Yossi and Jagger is really a short story of a movie: one climactic incident, no development of character, a lack of narrative dimension. But it's a very interesting picture, for two reasons beyond the usual interest in a movie about gay life in the Israeli army. The first is the amazing sense of transience about the military effort there -- you don't feel it's an army defending a homeland. Even Jagger's house seems recently set up. And there's a palpable feeling of some world more permanent and hostile beyond the range of field glasses. The military action and people are entirely credible (I've had a lot of experience of action) but the action is that of invaders. Second, the relations among the men and women are striking. Everyone pretty clearly knows or suspects about Jossi and Jagger's affair, but they're willing to leave it private, and to deal with individual feelings as personal and of value. In this sense I found the picture to give an interesting contrast with "Brokeback Mountain", whose protagonists are somewhat similar, but which presented a sense of alienation and hostility to homosexuality quite lacking in Yossi and Jagger.


i think the two things that made this movie work well are: (1) the acting/performance; and (2) its brevity and flow.

the actors delivered very sincere performances and really made their characters more than just parts played...they will really break your heart. Yehuda Levi as Jagger, in particular, was very likable and made the point that he was both idealistic, boyishly-goofy, romantic; and though he may have appeared naive, his blind innocence that came across made him more endearing. (he's the boy every other boy wishes he could have for life -- and i challenge the guy who says otherwise because he's lying.) =)

as for the flow, the brevity of the film worked well because it really left the viewer wanting more. it lingered briefly (and quite appropriately) over the tender moments, but did not dwell on the sad, over-dramatic parts (that would have been overkill)...the point was made and it came across quite well under 75 minutes.

"Yossi & Jagger", though primarily categorized as a "gay film", tugs at the most visceral feelings any person (gay or straight) can have -- the comfort that only comes with genuine and true love, the intense need to be true to one's self, and the sorrow that can only be brought about by a great loss. just watch it already!


One would think that for a pacifist lesbian living (thank God) in a country at peace, a story about two gay soldiers on the Israeli-Lebanon border would be just slightly more than a curiosity. But this film does make its effect. It's not American style, there are no big stars with toothpaste-ad smiles, and the two guys do spend very little time together, but every time they are in the same place one feels the suppressed desire any homosexual can experience in an environment where s/he has to act straight. The scene in the snow is thus not only the victory of joy and will to live over war (because we aren't allowed to forget these guys are in a war area), but also the liberation one feels when one is finally allowed to express feelings forbidden by society. The other painfully familiar scene is the last one - being in the home of your beloved and pretending to be some distant acquaintance. Been there, done that. I'm glad the story doesn't have a happy ending. Based on other films from Israel about homosexuality and the general atmosphere there, it can't have had one.


I really enjoyed viewing this film. Although it is in a completely different language and you have to follow it by subtitles, the morals of the film are still clear. The film is about a gay relationship between two men; Yossi and Jagger. They are in the Israeli army and sneak away on several occasions to be together. This changed my opinion on gay relationships completely. I, being a straight person, had never really understood much about gay relationships until I watched this film. The relationships which they form is beautiful and it's only when something tragic happens, Jagger is about to die, that Yossi expresses all his feelings for him. This film will really make you look at a lot of things in a different light as it explores a number of different issues; Gay relationships, unrequited feelings and grieving. I recommend this film to teenagers because there is a lot of different opinions on gay people and it really does make you look at it from a completely different angle.


I found this film to be an excellent story told in a different setting. Boy finds love, love cant be returned by lover, boy dies before lover is able to admit his love....yes - we've all seen the story before but, it seems to have a fresh angle told in the army setting. Of interest is the way that the love story remains a mystery to all the other characters in the story and, how after the sad events of the movie, the characters remain in silence about the true nature of our protagonists relationship. This is a true love story - makes me proud to be gay and able to tell me lover each day. The soundtrack is nice and supports the primary direction of the movie, cementing some of the themes and ideas of the movie. Oh, both leads are very handsome and are excellent representations of gay Israelis's. Enjoy!


While the movie is pretty well acted, and the plot a great one, the film is simply too short. The plot runs with three different romances, deals wonderfully with unrequited love, and really shows how difficult it is for some men to deal with their homosexuality (though it seems that it was 'dealt' with just fine in the snow scene. I will never look at a snowball the same way again.) There is simply not enough time to really go into the characters or the plot, and when the movie was finished, I was wanting more. The characters are captivating and at the end of the ambush, when Yossi finally admits his love, I was crying. (Total of 2 tissues for the entire film) I wish there was some sort of prequel, since a sequel is def. out of the picture. Over all, it was well acted, well planned, but the execution could have used some work. I would still recommend it if this type of movie in general is your cup of tea. I especially loved all the Hebrew in it, and thought the subtitles were well done.


I enjoyed this film very much because in many ways it was a change of pace; it takes the unconventional, homosexual couple and then puts them in a military setting which provides for an interest backdrop to a very human story. I enjoyed it particularly because all of the characters from the cook to the main characters were very likable, and in spite of the brief nature of the film, I felt that they were still well developed. I did not feel as if the contents of the movie were lacking at all, and that the overall production was very professional.

The film was quick-paced and very quickly got to the point and resolution. In no way was it a tiring or boring to watch this movie -- I found it to be a very easy, very fulfilling watch. This film is nothing over the top but with great jobs done by all of the actors and the uniqueness of the story I recommend it to anyone for a decent film to watch.


A desolate army outpost near Lebanon is the setting for this tale of intimate relations in "Yossi & Jagger." The viewer has a rare opportunity to spend time with a small battery of Israeli soldiers preparing for an ambush.

Eytan Fox's direction is comparable to another Hebraic effort, Amos Guttman's "Hessed Mufla" (1992) in its subtle yet realistic depictions. The characters of both convey genuine emotions and actions, while copious close ups enhance the stories' intimate natures.

Yael Avivo as Yossi is subdued and caring. Yehuda Levi (who somewhat resembles young Alain Delon) as Jagger is restrained and sensitive.

Running at a brief 65 minutes, the film makes its points without much elaboration. Titles often appear quickly, requiring some fast reading on part of the viewer.


Reallyreally remarkable.I haven't been able to stop thinking about it since I saw it yesterday. It's a movie based on homosexuality in a very macho environment, and yet, there is nothing expressly queer about Yossi and Jagger's relationship--this is a love story and a human story more than a gay story. The worst part of all is that it's also a true story.


One of the best love stories this year; gripping, touching and warm at the same time. A light look into the difficulties and hardships faced by Israeli soldiers everyday. Inclusive of women, very honest and realistic, this story is symbolic of how many gay men and women feel, without really dealing with 'gay' issues on the surface. Great film, beautiful acting and direction.


I can't recall when I have ever been so moved by a film. Everyone in the theatre sat frozen in their chairs long after the lights came on after the movie. We were all bawling or just frozen and stunned. The emotional impact of the movie was all at once stunning, horrible, beautiful, and overwhelming. Anyone should be able to relate to this film. Anyone who misses it will be missing one of life's genuine miracles.


telling the truth about some people who are are forbidden from loving just because they love who they want to love and not who the society tells them to love.

i think people should really watch this film and come to an understanding that NO one can tell some one else who what why and when to love - cause it's a free right - no one is entitled to take from another person.

i was disappointed at the end, thought it would end differently felt like an enrage about what happened at the end, i think perhaps it could have had a different ending and still have the same impact.


Golden Sun has to be one of the largest, most extensive Game Boy games ever created. It provides excellent graphics, super CPU intelligence, a load of spells with a complete magic system, and really cool little guys called "Djinn".

The battle system has to be one of the coolest, and most unique, ever. One can "Set" Djinn, connecting them to the character's body to perform helpful tasks. After they've been set, they can be used to summon great beings to aid in the destruction of evil-doers everywhere!

The plot is unusually very interesting. Four lighthouses control the power of the world, and some evil-doers plan to light them. In order to stop them, you, playing as Isaac and his gang, must track them down and rescue each village from imminent disaster along the way.

The music is pretty nice. It's only Game Boy Advance, but that's no reason to have pitiful music. Ambient sounds, the battle music, and a very nice main theme mix to create an intense, dramatic blend of Nintendo music.

The Djinn, much like Final Fantasy VIII's Guardian Forces, are really neat. It takes a while to understand them and how they work, but once you figure them out, the possibilities are practically limitless. Special items and weaponry only add to the effect, as they produce powers like none ever seen in fantasy games.

Golden Sun (I'm not sure what it is with Broken Seal; I've got the U.S. version, so it is only called Golden Sun) is a very challenging game. More than once I found myself literally slaughtered by countless enemies. The bosses are merciless and can sometimes be very frustrating, but I suggest leveling up as much as possible before meeting any of them! This will not only help you, but will make the game a much more enjoyable experience.

My ultimate advice: get Golden Sun! It's a marvelous depiction of the GBA's superior performance.


This game is terrific. Even do this game is made for the game boy advance with all of the console's limits, is also extremely enjoyable. It is a very long and fun game with innovating stuff for the genre. Its story is really good as the characters are. But what is the difference between this RPG and others? It has magic.

When you take into account that the game boy advance is not one of the best consoles out there, you would be a bit hesitant about this game. But I can assure you that all the good stuff totally make up for the system's limits. The fight are very well designed, the world is really big and you can find tons of monster to practice the moves. The sound is also enjoyable and the graphics are good for the game boy advance.

The story is about a group of four adepts (The person who can use Psynergy) with different powers, who need to stop the bad guys from lighting the four beacons/seals and therefore break the alchemy seal that use to balance to forces on earth. The story is little more complicated than that since there are many sub-plots and you get to understand our characters and the bad guys actions.

