For generations, the people of the City of Ember have languished in a world of artificial lights. But Ember's once powerful generator is failing and the great lamps that illuminate the city are starting to flicker. Now, two teenagers in a race against time, must search Ember for clues that will unlock the ancient mystery of the city's existence, and help the citizens escape before the lights go out forever.

One of the most entertaining adaptations from a book that I've ever seen, even a different league from Harry Potter himself, "City of Ember" is one of the best films I've ever seen. It's painfully short and saying that is a paradox of a compliment and a flaw. The first book in the series of four books is obviously a set up and the movie acts like this too, which is unfortunate.

If you couldn't already tell, this film didn't make a lot of money in the box office. Basically, it bombed. What does that mean? The possibility of the next three movies is very slim and that means you and I are going to have to read the books to find out what will happen. Like I said, it's just a shame. The film is fantastic with an incredible amount of imagination, a fantastic production design, and a grim look. It would've been great to see all four films get made.

Getting that out of the way, I loved the fact the film was darker than most family films. It's dark, yes, but not very dark like "Prince Caspian" or "Harry Potter 3" but it's dark enough to have teens and adults be drawn and spellbound by the movie. It's very enjoyable and the movie ends like that because of the fast pace. I honestly wanted the movie to be an hour longer because everything went by so fast.

Oscar nominee Saoirse Ronan is here still giving her best. Her performance is very well done and just authentic. She's one of the better young actress out there and shines this bright light at us that we fall in love with her the first second we laid eyes on her. Harry Treadaway does well as her friend, although nothing very special. Tim Robbins and Bill Murray seemed wasted here because they don't appear in the movie that much.

The movie is very entertaining with a great use of imagination, fantastic special effects and production design, and a very intriguing plot that would captivate any willing viewer to watch the movie. Like I said earlier, it's just sad when you see such a good movie go to waste when people don't watch it and forget about it. Let's just hope they will make another movie.


I'm one of the people who doesn't compare the book to it's movie. So I'm not going to do that for City of Ember. However, it is very hard not to, when the plot of the movie is fragile and could fall apart if the string was pulled a little.

A) The beginning was a dead giveaway. What is that about? Haven't you people heard of something called 'twist in the tale', even if it a lame one! B) The entire plot, loosely held. No supporting ground, just plain confusion. C) This book is not that long. It could totally pull off a one and half hour movie if it were done right. I guess its too late to think about that so lets think about the good stuff.

A) I guess the two stars were decent. Treadaway and Ronan have talent for sure. But isn't Doon supposed to be a 12 year old boy? Having a 24 year old play a 12 year old is really pushing it. B) The visual effects and settings were good. I guess that held the thrill of the movie. C)Somehow the ending was pretty nice. It pretty much follows the book, unlike the scenes before it, but it has this mellow feeling to it that was not captured quite well in the book (no offense to the book fans)

Overall, the movie is NOT ALL BAD. It is good, but has terrible flaws. I hope the sequel, if they ever make one, manages to outdraw its predecessor.


I had never even hear of City of Ember, but when my mother asked my husband and I to go see it I decided to go. I was not expecting this at all! City of Ember was a wonderful movie! I can see how people who have read the books are giving this bad reviews. With any movie that comes from a book there will have to be some changes, even if just for the fact of editing for time. After seeing City of Ember I couldn't wait to get to the store to buy the books! I'm glad that this movie had this effect on me and will probably inspire others to do the same. Instead of criticizing how the movie doesn't follow the book as much as you believe it should, you should just enjoy the film for what it is and then you can re-read with new visuals to think of!


I am very excited about this movie. It suffers from some of the things so common in fantasy films: Simplified storyline, too many things fall into place for the characters, generally directed at children when it doesn't need to be to include them. That being said, unlike most of the Fantasies in the past few years, these traits do not ruin the movie. The star actors do a great job, the story premise is interesting and relevant to today's world, and above all THE SETS AND COSTUMES ARE F-ING AMAZING! Finally a director has come who is over the whole CG dazzle and understands that CG has it's place but that it should be reserved for things that you couldn't otherwise do. Yes, this movie includes CG, but wherever it can it steers away from it. Interview with Gil Kenan on cinematical.com Kenan says "I'm not really impressed by special effects. I feel like I grew up in a generation where -- I knew how a blue screen worked when I was a five-year-old, and growing up with magazines like Cinefex around, there's no illusion to it. It's much more interesting to me to tell a story in a primitive way. That gives me the excitement that another generation of filmmakers has had of pushing the technological envelope -- I feel like it's a backlash to that stuff. And I feel like it's important to balance. There's a lot of fancy digital effects in the film, but they were used when the effect could only be created digitally, when there was no way to do something practical."

This is a crucial attitude in the advancement of quality fantasy and sci-fi films. For years now we've been plagued with things like "episode" 1-3 of Star Wars, or worse, the CG animated re-edit special edition of the original Star Wars trilogy. UGH!

Anyway, City of Ember brings back great costuming and set design aesthetic and is a huge step int he right direction for the future of fantasy and sci-fi film. And of course, it's engaging, enjoyable, and cool. Even if a little too childish / badly written to go down in history as one of the greats.

Being his second film since the short animation that got Gil Kenan his career, and being such a step up from that, I am hugely excited to see what this fledgling director will be coming out with next.

Read more of my reviews and other things at afoxdrinksblood.livejournal.com


City of Ember is a movie I fear that is destined not to do very well. When I saw it today there was a grand total of five people in my screen, three of which were me and my friends. Neither of my friends had ever heard of the movie, none of my family had a clue what it was about, and the only person that appeared to know anything about it had said the trailer looked a pile of garbage. So I wasn't expecting all that much from the movie, however City of Ember is not by any means a bad movie. In fact it verges on being a very good one, but the ending kicks the audience in the teeth and then makes it just a slightly above average one. The movie works very well for the majority of the film, the cast is extremely strong and the movie is by no means ever dull. Unfortunately the plot is the problem, while it is intriguing, an underground city that reaches the end of its life, unfortunately the writer doesn't seem to go very far with it. The sense of menace is never really there, while the sudden blackouts add a bit of oomph to the movie, apart from that, and a very big mole (don't ask) there never seems a sense of urgency to escaping. Still this is bound to entertain kids, and for once the kid actors don't grate at all, in fact its some of the adult members that I found much more annoying. Anyway its Half Term fodder, and while it isn't Potter or Narnia standards this will entertain kids.

So onto the cast. Well the headlining star from all the publicity I have seen, would have to be Bill Murray, despite the fact he isn't in it all that much. Murray actually isn't all that bad here, if I'm honest I expected him to phone in another performance much like he did for Garfield. Instead he does seem to be having a bit of fun, and his character is interesting and develops more towards the end. Still there isn't an awful lot to say about him as he has roughly twenty minutes screen time in total. The main kids are played by Harry Treadway and Saoirise Ronan (from Atonement), both of whom are very good. Treadway is particularly good, while his character is basically the usual stereotype, a boy who feels he is more than what he really is, who wants to make a difference, goes on a grand adventure. He has fantasy lead written all over it, all he needed was to be a farm boy and we might as well have called him Skywalker. Anyway Treadway makes him a very interesting and layered character. He also has considerable chemistry with Ronan, who delivers an equally as impressive performance. Her American accent is pitch perfect, and while she isn't as good as she was in Atonement, she still gets the job done. Tim Robbins shows up in a relatively pointless role as Doon's father. Martin Landau is great as Doon's mentor in the pipeworks, and in my opinion deserves the most praise in the movie. Finally Mackenzie Cook also is pretty damned brilliant, once again putting on an American accent that sounds very legitimate.

City of Ember might have a strong cast, but as I have said the storyline is at times questionable. The start of the movie is perfectly fine, we're given a lot of back-story about how Ember came to be, and how a box was passed down from generation of mayor to the next (very well filmed scene). The storyline in fact works perfectly fine until after the kids decide to do something. Once they get their hands on the box and go on their quest not an awful lot seems to happen. In fact the instructions they receive are so damned simple it makes you wonder whether that part really deserves as much screen time as it does? Also everything seems a tad to convenient, one scene towards the end made me roll my eyes in annoyance because I could not believe nobody had turned a certain wheel for over 200 years. The ending as well is god awful. I accept happy endings, I have no problem with them, but the ending here made me want to vomit. Anyway this is nitpicking, mostly the storyline is engrossing, even though the inclusion of the mole is really questionable. The action isn't half bad, although the CGI for a bit in a boat is pretty poor. But the set designs are the real star, not since Del Toro have I seen sets to beautiful.

Overall City of Ember is a movie that I did really enjoy, and would happily watch again. But the storyline must be taken with a pinch of salt, and be prepared for an ending that most people will just be a bit dumbstruck by.


Probably Director Todd Solondz' most mature work to date, Storytelling is split into two parts `Fiction' and `Non-Fiction' - yet similar themes underlie both and pose questions about what we call reality when it comes to prejudice and taboo subjects. Whilst in previous attempts (such as `Happiness') Solondz' work has merely been controversial, in this film he berates political correctness more accurately and more entertainingly. It exposes ridiculous attitudes in the name of political correctness, whether it is the student with an awful essay who almost escapes criticism because he has cerebral palsy, or a black teacher who gets away with being a pervert because his victim doesn't want to entertain thoughts of racism. Nothing is sacred: Jews and the Holocaust also come in for merciless examination. But part of the film involves the story of a `documentary' being made within the main story, by an exploitative screwed up filmmaker who wants to do his own thing in the name of art, so in this sense, Storytelling even turns on itself and questions the validity of using the subject matter that it does. A controversial, worthy, and very entertaining film that stretches your ability to make moral judgements within a convincingly coherent framework.


