As remarkably bad this film is, somehow there is a certain macabre interest in watching a film that is at such a level. Bela Lugosi is always welcome, no matter how bad the movie may be, but the Martin and Lewis ripoff act, Duke Mitchell and Sammy Petrillo, are nothing more than a glaring example of how show business devours its own. One has to sit through this travesty to believe it. Some side trivia: Martin and Lewis took Mitchell and Petrillo to court for stealing their act, but in court Mitchell stated that while Petrillo looking like Lewis was an act of God, Martin got a nose job to look more like Mitchell! And that comment ruined Dean and Jerry's case! Also, in the 1980s, when Lewis appeared on the Today show, they ran a montage of Jerry Lewis clips from The Colgate Comedy Hour, except one clip was of Sammy Petrillo and not Jerry! Lewis pointed out the error to flustered interviewer Bryant Gumbel. Jerry was not offended, though, he found the whole thing funny. "I was never that good looking," he said. Incidentally, Duke Mitchell actually appears in the Martin and Lewis feature "Sailor Beware."


Yes this movie is far short of a classic film, but that doesn't matter ITS A HOOT! There should be a new Genre of film named fun bad and this one is the poster child.

Bela was in the declining years of his career, everyone knows the story of his last days, and his performance is typical of that time period. I thought the Matin and Lewis knockoff was terrific. No one would dare do that kind of thing now. The plot is generic, but for pure fun I thought it was great. Bela Lugosi is a name that will go down in movie trivia history. How many "great" films did he make? No one has made as many bad films yet their name is immortal.


Martin Landau was correct in his assessment that this film makes Bela Lugosi's Ed Wood-directed films look like "Gone With the Wind" in comparison. Bela gets a top billing here, but in truth he merely plays second fiddle to a Martin and Lewis ripoff duo who are quite literally the two most annoying characters in all the movies ever made.

I'm not familiar with any of the Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis comedies, but after seeing this film I'm not in a hurry to acquire any of them. Duke Mitchell, the Dino-ripoff, has all the charm of a urinal in a men's public bathroom, and his singing voice is akin to that of Elvis Presley with a chest cold crooning into a cardboard toiler paper tube. His friend Sammy Petrillo makes for such bad, loud, ugly, unfunny, and downright wretched comic relief that he makes Jar Jar Binks look like Hannibal Lecter. With his hideous facial features and shrill, high-pitched caterwaul, I can't imagine why anyone would put him in a motion picture, as opposed to putting him in the woods, in an unmarked grave at midnight.

There isn't very much to say about Lugosi; he plays his mad scientist character with what appears to be a constant look of shame for being involved in such a dumb film. There are unconvincing-looking jungle natives, stock footage animals, a fat girl who keeps chasing Petrillo, et al. If you value your sanity and well-being, skip this one.


Okay, if you can look past the fact that the "comedy team" (a term used very loosely here)is just a rip off of Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis, and the fact that Lugosi is only here because he was taking any and every role he was offered at this point, it's actually almost funny on it's own, even though most of the time I laughed at the parts that weren't supposed to be funny, and groaned at the parts that were trying to be funny, but were ultimately just embarrassing. There were a few funny bits and pieces here and there...if you can forgive the duo for being carbon copies of Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis. Plus Lugosi can make anything watchable, if not respectable. Basically the story, if you can call it a story, is about the aforementioned "comedy team" crash landing on an island inhabited by mad scientist... I'm not even going to tell you who it is, it's so obvious by the title, who wants to turn a man into an ape. The characters run around like idiots for awhile, and the movie ends with a great, disappointing cop-out, presumably because the filmmakers couldn't figure out a better way to end it. It's really sad when your second best actor behind Lugosi is a monkey from the Tarzan movies named "Cheeta".


Samuel Perillo is Sammy in this movie, the skinny guy. I thought he was Jerry Lewis. I did a Google search and did not find anyone named Samuel Perillo or a picture that looked like Sammy this guy. Sammy in the movie talks, looks, laughs and dances like Jerry Lewis.

Now I can see where Sasha Cohen (Borat) gets his dance steps from. The other man Duke Mitchell sings but looks nothing like Dean Martin. When I search the net with "Duke Mitchell" the only picture that comes up is this one Bella Lugosi Meets a Brookly Gorilla and it has "Samuel" Perillo" and "Duke Mitchell". Does anyone know if Jerry Lewis ever used the name "Samuel Perillo"? This is a black and white movie 1952 That I watched for free on Classic Cinema On Line. http://www.classiccinemaonline.com/1/index.Please tell me if you know. Thanks


This movie is like Chemotherapy; it sucks the life right out of your bone marrow. It wrecks you on a cellular level and there is nothing funny about it. Imagine watching Jerry Lewis run around a jungle set with a guy in a gorilla suit, screaming and making cross-eyed faces. Now, replace Jerry Lewis with a Jerry Lewis impersonator; who is, if you can believe it, more annoying than Lewis. Bela has about 15-min of screen time, and he is entirely wooden. The Dean Martin impersontar looks and sounds nothing like Dean Martin. The most captivating performance is from a chimpanze. Honest. You don't have to do this, people. Some doors are best left unopened. ---|--- Reviews by Flak Magnet


The logo at the beginning of 1952's "Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla" reveals that this is a "Realart Picture," and while I would certainly hesitate to call this film an instance of "real art," I can now attest that it IS real fun. In it, the poor man's Martin & Lewis, Duke Mitchell and Sammy Petrillo, playing themselves, accidentally fall out of an airplane and land on the Pacific island of Cola-Cola, where they are rescued by friendly natives. The chief's daughter, Nona (played by a pretty actress called only Charlita), falls for the charms of good-looking crooner Duke, while her 200-lb. sister, Saloma (amusingly portrayed by Muriel Landers), takes a hot-blooded fancy for Sammy. Dr. Zabor, the only other "white man" on the island, and played by you know who, soon decides that Duke is the perfect test subject for his recent devolution experiments.... Anyway, I must admit how easily this silly confection went down with me. The goofball humor is so very stoopid that it strangely becomes quite funny, and it really is remarkable how much Petrillo looks and sounds like the 1950s' Jerry Lewis. (No wonder Jerry felt compelled to slap a cease-and-desist order on him!) Bela, a graduate of the Budapest Academy of Theatrical Arts, plays his role absolutely straight here and maintains his dignity; he may have been addicted to painkillers at the time, but this particular film is surprisingly painless! A twist ending at the tail end of the picture does much to mitigate some of the silliness and illogic that had come before, and even becomes very P.C. in its treatment of the overweight Saloma. Throw in a couple of nice songs, some cute antics from Ramona the Chimp (aka Cheetah), and a cool man-into-ape transformation and you've got yourself a perfectly acceptable entertainment, finely presented on this crisp-looking Image DVD. To my delighted surprise, I DO recommend this zany picture to both young and old.


Lets face it, Dean and Jerry probably considered this one for about 14.5 seconds before passing. Still, this roll of celluloid gave me a few jolts to the funny bone. The odd teaming of Lugosi and two very sub-par NY entertainers is amusing by itself. And, as the packaging claims, this movie has everything- romance, horror, humor and songs. Naturally, they don't go on to say that the QUALITY of all those things is a bit shaky. This film does go a long way toward proving that the French are actually RIGHT about Jerry Lewis, whilst offering up some of the silliest goof-ball antics and dialog I've seen in a while! But, if you come across this baby in the dollar DVD bin as I did...you won't regret buying it.


Bela Lugosi is one of my favorite Horror stars and I always watched all his films, this particular one I do not remember. However, the film was selling for one dollar on a DVD and I decided I had nothing to lose. Jerry Lewis & Dean Martin acts were copied by Duke Mitchell,"Baby Face Nelson", and Sonny Petrillo,"Shangri La",'61, they did a great job of imitating their act and the singing is better left with DEAN MARTIN. They make fun of a rather fat lady, which I thought was stupid, as well as, the entire picture. Bela Lugosi made a come back after a long period of unemployment and the use of drugs, and he was the only person with great acting abilities. Just simply have to stand up to Bela Lugosi and his life of being a TYPE CAST ACTOR !


The first time I ever heard of this title I thought it was a joke; it was in reference to a movie poster for the film. Ever since, I've been on the lookout for the movie in any form, and today was my lucky day, in a manner of speaking. Not only did I find the DVD for just a buck, but the picture quality was excellent. That's where the superlatives end however, though as other reviewers have pointed out, this one merits viewing just because it's so goofy and entertaining.

The Martin and Lewis shtick gets stood on it's ear by Duke Mitchell and Sammy Petrillo, a couple of characters I've never heard of, yet they appear here using their own names. Bela Lugosi gets to use HIS own name in the title, but portrays Dr. Zabor, a mad scientist working on experiments in evolution on the Pacific Island of Cola Cola. But the best casting decision in more ways than one was the role of Charlita as Nona, reminiscent of the part played by Zulu as Kono in the Hawaii Five-O TV Series of the late 1960's. I mean, what's the point, why not let them use their own names too.

Lest I forget to mention it, the plot (if there is one) involves the jealous Dr. Zabor injecting Duke with his monkey serum, turning him into a man in a gorilla suit. Talk about typecasting - if you needed a man in a gorilla suit in the 1940's, you called Ray "Crash" Corrigan, a veteran of a fair share of "B" Westerns who somehow wound up in such monkey shines as "The Ape" (1940), Nabonga (1944) and "The Monster and the Ape" (1945). As an ape, Corrigan is no Andy Serkis but he's fun to watch.

I guess fun is the operative word for this film. There's nothing here to be taken seriously at all, and Bela Lugosi must have known that too because he spends a good deal of time smiling broadly in the movie. For once I didn't feel victimized by the film's ending when it's revealed that the island action was all a dream. But it could after all have actually happened, since Passaic, New Jersey isn't that far from the Bronx Zoo!