The new features included in this game are the Djinn, which are Pokémon like creatures (They need to be caught as well) with different powers. The difference is that there are only four kinds of them (Water, fire, wind and earth) which match each of the four main characters type. The main characters own special powers according to their type (for example the earth guy has powers related to earth and so on) which are necessary when you need to solve puzzles to beat the many different dungeons. You can set Djinns to each character to provide them with additional strength or you can also change types for them. The Djinn can be use in different forms in battle, you are able to use each Djinn special technique, or use a group of them to sum an even stronger attack. You can also use each character special power (They call it Psynergy) or simply attack the bad guys with your weapons. The battle system is really good as well but it would be a little long to explain.

Overall this game is an absolute worth trying. Anyone who claim he/she likes RPG will love this title, and the rest will love it as well.


On a day in October 2002 I went to the mall and looked between the games. I met quite some games like Final Fantasy X and such, but I didn't have a PS2, so...well, I found this, and I DID have a GBA. Bought it. After that, I was amazed. It started with the climax of a volcano having an outburst, and having to go save friends until one was swept away in a storm while it was raining...the climax was broken, and then you met the two villains in the game; they noticed you eavesdropping and then they knock you out. After that you get to see the town again, this time it is not raining and everything is sunny, and your main character is working on a roof of your main character's house. Then two of your friends come and accidentally ruin the roof by standing on it...foo. In the end, you get invited by a scientist named Kraden (Sclater in Japanese version) to visit the temple which is based upon the mountain which was disrupted in the beginning. OK. You get to put some time into puzzling, which is in my opinion, very good, because there is a good balance between puzzling and battling, though sometimes there are just too many random battles. Finally you get to solve it, and you arrive in a room in which the essences of the four elements (air, earth, water, fire...) are sealed, but you are quickly forced to give them to the villains that beat you up in the beginning of the game and an unexpected guest. Finally, you are involved in a quest to save the world by stopping Saturos and Menardi, the villains, in unlocking the Power of Alchemy, the 'magic' of that game's universe. But do they really have to be stopped? Is it really their purpose to destroy the world? A lot of things are found out in the second part. Graphical wise, I have to say this is the best game ever for a 64-Megabit cartridge. Battles and the world map are in Mode 7, and the overall is well-animated and coloured. Musical wise, this game is alright. With a score composed by Motoi Sakuraba, the music is not always 'good' but it mostly does fit with the situations in the game. There are no slowdowns so far I noticed, and the learning curve isn't very long. Also you can collect up to 7 Elementals of each elemental force, which also enables more skills and also summons in battle, which can get to be VERY powerful to fight with. Also, quite a few side-quests, and they could get vital to the second part also. Overall, 9/10 for me. I hope there are going to be more games like this in the future. And 'coloured' is NOT a spelling mistake.


I remember the first time I bought this gem of a game it was Christmas of 2003. The first time I played it it started of slowly I had no idea where to go or what to do at all. So by than I gave up on it saying that I would play it again some other time. That other time wasn't till the next year when I picked up the game around 2004 and played it I figured out what to do and spent months training up playing the game. As well as the game-play and of course the use of magic and the Djinn the elemental spirit creatures that are used to summon attacks and of course more powerful creatures.

As well as the RPG element I completely enjoyed the story as you Isaac or whoever you name the hero as sets out with his friend Gareth and go around the world of Weyard trying to find your missing friends and of course save the world from disaster from Saturus and Menardi. And of course lets not forget about the twist and turns of how it would end. If you buy this game I hope you enjoy it as much as I have and look out for it's sequel Golden Sun 2.

But the only thing that annoyed me about this game was that if you where low on health and you try to return to a town just to get healed or buy medicine a monster or monsters may ambush you killing you so that you lost money as well as experience. But don't let that stop you enjoying it at all.


Well I thought this game was amazing in every detail except for the revival system, I don't like it how before you can get any waters of life you have to go to a priest and revive or remove poison or curses. But all in all the game was very amazing. The Battle system I thought was flawless and I loved the Djinni\Summon system it was genius. I didn't like the fact that it was so short it took me two days to beat and the final boss was the easiest battle in the game with the exception of the beginning random battles.I also want to know how they are going to start golden sun 2 (which should be coming out Christmas 2002 for all you golden sun fans)because if it's a different game pack than golden sun will they start with the average level of the game then factor in everything like spells and Items and then maybe start the game on the boat then have a secret closet where you can pick up any of the weapons you may have had. Also I thi\ought they would have the ending before the credits that was a little different but what can I do. Oh and another Idea I have about the continuation of the game is maybe they should make a special device that they they sell in the same box as golden sun 2 to transfer the data of your game ongolden sun then save it to golden sun 2(hint hint people who made the game)and then maybe sell it for 100 bucks and you'd make more money hey that works hunh. Oh well it was an amazing game with hard puzzles but still the best game I've played for GBA so if you don't have this game BUY IT!!!!!!!!! you'll like it if you like games like the final fantasy series and chrono cross and you might buy the game then try those games listed abvove and love them. Bye


Intensely emotional, so much so, that it's hard to watch in places. Jon Voight's performance of a WWII veteran tortured and twisted mentally by his war experiences is intimidating, even volatile.

The story is set in the '50's, at a time when the U.S. is testing nuclear weapons at a base north of Las Vegas. Jack Chismore (Voight), the veteran, and his family live in the Nevada desert near Las Vegas. There are parallel stories, weaving the news of the nuclear technology around the conflicts of Chismore's mental cruelty and abusive behavior to his family; in particular, his coming-of-age daughter Rose (Annabeth Gish). Gish is sensational in this role; she holds her own in verbal sparring with the always skillful Jon Voight. You really feel her frustration, and love to hate Chismore. The latter, though, slowly becomes more sympathetic as you understand his suffering more.

Coming-of-age stories have a few standard plot lines, but they're handled tenderly and resist exploitation here. Rose has a boy friend, and she's learning the facts of not only her own personal life, but the ugly and frightening facts of the world simultaneously.

The final image is riveting; in a single shot, the twin points of loss of innocence--Rose's, as well the world's--are melded together brilliantly with a single camera shot. A fine movie with a powerful theme.


A powerful and heartbreaking portrayal of what it is like to walk on egg shells in a household inhabited by an alcoholic husband and father.

The story deftly renders the awkward and secretive moral climate around alcohol, sex, and infidelity in post- WWII America. Unflinching in his lack of sensitivity, John Voight nonetheless succeeds in winning a kind of sad sympathy for his post-combat nightmares and his tortured reality. Jo Beth Williams, Annabeth Gish, and Ellen Barkin give outstandingly moving performances that could only be described as remarkable. John Garfield gives a subtle and important performance in a wonderful supporting roll.

This film was one of those sleepers that came out of left field, and knocked me down! It is a noteworthy American film, tragic, touching, and ultimately triumphant. It is truly unforgettable.


Desert Bloom belongs on a list of the ten most underrated movies of the last thirty years. An original setting -- no Rock and Roll pioneers, professional sports heroes, or other aspect of popular culture in this look at 1950's life in the U.S. -- excellent acting; and a believable, thought-provoking story; Desert Bloom has much to hold a viewer's interest.

I realize that Desert Bloom, a story about common people and mostly devoid of action, may not appeal to the many people who look to movies for diversion and entertainment. For the person who enjoys films that cause one to reflect and to experience more than a thrill, however, Desert Bloom will probably make him feel that he has chosen a very meaningful way to spend two hours.

While Jon Voight, as a rigid and occasionally explosive World War II veteran, gives a performance that rivals any of his other roles, and Jo Beth Williams, as his unfailingly optimistic and codependent wife, portrays her part convincingly, the work of Annabelle Gish leaves the most profound impression. The oldest daughter in a dysfunctional family (Voight and Williams as her troubled parents), Gish tells the story of her teenage years in retrospect as a forty-something adult.

Speaking with the firmness and controlled confidence of someone who has had to endure, Rose (Gisch) indicates that she has not only survived her father's alcoholism and abuse, but also that the quality of her life has progressed well beyond the one afforded by her parents' pathetic relationship. More importantly, though, Rose makes the viewer aware that at a time when the U.S. military was developing weapons powerful enough to devastate any foe, some children were feeling nearly powerless in their own homes in the face of real threats to their safety.


This film story initially appeared to be a more or less typical coming of age story of a teenage girl, set in the '50's at the height of the atomic bomb testing age in the desert southwest, but ended up being a sad and multi-faceted story of unrealized potential, chronic physical pain, alcoholism, paranoia, abuse, spousal enabling, ruined family potential, and of a daughter's loss of love and trust in her father due to the results of his very human and typical response to great pain....self medication by alcohol. That, plus another very typical male response by her father to excessive temptation by his wife's sister who, without a care for the family unit, threw her many sexual charms at her drunk brother in law. Weak as he was in all ways he still responded, to great familial damage. Just too many human flaws and life burdens for any family to survive intact, and this one was no exception.

There are some outstanding acting performances in history that I think have gone outrageously unrewarded by Oscar. A few are the 1956 portrayal of Vincent van Gogh by Kirk Douglas in Lust For Life, Karen Black in Five Easy Pieces, Kevin Kline in Sophie's Choice, Tim Roth in Rob Roy, and Jon Voight in this film. When Voight was on screen, I could not see anyone else. That defines acting greatness, and was the case with the other performances stated. And, I find it very interesting that 4 of these 5 roles demonstrated an obvious form and level of mental illness. Maybe all of them did. Interesting point.

If you have ever known anyone who was forced to live with great chronic pain you may better understand the quality of Voight's performance, his very obvious pain resulting from severe WWII wounds that he knew would dog him mean every day of his tortured life. I knew someone with that great pain, and Voight's performance was so spot on I could not believe that someone without that pain could portray it so realistically.

You want to see truly great acting? Do yourself a favor and see Jon Voight in this film and get the rest of the well made story as a bonus.


Though some would beg to differ, Desert Bloom is one of the most powerful movies and stories of our time. It's a tale of a dysfunctional family in the 1950's when it was uncommon for the public to see the truth behind closed doors. An amazing script and creative camera angles and lighting makes this movie worth seeing a few times before you can fully understand it's beauty.