Writer/director Todd Solondz last rocked my world with Happiness, which was the sharpest, most unflinching black comedy I'd ever seen. He does it again with Storytelling, keeping his impeccable edge while exploring some intriguing new turf. No doubt wary after his previous ventures, Solondz attempts to circumvent some of the criticisms that less savvy viewers are bound to make. Sure enough, they go ahead and make them; the reviews are polarized. But the film is a masterpiece.

The film has two parts. The first part, titled Fiction, focuses on a creative writing student Vi (Selma Blair), her Cerebral Palsy-stricken boyfriend Marcus (Leo Fitzpatrick) and their professor Mr. Scott (Robert Wisdom).

The classroom setting provides an unusual venue: a story writing workshop within a story. Solondz puts one of the characters through a perversely traumatic experience, which we witness as viewers of the movie. Before we have a chance to pass judgment on Solondz, his character writes about the event in the 3rd person and reads the story in class. All accusations one might level against Solondz (namely: bad taste, plus every "ism" in the book) get made by the fellow students, who detest the story. But in the context of the movie, they're condemning an account of an event that actually happened! Very clever...

In spite of some of the grotesque twists, I found myself laughing out loud fairly often. Solondz has a gift for rendering subtle ironies that become overwhelmingly funny.

The lead characters are fascinating and multi-layered. Vi seems innocent, but if you pay close attention, you'll notice she's not particularly sincere. One would like to root for Marcus, but his condition doesn't excuse him for being a lousy writer and a self-absorbed a**hole. The professor may be a monster, but he is also very frank.

The second part Nonfiction is also highly self-aware. It covers the making of a two-bit documentary. In the process, the dialog once again anticipates many of the charges some will make against Solondz (that he exploits his subjects and creates a sensational freak show for us to snicker at). There's a cameo role with Mike Schank, who was featured in real life in American Movie. The similarities between the documentary American Movie, the fiction Storytelling and the documentary within a fiction (tentatively titled American Scooby) are uncanny.

Scooby (Mark Weber) is the ultimate apathetic suburban slacker teen. While very much spoiled and sheltered, he is also alienated from, and resentful of, his elders. He perks up a bit when there are no grownups around, but most of the time the "stupid" barrier is up and his eyes are half-closed and red from smoking pot. He's such a lost cause, he attracts the attention of an aspiring documentarian (Paul Giamatti).

As you might expect, the rest of Scooby's family is a real piece of work. Scooby's dad (John Goodman) is loud and domineering. His mom (Julie Hagerty) is idiotic. His younger brother Brady (Noah Fleiss) is a jock, perhaps the closest to what we'd like to consider "normal".

The brainy youngest brother, Mikey (Jonathan Osser) is a real standout. He tags around with the overworked El Salvadorian housemaid Consuelo (Lupe Ontiveros) and asks her lots of questions. His curiosity is cute, but his conceited insensitivity truly boggles the mind.

Solondz definitely favors the sordid, but I'm not sure he does so gratuitously. I think he simply refuses to pretend, as so many other do, that the world is a tidy, simple place. (Those who seek to preserve such a notion are guaranteed to abhor his work.) But is it fair to berate Solondz just because he dares to present what others systematically avoid? Whose vision is more skewed: Solondz for pointing out the dog***t on our shoes, or the mainstream for ignoring it?

I wish I could agree that his writings are contrived and distorted, but I don't think they are. Through the media, through the grapevine and sometimes with my own eyes, I've seen events that are every bit as twisted and "wrong" as those Solondz creates. Everywhere I look, I encounter people who could easily be incorporated into a Solondz script.

Every storyteller recreates the world according to his/her own vision. Todd Solondz just happens to be vastly more perceptive and talented than most. Storytelling is one of the most insightful, clever and thought-provoking films I've ever seen. Watch it multiple times for maximum yield.


After reading about Palindromes and finding myself oddly attracted to the subject matter of several of Todd Solondz's features, I bought this film. It would seem that it has a reputation as being his worst work to date(at least as far as theatrically released movies go)... I must say, if the rest of what he's done is this powerful, I will have to keep my eyes open for it. You seldom see movies that are this unpleasant. There are films that are far, far harder to watch... but this is still not one you put on to enjoy yourself. As many other viewers, I didn't care much for the first half(well, part... it's a third of the projects full length, with a running time of about 25 minutes), "Fiction". I felt I had gained little after it was over, though I will say that the concept and themes explored are quite interesting. "Non-Fiction" proved to be far more worth-while, in my opinion. The writing and direction is excellent in both. The pacing works well... I was never bored, and while it wasn't exactly a "good" time, it moved along as it should, never really too slow or too fast. The characters were incredible... the sheer amount of development, through so little time spent on each... that's talent. As its title indicates, Storytelling goes into different methods of telling a story... and displays some of the most impressive storytelling that I've seen to date. There is some humor, but it's quite black, and throughout the film, I was unsure of whether I should laugh out loud... or cry my eyes out. The film is strongly satirical, very direct and seemingly almost aggressively anti-PC. Dealing with several subjects of taboo, Solondz pulls few punches, if any. Certainly not a film for everyone. Both parts seem to end somewhat abruptly, but that may be intentional. I will say that my rating would almost certainly have been higher had the first part been improved upon... or removed entirely. It's difficult to say who I'd recommend this to... cynics or realists with a strong threshold for the some of the ugliest sides of human nature, I suppose. From what I understand, though, it's less provocative than the other films of Todd Solondz. 8/10


It's pretty rare when I am at a loss for words, particularly when I am weighing an opinion on a film. Even more rare is when I'm speechless about a film by a favorite filmmaker. And to further the irony, the film is titled "Storytelling". Written and directed by Todd Solondz ("Welcome to the Dollhouse", "Happiness"), "Storytelling" is actually two short stories within the same film.

Being a fan of Solondz's work, I can't possibly pretend to be surprised that "Storytelling" is depressing. Anyone who has seen his other work knows what he or she is in for going in. One thing that I felt about "Storytelling" more than any of the other two Solondz films I've seen is that it seemed a lot more personal. The character of Toby is clearly a representation of Solondz, and a depiction and answer to and of his critics who say that he is a horrible person for "mocking" his characters, etc. In the film, when a fellow filmmaker criticizes Toby, telling him it is "glib and facile to make fun of those people", Toby denies this, simply saying "I love them." Looking back on his past work, and looking back on reviews I have written of those films, there is a definite pattern with the characterizations and the situations that Solondz writes them into. The situations are painful and the characters are sympathetic (or pathetic, depending on how you look at them), but the pain comes from Solondz not turning the camera away from the subject when they are at their most vulnerable. Most filmmakers, in order to make a more commercially acceptable film do not inject the kind of honesty that Solondz does, which naturally ends up creating criticism for him because it is "different".

Also notable is his defiant decision to, rather than cut his film according to MPAA standards to give it an R rating instead of NC-17, create a ridiculously large red box to mask the sex scene in "Fiction". Apparently he was told that the scene either needed to be cut or he would get a higher rating, (an absolutely ridiculous notion because the action itself was not overly graphic, it was the details of the scene that were disturbing) so in his refusal to cut it, he decided to throw it back in the MPAA's face and call it what it was: Censorship.

Out of many "disturbing" scenes, there was one scene that I found so profound that it has not left my mind since I watched this film last night. Scooby decides that he wants to see the footage that Toby has shot thus far, so he travels into New York City to see him. Mike, who tells him that Toby is actually screening the footage elsewhere as they speak, greets him at the door. When Scooby gets to the screening, where various intelligista are gathered, he sees himself on the screen, giving his inner thoughts, while the audience is laughing. Other than to turn to the footage on the screen, the camera does not leave Scooby's face, which has been transformed from a look of hopefulness to a mask of grief. Later, when he returns home to an unexpected tragedy at home, among the various policemen, etc., Toby runs up to Scooby with Mike, camera in tow, saying, "Oh my god, Scooby. I'm so, so sorry." To which Scooby, providing the last line of the film says, looking right into the camera, "Don't be. Your movie's a hit." That scene, those words, and the rest of the film made "Storytelling" shockingly and almost unbearably good. Solondz, who has made a career out of turning his eye to the fraying suburban ideal, is at his bleakest with this film. I've read criticism that he is "too" dark, which make his films somewhat unwatchable; a notion I find absolutely ridiculous. True, his films are like repeatedly ripping scabs off of a wound, never allowing it to heal, but their profundity is almost tangible. "Storytelling" was so thought provoking and effective that I found myself too numb to fully react until I actually began to put my thoughts into words, at which point I felt like I wanted to cry my eyes out. In a society where films like "Guess Who" and "Miss Congeniality" rule the box office, I find this to be a really difficult film to universally recommend, but there are definitely those out there who will appreciate this film. An extremely strong 8/10.

--Shelly


Storytelling has two parts. Fiction and non fiction. In fiction Tod Solondz tells us how we have to watch part two, as soon as you start writing (filming in this case) everything becomes fiction. It is not surprising that the first part (fiction) seems to be more non-fiction than part 2 (non-fiction). The first part is the very raw and painful story about a young girl who is raped by her literature teacher. The second part is the story of a documentaire filmmaker who tries to make a film about teens in suburbia. The guy is a looser, and nobody believes his film will be succesful. But the family he follows (by accident) gets involved in a serie of dramatic events, and the film becomes a hit. When the filmmaker tells his subject he is sory for what happend to him, scooby tells him not to be sorry, because his film is a hit.