Despite decent production values, this is a truly dreadful film. You know it's bad when probably the best thing about the movie is its direction--considering it was done by William "One Shot" Beaudine--a director famous for never doing retakes even when a cameraman or microphone is clearly visible in the scene!! The film stinks for two major reasons--the story idea is so ludicrously stupid and the stars of the film are among the least talented and annoying in film history. As for the story, it's best summed up by just reading the title! However, I'll explain a little more of the basic plot: Two total morons parachute onto a Pacific island inhabited by a very, very strange tribe. While the tribe is very primitive, there is a mad scientist (Lugosi) working on the island with the chief's daughter as his assistant. Now the tribe still has a witch doctor AND they live in primitive huts, but somehow the girl has managed to go off to college in the US and is a lab tech!! The less annoying of the morons falls for the girl and vice-versa, but Lugosi plays an old pervert who secretly wants the girl--so he naturally turns the moron into a gorilla! Believe it or not, I am NOT making this up in the least! Now while this is all super silly and bizarre, the film is even worse than you'd expect because the actors playing the morons are, in fact, real morons--in the form of the "comedy" team of Mitchell and Petrillo. They are obviously ripping off the act of Martin and Lewis and don't even try to be original. Mitchell is a shorter knockoff of Martin and his job is to sing (rather poorly) and get the girl. Petrillo is the complete cretin whose job is to make us think that turning him into a gorilla would be a major improvement!! Sadly, though, it is Mitchell that becomes the gorilla.

Although Petrillo is made up to look almost exactly like Jerry Lewis circa 1950, his shtick is essentially to take the worst aspects of Lewis' act and beat them like a dead horse. Sure Jerry is known for his mugging and over-acting, but Petrillo does this constantly--like someone's untalented family member who insists on doing obnoxious imitations every time company arrives! Goober from The Andy Griffith show did an imitation of Cary Grant where he just yells "Judy, Judy, Judy" again and again (even though Grant never actually uttered the lines)--this is about the same quality as Petrillo's performance. In addition to his awfully nasal voice and dominance of every scene he is in (sounds like Lewis, huh?), he injects a lot of Jewish humor that Lewis rarely did on film. So, if you watch it, have your Yiddish dictionary nearby you mensch!

So why did I give this film a 2 and not less? Well, for curiosity sake and adequate production values, I was feeling charitable. This film is only for fans of bad films or for someone who insists on seeing all of Lugosi's films (including the many bad ones from late in his career). Otherwise, for your sake and those in your home, DON'T watch this film!!!! Show your family you love them and burn this DVD!!!


I gave this film a 3 only because of Bela Lugosi. If not a .07 would be about correct since there is awful and then, well there is this movie. Take a Dean Martin remove acting and singing talent then drop his IQ by about 50 points and you have Duke Mitchell. Then take a Jerry Lewis remove anything funny about him and then raise the annoying factor up about 1000% and you have Sam Petrillo. The story line is thin. These 2 maroons fall off an airplane heading to do a show for the troops in Guam. At least their luck held out, for us, well they just happen to have parachutes that work. Great. The two end up meeting the local natives and one happens to be a babe who falls for Mitchell. This makes (the only bright spot) Bela Lugosi angry since he is in love with her and so he turns Mitchell into a gorilla. (which is a vast improvement over his acting as Duke Mitchell) The problem is the real fireworks don't really start until about the last 10 to 15 minutes of the film. So you really have to endure the annoying Petrillo, and Duke singing which could bring tears to the deaf. Another bright spot happens at the end. (before the "THE END" hits the screen) and that is when Lugosi shoots Petrillo but the scene ends to quick. I was hoping Petrillo would have agonized more before dying at least 10 minutes worth of pain and suffering would have been nice. This could have allowed me time to refresh my drink, have a shot of jaegermeister, and do the lucky me dance while thinking there maybe is justice in this world. Unless you are a die hard Lugosi fan stay clear of this one.


Now and then a badly made film is so incredibly inept that it becomes hilariously funny and attains cult movie status. But for the most part, badly made films are just bad plain and simple, and BELA LUGOSI MEETS A BROOKLYN GORILLA is a case in point.

The story line is similar to the Crosby-Hope films of the 1940s. Two entertainers accidentally walk out of an airplane in flight and find themselves on a strange tropical island. How strange is it? Well, it's so strange that Bela Lugosi lives there, and he's trying to find a way to turn men into monkeys. One of the native girls is the banana of Lugosi's eye, and when she takes a fancy to one of the stranded song-and-dance men you can pretty much bet the guy is about to become a laboratory experiment.

The problem with the movie isn't so much the story as it is the actual script, which is dreadful, and the cast, which is worse. The lines are dumb rather than funny and the cast--most notably Sammy Petrillo in his tooth-gritting Jerry Lewis imitation--is abrasive rather than funny. Petrillo's partner in this crime is actor Duke Mitchell, who is equally tiresome as a low-rent imitation of Dean Martin. As for Bela Lugosi, he may get title billing, but there's not much to the role, and that may actually be for the best.

There are several DVD releases of this film, some with bonuses, some without, some good quality prints, some lousy. But to my mind it doesn't matter: no matter how you look at this thing, it's worth paying money so you DON'T have to watch it. A cult favorite? I don't know who gives it that accolade, but believe me when I say they can have it.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer


I watched this movie at a bad movie festival that included "Plan Nine from Outer Space". Plan 9 made me laugh my head off; this one caused me to look at my watch every two minutes to try to see how much longer it could possibly last. The most unfunny comedy I have ever seen; it wasn't even unintentionally funny.


Considered to be one of the best pre-war films by the acclaimed Japanese director Kenji Mizoguchi, Sisters of the Gion is a story of two sisters, both Geisha girls in the Gion section of Kyoto, who have very different attitudes toward men. Umekichi (Yoko Umemura) is traditional and loyal to her patrons while her sister Omocha (Isuzu Yamada) is a pragmatist who uses men to her advantage even if it means deception and lies. Ultimately it seems to make no difference as both girls are trapped in an existence that provides little satisfaction. Running just over an hour, this is a lovely film that presents a fascinating portrait of Japanese life before the war showing streets that look like narrow passageways, elevated tatami rooms used for drinking tea and smoking pipes, and buildings no higher than two stories.

In the film, Umekichi is devoted to a bankrupt businessman, Shimbei Furusawa (Benkei Shiganoya) who comes to live with them after an argument with his wife. Omocha is unhappy with this arrangement, telling Umekichi she should have no use for a man who doesn't support them. She convinces an antique dealer Jurakuso (Fumio Okura) to give her money to pay off Furusawa so that Jurakuso can become Umekichi's patron, but she ends up pocketing half of the money herself. On hearing that he is in love with her, Omocha persuades Kimura (Taizo Fukami), a textile clerk, to steal the company's materials to enable her sister to wear an acceptable kimono for a party of wealthy patrons.

The destiny of the two sisters reaches its inevitable conclusion when the store clerk is fired and exacts his revenge on Omocha, and when Furusawa suddenly leaves Umekichi to become a manager of a rayon company. While Mizoguchi's film is a protest against the specific conditions of women in pre-war Japan, Sisters of the Gion strikes a universal chord in its compelling depiction of the sad results of treating human beings as marketable commodities.


I won't hide this was a huge surprise for me because it is the first pre-WWII Japanese movie I ever lay eyes on. And it confirmed the fact that there is something as a Japanese school of movie-making with roots in the past. First of all Gion no shimai treats a bundle of themes in a very skilled manner and with a limited amount of time. The main theme is the conflict between two ways of seeing the world which were deep rooted in the Japan of that period, a country subject to many transformations: the fight between loyalty to traditional values and personal interests. This fight is instantiated in the conflict between two sisters, which for what I know about geisha are not actually sisters but the older one helped the younger to become herself a geisha. The older sister is loyal to a man who supported her in her youth, a shopkeeper who is now broke and helps him on account of loyalty not because there was something in it for her. The younger sister is appalled both by the man who resorts to geisha for help and by her sister's behavior, very unsound in the insecure environment of the age when geisha with no patron had a hard time. What is even more interesting than the main theme is that Mizoguchi chooses women, geisha as representative women of Japan, as main characters. He was for this matter ahead of his time, more ahead even of Kurosawa years later, the latter always unable to present a compelling woman other than with over the top acting.

The two actresses here are exceptional at conveying the drama of being trapped in a man's world where geisha are toys for men's pleasure. They are unable to change their situation not because of personal fault but because the tension between old and new, between the traditional Jpan and the emerging industrial Jpana is not something they can control. The younger sisters opposition and departure from her sister is in the end pointless because she tries to fight the war of a whole culture trying to adapt in a new world.

Many things can be seen in this little gem, from the beginning tracking shot filled with suspense to the outside takes, especially those with the city by night.


While I have of course heard the name Mizoguchi Kenji, the only films of his that I have watched are Ugetsu (1953) and The New Tale of the Heike (1955) and while I did enjoy both of them, mainly the former, for the most part I did not have a particularly strong interest in watching Mizoguchi's films because at the time I was embroiled within the filmic worlds of Kitano Takeshi, Iwai Shunji, Miike Takashi, etc. However, as time passed my interest in older Japanese films began to increase, so now I am trying to broaden my knowledge of classic Japanese films, especially those that were filmed before 1945 of which I have only seen a handful.

Mizoguchi is well known in the world of Japanese film, because he was one of the first Japanese directors to put the role of women in Japanese society on the center stage. He is often criticized by later film viewers and critics because his women, while strong, only could find true security in the world of men by adaptation to the males around them. However, of course, it should be noted that for his time the films he created were quite different than the casual fare. Like Imamura Shohei, Mizoguchi Kenji tended to make films about those in the lower strata of society and the ways in which the rich can destroy these individuals' lives.

Sisters of Gion tells the story of Umekichi and Omocha an older and younger geisha trying to make the best of their lives in a time in which the patronage of geisha is on the downswing. Gentle and kind, Umekichi takes in her lover Furusawa after his business goes bankrupt. She states that she only does so because she owes him for helping her become a full fledged geisha, but it is obvious that she loves the destitute ma. Omocha, young, better educated, and brash dislikes Furusawa because he is sponging off Umekichi and decides that she needs to be rid of him. However, her methods might lead to a bad conclusion.

A wonderful film that clocks in at a little less than seventy minutes, Sisters of Gion has a dark theme. Both Umekichi and Omocha, while being of complete different personalities, are both victims of their positions in society. Without a rich patron to depend on, their lives are quite vicarious, and as in the case of Umekichi, as the women get older their positions become even more precarious.


