does cross my mind, however, is just what should the aliens have looked like? Apparently in the original book they were carnivorous, heat generating, spiders and large maggot like things in the 1960 TV play but I can't help wondering how the special effects people should have approached it in the movie. I quite admire the decision not to make them stereotypically humanoid as is the case in so many sci fi thrillers. Instead we are presented with apparently sentient but completely non human, ie alien, creatures, perhaps all the better to disrupt the equilibrium of our expectations. Had they been just an energy form, that would have been too 'Star Trekky', had they been humanoid that would have been clichéd and, as they are, they're a little too early Doctor Who so the question remains; what should they have looked like? Fried egg looking blobs notwithstanding, the film, as mentioned earlier does have some strengths. Christopher Lee is on good form as the disagreeable scientist Hanson and Peter Cushing approaches the smaller role of Dr. Stone from what, for him, is an interestingly naturalistic perspective. Patrick Allen is as dependable as ever as Callum and is well supported by real life wife Sarah Lawson as Frankie and Jane Merrow as erstwhile on screen paramour Angela. Other cast members including Kenneth Cope and William Lucas all turn in adequate performances that help the film achieve its goals. Terence Fisher's direction is solid and efficient and he handles the film's most awkward moment, the attempted rape scene, with considerable bravery even though an understandable element of reticence, discernible also in a similar moment in Fisher's 'Frankenstein Must be Destroyed' (1969), is apparent, but works well in what I would argue is a surprisingly non misogynistic movie. Angela's increasing marginalisation is quite well handled too. Initially seeming like a predatory vamp, her strength seems to be drained after Callum eventually comes clean to his wife about their affair and she assumes a far less threatening role, her vengeance becoming further distilled through interactions that could never have been predicted when she originally formatted what could have been either a revenge scenario or a straightforward attempt to usurp Frankie. Although underdeveloped in places, the film is technically adequate and I personally think they did a good job of making people look like they were suffering from heat effects in the middle of a cold February. The DVD commentary, however, is really unfocused; the film itself is seldom talked about but it is interesting to hear the random things Christopher Lee comes out with and, consequently, it's never less than entertaining. I also noticed that the DVD cut is slightly longer than the one last shown on TV here in the UK with an extra scene involving the dissemination of the walky talkies which, in the other version, just appear from nowhere. All told, I find the film makes for a pleasant distraction; it's a nice representation of times past, a period I vaguely remember from my childhood, and stands up to subsequent viewings as long as you can forgive the fried eggs!


Enjoyable British sci-fi outing of 1967, which sports not only a venerable Cushing-Lee pairing, but exciting scenes of overheating 1960's British automobiles to boot (the steaming, hood-up MG scene will be particularly horrific for current/former MG owners who've ever dealt with this aspect common to certain vintage British cars).

Filming must've required a specialist staffer just to continually drench the actors with fake sweat.

Of particular interest for Monty Python fans will be the final scene, which is the only time in the whole movie that the decidedly low-budget monster actually appears: no, I'm not going to spoil it for you!


Spoiler-Peter Cushing does not drive a stake through Christopher Lee's heart in this movie. This is classic science fiction, make no mistake. It has a status quo established among isolated characters, interrupted by eerie events. In this case the status quo is a love triangle with some other interesting British type characters and interesting British atmosphere, not to mention giants Lee and Cushing playing remarkably believable people, particularly Cushing, whose character is so believable in his errors as well as his attributes. The isolation is an island which is burning in doom. The temperature is rising drastically, and the reason is all too clear for those who watch and know it is a horror film, but of course not to the people on the island. The characters make this movie fascinating. And the ending is very provoking. One scene, in particular, in which the gorgeous tramp and a minor male character are trapped with no hope, and the totally unexpected happens in their actions, but it rings of truth in such circumstances. Very suspenseful, very well done. One of the great science fiction movies, and one of the most underrated.


Cheaply done fast-food sci-fi that actually works pretty well for the most part. A small British isle inexplicably has temps soar into the 90's, in the dead of winter when the temp should be around 30. A mysterious scientist named Dr. Hanson (Christopher Lee) is seen sneaking around and bizarre noises can be heard from time to time by the few island residents.

The movie carefully builds tension of the unseen danger, by scattering a few clues about the nature of what the islanders are up against, without showing the menace until deep into the film. Lee has shared the screen with Peter Cushing before, and does here again. Cushing is a local medical doctor, who, like most of the characters, hangs out at a pub owned by an author named Jeff Callum (Patrick Allen). Good acting by the entire cast, and the characters are developed well.

There's some good old time "monster encounter" action at a spot called (love this name) "the pit", and the film's "unseen monster" approach works well because of it. When the creatures aren't around, the film provides for plenty of interesting subplot conflicts among the characters.

There are a few clichés, but they were probably fresher plot devices in the '60's when this was made. The big negative on this movie is the abrupt and poorly thought out ending, which nullifies most of the value of what the characters had been doing throughout the whole story. It's like they simply ran out of money, and quit.

The movie has a dud ending, but otherwise it's a good watch for better than average sci-fi.


Made by the same Planet Films and director Fisher who produced the superior "Island of Terror" the previous year, this sci-fi/horror effort contains a very similar plot line. The main difference is that the creatures threatening the islanders are not man-made products of science gone mad, but invading aliens from outer space. The first half of the picture is a match for Island of Terror, building a suspense around the unknown. It's perhaps a bit too slow, with Christopher Lee doing a lot of walking about and setting up some kind of experiments. He's also some rare genius - I never figured out how he deduced the whole alien invasion theory - no one else was aware of it. Peter Cushing has a smaller role as a local doctor (he also starred in Island of Terror). Many of the early scenes have potential victims hearing a strange whirring noise in the countryside, sometimes as a prelude to death. The death scenes usually consist of an over exposure in the photography, wiping the picture clear with bright light. This is a little less horrible than the death scenes in Island of Terror. Like Island of Terror, much of the picture is during daytime, though there are some effective night scenes (when not mistakenly photographed during day). In the 2nd half, the story deteriorates, and the ending is an abrupt deus ex machina courtesy of nature, unlike the desperate gamble paying off in Island of Terror. One minute everything seems lost, the next minute - it's the end and problem solved. Very abrupt.