Annabeth Gish in her breakout/breakthrough roll deserved a supporting actress nomination. Unfortunately, in 1986 it was uncommon for a young actor to receive such a nomination. Ms. Gish is an under rated actress who is worthy of powerful rolls and casting in present day.

The chemistry between Ellen Barkin and Annabeth Gish's is amazing as well as JoBeth William's portrayal of a truth-blind housewife. Jon Voight, is well -- Jon Voight -- consistant and erie.


I really like this movie... it is a great period piece of the 1950s. I think people forget that a period piece doesn't have to be of some century-ago. The acting is excellent all-around, although the voice-overs are a bit much.


The bomb is about to go off any day now outside and inside the home of Rose. She has a stepfather who loves her little sisters but doesn't really adore her that much. Jack has other problems as well such as drinking and flashbacks from war. One day he likes Rose and then the next minute he becomes a horrible monster. I see that this movie is like a bomb going off. The characters in the movie have no idea when this bomb is going to go off. They also have no idea when Jack is going to fly into a rage or have another flashback. It's a sad little movie but it has a lot of sense of reality attached to it. Then Aunt Starr comes in a gets involved in all of it. She adds some spice to the whole bomb. It's a great movie.


This movie will really give you better understanding of such terms as "purposeless" and "pointless". It's simply a series of episodes, which never add up to anything. The only thing one can recommend about this familiar drama (which still doesn't make it worthwhile) is the solid acting: Barkin's performance stands out.


Relatively new cinematic team of director Ariel Vromen and writer Joshua Leibner pounce onto the scene with a surprisingly fine little film that has basically gone unnoticed. DANIKA is a story that demands the viewer's careful attention and rewards that attention with a finely wrought surprise ending. This is a tough movie to review: almost anything that is said about it diminishes the impact of a fresh look.

Danika (the superb and grossly underused actress Marisa Tomei) is a beautiful, well-dressed successful professional woman, loved by her husband Randy (Craig Bierko) and her children Kurt (Kyle Gallner), Lauren (Nicki Prian) and Brian (Ridge Canipe). Yet even from the opening scenes we can tell something is amiss: Danika 'sees' disturbing things, terrifying events and people that alter her attention to her job and her family. She visits a young psychiatrist Evelyn (Regina Hall) who becomes her confidant - the only person who accepts that Danika is witnessing disturbing sights. A mixture of critical pieces of disastrous events flash before Danika's eyes as well as flashbacks to some years back when her children were young. Danika overcompensates for her fears by being an overprotective mother, an unfortunate trait that begins to fracture her family.

The pace of the film changes to rapid fire events as the reasons for Danika's visions become clear: we finally see just what made this brilliant and strong woman the victim of a terrified and disturbed psyche and the manner in which each of the characters in the story impacts this discovery is well-illuminated. The surprise ending scene is a stunner and one that will haunt the viewer.

Marisa Tomei makes this very difficult, well-written role completely believable. She is an actress of enormous gifts. Likewise the remainder of the cast offers such fine ensemble work that credit must be given director Ariel Vromen for being a young talent on the rise. Yes, there are some portions of the film that beg credibility but then that is what delusional thinking is about. This is a tight little film that deserves attention. Grady Harp


I saw Danika's world premiere at the CineVegas film festival this past weekend. It was an excellent psychological thriller with many twists and turns. Marisa Tomei is exceptionally convincing in the lead role as a soccer mom tortured by visions which could be premonitions or hallucinations. The action in the movie intersperses tension-building dialog and dramatically shocking visuals with tremendous effectiveness. The supporting cast is also exceptional in the roles and convince you of the impact that Danika's visions are having upon them. Regina Hall is especially impressive as Danika's psychologist.

I would highly recommend seeking this movie out if it comes to a festival or theater near you!


Psychological thriller .. well the thrills are a bit artificial and unrelated to the story but there's a bit of suspension still.

Large parts of the movie happen in the main characters mind. The ending is crucial to the integrity of the story. Until you get there you're feeling a bit like "whats the point of this flick?".

I personally thought it was a bit too dragging and slow to rank anywhere higher than 7/10, but a decent psycho-drama still.

Makes you think a bit to understand what its about. Look at the vote statistics, very young people vote low for some weird reason :-)

Gave avg 5 pts for the implementation, but the ending raises it to 7. Of course the fact that you find your self wondering whats going on during the film also is very positive.


Let's see: I had great expectations towards this film, since Danika pretty much has the potential to be a fairly enjoyable thriller, but to my disappointment, it turned out to be one of those films that deliberately try to be confusing just for kicks. I don't know about the others, but I'd say I had my share of these kinds of psychological thrillers that usually lead to the same disappointing endings and nonsensical sequences. You know, the typical soft-horror/thriller/drama flick in which the main character keeps having hallucinations and visions about horrible things happening around her and the rest of the characters are dead worried but they still don't do anything to help her out. Even though Ariel Vromen succeeds to create a puzzling atmosphere and there are two or three enjoyable moments, I'd say that these 'twist in the end' fever has been pretty much overdone already. This film pretty much offers a nice variety of pointless hallucination sequences in which Marisa Tomei, giving a flawless performance, always repeats the same situations but in different scenarios. Obviously, it ends up getting tedious after a a while.

'Danika' is the story of a genuinely desperate housewife, whose main fear is to lose one of her children or the three of them, for that matter. This obsession of overprotecting her kids, turns out to be the result of a traumatic childhood experience, in which poor little Danika loses her brother in a road accident. During the course of the film, the mentally unstable woman, appears basically smothering her children and over-worrying about every little thing, making the rest of her family lose their patience. However, it is clear to Danika that something is definitely not okay with her, as she realizes that she's experiencing weird hallucinations that turn her life into hell on earth.

This film offers a few sequences that promise some sort of explanation whatsoever or at least a tiny little connection to the end. Nevertheless, just like many other recent flicks out there with a twist in the end, 'Danika' turned out to be ambiguous for no reason and it tries to deceive the audience and doubt about their own intelligence. My advice is to avoid this film, unless you are bored and you have nothing else to see. I wouldn't label it as 'unwatchable', because that would be unfair, considering that there are a few good things that deserve to be appreciated, but it's mostly Marisa Tomei's performance actually. 'Danika' is not terribly bad, but frankly, I was utterly disappointed when the good atmosphere and the few achievements were suddenly overshadowed by the silly ending. I wouldn't recommend this... sorry.


I watched quite a few films last year, and "Danika" made it to the top of my list for intellectual quality and brilliance. It's hard to comment on it without giving away details and spoilers, so let me just say, this movie takes your full attention (don't cook dinner and try to keep up!) Tomei is NEVER a disappointment. It's a wonder she isn't in more films these days. She is a little older than her fresh-faced "Only You" days, but time has settled kindly on her, giving her more character instead of so-called 'flaws.' The ending will leave you in somewhat of a stunned silence, and then you will sit there and watch all of the loose ends tie themselves neatly together. You will not walk away from this movie confused or wondering what it was all about - unless you weren't paying close attention all along. I admit, there will be boo-hooers who dislike it because they haven't the patience or the depth to grasp the true meaning behind this film, but this is why Danika is a work of art and it's star a true artist. If it were neat and pat like any good mainstream film, it wouldn't be the hidden jewel that it is. Many will pass it by, others will scoff and tear it apart. Let them. Those who grasp it will be those who tend to think a bit deeper than the first layer of the onion. Danika is a piece of abstract art - viewing it from different angles, you will see details that aren't visible to the casual onlooker.

Not for the squeamish, pick it up sometime and give it the credit it deserves!


For anyone who likes to watch a bad movie for a good laugh. "DNA" isn't it. "DNA" is just plain bad all around, with nothing to even laugh at. It was made on a cheap budget, has real bad action, acting and REALLY BAD directing and no writing. I think everyone made it up as they went. There's no interest in the action (Joe average guy is able to take out several big commandos, I don't think so). The sad moments don't make you feel sad or sympathetic.

The idea that the CIA would send into the jungle one agent (who's your stereotyped woman who falls at the critical point type), with a doctor as a guide, to take out a dangerous villain and the monster he's created, is just stupid. As I said, it's as if they didn't bother to write a script.

Any TV station who shows "DNA" should be ashamed. I just watched it on the SCIFI channel. They're too good to show something like this. I'll bet no one on their staff ever saw it before. It was a complete waste of my time!


Nothing great in DNA except the fact that you will laugh during the whole movie. Bad scenario+ bad special effects+ bad actors(Mark Dacascos)+etc=DNA. Believe it or not, Mark Dacascos is playing a SCIENTIST!!!!!!Not a soldier!!! Well, what a scientist!! He shoots, he kills soldiers and he fights the monster. By the way, we don't know if the creature (I am not talking about Mark Dacascos) is a dinosaur or an alien...At the beginning of the movie, they are searching for dinosaur bones. At the middle, they say that it is an alien. Special effect are bad (the helicopter sequence is the worst)and the monster looks like to be a plastic action figure. Mark dacascos is (again) playing the tough guy. Barney was better, maybe. DNA is a Barney movie:bloody version. I give it 0 out of *****!!!


OK, first of all, I consider myself to be a fan of B Movies, so I shant write this as if I actually intended to enjoy the film in the least. And Ill tell you right now, this movie didn't disappoint me; a small piece of my soul died while watching Dead Above Ground.

The movie itself takes place in a very rich suburb of California, and nearly everyone around has ties to the film making business. I noticed a sign somewhere that said it was called Bay City, but after a thirty seconds of Google, I couldn't find out if Bay City, CA was real or not. And frankly, I don't care. I will just assume it is in Orange County, because that makes me feel a little less disturbed when teenagers die.

Anyway, the movie starts with some director and his wife being murdered. This is totally irrelevant until the last few minutes of the movie, when weaker souls will have already walked out.

Flash-forward a few months and we meet our main characters: Jeffery, the incredibly angry goth-kid; Zara, the goth chick who adores Jeffery; Mr. Hadden the bumbling teacher/principal; Dillon, the poor jock kid; Kelly, the cheerleader; Monster, the incredibly annoying, incredibly white guy who is really nerdy and acts like a gangsta; some black kid; and a slew of other not noteworthy teenagers. Basically everyone listed follows their respective stereotypes to a T, and don't need to describe any of them further.