This film is about geishas on Kyoto, Japan, in how they live and ply their trade. Since it was made by Mr. Mizoguchi, who seemed to have a fascination with prostitutes, it is right up his alley. While good, the story did not completely grab me like some of his others, especially "Street Of Shame" and "Ugetsu". The film's success is in the message it portrays as to these ladies, that they are somewhat trapped in their existence with no way out, broke and looking for a patron to take them out of that life. However, I did not find the characters to be as developed as I would have liked, so the film loses steam, even though it is a fairly short film, much less than ninety minutes. Still worth watching, it just doesn't have the depth of some of his other films.


I don't watch a lot of movies but by accident tuned in "Love Thy Neighbour" on Sunday. Lately I end up tiring of movies and don't watch the complete show but I was pulled into the story and found it intriguing. I enjoy a good suspense but usually am freaked because they are too graphic or beyond belief...I found this story realistic and scary enough to put me on the edge of my seat without going beyond my scope of endurance. One part I found particularly unnerving was the idea that we are all looking for a secure place and that the actual threat can come right from within. I was satisfied with the resolution of the story and found the conclusion plausible and not contrived. All the plot tied together in the end. I would recommend this movie to my friends.


I had fun watching this. There were some good twists that I didn't see coming and some good suspense. While they are others out there who hate Lifetime movies, I have to say I love the majority of them (there are exceptions though). And this movie is one that I liked. If you don't like Lifetime, all you have to do is not watch it. I loved Alexandra Paul in this and Lover's Revenge and Saving Emily. I also saw that Love Thy Neighbor scored the highest approval rating in the Nielsens that they've "ever had for an Indy film." I honestly can see how people would dislike Lifetime films, but they are what they are. I am the audience they're shooting for I guess. If you're looking for an Academy Award film, you're not going to find it on Lifetime. But if you like these movie of the week popcorn movies, then I'd recommend this one as much as any other. To each is own I guess.


This was a great movie. I love movies of the week and watch them all of the time. I liked the idea of the family needing to feel safe so they move to the gated community. We all wonder what it would be like to live in that type of neighborhood. And, don't we all dread that one neighbor who just HAS to be everyone's friend?! LOL. I really enjoyed Alexandra Paul too. She always delivers a good performance. She had great chemistry with the leading man as well. I thought the female villain was SO well done. She was creepy and hilarious all at once. The actress was perfectly cast! If you are a big movie watcher like I am, you have got to see this one. It seemed to have it all. It was suspenseful, fun and the acting was also good. I wish we could see more movies like this one!


If you're a woman, if you like Lifetime movies, if you're a fan of Alexandra Paul, then you should enjoy this. It is more of mind thriller than a chase "I'm being stalked by someone" movie. I liked the exchanges between the two feuding neighbors and wonder if they needed to keep the whole robbery story going throughout. I guess it added some doubt and some twists, but I think the movie still would've played fine without it. Also, they never explained who EXACTLY killed the cat. Was it Janis or was it the coyotes? Also, was Janis dead in the end as she was put into the ambulance? I wasn't quite sure. All in and all, the movie delivers what it sets out to.


holy crap.i thought this was a great movie.it is a made for TV movie,but it is better than most TV movies,and even comparable to some theatrical releases.the premise is not new,family moves into a new community after a break-in at their old house, to start a new life.things seem great in the new community,but then things start happening.i won't say anymore except that there is a psycho stalking the family.and let me tell you,this psycho is really nuts.but what really elevates this movie is the acting.which i thought was fantastic.there's also lots of tension ans suspense to keep you unnerved.this is a very entertaining movie,deserving of a higher rating than it currently has.i've seen a few TV movies of the genre and this is one of the better 1's.my vote for 'Love Thy neighbour': 9/10


I hate to say it, but I'm a sucker for these Lifetime thrillers. This is one of those fun one's where you think you know the ending, then change your mind, then change it back, and then change it again. It's one of those one's where you just want to say, "Stop, he's going to kill you." But as I've gotten older I realize the characters on screen can't hear me lol. Alexandra Paul's in amazing shape and her villain co-star steals the show. I actually know people like the Janis character (well kind of), which makes me want to get extra locks on my doors. But the old fashioned deadbolt kind. My only complaint, why'd you have to kill the dog?


Is this a bad drama, or is this brilliant satire? Yes it was stupid, on the surface, but as I watched this and muttered about how badly they're acting, and what cheesy dialogue, it made me think of Serial Mom. Serial Mom worked because we knew what we were getting into when the film was released, but since there was no real clue in the promos, it was baffling - and I love that. The audience was being teased.

Best part of the movie - Shannon Lawson as the picture-perfect neighbor from hell - fake self-effacing humor, constant quotes, big smiles, while her daughter skulks silently in the background. We all could sense the opening ticks of a time bomb, but when Janis's ex-husband drops their daughter off at home, Janis pulls up in - WHAT ELSE - an SUV, charges at the two of them at the gate and just goes off on her poor ex, while yanking the kid and practically throwing her back in the van.

The macho soccer coach broke me up, too. The scene where he's accused of having sex with team members' moms had me rolling on the floor. Of course it's a TV-movie cliché, but it was still fun to watch, just like this whole movie is. Now, would I clamor for a Criterion Collection edition? No. I would, however, love to see the outtakes, the "making-of" footage. The cast must've had a wild time on the set.


This was shown on a premium channel, so I didn't realise it was made for TV. Even so, I like some of the movies on lifetime (Lifestyle here in UK), but this was awful. The family were so cheesy, "Love you mum" "Love you even more honey" Then after they were broken into for the second time, 10 mins later, they were at it again, "Love you mum" big cheesy smiles etc... She phones her husband, and tells him not to bother coming home. They were only broken into by a guy that wanted them dead, have a nutter living next door, who needs help? She has her teenage daughter and a cat (not for long) to look after her.

However, as a comedy, I'd give it a good 7. I might even show it to my friends next time I have them round. Could be great fun after a bottle of Vodka or 10!


So bad as good - not only the script is obvious, but the acting is not just poor, but pathetic. The worst of all is the definition of the characters: unrealistic ingenuity, affected reactions, camera forcing to watch superficial aspects, which are introduced as keys to the plot.

Can't prevent laughing when, at the end, main character says to second something like 'your daughter plays no soccer and knows no cooking'. Such offense to female intelligence defines the level of this film.

Is the film about the psychological behaviour of the second character?, about its impact on the main character?, or just a sequence of events set in order to heat for the obvious ending?

Pls, make more of these - I had a good time guessing what next would go wrong...


The acting is awkward and creepy, and not in a good way...at all. The writing, the dialogue, and the chemistry between the actors is horrible. Nothing makes sense and every close-up of an actor's expression or reaction lasts 3 or 4 seconds too long, making it seem like a Mexican Soap Opera (telenovela). Everything about the writing is unrealistic, and all of the actors involved make it that much worse with their campy interpretations of the script. Am I the only one who sees this??? To use the word cheesy to describe this Canadian disaster would be the understatement of the century. Did the director even watch the final cut before it was put on the air???


... or should I say unintentionally hilarious? Either way, this is one of the best comedies I've seen in a long time. I was laughing throughout at the antics of some of the dumbest fictional characters this side of Homer Simpson. It's just one forehead-slapping, painfully stupid scene after another as the clownish, dim-witted cardboard cutouts substituting for actual humanoid characters push, pull, and drag the "plot" to its inevitable and obvious conclusion.

If I had to describe this movie to someone, I'd call it a mutated hybrid of Fatal Attraction, Dumb and Dumber, and the Three Stooges, with a "climax" uncannily similar to the episode of Family Guy in which the whole family gets into a knock-down fistfight in the living room.

Advice to Benson family: next time you get a new pet, do the poor animal a favor and DON'T name it Fred!


I can name only a few movies that I have seen which were this bad. This movie has terrible everything: The dialog is corny and cliché', the acting is poor for the most part with a few exceptions, the cinematography is nothing to cheer about, and the plot is silly (A fat woman stalks a suburban family because her daughter didn't make the soccer team). This is so bad, it's funny to watch. If you can catch this on lifetime, I'd recommend it highly as a comedy. As for being a serious movie, I'm afraid i'll have to rate this a 2.

Don't watch this film if you are a serious movie fan and looking for an interesting and challenging storyline, or good acting. There is none to be found.

Edit: Hmmm... I think a group of people who work for lifetime must have written some phony reviews and voted all the negative ones down. Don't believe them. This is a really crappy movie.


The best of all "the gods must be crazy" movies. Chinese humor is excellent. (Note, I am not Chinese. I live in America) Vastly underrated. Perhaps, they did not show it in many American theaters because they were afraid that westerners might not be able to appreciate the movie.

Excellent acting.

Excellent script. The creators of this movie should make more similar movies.

I saw this movie a long time ago. But still remember it. It has lots of humor which does not require much thinking. Good clean fun. I do not remember any offensive content in the movie.


This is a thoroughly bizarre kung fu action vampire slapstick exploitation movie, essentially an attempt to combine the success of two films, the excellent Chinese hit Mr. Vampire and the international hit The Gods Must Be Crazy (which for reasons unknown to me, was considered "good" and "funny" upon its release in the US). They also threw in a little Bruce Lee montage at the end, no kidding, but don't worry, they worked it in tastefully-haha! The African bushman from Gods... (yes they got the actual guy) engages in amusing slapstick with a hopping vampire. All the white people are horrible, and the Taoist magician from Mr. Vampire rides an ostrich and saves the day, basically. Somehow this was all worth sitting through, if only for the sake of it being one of the strangest films ever made.


If you live in America and are a "Gods Must Be Cray" fan, you may never see this movie. Although this movie is popular on VHS and DVD in China, it is hard to view in America. First off Jamie Uys did not direct this film. Second off, in order to view this film you must purchase it on VCD. VCD is a type of DVD, but only viewable on computers and some DVD systems. Also if you buy it in English the characters have different names then in the Chinese version. It is also dubbed in English, and sounds kind of fake. But if you are a "Gods Must Be Crazy fan, then I suggest that you see this movie. If you do plan on viewing this movie, good luck finding it, you will need it.