Enjoyed viewing this way out film about a small town and a nice English Pub/Hotel where quite a few people met up with each other and become very very warm companions in a troubling situation. Jane Merrow,(Angela Roberts), "A Time For Love",'74, arrives at the Pub in order to start work as a secretary for a writer who is owner of the Pub/Hotel. Angela was very attractive and had a very hot body which all the men seemed to go crazy over with hot desires. Christopher Lee,(Godfrey Hanson),"The Oblong Box",'69, seemed to enjoy working in his hotel room experimenting with unknown secrets and played an entirely different role than his horror films. Peter Cushing,(Dr. Vernon Stone),"Monster Island,'81, was a very helpful doctor who loved to help everyone in need and was particularly helpful to Angela and her over heating spells, even her car over heated !


I'm a big Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing fan. I love to see them together in the same movie. However, this one happens to suck out loud. An island gets big heat. A married writer (Patrick Allen) has an affair with his young secretary in a totally pointless subplot. Lee goes around there with his trademark villainous face. He happens to be a good guy, but Lee acts his part as if he was playing Dracula or something like that (as opposite to e.g. 'The Devil Rides Out', a truly great movie, also by Terence Fisher, where Lee plays a good guy the way a good guy must be played. So he CAN do it). The cause of the big heat happens to be an alien invasion of giant fried eggs.

Cushing is very little in the movie, crashing his car while in his way to defeat the aliens, and dying. Fortunate he is, as he won't see what seems to be the stupidest alien species ever: My dear extra-terrestrial fellows, if you want to invade the Earth but water destroys you, don't choose an island in England where it frequently rains. I'd suggest Sahara for you... but that way the movie would never end.


Island of the Burning Doomed (as the version I have is titled) is a good example of late sixties science fiction, and one of the last good ones to come out of Britain.

The movie is formulaic for those familiar with the genre: Deaths of unknown origin occurring all over a remote island...You'll find the same thing happening in Island of Terror, and a number of other films from the same era.

The story is fairly fast-paced and most of the characters actually have personalities and interact with little of the stoicism and blandness that is often found in science fiction movies. The stars, Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, partners in so many Hammer films, are somewhat relegated to secondary, but nonetheless enjoyable roles (especially Cushing).

I really enjoyed the movie...the menace is novel enough and kept mysterious enough throughout the majority of the film to keep you guessing, and the performances by the headlining cast are excellent.


I cannot believe it! If you told me that a film cast with both the huge talents of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing and directed by the great Terence Fisher was bad, I would never have believed it. Watch this film and you will become an instant believer. This film sucks! I had trouble sitting through it, and I am pretty good through just about any kind of film. The film's premise is about an island being over-run with aliens that slowly and then quickly heat up an island off the coast of Great Britain during the winter. Temperatures rise, people are fried after hearing some"whizzing" sound, and finally the much anticipated, very disappointing fried egg looking aliens appear. While all this is going on, we are privy to a love triangle at an inn between a real annoying author, played by a very smug Patrick Allen, and his newly arrived, very attractive secretary, played by Jane Merrow(who incidentally really looks good in a two-piece swimsuit), and his wife played by Sarah Lawson. You won't care much about their love lives or their lives in general. Peter Cushing has a small role as a doctor and Christopher Lee tries to single-handedly save the picture with one of his very officious, obnoxious portrayals of a scientist that knows an awful lot and has to spout this scientific drivel to other characters so the audience will have some idea of what is going on. Lee gives a good performance for the most part, but even in the scenes where he is explaining things he looks unconvinced by the dialogue! Planet Film Productions produced the film and it shows. Had hammer or Amicus been given the film, much more could have been done with it. Poor Fisher directs with a very small budget and his directorial style is best described as tiring and labored. If you are a Cushing, Lee, or Fisher completist I recommend the film, but beyond that save your time for something that better utilizes the talents at hand here.


This Film was a real experience of what can go on inside the police force. Beautifully presented with Kareena Kapoors best acting so far made it a film to watch. The film which depicts the tortures of muslims and hindus in India was really heartfelt and the film has a message which films seldomly give.

The mistreating of hindus and especially muslims in the film really makes your eyes water. The films gives a message of justice (Insaaf) and how people should fight for their right and freedom till there last breath. Amitabh is as always a terrific performer. Not to mention the film does have some emotion and controversy between Kareena and Fardeen but we have all seen that before and it's nothing new. This is the One FILM THAT shouldn't be left out!


For anyone who hasn't seen the movie yet... Go see it! It will move you; not in the English sense, but the Hindi one... It will Hilao you! And it'll strengthen your will to stay on in this country despite all kinds of devilish plans! And you will learn why Govind Nihalani is one of our best directors.

And even if this is stating the obvious, you will want to fall at Amitabh Bachchan's feet for being the actor he is. If it is possible to dwarf Om Puri, it's been done by Mr. Bachchan in this movie! In the Bandstand scene, he makes an actor of Om Puri's ability & stature look completely insignificant & pitiful. He's khaoed him!!!

That's one point of view though. Another point of view is that Om Puri being the actor he is understood the Bandstand scene very well & enacted the scene in line with the story & the characters.

Fardeen doesn't disappoint - he is as bad as he is in all his other movies. This is one actor who still hasn't learned to act, and probably never will.


The best movie i have seen in a long long long time..

The movie is loosely based on the gujarat riots and the machinations thereof..i.e the complicit role of the chief minister of the state with communal elements and collusion of the police force with the rioters ..But it is an extremely balanced look at the communal politics behind riots in India, with elements in both communities inciting such events for their own personal gains..

What can i say about Mr Bachhan, the more i see this man on screen, the more awestruck i am. He is perfectly cast as an honest cop, battling the system( reminiscent of khakee) except as he himself said, this movie is an implosion rather than an explosion. He doesn't go out in a blaze of glory taking down the bad guys with him.. Thats what makes this movie so startlingly different.

Om puri is an ideal foil as the morally bankrupt but conflicted cop who is friends with mr bacchans character. he is such a great actor..

Kareena is amazing .. she looks and acts "real" in an almost irridescent manner, and not like an overmade up glam doll .. the look suits her so well. she has immense guts to take on this role and i commend her for that.

Fardeen was nothing special..but the kareena fardeen scenes exude chemistry .