Anyway, they are all in a class where they make documentaries, and they watch the Goth-Kids. Surprise, surprise, his film is a fake snuff film, portraying someone else in the class (kelly?...) Everyone gets upset, there's yelling and fighting, and the goth kid says a barrage of random trash. Honestly, every time this kid opened his mouth, I wanted to vomit, just for an excuse to leave the room.

So they decide that hes probably insane, and he tries to fight people. For some reason, it cuts to a party scene at the professors house and Jeffery says something ridiculous, pushes a girl into the pool, then David fights with him for a while, i had a hernia, and then Jeffery drives off in a fury, David follows him, and Jeffery ends up dying.

Some people hold séances, and some ravens fly around, Jeff comes back from the grave and makes people die, and a detective shows up and shoves his fist up other peoples ...

Our detective is so oblivious to the world around him, that I think he would improve his record by choosing suspects out of a hat. For instance, when the coach dies (which is cool by the way because the coach is an ass clown), the killer tapes up a picture of Mr. Hadden. Guess who Detective Dimwit brings in the next day? yeah... the logical choice, Mr. Hadden. I always thought leaving pictures of yourself at the scene of the crime was a very good idea, like a calling card. I know I do it whenever I kill someone.

Anyway, there are some very good one-liners in this film, and they really make the movie. As per usual with most b flicks. Listen to Monsters talk about PMS and pretty much everything Jeffery says closely. The very best part of this movie was when I remembered that I had some juice in the fridge and I went up and got it. Apparently i missed something boring, and I had juice for a while. Tres Sweet.

Also noteworthy is that the actor who portrayed Dr. Boon, Lisa Ann Hadley, was also a character in Infested, which is a great bad flick about bug-spray and bad relationships. Watch it tonight.


Stephen Cannell?! The man behind the A-Team? And my favorites "Rip Tide" and "Wiseguy"? This... TURKEY... is an example of what the poorest written low-budget horror film would look like. I mean, a team of monkeys could do better than this.

I've seen many, many horror flicks, and this rates so far down there. It's completely unwatchable. I mean, there's no payoff anywhere. It's an insult to view. Even worse that George Lucas was drawn into this for no reason. Worse, the acting, characters, story, dialog, plot, and everything else just suck, suck, suck.

On the positive side, if you're looking to make a horror film yourself, view this film to see how NOT to do it. If you have an idea that's even a little better than this one, you can be one- up on Cannell himself. Speaking of which, WHY was he even in this film? He looked like this old dude in a film that presents a plot SO implausible... it's an insult. To whit: the coach gets fired, yet hangs around the parking lot to harass a teacher (Cannell), and he doesn't do anything about it. The best part of the film is Sabato, Jr, though you have to wonder why he had anything to do with this piece of detritus.

The original title was "Director's Cut", and according to Cannell's website the movie would allow them to "experiment with new narrative ideas, visual styles and different approaches to editing". Also on the website "We were really stepping out," said Bowman. "So we needed to keep absolute creative control." Uh, yeah. Just promise me never, EVER do it again.


While this film fails to capture the aura of a big-budgit film, it succeeds in finding that of a B-movie. Yes the film's plot is kinda cheesy and the acting's inadvertently funny, but it has the strange attraction one might have for an Ed Wood film or any other kind of corny "horror" film.

The story was also a but clichéd and there was one rather misplaced hot scene.

It's like a tabloid story, you don't wanna look, but something pulls you to do so anyway.

All in all "Dead Above Ground" isn't perfect, but I kinda enjoyed it anyway.


anyone know the name of the beginning song? LoL movie not that good tho anyway this movie sucked big time. waste of money. don't buy this movie. it sucks. not very good Jeff Lucas comes back from the dead and murders people he dies at end. not wot worth the money. anyone know begging song name? i thought Halloween was better. i think some the actors was high when making this movie. very dumb movie. so does anyone know the theme song name? i been looking for the soundtrack but cant find it. I know this is a straight to video release. It also has some familiar faces in it. But it's horrible. A goth kid makes a crappy 5 minute movie that everyone laughs at so he goes nuts. He gets into a beef with a jock and takes off in his car being chased by the jock. Eventually goth kid drives over a cliff. One year later, the teachers and students who mocked him start dying, each one leaving a clue as to who will die next. Now, forget you read all that because you are never going to want to sit through this horrible movie. Now anyone who has the name to the beginning theme email me @ crazyjames99@hotmail.com


Now, I can understand very well why many people would hate this movie. All of the characters either fell face first into their stereotypes or were unrealistic beyond belief. If you go to watch it with no expectations of a great movie, you'll love it.

I personally feel that Josh Hammond would make a really good stage actor, or someone in the live performing arts. As he ranted on in these pointless monologues, a flicker of a true actor popped up every now and then (granted, probably on accident.) Jeff Lucas was the ultimate goth. Hateful, twisted, weird, black clothing, black make up. He even has a black cloak that he wears. To pool parties.

Zara Light, his minion, does not seem to be an important character at first. But she soon emerges as the leader of the gang. The gang is also a stereotypical gang: Even number of boys and girls who are dating each other. The black guy talks with "the most ghetto", the jock is the most hot headed, and his blonde girlfriend is the stupidest.

How does Zara lead this gang? Well, seeing as Jeff Lucas acted like he was possessed - she lead with séances, of course.

Slasher-film wise, it was indeed a slasher flick. I mean, guy in cloak popped up three or so times and killed people with this (incredibly fake) ax. In fact, there was more ax-wielding in the opening credits then anything else.

The worst part was the end. I will never understand why two people must physically try to beat each other up when one is a cop (with a gun) and the other has a big ax. Oh wait, that'd just be too easy.


Not as terrible as people say... ...but it's still very bad. I liked the idea of the invocation which added some supernatural and demonic tone to the movie but then the movie soon starts to fall to the typical "revenge of the geek" slasher flick. The make-up of the killer was pretty good (kind of a poor Crospy imitation) and that's the best thing about the movie overall.

The death scenes are very poor (little gore, chills) and that's a shame because some of them had potential. This is your typical direct to video slasher flick but it's worth take a look ONLY for gorehounds of the genre.

I'm in a good mood so that's why I'm not going to get into detail about it's flaws (oh, there are MANY).

Something I noticed. There weren't THAT many hot girls. I mean, sexy women and sex in a slasher flick is ncessary! and there's only one LAME sex scene and no sexy women to get your attention. Now I'm in a bad mood.


This movie was wonderful a film created by the masters. There's this Gothic kid in school and he goes crazy because of the fact the teacher didn't like the fact that the kid made a horror flick instead of what he was told to do. Next he goes to a pool party and gets in a fight with a jock then slaps a girl across the face. He rams the Jocks' car and they go into pursuit of each other. The Jock runs the Goth off the road and kills the Goth...or so he thinks. That's when the killing begins. Jeffory (the goth kid) disguises himself as a hot jock to get accepted into school and goes by the name of Chip. Nobody expects it to be "Chip" but they don't realize it is until later...


I would love to know how to get a copy of the end credit song "Death Above Ground" by Scott Trammell. I believe the movie was typical yet good. I have read the other posts and say they concentrate on too many things besides first person viewing. I "heard" a lot of the same comments when "Evil Dead" first hit the scene, but they were smaller in volume due to the inability of a--holes to be able to post their remarks everywhere! Oh ell, to each their own. Most people here are probably renters who have seen the screener and like nothing more than to post their ridiculous views based on their unintentional love of the mass populous favorings. But that is just their way of saying hey, I have become a sheep.


Note to Stephen Cannell: please, just stop. Even when you were at the top of your game, doing things like 21 Jump Street, no one would have called you a genius. And now, you've slipped down the ladder, Stephen. If this is the best thing you can come up with, I would suggest a career change.

This movie is all about an aging Hollywood Screenwriter and his daughter. It features all the typical stereotypes, a Director who is sleeping with a Bimbo Starlet, the Kid From the Wrong Side of Town who wants to date the Screenwriter's daughter. It's like a really bad combination of "Pretty in Pink" and "The Player", trying to be a horror movie.

The concept and the writing are just plain dead. It makes you wonder, when Stephen Cannell came up with the title "Dead Above Ground", was he describing himself?


Nothing to say but avoid. This has to be one of the worst, if not THE worst, movies I have ever seen. It is boring, predictable and just plain stupid. It is unintentionally more funny than scary and obviously the makers of this pathetic waste of film thought we'd all enjoy a typical, yet much more awful, teen slasher flick. What do they take us for? I'm surprised this movie even made it on to DVD. There are so many more enjoyable movies than this out there, please don't waste your time on this, you'll regret it afterwards. Not even my 8 year old sister was scared of this movie and by the end we were all just laughing at how physically painful this movie was in terms of horror, suspense, and overall, a decent plot.


Yeah, the movie stinks. Yeah the plot (such as it is) is a waste of time and the 'characters' act incredibly stupidly and obliviously, but "the only known face..." What are you talking about?

Anyone who doesn't know Corbin Bernsen, Stephen J Cannell and Robert Conrad really doesn't have any business judging a B Movie!

Heck, half the fun in films like this is watching "big" names embarrass themselves!

In short, don't go for the film - go for the joy of watching semi-respectable actors struggle to extend their already far-too-long careers!


I like horror movies. Guess what, this wasn't one. Bad acting, bad plot, bad everything. Do not rent this movie. Trust me. Bad make up, bad hair bad bad bad. The only good thing about it was some of its truths about paganism, but other than that. The only reason why I picked it up in the first place was because of its cover. Ten minutes into the movie you could already see where it was going. (MINOR SPOILER)**** The ending,(which I'm surprised I stayed awake to see) was unpredictable and just plain stupid. Sorry, but that's the truth. Again don't get this movie.


Positively one of the worst horror movies ever. Bad script, acting, music... you name it, they've got it.