I saw "The Aviator" a couple of days ago and while I still have Howard Hughes flying through my brain I felt the need to see again another Scorsese. I have all of his films in my collection. I closed my eyes and picked one, just like that, at random. "The Age Of Innocence" This is what happens with great artists, you can always re visit them and you'll come out of the experience with something new, something valuable. Transported by the sublime voice of Joanne Woodward I took the trip again to discover that everything in this extraordinary universe that Martin Scorsese, based on Edith Wharton work, is not what it appears. Conventions out of the window, breaking every imaginable rule. Just as the characters get off their trucks, swimming against the tide of the times. Scorsese breaks cinematic rules with such artistry that we're allow to inspect, re live and enjoy a story as old as the world from a completely new perspective. Is as if Luchino Visconti had suddenly woken up with a new contemporary sight to look back with. Daniel Day Lewis is so marvelous that the pain of his predicament becomes more than visual, becomes visceral. For Michelle Pfeiffer and Winona Ryder this was the zenith of their careers. They are sensational. The casting, as usual in a Scorsese film, is superb even in the smallest roles. Glimpses of Sian Phillips, Alexis Smith and Geraldine Chaplin add to the pleasures, making this overwhelming banquet of a film one of the most rewarding film experiences I've ever had.


I actually saw this movie when it was released in 1993, and honestly it was pretty dull then. Of course I was 22, and the workings of that late-1800's New York society really didn't make much sense or have much relevance.

I think the film may have been ignored at its release because of the slew of other "period pieces" which were so popular (an eventually common) in the late 80's/early 90's... But watching it again 10 years later, this film is anything but common.

The true intensity is Scorcese's detached presentation of a hypocritical & hateful society which holds its members as prisoners.

Not to mention impeccable art direction & beautiful cinematography by the legendary Michael Ballhaus. The film looks as impressionistic as the paintings that line the walls of the characters' homes.

Scorsese is always acute in his casting decisions, and this is one of the films many virtues:

Lewis is perfect as a man who's struggle between his passion & his duty are constantly on the verge of devouring him (yet somehow he thrives on his torture).

Ryder is the seemingly innocent & naive girl who is completely manipulative & cunning underneath her exterior (gee, who would have thought?!) -- notice the arching scene.

In a sense, this was one of Pfeiffer's defining roles. Pfeiffer herself (in a sense) is an "outcast" who has never truly been accepted as a "serious" actress by her peers in the acting community. Watching this film again, it amazes me how this role somehow reflects her personal position in the current social structure of Hollywood, similar to her character existing in 1800's New York society.

Wow...

What an amazing pic. I completely "missed it" the first time around. Great observance of "high society." Many of those codes are strangely applicable today.

Not recommended for those who like fast paced movies, or those who are looking for the "usual Scorcese." I would couple this with "Last Temptation of Christ" as Scorsese's most brave, artistic, demanding & abstract films to date.


In a way I am disappointed after reading the comments because I thought I was alone in adoring this ravishing and masterful film, and I thought I would get to be the sole voice in the wind proudly proclaiming its brilliance.

Years ago, I ho-hummed my way through viewing it, and I was so unimpressed, I can't tell you today whether I saw it in a theater or rented it at home. It has been in rather heavy rotation on the movie channels for some reason of late, and I watched it again a few weeks ago.

It simply left me breathless. I must have watched it twelve times over the last few weeks, and am dying to buy the DVD if it ever comes out. Scorcese calls this his "most violent film", and after seeing it again, alone, watching intently, it struck me how completely right he was.

The comments before mine are mostly right on target...I am in awe of the filmmaking and can't say enough about the dramatic subtleties, the opulent production values and the overall magnificent way the entire project was handled. Even the normally atrocious Winona Ryder excelled in a role that was simply a tour-de-force for her...the vapid but yet not so vapid after all May Welland. A masterpiece. Please see it if you haven't already.


The deliberate slowness of the camera as it moves throughout scenes; the way characters react to one another with little more than glances and smiles and polite gestures who imply much more than what they say; the theme of a rigid society and the woman who unknowingly disrupts it with her "scandalous" conduct; the story of a repressed love affair: this is not the stuff that makes Martin Scorcese films as he's more known as a filmmaker of aggressive, extremely violent films depicting mainly Italian-Americans in a gritty New York City. However, while the story is upper-crust WASP, the visual imprints are his, and the violence is completely internal, emotional, equally if not more devastating.

Contemplative, but no less involving, is the core of this movie's visual attitude. With so much subtext just simmering underneath the events told in THE AGE OF INNOCENCE, any other approach would have reduced the impact that its denouement reveals. Scorcese uses a tremendous amount of visual tricks to emphasize what or whom we should look at: spotlighting Pfeiffer and Day-Lewis as they enjoy a quiet conversation during the intermission in a play; overlapping series of fleeting images from snippets of correspondence between characters; slowing the action down for about five seconds in a key scene (when Pfeiffer gets up from her seat, crosses a room full of guests to go talk to Day-Lewis as Woodward narrates "It was not the custom for a lady to get up ... and talk to another man."). His technique forces us to really watch the story, to look for details, overt and covert, since like the opening montage of roses in bloom at the beginning of the credits, this is a movie of deep contemplation -- not because of the lush images, but because of the subtle game of tradition which is being played behind the curtains, just out of the camera's view. Nothing is what it seems, and in the exceptional case of Winona Ryder's incredibly sly portrayal of May Welland, that becomes true: she knows much more than her character reveals, and when she does so, it's only with a loving glance. She is aware of her husband's attraction to Ellen Olenska, and even casually feeds him into it, only to chain him to her at the end when all is revealed and nothing can be done. And this is what makes the movie so ultimately tragic and emotionally jarring: that true love is consciously allowed to be crushed in lieu of family tradition, which is the overwhelming hypocrisy of the people inhabiting Edith Wharton's timeless novel.


The Age of Innocence is simply the best work by director Martin Scorcese and is deservedly entitled to the numerous accolades it has received. Mr. Scorcese's style and panache is elaborate in his film adaptation of Edith Wharton's moving novel of a forbidden love and the desideration between the two. Pfeiffer gives the most heart-wrenching performance as the object of desire. Daniel Day Lewis, equally talented, is the tortured lover who must choose, a promise of marriage to Mae (Winona Ryder) or risk his stalwart reputation in society to express his love for Pfeiffer. The cinematography is beautiful and the cast phenomenal. I highly recommend this film to everyone.


For those who wonder what is Mr. Scorsese looking for in a film like "The Age of Innocence", (probably more suitable to a director such as James Ivory), the man himself gives the answer: "This film deals with the same matters that can be found in my work in the last 25 years. There is guilt, desire, obsessed passion and the weakness to satisfy that passion".

The story takes place in New York, around 1880. Newland Archer (Daniel Day-Lewis) must choose between his current fiancee May Welland (Winona Ryder) and her cousin who has just arrived from Poland and is recently divorced, Helen Ollenska (Michelle Pfeiffer). May is the symbol of a world he's familiar with, and Helen represents the world he's dreaming of.

Living in a conservative world full of compromises, Newland is as much trapped by his social circle as the Italian-American heroes of Mean Streets and GoodFellas. However, the Mafia here is called New York aristocracy and kills with words, with a gesture or with a look of contempt and rejection, instead of using guns. Scorsese fans who expect to see psychotic characters, violence or De Niro-style performances, will be disappointed. Everything in this movie is based on the observation and recording of the social behaviour codes, the unexpressed feelings and of things which are not not said but implied. Scorsese portrayed with absolute preciseness, almost paragraph to paragraph, Edith Wharton's classic novel. However, he managed to give the film his own unique personal view, proving his gigantic talent and that he's capable of creating masterpieces, whatever the heroes, the story or the genre of the film. Winona Ryder should definitely have won the Oscar for her wonderful performance, but Lewis and Pfeiffer are marvellous as well. What's left to say? The Age of Innocence is an un-excusably underrated all time classic.


The greatest movie adaptations are usually made from novels of the second or third rank, the adaptations of the greatest novels-The Brothers Karamazov, War and Peace, Ullysses, are not very good, while Dodsworth,and The Magnificent Ambersons are ranked among the classics. This is yet another example.Scorsese surpasses his material to make a beautiful, bravura nmasterpiece. This is an expressionist film, in which we enter the soul of Newland Archer, all too proper gentleman and would bre free spirit, as he is torn between the allure of seeming non-conformity-the Countess Olenska, and the demand s of tradition and duty-May Welland.People who think its an atypical Scorsese film have never-and i repeat , NEVER paid careful attention to his films, or have only wateched them for the violence and the f-words.Scorsese has always been a tormented moralist, obsessed with loyalty, honor and tradition. This anmazingly rich, often witty film, grows on you with each repeat viewing


I have seen "The Age of Innocence" about 15 times since 1994, and find the argument as to whether it is boring or not to be fascinating. Period films are not for everyone, and if you lack an appreciation for subtlety then maybe something like "Joe Dirt" may be better suited for you. But what lies beneath this wonderful movie is a priceless ode to individuality.

Michelle Pfeiffer plays Ellen Olenska, a proto-feminist who flees from her failing European marriage to the home of her blood relatives in 1870's New York Society. She's been away for most of her life and the States are foreign to her, but she quickly realizes that she is viewed as threat, a black sheep ---and Society reacts to her as it would to a dirty black spot on a carpet or on one of their tuxedo shirts. "Harmony could be shattered by a whisper", as well narrated by Joanne Woodward.

Daniel Day-Lewis plays Newland Archer, an up-and-rising patriarch who sees something in her that no one else in his rich circle could offer him: an independent viewpoint to life. As a lawyer and a powerful member of his family, he bravely tries to protect Ellen from basically everyone, esp. members of their own family. Despite all of her difficulties, Countess Olenska refuses to part from her individuality: she smokes in front of Newland, does not hide from men in social situations, and criticizes her surroundings. Archer doesn't necessarily fall in love with her as a person but with what she represents: Romanticism and escape.

There is a lot to love about this film, which is more like a piece of art than a movie. Every scene and every bit of dialogue denotes elegance and brutality simultaneously. All of the leading and supporting characters are so believable and well formed that they trump anything Hollywood has been throwing at us in recent months. And the setting for this film is very unconventional, at least for the 90's. Through excellent film-making, I can see why Society felt the need to operate in such a ruthless fashion, in order to protect itself from Ellen and what she represented to Newland, its newly crowned prince.