Tod Solondz is a genial storyteller. He doesn't follow the normal structure of a hollywood film, a protagonist with an dramatic purpose, an antagonsist with an invert purpose, ... Like the bad guy in part one tells us, the second story is way better, this one has at least a begin, a middle and an end. In fact Non-fiction has a begin, a middle and an end, but that is not the reason why you will like the movie. The dramatic events that will happen to the family livingstone are not the motor that makes this movie turn. As in happiness, it is the way Tod Solondz shows us how we really act in life, different than how we think we are acting. watching a Tod solondz movie is like when you watch yourself in the mirror early in the morning when you aren't completely awake. there is an ocean between where i live, an where tod Solondz films his movies, but everytime again, i see myself reflected in the personages of Tod Solondz. That is wath makes his films so wonderful painful, you see people doing stupid things, but you can't blame them, because you know you should do the same thing. You love the personages you are laughing with.

Well, i love Tod Solondz, in my directors all-time ranking i'll put him on the same level as lars Von Trier, just under Ingmar Bergman, and igmar bergman, that is the top.


Now from reading the trivia provided by IMDb, it can be learned that their was originally going to be three stories. After learning this, I can somewhat understand the format of movie the director was going for. However, having only two stories (which are disproportionate in the amount of time spent on them) is completely distracting because you find yourself looking for the parallel between them. The theme was their but that wasn't enough. If Solandz would have just pulled one character from the first story and show a glimpse of them in the second, I would have found the movie a lot smoother around the edges. Since he did not do this, I am forced to evaluate the second part of the film more due to the time spent on it as well as plot development.

Format aside, I loved the second part of storytelling. All characters are lovable and easy to relate to, especially Scooby. Scooby represents a normal teenager trying to find his own with many confrontations with his parents. So much so, that he can almost be looked at as a theme more than as a character. The portrayal of the oldest, middle, and youngest child is dead on. Parents are a cliché but it only adds to the plot. *SOMEWHAT SPOILER* The beginning shot of the director makes you sympathize him which then leads you to trust his intentions. Everyone, even the viewer, is betrayed by his depiction of the family. The movie ended perfectly, as there was nothing else that could be said or done and I give props to Solandz for being able to leave it perfect and raw.


*MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* All in all, this film was hard to watch at times. I knew going into it that it was going to be a somewhat disturbing experience. It is Solondz after all. However, when you compare it to his previous films, "Happiness" and "Palindromes", it seems like Sesame Street in comparison.

The film is split up into two parts: "Fiction" and "Non-fiction". The first story deals with a young lady who has enrolled in a writing class with her handicapped boyfriend. Her teacher is an overbearing and brutally honest black man. It is apparent that there is some sexual tension between the two of them. She dumps her boyfriend, goes to a bar one night, and her professor just so happens to be there. She ends up back at his place, and something horrible happens to her that pretty much ruins her emotionally. She writes a fictional short story based upon what happened to her that night Everyone in class accuses her of exploitation, of being a racist, etc. Her only response to the harsh criticism: "But it really happened!" Powerful stuff...

The second half of the film deals with a documentary filmmaker who is basically supposed to represent Solondz himself. He wants to make a film about teenagers living in modern day suburbia, and he chooses a slacker named Scooby to be his subject. Scooby comes from an extremely dysfunctional family, headed by his extremely temperamental father. Scooby doesn't know what he wants out of life, doesn't even care to take the SATs at school, and wants to be a talk show host when he grows up. He has two brothers. One is your typical high school jock, and he thinks that Scooby is gay. His younger brother is a demonic little intellectual brat who is continually harassing the maid, and on occasion, hypnotizes his parents to get what he wants. However, the documentary filmmaker insists that he cares about these people and decides to go on with his project. There are moments here where it is clear that Solondz is making a statement about past criticisms of his films. Anyone who has done any research on the director will pick up on this. Scooby pours his heart out in front of the camera, telling of his hopes and dreams. He ends up taking the SAT, albeit in a very unconventional way. All the while, the filmmakers intentions become less and less honorable. I will stop there for fear of giving away the shocking ending.

Solondz may be letting off a little steam here, and some of it feels gratuitous. However, it gives you plenty of food for thought, and you won't be able to think about anything else for a while.


At first viewing I though this was the weakest of director Todd Solondz films, however like all of his works, it's impossible to forget once seen. Todd Solondze absorbed criticisms about exploitation, showing misery for misery's sake, and just generally being a "meanie", and turned them into the cinematic equivalent of a "dis song"(rap term for song made specifically as an attack or "beef" with another rapper), with Solondz against critics, carefully trying to explain the notions of "Storytelling". Our first story deals with sex, political correctness, race, and fiction writing, as a young liberal college girl has unpleasant and ironic sexual experience with her Black writing professor. Our second well...with the same subjects just this time with non-fiction in place of fiction. Here Solondz shows us yet another dysfunctional upper middle class Jewish family in chaos, but this time as a "documentary", which shows us the pathetic film maker, the cruel or otherwise ignorant family, and the audience who laughs and scoffs, at it all.

This is a rare film, because it's a film maker addressing his critiques, himself, and his audience all at once. And it has plenty of Solondz trade mark cringe scenes, that veer drastically from comic to dramatic in a matter of breaths. The results are absorbing but like all Solondz it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, and makes you honestly question your own moral compass. They say satire is dead if the audience cannot be shocked, but it's also dead if the audience cannot be shamed, in the days where South Park and Family Guy, are on non cable TV any afternoon (l love both shows), shock and shame are concepts so familiar they've lost some of their power. Thankfully just when we've seen it all and were sure that nothing matters and nothing can surprise, startle, or offend us, Todd Solondz will be there to show things can always get worse.


Yet another masterpiece from one of the great indie filmmakers. Solondz again uses a lot of his trademark stark and unsettling characters to tell two separate stories. "Fiction" was short and to the point, the message being the utter subjectiveness of the art of storytelling. It was hilarious how the other kids in the writing class reacted to Vi's story, like it was improbable, racist and offensive. Solondz again displayed in this story that many people ARE racist and offensive, sometimes without even realizing it. It would have been impossible to make a whole movie out of "Fiction," and I think it was impressive that Solondz had the daring to just change over to another story without trying to link them, which would have been tedious. Solondz wanted to make two separate points, and the only way to do so was with two separate stories. The graphic sex scene between Selma Blair and Robert Wisdom is blocked out in the R-rated version; Solondz has a big red rectangle over the characters in a successful attempt to show how the MPAA censors can ruin a movie with their silly rules. I actually thought it added to the message of the first story, and the uncensored version is also on the DVD anyway. The second story is much longer and as a result has characters that are much more well developed. The Paul Giamatti character was a hilarious reflection of Solondz himself. Not just physically, but also in the way he was criticized for making fun of the characters in his documentary just as Solondz has been criticized for doing the same in "Welcome to the Dollhouse" and "Happiness." Many people who dislike Solondz films just can't stand the often vicious or disturbing denizens that inhabit his works. These people should stick to watching "Titanic" and "A Walk to Remember" as they have no appreciation for the daring and honest way Solondz makes his movies.


Another completely original, dark, deeply skewered and audacious commentary on society from Todd S., whom we've come to depend upon for this sort of thing. Not as focused as Dollhouse or as filled-out as Happiness, Storytelling does seem sparse, and that's one of the things I like best about it (I've seen it 4 times now)- how T.S. didn't feel the need to conform to what the majority of film goers (even his OWN crowd!) expect when they enter a theatre.

It's divided into two parts - Fiction, with its heavy sexual, presumably-racist and ironic elements, a searing affair that many people seem to have found offensive without getting the underlying satire, and then there's Non-Fiction; amazing how much spot-on societal jabs T. S. squeezes into this one, and plus it has another great, multi-layered performance from Paul Giamatti, always a major selling point of any film, for me.

The bottom line: I believe T.S. deserves credit for his audacity alone, his unwillingness to compromise his vision, however unacceptable it might be. Or he might be consciously tailoring his vision toward the unacceptable, sort of like Andy Kaufman did - getting off on just making people react, shaking them out of indifference. Or maybe, like some people have suggested, he's run out of ideas (or he peaked with Dollhouse) and he's just rehashing the same stuff, hoping nobody will notice. Or maybe he WANTS us to notice, maybe it's a cry for help, in which case I would recommend a writing class, but NOT one that has Robert Wisdom as the professor.


The movie consists of two different parts - two different approaches to the storytelling. The mutual thread - what people are capable of doing in the search of the inspiration... Not to mention the main character's alienation, which is a leitmotif in all Solondz's works. Even though people tend to criticise the first, short part, it is quite interesting. I think that the key to that part is the teacher's comment on Marcus story, "The Wrongness of Truth": "is that supposed to be a joke of some sortor are you just being pretentious?" Quite a gimmick The second part - well, it's just a masterpiece. Makes you feel depressed and amused at the same time. Truly admire Solondz's work


the soundtrack for this movie was done entirely by Belle & Sebastian, but most of the songs recorded by them aren't in the movie. their full soundtrack is released as an amazing album.

that soundtrack is better than the movie itself in many ways, since the moral statement of the film, about the power of art to distort reality gets lost in the spectacle of the movie. the unsuccessful film screening is a perfect summary of the whole film. not to say i didn't like this movie, i do. i just think that it has a muddled point and muddled execution, which is an interesting commentary on the ability to control your art and say a good moral message: life and art get messy and a real moral tale is hard to tell realistically.


I saw this film today in high school, at cinema class. tough my class is usually in a very high level of film understanding, I was surprised to see how pepole "didn't like the ending" and "tought the film could have used situations to make scenes more emotional", missing all the point of this movie.

from my point of view, this film is about emotional disawarness to other pepole's feelings. it is screamed in the relationships inside the family, between the director and Scooby, and in every scene in the script. I do not want to make spoilers for the movie, but I think it shows clear at the last line of the movie.

"storytelling" takes what so many other movies (like "crash") tried to do, but do it better, with more depth, more meaning, more gentle treatment to the characters, just better. who ever saw it and did not think of the point of characters that are emotionally closed, I think should watch the movie again, because he might miss a spectacular work of cinema.