Direction was superb..Govid Nihalani excels as usual .


this was such a great movie the climax my gid what a climax so great this movie focuses on the Muslim-hindu riots and the friendship of Dev (Amitabh Bhachchan)and Tej (Om Puri) and how Dev has a compulsion to act which makes up for the climax i didn't predict the climax what it would be but Nihalani shows us that being human is more important than anything and if you fail to be one or fail humanity for that matter death will come to you only then basically this movie is adapted from a specific incident from gujarat and some riots that took place there in some life-taking incident overall songs aren't that good except Rang De Ni" it's basically a good movie with everybody delivering a better performance as the movie progresses and the action just keeps you there


A leading critic had exclaimed that "Dev" is an average Film yet is Important. "Dev" is important as it provides a clear picture of Indian Politician's brawny involvement in Hindu-Muslim Rifts. "Dev" although not based on any true story but is Reminiscent of many alleged political events which led to Hindu-Muslim Riots.

The Fatal drawback is the lack of intense drama which Nihalani is expert in making. It seems that Nihalani left over all the Dramatic strength which was endowed in Ardh Satya, Droh Kaal & Thakshak.

"Dev" is Govind Nihalani's second commercial venture this time with superstar Amitach Bachchan. The first combination of India's finest Director & Finest Actor gave a lot of expectations. But I shall not say that those expectations were shattered completely. Nihalani's work is an extract of his distinct Art. His Non - "larger than life" approach is unique factor responsible to induce solemn reality.

"Dev" is a story about two friends, Joint Commissioner of Police Dev Pratap Singh played by Amitabh Bachchan & Commissioner Tejinder Khosla played by Om Puri. Just when we thought that "Dev" is a film about The Good defying The Evil, we are wrong. Dev is not a conventional story which we see in all Cop movies. The Film is Primarily based on Ideologies. The Different Ideologies which the two best friends have and their efforts to justify it.

"Dev" starts & ends with two close friends who are cops, while having their drinks, shares each others ideologies on backdrop of Hindu-Muslim Rifts. The Rifts are created by Political ensemble which the common man are not so aware of. The Focus is then laid on a small Muslim Community area, where the young muslims are getting carried away by their leader's fanatic guidelines. Nihalani shows, that the reason for religious fanaticism is a result of non-acceptance of minorities which in turn is due to fanaticism and the cycle goes on. The Anti-Social activists from the minority community, when get nabbed down by the Police, results a provocation by the leaders to protest the Police simultaneously provoking the formation of more Anti-social elements.

Dev has an ethical morals and a holistic view of crime & justice. He believes in providing complete justice to anyone irrespective of his/her minor or major presence in the community. But Tej has concentric view and believes in exterminating the Anti-social elements & terrorism by the System supported by Politicians. While doing so, Tej also believes that there's no injustice even if the innocents are exterminated. Here Tej & the Chief Minister works hand in hand, while they remain dormant during Hindu attacks on Muslim. Dev is found alone in his struggle to support the Muslims get their Justice.

Finally Dev reports the Political-Police driven Riot scandal to the top authorities. The Last scene discovers, that the movie is more a focus on ideologies. Two friends can have different beliefs in the same system. May be both are right. Dev selects to do what he feels right even if he have to sacrifice the age old friendship.

The Philosophical ideas exhibited in this movie is by far superior than any other Nihalani movies. The Conversation between Dev & Tej are prime scene stealers.

Kareena Kapoor as Muslim witness to the riot is fantastic. Fardeen Khan as the carried away extremist, needs to improve a lot. Om Puri is just superb. Finally its Big B Amitabh Bachchan gives full justice to "Dev". The Final dialog is splendid when he says the Moral of Story : "A Soldier's duty is to fight, fight till the last drop of blood, irrespective of whether the war shall be won or not"


On the surface, Dev is about the continual struggle of Muslims and Hindus to co-exist with each other in post 911 India. It highlights how narcissistic politicians play on naive constituents to create chaos, mayhem and oppression. Looking beneath the surface we can see that Dev is also about friendship and it's boundaries. It shows how two friends drift apart as one spirals towards madness brought on by shear hatred while the other finds redemption through forgiveness and tolerance. All things considered, perhaps Dev is most about how a man matures in the most adverse conditions inspired by the the woman he loves and the courage she displays.

Amitabh Bachchan gives a tour-de-force performance as Dev reminding us once again that he is in a class by himself. The rest of the cast including Fardeen Khan, Om Puri, Rati Agnihotri and Amrish Puri perform more than capably but special mention must be made of the performance turned in by Kareena Kapoor who continues to show great range. Simply put, she has IT! There are only a couple of songs, which are more background fodder than anything else. In the end, Dev is about what it means to be a human being against all odds.


I was completely taken aback by watching this movie. A film like this comes once in a blue moon. This film explores the convoluted politics and conflicts between Hindus and Muslims, who are like puppets being "handled" by the corrupt national government. For the first time, I am seeing a movie whose subtext doesn't label each character as good or bad. All shades of gray are present in almost every character and in each event. Most of each character's decisions are partially justified and partly immoral, yet they all increase tensions and further flare up the fighting. Misunderstandings pile up on one another and result in absolute chaos. With each subsequent effort comes near certainty of death and destruction and a hint of optimism as the characters struggle for justice. Amongst so much violence and anarchy, I found it very interesting that the fighting's strength lied not in the muscle. Rather, the true valiant heroes were the city's women who stood up for their rights. Govind Nilhani did an excellent job directing. All the artists performed extraordinarily. Pointless songs were not forced into the movie, and the few short ones that were there further enrichened the movie. The aftermath/"ending" in this film is very realistic. It is not clear or definite by any means, but it does not need to be. Amitabh, one of the best speakers ever, gives a beautiful monologue that displays the theme of the movie: It does not matter whether we win or lose. We must be true to ourselves and not give up our struggle for the pursuit of justice.


Well, there are a lot of movies that have been made about the Hindu-Muslim conflicts in India, and this is one of them. What is refreshing is the honesty some film-makers put into their stories - something John Matthan started with 'Sarfarosh'. 'Dev' is perhaps the most open about the issue.