Over the past few months, I have also grown an appreciation for Winona Ryder's performance as May. She is a shrewd politician, who uses her "bright blindness" as a megaphone for Society's rules of conduct, a weapon of manipulation against her destined husband Newland, and as a way to continue plotting without easily being detected.

I wonder how many more times I will watch "The Age of Innocence" before I risk being exposed to Hollywood's 21st century conformity, such as "Independence Day" or "Wild, Wild West". All I know is that Ellen Olenska (as one of my favorite cinematic heroines) serves to validate my own sense of individuality, and neither she nor the astonishing beauty of this Scorcese creation, will ever be boring. 10 out of 10 stars.


Not being a particular fan of Edith Wharton, I was in no hurry to see this movie, but wanted to see what Scorsese & Day-Lewis did with it. I was absolutely floored! I think that, cinematically, it is the best picture Scorsese's done since Raging Bull. Beautiful & brilliant. I even thought that some scenes, particularly the dinners, were slightly reminiscent of Kubrick.

I thought Michelle Pfeiffer was absolutely superb. I don't follow her work much, but of what I do know, I find this to be her best - and most serious - performance to date. I was somewhat disappointed in Daniel Day-Lewis who I otherwise love to watch. I felt his performance was uneven. When he was "on", he was on, but at times his performance was stilted and even melodramatic which jarred his credibility. Wynona did a terrific job of portraying covert deviousness with a blank and/or airhead facade.

But what shone above all the acting was Scorsese's paintbrush. I'm so happy to see that he's still got it in him.


Martin Scorsese directing a period piece. That kinda sounds like Slipknot guest appearing on the new Celine Dion album. What's amazing about this movie is that he almost pulls it off. Visually, this is one of the most stunning movies I've ever seen. Look at the shot where Michelle Pfeiffer is standing on a peer, looking at a ship. Or the rain scene, that used Enya's Marble Halls. Sheer perfection, the director as a painter. But what's the most amazing about Age of Innocence are the colors. It's really hard to explain, it's something you have to experience yourself. Unbelievably beautiful.

Unfortunately, not everything works. The story, another tragic tale of impossible love, has been done thousands of times before and didn't really hold my attention. Not bad, just more time to watch the pretty pictures. Anyway, I don't think Scorsese was really interested in the love story. It's more an analytical study of the behavior of people from that day and age, and as such it does work Daniel Day-pri Lewis ( a bundle of joy he is not) is perfectly cast as the frustrated Archer, but the actingprizes have to go to Michelle Pfeiffer. What a beautiful woman, what an amazing actress.

Rating: 8/10


I really liked this movie because it was so rich in every aspect: from the acting, to the setting and the costumes, the cinematography and the score, everything was beautifully crafted. The movie seems to start slowly and the story is only relatively important. More than anything it is an occasion for Scorsese to talk about the NY upper society of the late 1800, and it's rigid way, sometimes desperate (see Ryder's character), often cruel to maintain an identity (paradoxically built on the European upper class mold) despite the changes that were happening. I was very impressed by the use of the objects, the clothes of the time to describe the feeling of the scene or of the characters involved.

The actors are all very good, but Michelle Pfeiffer really delivers and excellent performance. Also Winona Ryder's character is well portrayed and towards the end of the movie, the actress is able to convincingly show how her character is much more layered than what it seems to be in the beginning of the story.

In my opinion this movie deserves 8


This is one of the greatest films ever made. Each frame aches with repressed passion and longing. It is about a lawyer named Newland Archer (played expertly by Daniel Day-Lewis) who yearns to break free of the rigid, repressive world of upper-class New York in the 1870's. The tragedy is that he cannot quite bring himself to do this, for fear of losing the security and prestige that this world offers him. As Countess Olenska, Newland's forbidden lover, Michelle Pfeiffer has never been better and Winona Ryder is equally strong as Newland's fiancee, May, who hides a controlling, manipulative nature behind a veil of sweetness and naivete. Jay Cocks' screenplay is a true rarity - a script that is stimulating emotionally as well as intellectually. The dialogue shines, just click on the "memorable quotes" section of the sidebar for a sampling of this script's greatness. And how could I forget the master behind this masterpiece, Martin Scorsese? His direction is peerless, as always. His camera is always moving, but the effect is stylish and subtle rather than intrusive. The framing and composition are exquisite as well. One of my favorite things about this film is it's look. The cinematography (Michael Ballhaus), art direction (Dante Ferretti), and costumes (Gabriela Pescucci) magically recreate the visual splendor of the era. This film will hold you spellbound until its last scene, which is one of the most heartbreaking and poignant in cinematic (and literary) history. And to those who say that "nothing happens" in this film - look closer. Unlike most films, the action here is mostly covert, not overt.


This was not my favorite of the Wharton films (that would have to be The House of Mirth), but it certainly is the most lavish and dutiful adaption.

Mr. Scorcese does masterful camera work and evokes loving performances from all the performers, and yet I felt something staid and almost too respectful. Michelle Pfieffer seems to be the only actress who didn't fully embrace the period in manner or behaviour, but the rest of the performers aquit themselves wonderfully.

At times it almost felt a little 'modern', but one can't fault the film makers, they were only trying to update it a bit for their intended audience.

Altogether a wonderful film and definitely worth seeing, but - as always- the book remains far superior.


When Martin Scorsese deigned to adapt Edith Wharton's novel "The Age of Innocence" for the big screen he obviously saw it as a highly stylized period piece. THE AGE OF INNOCENCE is a meticulous, beautiful film with glowing production values and a pallet of production techniques not seen since CITIZEN KANE. Although a stunningly beautiful film to watch, the story detracts from the Edith Wharton novel. The narration by Joanne Woodward is jarring at first, yet gives the modern viewer an idea of 1870's New York City mores.

Daniel Day-Lewis plays Newland Archer with strong conviction and virtue. Michelle Pfeiffer's performance as Countess Olenska seems a bit modern in this otherwise fine period piece. Scorsese's camera deftly flows through ballrooms and mansions effortlessly, giving the film a broader scope visually.

I watch this film over and over when I need a break from the mundane films that are pumped out on an assembly line known as Hollywood.

Although lacking in story and substance at times, it has some great supporting players, such as Brits Miriam Margolyes, Michael Gough, Jonathan Pryce, Sian Phillips,and of course a wonderful bit by the great Alec McCowen as the snobbish aesthete Sillerton Jackson.

I highly recommend this film to the discerning viewer.


"The Age of Innocence" takes the audience into the pages of 19th century New York's social register as it follows one eligible blue blood, Day-Lewis, and his love interests (Pfeiffer & Ryder). The film, which boasts many awards including several Oscars, is a 2+ hour long tale of the this and that of the upper crust's elite replete with lavish sets, elegant costuming, and a narration which is required to explain the film's esoterics. The fun of "Age..." is not so much in the story as it is in the telling. A feast for those interested in period flicks and the social innerworkings of high society.


The for-pay movie critics raved about "The Age of Innocence" often granting it their highest ratings. Gushing about the color, soundtrack, nuanced screenplay and understated acting, this was for many the best of 1993, a coup de grace for Mr. Scorsese. Maybe so. Sure, the colors, and their uses were brilliant and clever. The soundtrack and score were very good, likewise the acting. But the pacing of the movie was too slow. I'm told that the movie transports you to 1870s upper class New York. It's just like you were there. So what. The point of movies is to tell a story, but during the telling this viewer nearly fell asleep.


Gorgeously-crafted, but otherwise inert and aloof rendering of Edith Wharton's Pulitzer Prize-winning book about a love triangle in New York, circa 1870. Martin Scorsese directed and, though a few of his trademark touches are in evidence, his ultra-restrained atmosphere (while appropriate for the period) proves disenchanting as entertainment, turning his three star leads (Daniel Day-Lewis, Michelle Pfeiffer and Winona Ryder) into suffering, swooning waxworks. Scorsese was probably attempting to channel William Wyler and films such as "The Heiress", but his take on this story is cold and unenticing, and everything from the dialogue to the melodrama is stilted. An Oscar winner for the costumes--appropriate since the picture is really all style. Story previously filmed in 1934 with Irene Dunne and John Boles. *1/2 from ****


Watched about an hr of this dull tripe . My date and I got up and went bowling which was a much better time . If you want to catch up on your sleep , go waste a few bucks and rent this movie . We only watched about an hour and we walked out and got our money back . More like age of boredom. Joanne Woodwards narration is akin to sominex .. avoid this garbage


It should be obvious that Wharton was not Pushkin, nor is Scorsese Ingmar Bergman.

The attempted custombrism of Edith Wharton is false and insipid, lacking grounding in the best French or Spanish tradition, and all attempts at reaching epic proportions pales into insignificance beside the great masters  Tolstoy, Sholakhov, Doestoyevsky, among others.

That Martin Scorsese, a director who has amply shown his calibre in such films as `The Last Temptation of Christ', `The Color of The Money' and `Taxi Driver' among his best titles, should try his hand at an involuted regentist victorianism so abhorred by Europeans for at least 75 years, is more than surprising and turns out in the end to be even irritating. Pérez-Galdós would have been greatly angered by any similar treatment of his `Fortunata y Jacinta', for example. If Wharton in 1870 was decidedly retrograde, Scorsese in 1993 was definitely on another planet. How or why Scorsese could ever have been inspired to make a pretence replica of anything in the style of the magnificent `Fanny och Alexander' just beggars belief. He builds a sumptuous, even fastidious, set, decorates it with some rather good actors, and uses highly toned up coloring, no doubt as if to add insult to grievous occular harm, which, for 1870 New York, was indeed a gross insolence and incoherent injustice.

The dialogues are somewhat akin to the luscious-looking dishes spread out on the extravagant tables: made of plastic and indigestible, however brilliantly  sic  they may have been filmed.