This was a great film, superbly crafted. The two stories were not given equal time in the film, as they should not have. Although Selma Blair delivers, what I believe to be, her best performance to date, her "story" pales in comparison to the "Nonfiction" part of the movie, which gives a much more real and brutal account of Mark Webbers character, Scooby.

I would rather not give a plot summary nor deliberate on inconsequential details of the movie, but suffice to say this is a must see! While it may not be as eloquent as American Beauty, Storytelling provides a wonderful snapshot into the psyche of high school and college life wrapped in some extraordinary circumstances. This film is a testament to despair, self loathing and personal struggle.

The ending is, perhaps, the crown jewel of this film. It made my jaw drop and, in fact, I sat in front of the TV for a number of minutes before I regained my senses. Side note: I had to watch "Fiction" twice, as I failed to see its correlation to "Nonfiction" when I watched it the first time.

My vote: 8 out of 10


How could you do a better movie about storytelling than showing how hard it is! Solondz splits the movie in two parts, "Fiction" and "Non-fiction" and shows in both how easily our subjective perception of real life loses its grips in other people's perceptions, situations, expectations... while writing about it. Whoever has ever written something: Don't miss this film!


The best thing about Solondz's films is that they're utterly unpredictable. You never know what to expect, hence along with the steady stream of very funny gags and situations, there is a certain tension, almost like watching a "comedy thriller". (A new genre perhaps?) Solondz veers away from the clichés of both mainstream Hollywood rubbish and lethargic/pretentious/mindless indie crap, hence keeps the viewer on his toes for the duration. In a sense, he is the "anti-Ephron". A deaf-and-blind person could foretell you how a Nora comedy proceeds - in every successive scene - in her terrible noraphronic cinematic turds.

I'm not quite sure what Solond'z political leanings are. Chances are that he is yet another movie-making liberal (hint hint: he's a vegetarian, and his films are about middle-class suburbia), but he isn't a black-and-white, narrow-minded, dogmatic liberal who never analyzes anything, never digs below the surface, simply sponging in everything Michael Moore tells him - i.e. the stereotypical intellectually catatonic Leftist: lazy, smug, gullible, unable to learn. His cynicism regarding humanity isn't misanthropic, he simply tells is like it is (more-or-less).

Besides, what's so bad about misanthropy? Marxism might seem (I underline "might") people-friendly on the surface, but deep down it hates every man, woman, and child. And because a skeptical view of man's alleged "inherent goodness" is the foundation of all Marxist/Leftist beliefs, eventually Solondz might actually connect the dots and realize finally that left-wing ideology has no scientific basis, no roots in logic whatsoever. He'll come around... if he isn't afraid to face the consequences of "switching sides". Of course, a problem is that most Americans only see two (extreme) sides they can join: either that of the Socialist, clueless, overly idealistic liberal whiner, or the side of the Christian fundamentalist wacko who considers abortion the burning issue of this millennium. There IS a middle road, you know... (well, a middle road that tilts toward the Right - naturally.)

"Storytelling" has two parts, and while both are very good, it is somewhat of a pity that the first story was so brief. I got a great kick out of those English Lit class discussions, with all those hypocritical, cowardly, unimaginative, brainwashed college girls listening to the second essay, but pretending awkwardly not to know what or whom it's really about. It was extremely funny; these characters alone have the potential for a mini-series, let alone a 90 minute full-length film. However, these exploits end after a mere 10-15 minutes, to be followed by an entertaining saga of a Jewish family, their mentally unstable Putzfrau, and a nerdy, confused filmmaker wannabe. Great dialogue.

One of the highlights is certainly the youngest Goodman son telling Consuela that the execution of her murdering/raping grandson was "possibly for the best".


I have seen this movie twice now, and I'm wondering what is up with that large orange block in the first story? Is there something real going on here? The movie as a whole seemed like a cross between American Rose and Six Feet Under. Selma Blair seems to have an affinity with quirky indie type films. The moment when Vi walks into the restroom to freshen up, and discovers the dozens of photographs of other girls, some who i believe are in Vi's class, who ended up in the same predicament was a nice touch to a kind of dry film. Teacher/Student fantasies happen in real life every day. Who hasn't wondered about sex with a teacher, it goes as far back as grade school.


I loved Happiness and Welcome to the Dollhouse, so I looked forward to this movie with great anticipation. My hopes were dashed, however. Here we have two unrelated stories with relatively boring characters, neither of which is allowed to fully develop. Both had potential in their own right, but they just seem to go nowhere. I desperately wanted to like the movie. I gave it every chance to impress me. But the "shocking" stuff, like the racial issues in "Fiction", wasn't really that shocking, yet it came across as being more done for shock value than the well-defined, nuanced characters of the much more shocking Happiness.


Storytelling is a great movie, at times Solondz could have done better but everything was good. From the music, that was the main reason why i wanted to watch the trailer again; to the humor. This movie dares to go places that other movies don't and most of the time it works.

Two stories, fiction and fact, make up this story. The first one, fiction, involves an interracial relationship between a student and her college professor. The second, Fact, revolves around a boy named Scooby and his "struggles". The second story is where all the meat is and the first was pretty good too.

John Goodman gave a good performance and the lad that played Scooby was pretty good too. All in all this movie deserves a watching, but i warn you this movie is not for people that like "crossroads" or Hilary Duff movies. If you enjoy music and indie movies this is for you.


This movie is great.Because it deals with nasty subjects and themes that are just too real and raw for most directors out there to even attempt to handle.Tod is a truly consummated director and storyteller(pun intended).I certainly can see an autobiographic commentary here, as any viewer paying some attention could.But for all it's dead pan humor and dark views of the human nature, this movie is a lot of fun and full of twisted, brilliant moments.*Spoilers Next*For example: when the character Scobby is high on marijuana and sees himself as a guest on Conan Doyle's Show...great!! And when his little brother(highly annoying and egotistic but also very intelligent)hypnotize his father to..love him!*End of Spoilers* By any means you should compare this with Tod's masterpiece: Happiness, but with Welcome To The Doll House(another excellent movie of his)this could stand very tall and proud.Highly recommended essential look!


Todd Solondz seems to specialise in hating everybody. From "Welcome to the Dollhouse", through "Happiness" to this film, he seems to thrive in misanthropy, delving into the worst aspects of human nature.

"Storytelling" has two separate segments: "Fiction" deals with a college student (Selma Blair) who breaks up with her disabled boyfriend and has a brutal one-night stand with her creative writing professor. "Non-Fiction" describes the attempt of an aspiring documentarian (the always good Paul Giamatti) to make a film about a typical high-school loser and his wealthy family.

As always the film is savage and bitter and is bound to have something to offend almost anyone, and yet it is very funny. In a way the laughs are almost shocked out of you by the casual cruelty on display. In my opinion "Storytelling" is better than the over-rated "Happiness" (which just went too far at times).

When you want something to make you feel good about life and humanity, don't watch this film.


Storytelling is an indictment of repressive suburbia, but it is also an indictment of the postmodern, ironic, and politically correct intellectuals, and how both parts of society control and restrict people from being truly who they are. It is also about, well, storytelling and how easily stories and plots are manipulated for effect.

The first half hour, "Fiction," is devoted to a story of a college student, Vi, who is tired of "dating the undergraduates" and ends up a violent and racially charged sex scene with her African American creative writing professor. Solondz pushes the limit on all of the society's buttons in "Fiction," from the handicapped to race relations to sexual politics, and it is almost like he was simply out to shock the audience. The short film comes across as even trite and cliched, although now I realize that I'm quoting a scene from it almost directly, so perhaps this is Solondz's point. Still, if you ever seen any other of Solondz's movies, you can see the whole point of this section coming from a mile away (the dangers of political correctness, the prudishness and hypocrisy of the American middle class, even those claiming to be liberal or progressive, etc.) And I just couldn't believe that Vi would only say "Don't be racist, don't be racist" in the bathroom scene. I think "I gotta get the hell outta here" would be much more logical.

However, the brilliant last hour, "Nonfiction," more than makes up for the first half. It tells the story of a listless and intelligent teenager who lives with an angry and sad family in suburban New Jersey, and also about the documentary that is being made about them. Truly, I wish this were the whole movie, it is that good. Yes, there's plenty of postmodern film-within-the-film winking, but that quickly falls apart as we reach the heartbreaking and disturbing ending, when the movie suddenly becomes painfully real. What is also funny about "Nonfiction," which is supposed to be "real," is that it contains completely fictional and even forced plot points: someone is injured and slips into a coma, someone else is hypnotized and told what to do, and even the final, terrible act seems more to come out of a bad TV movie than real life. (I also especially enjoyed the not-so-subtle digs at American Beauty and American Movie.)

Do we want our lives to be more like an episode of "Friends," wrapped up neat and tidy, with minor quibbles that are resolved in a half hour (or, during sweeps, maybe a "two-part special")? Is political correctness just a big cover up for uncomfortable yet still very real desires and thoughts? Which is worse: being told what to do, or being told what to think? Are the two the same thing? Storytelling does address these questions, and I think if "Nonfiction" were stretched to feature-length, it would answer them brilliantly. But, because of the ho-hum first hour (yes, ho-hum, even with "that scene" and all), all the pieces don't quite fall together. To change the lyrics of a certain Scottish band, "It could've been a brilliant movie."

Storytelling is worth seeing for the great acting (in both "Fiction" and "Nonfiction") and the excellent second section, but you can clip your toenails or stare out the window for the most part during the first half hour. I was expecting more of a cynical irony-fest as in Happiness, but I was truly touched by "Nonfiction," and it will stay with me for quite awhile.


by Dane Youssef

The writer/director of this one is Todd Solondz, so you all know what to expect. For those who saw his heavily acclaimed (by critics and audiences alike) "Welcome To The Dollhouse" a movie about the hell almighty on earth that is junior high school.