Other bad horror movies are in the least funny. Sitting through this is absolutely painful. Utterly horrendous... The most HORRIBLE HORROR.

Loads of cliches and overacting. The cheap ass crap music reeks of teen movies. Romantic lines and scenes just gives me the shivers and I get goosebumps from all that corny junk.

I can't stand that idiot cop as well.

YUCKS. AVOID THIS MOVIE.


I just saw this film on DVD and I really don't know WHY I rented it. It's one of the worst films I ever seen... However is fun to see how stupid are the characters, how bad the story is... The only known face is Antonio Sabato Jr. (who did his hair???) and this isn't a good sign. The other male star is a young actor who worked on that wonderful series that's "Buffy" and I can't understand how he passed from a great tv-show to a pathetic straight-to-video Z-horror film like this. The worst thing is the screenplay: no one cares about the deaths that are happening in the town; there is the classical, stupid (and absolutely bad) sex sequence and the death sequences are really BAD!!!

And, of course, there is the classic final scene that makes you think there'll be a sequel...

I really hope not.


I'm currently watching this movie as I write this. There are movies worse than this, there are movies that are made worse in terms of cinematography, direction and plot. However this is still so bad it deserves a 1. Its really really stupid. Embarrassingly stupid movie. I just cannot get over the stupid goth kid they have in this movie, his career must have went far. Wow, its so bad its hard to watch.

The blood in this movie is really stupid fake blood, really stupid looking, just like all the actors. Whoever was responsible for the wardrobe in this movie was also an idiot. Of course all the actors in this 'film' did their best to have really stupid expressions the entire time. They did a marvelous job of being terrible actors. Of course Keri Lynn Pratt and bad to look at, I'd like to give her somethin, but thats beside the point, this movie sucks. Like titanic, Titanic sucked too.


The film is entirely about sexual perversions, even though it is not technically erotic Allen has taken some of the most popular clinical treatments of sexual fetishes and has placed them into very unusual situations

Gene Wilder, for example, falls in love with a sheep; Woody Allen plays a medieval court jester who gets his lance stuck in his lady's chastity belt while the king is off fighting in the Crusades; a giant breast is released upon the countryside; an Italian couple can only find happiness in public sex; and we are taken into the inner labors of a male human body as it tries to seduce a woman in a car

Each individual scene is quite well done The tales are rapid filled with irony about the overly exaggerated importance of sex in our culture


An uneven early work of Allen's, really just a series of sketches tied around the unbelievable popularity of the "sex" book "Everything You Wantedto Know About Sex, But Was Afraid To Ask" which in the early 1970's was THE book in popular culture. Many of the sketches are too long and "peter" out, but ALL of them have very funny jokes and insight, but two of the sketches are classics and are as funny as anything Allen ever wrote: Gene Wilder's bit where he plays a man who is destroyed after a certain "fetish" is introduced into his life and the last sketch, where they show the inside controls of a man's body as he gets ready to have sex with a date: Burt Reynolds and Tony Randall help run the master control room. This is brilliant and clever. Some times it's refreshing to just go back to Allen's early, silly films like Sleeper and Take The Money And Run, even though the man has gone onto important funny films with deep dramatic throughlines: Crimes & Misdemeanors, Deconstructing Harry and Husbands & Wives.


Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask is hysterical romp that makes the book look even more shameful. The sketches are hit and miss but the ones that hit are brilliant and will have you laughing long after the film has ended. For istance, the whole 2nd act with Gene Wilder having an afair with a sheep is one I won't soon forget. And the most creative of the skits is the last one where we see what happens to a man before I night of sex. Some skits will run on a bit long, such as the spoof of monster movies where a man and a woman and a man are being stalked by a huge tit. This skit is done well, but it really isn't that funny. Another one that falls flat is the third skit in which a man keeps trying to bring his wife to orgasm. This has a good opening but really just falls apart towards the end. All and all this is some great Woody Allen work and I certainly enjoyed it.


The different skits in this move, directed by the great Woody Allen, aren't all funny, but sometimes you have to go through stupid stuff to get to the funny material. The movie opens with a pretty funny skit, but after that, most of the other skits fall flat. Then the sketch with the mad scientist and the giant breast is pretty funny. But then... The last fifteen minutes of this movie are like a masterpiece of science fiction and comedy. The "What Happens During Ejaculation?" sketch is one of the best scenes in the history of film. The creativity, the actors, and the Woodster as the neurotic sperm, are great. The sperm acting like they're paratroopers preparing for battle is hilarious! The sets are spectacular and would set the ground work for the Woodster's next science fiction movie "Sleeper". I give the movie as a whole **1/2. The end of the film: ****!


Ever since the mid-70s, I have had a nostalgia for Woody Allen's early films. Everyone needs to grow, it's just that I think Woody has grown in the wrong direction. In the films that followed "Annie Hall" he seemed to be trying to be Bergman at times and Fellini at others, when I always thought he was better just being Woody. Why? Because he was funny, and this film is the funniest of them all.

This is Woody at his zaniest, his most anarchic, his most irreverent, his wildest. It is zany in the same sense that the Marx Brothers were at their height. He isn't afraid to have segments that are just plain crazy and unbelievable. I wonder if David Reuben realized that Woody was actually mocking his book when he sold the rights. A classic. 8/10


'Everything You Always To Know About Sex' is probably the last time Woody Allen really fooled about and made an ass of himself with minimal artistic pretenses, and given the mediocre quality of recent disposable duds like 'Melinda & Melinda' and 'Anything Else', it's quite refreshing. True, this 1972 collection of extremely lewd skits isn't quite as impressive and thought-provoking as some of Allen's best works, like 'Annie Hall', 'Manhattan' or for that matter even the follow-up 'Sleeper'; yet there's an energy to 'Everything You Always Wanted To Know' that Allen has not shown for at least a decade, and in that light it's still entirely classic.

If anything, the film is closest in its spirit to early Allen films like 'Bananas' and 'Sleeper', but it actually feels more like a British comedy, and is clearly influenced by shows like 'Monty Python's Flying Circus' and 'The Benny Hill Show', in it's chaotic and rude humor. Still, Allen's mark is all over the skits, even when he isn't in them. One of the best of the bunch, in fact, is the skit titled 'What Is Sodomy', which stars Gene Wilder. Influences of both Monty Python and Mel Brooks can be felt in it, but it's entirely Allen; and still, it's Wilder that makes it perfect. Even more Pythonish is the fabricated game-show 'What's Your Perversion'.

The best and most memorable is the last skit, entitled 'What Happens During Ejaculation', in which Allen does a wonderful portrayal of a sperm, and we catch a glimpse of the action in the control room of a man's body during sexual intercourse. The skit is brilliantly satirical and ranks with Allen's best moments, nearly overshadowing the rest of the film. Still, it's not without it's unforgettable moments; other than Wilder, also worthy of special praise is John Carradine who is wonderful as the ultimate parody of a mad scientist, and let's not forget Woody Allen as a fool in the Middle Ages misquoting Hamlet and getting his hand stuck up the Queen's chastity belt, and his wonderful performance as an Italian Casanova.

So no, it's not quite one of Allen's best films, but it's close. The humor is dirty, yes, but not childish; Allen's intelligence is there, but it's much lighter than 'Annie Hall' or other classics, and like a Monty Python or a Mel Brooks it bears multiple viewings. A movie that's funny as hell, essential for Allen fans, and recommended for all.


This is the sort of film that only Woody Allen (in the 70's) could do. It is all surprisingly classy for a sex comedy, and has many brilliant sketches. There is one part of the film where Gene Wilder plays a doctor who falls in love with a sheep that has to be seen to believed.

Certain parts of the film might be considered to be in extremely bad taste. Case in point is the TV show, "What's Your Perversion?", where a Rabbi has a fantasy to be tied up in silk, get whipped, and have his wife kneel at his feet eating pork. All at the same time! Not to say the film isn't funny. In fact, it's one of the funniest I've seen in a long time. Of course, the best part of the film is the well-known "What Happens During Ejaculation?" sketch, where we get to see the inner workings of a man's body during intercourse.

Throughout the course of the film there are many great supporting roles, such as John Carradine as a Frankenstein-esquire doctor, Tony Randall as the "Operator", and the aforementioned Gene Wilder.

Recommended (But not for your parents).

7.6 out of 10


What I remember most about this movie is that the whole family watched it and laughed their brains out. Oh come on now, you know that can't happen, but why not have a killer boob running the country or men fighting over sheep. Or what about that woman who can only be satisfied in strange places. If you have ever read the book, you know there is no correlation to this movie. Wonderful comedy that oozes the stupid stuff that makes old Woody Allen movies so hilarious. And then of course there is Tony Randall and the whole brain scene. So is there anything to that remark about girls from New York? Oh well, I'll have to add this movie to my collection so that I can chuckle every time I think of a killer boob.


This is a wildly hilarious comedy about sex and nothing less. One of the very under rated skits is Gene Wilder's love affair with a lamb. Of course, the one that can't be missed is the all famous medievil one with the fool. It has some very low points, (let's face it, the giant tit was awful), but overall a ten! Most people think that this movie appeals to guys, but I'm a girl and this is one of my favourite of Woody's films. If you're anxious about talking about sex, or highly religious perhaps this movie will not strike your fancy. However, if you like romance stories, alot of shagging from different points of the world, and above all, Woody himself then this is your movie! ****/****


The title comes from a silly sex book that came out in the early 1970s and was a big hit. Read today the book is hilariously naive and full of misinformation. Anyway, Woody Allen took some chapters from the book and came up with seven skits. The quality ranges from horrible to hilarious.