So much mannerism and forced modalities, at times taking on tragicomedy theatrical proportions, seemed as authentic as a penguin acting as a tourist guide in `La Alhambra'.<br /><br />The non-original music included some good pieces, even though `Alerte! Alerte!' from `Faust' by Charles Gounod did not appear in the Paris Opera in its final grand opera form until March 1869, making its début in the Metropolitan a few years later; using the same recording as that used by Tony Richardson in `The Phantom of the Opera' three years earlier is not merely an unhappy coincidence; and some thirty seconds of Enya during a scene of hundreds of men hanging on to their bowler hats in the driving wind was a laughable misfit at best.

The result is more than 150 minutes of tedious inconsequentiality: late nineteenth century wealthy upper-crust goings-on in their own conceived quagmire of supposed respectability and lushly veneered egocentric hypocracy, is out of touch with more genuine humanity.

Edith Wharton is dead and buried: I hope she will now remain that way.


I am shocked to see so many good reviews on a movie so generic, so boring, so uninteresting. This movie doesn't feature great drama, great acting, or great character depth. Everyone here is just so princy with all their fluffy costumes and such. The plot is quite simple, Daniel Day Lewis can't be with the adulterous slut)Michelle Phfeffer or however you spell her name) because he is engaged with Winona Ryder. You would think this outline would cause people heartbreak, people to fight, people to run away in tears or something emotionally involving. No, no , no, just fancy costumes, gallerias, and everyone just acting proper and not letting their real desires and emotions come through. The ending is horrible, I mean really. I thought the performances were quite good, if only they did something worth caring about. I will never watch this overrated picture again. Watch The Basketball Diaries, The Crucible, or even

Bram Stoker's Dracula if you want to watch a drama with emotional depth were things actually happen. 4/10.


Martin Scorsese directs this highly acclaimed bore fest. Elaborate costumes and sets, but a story line that offers very little. A high society lawyer(Daniel Day-Lewis)in mid 1800s New York City falls in love with his intended's(Wynona Ryder)cousin(Michelle Pfieffer). A long time to wait for nothing to happen. Sorry Mr. Scorsese, just not enough to keep us awake.


I saw this recently after seeing Terrance Davies lovely The House

Of Mirth, and was not disappointed. Actually, they make a nice little

Edith Wharton weekend, if you have a lot of time on your hands

and want to feel so good about your own life and choices that you

want to shoot yourself. And I mean that in a good way. This movie

is beautifully crafted, and features Winona Ryders best

performance since Little Women. Daniel Day Lewis has the

thankless Edith Wharton male lead role- she wrote best for

women- and Michelle Pfeiffer is that obscure object of desire. This

film doesn't have the bite and bile that most Scorsese films have,

but it's well worth the trip.


Well, I decided to watch this again recently to get a fresh perspective on it. I actually saw this movie in the theatre with some friends, and they all hated it and said it was slow and boring. I defended it at the time, and said they just didn't appreciate its subtleties. However, on second review, it just isn't very good.

As the movie is based in the well-heeled society of New York City in the 1870s, you expect it to be a bit dry and formal. Unfortunately, the movie takes it to the extreme.

The bottom line theme is that this is a story of a forbidden love of sorts, suppressed by the propriety of the society they live in and the circumstance that finds the parties married to other people. What happens when you find your "true love" and it is not the person you are married to...in 1870s NYC...whoops. In modern times, you just get divorced I guess. But at the time, in those social circles, divorce was a taboo that would lead to being ostracized from all the hip parties (and possibly your family). Why that would be a hindrance to "true love" I don't know, but it was in this movie.

In any event, we get to watch the slow suffering of these estranged lovers over time, but Scorcese never quite hits the emotional vein that makes a tragedy of so long life really captivating to an audience. Unfortunately, Scorcese also takes 2 plus hours to tell us this simple story.

Daniel Day Lewis is fantastic per usual, one of the few bright spots. He really captured the essence of a "proper" man suffering greatly just underneath the surface. Michelle Pfifer is also good in her role, which Scorcese must have picked her for after a similar role in Dangerous Liasons (a far superior movie). The rest of the cast were so so, because the story and the movie were so so.

If you've run out of movies to watch, or want something to fall asleep to, go ahead and give this movie a try. Otherwise, just read the Cliff Notes.


Edith Wharton wrote in a brilliantly minor key, and it is a testament

to Martin Scorsese's genius as a filmmaker that he disciplined

himself to work within Wharton's parameters, instead of trying to

force his trademark kinetic style onto a story of tragic whispering. A

beautiful, heartfelt film, with a superb performance from Daniel

Day-Lewis(really, what else could you expect?).


Martin Scorsese is definatley one of the greatest directors of the past century and with this work, he proves (along with Kundun) that his verizons span beyond his classics like Mean Streets, Raging Bull and GoodFellas, though those works are some of the best in the American history of film. Here in the Age of Innocence, Scorsese depicts (with the help of Edith Wharton's novel) of a time in New York when things when things were elegant, though also brutal in the deep. Daniel Day Lewis plays a man who is torn between marrying a woman he likes (Winona Ryder) and making her family happy as well, or choosing a tempting woman with a free mind (Michelle Pfieffer). This could sound like Arthur in the 19th century, but the director handles the material so carefully it works very well along with fine performances and excellent photography by long time collaborator Michael Ballhaus (who also provided my favorite scene in movies in the Cobana long shot in GoodFellas). One of the best films of 1993. A+


One can only marvel at Scorsese's direction on this one; coupled with the stunning and clever cinematography, this film paints a lovingly detailed tapestry of the lives of well-to-do New Yorkers, in the last quarter of the 19th century. Unusual little tricks of focusing, and light or color changes at dramatic points in the story serve to add extra emotional and romantic tension to the action.

As with many great films, a fine score often serves to elevate the story to an even higher level of quality. Elmer Bernstein's remarkable work here is superb, and beyond mere words. I shall never tire of hearing this beautiful score!

As for the acting, the entire cast is simply perfect. In particular, in my opinion the performances of Daniel Day-Lewis and Winona Ryder are the finest they have ever given. They truly become their characters, and in so doing, pull us full into this unique, and soon to fade away, dream-like era!


Outside of Scorsese's GOODFELLAS, this is simply the best movie of the 1990's. Any serious film student who really wants to learn how to make a film needs to watch Scorsese films. He was originally given this novel in 1980 by a former TIME critic who told him "it's guilt and conscience - the definitive Scorsese." This movie is the exact kind of romantic, class driven drama that TITANIC wishes it was. If there is any actor alive who can possibly compare to the magnificent repression and passion combined in one that Laurence Olivier used to show us, it is Daniel Day-Lewis. Here he comes fully into his own, bringing the character of Newland Archer alive. This is also where Winona Ryder finally comes into her own as an actress. Anyone who loves movie about the classes, about romance, about guilt, or simply anyone who loves movies should be heading to a video store to rent this one right away.


As many have pointed out, it wouldn't seem as though Scorsese would be interested in an 19th century period piece. Yet, I see this film as very similar to "Goodfellas". Each catalogue the lives of people who live by a very strict code of conduct. Each has their particular sense of honor and loyalty. Each have methods of dealing with those who step outside the box. In "Goodfellas" it is guns and fists (or kitchen knives); in "The Age of Innocence" it is gossip and dinner invitations. Both films are rich, elaborate representations of a specific way of life. Scorsese is a filmmaker completely in control of his craft. Every aspect of this film adds an integral part to it. Nothing is incidental or superfluous. The production design in this film is as good as it gets. There is so much detail in every scene. The houses these people live in a founded on the principle of appearances, much like their lives. Everything in them is designed to disguise or distort the truth. I love that fact that the walls are covered, floor to ceiling, with pictures. These people strive to be living portraits, perfect in every visible detail. The music and sound is perfectly suited. There is a bitter loveliness to the score. The classical movement that Scorsese uses is lovely and meaningful. The acting is fantastic. Daniel Day-Lewis is one of the greatest current actors. He gives a very deep and complete performance. I could feel his despair and claustrophobia. Michelle Pieffer is very ironic and cynical. She, like Lewis' character, is a real being trapped in a world of contrived illusion. Ryder's performance is one of the key performances in the film. She is sly and cunning, completely in control of her surroundings. Yet she is able to mask her devilish manipulation as a sweet, shy exterior. I love the narration of the film. It would not have made sense in this film for one of the main characters to narrate, as in "Goodfellas". The world in this film is determined by what other people think and say. So it is apropos to have a exterior commentator. Woodward does fine work as the cynical, satirical commentator, exposing the rotten underbelly of this world, and doing it with wily delight. The cinematography is some of the best I have ever seen. Scorsese never moves his camera without purpose. Each shot is executed for the maximum emotional and cognitive effect. The scenes are edited masterfully. Many times he will cut away right in the middle of a shot to an image that perfectly metaphors the mood and context of the scene. This is one of the most tightly composed films of Scorsese I have seen. I need to watch this film more times. It is very complex. It is a great film.


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** This film struck me as a story of undying love, surrounded by lies and betrayal. The story revolves around three main characters. There is a naïve young woman named May who is part of an upper class family in New York. As well as her fiancé, Newland, who is a business man and also a part of an upper class family. And May's cousin, Ellen, a duchess who is temporarily in New York to escape her negligent husband. From the very moment that Newland sets eye on the duchess, you just know that he will fall in love with her, for she is far more sophisticated and mature than May. Newland soon finds himself having a passionate affair with his fiancé's cousin. He is torn between the innocent young girl he gave his heart to long ago and the worldly enchantress who represents everything he has ever longed for. I didn't enjoy this film very much until the very end. The unsuspected little twist was what made me look back at all the aspects of the film with understanding. It made me sympathize and even begin to like a character (May), whom I thought was too naïve, meek, and dimwitted throughout the entire film. She was actually a lot smarter than I thought and it was a shame that she had to die before her husband could realize it as well.


Martin Scorsese's film The Age of Innocence (1993) is an adaptation of a 1920 novel by Edith Wharton, which won the 1921 Pulitzer Prize. Both, the novel and the film are set in upper class New York City in the 1870s.

The Age of Innocence is the movie that proves once again what a versatile talented, unpredictable, incredibly passionate, and artistically outstanding director Martin Scorsese is. Recently I saw for the first time Scorsese's comedy After Hours and was fascinated how masterful he was in creating a darkly funny surreal comedy. Now, after re-watching The Age of Innocence, I am sure that Scorsese has made one of the most beautiful, tragic, passionate, sensual, sexually charged screen romances ever, which is at the same time perfectly suitable for the whole family watching. It is PG rated, and the characters speak in refined, almost forgotten English. The director himself described The Age of Innocence as the "most violent" film he's ever made, clearly referring to the inner turmoil, disappointment and resignation the two main characters of this drama go through.