I was not one of the film's many admirers. Yes, I felt like just about everybody else that the film did have some poignant truths, but... I pretty much already knew them all. It all felt kinda redundant. I was in high school at the time and every scene I was watching, I thought, "Yeah, no sh*t."

I mean, I know it's supposed to be a satire, but I felt too much like I was watching what I already knew and thought and what has been said too many times before. Solondz was preaching to the reverend there.

His next film, "Happiness" about three sisters and their lives... and how adulthood is even less as mentally unbalanced as junior high school. About three sisters and how their lives aren't as well-adjusted as they seem. The seemingly ideal perfect sister is dry, secretly dull and lives such a sterile life that when an obscene phone caller calls her... she starts stalking him.

The best line in the movie "Happiness"... that almost encapsulates the entire film:

"I'm not laughing at you, I'm laughing with you." "But I'm not laughing."

The film is about two different forms of storytelling: "Fiction" and "Non-Fiction."

In the first story, "Fiction," Solondz shines an interpretive light a creative writing class.

A woman with writing aspirations and her cerebral-palsy boyfriend with the same. Vi has broken up with her boyfriend after his obviously autobiographical story is panned horribly by the school teacher who scathes it. He especially takes some kind of pleasure in attacking the title: "The Rawness of Truth."

Vi's boyfriend is furious with her for not giving it to him straight. Marcus' "Rawness" is about how Vi gave him confidence and made him feel... "completely cerebral."

Most of the whole class warms up to it... except for the teacher's pet... and the writing teacher himself, a Pulitzer-winner author of a novel entitled, "A Sunday Lynching."

Vi, stricken, gets hammered, lights up and... well... let me just put it this way... after having her last story ripped to shreds by the professor, her next story is certainly something of an improvement. And she's definitely evolving... because he's finally got something to say.

The professor has a poetic line about the writing process that rings incredibly true: "Whenever you write... it all becomes fiction."

"Non-Fiction" skewers reality and human experiences with life with a scalpel. Often at times, those documentarians seem to be roasting and attacking their subjects with great anger and fury... but are they just trying to get heat for their film... or is that how they really see it?

Who knows? Many artists are former victims, grown children with bad experiences and hell-bent on vengeance. "Non-Fiction" revolves around the exploits of a documentation filmmaker and his desire to make a documentary about teenagers and what they're feeling now.

Have things changed much? Drugs... suicidal feelings... self-loathing... loathing of the world around them... of the way society treats them, pressures them, conforms them and disposes of them... how do teenagers put up with it? What's ahead? Mark Webber is Scooby Livingston, a depressed, moody teenager who's completely lost and like many teenagers, his all-purpose requests to every questing is "I don't know," "I really don't care" and "Whatever."

He always seems deep in thought and in need of answers. He has big goal aspirations... but no idea whatsoever as how to attain them. When asked how he plans to attain his dreams of stardom, he answers: "I don't know, see if I have any connections... whatever..." After a meet-strange with a documentian Toby, both seem to be exactly what they're looking for and maybe their seemingly unobtainable dreams might have a chance of coming true after all.

The family is not enthusiastic about the whole thing... especially the father who doesn't want the family's dirty laundry to be aired out. But after some hard questions and earnest promises, he agrees.

No family wants to be exploited... and this family certainly would provide more than enough of such material. I think the boy represents Solondz as a young teenager (Solondz himself is a vegetarian) and of course, Giamatti as Toby is Solondz as a filmmaker (Solondz dresses up Giamatti to look exactly like him). There's pressure all around from every angle and sadly, no way out in sight. College doesn't sound appealing to Scoob. Will there be a place for him. Since Scooby grew up to be Solondz himself, there must be hope. But I think Scooby represents all teenagers. He reflects our generation. God, how many teens are there out there EXACTLY like Scooby?

Like all of his other efforts, this is about how ugliness and unsettling rage lives in middle class suburbia. You can't watch this movie, see/hear some of these people and not think of someone you know or have met or seen randomly on the street. Solondz is from Suburbia, New Jersey and is talking about what's going on there. I like how he talks about things that most people shy away from. He wants to criticize, satirize and get you to ask yourself... "How many people are really like this? And... is there hope for us? How many of these people exist... and more importantly, are they in our neighborhood? Not many... hopefully."

Like all of Solondz films, people will either be mesmerized by it or despise it, but it's a movie that many should see. Perhaps a movie for cynical teenagers and aspiring storytellers. Just know what you're getting into. Like all of Solondz's pictures, this cuts deep... and leaves a mark.


Part 1 - A young aspiring writer with a cerebral palsied writer boyfriend both attend writing class taught by a seething, viciously critical novelist.

Part 2 - A schlubby wannabe documentary filmmaker finds his perfect subject: an abjectly apathetic teenager living in privilege with his volcanic father, dithering mother, jock brother and supremely smug, tactless baby brother.

There's nothing in movies more frustrating to me than when a director/writer finds fertile soil and only digs two inches deep. They're precocious enough to stumble upon a great subject but they're content(or shamed or frightened into) going on autopilot from there, lazily applying whatever moldy stylistic preconceptions they made their name with, their auteristic "trademarks", if you will(in director Todd Solondz' case, it's awkwardness, embarrassment, and pain heaped upon pain). I don't have a problem with Solondz' unpleasant modus operandi so the self conscious apologias and justifications found here are superfluous for me - what I wanted out of the film is a deeper examination of the themes of race, fetishistic exploitation, and lack of compassion Solondz is so quick to point out but not address to my satisfaction. His indictments of other films(American Beauty, American Movie, whose resident burnout Mike Schenk gets a cameo here) are impassioned but unconvincing. On the whole though, I think I mainly had a problem with what's not here. Truth is, there was great acting all around, and it was suitably provocative.


wow what a comedy. this movie is pretty compelling and it gets pretty dark, my god the only grudge i hold against it is that it's too short, there should have been 3 segments but then again what the hell am i talking about this movie is so pure evil, but in a good way.


this movie is a burning attack on the hollowness of many modern American values, particularly for young people trying to find their way through high school and early adulthood. i doubt Al Qeda (sp?) could make a more blasting propaganda film than this about American values. but the problem with this movie is that it never lets its characters be human, it chooses just to show the darkest, most empty portrait possible. this movie will find an audience with people who are so postmodern as to be no longer capable of real feelings or tenderness. any sensitivity is something merely to mock. it will also find an audience with people who would rather savage than understand other people, pre-judging them to something like Sartre's No Exit or a Neil Labutte (sp?) movie. this is only truth as much as the view of an asshole taking a crap is "truth", but there is a whole lot more to human beings than the cold, narrow characters we see here. Solondz characters are all losers or players, when really we are all a little of both and not so much of either. perhaps the harsher reality is that our lives are actually simpler than this, less evil, less harsh, less sad. perhaps Solondz wants to demonize life when life is more of a purgatory than a hell. but either way, you won't see the kinder, more humane moments of life in this movie, and for that, it is a rather sad, simple, pathetic kind of story. not because of the characters, because of the storyteller.


It should almost be mandatory for any Hollywood director to view a film of Todd Solondz before beginning a new project. No director at present can present the honesty that he presented in "Happiness" or the newer "Storytelling". His work, along with Larry Clark's "Kids" are what's missing in Hollywood movies. They don't require million dollar budgets for special effects or name stars demanding twenty million per picture. You start with a genuine script and a bunch of actors who know what they're doing and how to take direction and a cameraman who knows how to show the viewer what needs to be seen. That's the formula. The finished product is a little masterpiece such as "Storytelling". This movie, especially part two, will knock your socks off!


With a forgettable plot, painful dialog and non-existent directing, this is a waste of film.

The first story "fiction" is by far the worst of the two. Dialog is delivered with pauses after nearly every line as if they just spoke some profound words that will be remembered for the ages. All it really shows is the director's lack of purpose. It's as if he's trying to be avant-guard or biting but all he ends up doing is looking ridiculous.

The second story "non-fiction" is not as painful but still is a joke. None of the characters are even remotely believable and just come across as poor imitations of cliché's that aren't valid anymore.

If this was a first time director then I would expect this type of result....but it isn't. All it shows is the director's shot at trying to recapture his initial creative success and missing.....badly.


I find this to an amazingly bold film. It is a critical look at political correctness, and a highly comedic one, although most people are probably too offended to see that. I can say from experience that the first segment of the film, "Fiction", is a rather accurate view of a college creative writing class. And the second segment, "Nonfiction", has one of the creepiest characters ever in the young kid in the family. With this film you either get it or you don't, and the majority don't seem to get it. I can't say with time this film will be looked back on any more favorably, although it deserves it. If anything it will probably be even more offensive. Solondz' comedy works for me, because it is not forced, although his punchlines are more like social commentary. Like Spike Lee's greatest films, this is one that is bound to make a lot of people angry. And like Spike Lee's films, it also has several points to make.


Another abortive, pitiful attempt from Solondz... His problem is that subjects of his films are not interesting at all. You just don't care for them. I wonder, how long will it be, before he starts to film a life of some low-life idiots in real-time and present it as "art"...


Groucho Marx and William Bendix deserve much better material than what they are given here. A bad script with unfunny jokes gives these two talents nothing to work with. Why they ever agreed to do this film is one of the great mysteries of Hollywood!


The racehorse in A GIRL IN EVERY PORT isn't the only thing that's lame. The plot, scripting, pacing and every other facet of this film follow suit. Even the title is misleading, as the ship never sails anywhere, and the only girl involved to any great extent is a stunningly moronic Marie Wilson. This film proves that labored, unfunny "comedies" were being produced long before the current spate of mindless garbage began spewing from our television and movie screens. The characters in this film all appear to have IQ's somewhere in the single digit range. It is indeed sad to see so many talented actors tangled up in this unfortunate yawner. Avoid this film at every opportunity.