The story is about an honest cop, Dev (sounds clichéd, but is actually much more than just that!), who just believes in doing his duty. Various factors hamper his 'mission' in life - factors which all of us can relate to, such as others' ambition, greed for power, skewed ideologies and plain sycophancy. I'm sure many have faced these at our places of work! It is this basic story, set into the current Hindu-Muslim situation in India - references to Gujarat are made, the police is hand-in-glove with politicians instigating violence etc etc. Various layers are added, in the form of personal loss to the good guy (and the bad guy!), misguided youth (a very well managed sub-plot, which is seamlessly integrated into the main story) and the inevitable romance (also well integrated into the story)!

The scripting is brilliant to say the least. With Dev (Bachchan) & Inder (Om Puri) on opposite sides of the fence on the issue of Muslims in India, their discussions are frank, open and thought provoking. (How well both of them acted is something I shall get into a little later!) This is an issue many of us would have debated with someone or the other at some point in time. All those arguments are brought out into the open - more frankly, candidly and clearly than ever before. All the exchanges are most thought provoking. Both sides feel fully justified in their stand on the issue, and for a long while, the viewer is left to choose the side he/she prefers. But then, Nihalani finally shows us where he stands, as the story unfolds further.

Nihalani really works his magic here. He goes back to his Tamas days, when Om Puri carried his mother on a push cart ('thela'). Here, he has Fardeen doing the same with Kareena, in an almost identical situation. He also re-visits the famous Banquo's ghost scene from Macbeth. Exceedingly well done!

Amitabh Bachchan stupefies me. He has totally re-invented himself as an actor. The angry young man is anything but that now! 'Young' went quite a few years ago (he's a grandfather now, for god's sake!), and the anger has given way to a smoldering frustration. He no longer raves and rants like he used to (it was the need of the hour when he did that). Here, he gives a truly natural performance - he comes across as just another guy, dwarfed by the system yet refusing to give in to it. He carries on from where he left off with 'Khakee'.

Om Puri is excellent as usual. It was 'paisa-wasool' all the way whenever Amitabh and Om Puri shared screen time together! Rati Agnihotri plays a small role, and fits the character well enough. Kareena is very attractive in a plain-jane look. Fardeen Khan seems to be in the industry only because of his lineage, and attractive looks. He is clearly mis-cast, as he seems to have been in every movie that I have seen him in so far. I wonder if there will be an Indian re-make of 'Mannequin' where he can play title role! And only the title role - the come-alive character would need expressions!

Kudos to Nihalani to bring out new and unknown faces - Kareena's friend is especially good. Unfortunately, I do not know the actress' name... Ehsaan Khan, though decent, resorted to over-acting in emotionally charged scene. I'm sure he can improve over time.

All in all, this is a very good movie and it is the script and the acting which really carry it through!


I generally don't watch movies these days, due to the age (68) and not very good health. But when on very rare occasions, I get a chance to watch a movie and to my luck, it turns out to be a master piece. In this process, first I watched Page 3 (by Madhur Bhandarkar), and then Satta (again by Bhandarkar) and after viewing these movies, I realised that I indeed was missing some thing in life. Last night (8 July), I happened to watch Dev (starring Amitabh Bachchan, Om Puri and Kareena Kapoor) and realised how great director Govind Nihalani was. After watching such great movies, one feels that there is no dearth of good talent in the country. Amitabh Bachchan and Om Puri are great assets to the film industry in India and their work needs no introduction or word of praise. Om Puri is such a versatile actor that to compare him with the acting skills of Amitabh would surely be doing injustice to both of them. After watching the movie, one feels ashamed to be living in India where religion always plays a dirty role. But India is not the only country to suffer from this malice. The late Amrish Puri (as Chief Minister of the state), exhibits his acting skills in great style, though his role is very small. Kareena Kapoor though still very young, plays the role of a matured person and quite admirably. I wish every one who has not watched this movie, to do so at the earliest.


The technical aspects of the movie was flawless. Govind took a storyline that would usually not appeal to many and made it engrossing throughout the whole duration of the movie. The performances were brilliant, it is questionable why no nominations were offered. Kareena was brilliant as a Muslim riot victim, showing particular prowess in the confession scene. Her deglamourised look only emphasized the strength of her performance.Fardeen and Kareena's chemistry was impeccable and they give one of bollywood's memorable kiss sequences. Fardeen Khan was surprisingly good, flitting through all his scenes well. This was one of Amitabh's best performances and given his track record, you know how good it must have been. Om Puri too was excellent in his role as a villain. The songs were nice and did not interrupt the plot. Kareena's singing of "Jab nahin aye the thum" only enhanced the movie. The other songs "Rangdini " and "Allah allah" have the correct emotional nuances in them. Dev was flawless.


Dev is no doubt one of the class of titans of Hindi cinema. basically story of two people with belief in their respective different ideologies. I love this movies for various reasons. The 1st because it shows the fact and is realistic cinema. It shows the real picture of our society and it really is thought provoking. What happens if dirty politics is played and politicians uses their power for their selfish reason and exploits masses. Govind Nihalani no doubt beautifully portrays these all. Massmerizing Performances are another part which compliments this movie so wonderfully. Be Kareena Kapoor, Rati Agnihotri or Fardeen Khan everyone portrays there part so well in fact they were 1st time so close to their respective profession of acting. What to say about brilliant performances given by Mr. Bacchan & Om Puri. About Mr. Bacchan I must say this is his best performance till date along with Black. Hats off Mr. Nihlani & Bacchan. Even great actor like Puri seems he was learning the A,B,C of acting from Bacchan. Oh god! what a terrific actor Mr. Bacchan is along with Tom Hanks, Jim Carry, James Stewert, De Nero and Pacino. Plot is very simple, Amitabh is a cop who believes in the constitution of India even though his son Armaan was killed by terrorist. Rati Agnihotri played his spouse and Om Puri played his senior officer cum best Free. Om Puri and Mr. Bacchan both wants perfect situation of law and order in the country but their ideologies are different. Om Puri wants it happen by the means of power but Bacchan wants it to happen accordingly by constitution. Bacchan hates crime and Puri hates criminal. Fardeen Khan played a Muslim youth who believes his father was killed because of Dev Pratap Singh. Kareena played his love interest. We can see further in the movie crime and violence at its extreme. It further remind us what happened in Gujarat a years back. But thankfully there we can see in the movie life has some good aspects too and also some nice people like Dev Pratap Singh who help people like Farhaan, Fardeen in the movie get back into the right track. The climax is shocking, Amitabh became the victim of dirty politics and gun down by them. Finally Rati ask a question to Mr. Puri who is responsible for the murder of Mr. Bacchan. Atlast Om Puri gun down himself in front of Fardeen as he said Amitabh was his father and Puri killed him for his ego. I recommend 9 out of 10 for this movie, really this movie is must see one.