The material world Scorsese created and paints with his lenses is of incredible beauty. Michael Ballhaus' camera brings out the perfection of craftsmanship of every object it looks at: be it the costumes (Oscar statuette for Gabriella Pescucci who has dressed the heroes of The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988), Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005), Der Name der Rose (1986), and Upon a Time in America (1984) to name a few), china, crystal, silver, flower arrangements, jewelry or furniture. The exquisite meals looked delicious and required a special food consultant who was mentioned in the film's credits. Or take for example these elegant leather ladies gloves with small buttons. Who would think that unbuttoning a glove on the hand of a beautiful woman slowly, tenderly, makes one of the most erotic scene ever filmed? The people who inhabited this world of beauty, comfort, and privilege seem the perfect happy creatures but not all is so perfect in the paradise. Two beautiful passionate people found love that could only happen once in a life time but the strict norms or society they live in and the unbending unwritten rules based on convention and hypocrisy they must obey won't permit them to follow their hearts freely, to fulfill their desire, and to be happy in that Age of Innocence. The cast is superb, and includes Daniel Day-Lewis, the film protagonist Newland Archer, Michelle Pfeiffer, as Countess Olenska, a woman with "a Past" who stole his heart, and very young Winona Ryder, May Welland, the girl whom Archer will marry. 22 years old Ryder very deservingly received the Oscar nomination for her performance. I would like to mention Joanne Woodward's subtle narrating of Edith Wharton's prose which is one of the high points of the film. IMO, the film has only high points and is Martin Scorsese's fine (perhaps, the finest) and stunning achievement.


this movie is fantastic, the story, the songs, the acting its something never seen before and really well portrayed i don't want to give away the story but it is a good portrayal of the obstacles and difficult decisions faced by a traditional villager hoping to uphold justice for a foreign woman - its a magnificent portrayal of morals' victory over backward thinking i really recommend the movie because of the excellent acting by the male lead and the great support from the English lady leader.

one thing which i think the movie does well to avoid, is showing the British rulers as totally heartless and evil! its not like Ur old style Indian movie where the British were shown equal to a devil like ruler, but the understanding was there why the villagers didn't like their presence their yet some liked them because of their work - the frictions between members from both sides who are able to accept the other side is also well shown


To everyone reading the comments here,

As your well wisher, I recommend not to see this movie, I don't want to write anything about it, some sensible people who have posted comments here and given a deserved bad review about it have already pointed out all the flaws of this movie.

I just want to save a long good period of frustration and anger which I went through after watching it, what a waste of a talented budding actor like Vivek Oberoi, I pity him really. I am so embarrassed I have to give a rating of 1 to this movie, I thought 0 would be there but it is not there so I am forced to give a rating of 1.

As far as the good reviews for this movie here are concerned, I am surprised and shocked, these good reviews here lead me to the imagination of S.Ghai or someone handsomely paid by him sitting spending some valuable hours cooking up false stories about this movie being great etc

Thants all.


Director Subhash Ghai is caught in a time warp. 'Dharam, karam,parampara, riti rivaaz' all sound out dated and boring. This would have been relevant perhaps 10-15 years back, but it's time to move on. The most redeeming factor is Ashok Mehta's photography - like wine, his DOP skills keep getting better with age. There are good individual performances but no chemistry at all between Viveck Oberoi and Antonia Bernath. Isha Sharvani performs well but has very little to do - with an ill-defined character. And she is made to dance at the drop of a hat - the dancing skills are great, but tend to look out of place with the repeated exposure. Perhaps Subhash Ghai should look at getting younger directors to make his films - like Abbas Mastan in Aitraaz


i understand that movie making is hard work. if the scale is that of kisna, its extra ordinary hard work. i entered the hall with tremendous excitement. somehow i could not like the movie. the protagonist is too uninteresting and pre programmed. but the lead actress is surprise package, she rules. the film started off well, though inspirations are too obvious. the period was meticulously recreated but the movie quickly lost the steam. by the time movie was over, i was totally detached. when i left the hall i gave the maker benefit of the fact that my expectations were too huge. but now sitting alone and thinking back, i see more and more holes. it was a great deal of hard work wasted.


This was much better than what I expected it to be. Thankfully it did not have too much to do with the whole freedom fighters stories, which we have had way too many already. The direction was very good. The acting was okay. I felt the lead role was miscasted; Hritik would have been perfect as Kisna; he does the soft (poet) and hard (warrior) sides better than anyone in the industry right now. The lead actress Antonia is extremely beautiful (She looks a bit like Nicole Kidman and a bit like Naiomi Watts) and does very well as Catherine, her emotions come out pretty well considering she is not a native Indian and not that familiar with the Indian sensibilities. Good effort and some good direction. It was 30-40 minutes too long. The whole Raghuraj sequence was over-done and did not add any value at all. I also think the whole Indian culture is superior bit is over done. If the director wanted to go there the best thing would have been to let the viewers make their own conclusion rather than spelling everything out.


Subhash Ghai had all ingredients in storyline to make a nice entertaining movie . However he messed up big time .

It's basically a story of Catherine (Antonia Bernath) who was chummy with an Indian boy Kisna (Vivek Oberoi) in colonial India . As Independence was declared , Indian fanatics murdered Catherine's parents . Catherine escaped and Kisna took it upon himself to transport her safely to New Delhi's British embassy .

Things to watch out for :

1. Antonia Bernath : Hers was the only above average performance among the entire cast .

2. Music : Mesmerising . "Chilman Uthegi Nahi" is the best of the lot , albeit a little long . A great Qawwali with Sushmita Sen at her gorgeous best .

Now for my problems with it :

1. Isha Sharvani : She is a marvellous dancer but had little else to do . Her voice was dubbed by an inept dubbing artiste Mona Shetty . Her character acted illogically .

2. Every Ghai movie must have long-drawn speeches about "Indian culture" so as to emotionally blackmail the audience into liking the movie . In this movie this purpose is achieved when Kisna , his friend Vivek Mushran and friend's wife Hrishitaa Bhatt (endearing character) give Catherine a crash course in Hindu culture . Sadly the stratagem backfired .

3. Amrish Puri : Utterly despicable , cardboard character . Ghai was known to give Amrish ji memorable characters like in Hero , Raam Lakhan and Saudagar . What happened here? The glass eye worn by him made him look comical , not menacing .

4. Action scenes : Kisna is a warrior , skilled in swordfighting . Why , then , were the stunts so long-drawn and pretentious? Looked as if the stuntmen were taking turns to be mauled by Kisna in slow motion .

5. Rajat Kapoor : Such a fine actor , here he plays an evil prince Raghuraj who wants to marry Catherine even when he is her father's age . His character was a caricature and such villains don't work in Hindi films anymore . To top it they even gave him an eye patch to wear . Weird .

6. Vivek Oberoi : Poor performance . It seems now that Company's Chandu Nagre happened a long , long time ago .

7. Song picturisations : They were misplaced , and many songs were not played fully , just in bits . Choreography was sub-standard .

8. Unfunny attempts at humour .

9. Kisna and Catherine flee and hide in a .. hold your breath .. a CHURCH - that too amidst a dense jungle . I'd have understood if it were a temple - but a CHURCH ????

Kisna disappoints . A could-have-been .


I wonder what was Subhash Ghai trying to do with so much money and absolutely trash story with an inane English woman speaking nonsense Hindi and a Hindi trapeze artist. I saw it just for Antonia who was the only one who some what acted in this whole movie. Sushmita Sen as usual looked awesome though she wasn't needed in the movie, Vivek Oberoi..why can't you be a bit humble and try to do some acting?? Rest everybody else is wasted. And please stop coloring new cars in to some unknown local three wheelers. The song 'tu kisna hai' is the only one you might hum later. The Greek song is too out of place ,its neither English nor Indian.

Makeup..dresses...picturization...all substandard. Worst Mr Ghai I miss Saroj Khan and I don't want to see a village belle doing yoga on a rope. Before the movie starts there is an advertisement for some film institute by Mr Ghai. My request Mr Ghai please get yourself enrolled too.


Kisna is one of the most awful movies that I have seen...No thank you to some of the people who wrote good comments about this movie.It's a sheer waste of time and energy to sit through this load of crap, even if someone offers you a free screening or DVD of this movie...please,please AVOID IT. There is Nothing Good to write about this movie.I wish I had a Time Machine to get back my few hours that I wasted watching this JUNK. Anyone who watches this movie will consider Indian Cinema to be a Big Joke and movie making at it's unprofessional and non-artistic best. How I wish IMDb had negative marking and I would have rated this movie at -10 out of 10


Terrible, Terrible Movie!!! This pathetic attempt at a storyline, ruins the fledgling reputations of Sachin Bhowmick & Farrukh Dhondy, and causes further damage to Ghai's already in tatters reputation as one of Bollywood's erstwhile Moguls! Elements of Titanic and Lagaan were blended together in the hope of finding favour with the audience, but the story bored the hell out of viewers who went in expecting a different storyline! The ills of Kisna don't stop at unimaginative screenplay, but extend to direction as well. The movie drags adding to the viewers frustration. I've never been one of those who walk out from a movie halfway, but in this one I barely held on. I walked out cursing before the credits started to roll, something I make a point to see in other movies. Others didn't wait. They had long gone...

Even the acting was below par. Vivek Oberoi disappoints, but I guess even he saw no point in the movie & just went along with the director. The two lead actresses weren't much either. Isha & Antonia each bare half a breast in the movie, but even that will not salvage this movie. One can only pity Subhash Ghai...

This was my last Subhash Ghai movie. In spite of Trimurti & Yaaden, I had thought a filmmaker of his ability would come up with something interesting, but that was not to be. Once again, we had to be reminded that all filmmakers one day lose their touch. It's happened to greats like Hrishikesh Mukherji & Mahesh Bhatt. To lesser ones like Prakash Mehra & Indra Kumar. For it to happen to Subhash Ghai should come as no surprise. The signs have been there for some time.