Groucho Marx and William Bendix play two navy buddies, Benny Linn and Tim Dunnovan, who get a race horse that turns out to have a twin.They try to make a little money with the help of the twin horses.Chester Erskine's comedy A Girl In Every Port from 1952 isn't all that bad of comedy, if you ask me.It has got Groucho Marx in it, who can safe any movie.If course this doesn't reach near the classic stuff he did with his brothers Harpo and Chico, but he still gets to deliver some witty lines that safe a lot of this movie.William Bendix doesn't stay too much behind.He and Groucho make a great team.Marie Wilson plays Jane Sweet, a dumb blonde and isn't at all dumb in her role.Don DeFore does also good job as Bert Sedgwick.This movie may not be a masterpiece, but pretty good anyway.It made my Sunday afternoon a little better.


This movie proves that you don't need a high dollar cast and/or special effects, violence or sex to make a good film. This had none of those things, yet it held my attention by the actors' performances and the silence that was there, between the lines, so to speak. The attention to detail in minor points was also evident. After watching this film, I think I should look at other films produced by this team of dream makers. At one point, I commented to my viewing companion that this movie had the feel of an older David Lynch production right down to the music, i.e. Blue Velvet and Twin Peaks. Thank you Mr. Hughes for such a delightful movie.


I was channel hoping when I caught the start of this film but it was one of those gems that really had me hooked. Everything was superb, from the performances, script, editing etc. It lets you into the lives of the people concerned in a most enlightening, thought provoking way. I believe the true measure of a film is how it leaves you and how it remains with you. Again this is a gem, catch it if you can.


While 2/3 of the IMDb reviewers cast a very satisfactory and satisfied vote between 7 and 10, most professional critics unmercifully panned the movie you cannot help wondering if we saw the same film Unfortunately, the film had already several disadvantages: a somewhat cryptic title which failed to attract attention, no stars, no backing from the distributor; so, if you look at the gross turnover in movie-halls, the result is a sheer catastrophe. It is a pity, as the film is highly enjoyable - though unusual in many respects: it combines extremely funny scenes with very serious ones; there are practically two settings only: the street at night and the jail; and the cast is limited to seven players: two cameos (wizened Richard Hamilton, and intriguing Norman Reedus as the drowned man), two supporting ones (lovely Karen Sillas and seldom-seen Bruce Norris as the pair looking unsuccessfully for privacy); and three main roles : reliable William Sadler, excellent as the police sergeant; bland-faced promising Alessandro Nivola as the hero, and strikingly beautiful (and good actress) Brooke Langton, climaxing the film. Like many others, I came across the film on TV by chance,  but probably in a shortened version: I witnessed Nivola setting up an intricate booby-trap with a paint-tin and the town-clock but nothing came out of it. Missed a good laugh, for sure.


After having watched "Two for the money" and talked about Pacino and inspiration, I can't help but thinking how important something inspiring is in the film industry. Mostly in Hollywood, where inspiring films are locked in a shelf and only come out if the right people allows it and so on. There's still people who wants to leave a message to the viewer; people who has something to say.

A few years ago, a man named William Ryan directed his first and only film to date, called "Reach the rock". The opening shots of the movie and the movement of the camera let us know that we're going to see something common in detail; something simple but with a lot of meaning. "Reach the rock" can be a forgettable film if you don't pay close attention. Ryan cares for his simple environment, and he cares for the meaning and the message.

If you take a look at Ryan's producing credits, you'll see "Miracle on 34th Street" (one of my favorite films), a picture with message and meaning, listed. You are allowed to think that I'm talking a bunch of nonsense here, but I've got to make a stand for a movie like "Reach the rock"; a sensible, heartfelt tale that went completely unnoticeable when it came out.

At first I wanted to see this film because Alessandro Nivola was in it. Nivola, a talented but still not recognized performer (stole the show in the blockbuster "Goal!" and brought grace alongside Amy Adams to "Junebug"), stars as Robin, the most rebellious kid of a small town which is no longer a kid but still does the mischief a teenager does when he wants to get attention. Quinn (William Sadler), the town chief of police, blames him for the death of his nephew Danny, a friend of Robin who wanted more than the life expectations of a little town.

"No one cares about you no more, Robin", Quinn tells him as he puts him in a cell. Robin picks the phone and calls a girl, asking her to pick him up. This is Lise (Brooke Langton), the daughter of the most important man in town and once Robin's girlfriend. He loves her and she loves him too, but she went to the University and he never finished high school and still doesn't know what to do with his life. And what's the problem with that? Some people just don't know.

But he is clever, probably more than Quinn because he destroys various stores of the town and steals a police car in the same night as he is in jail without anyone being able to blame him. Lise goes to visit Robin and denigrates him morally. However, she still wants to do things with him but he is no fool. Meanwhile, Quinn looks at the pictures of his nephew's death. Robin remembers he was with Danny and he wanted to reach the rock; a big rock in the river that represented more than the small town life.

During that night, lots of revelations see the light of day and the viewer finds himself surprised more and more as the time passes. The screenplay by John Hughes is perfect, because there's a charm in the simplicity of the tale accompanied by Ryan's direction. There's a perfect mix of the drama and the comedy; there's a silence in the images that we get to hear because of the little number of actors and their more than good performances.

"Reach the rock" had a lot more to sayA lot of movies these days have; it's just that nobody sees it.


I just happened to catch this delightful film on cable. At first I had difficulty deciding if this was a comedy or drama. Then I realized it, in fact, was a comedy/drama. I have been a fan of Nivola's for some time and was delighted to see him in this film. Seems as though his "look" changes with each character he plays. I last saw him in "Junebug." The other actors in the film handled their characters very well although the Ernie character could have easily come off as "Barney Pfife" but Norris was able to hold back and make it somewhat believable. The title is rather misleading as the "rock" is only shown briefly and appears to be in the middle of a lake; as if swimming there would be going nowhere. All in all it kept my attention and was a very good film. In an earlier review the booby trap with the paint-tin and town clock was mentioned as not being seen. For some reason that scene ran AFTER the credits. Sort of confusing. I thought it was that last crash we heard but did not see later on in the film. Or, was the booby trap set off after Robin left the jail? i.e., after the credits. Can anyone clarify?


I thought this movie was fantastic. Edgy and full of young fun I was really drawn in a recommend it for a laugh,a touch of drama and sexy Alessandro Nivola! For those wondering what happened in the clock scene watch till the very end credits-there's a sneaky ending to it all! Although the movie title is a little bland, there are some truly awesome actors in it that create a movie with attitude. I find the plot really hard to forget now as often I found myself amazed at how thought out this movie was. I watched in on TV and I'm glad I did, its the sort of movie you can snuggle up with your boyfriend/girlfriends or your best girl mates who don't mind a bit of Alessandro showing of those toned arms... Loved it, and it appeals to all.


This film is nonstop action, foul language, sex and drug use. And the action was not the kind of mindless blow stuff up that I like. And the sex was too kinky. Whips. Leather. And every other word was f this and f that. The lead character Puck seemed nice enough. But all the other kids in the movie were degenrates...every last one of them. It was disgusting. Call me old fahsioned. But what does any of it have to do with cooking?


I think the problem is too many people are comparing this movie with other movies and failing to realize thats its not SLC Punk or Fightclub. Anarchist Cookbook deals with a more philosophical and physiologically aspect of Anarchy over anything else. The whole movie starts with comparing Hippies to Anarchy, the idea of accomplishing anarchy by means of peace, respect and intelligence. Puck believed that was Anarchy, then Johnny Black shows up and basically takes that whole concept and says it will never work. Johnny Black was right in sense too, the fall of the system could never be acquired by means of peace. Johnny Black believed the only way to bring down the system was to use violence, aggression, and destruction. This meant going out and openly attacking the system by aggressive vandalism, attacking people, and altering peoples judgment by addiction. The movie does this by comparing Johnny Black to Nazi's, and rednecks. Puck not only didn't agree with this method, but it also opened his eyes to the truth of Anarchy, and thats why in the end Puck just left the scene. He knew the truth and he knew the real decision to be made was not to how to carry out Anarchy, but weather or not Anarchy could be carried out.

Watch this movie if you got an open mind and are searching for a philosophical aspect of Anarchy, otherwise stay away because you'll just misinterpret it and think the movie makes no sense.


Except for one part I thought the movie was very well cast and so clarified and enhanced the story. The movie looks and sounds like it was done with a more substantial budget. Very creative use of video, 16 and 35mm. The story has heart and the ideas around it are clear and quite entertaining.


For any person that grew up in the late 70's and 80's, like myself, with the notion of punk rock, anarchy, and social dysfunction, I think that The Anarchist Cookbook closely reflects the confused geopolitical ideas that many young people have shared throughout the course of time.

As children, truth and justice are basic instincts, until such a time that society impedes upon and clouds the notion of truth through the perversion of the soul. Puck clearly struggles with this confusion as he transitions from child to adult, and explores the sociological gamut.


In 1968, Senator Leroy Clark lands in the desert in the middle of nowhere. Then a car arrives with Dr. Doug Phillips that brings him to an awesome underground facility with 12,000 personnel and 800 floors deep. Senator Clark intends to cut the funds to the research of time travel, unless Dr. Phillips can prove that can indeed send a man back or forth in time and return him safe. However the state-of-art technology is not ready yet to risk human life and the scientist will have to shutdown the project. In desperation, Dr. Tony Newman decides to test the time tunnel sending himself through time to prove that it works. He travels to Saturday, 13 April 1912, and arrives on board of the Titanic in the eve of the tragic accident. He befriends the British passenger Althea Hall and unsuccessfully tries to convince Captain Malcolm Smith to change the course of the Titanic, telling that he has come from the future. The captain locks the stowaway in a cabin and the time tunnel personnel can not retrieve him; his partner Doug Phillips decides to travel to help Tony to leave the cabin that is located in the damaged area of the doomed vessel.