I have always enjoyed movies from this director. Thakshak was excellent as well. Dev is no different. Many intelligent, thought provoking conversations between Mr. Bacchhan and Mr. Puri (sadly, director felt that they needed alcohol to speak their minds). Both were excellent, by the way. Acting from the two vets was of highest standard. Kareena and Fardheen were okay in comparison. I did not feel that the story presented only one side of the story or that what it presented was "ardh satya"- Dev and Tej are narrators who present the two sides of the story.

A rare break from the overdose of formula movies from Bollywood.

8/10


This film exemplified the acting talents of Amitabh Bacchan. As he's aged his roles have been more of a dramatic nature and I think that this role in particular shows his talent and skill as a cinematic artist. Kareena Kapoor was another highlight. She looked beautiful in her plain clothing and makeup, a nice change indeed. Amir Khan doesn't seem to be as emotionally engaging with the audience and the limited scenes with Jaya Bacchan is just disappointing. She lights up the scene when she is in the room, and there just isn't enough of her to make a completely believable character. The musical numbers seem gratuitous and out of place in this dramatic context and it would have worked better had they been removed completely. This is still a very good film exploring ethic conflict in India post-partition, but just does not have the strength and impact of Bombay (1995).


The best thing about this movie is that its title is numerical, so it shows up among the first DVDs on Blockbuster's "New Releases" wall. That's how I came across it: the synopsis picked my interest, and I wanted to see more of West Hollywood where the story takes place.

I had my first doubt as soon as I pulled the disc out: the artwork is an amateurish drawing, likely created by a friend of the production, and features 6 guys in a giant Martini glass... but wait, isn't that movie supposed to be about "10 attitudes"?

Regardless, the movie was unwatchable in an Ed Wood kind of way--the only reason I stuck through the whole thing is because of the occasional laughs my friend and I got at some of the most "dramatic" scenes. In spite of a couple of witty lines that enlighten about 20 seconds of this 80-minute wreck, it remains a quite atrocious viewing experience sunk by porn-level acting, music and editing; a whiny and uninteresting central character; atrocious camera work; not to mention plot holes the size of Julia Roberts' nostrils.

The team behind this movie should be commanded for making it all happen on such an obviously tight budget... but everybody else, save your $5, you'll never get this hour-and-a-half of your life back!


Predisposed or not to the basic premise here of love past the high-school hormonal stage and among those who AREN'T in the running for "America's Next Top Model" (being exploited continually by straight film and TV makers - "Ugly Betty" or "Seinfeld" anyone?), the shaky camera, cinema verité style ill serves this under written gay date movie.

"Regular gay guy" (to quote the DVD box) Josh has a hissey fit when he catches his lover of 10 years receiving oral sex from someone he has... well, we never find out just how much of a low life the lover may or may not be. Like every unrealistic bride in 50's straight movies, Josh declares the marriage over and tries, as an average looking 30-something, to re-enter a dating pool stocked with 20-something eye-candy. Blinded by the partially self created rejection of his mate (the marriage's failure is entirely played out in one 30 second curbside scene and has as little credibility than Josh's subsequent "dates"), Josh meets nothing but sleazoids or those who have not yet "gotten their acts together."

After one or two bad nights out - indistinguishable from his later title "dates" - he decides to go really self destructive and move back home to Cleveland (Ohio may not be New York or SanFransisco - and why is Josh suffering in L.A. and not one of THOSE places in the first place!? - but it actually has a very active gay life - not that you would ever know it from this film).

Josh's one good friend (it is never explained why THEY aren't potential date material) bets Josh he can set him up with a perfect man in the title ten dates who - also source of the title - turn out to be ten attitudes, not ten dates - and ten that include at least three or four who NO good friend would ever set anyone up with! The potentially GOOD dates we never see through to the end. It's as maddening as HBO's Sex And The City where (with only two or three exceptions) every time one of the girls found a really NICE guy, the viewer knew they were toast so the SERIES could go on.

Given the apparent aspirations of the film makers (please festival audiences enough to support eventual DVD sales), it would have been a real surprise if there *hadn't* been a happy ending (or at least a hopeful one), but while writer/director Michael Gallant crafts a nice one, he proves incapable of crafting a believable one.

He HAS proved capable of recruiting a solid list of capable actors to represent his 10 attitudes and even a few nice people. Jim J. Bullock and to a lesser extent David Faustino turn in thoroughly professional performances and the actor playing the man a bully from Josh's past grew up to be is actually something of a find in the film's one really charming scene!

The adult women are less happy, and being a gay film is no excuse for that. It's hard to tell if Judy Tenuda's "performance" is more the fault of the actress or the script. Whoever plays Josh's mother is just as bad. The woman playing the wife of one of Josh's dates is at least interesting and layered in her obliviousness - almost and effective satire on L.A. working wives, though nothing in the rest of the film shows that kind of subtlety.

All too many gay stereotypes fall back on Tennessee Williams: "I have always depended on the kindness of strangers." Josh never says it - and he almost never gets it - but perhaps his film will. This was one of those films to which anyone who actually buys a ticket or decides to rent will bring every ounce of good will possible. It will need it.


There may be worse gay indy films out there...okay, not that many, but one or two...okay, one (but I can't remember the title right now). This poor excuse for a flick is definitely bottom of the barrel movie-making. The leading man is gay combination of Gary Shandling and Christopher Guest but not nearly as appealing or funny as either. Unfortunately, he's also the writer. The videography is awful, poorly lit, with unwatchable camera work from start to finish. My grandparents could do better with their 1982 beta cam. The tone is all over the map; from farcical comedy to syrupy melodramatic romance - with success at neither end of the spectrum (or anywhere in the middle, for that matter). My finger itched for the FF button on my remote from the movie's very first scene. How David Faustino, Judy Tenuta and JM J. Bullock ever agreed to this film is beyond me! The title is totally misleading (why not call it "Ten Dates", which is what it essentially is?) as the only attitude on display will be the viewer's - who will be sporting major 'tude sitting through this dud.