In the first Allen plays a court jester who uses an aphrodisiac to seduce a queen (Lynn Redgrave). Unfortunately she has a chastity belt on! Very funny and we else can you see Redgrave wearing a chastity belt? The second has Gene Wilder as a doctor falling in love with a sheep! Don't worry--it's not explicit. It's OK. The third is a funny parody of foreign films (complete with subtitles) where Allen has trouble getting his wife (Louise Lasser) to orgasm. Good idea but it has no ending. The fourth is easily the weakest--it has Lou Jacobi who loves to wear womens clothes. The fifth is a parody of the old TV game show "What's My Line". It's shot in b&w and is called "What's My Perversion". It has a very young Regis Philbin in the cast! The sixth has John Carradine as a mad scientist (what else?) who accidentally invents a giant breast that roams the countryside drowning people with milk! The last is the best--it shows what happens in a man's body during sex. It has Tony Randall and Burt Reynolds in the mind and Allen playing a nervous sperm!

Tasteless to be sure but even the bad skits have some great lines. The content isn't THAT bad--except for the breast there is no nudity but there is a lot of frank sexual talk. If you can deal with sex and laugh at it you might like this movie. Otherwise stay away. I give it a 7.


Well, it's quite interesting to watch this classic. The title of the film itself really catchy. Every segments of the film is "different", although it's related on sex issue. It's like been done by several directors. Here in "Do Some Women Have Trouble Reaching Orgasm?" segment you can see Allen doing homage to Antonioni and Fellini. The scene of giant boob in "Are the Findings of Doctors and Clinics Who Do Sexual Research Accurate?" is so wacky. The only Allen's movie that depicting clearly and hugely female breast and it's tits. Fall in love with a sheep? That's lunatic! You can see it on "What is Sodomy?" segment. The 'What Happens During Ejaculation?' segment is the finest and the climax. It tells that even a single sperm have consciousness to afraid being ejaculated. Although the story is not from Allen, it's Allen's movie with his wildest imagination.It's his real breakthrough.


Taking some chapter headings from the book by David Reubens, this is a lighthearted and often hilarious look at some aspects of the world's favourite hobby. Once again, Woody Allen directs, writes and stars (though not in every section).

Not for the easily offended, this may seem tame by modern standards but it's still quite enjoyably racy adult comedy. We get such varied sketches (and they ARE sketches in feel and structure, for my money) as a court jester trying to seduce a queen and being hampered by a chastity belt, a doctor (Gene Wilder, in top form) falling for a sheep, an amorous Italian couple who find that the woman can only be sexually satisfied . . . in certain conditions, a middle-aged transvestite taking quite a risk, a panel show asking the panel to guess someone's perversion, a hilarious mad scientist skit (featuring the great John Carradine) and the workings of a sexual encounter from inside the body.

Where else could you see a man being chased by a 40000X lone breast? Where else would you laugh at Gene Wilder's growing affection for lambswool sweaters? Indeed, what other movie features a rabbi being lightly flogged and scolded while his wife sits by his feet and eats pork? It's a movie full of unique, bizarre moments but it's also full of some more great zingers in the script department too.

Some people complain that the movie is inconsistent and too patchy. On the contrary, I personally find it consistently hilarious (even the untranslated Italian sketch is great to view as a homage to that style of film-making) and think it deserves to be rated as highly as Allen's other comedies from this era. And hey, it has Burt Reynolds in there for no real reason . . . . . . but you get to smile and think "ha, there's Burt Reynolds".

See this if you like: Sleeper, Bananas, Take The Money And Run.


If there were any filmmaker to make an introspective film about sex, one would be hard pressed to find a more promising candidate than Woody Allen. After touching upon sexual habits and practices in just about every one of his early films, the prospect of an entire template bared for Allen to strictly explore the act of sex and sexuality in general for the course of a film was ripe with possibility. Unfortunately, it appears such was never Allen's intention, as he delivers one of his least complex films, eschewing his trademark psychological character analysis and musings in favour of a series of patchy, often single joke gags pertaining to various unconnected sexual issues and situations. While this atypical effort is hardly a poor result, Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex *But Were Afraid to Ask does fall short of its potential, the daring, challenging and hilarious cinematic exploration which might have been instead culminating as enjoyable, cute, and often very funny, but never fully satisfying throughout.

It becomes clear that Allen seized the concept of the novel as a loose framework to string together a series of punchlines, making the overall feel of the film appear overly patchy to properly gel together, even for a series of unrelated short narratives. Such a lack of cohesion would be more forgivable were the skits themselves not so hit and miss in terms of quality. There is no question that when funny the film is at Allen's most memorably zany and inspired: his homage to Italian film-making, dealing with exhibitionism is hilarious and effortlessly stylish, a send up of campy science fiction showing a giant breast rampaging the countryside is gleefully hysterical madness, and his legendary final sketch, detailing the inner workings of the brain and sperm during sexual intercourse is a masterpiece of comedic cunning and genius. However, these sketches would be far more enjoyable were they not punctuated with just as many comedic duds: many, such as the opening, with Allen's medieval 'fool' attempting to seduce a queen and the 'What's My Perversion?' game show, though brilliant premises, are far too drawn out, mirthless and shockingly unfunny.

It is disconcerting to see such amateurish storytelling coupled with the sporadic comedic genius, giving the impression of the shorts being shot over a period of several years with Allen cinematically maturing in the process. As this was not the case, the film as a whole suggests a disconcerting lapse in the shrewd cinematic awareness which subsequently defined Allen as a filmmaker. This fluctuating quality makes Allen's touching upon sensitive subject matter a precarious matter: one skit, dealing with the thrill of cross-dressing, ends with it being classified as a serious mental illness in a fashion likely intended to be satirical, but in the absence of quality screen writing, the moral stance of the piece becomes uncomfortably questionable. This may expose the crux of the film's problem - given that Allen's comedic strength generally lies in his witty, perceptive dialogue, the severe lapse of confident screen writing may explain the film's inability, even during its most classic sequences, to truly satisfy. Nonetheless, it remains a testament to Allen as a director that even with such a potentially disastrous cinematic undertaking, even when severely flawed, such a daring undertaking remains irrepressibly enjoyable and memorable - it is just a shame that enjoyable is as far as the film reaches, considering the comedic depth and psychological resonance a more confident, present Allen could have mined from the subject matter.

Performing his four roles, Woody Allen himself demonstrates his greater confidence as a performer than filmmaker in his early days, each character (from aroused jester to wary Italian to nerdy sci-fi hero to neurotic sperm) being charming and irreverently clever enough to instil enjoyment into even the shoddiest sketches. While the rest of the cast deliver enjoyable performances, they fail to ignite with the awareness and comedic confidence present in most of Allen's other works. The main standout is an outrageously tender and absorbing performance by Gene Wilder, as a good hearted doctor who happens to fall in love with a sheep. This sodomy sequence could have failed miserably, were it not for the complete conviction and commitment Wilder devotes to the role, having the good sense to play it straight rather than overly goofy, and in the process, capturing the viewer's sympathies and hearts with his earnest, idealistic eyes to an almost alarming degree. Apart from these two, Lynn Redgrave delivers pseudo-medieval babble warmly and charmingly as a subtly seduced Queen, John Carradine masticates scenery viciously as a crazed mad scientist, and Lou Jacobi is delightfully trod upon during the cross dressing skit, but otherwise few memorable performances emerge.

Despite the potential inherent in the film's premise, Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex *But Were Afraid to Ask restricts its aims to entertaining and playing mildly upon public perceptions of various sexual practices and situations, offering little in the way of complexity or resonance. While the film can hardly be faulted for attempting to entertain, there is a constant sense of "what it" which plagues the film, the lack of Allen's usual neat coherence and introspective overtones stunting even the most uproariously enjoyable sections from truly hitting home.

-7/10


Gee, what a cast Woody Allen was (and still is) able to muster for his movies, even though none of them is paid blockbuster wages since Allen's movies tend to draw in a selective audience. None of his productions have performed like "The Sound of Music." Here we have too many recognizable faces to mention, but Burt Reynolds, Tony Randall, Lou Jacobi, and Gene Wilder were at the zeniths of their careers in the early 70s.

It's an episodic movie, and each episode has its own title and is independent of the others. There are seven segments all together and their titles are as silly as the title of the book they were drawn from, David Reubin's "Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask." The best-selling book was a kind of "Sex For Dummies" and the movie dispenses with its contents entirely. Instead we get fantastic stories of Medieval Fools and giant mammae. Some of the episodes are parodies of established genres -- the horror film, the Italian sex comedy -- and one is a parody of television quiz shows.

How funny is it? There is more within-episode humor than between-episode humor. That is, some parts of each skit are more amusing than other parts, but the total number of laughs is about the same for each skit.

Some of the laughs don't require much of the viewer except a firm sense of the absurd. "Transvestitism" has Lou Jacobi trying on the dress of a woman at whose house he is a dinner guest, while Jacobi's wife and the hostess' family sit in the living room below, wondering what's taking him so long to go to the bathroom. He winds up crawling out the window and dropping to the sidewalk where his purse is stolen, passers-by stop to commiserate, and the police arrive and demand to know what happened. It's funny as hell to see a fat, bald, mustachioed guy like Jacobi prancing around in ladies' gear but it isn't challenging.

Other gags, mostly buried in the dialog, demand a little more attention. In the Medieval sketch, Allen manages to introduce a parody (within a parody) of Hamlet's encounter with the ghost on the tower. Then, without any tidy explanation, he gets into Hamlet's soliloquy: "TB or not TB. That is the congestion. Consumption be done about it? Of cough, of cough." And later: "We'd better hurry up. Before you know it, the Renaissance will be here and everybody will be painting." If you don't find that worth a smile, you may be in the wrong ball park.

I usually find the Giant Tit sketch more outrageous than the others. John Carradine is the mad scientist who is conducting experiments on subjects like, oh, premature ejaculation in the hippopotamus, and transferring the brain of a lesbian into the skull of a man who works for the telephone company, and who is inventing a forty-foot diaphragm, "Population control for an entire country -- all at once!" Carradine has a hunch-backed assistant named "Igor" who hobbles around and mumbles like Quasimodo. "I gave him a four-hour orgasm," Carradine explains. "Oh, he had fun -- but he turned out like this." The giant breast is the size of a zeppelin and is mobile, traveling around the countryside killing people by squirting them with Half and Half. It's finally captured when Allen lures it into a giant brassiere.