I have just bought the two volumes of "The Time Tunnel" on DVD and while watching this fantastic episode, I felt like traveling in time to my adolescence when "The Time Tunnel" together with "Star Trek" and "Lost in Space" were my favorite shows in the Brazilian black & white television (color TV was introduced in Brazil in 1970, and only years later I could afford to buy one). Nostalgia apart, it is impressive to see how this series was ahead of time and the time tunnel facility is still amazing and the story is not dated. Well, this episode is created, written and directed by Irwin Allen and I believe this statement is enough to indicate its high-quality. I do not recall how this series ends but now I have the complete set of episode to delight along the next days. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "O Túnel do Tempo" ("The Time Tunnel")


Senator Leroy Clark ( Gary Merrill ) arrives at a top secret underground base known as 'Project Tic-Toc'. Here scientists have spent the past decade attempting to master time travel. Clark is there to see whether the billion dollar project should be shut down or not.

After being shown around a fantastic complex by Dr.Doug Phillips ( Robert Colbert ), he meets General Haywood Kirk ( Whit Bissell ), who escorts him to the Time Tunnel - an awesome two-tone vortex that seems to stretch into infinity.

Determined to prove the Tunnel works, Dr.Tony Newman ( James Darren ) makes an unauthorised trip, materialising on the deck of a passenger steamship bound for New York. It is not any old ship either; the date is 14 April 1912, and he is aboard R.M.S. Titanic...

The opening episode of Irwin Allen's sci-fi series begin in much the same way as the feature film of 'Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea' with V.I.P.'s being shown around a Government-funded project. The scenes where Phillips shows Clark round 'Project Tic-Toc' impress even now, with sets that look designed for the cinema ( I was reminded of the Krel complex in 'Forbidden Planet' ) rather than television. Shots of guards running across a bridge would be reused in later episodes.

Neither Doug nor Tony have given much thought to what to do with time travel once they have perfected it. Both recklessly attempt to change the course of history by warning Captain Malcolm Smith ( a bearded Michael Rennie ) of the impending maritime disaster. The consequences for the future are not given any consideration.

British actress Susan Hampshire plays 'Althea Hall', making her first and only trip to New York as she is suffering from a brain tumour. Tony urges her to leave in the lifeboats as there is a doctor in America who might be able to cure her. This sets up a pattern for the rest of the series; Doug and Tony are powerless to prevent major disasters, but can and do save individual lives.

As the two scientists wear the same clothes throughout the series, its fair to assume the Tunnel must contain some sort of deodorising element, otherwise the people they meet each week would be repelled at their lack of personal freshness!

A strong opening episode. And no sign whatever of Kate Winslet and Leonardo Decaprio!


I watched this Beatles documentary for the first time when it was released for the second time in the Spanish theaters in 1980.

I enjoyed it very much in spite of being 10 years old, because a friend of mine had the "Let it be" tape and we used to listen to it very often and we both knew all the songs pretty well. We had a splendid time.

Now I have a copy in VHS of the film and I use to watch it from time to time.

I know it´s mostly a documentary about The Beatles break-up which is kind of sad, but it would be unfair to say the film is not most enjoyable and besides the rehearsals and the arguments, it ends with the very last Beatles concert, (the famous rooftop concert).

The Beatles were four guys who spent some six years together 24 hours a day, "eight days a week" as they would say, working very hard, dealing with all kind of stressing events and it´s logical they split up in the end. Fame is very expensive. George Harrison explains it very well in the last chapter of The Beatles Anthology: "The fans gave the money and the screams, and The Beatles kind of gave their nervous systems...". And I agree with him. It had to be hell!.

None of the four Beatles was to blame for their break-up, that´s something that just had to happen.

If you ever have the chance of watching this film, just do it. It´s a must for all the Beatles fans and all the music lovers.

I hope this gem is released in DVD with lots of extras in the near future!!. Please, release it!!.

Long live the Beatles!.


The Beatles were not only a group that challenged the recording industry, and of course, the world of entertainment. They acted also as avant-gardè multi-media artists.

Not only they helped improving the pop music marketing with their innovative LP packages and stuff but also created new kind of media that would become a mania in the XXI century: the reality show. Yes, almost 100% of the scenes shown on Let It Be are cine realitè - the bare truth captured by the lens of cameras directed by Michael Lindsay-Hogg.

In fact, although the band was working on the edge of their break-up, almost 90% of the scenes are cheerful and enjoyable. The main bulk of the footage shows Paul McCartney trying to find ways of enhance the Beatles performing and figuring out what to do in the future. Although John Lennon seems to be distracted by his future wife presence, Yoko Ono, he also looks to be happy playing and having fun - even dancing around to the sound of I Me Mine, sung by George.

By the way, George Harrison the most "unhappy" character also appears on the film having a ball singing rock and roll tunes. The lowest point (or highest, depending on the way you look at it) seems to be a row he had with Paul, but it only consumes about 5 minutes of the whole picture.

At last but not the least, Ringo Starr is shown for the first time ever playing a song - Octopus's Garden - that would later take part of Abbey Road - the LP that marked the end of the Fab Four as a group, but the begining of the Beatles as an universal legend.


I've never seen such twaddle written about a film as I have in reviews of "Let It Be." Please, throw out everything you have heard about it and just see it. If you like good music, you will be glad you did.

The film is a chronicle of The Beatles' recording session for their "Let It Be" album. There is no phony storyline, it is cinema verite of a fairly straightforward recording session (by the premier band ever, with all the trappings). And yes, the band did break up down the road, eventually, and for that matter John got shot and George died of cancer. But, no, this session is not "sad" and does not show "the breakup." That is all 20-20 hindsight related to the fact that the group finally did break up around the time the film was released. In fact, the boys, obviously after a lengthy layoff, gradually get back into things over the course of the film and by the end of the creative process are once more musical dynamite.

Perhaps you have been on a sports team, or in a drama production, or some other group endeavor in school. You reach a fine pitch of performance at the end of the year, then break for summer. You come back the next year and, rusty and out of practice, just don't have the same teamwork as you did at the end of the previous year. There are petty squabbles and lots of sour notes amid traces of the brilliance that once was. But you work and work and work through the year, and finally get it all back. That is EXACTLY what this film is about. Paul is like the coach who is up to speed while the players are all out of shape, but he pushes and prods to get them up to speed. In the end, they are all back in rhythm together again.

There are some fascinating vignettes that I have to point out. This film established Yoko in the public mind as a kind of Satanic figure. She sits in the corner, never smiling, almost frowning whenever John looks like he's having fun. As a public relations effort, it was a disaster for her. Since Paul was behind the film, that kind of makes you think a bit....

Another fascinating aspect is the reaction of the locals to the rooftop concert. You had staid banker types, pipes clenched in teeth, climbing on rooftops to get a good look and listen. Others, in the street, mumbled about how the boys were "good people." The crowd is almost reverent in its expressions. You don't get THAT kind of reaction too often to a performance. The Beatles reached right across generational lines, to the old as much as to the young. No, that is not too common nowadays, either.

The high point of this film begins not at the famous rooftop concert, but right before it. Back-to-back, out of nowhere after all the fumbling rehearsals, suddenly we get two perfect, crystal-clear music videos of Paul singing "Let It Be" and "The Long and Winding Road" (better than the released versions imho). George and John are grinning as they add the background vocals, Ringo taking the occasional drag on a cigarette. Then, having satisfied themselves that they have recaptured the magic, the boys emerge from their bunker onto the Apple Corps rooftop to shout to the world, "We're back and better than ever!" There also is an element of the renegade in this coming out party, with John at last showing the liveliness for which he was famous as the group rather audaciously decides to wake the old town up. What garage band hasn't wanted to just climb on the roof and let it rip? Every single one of them was having a blast, maybe Paul in particular because finally the others had caught up to him and were making the contributions to the effort for which he had been waiting.

The final song, "Get Back," is simply brilliant. Sung by Paul while the cops were waiting patiently to, what, arrest them? He spits out lines like "she's gonna have you ARRESTED" like a madman while everybody looks over their shoulders at the men in black helmets. Sure, it was all staged, but so what? If that isn't one of the coolest scenes in film, I don't know what is. Check out the ending of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (those guys were HUGE Beatles fans) to see a send-up of this ending.

You still want to insist that the film "shows the breakup of the Beatles"? Uh, no, I don't think so. "Abbey Road," which came after this and was the culmination of the Beatles legend, put the lie to that forever. If you really pay attention, this film instead shows The Beatles at their essence, brilliance with the genius touch of the renegade. Just musicians, doing their thing better than anyone else.


I believe this candid look inside the troubled world of the later Beatles is a good account of why the world's greatest musical force ultimately broke up. I wouldn't easily recommend it to a "casual" Beatles listener, and certainly not at all would I suggest it for clueless "non-fans". But for the serious fan such as myself, this is fascinating to watch.

Paul McCartney was the only Beatle at this point who was interested in trying to keep the band together; George Harrison was too busy getting fed up with Paul for telling him how to play his own guitar; Ringo Starr was lethargic and resigned to being the solemn background drummer; and John Lennon was so in love with Yoko Ono that he couldn't care less what the other three were doing anyway. So, it's this grim reality creeping into the once magical world of the Beatles' recording sessions that is tense and uncomfortable to watch here. But there is no denying that it's all frank, in-your-face, and well captured.