10 Attitudes!

This is by far the worst acting performances I have ever seen in a movie. These actors ineptly try to portray gay life in L.A., but with laughably bad dialog and very unconvincing performances they accomplish to make a movie that is essentially un-funny, un-touching and unfulfilling to watch! To top that of the direction is in my best judgment not existing, the sound is very badly recorded and many times it is very hard to distinguish the dialog from the background noises. The only positive thing I can say about this movie is that the idea is okay and I think that in the hands of someone more capable it would have turned out to be a movie worth watching!

I would recommend this film to no one with a pulse and a measurable IQ!!!


This gay "romantic tragic-comedy" was not made, I think, to be watched by oneself after renting it from a mainstream video store. As the writer/director in the screening I saw here last week suggested, it is best (and perhaps only) appreciated at a gay film festival watching it with an audience predisposed to its sense of humor and philosophy of life. The video is low grade, the situations are actually a satire of West Hollywood, being so over the top stereotypical of the area and its reputation.

Though several very well known actors from "Baywatch" other major Hollywood comedy series, and network soap operas are featured, it is a very low budget production, and it shows. So, for me, living abroad, in a continental-sized country the size of the US, with a similarly monolingual culture, the true test of its success is whether the audiences here "got" the film, and whether it made them laugh or moan in the right places.

And the film did that. To a packed house. And Portuguese here is like English elsewhere - it's the only language you'll ever hear even in this, the largest and most cosmopolitan city in Latin America. Many American cultural icons (known "worldwide") like Barbra Streisand, heavily used in the movie in jokes and comments, are unknown here to anyone under 50, and I mean among gays! So, a lot of the humor and understanding of the situations are totally lost to the audience. Yet the "10 attitudes" or Ten Chances for Love (as it is known here) are UNIVERSAL, and the film makes its point very well indeed. Even here and with laughs galore! But again, it is for this specific audience or the gay friendly audience (I think it goes down well with liberal young women). And DEFINITELY do not rent it (didn't even think it would be launched as a DVD) for your Flat Wide Screen High Definition Screen. The quality of the image would be enough to make me turn it off.

Yes, we have had Flat Screen, European type (1.85 to 1 aspect ratio) TV with the same advanced audio as anyone in LA or London has for years. And nobody I know here would watch such a film on one of those. This is a definitely something to be seen at a festival screening with the right crowd, and screened there, it is a very enjoyable, funny and insightful personal experience, in addition to the movie viewing. My only negative words would be that it is about 10 minutes too long. Maybe 8 or 9 attitudes would have been enough. Still, if you're in this target audience, you'll like it.


This is a good story about a man whose friend bets him that he will find love with one of the next ten men he meets. I don't think it's such a bad thing that throughout the film I completely forgot that a bet was made, and just enjoyed watching Jason Stuart's reactions to the strange men. Some of the dates are really hokey (David Faustino's), and some of them are pretty realistic (like the rage-aholic, an exaggeration of a type that really exists).

The majority of the scenes were improvised, but I honestly didn't notice--I found out after, watching the DVD extras. I think the main reason I liked it was because I went into it not expecting much of a movie at all. While it is certainly apparent that this is low budget, it doesn't take much to tell a good story and keep me interested. I found myself rooting for this "late thirties average looking" guy. I'm glad I checked it out.


Jason Stuart has showcased many of the worst gay stereotypes (aka "attitudes") in this low-budget snoozer, including his own obnoxious attitude. Waaah, poor Jason. He's getting older. I don't find his character or any of the other players here believable for one second. I wouldn't go out with him, but they don't allow any "normal" guys to dump him, only losers and freaks. Do we really think he would have gotten more dates when he was 20-something? There is no writing to speak of, and the direction often consists of film-student shots. Some of the supporting players aren't bad -- even some eye candy. But in the end Jason is way too obnoxious to save the film. Don't waste your time. Poor, poor Jason.


This was a great film. So many gay films today focus on teenage youth coming out, or 20 something pretty boys and their gorgeous boy friends, or, much too common, have an AIDS theme or sub theme. Even then most films of the last 15 years, the period of time I call the age of "Gay Cinema", focus on REALLY YOUNG GUYS. Don't get me wrong. Beautiful men with pecs and six- packs are lovely eye candy. What I like about this film is it dares to look at men who are past 30! As a man looking back at 6 decades of life, with about 5 decades ofpersonal gay identity behind me, this film speaks to my own personal experiences. Yes, it's hard to date when you reach 39, or 45, or 60. Damn hard. Yet my life did not hits it's prime until I turned 40! That said, it's nice to see on film a portrayal of what all the twinks, muscle queens, and in the case of this film, all the "Every Man" types will have to go through as they pass the big three 0.

SPOILERS AHEAD

Josh, a 30 something year old caterer living in West Hollywood, catches his long time partner of 10 years in a flagrant act with a 19 year old twink. He throws a fit (who wouldn't), stomps his feet, cries a little and goes to a bar where his friend Chris, an aspiring MBA graduate, proposes that he, Chris, set up Josh with 10 guys in 10 dates to find "Mr Right". Now Josh is the every man of the gay world. He is an average guy. Not pretty. Not a muscle boy. A nice looking man, but he would stand out as "over the hill" in many circles of gay society today. Josh reluctantly goes along with the silly plan but insists that if no perfect love shows up that he, Josh, will go back to Cleveland where he grew up and start his life over. OK...... what ensues is a very funny set of scenes with 10 guys from HELL who either are "gay for pay", hustlers, stoned out losers, are hiding lovers on the side, have anger management issues, are bi-sexual and have a girlfriend on the side or just plain loony tune! What makes this film so real and really very romantic and sweet is that Josh is really an old fashioned guy. Or as Josh puts it to one of the 10 dates, "I'm just a regular gay guy". He says this to a cute 20 something year old guy who has a girlfriend, but explains "though not gay myself, my girlfriend want to watch me get it on with another guy"! Josh responds with the line "that's just not gonna happen". Josh wants a commitment. He wants a guy who loves him, who has a job and a car and even someone who will tear open "three equals" for their ice tea or coffee That's the sugar substitute. This seemingly meaningless line plays an enormous part in the last scene of the film. Now this film was made with very little money and sometimes that is really noticeable. Lots of hand held cameras and naturally lit bar and restaurant scenes. Sometimes the sound is not too clear. What is clear to me is that unlike many recent popular gay films like "Latter Days" or "Edens Curve" the men in this film are really gay. Probably not all of them, but certainly the leads and many characters.This gave the film a reality that is unmistakable. When your going for an attempt to show how hard it is for a gay guy of a certain age to find a certain someone that will share your life and love, it great to have real GAY men providing the acting. The acting is what makes this film. I have known all these people at some time or another in my own life. They are real and the pain, happiness, confusion and redemption they express in their search for love is real. Now I know what some will say.....The cast are playing characters that are all stereotypes! Sometimes, sometimes. Josh, however is absolutely "DEAD-ON". I have been Josh. My friends have been Josh. All the pretty boys in this film will reach a time when they are all becoming Josh. Is that a stereotype? Maybe, but its also real life. Finally, anyone reviewing this film must speak to the great Judy Tunuta.