I suspect Allen was taking advantage here -- more than he had before or since -- of the newly relaxed regulations regarding the depiction and discussion of sex and violence on the screen. It seems a little raunchy today. But it's good natured and should leave you in a better mood than you were in before you saw it.


THE PLOT: This is a very loose adaptation by Woody Allen of the famous sex manual written by David Reuben, but given a comic spin like only Allen can do.

THE POSITIVE: This was made when Allen was at his absolute peak. Nearly everything is funny and original. Some of the jokes are outrageously over the edge even for today. Some of the highlights include Gene Wilder's incredibly long reaction shot after a Shepherd informs him that he has fallen in love with one of the sheep from his flock. Another highlight includes Allen trying to fight off a giant 'monster breast' by using a Crucifix and a giant bra. Cross dresser Lou Jacobi getting caught in a women's dress while visiting a friend's house is another classic as well as 'What's My Perversion' a very brilliant and inspired send up of 'What's My Line'. Of course the best may be, should I say, the climactic sequence involving the control room of the inside of a man's brain as he goes through ejaculation.

THE NEGATIVE: The second segment entitled 'Why some Women can't have orgasms' is a misfire. The joke of having Allen and Lasser talk in only Italian with no subtitles wears pretty thin pretty quickly. The only pluses from this segment involve seeing Allen in a pair of trendy glasses as well as watching an electric dildo catch on fire.

THE LOWDOWN: This may very well be Allen's best comedy. Just about everything works and it is all laugh out loud funny. Even the few things that don't are still creative enough to get kudos.

THE RATING: 9 out of 10.


One of Allen's best in my opinion, not all laugh out loud funny, but all smirk enducingly absurd, Burt Reynolds on the inside of the body during sex is my personal favorite. There's also a fifty foot breast, and a Rabbi indulging his fetish of watching his wife eat non-kosher food, and parodies of Italian films, American sc-fi, and games which are pretty spot on.

The only slight mis-step in the film or at least something I've always wondered about the "What Is Sodomy?" section? Because in this film Sodomy is synonymous with Beastiality and either Allen is telling some kind of joke about how people know nothing about sodomy and incorrectly identify it, or somebody needs to buy him an anatomy book...actually the scene in question with Gene Wilder (that's Willy Wonka to most) and the sheep he's come to love is priceless. One of Allens best comedies, a minor classic.


I especially like the gag at the end of the segment with Gene Wilder, the doctor who has an affair with a sheep. He's shown on skid row, drinking Woolite from a brown paper bag.

Also Carradine's mad scientist who brags that he was the first to discover the correlation between masturbation and political careers (how true)!

And Woody as a court jester-as-stand-up-comic: "It's great to be back here at the Palace."

Not one of Allen's best, but it has its worthwhile moments once you get past the concept.


This is a pretty crazy comedy, divided in 7 segments, all concentrating on different aspects of sex. It's a completely silly, over-the-top done comedy, made in about the same comical style as the early Mel Brooks films. This means that the movie is filled with some crazy characters, hilarious crazy situations and fast jokes, also with its dialog. It's perhaps Allen's most comedy like comedy.

The title might make the movie sound as if it has some educational value but let me tell you, it has none. The situations and characters as portrayed in this movie are way over-the-top for that and basically the only thing the movie offers is some fun entertainment. For instance, one segment is about a giant breast that's on the loose and on a killing spree. Another segment is about a doctor who falls in love with a sheep. This sort of tells you how this movie is like.

Because the movie is divided in 7 totally different segments, the movie has both some great moments and just not as great moments. But anyway, none of the segments are long enough to make you go bored or loose interest just because you don't like one of the segments. And besides, every segments has its fun and at times completely hilarious moments in it to really make you laugh.

Most of the movie is done in one and the same style but some of the segments really differ from the others, such as the Italian segment called 'Do Some Women Have Trouble Reaching Orgasm?'. This perhaps doesn't really make "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask" one of the most consistent movies ever made but I for one don't really mind that all segments differ somewhat from each other. As a matter of fact, while watching this movie I was wondering if the movie wouldn't actually had been an even better one if each segment was being directed by a totally different director, each with their own personal style and approach.

Lot of fine actors show up in this movie. Allen himself plays 4 different roles in 4 of the segments and not always in the lead role. He however lets others play the main role in the others, which works out fine. I think it would had made the movie all the more incoherent when Allen would had played the main lead in all of the different segments. Other actors that really draw your attention in this movie, also because you just don't expect them to see in this movie and in the roles they play (such as Burt Reynolds) are Gene Wilder as the doctor who falls for a sheep and also John Carradine in a crazy scientist role, also no doubt as a fun homage to his horror movies past, from mostly the '40's.

A movie you just have to enjoy.

8/10


Though it is all about sex, Woody Allen's EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX* (BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK) is really all about movies. Taking Dr. David Reuben's book, a pop culture phenomenon of the late 1960s, Woody uses it only as a starting point for indulging in his second greatest passion, film-making. Indeed, he tosses aside most of Reuben's self-help, non-fiction sex manual and only quotes chapter titles as inspiration for his various vignettes, each designed to parody some aspect of our pop media. What the book and the movie do have in common however is that they are products of their time (post-sexual revolution, pre-politically correctness) and as such their outlook on their common topic is a bit dated.

SEX, the movie, is best thought of as being seven individual short films; a few that are hilarious or at least clever, and a couple that just fall flat. The ones that stray most from the movies as their source come off worse. For instance, "Are Transvestites Homosexuals?" is second rate sitcom: Middle-aged man is caught trying on dresses while visiting his daughter's new in-laws. It is a one-gag skit, though burly Lou Jacobi makes the most of the material as the giddy crossdressing poppa. Meanwhile, "What Are Sex Perverts?" begins with a clever concept, but is defeated by its own awkward attempts to be outrageous. Staged as a 1950's TV game show -- grainy, black-and-white images and all -- "What's My Perversion?" looks authentic, but tries to trivialize sexual deviancy for dubious comic effect. Scattered throughout Woody's filmography are tossed-off asides trying to find snickers in wisecracks about rape or child molestation or incest and other sundry unfunny sexual tragedies, and invariably such unnecessary pseudo-ad libs land with a resounding thud. "What's My Perversion?" is made up mostly of such discomforting quips and builds to a joke about a rabbi getting off by watching his wife eat pork. I think Woody is the only person who ever finds such cheap jabs at rabbis even remotely funny.

Fortunately, the rest of he skits come off much, much better. The vignette "Do Aphrodisiacs Work?" makes fun of Shakesperean dramas and other similar costume epics; while simultaneously paying homage to one of Woody's screen idols, Bob Hope. Like Hope, Woody contributes wisecracking anachronistic one-liners as a lustful Court Jester with the hots for his Queen. The bit isn't well written with Woody relying far too heavily on intentionally awful puns, but playing Allen's low camp humor about chastity belts off the high-toned pomposity of Elizabethan drama somehow makes it work decently.

The two best vignettes also work well because Woody plays them close to the style of their inspirations. "Are the Findings of Doctors and Clinics Who Do Sexual Research Accurate?" mimics cheesy, grade-D, drive-in horror movies of the sixties with mad scientist John Carridine hamming it up gleefully in a calculated self-parody. The absurd premise involving a giant mutant female breast terrorizing the countryside ("The cream slowed him up and the milk killed him!") builds to the most awesomely silly climax in any Woody Allen movie. The segment is topped however by "What Happens During Ejaculation?" which takes the phrase "mechanical sex" to its most logical extreme. The segment mimics the Kubrickian coldness of contemporary sci-fi, portraying the male human body as a giant, and not-particularly-coordinated, space station on a carnal mission to boldly go where other men have apparently come and gone before. With Woody taking a small role (literally) as an anxious sperm awaiting for his first and only mission, the segment is silly, yet true enough to almost be worthy of inclusion in a basic biology class.

Yet, from a somewhat a different perspective the remaining episodes might be the most intriguing. They are "What is Sodomy?" and "Do Some Women Have Trouble Reaching Orgasm?"; the former being about a doctor (Gene Wilder) who has an affair with a sheep and the latter about a woman (Louise Lasser) who is aroused by sex in public places. Both are amusing in their own right, but the added consideration is that Woody uses them to parody the types of films he would soon eagerly try to imitate. "Sodomy," though hilarious in its deadpan way, is not all that different in stilted tone or pretentious theme from Allen's later efforts like INTERIORS, ANOTHER WOMAN or HUSBANDS AND WIVES. And as such, the aloof ennui that he mimics from Bergman and Antonioni for "Orgasm" would reappear with deadly earnest in those same films. It is curious that Woody would eventually embrace stylistics that he had first found so easy to ridicule. Maybe that is why he so ardently avoided any trace of humor in those later films, he realized just how easily they can lapse into self-parody.

With its leering, bawdy approach to sex, the film reflects little of Reuben's glib, simplistic text and instead has more in common with the pseudo-sophisticated raunchiness of the "Playboy" magazine of the era. Yet in its juvenile way, there is something almost innocently naughty about the movie that makes it almost quaint -- especially when compared to today's standards of vulgarity. As such EVERYTHING YOU HAVE ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX* is something of a period piece, reflecting a time when being outrageously tasteless was something unique and not something tiresomely routine.


As far as Woody Allen goes, I would have to say that this is his most impressive film that I have seen. Allen wrote, directed and stars in the hilarious film, answering different questions asked about sex. It jumps from one strange bit to the next, including things such as, a doctor who has sex with a sheep, newly weds with bedroom problems, a transvestite caught in public, a game show satire called "What's My Perversion" (ironically featuring a younger Regis Philbin), and the funniest being a mad scientist whose breast implant experiment breaks loose and a giant silicone filled tit roams the countryside, eventually being caught in a huge bra. Classic stuff here, well worth checking out.