What irks me most about the state of Indian Cinema are people like Ghai who make movies for commercial success. They are scared of taking a risk. As a result we have a slew of mediocre films. This mindset also prompts new entrants to the industry to ape former greats by playing safe, resulting in more bad films. There are actors in this category too who prefer playing safe, rather than acting... Actors like Shahrukh Khan.

And there are the gutsy filmmakers and actors. Govind Nihalani, John Matthew Mathan, Aamir Khan. Their movies are the ones that one should look out for. At least they're worth the wait. And your money. Because for now, I very strongly feel that Subhash Ghai owes me Rs. 160!


I don't seem to understand how so many people have given 10/10 to Kisna. Rather I think the only people who can give 10/10 are Subhash Ghai, Vivek Oberoi, and the remaining cast of the movie, purely because they were in it. I think it is one of the soppiest movies I have seen in quite some time. The movie hardly had a plot, and whatever the plot was, it was extremely clichéd. Also, it wasn't even a decent period film as it mentioned. All the movie had was songs, gymnastics, songs, songs, crying, gymnastics, songs songs. Honestly, if there was a negative rating, then I would have given this movie a -100 or something. It was a complete waste of 8$ and 3 odd hours.


The Movie tells the story about an girl(Antonia Bernhardt) their grown up in Uttaranchal in the 1930's.Her Father sent her to London,and 1947 she come back to India. She falls in Love With her Childhout Friend Kisna(Vivek Oberoi).... The Story is about A love between an British Girl and an Indian Boy Around the 1947 Independence. Excellent Movie!!!!! *~*~*One of Best Movies Ever!!!!!!!!!!*~*~*~* The débutant's in the Movie are Antonia Bernhardt(Hindi Debut!!!) and Isha Sharvani(Film Debut). The Soundtrack is Very Nice.... The First song is Mujhme Shiv Hai(sung by Alka Yagnik and Sukhwinder Singh).The Song Hum Hai Is Pal is SO good,i love it!And the Mujra Song Chilman Uthegi Nahin(danced by Sushmita Sen).And the Last song is My Wish Comes True is so good.


I loved Kisna and Vivek Oberoi in this role. He plays a young Indian man named Kisna, who falls in love with a young British girl (played by Antonia Bernath) who has loved him since they were toddlers. As they grow into teenagers, her militant father discovers her affections for Kisna and vice versa then chooses to send his darling daughter back to England to live to keep her from Kisna. The story of their love is told in a very James Cameron's Titanic like fashion, as the old lady Catherine (now played by Polly Adams) returns to the land where she was born to retell the story of her lost love Kisna which we see in flashback as she is interviewed by some lucky reporters. Isha Sharvani makes her debut and Kisna India sweetheart who gives her British counterpart a run for her money and then some as she dances her way through this film with vigorous fervor. Caroline Langrishe plays Catherine's mum, and Amrish and Om Puri round out the powerful cast with strong starring roles. Don't miss Sushmita Sen's super sexy Mujra, she plays a courtesan who helps Kisna keep Catherine and her mother on the run from those who want the both of them dead. An evil prince (played by Rajat Kapoor) who wants to marry Catherine is also on their tail in the wake of the British partition of India and Pakistan. Hrishitaa Bhatt also has a brilliant cameo in the film as Kisna's friend's wife.


This is awful, awful , awful. A really bad film. I bought the soundtrack as I litsened to it on the radio it I thought the soundtrack was good and thus went out to see the movie, but i deeply regret that move. The acting in this was worse than Asoka, no screenplay, songs were OK but almost no context in the film!There was only one thing i liked about this movie. The shots of the Kashmir Landscape the got. It was truly Breathtaking, but that has nothing to do with the movie, i would give it zero if i could. They just put in some random Gymnast as a dancer and than bad acting by Vivek, topped with a stupid plot topped with no sense and than at the end Subash Ghai standing in the foreground staring out at the beautiful valley like he has made an Oscar Winning movie. I expected way more out of this. This was a letdown .A grotesque, lousy, motion picture.


The storyline of this movie is very ordinary and hard to believe in. Also, while showing the time lapse the director has neither taken enough care to show the discoloration of or changes in the sets used on the location, nor has he changed the make-ups of different actors who have aged by at least 10 years. The songs have just been inserted to 'showcase' the acrobatic 'talent' of one of the lead actresses. A repetition of such showcasing has made the movie very boring. The acting and dialog delivery of many actors does not seem to come out naturally, but rather seems to be forced out. Enough attention has not been given while writing the screenplay which has made it a very slow-moving storyline.


My god!!! What a horrible film. One expects a lot better stuff from Mr. Subhash Ghai. Claiming to be a showman is only good if you can back it up with good films. But lately, Mr. Ghai has disappointed to say the least.

I fail to understand what the point of Isha Shravani's character is in the film. Okay so the girl can do a rope dance, that doesn't mean you put that in the story. Her character doesn't belong in the story. It seems like Mr. Ghai used the First Draft of his film. Doesn't he think he should read his script over to make sure it makes sense? It seems like he wrote it, then forgot about it and then saw this girl who could do a rope dance and figuredOh I should put her in the film, no one has ever seen a girl doing a rope dance. Mr. Ghai needs to re-read his scripts to make sure there are no loose ends, he seems like an amateur with this film. When I write a script I read it at least 50-60 times and keep changing things until it makes sense. That's what a good writer does. You can't be happy with the first thing you write that's just wrong.

The story could have been so good without the Isha Shravani character. Her character totally screwed up the plot and the story. Mr. Ghai needs to stop making formula films, not every film needs to have a love triangle. Stories can be told without triangles. Mr. Ghai needs to take some pointers from the like of Sanjay Leela Bhansali and Mani Ratnam. Stop making the same story over and over and over again. What an idiot! If you're out of ideas, don't make films anymore; we don't need to be tortured like this.

Mr. Ghai needs to go back to film school and learn the latest techniques of film-making and story telling. I feel sorry for anyone who's attending his film school. Doesn't he realize that the audience is getting smarter...People will no longer accept the crap they dished out 10-20 years ago. This film is actually worst than the worst films they made 10-20 years ago.

Mr. Ghai did everything in the film from Direction to Writing to Producing to Editing. He seems to be very proud of that fact because its there in BIG letters in the film...perhaps he should concentrate on just one thing and leave the others to professionals. Okay...I don't want to talk about Mr. Ghai anymoreHe's leaving a bad taste in my mouth.

All the performances are average and I'm being generous here. The only one that stands out is a cameo by Sushmita Sen. Isha Shravani need to climb back up the rope she came down from. She can't act and the only reason it seems she's in this movie is because she can dance on a rope. That's the dumbest thing ever!!

On the whole, I have never said this about a film, but...I WANT MY MONEY BACK...Don't waste your time or money on this one. Unless you want to see a girl spinning on a rope at 20 different parts of the film, for no reason what so ever, there is no reason to watch it. This is the by far the worst Subhash Ghai film ever. One expects more from him. DON"T WATCH IT AT ANY COST. Even if it's the last film left on earth, it's better not to see it. I'm so disappointed. I used to be a fan of Subhash Ghai films...Can you believe that!!!


The movie is badly directed though a good story and Vivek Oberoi cannot act. Please buy the movie if you want an example of how not to direct a movie.So see it at you own risk. The use of actresses has been poor. The feel of an old lady coming back to India in search of her love did not sell too well. But I haven't seen any brilliant work from the director in the recent times except for Iqbal which he produced. The movie had everything that makes a commercial success, it is a period movie it was quiet well done, songs were out of the world the two best music directors Rehman and Ismail Darbar and a commercial cast,the dances were choreographed by S.Dawar group the best dancing school available if you add all this with a good story a very good film!!!!! To make a flop with all this is and art by itself. Please buy this copy to see how not to do it.


I think it was a wonderful film. I remember when I watched this with my sisters, the oldest said to me that Hindustan people aren't gonna like it because the hero is falling in love with a British (white) girl. And it turns out to be true now that I have come to the boards and read almost every review I could find. I think it was a very beautifully acted, scripted and shot film. I have to agree that Luxmi didn't have much to do but dance and show off her pretty face, but after all if you look at the auditioning process, that's what she was hired to do. They needed a dancer and that's what they got. As per her lack of conversations with Kisna, well maybe that was due to the fact that she couldn't because she had devoted herself to worshiping Krishna and he was always a warrior in training. He didn't love her but had to obey his parents when they said "marry her", because of tradition. Since they were kids, he always ignored her why should he talk to her as an adult then? And by the way, if you had an eye for good film-making, you would see that the film is being told from the perspective of Catherine (as things happened and as she imagined other scenarios to have happened) how was she to know if Kisna and Luxmi conversed or not? The film and from the perspective with which it is told, is Catherine's. When you watched 'Titanic', didn't you want to know just a little more about Fabrizio? Didn't you want to a little more about why Guggenheim was aboard the ship with a pregnant teenager? or why explore what was really going on in steerage besides the party? Didn't you want to know Molly a little more? or see other parts of the ship besides first class? I did. But you couldn't because the majority of the film was being told from Rose's (the heroine) perspective. As per the music video you were so fussy about, um, isn't that like in every Bollywood made film? She was dreaming and that was her dream! Hullo!!!! Didn't you see 'Shakti' what sense did the 'Ishq Kameena' music video make other than to say that Shahrukh Khan's character was dreaming? As per the nudity and kissing scenes, I didn't see any. Anyhow, I saw Kisna! and I absolutely loved it! You can only argue about a great film! :-)

(Note: my review is in response to the many people who have bashed and continue to bash this intelligent film)


Kisna is a very beautiful movie. I loved every part. I have watched it multiple times now and enjoy watching it. I will likely watch this movie many more times since my friend owns a DVD and I am buying one. This movie obviously may not appeal to everyone, but then again this movie is not for everyone. If you love a good love story that makes you cry... then Kisna is a beautiful love story that will do just that. I personally enjoy watching beautiful love stories and this movie left me feeling mushy and sentimental. I can really identify with this movie. I am in love with this movie. Kisna is absolutely hot and gorgeous too! I have fallen back in love again with the idea of being in love... even with all the sad times that make love so painful~ UGH! Hugs! <3Princess