She is just perfect as the goofy psychologist overseeing the group therapy sessions that Chris attends. Judy is always so funny. You just can't take your eyes off her. It's also so funny that her name is Glenda in this film. The therapy group calls her the "good witch of the west".

Oh, remember those packets of sweetener? The 3 Equal packets? They provide the unspoken, yet brilliantly encapsulated little "cheat" which brings a happy ending to this film. The look in Josh's eyes when he watches the guy in front of him tear open those 3 packets for his coffee in the train station restaurant is so romantic. It brought goosepimples up on my arms to understand what Josh was thinking and feeling. Who was this guy? That is for you to find out when you see the film. This is a wonderful, funny, compassionate movie with a real heart. Its a keeper.


Finally, a GANSTER FILM WITHOUT dENIRO THAT STILL WORKS! Costas Mandylor brilliantly played a man trapped in a situation he cant get out of. Joey P Had No problem with all of his anger and RObert Davi made my feet tingle with excitement. Please make another advrnture for Nick.


I never felt really bad for the actors when something bad happened to them... the soundtrack sounds like a B-Movie with Dolf Lundgreen. Anyway This movie is spiked with a lot B-Actors who are actually better actors than the average but can't really match up their role. Not even one in there is close to be believed as a mafioso...

*** Minor Spoiler*** Not even Vince who is portrayed as a hard mafioso boss (actually the son of the major boss).. he just looks like a normal thug and is not really able to frighten a 6 year old... Actually he looks (and acts) like a normal Italian family father who's into soccer ;). *** Minor Spoiler End***

Anyway the movie is OK for an evening to watch, although the story is predictable, (very) hardly believable and the Acting is not really good. So it gets 4 out of 10. Which is average, not more but not less. Watch this if you are done with all the sopranos, godfather, scarface and what not mafioso movies. But if you have the choice take this movie as the last one.


The most boring film I saw in recent years. Lots of talking, TV- like acting for displaying total uninteresting and cliché people. There simply is not a single sign of action in the first 20 minutes after the title credits. Is this a mafia film or not ? Where is the gang war the DVD cover talks about? Most annoying is the restaurant owner who keeps reciting Shakespeare one liners all the time. You will loose interest in this poor "main character" fastly. I am honest to say that I saw the rest (after the first 20 min of pure boredom) accelerated, in 4 time - 8 times DVD speed. It keeps being lame. I'm just glad that I didn't spend more time with this total failure film.


The Gangster film trilogy is complete. Not Only does Hitters have an incredible cats, but a beautiful look (camera work and sets rocked!) and a true representation of FAMILY. I know I have a better relationship with my husband and his family because of this film. It hit so many of those funny little typical moments that we all have experienced and shared with loved ones. HITTERS 2 should be Robert Davi and Costas Madylor in a steel cage. Was that Adult film star Ruby Jewles in the night club? I hear she use to date the Director. She is one of the few actresses I could see crossover to main stream without any problems.


I recently had the pleasure of viewing "Hitters" at the Palm Beach Int'l Film Festival. This film is brought to life by the smoldering performance of Robert Davi as "Nick". From his early scenes of controlled rage to the final denouement when he takes revenge against his enemies, this is a true tour de force for this skillful and under utilized actor. Especially effective is the scene with his enemy, Vince, when Nick's "playful" slaps suddenly turn deadly. It is a pleasure to see Davi in a role that he can really sink his teeth into and show the depth of emotions that he is capable of. He is truly a screen "presence" and holds the audience's attention from beginning to end. I certainly hope that other producers will take note and find some more worthy roles for this very talented actor.

The rest of the cast gives Davi excellent support and combine to make an exciting film experience. There is even some amusing "comic relief" provided by the talented Frank D'Amico.

This is a an excellent film and a "must see" for all fans of the genre.


All of the guys look and act great. A wonderful low budget goodfella's! Check out the guy who plays Rocco "The Ritz" who is this guy!!! I want more of him!! Robert Davi is intense. Joey Depinto as Vince really makes you hate him. Good job!


The young Oliver and Richardson -- especially Richardson -- are obviously having a ball in this mix of spies, high adventure, and tongue in cheek comedy According to Michael Powell, the two stars tore up the script, and devised their own scenes, and the pleasure they have in sending up the material, and in each other's work, shines through. (In fact, once or twice, Oliver seems to be trying not to crack up at Richardson's antics.) Patrick Macnee says he based The Avengers' John Steed on Richardson's character in this film, and that, too, shows. Thrills, spills,secret rays, gags and eccentric British characters, and villains from a country suspiciously reminiscent of Germany, but not named in 1938.


The two stage actors rattle off the rapid-fire dialogue like two Spitfires in a dogfight. I got the feeling they were almost in a goof-off competition to see who could memorize their lines right before the take and spit them out with the most unrehearsed verve.


Everyone involved with this brisk comedy/thriller seems to be enjoying themselves immensely. It's a ripping yarn about spies, disappearing planes and a secret ray gun, lit up by Olivier and Richardson, with lots of cheerful gags along the way. It's dated, of course, but if you can leave that aside it's still good fun.


A 'Korda Collection' classic film and I shan't part with my videocassette - 'Tiger' comic script and stilted dialogue notwithstanding. Doesn't even matter that McVane appears to take off in a different airplane to that which is captured and seen in flight. Only trouble with Valerie Hobson is she retired too early.


No wonder that this picture anticipates Bond by 25 years, it was co written by Jack Whittingham, who was one of the principle architects of the movie version of James Bond.