Just before Woody Allen began his march towards huge critical acclaim with Annie Hall and a definite move towards more serious work he put out this. It is a greatly interesting film as it challenges very interesting sexual boundaries in an irreverent manner without ever feeling too outrageous. The only one criticism I could having is that it is slightly uneven in choosing to display 7 different sketches answering seven different queries about sex as sometimes this feel as though the flow of the film is lost. However it is full of laugh out loud moments, especially What is Sodomy and the second last sketch, and stand out performances from Woody Allen, Mia Farrow, Gene Wilder and John Carradine. The other impressive factor about this film is that it still has a capability to be pretty close to the bone despite being over thirty years old despite not being anywhere as near explicit as predecessors which have covered sex during the following thirty years. Highly Recommended.


I sneaked into this R rated film when I was 13 thinking this film was something it was not. However I was rewarded with a truly funny film! At that time I got most of the jokes. In all that year I probably saw the film 10 times. We had a book of passes to the theater and were such fixtures we could get into any film, sans parent.

I just watched it again on Encore. This was the first time I have seen it since I was 13 and I am amazed at how well the film still holds up. It was also amazing to see the amount of talent Allen had to work with in the film. Such as Burt Reynolds, John Carridadine, Gene Wilder, Tony Randall and the always great Louise Lasser. You can also see how some of the skits inspired Saturday Night Live which was to come years later.

If you watch the film, and you should, you will be amazed at the look of the film. It looks as thought it was made much later than 72 but I guess Allen was ahead of his time. It may also amaze some people that Allen was actually funny at one time. With this film coming at the time of Bananas and Sleeper one could not ask for a better time for Allen to make this film. It also makes you think about Allen and his foster step daughter in the context of this film.

Do yourself a favor and rent Bananas, Sleeper and this film. Catch Woody when he was funny. His one liners in this film are worth the rental price alone.


Four episodes out of the seven in this collections of skits stand out for me: Lynn Redgrave as a horny Queen with a chastity belt, and Woody Allen as the Fool trying to remove it; Gene Wilder and his affair with a sheep; the 'What's My Perversion?' TV programme; and, best of all, the final sketch where Woody is a sperm about to be fired into a woman on a first date. Space age copulation with a control room and everything.

Overall it is a funny film, but lots of it misses the mark and hasn't held up well over the years. It is less cerebral and more starry than many of Allen's later movies (for a start it has Burt Reynolds who was hotter than hot in 1972). It tries too hard to be clever but does manage to cover most of the fascinating spectrum of human sexuality, and to make it fun.


The multiple skits which make up this film vary in their level of humor and cleverness; however, almost all of them are at least very funny, and some are downright hilarious. While this may not be Allen's most philosophical or deep comedy, it certainly qualifies as, at least, a near-classic.


Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex is a success for Woody Allen if only for him being able to go through a whole host of satirizing that is always, if not hilarious, cleverly crafted and impeccably cast. Certain scenes I would mark as some of the funniest I've still ever seen from Woody Allen. But like a Monty Python sketch movie ala the Meaning of Life, you may or may not get all of the scenes consistently on edge and classic. But in terms of experimenting with form, it is one of the very best that Woody has come up with, at a time when he was making his "early, funny movies".

The highlights for me include the climactic (err, maybe pun intended) end sequence showing the inner workings (with Tony Randall and Burt Reynolds present in the control room) of intercourse; the faux game show involving sexual questions (and yes, that is Regis Philbin) with a truly belly-laugh of a finale involving a Jewish mother; best is the Gene Wilder sheep scene, which was my favorite when I first saw the film as a kid. Interestingly enough, even when there are segments that aren't as funny as the others (the sci-fi spoof with the giant boob, or the opening segment sent in medieval times), it does become a little more humorous in future viewings. One that really did become funnier seen in my older years is the foreign film spoof where Italian mixes with god knows what, almost dead-on spoof wise.

Is the film on the brilliance level of Manhattan or Deconstructing Harry? Maybe in spots, but on a very different level. I could almost see myself recommending the film to those who are new to the Allen filmography. It's unpretentious, and very keen on the subject matter at the peak of the sexual revolution, something that might've inspired the ZAZ team for their Kentucky Fried Movie. Or, at the least, have wondered what it's like when Wilder puts S&M garb on a sheep, it's worth a viewing (some of his dialog with the sheep is a killer every single time I see it). Cute opening titles, by the way.


How much do you know about intercourse? Well, Woody Allen's wacky masterpiece "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask" tells all. Whether it's the nerdy court jester (Allen) who wants to do it with the queen, Dr. Doug Ross (Gene Wilder) having an affair with a sheep, the most unusual game show, a man's experiences in transvestitism, the attack of the giant breast, or the epic tale of an ejaculation, the whole movie is a laugh riot. As you might imagine, there are some great lines, particularly in the medieval sequence.

One thing that I've always wondered about is what in Woody Allen's life prompted to make so many movies like this. Granted, he grew up during the sexually repressed '50s, so when sex became an acceptable topic in movies, he was ready to show it. But still, how does he come up with these sorts of things? Oh well. The point is that this is one hilarious movie.


Woody Allen's sex comedy hasn't been well received, and that's a shame because it's actually quite good; one of Woody's funniest films, in fact.

The film starts off with a segment called "Do Aphrodisiacs really work?", and it is without doubt the best segment of the film. It features Woody at his neurotic, comic best and keeps itself alive with an almost constant stream of giggles. After this, the film never reaches that high again, and some of the tales are rather hit and miss. The segment involving Gene Wilder falling in love with a sheep is one such miss - on one hand, it's surreal and the idea is sort of funny; but it's only an idea and the lack of gags means that it fails to generate any real laughs (and that's what the film is going for - laughs). There's a couple of other misses; the euro-style sex short is one (it's good in idea, but poor in execution) and similarly the game show; "What's my perversion" is surreal, and again kind of funny; but it never really goes for the money shot (another bad pun, I'm sorry) and that makes it unsatisfying on the whole. However, when it works, it really works!

As I've mentioned, the first segment is the best; but Woody's sexual take on the classic B-movies of the 50's isn't far behind at all. Imagine it; Woody Allen being chased by a giant...tit. It sounds great and it is; the scene where Woody goes into a police station to report it is hilarious. The transvestite segment borders between hit and miss, but it's a hit on the whole; it's one of those sketches that has you cringing and the only thing you can do is laugh, and it works because of that. The sketch that this film will be best remembered for is, of course, the sperm sequence, which is both hugely inventive and surreally funny. I knew of this sequence before watching the film, and I was afraid that Woody might not have been able to carry it off, but now I really don't know what I was worried about; Woody is, like in the first sequence, at his best in the scene. He plays...a sperm. His musings in this role are hilarious, in a way that only Woody can be; and overall this is one of the funniest scenes of the movie.

As I said; the sketches are hit and miss, and some of the sketches fail to penetrate, but overall this film is a big hit for me. The humour is very juvenile, and it wont appeal to some of the more mature fans of cinema; but this film should be appreciated for what it is; a real good time. Even the sketches that do miss the mark are more than funny enough to carry the film on, and this film therefore comes with a huge recommendation to anyone that enjoys this brand of silly humour.


I LOVE Woody! This movie states his great genius, his wonderful ability to play with characters, dialogues and situations. Each episode is a unique proof of genius, until the last one, which I could place at the highest steps of cinema just for the idea! A masterpiece. Maybe actors are not always particularly exciting and the directing skills are still under development, but it deserves a 10 for the pure display of genius!


This one makes you laugh even if you don't want to: hilarious from tip to toe, its segmentation works perfectly and makes us want to see more at the end. A perfect comic timing and clever jokes make this one a winner, with unbelievable performances, characters and stories. My favorites are the italian story and the episode in the inside of the human body. Truly great!


Burt Reynolds and Tony Randall in charge of the "apparatus" required to make a pass on a date, with Woody as one of a thousand soldiers make the rest of the movie worth the wait. The more times I see this, the more I also enjoy Gene Wilder's bit as an unusual doctor with an odd sense of compassion. If you like "intelligent-zany" this is for you.


A black mother worries that her light skinned daughter will have only an IMITATION OF LIFE if she continually tries to pass for white.

Let it be stated unequivocally that this is one of the most remarkable films of the 1930's - unique in that it deals squarely with aspects of the racial question decades before it became common to do so. After becoming accustomed to the casual racism of most Hollywood movies of the era, this honesty is quite astonishing.

As the black mother, Louise Beavers is heartbreaking in the simple power of her performance. Joyously serving up love & pancakes, or devastated by her daughter's rejection of their race, Miss Beavers makes her audience feel her every emotion. This was the finest role of her film career, and she makes the most of it. However, the movie over, the studio system returned her to mammy parts. This is a tremendous blot on Hollywood's record.

Beautiful Claudette Colbert is scintillating, as always. Playing a tenderhearted maple syrup saleslady who first employs Miss Beavers, and later befriends her, Miss Colbert adds a distinct touch of class to the film. But she is also sympathetic to the concerns of the story and helps to quietly push along the plea for racial equality.

Elegant actor Warren William, he of the sophisticated profile, brings his considerable talents to the role of Miss Colbert's ichthyologist boyfriend. Refreshingly, he plays a solid, decent fellow - instead of the rake or cad which he portrayed so often & so well. His involvement is a definite asset to the film.

The rest of the cast adds to the overall excellence of the production: acerbic Ned Sparks as Miss Colbert's business manager; lovely Rochelle Hudson as her ready-for-love daughter; Henry Armentta & Alan Hale as businessmen cajoled by Miss Colbert's charms; and especially Fredi Washington, memorable as Miss Beavers' daughter, a stranger inside her own skin.

Movie mavens will spot Clarence Wilson as the pancake shop's landlord, Franklin Pangborn as a party guest & Paul Porcasi as a restaurant manager, all uncredited.

IMITATION OF LIFE preached a powerful sermon on racial justice & equality, but the Hollywood congregation was not paying attention. It would be a very long time before black performers & black roles would be treated with the dignity they so desperately deserved.