But it's not all ugliness. When Billy Preston is invited in for an inspired jam session, for example, everything seems like fun and games again. And the impromptu rooftop concert at the end of the movie displays The Fab Four at their best, playing great music together and having a lot of fun one last time as a unit, almost in spite of themselves.

Of course, even with all its warts, there's always the music. Classic songs like "Two of Us," "I've Got a Feeling," "Don't Let Me Down," The Long and Winding Road," "Get Back," and the appropriate title tune itself are always there to make us feel good again.


The Beatles is probably the most famous musical act ever that has been on the ground of this Earth. That said the movie 'Let It Be' presents the group at a stage where they were about to break-up. They were not at their best during the filming, but what is shown in the movie is still about the most fabulous thing ever to see. There is no way anymore to get any closer to them than the 'Let It Be' movie.

John, Paul, George and Ringo will perform nicely raw versions of their famous hit songs. They haven't yet figured out all the lyrics yet but it's still nice to hear any the songs in a unfinished stage. The movie will also show you how they were playing some of their oldies as a warm up songs before starting with another take of their newer songs.

The atmosphere seems to be bit dark, Lennon is passive and Paul is clearly the one who is steering the ship now. Some visitors who appear at the studio make the daylight occasionally shine but as a better than nothing solution the rooftop concert in the end is "really enjoyable" like one of the passers-by say. It's all somehow sad, but strangely cool .


Having never seen any VHS copies of this last Beatles movie and since it will probably be a very long time before it gets on DVD, I was stoked when I found out YouTube had this uploaded since the later part of summer 2007 and it was still there. All the things director Michael Lindsay-Hogg filmed were fascinating to me especially when Ringo played some piano with Paul or when John and Yoko danced or when Heather-a young pre-teen who's Paul's future wife Linda's daughter from a previous marriage-hung around the Apple Studios. (Oh, and while I did know of George's argument with Paul over George's guitar playing from an outtake that was used in "The Beatles' Anthology", only Paul's explanation to him about that is in here.) Then there's organ pianist Billy Preston who might have officially become the fifth Beatle had the group not split up some time after this film. The real exciting part was the legendary rooftop concert that caused some traffic and had Paul ad libbing some lines about getting arrested at the end of "Get Back"! What a way to end the film and loved hearing mostly positive comments from the crowd below. So on that note, Let It Be is very essential viewing for all Beatles fans or just any that loves good music performed live on film.


Another watched in-flight movie on my IPod, "Let it Be" for my money now stands as an honest and convincing testimony to the talent and stature of The Beatles, even as one can sense the ties that bind loosening them individually in front of you.

Of course there's a sadness and elegiac sensation for fans in watching this "posthumous" film and it's also fair to say the music isn't always top-drawer Beatles - only McCartney brings his best work to the party, although John and especially George would recover their chops in time for "Abbey Road". Sure, too the playing's a bit sloppy at times but there's never a moment when there isn't fascination at something going on on-screen. And for-by much is made of Paul and George's spat (with John acting as unlikely peace-maker) and the at times tired and dishevelled appearance of the guys themselves, there are many other revealing and rewarding vignettes, even before director Michael Lindsay-Hogg, corrals the band for three assured in-studio video performances (all, significantly, of Macca tracks) and then the great idea (since aped by the Stones and U2) of playing their new stuff live on Apple's roof, on a biting cold Jamuary day. It was also inspired of Lindsay-Hogg to intersperse the general public's comments before the group brings the "audition" to a close.

The photography is great, the four stepping into life from their iconic White Album photos and I enjoyed the honest but fair editing applied to what was by all accounts a massively over-recorded exercise. Favourite moments for me include Paul and Ringo's boogie-woogie piano run-through, George assisting Ringo with the writing of "Octopus's Garden" and of course that final run-through of "Get Back" on the roof, with Paul surprisingly getting in some improvised anti-Establishment digs before the police pulled the plug.

Of all the concerts that ever have been or ever will be, that 20 minute Apple gig is the one I wish I could have been at. And surely even if slightly Pyrrhically, the great music they produce over the last thirty minutes or so of the film justifies the raison-d'etre of the film, working up the songs from in-progress to issuable level.


OK, so let me get this straight: Magical Mystery Tour, which I've yet to see but have heard is quite bad and pretentious and dated, is allowed to be on DVD, but *this* is banned by the 1/2 Beatles? Why? Because at one point Paul and George have a little argument over a song? As the British would say, bullocks! What they show in the film of arguments and sulking is what happens in ANY band, and in fact is usually much worse - I was almost surprised there wasn't more of the taped back-and-forth exchanged in the film, given what's been said how bad it got amongst the fab four during their final year in recording, particularly on Let it Be aka Get Back (the most chilling thing overall is the presence Yoko, who keeps popping up looking like she could duke it out with Bergman's Seventh Seal Death dude and probably win).

While I watched it on a reasonable if as a given muddy and slightly scratchy transfer online on bootleg, it was pretty much the film intact as it played almost 40 years ago. What makes it a must-see is not the direction, which is at best competent and at worst the weakest thing going for it - sadly, Al Maysles was already taken by the Stones, as his eye would have been perfect - but the Beatles and the music. I'd argue after watching this and listening to Let it Be... Naked that the majority of the songs are as great as the main tracks on Abbey Road. Indeed a few of the songs in the movie here, Maxwell Silver Hammer, Octopus Garden, wound up on that album, and are practically interchangeable from the rest of the output.

We see the Beatles do what they do best, be Beatles, play and work out the kinks in classic songs, and also the camaraderie that shows what underneath the image given by the other goofier movies that they were simply incredibly talented musicians. This is evidenced by the scenes where they don't actually play or rehearse their own songs but goof around, play rhythm and blues tunes and even at one point a mariachi number sung by Paul! There's not a lot of time spent with them just talking or shooting the s**t - at most we get some reminiscing between Paul and John about the Maharishi or some noodling around here and there between takes. It's not even entirely accurate to say it's documentary, as it's more like an all encompassing, authentic home movie with some extra cash to spare on cameras and editing.

It all leads up to that rooftop concert that is still one of those big bad-ass moments in rock and roll history (if, again, not filmed with the best lenses or cameramen, it was perhaps a given that they had to shoot it on the fly). The energy and fun comes through all the way, and contrary to the film's reputation Let it Be shows the Beatles as having fun and doing what they do best even in what was their darkest, near-end period. Maybe there's a longer cut out there that shows more of the arguments, more bickering back and forth and maybe some of Yoko leering on like a supernatural delusion. For me, at least, I'd rather not see it: what remains, and what should for God sakes be shown to a wider and more receptive Beatles audience, is very good stuff. 8.5/10


As a life-long Beatles fan don't expect objectivity here - I first saw this in the early 70's and found it riveting  and got the same feeling tonight. This was an early ordinary rockumentary about 4 ordinary yet very talented blokes in their late 20's at the peak of their creative powers, in the process of readjustment to being mere hairy bickering mortals again after experiencing a few years of quasi-godhood. "Mr. Epstein" was long dead although Paul was trying to fill his shoes, and their Apple Empire was shrinking. The Beatles almost on their own created intelligent pop/rock music, which imho has not moved on since 1969 where they left it. There have been many excellent innovative and intelligent rock bands that have come and gone since, many borrowing and adapting from the Beatles back catalogue  however I don't count the many cash-in rip-off bands such as Oasis. Has anyone since not ripped them off at some point? I've lost count of the number of times over the decades I've heard a "new" piece of music and said to myself "I've heard that before somewhere  ah yes, such and such by the Beatles". Apart from the quantum leaps in sound technology since then nothing of any lasting musical value has been added  there has been no progression. Led Zeppelin filled stadia  but did they fill billions of hearts? Queen was popular  but did they rule the world? Pop and rock music may have always been ephemeral, but along with Louis Armstrong, Bix Beiderbecke, Lata Mangeshkar, Frank Sinatra and Jimi Hendrix the Beatles weren't. Never mind about their timeless music, they even managed to look timeless while everyone else around them in here looked dated by the early '70's. God works in mysterious ways.

John, Paul, George and Ringo got together first in Twickenham Studios then in the Apple basement in January 1969 to rehearse some new songs with the assistance of almost-5th Beatle Billy Preston (and occasionally actual-5th Beatle George Martin) and with the hope of playing live again sometime soon. Yoko (definitely not 5th Beatle) would have probably been on stage with them. As it turned out on they only made it to the Apple roof on 30th January, disturbing the peace of the police on the streets of London below. The Rolling Stone review of the film from 9th July 1970 that I remember so well was typically over-reverential but had some telling points  the first being how deliberately grainy the photography was which still can take some getting used to and that there was over 800 hours of footage from 4 cameras to edit down to the brief 80 minutes we got. How on Earth can it ever be properly remastered and will more ever be officially available in our lifetimes? Maybe we should also bear in mind that the film was to be called Get Back as a return to simplicity for the band, and that McCartney originally penned racist lyrics for this sublime song which thankfully weren't incorporated into any of the final versions. There's a lot of classic pop music in here  from their own then new stuff to rock'n'roll standards from the '50's, which the Beatles were in an ideal and unchallengeable position to translate for listeners both of the Old World of pop and the New World of rock that they left behind them.

Highlights: A splendid cod version of Bessame Mucho from McCartney; a loving version of You Really Got A Hold On Me from Lennon; the videos for Two Of Us, Let It Be, Long And Winding Road; and Get Back, Don't Let Me Down up on the freezing roof; so many others. Overall: to a fan, a beautiful and sad account of a unique group of individuals struggling and failing against disintegration; this should also be essential viewing to fans of intelligent pop/rock music who might have sometimes wondered where U2, Bon Jovi, Kings Of Leon et al came from  so far though, this was the artistic pinnacle.