Whittingham shares a credit on the film, and the novel, Thunderball, which was originally intended to be the first James Bond picture.

More than a few of the classic Bond tropes are contained in the story--it actually points to Dr No (bringing down planes electronically) and to so many of the Bond stories that have huge battles at the end, with the hero freeing, and/or working alongside troops of one kind or another.


I've been a Woody Allen fan since the 1970s, when I was about 20, and this gem is one of his absolute best. Sweet, nostalgic, fall-down funny, wistful, at times remarkably poignant and sad...this Allen film has it all and shows the director at the top of his form. I have a soft spot for Dianne Wiest and she's fabulous here as the marriage-hungry Aunt Bea, whose terrible luck at chasing matrimony makes you wish you could push your favorite unmarried cousin her way. Julie Kavner and Michael Tucker also shine as the main set of parents in the piece, Mom & Dad to Allen's childhood alter ego. I never had a family and relatives as neurotic and wild as this bunch in Brooklyn--but Allen almost makes me wish I had! Possibly his best work, and accessible to a wider audience than his usual showcases to angst.


Do you remember the times before television when people listened to radio? Of course you don't, you're too young! To be quite honest with you, I don't either.I'm even younger than you are. Woody Allen's Radio Days (1987) is a nostalgic look at those times.Mr Allen isn't seen in this movie, only heard.Seth Green plays in a way the young Woody Allen.Only that his name isn't Woody but Joe.This Jewish boy lives his life in New York under World War II.And listens to radio.The acting work is superb in this movie.Young Seth Green is excellent.Then there are names like Mike Starr (Burglar), Julie Kavner (Mother), Wallace Shawn (Masked Avenger), Dianne Wiest (Bea), Mia Farrow (Sally White), Larry David (Communist Neighbor), Danny Aiello (Rocco), Jeff Daniels (Biff Baxter), Mercedes Ruehl (Ad men), Diane Keaton (New Year's Singer) and William H. Macy (Radio actor).The movie is wonderfully written, by Mr. Allen naturally.This is a walk down the memory lane.A look at the past, at the 1940's, at the radio days.This is funny and sad movie filled with nostalgia, with memories of Woody Allen.At the end when there is the New Year's Eve, Woody says these words as the narrator; "with the passing of each New Year's Eve, those voices do seem to grow dimmer and dimmer."


Woody Allen's nostalgic look at the golden age of radio through concentration on one ordinary family and the variety of favorite shows among that household is both interesting and entertaining. It doesn't possess the usual cleverness or snappy dialogues and comedic moments of most Woody Allen films, but it achieves some emotional elements which are not present in many of the 80s and 90s Woody Allen flicks. Radio Days isn't the best film to watch from the writer/director but it definitely isn't the worst. Its good to watch this film to get a sense of some different work Allen did. I liked the use of the old age music and the impressive cinematography from Carlo Di Palma and Susan E. Morse's editing was also good. -- IMDb Rating: 7.3, my rating: 8/10


Woody Allen takes two stories, his childhood with his extended family and the heyday of radio, and wraps them together, showing how radio captured the attention of and helped shape America.

The story is occasionally a bit disjointed, and while some critics harped on that, I found that it more fit the way nostalgia feel like... bits and pieces of memories held together by common threads.

The acting and direction are wonderful. Michael Tucker brings a great comic warmth to the screen, and Julie Kavner and Dianne Wiest are both very, very strong. But the star of this movie is the time in which it is set, and the set design, cinematography and overall mood of the movie are captured wonderfully. I've spoken to people who grew up in New York City during the "Radio Days" and they say that Allen captures the era perfectly.

I love this movie because Allen doesn't pretend that the past is perfect, but he loves it even with its flaws, and he presents it to us with the love that feels for this time gone by.


This is what nostalgia is all about! Woody Allen takes a look at the 1940s, when radio was still the dominant medium. Young Joe (Seth Green) is the window into this world. I'm assuming that Allen based that character on himself. Meanwhile, we get to see also the lives of various radio performers, among them Mia Farrow's and Wallace Shawn's characters. My favorite scene was the snowman scene, although I don't recommend it for squeamish and/or prudish people.

Anyway, this is a nice, wacky look at the days before TV. I am particularly inclined to agree with his statement about boy crooners; I would have to say the same about boy bands. All in all, Woody Allen does best when he sticks to straight forward comedy and doesn't try to look at neurotic rich New Yorkers.


Some other reviewers seem to think that Woody Allen got his inspiration for Radio Days from foreign sources. I think his own childhood, similar to mine a half a generation later, was all he needed and for any further influence, he must have listened as I did to the radio ramblings of Jean Shepherd on WOR Radio back in the day.

With the casting of young Seth Green as the protagonist and childhood Allen this was the start of a whole series of quirky roles he's played right up to this day. Allen has a good eye for detail and places that haven't changed too much since he was a child. The only difference is that he used the Rockaways instead of Brooklyn because the appearance is still the same or at least in 1987 it was. One thing that certainly hadn't changed was the elephant house at the Prospect Park Zoo where young Seth Green and his parents Michael Tucker and Julie Kavner meet one of the Quiz Kids and his parents. An all together unsatisfactory experience all around.

The film does not have any plot so to speak, it's simply a collection of stories from just before World War II and American entry into World War II. It was the height of American radio entertainment where all you needed was imagination. Radio as we see influenced young Green/Allen in direct and subtle ways as well. Television first became commercially popular in 1947 the year I made my earthly debut. But Allen's childhood was influenced by radio. You could believe anything if the actors were good enough. Young Mr. Green believed that Wallace Shawn was a superhero because of the radio.

The technique of the film is like Jean Shepherd's The Christmas Story and his monologues on WOR were exactly like Radio Days, just a collection of loose ramblings about the things that Shepherd remembered from his childhood in the Midwest of Hammond, Indiana. Only the Jewish humor of Woody Allen makes it distinct from a Jean Shepherd radio show being made into a film.

Woody cast his film well, but my absolute favorite was Dianne Weist as his lovelorn Aunt Bea, destined to be a spinster like another Aunt Bea from television. The poor woman was in love with love and constantly dating a real collection of losers that never quite cut the mustard.

If you are a fan of Jean Shepherd's nostalgic humor and The Christmas Story, you will love Radio Days. You don't have to be Jewish, honestly.